One Supervisor airs view concerning repayment to general fund
Public health before group for budget transfers, funding recognition
Should county departments be required to reimburse the general fund once they’ve requested additional monies from Plumas County Supervisors?
Supervisor Jeff Engel posed that question when Plumas County Public Health Agency Director Andrew Woodruff updated the board concerning a supplemental budget of unanticipated revenue.
That revenue in the amount of $17,800 from the Area Agency on Aging is for the Senior Nutrition Budget, Woodruff explained. This is for one-time funding, “and we never know how much that’s going to be,” he said. A smaller amount is traditionally budgeted and then adjusted as the revenue arrives.
This funding is for food and containers for homebound deliveries for senior nutrition programs, Woodruff explained.
It “drives me crazy that it never goes back to contingency,” Engel said.
Last year public health was requesting additional funding and this year they received unanticipated funding, he pointed out.
“That was last year not this year,” Supervisor Lori Simpson pointed out to Engel.
“It’s still from the contingency,” Engel responded.
Supervisor Sherrie Thrall said that she agreed with Engel. She said it wasn’t a problem that was specific to public health, but included all county departments. She said that when departments get a windfall at the end of the year they should need to consider paying the county back. In the case of the public health funding for senior nutrition, that funding can’t be spent on things not related to the specific program.
In January, public health received additional funding in the amount of $32,795 of one-time money. “Of which we had already budgeted $14,989,” Woodruff explained about the prediction for the fiscal year 2018-19 budget and the needed update.
The supplemental budget of unanticipated revenue for senior nutrition includes an increase of $3,000 for food costs. Another $4,806 does into the household budget category, he explained. This is “a decrease of $10,000 for donations due to a shortfall in meal donations,” Woodruff explained.
Thrall asked Woodruff why there was a decline in donations? “That’s a complicated question,” Woodruff answered.
There are different senior nutrition budgets, Woodruff explained. It’s difficult to understand and to keep track of, he added.
At each nutrition site, seniors are asked to donate funding as they can. The health department or supervisors can’t require that participants contribute.
Across the county donations vary, but it’s always hardest getting contributions at the Portola site, Woodruff explained.
The program has tried various methods to encourage those who can pay to contribute, he said. They’ve tried giving participants receipts that show details on how many lunches they’ve eaten and other information but this hasn’t increased donations, he said.
Other creative ways have also been tried out with little or no success. As more seniors age into the system the economy might change, Woodruff said.
He added the he’s always open to suggestions on ways to increase donations.
County Council Craig Settlemire said that the agenda item didn’t actually deal with apportionment of funds although the back up information does. Therefore it should be re-agendized for further discuss and with more information from the public health later.
In a separate, but related senior nutrition request, Woodruff asked the board to approve a budget transfer of $6,000 from other wages and $4,000 from group insurance into regular wages for the food and household programs.
Because both the first and second request dealt with senior nutrition programs supervisors chose to approve them at the same time.
In a third request, Woodruff requested a budget transfer for senior transportation.
This meant transferring $6,000 from other wages and $4,000 from group insurance into regular wages, food and household.
Supervisors also approved this request.