Laserfiche WebLink
April 24, 1990 <br /> <br /> COMPREHENSIVE DRUG FUNDING <br /> <br /> Origin ~ F¥91 Proposed Grant Contin~ ~ion <br />~Dep~rt ~t- AlloCation ~ iBudget Amount ~u~ds <br />Police $218,000' $334,425 · $96~399 <br /> , <br /> She,if 20,000 11,600 42~639 <br /> <br /> ~:a ~ 30,000 ' --- <br /> 50!000 <br /> 9n <br /> <br /> Com~un ~ <br /> servic ~Bd. ' ' <br /> Vo~. ~ining 10,000'* <br /> <br />PR, 45,000 <br />com o . <br /> 27,000* < 36,214 <br /> <br /> $ 350,000 ~ LL~:~?~?'~i $234;038 <br /> <br /> ing for the City's share of the specia~ drug <br /> 3mm0nwealth's AttOrney!s office came fr~m ~he <br /> 3n to the Police Department. ] : · <br /> Ce the Department of Rehab~lxtat~ve Ser¥~ces a. <br /> programming f0r vocational training for recovering add~ <br /> $10~0~0~all0cation was transferred to:the PRIDEi:progra~ <br /> / ~ ~du ing 0 ~ f~o~:~he i990 <br /> + t e.pLo~id~d and i~9i Com~ <br /> Dev~14p~ent, Block ~rant f~nds~ <br /> <br /> ; In;keepinq with City Councii~s efforts to ~urther <br /> TaXJR~l~ef Pro~ram~for the elderly and disabted;:the:~pr <br /> budge~, ' <br /> ~commends an increase~in the current ta~ benef~ <br /> yeak!~ ~roposal would increase the income limitlfrom $] <br /> $18~0~0~and the financial worth limit from $53~00 to <br /> TenJy~a~s ago, the income limit was set at $8,500, and <br /> financial worth limit Was $35,000~ During thisisame pe <br /> nas increased:these llmzts:by 117~6%.an~ 71..4o, <br /> ~ The cost to provide this benefit[is est~ <br />res e t Vel <br /> $45Q,~0~ for the coming fiscal year, an increase of 21. <br /> <br /> / ~t~a recent City Council~Wo~k;Session, it ~as sugc <br /> consider providing"a-~h~'~ement for r~irees <br /> , high medical premiums. ~This approacn~was su~ <br /> retirees to participate ~ theiemploy~ <br /> ue Shield program, which would be detrimental <br /> ' prog ram~. ' <br /> <br /> City presently allOws]retirees to part:icipa~e <br /> Maintenance Organizations (HMO's), S~ntara ¢ <br /> th plans, the retiree is reqUired to select ~h} <br /> ir respective provider?liSt. A retireelwno n~ <br /> bed a continuing relationship with a physiciar <br /> provider list may opt for 0overage u~der a <br /> t~does not restrict physician selection~ Reco~ <br /> an issue of Concern to some retirees, i~ was~s~ <br /> City provide a supplement to help defr~y~a p°z <br /> accordance with this suggestion, the ifollowi~ <br /> is <br /> <br />Status <br /> <br />Yes <br /> <br />Yes <br /> <br />Yes <br /> <br />Yes <br />Yes <br /> <br />Yes <br /> <br /> Yes <br /> <br /> osecutor <br />criginal <br /> <br /> sumed <br /> cts, the <br /> <br /> unity <br /> <br />)nhance <br />oposed <br />t. This <br />6,000 to <br />60,000. <br />the <br />riod, <br /> <br />mated at <br />3% over th~ <br /> <br />ested that <br />ho have <br />gested in <br />es' Blue <br />o the <br /> <br />in one of <br />r Equicor. <br />sicians <br /> <br />who is not <br />On-group <br />nizing tha~ <br />ggested <br />tion of th~ <br />g proposal <br /> <br /> <br />