My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/12/1991 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1991
>
2/12/1991 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:03:08 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 10:07:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/12/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
63
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
FEB 1 <br />nclK. 21.0 P,1;c 6651 <br />division, but he has been fairly quiet about this, hoping it would <br />be worked out. It seems, however, that this may be the appropriate <br />time to raise his questions. Those questions relate to the fact <br />that we have had to work out an arrangement for payment of the <br />monies owed to us in order for them to enter into this new facility <br />and, in addition to that, he believed the Health Department has <br />overestimated revenues and that is a significant problem, <br />especially in view of the fact that the State is saying we are in <br />a very tight time and must cut back and not fill vacancies, etc. <br />We are funding almost $490,000 worth of programs and his concern <br />and question is: are the programs we chose to fund, above and <br />beyond those funded by the State, the ones being cut and suffering <br />because of the State's shortfall, because he does not want to cut <br />services to the people we are trying to provide for. <br />Commissioner Scurlock had questions about the restaurant <br />section that is being taken away and the related positions and <br />whether we are keeping these positions and cutting back, through <br />turnover, head nurses and other vital positions. He wanted to be <br />sure they have their mess cleaned up before we pay them another <br />$400,000. He did realize, however, that Commissioner Eggert is <br />working very hard with Mr. Chandler to work out some of these <br />problems. <br />Commissioner Eggert agreed there have been all the problems <br />noted by Commissioner Scurlock but stressed that a lot of what <br />we're paying for are matching funds for programs that have been <br />mandated by the State, such as Primary Care, and Prenatal is part <br />of that. Dr. Berman has been tracking very carefully with the <br />District office on all this and she has been working with them, <br />too, and feels that we've got a handle on what's happening there <br />and she suggested that Commissioner Scurlock talk to Dr. Berman <br />personally about this. She further believed that, although it is <br />very necessary to track all this very carefully, it would be a <br />mistake to get all this too intertwined with the building that we <br />as a County are required to provide. <br />Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he has gone through the <br />Administrator and our Budget Officer requesting information about <br />all this and, although all these requests have been forwarded on, <br />and Dr. Berman and Mr. Galanis are fully aware of the questions he <br />has been asking, no one has ever phoned him with any answers. <br />Administrator Chandler reviewed the funding difficulties <br />relating to the $500,000 allocated through the State towards the <br />Health Department project and how we worked out an arrangement to <br />have these funds provided in increments where they would not create <br />a problem for us with the cash flow in funding our project. He <br />40 <br />_ M <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.