Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
NaRge Coaatq 94eaffi Tepakfwat <br /> 144 F_MARGARET LANE 19 E45TGATE'49OPPING CENTER <br /> ,{1LL58OROUGH. N G..27278 CHAPEL WILL. N. C. 27514 <br /> PHONE: 732-8181 tXT, 215 PHONE: 04x,•4168 <br /> (FROM CHAPEL HILL 997.9x51) <br /> MEMO <br /> TO: Orange County 30mmissiOners <br /> FROM: Jerry Robinson <br /> DATE: June 12, 1978 <br /> RE: Fiscal 1979 Budget <br /> COUNTY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET <br /> on Monday, June 6th Sam Gattis and Neal. Evans presented the Manager's proposed <br /> budget for the Health Department to you. On June 9th per suggestions by Commissioners <br /> Walker--and.:Gustaveson, I asked Sam to distribute copies of our requested budget to you <br /> so as to allow you some base of comparison. <br /> On Tuesday, June 7th I talked to Sam and Neal and was informed regards the Manager' <br /> Budget proposal for our department. The Manager's Budget proposal was 'put together as <br /> follows: <br /> Last year's T tat appropriation 384,681 <br /> Annual cost of mid year staff increase 46,725 <br /> I Sub total <br /> 7% increase of above sub total 30,198 <br /> Stab total � .� <br /> Di fference be�ween Last year's grants <br /> plus 7% & text year's grants 10 702 <br /> Total. program 7�0� <br /> Subtract Prop sed Lhvironmental Health Fees -25,ODD <br /> Subtract vari us grants -1142 86,6 <br /> Proposed Fisc 179 local support 3V'7-6 " <br /> Fiscal 178 to al support 252,881 ' <br /> Local Support Increase g ,559 <br /> Subtract Unallocated Funds from District <br /> Department Dissolution (est. ) 3.04 <br /> Net Increase '79 2L ,559 <br /> Mr. Gattis an Mr. Evans were explicit in stating that their 7% increase was arbi- <br /> trary. Secondly, hey stated that the relationship between their funding recommendatioi <br /> and the budget narratives (cur proposed objectives and services) was not considered; <br /> that this was the rovince of the department. Mr. Gattis stated that it was not his <br /> intent to reduce the staff or Level of services over those presently authorized. <br /> With a positi e mental attitude, T proceeded to analyze how this department could <br /> or could not be rui on that allocation. In my analysis I held three criteria: (A) We <br /> wish to provide moe of the minimum level of number and kinds of services in the State <br /> " it must be pointed out that this level was not intended to support the staff in <br /> crease granted in February, nor based on a planned program, nor based on meeting Standa <br /> nor on an analysis of Local needs. <br />