Orange County NC Website
~~=' <br />e It is understood from conversations with officials at HUD in <br />Greensboro that the intention is to distribute Section 8 funds <br />within counties according to population distributions. <br />d $275 per unit is allowed for start-up costs <br />e $.5~ of total monthly Fair Market Rents (k'MR) is allowed <br />for management costs. Total figure is based on FMRs for <br />two-bedroom units for ten months." <br />Nate: For non-elevator units in Orange County, Fair Market <br />Rents are <br />.lumber of Bedrooms 0 1 2 3 4 - <br />FMR $125 $143 $169 $195 $213 <br />Ms. Mace advised the Board that Community Housing funds were begin- <br />ning to flow from Congress and she requested the Board to constitute a <br />Committee from members of the Board to review and discuss housing needs <br />in detail. The Board agreed to meet with the Towns of Chapel Bill, <br />Carrboro, and Hillsborough on t4onday, August 11th, at 7:30 p.m. for the <br />purpose of reviewing the Rent Supplement Program. <br />Chairman Garrett referred to Item # 2 on the Agenda: (Title XX: -- <br />The Social Services Director will report the latest information that <br />has been made available to him.) <br />Chairman Garrett recognized Tom Nard, Director of Orange County <br />Social Services. Mr. Ward reviewed the initial Proposal submitted by <br />the County i:n April for Title XX. This proposal had been requested by <br />the State in order to determine local needs. A detail application for <br />each Contract prepared must be submitted to the State. Mr. Ward stated <br />that he was of the opinion the State does not have sufficient staff to <br />screen all Contract Proposals sa the program by necessity will be one <br />that will be phased in gradually. <br />P4r. Ward added that the State will allocate up to $4D3,000 in <br />Federal funds to Orange County. Currently, the County is spending <br />$202,000 of Federal funds and this means that there should be substantial <br />funding for non-county operated programs. Mr. Ward stated that he felt <br />after August 1st, the County should be in the position to discuss with <br />any potential Contractees the details of any Contracts, however, guide- <br />lines for Contracts have not yet been released to the Social Services <br />Department. He. stated that the most outstanding feature of the State <br />plan is the income limitation feature that restricts even the purchase <br />of service by persons whose income is above the State Median Income Level. <br />In effect this means that Social Services has overestimated the amount of <br />Federal matching funds that will be coming to the County as Title XX <br />reimbursements for the current fiscal year. <br />Commissioner ?valker requested the Board to move to Ttem #9-C on the <br />Agenda (A review of the appointment of Ms. Mae McLendon to the Social <br />Service Board in light of the Attorney General's ruling) since Mr. T.~ard <br />was present. <br />Commissioner Walker referred to a copy of°`the Attorney General's <br />ruling on the appointment of Mae McLendon to the Social Services Board. <br />According to the ruling, the State Social Services Commission has the <br />authority to set rules and one of their current policies and/or rules <br />is that no citizen can sit as a member of a Social Services Board if <br />a member of their family is a recipient of funds from the Social Services <br />Department. <br />Mr. Ward advised the Board that he was bringing the matter to their <br />attention solely for the purpose of making sure that the County has a <br />properly constituted Social Services Board. <br />Commissioner Gustaveson stated that he was concerned about the rule <br />and that he questioned the constitutionality of the ruling and that he <br />would like the County Attorney to investigate. <br />