Agenda - 06-12-1978 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

r Page 2 Standards than slid the District Department; (B) We wish to provide at least the .same service .level as at this year ending; (C) We do not wish to discharge any staff. I can state with confidence that we can meet all three criteria above at this budget level,. In crder to do this, however, I would be cautioned that there is no room for error. I would have to be &Ugal regards purchase of x-rays , basically not purchase equipment , and perhaps limit mileage later in the year. Secondly, a PU lic health department is supposed to be able to(respond to un- usual,, community problem.) 1 have no premonition that any such situation will arise. However , our budget categories would be tight to the point that we would have to have a. speci.al.appropri ion by the Commissioners to respond to the unusual. Lastly, the State is constantly asking us to provide either short term special services and/or institute new services. For example, we have a directive from Secretary Morrow to now have certain nursing .involvement with developmentally delayed children to prevent then from becoming permanently damaged and not become public wards --- without any State money. Next year I will have to say no to such new directives and simply forward then to the�Boar-d-~and-th ..Commissioners --- staff can only be pushed so far before they will. get into the positi n of having so many duties as to be able to accomplish none of them. Again , it is n?t my intent to be an alarmist. I can continue the"existing staff level and the present services level on this allocation. COMPARISON TO DEPARTMENT REWEST There exists no way to accurately compare .last year's budget and/or the Manager's proposal to our reMIZest except by totals. Last year's budget was nothing more than a 'guesstimate' of whit it would cost to pick up necessary staff to begin with. It was not based on meetin State Standards , cogrnunity needs,or even a program budget. Mr. Gattis' pr posal , as was stated preceeding only deals with a total and does not break this down into program allocations. The narrative portion of our budget was previously presented to you. Our budget was constructed with an analysis of community needs , was grounded in the State Standards ., and was sized in close comparison to appropriate county departments To reinterate his point: We compared ourselves to 9 selected counties in North Carolina that were Thosen to give the best sample. We chose counties of approximately 50,000 population (to discount our student population). Orange Counties' per capita health appropriation was shown to be next to lowest at $4.38 in a range that extends to $6.83; our budget was next to lowest in a range that tops out at $505,909; we had only one 20% time staff ember more than the smallest county department (28.2 staff compared to a11 other depart ents whose staffs n m►berred between 42 and 61): only one other department meets la s of the Standards than we do (the gap between the Orange and Lenoir counties and the otter departments in the sample is Large). The allocation totals may be compared as follows: Total Local Share Fiscal. 178 Bud et beginning allocation ,3 -9T)8i 252, 1 --- _—— Annual Cost of mid-year staff increase 46 725 45,725 Fiscal 178 Adjusted total 3 9 299,606- Manager's Pro ed 179 total budget 472,306 304,440