11/12/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

---_... .__. .- ..--.--,. -- .--.. "j i Anita .Larsen, Eugene staff, said a process could be worked out whereby each juris- diction would suggest names to the County Commissioners for appointment to the joint advisory committees. She referred to Ms. Penny's inquiry with regard to the appro- e priateness of setting some maximum dollar amount or percentage of the total joint social services fund that could be devoted to in-house programs in any given year. She felt clarification of language in the guideline under A.l] would answer Ms.Penny's ,concern since it provided.that no single application would be accepted if it exce~ded 15% of the previous year's joint fund, nor ~ould several applications from the same :agency for different programs be accepted if the total exceeded 25% of the previous :year's joint fund. Ms. Penny said she thought it was possible under the guidelines 'as written that each of the three governmental units could apply for the maximum of 25%, thereby taking 75% of the total fund. She felt more definite protection should be spelled out if it was intended to have adequate funds for private social service 'agenci es . Councilman Williams asked whether it was ever established that the joint funds were itO be reserved for private agencie~ or if they were to be allocated for any social, iservice, private or public. MS:'penny ,said it was never clearly ~punciated when the ;joiht fund was created, and that the several agencies ~~e~t~Y1nsr to reach, agreement :on that... point now. --------.---.~-= - /- ~ ~-- -~-" ..---- ;Sally Smith, member of the budget committee, ~wondered whether public programs funded :in one year could be included in the social services budget for the ensuiEg year. :She fel t there might be a hassle between agencies for funds (referr ing to A-:4 perm..i t- : e !ting continuation of funding for public programs through th-;;-J~I1Jt fund if a publi~' I 'agency presented a plan for assuming the cost). Ms. Larsen said any agency, private ;or public, must deliver a high priority service if it was to continue receiving funds. i :Manager thought a public body could face budgeting problems if programs were budgeted :on a one-year basis unless it was recognized another budgeting source would have to be provided for continuing services funded in that manner. Ms. Larsen said there might ......__._------_.~.__....--..--.....'- ..... "-.....- ._..__.~- '."..---... .".. .._... ,:....:...-.~.-----..:..~<. - ....... . be some programs 'that should be jointly funded by all three agencies. She felt priorities with regard to funding new programs or expansion of existing programs : might need further discussion. Ms. Penny said it was her understanding that the subcommittee specified only new in-house programs were to be funded by social serv- i ; ices funds, but the requirements as written did not make that clear. She wasn't ,opposed to joint governmental funding of some projects, she said, but she questioned _ whether that type of funding should come from the joint revenue sharing fund in com- petition with private agencies. She felt it could invite public relations problems \ with the private agencies. I i i Assistant Manager emphasized that public agencies applying for joint revenue sharing \ funds were required to present a plan for assumption of the cost over a period of \ years. That requirement was not made of other applicants, he said, but neither were ! they guaranteed funding in succeeding years. I . ,_ Councilman Murray too expressed concern about competition between private and public I agencies for joint social services revenue sharing funds. He was also concerned 'that; ->fhe 25% limi tation for any ~ingle program might allow allocation of an amount , in excess of the contribution to the joint fund by the agency making the applicat~on. Councilman Williams said he would be uncomfortable setting guidelines which would ~ :dictate which type of agency could or could, not apply for funds, and he didn't think -the budget committee would necessarily favor its own programs over those services ,which could be supplied by private agencies. Councilman Murray replied that it :wasn't that he didn't believe both private and public agencies could deliver social 'services. The question in his mind was whether governmental agencies, if they wished ito deliver social services, should be_p~oviding funds through regular budget; rather ; than throu!!~ ~!:i-: )ointEevemie-sh~rihg fund. ---~~ - - ~ Councilwoman Beal agreed with Mr. Murray's concern. In addition, she expressed con- !'cern about procedures which relied heavily on staff heads. She felt those people fresponsible for delivering services would naturally act to re-enforce their programs Ito make them more effective. She felt voluntary services should not be ignored' and (should probably receive higher priority for funding than oth~r programs. She felt ',the makeup of the advisory commi ttees listed would b-f!---int:lined to give priori ty tp : i[l-~ouse .progra.rr:s aaministered by the Co~nty as oppos~d ,to ~ding. so~ial servicei;"" - del~vered by pr~vate grouPE. '.Manager sa~d that exper~ence so rar ~nd~cated no recom,,~ I:mendations weighted toward special interests of people on the committees. He said the present selection of advisory 'committee membership followed a process very similar ,to that suggested for formalization. He added his thought that specific regulations ,and'.stringent limitations on use of funds by governmental agencies' could encourage _ the setting of higher priority for a governmental function and searching for funds :to perform that function which could l~ad to consideration of cutting back funding ~of other public services to provide monies for social services. . .... " 3SJ 11/12/74 - 6 .