Approving Moneys Defraying the CETA Title I Expenses 1977

Home Browse Search

Elroy J. Kelzenberg, Director Bureau of Employment and Training August 22, 1977 CITY of SOUTH BEND PETER I NEMETH, Mayor COUNTY -CITY BUILDING SOUTH BEND, INDIANA 46601 TO: South Bend Common Council FROM: Elroy J. Kelzenberg Director - CETA SUBJECT: Proposed CETA Title I Bud et for FY78 I am submitting for your consideration and approval the proposed CETA Title I, II and VI Budgets for Fiscal Year 1978 (10 -1 -77 - 9- 30 -78). 219/284 -9422 You will also find several attachments intended to clarify the proposed expenditures and allocations. As I have indicated in the past, we are required to have a cost allocation plan for sharing administrative costs among CETA Titles. I have prepared Attachment I to indicate estimated expenditures for all CETA Titles. The dollar figures for Titles I, II and VI, are fairly accurate. Those for Title III are the result of an educated guess. Obviously, if there is a significant shift in any Title as a result of either Department of Labor Allocations or Congressional action, allocations must change. Attachment II is probably the best indication of total Bureau Administration and Service Costs. The totals for each major cost category on this attach- ment are allocated to Title I (27.5%), Title II (11 %) and Title VI (43 %). Although indivdual budgets may show significant variations from year to year, this attachment reflects only modest increases. The major changes in salary line items reflect the addition of staff necessary to carry out the expanded Public Service Employment Program. The only items in the Title I Budget which are not reflected in detail on Attachment I are those relating to Participant Wages, stipends, and other contractual costs connected with training and employment services. The CETA Advisory Council has considered several options with respect to the funding of activities and services and has recommended the dollar figures contained in this budget. We were forced to reduce service levels substantially in view of a reduced allocation.