HomeMy WebLinkAbout950490RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVE 1995 COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN TO COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS FROM DIVISION OF HUMAN SERVICES AND
AUTHORIZE CHAIRMAN TO SIGN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board has been presented with the 1995 Community Services Block Grant
Plan to be submitted to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs by the County of Weld, State of
Colorado, by and through the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the
Weld County Division of Human Services, commencing March 15, 1995, and ending March 14,
1996, with further terms and conditions being as stated in said plan, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to approve said plan, a copy of
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the 1995 Community Services Block Grant Plan to be submitted to the
Colorado Department of Local Affairs by the County of Weld, State of Colorado, by and through
the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, on behalf of the Weld County Division of
Human Services, be, and hereby is, approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board that the Chairman be, and hereby is, authorized
to sign said plan.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 15th day of March, A.D., 1995.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY. O 12._nAD Qa
Deputy Cler o the Board
APP-'' 'DASTO FORM:
ntattorney
CC; ,45
FXCLISFII DATE OF SIfNINr,
Dal-, K. Hall, Chairman
arbara,J, Kirkmeye Prq'Temf
(AYE)
eorge E.'Baxter
Constance L. Harbert
Webster
950490
HR0065
1995 WELD COUNTY
COMMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK GRANT PLAN
Prepared By:
Weld County Division
of Human Services
P.O. Box 1805
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Contact Person:
Walter J. Speckman, Executive Director
(003) 353-3800
BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
March 15,1995
Date
ATTEST:
Weld Co ty Clerk to a oa
By:It
.`VXLL
Deputy C rk to the Board
950490
1995 CSBG PROJECT PLAN
GRANTEE: Weld County Division of Human Services
ADDRESS: 1551 North 17th Avenue, P.O Box 1805
Greeley, Colorado 80632
PROJECT CONTACT PERSON: (Name) Walter J. Speckman (Phone) (303) 353-3800
(Title) Executive Director
COUNTIES INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN (For multi -county service areas)
Weld County
DATE: March 15,1995 CSBG FUNDING $ 154,322
I. Objectives: Check which objective(s) your project activity(ies) will be
addressing. For each activity, LIST ONLY ONE federal objective. Also, identify
the total amount of your CSBG funds you are allocating toa each federal objective
checked below.
Federal Objective CSBG Funds Allocated
X 1. Employment
2. Education
3. Income Management
4. Housing
5. Emergency Services
6. Nutrition
X 7. Linkages with Other Programs
8. Self Sufficiency
9. Health
10. Other
$ 7,895
$ 146,427
$
Total CSBG Monies Allocated to Direct Services $ 154,322
Total CSBG Monies Allocated to Indirect Services $
950490
A) Introduction
The Weld County Division of Human Services (Human Services) is a multi -purpose
department under the Board of County Commissioners.
Human Services programs include four main program areas; Family Educational Network
of Weld County, Employment Services of Weld County, Weld County Area Agency on
Aging and Weld County Transportation.
The Family Educational Network of Weld County (FENWC) centers on providing
education, nutrition, health and family services to low-income children and their
families through the Head Start, Migrant Head Start and Colorado Preschool
Programs. Centers for the services are located at County elementary schools and
all services are coordinated with the County school districts.
Employment Services of Weld County (ESWC) concentrates on providing a variety of
employment, training, and educational services to many target groups in Weld
County. The Job Training Partnership Act programs provide personal assessment,
goal planning, training, educational enhancement, work experience, and job
placement activities to low-income, at -risk adults and youth in Weld County. The
New Directions program provides the same services targeted at AFDC clients. The
Employment First program gives education and job skill enhancement to Food Stamp
clients. Job Services works with all employers and citizens of Weld County in
supplying employment opportunities and information. ESWC works in coordination
with Aims Community College and University of Northern Colorado in arranging
educational opportunities for clients. ESWC also works with several public and
private businesses to provide employment opportunities that benefit clients and
move them on the road to self sufficiency.
Weld County Area Agency on Aging (AAA) provides a myriad of services targeted at
the senior population of Weld County. The Older American Act Programs provide;
home health care, elderly daycare, peer counseling, respite care, general and
minority outreach programs, legal counseling, omsbudsman services, congregate
nutrition at twenty two sites around the County, home -delivered meals, nutritional
counseling, in -home cleaning, elder abuse awareness, health/prevention services,
ensure supplemental nutrition, as well as advocacy, information and referral to the
most -in -need senior population of Weld County. AAA also provides LEHEAP
registration for seniors. The AAA is also a model state program for Single Entry
Point which provides casemanagement services for clients referred from Social
Services in need of Home and Community Based Services (HCBS), Home Care Allowance
and Adult Foster care. AAA also provides Older Worker employment and training
opportunities for low-income seniors through Job Training Partner Act programs.
The Weld County Transportation Department (Transportation) provides minibus
services to all Human Services funded programs. Transportation provides door-to-
door rides for all FENWC children to and from the sites and services.
Transportation also provides rides for the FENWC families to program activities.
This department also transports ESWC clients to training, education or work sites.
It also provides, as requested in this grant, minibus services to the Weld County
rural elderly from senior sites around the County. Transportation also gives door-
to-door service to the developmentally disabled to and from educational, training
and work or rehab sites in the County. The department has both general and
disabled buses to meet all needs of the demand services it provides.
Some of the other programs Human Services provides are the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program which distributes commodity food packages to low-income, mothers,
infants and children under five, and low-income elderly. Human Services also
provides registration for the Weatherization program for the low-income home owner.
Human Services also provides information and referral for other services provided
in the community.
The intent of Human Services organization is the better linkage of programs and,
thus, delivery of more comprehensive services to clients and their families.
950490
II. Activities: Describe the proposed project activity(ies) for which you are
using your CSBG funds.
As you can see by the introduction to our agency, Human Services has met most of
the Federal objectives listed in your grant. However, there are always gaps in
services that need funding to enhance. Human Services has chosen to primarily
target the rural elderly of Weld County with CSBG funds. This is a growing in -need
population in Weld County. Attachment #1 is a 1990 map of Weld County provided by
UNC Geography Department, showing the size of the County and the percent of older
persons 65 and older and how that population is spread throughout the rural parts
of Weld County. Attachment #2 is " Percent of 60+, 65+, 75+, 85+ Populations by
Individual Weld County Towns" from 1990 census statistics. Attachment #3 is "Weld
Population Trends By Selected Cohorts --1970-2010" from the Colorado Division of
Local Governments. It shows the the projected increase in Weld County's 60-85+
population increasing by 66-70% from 1970-2010. Attachment #4 is "Selected
Subgroups of the Older Population in Colorado as a Percent of the State Total' from
the Colorado Division of Local Governments and 1990 and 1992 Census statistics.
This attachment shows that Weld County has 3.96% of the Colorado's 60+ population,
4.33% of the state's 75+ population, 4.06% of the state's 60+ Low -Income
population, 3.85% of the state's 60+ Minority population, 8.16% of Colorado's rural
population, 3.84% of the state's 65+ frail disabled population. Attachment #5 is
"65 and Older Poverty Rate" supplied by AAA from 1990 census statistics. This
attachment shows the poverty rate for the 65+ population of Weld County was above
the state average. Weld was 11.8% and Colorado was 10.4%.
All these attachments combined show a constantly growing population of rural
elderly spread widely around Weld County. Large percentages of this group are low-
income, minority and frail disabled. As addressed in the Community Action Plan in
Section V, it is shown that a constant need in all surveys and assessments is
linkage of services and transportation for this target population. Human Services
is trying to address those needs by using CSBG funding for the following
activities;
1) Senior Aide Program--- Federal Objective 7--- Direct Service ---
The Senior Aide program provides a network through which many
services are made available to the senior citizens in the rural areas
of Weld County.
Senior Aide Coordinators and their senior volunteers are located in
centers in 22 rural communities throughout the 4,004 sq. mile County.
The basic services provided by the Coordinators and their volunteers
include information and referral, outreach, creation of new services,
identificaton of needs, advocacy for rural senior citizens,
organizing transportation, recreation, congregate and home -delivered
nutrition programs.
Using CSBG funding, Weld County Division of Human Services' (WCDHS)
Area Agency on Aging provides the staff, the Coordinator of Senior
Services and her Assistant, who assist the townships in hiring and
training the Senior Aides and volunteers, as well as setting up the
centers and networking the various parts of the programs and setting
up new programs and linkages.
2) Senior Minibus Transportation--- Federal Objective 7--- Direct
Service--- Using CSBG funding, the Minibus Transportation Program
provides transportation services to the elderly who are without other
means of transportation. The Minibus provides transportation only
for seniors in the rural areas.
Passengers are picked up at and returned to their homes or from
central locations on a specified days for trips to health facilities,
shopping areas, recreational activities, social service needs and
meal sites.
The arrangements are set up via the Senior Aide Coordinator system
(Activity #1) in all the various rural townships and cities in rural
Weld County.
Minibus can provide for general or disabled travel needs.
950490
II. Activities
Continued
3) Weldco's Volunteer Transportation ---Federal Objective 7 --Indirect
Service ---Subcontracted to Weldco's Senior Services.
This service has a group of volunteers that transport in their own
vehicles rural in -need seniors to one-time activities that cannot be
met by the minibus service.
Using CSBG funding, Human Services reimburses Weldco's $.25/mile for
every documented trip and they in turn distribute the funds to the
volunteer drivers.
4) Employment Services ---Federal Objective 1--- Direct Service
This allows for .25 FTE of a Client Service Technician in ESWC to
work with clients in our Federally funded programs. This FTE cannot
be covered by other ESWC grants and by funding it with CSBG allows us
to serve more at -risk clients needing employment and training.
5) Administration ---Federal Objective 7--- Direct Service
Using CSBG funding for administration of this grant allows Human
Services to plan, coordinate and fill gaps in already established
programs, as well as budgeting, tracking and reporting of required
information.
950490
0
rn
C7) C
r p
Is 0-
Z
= w
0
U i-
o
11.1 a_
1# 4uawyV
Attachment #2
PERCENT OF 60+, 65+, 75+. 85+ POPULATIONS BY INDIVIDUAL WELD _C UITY TaWNS•
Town 1990 not 50+ not
AULT 1.107 236 (21.3:7
DACONO 2.228 374 (16.7%1
EATON 1.959 407 (20.7:)
ERIE 1.244 143 (11.4%)
EVANS 5.877 620 (10.57.)
FIRESTONE 1.358 88 (6.4%)
FORT LUPTON 5,159 560 (10.8%)
FREDERICK 988 126 (12.771
GARDEN CITY 199 24 (12%)
GILCREST 1.084 80 (7.3%)
GREY 60.536 8.727 (14.4%)
GROVER 135 37 (27.4%)
HUDSON 918 118 (12.8%)
IOHNSTOWN 1.597 273 (17%)
KEENESBURG 570 101 (17.77.)
KERSEY 980 139 (14.17)
LA SALLE 1.783 235 (13.2%)
LOCHBUIE 1.168 172 (14.77.)
MEAD 456 40 (8.7%)
MILLIKEN 1,605 164 (10.2%)
NUNN 324 44 (13.5%)
PIERCE 823 102 (12.3%)
PLATTEVILLE 1,515 181 (11.9%)
RAYMER 96 22 (22.9%)
SEVERANCE 106 17 (16%)
WINDSOR 5,062 690 (13.67.)
65+ von 75+ von 85+ van
191 (17%) 89 (87.) 21 (27.)
252 (117.) 86 (4%) 11 (>1%)
325 (177.) 156 (8%) 23 (I%)
103 (87.) 61 (5%) 7 (u)
461 (8%) 205 (3%) 36 (1%)
68 (5%) 25 (2%) 3 (>1%)
432 (8%) 175 (3%) 37 (1%)
103 (107.1 48 (5%) 10 (1%)
22 (11%1 6 (3%) 2 (1%)
54 (57.) 26 (27.) 3 (>1%)
6.765 (11%) 3.230 (57.) 929 (27)
33 (24%) 15 (11%1 2 (1%)
88(10%) 36 (4%) 9 (1%)
212 (13%) 99 (6%) 25 (2%)
76 (13%) 39 (7%) 10 (2%)
103 (117.) 44 (4%) 8 (1%)
168 (97.) 71'(4%) 16 (1%)
120 (10%) 45 (4%) 8 (1%)
28 (6%) 15 (3%) - (0%)
113 (7%) 38 (2%) 9 (1%)
33 (10%) 12 (4%) 4 (1%)
74 (9%) 26 (37.) 4 (>1%)
140 (9%) 58 (4%) 15 (1%)
17 (18%) 8 (8%) 1 (1%)
12 (117.) 6 (6%) 2 (2%)
543 (11%) 269 (5%) 54 (1%)
950490
Attachment #3
WELD POPULATION TRENDS BY SELECTED COHORTS
1970 - 2010
H
a
N
H
et
0
u9
O
N
co
4
S
M
a
In
a
Yn
O
0
0
N
en
en
C'
0
S
H
O
T
en
O
n
M
Yn
O
CO
en
ti
N
N
n
en
en
N
0
a
CO
O
N
H
N
N
H1
♦-0
M
O
Under Age 18
Under Age 60
H
c
en
Lei
N
N
m
ti
en
N
O
en
S
m
N
n
n
C`
N
C"
m
Total Population
J
u
0 in .w
co
u
++ O
N ..7
u1
M W
L. O
CI
♦J C
U O
4 V1
moni
-+
L >
M • V
co ea
C
Q
S
'Co
� • d
C ✓
O
—4 w
aJ
A
— C
C O
CU MI • u
a
m
4
m u
c
• 14
m
O • E
.4. W
a.+
4-4 CU
C t
a++
O. E
W L.
O 4+
N V1
C C
N 0
C •�
m
U U
v
O r
m O
0.
_, o.
In
d
U
14
0
0
950490
O6t7OS6
OR OR
N 0N x
t. 0 0 r N e n
666666 r b
it x x x 0 0 x x 0 it
r ......
a ..... O N O O
✓ n 66466e6
f N O n a e
O N o a A****
Op N r 0 0 r N
666 0 0 0 0 0
O
0
0
U
z
z
0
al -
0
a. f
o e
O w t -
W n
► 0
O 2
e o
oO
o -
CO ¢U 0
e El
O
n
U
W
e
a
' '3
r f •
0
0.
7:11 . g
.
L 3 a a g
o 204.
E =
▪ n 0 n
0. O 6
O -.
!ozzl i
at
0.
m
!;74!
i ACC
a + a
a m °
g $ $ a
3 .
0i
a
e r r; o x' o N xsx
n a
0000000
oassi
6
0
o a b 00 J
o; r
0
0.!
yy
• itfe n x N e x o
° . o OO
C ' J f r O C 6 o e
Eat; 6 i
n W E I
c
g••i
E l n e
♦ 8
O -
e
O a n W n CO N b
n CO IC N b O 0 W
x 0 0 0 0 x x x
i
e ' N ^ N r
O n n n
O 66006 N
.......
V . r al
O 00#0x0
r f at a 0 0 �
JO 0 0 a 0
b
r o .....
al • al OR el ,t0 la al ON
in ▪ n A A a F r a n
✓ a • v
N
f • n e e n N h O h a
b o e o
n n 664d660 N O O a a e
e e e g e e W CI
0.00N
a n e N r e a n
o f r f 0 a
N
n
a e e Sean n
n^ o osg Nn ne a
n n
0
0
Na
O O O r N f O r 0 n
• a
p0 10 off O. N e O« N
O 0 Oa
n C N ON CI
00 0
040 p
0 fl 0000^f0NN e
N n tl e f a e
o : e 0 N 0 0 0 4 0
e n o a o o n n W w
n n N O 0 0 .'
o N m
O N i n N S N n it
a n e o 0 O a ry n
e 046W6 - e
ra
N C N x e x 0 x n f
• n o a e o n n a
O O .Z.;066666
r ▪ CO
al CI CI
▪ e N n
b In N e o F:
e 0 a N e a
ei 440n6046
n
S '°SN�
•+3I<:Nwoa:
- o
x
f
• n
� o � e o e o ei :
20 a
0. p
n+ o
w 0
a
N e 0 01 O r n
r
. L x x x 0 0 0 x x
° i g i n s N; N i.. n
i} o o e e e o« ri
2.. a
• o
I
ne—
'' o c
O o
0.
0
U
W
..
b# ivawgp244V
......
rr°
o f r r r
0
2 e OO
Z4a3
o a 0 m 2
O <
a2 6 0 3 i
SUBTOTAL
2A LARIMER
r
a
W
N
N g.. n' e r«
• a 0 ' N
a ......
p x n e e o
e e o o o: g
h 0
0 NI
n a
W Of 0 n 0
0 ▪ P0 N O to N
n a N O F 0 N
✓ V
P • O 0 N
ti O N O
a o 0 o 0 0 0 o
e n n o
r n
n n
O 000
o oan
ri r a e
+.0,
S 22
-. .4 .4 .4 0
.....
r
f a N N
b n a n N
• ....
0 n `vi m n
a
O 0 x 0 *555*
N GSS e g a e
: 000 00000
anag
a• 000
000,
0 0 I-
n 0 N
n o a n N
n
O x x x
aftno
S ^«N
e Y o a
r
O 0 0 x 0
.....
• N n n w
0000
C =T2a2 Po
e
x000*
a n o.e n
r N
O o e o
f • e O 0 0 n O ow
• N r .- N 0 f f
n
x it be be O.' be be N n x
N n a
▪ C e C .. C e o
a a n o
o • V e a b
.......
04 O
o f 0 Na
Y
W Z
WW
00 0 0
2 U W < C
4 a≤> a y
0 a O W O J W
4 0 0 0 0
44-4- r r r 4
n CI
a
o
W
02
b P • a a b
N
0
W
O
a
O
0
W
OOP S
0.0 • -i
a Q W
W 6 r
a
0
0
0
NONOF
W i° n a n
r r r f
W 0
Z e
Z n Q
1'0=0
O W % J
b 0 0 in
0
0
m
2
U
e
m
C
N +
NO
N X Y t X* Y X I X a at n P Y e K t I f X ! t X X as Y X
•Noon -amno� OnO .Os
O O o 0 0 0 co o co co. fi x 0 0 0 0 0- o o c c o r o 0 0 O c 6 ..
tl 0 P P N O tl r N 0 00 n r r m
P n N 0 CO b • r m P b P n .0000010 O 0 n O
LM
• 0 r el
r O r O N M1 • n n P w n N N O 0 a tl 0 0 m 0
f f ON
cc • f Cor M r n - O 0 • CO N n
r n r N • N 0
•
X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X g X X ......
# S
n or O O n o W <- H O N•O n 0 r
N O Ha r a. f N O CI N m • 0 0 CO O O 0000000
C O O O r G N O o O O O O O r OO O O O C r O o O O C O 0
000220•
gr
n or Ow 0 0 n
n N r r r a
X X X X X X X X 4444444
XXX
CO 000000 O O O r
!1 r O 4 R H m w O a
0 O N 0 n n ft n fl N O
W O n m0
XXXXX , 0******
O n O n n .......
✓ n O N O a m m r H P
e N 0 n w n m n O O w n P ............
r......
r•.m 0 N el 0 r el M1 0 Or 0 O n 0 m r 0 Or N O
w.
XXXXXX X
O 0 ry 0 o.� O
xb 000000* Ott***
C O IN• 0 pO 0 f 0 nl O P! O S
*tot***
n o 0 w o o n
09+3
03a
a
C
U
4
m
a
P N m
m • n O W n n 0 lotr n r 0•
a n
e ****** X X ..... X ***222
C O C O." O O o OO O O OO 0 o M OO 0 r^ o n C .... fI
•
N
• a N .. n
m W r
O w: r.:' • m CO e o m r ^ n n •
• XXX X X X X X XXXXX X X XXXX X X XXXXX Xo
r O(4 0 0 0
a o o' o o fi
...... m 00,00.-0
O O O O r O N n 000000-
N
a i N o O C M1 N
.......
r n r n 0 n
H f N
N
r O 0 n m
0 o C 0 C
N O n P O a 0 W. N r f •! H
w n niN 0r
•M1 In
X X X X X X X X X XXXXX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
ID ...... O m P W n'V' i ...........
r O O ..-H N
elem.-day, n n N O N O O r O P N N O O O
066606.4
O O O O C C O r O O O o O r r O O r OO O M
CO N O ID H N N P n n N N r ...... P• N 0 fl 00
CO a r r H O P r n O P m N O m CO 0 W
• N r 1 n N N '' ..... NOM n O n f N orr r P N O H N m• or n P m •
4 a
y 0 4 0 4 Z • Z W 0 4 J Z • aZ W m
J W • O O= •4 6< J 6 4 W 1 < m 6
O Z 0 0 W 0 'w 020z00 0 Z_ 4 IN CCO O U J a Z$ J Z CO Z¢ Z
< W 6 1- 6 J O O O 4 6 0 4 0 4 w3-03 4
O 0 0 Y O a a. 4 U U i et m 4 0 a m .4 00=20o
J
a a
0
w
J
0
og
0
0
0
O
0
m
m
06ti0S6
,-n wM at a a<XCC ve.e a<xeIC OP a< a<Mete
n0 n 000
•P 5.0.“. m N O N f f el o O
O N O O 0 0 0 O 0 O N O O O O r 6.60 G
SU a o oo
w o
0.
C.
"5:1-1g
c c
o 0 + i 5
•` 0 o a
n y
ggs's:s
O LL G
7 J
a
m
C5
a
a
N m 0 N 0 O r O NOW
0 0^ w O ry O 1cr ev Ca CM 0ea '1 h b
N H m m N
VI o^ o 0 eel CO w n 0 0 n n N n m tl n .P -
n a N N ^
n
P be if x x
O N N a % 0 0 0 0 to ' e n A O O
�' 0 N o N n woo n 0.6c!
.o
66064 Oo o Oo o 0 o 0 o C O N Oo 0
..... O m N n NN O n P w e P N P P
O« m 0 O m N f1 o „ ..... N on
m N
N ' N N
M M M* M 000000* 5055* 55at 0
wan o a m' O N^ ("Nee O 000 0
°19...0 P ...-06.6.60
X m O O I.,100010 N w r U O
u. o F .- 0 e e e 0 .. 664P O O
..... r 0 r P 0 N O O P N 8 o 800 0
_ P n 0 O n m f 000r o N O
NIl !I m mm P P X n N O' VVO N N 0 O
1 0
k 555 K *#***t Mkat*M *5* *
aaa nos;sa- �sa�n
O N O N O O N P N NNWO N ernn O n $ 0 O
m w N ...
fl r e •000
N
SP
J G,^ w
s a 0
•!+•
•ee
C.
a o E
Pr J O
—+E
N+
6
O.
K 5 5* 5* 5* 5* 5* K * 5* M
X O ...... 0N 0. N O 0 8
8
000r P r P N. I. P Si ..... ^ O
ft
noonP' N m' f V ..... r 0 NO N
r r �
at 5 M M M #S* >< Y M M 5505 M w M 0 5 I n s' n ^ O m' n P net ' O •` o'
w« N m o « e m O o P • w
o_ o o •i o 0 o e o e 0 06606 O 60 g
r e O NN ^ N CO CO a^ P A N 0 0 N a n X P. 4w Oa
0
CO IC N 0 N N r n w r N r. VI 0 0 e
tl tl r
0 0 0 0 5 * t X e X* K 0* K at * 5 5 5 5
O P P 0 ...... N 0 P n 0 caeca
a
P P N Vi N O N N ;snag
O m O o n O O O O e O r 66 .6c.4 00w
N m w O n co. -now -6 n n e P M P O o a
O N m n n O f 0 O m_ N P O O O m
e aX m N - w N a r m m N -^ r r n w N
N
0
U
O $ O
F r
Y. a U.0 J M Y F f
r 0 !
CZ O
O a i a J J
a - N
r r r O 0
m co
= J
e ea
0 a
W H MM
LL Ili
O 11 M
a s
a CO W Y
00 E Ea Oct
= J J
.—.— t n r t: r
O
m
CO
BOOTO
STATE 707AL
•
•
co
•
0
0
0
a
O
0
U
u
m
se es P
co
a
r Y E N • V
• o
0
a - m m
1§—m
m 5 e'
!.• e c
• .o c
Eb 9 • 6
o • c o n
!
• `a o' a a
o.
e
O o. 0 fl
O
a
•
0
•
0
J
O
C
O
55
0
el
•
EC
W 5
O O
•
a
p U
L
9 e
H •
•
• o
w
• 0
w 0
000e
U
O = .
O
CO E _
a
a o 0
OUO
Attachment #5
ELDERLY
65 and Older Poverty Rate
1990
Weld County
Greeley
Colorado
Females 65+
13.5%
13.8%
12.4%
Males 65+
7.0%
7.0%
6.0%
Total 65+
11.8%
10.8%
10.4%
> In 1991, the poverty rate for people 65 and older in Weld County was below
the National Average. Weld was 11.8% and the Nation was 12.4%.
> Present and future retirees will be better educated and have more economic
flexibility and be in better health.
> Public assistance income for the population 65 and older is 8.8% for Weld,
8.3% for Colorado, and 9.3% for Greeley.
> The percent of people 65 and older receiving social security income compared
to the total is 8.1% for Weld, 7.9% for Colorado, and 8.5% for Greeley.
Source= Linda Piper, Area Agency on Aging
65 and Older Poverty Status
1990
Weld County
Greeley
Colorado
White
10.9%
11.1%
9.6%
Hispanic
30.5%.
25.7%
23.6%
Source= Linda Piper, Area Agency on Aging
33
950490
III. Budget
Cost Category
Direct Personnel:
30 Various Bus Drivers
providing 6,905 hours of
transportation service to
the rural elderly *
.25 FTE Community Services
Director (Coordinator,
County Senior Aide Program)
#7 Linkages with
#1 Employment Other Programs
$ $ 62,141
7,920
.15 FTE Community Services Aide 3,790
.25 FTE Client Services 6,316
Technician
Direct Operating Expenses:
Operational expenses in
providing Employment services
Mini -Bus Direct Transpor-
tation Costs Based on
Mileage *
Contract/Subcontract Costs:
Weldcos' Senior Services
Mileage Costs reimbursed to
senior volunteers who
transport low-income rural
elderly.
Administrative Costs:
Administrative Salaries/
Overhead (15% of Grant)
Totals
1,579
41,428
8,000
23,148
Grand Total of all categories;
$154,322.00
7,895 146,427
950490
IV. Project Evaluation
Effectiveness Measure of First Six Months
Each Activity Planned Result
Direct Services:
1. To attach unemployed clients
to jobs and reduce County unemployment
in this target group.
2a. Provide training sessions to senior
aide coordinators and volunteers so
they may be better equipped to pro-
vide elderly outreach and information
and referral services to the rural
elderly.
2b. Provide volunteer transportation
to rural elderly who otherwise
would not be able to travel
distance to receive necessary
services (miles).
Efficiency Measure
of Each Activity
First Six Months
Obj. # of Persons
# to be Served
1. Employment 1
2. Linkages with Other 7
Programs
a.
b.
c.
Community Services
Personnel
Weldcos Volunteer
Transportation
Mini -Bus Trans-
portation
1,000
6
43,150
Planned
Expenditures
1,800 $ 3,900
2,000
125
900
5,855
4,000
51,784
Twelve Months
Planned Result
2,500
12
86,307
Twelve Months
# of Persons Planned
to be Served Expenditures
3,000
2,500
175
1,500
$ 7,895
11,710
8,000
103,569
950490
V. Community Action Plan
So as not to reinvent the wheel, Human Services is using Needs Assessments already done
this past year by our agency, by the community, city of Greeley and County of Weld.
The first Needs Assessment (NA #1) is " Vision Together Indicators". The City of Greeley
requested input from all factions of the community; education, employment, business,
government, and public of all ages to join in the Vision Together Committee to plan ahead
to meet the short and long range needs of the community of Weld County. The first order
was surveying the public to find what needs were. I have enclosed the Vision Together
Indicators as NA #1 and the Vision Together Survey Results as NA #2. In looking through
the results of the Indicators and assessing what Human Services would be able to enhance in
its present system to help meet community need, the last inside page on elderly rural
poverty is an area we can enhance in our present system. Human Services is currently
addressing education, employment, and casemanagement of at risk youth and families with
FENWC and ESWC. The only factor that we are not currently addressing from these indicators
in the Human Service Programs, besides elderly poverty and linkage is the enviroment and
housing.
In NA #2 "Vision Together Survey Results" the age of survey respondents shows that 32% were
over 65 years of age and that 57% responding were from rural Weld County. The results note
on Question 6 that 50% of the respondents state that transportation choices available in
the area are fair to poor. This is an area within our present system of Human Services (as
explained in detail in the Introduction) that we can enhance to meet need.
The second Needs Assessment (NA #3) is the summary results of several assessments and
surveys compiled by the Area Agency on Aging. Out of the many input options available,
seniors responded in every survey to the need of transportation and access to information
and services.
The third Needs Assessment (NA #4) is the Weld County Transportation Development Plan
(Draft). The City of Greeley and Weld County are in process of compiling a joint
transportation plan to meet the present and future transportation needs of Weld County.
The Plan is in draft form because it is not finalized yet. In the summarization of unmet
need it is noted that the elderly rural population is a growing area with growing needs for
public transportation.
With CSBG funding, Human Services can address and enhance this unmet need within our
present structure. Setting up the Senior Aide stations and centers as explained in
Activity #1 and having all of them coordinated by the Area Agency on Aging out of Human
Services allows rural seniors linkage and information on all of the Senior services
provided in Weld County. It also allows organization to provide bases for arranging
transportation through Weld County Transportation or Weldco'e Senior Services as explained
in Activity 2 and 3.
Human Services is a multi -funded, multi -program agency which allows clients with need,
easier access to more services because they are all interlinked. The other funding that
would be coordinated with CSBG funds would be Older Americans Act Funds, Single Entry Point
Funds, LEHEAP funds, FTA section 18 funds, JTPA funds, Retired Senior Volunteer Program
Funds, USDA funds, and County general Funds.
Human Services, in correlation with the community, will continue to survey and assess the
needs of Weld County and see if our enhancements to these programs make a difference in the
amount of need still required. It is the Human Services mission to make as many needed
services available to the most -in -need to all areas of Weld County.
950490
VI. Certifications:
The grantee assures that funds available through this program will be
used to accomplish the State Goal and to meet the Objectives stated in
the State CSBG Guidelines. It is further assured that the proposed
activities to be implemented with CSBG funds will meet the guidelines
contained in the Federal CSBG Legislation, Title IV of the Civil Rights
Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, and the State of Colorado CSBG Plan. The grantee also assures
that it will:
specifically consider, in a public meeting the designation of any
local public or private entity to carry out the county community
service activities under contract with the county, any local
community action agency (CAA) which received federal fiscal year
1981-1982 funding;
- prohibit any political activities by grantees or contractors being
supported, in part or whole, by federal funds provided through this
program;
- prohibit any activities to provide voters and prospective voters
with transportation to the polls or provide similar assistance in
connection with an election or any voter registration activity;
- make available for public inspection each plan prepared as part of
the program planning process. The grantee may, at its initiative,
revise any plan prepared for CSBG funding and shall furnish the
revised plan to the Executive Director of the Department of Local
Affairs. Each plan prepared for submission shall be made available
for public inspection within the county and/or service area in such
a manner as will facilitate review of, and comments on, the plan;
- provide for coordination between community anti -poverty programs,
where appropriate, with emergency energy crisis intervention
programs conducted in such community;
- make available appropriate books, documents, papers, and records
for inspection, examination, copying, or mechanical reproduction on
or off the premises upon reasonable request by the U.S. Controller
General, the State, or their authorized representatives should an
investigation of the uses of CSBG funds be undertaken.
- in the case of non-profit organizations contracting for CSBG funds
with the State, have a board constituted so as to assure that (A)
one-third of the members of the board are elected public officials
currently holding office, or officials reasonably available and
willing to serve is less than one-third of the membership on the
board, membership on the board of appointive public officials may
be counted in meeting such one-third requirement, (B) at least one-
third of the members are persons chosen in accordance with
democratic selection procedures adequate to assure that they are
representative of the poor in the areas served; and (C) the
remainder of the members are officials or members of business,
industry, labor, religious, welfare, education, or othermajor
groups and interests in the community.
- in the case of county governments receiving grant funds, have an
advisory committee on which the poor, elderly, and related service
organizations of the county are reasonably represented.
950490
- in the case of county governments or subgrantees which receive a
CSBG award in excess of $100,000, comply with the following three
certifications related to the "Limitation of use of appropriated
funds to influence certain Federal Contracting and financial
transactions (P.O. 101-121, Section 319 and USC Title 31 Section
1352)":
1. No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid by
or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing
or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any
agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of
Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection
with the awarding of any Federal contract, continuation,
renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been
paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this
Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the
undesigned shall complete and submit Standard Form LLL,
"Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instruction.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award document for subawards
at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts
under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
Contractor: WELD COUNTY BOARD , F1COMMISSIONERS
Position:
D K. HALL, HAIRMAN (3/15/95)
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners - if county grantee Chairman of
the Board of Directors - if multi -county service organization with delegated
contracting authority.
950490
VI. Certifications
The grantee assures that funds available through this program will be used to
accomplish the State Goal and to meet the Objectives stated in the State CSBG
Guidelines. It is further assured that the proposed activities to be
implemented with CSBG funds will meet the guidelines contained in the Federal
CSBG Legislation, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination Act
of 1975, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the State of Colorado CSBG plan.
The grantee also assures that it will:
specifically consider, in a public meeting the designation of any
local public or private entity to carry out the county community
service activities under contract with the county, any local
community action agency (CAA) which received federal fiscal 1981-
82 funding;
prohibit any political activities by grantees or contractors being
supported, in part or whole, by federal funds provided through
this program;
prohibit any activities to provide voters and prospective voters
with transportation to the polls or provide similar assistance in
connection with an election or any voter registration activity;
make available for public inspection each plan prepared as part of
the program planning process. The grantee may, at its initiative,
revise any plan prepared for CSBG funding and shall furnish the
revised plan to the Executive Director of the Department of Local
Affairs. Each plan prepared for submission shall be made
available for public inspection within the county and/ or service
area in such an manner as will facilitate review of, and comments
on, the plan;
provide for coordination between community anti -poverty programs,
where appropriate, with emergency energy crisis intervention
programs conducted in such community;
make available appropriate books, documents, papers, and records
for inspection, examination, copying, or mechanical reproduction
on or off the premises upon reasonable request by the U. S.
Controller General, the State, or their authorized representatives
should an investigation of the uses of CSBG funds be undertaken;
in the case of non-profit private organizations contracting for
CSBG funds with the State, have a board constituted so as to
assure that (A) one-third of the members of the board are elected
public officials currently holding office, or officials reasonably
available and willing to serve in less than one-third of the
membership of the board, membership on the board of appointive
public officials may be counted in meeting such one-third
requirement; (B) at least one-third of the members are persons
chosen in accordance with democratic selection procedures adequate
to assure that they are representative of the poor in the areas
served; and (C) the remainder of the members are officials or
950490
members of business, industry, labor, religious, welfare,
education, or other major groups and interests in the community
in the case of county governments receiving grant funds, have an advisory
committee on which the poor, elderly, and related service organizations of
the county are reasonably represented.
in the case of county governments or subgrantees which receive a CSBG award in
excess of $100,000, comply with the following three certifications related to the
"Limitation on use of appropriated funds to influence certain Federal Contracting
and financial transactions (P.L. 101-121, Section 319 and USC Title 31 Section
1352)":
1. No federal appropriate funds have been paid or will be paid by or on
behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a
Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of
any Federal contract, continuation, renewal, amendment, or
modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative
agreement.
2. If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or
will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to
influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or any employee of a
Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant,
loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and
submit Standard Form LLL, " Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in
accordance with its instruction.
3. The undersigned shall require that the language of this
certification be included in the award document for subawards at all
tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under
grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all
subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly.
certify to the best of its knowledge and belief, that it and its principals:
a) are not presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment,
declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered
transactions by Federal department or agency;
b) have not within a three-year period preceding this proposal been
convicted or had a civil judgement rendered against them for
commission of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with
obtaining, attempting to obtain, or performing a public transaction;
violation of Federal or State antitrust statues or commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction
of records, making false statements, or receiving stolen property;
c) are not presently indicted for otherwise criminally or civilly
charged by a governmental entity (Federal, State or local) with
commission of any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (B) of
this certification; and
d) have not within a three-year period preceding this application had
one or more public transactions (Federal, State, or local)
terminated for cause or default.
950490
(If you are unable to certify to any of the statements in this certification,
please attach an explanation to this application.)
CONTRACTOR: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
POSITION TITLE:
K. HALL, `�IAI I 1AN (3/15/95)
950490
NA ;-1
Vision
Together
Indicators
Compiled By:
Katie Galluzzo
City of Greeley
950490
EDUCATION
Dropout Rate- Grades 9-12
Pupil Counts
YEAR
District 6
Weld County
Colorado
1989-90
2222
4506
125188
1990-91
2202
4521
123760
1991-92
2385
4839
125843
1992-93
2609
5135
129192
Number of Dropouts
YEAR
District 6
Weld County
Colorado
1989-90
161
211
6664
1990-91
120
213
5899
1991-92
156
248
6484
1992-93
225
348
7102
Dropout Rate
YEAR
District 6
Weld County
Colorado
1989-90
7.2
2.13
5.3
1990-91
5.4
2.89
4.8
1991-92
6.5
3.08
5.2
1992-93
8.6
4.57
5.5
Method of Calculation= Divide the number of dropouts by the membership base which
includes all students who were in membership at any time during the year.
Observation: Dropout rates have been increasing for the past three years at both the District
and County levels faster than the State's dropout rate.
Source Colorado Department of Education, CO Public School Annual Dropout Rates
1
950490
Graduation Rate
Weld County
YEAR
Male
Hispanic
Female
Hispanic
Male White
Female
White
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1990-91
147
73.2
143
70.4
459
86.8
476
92.3
1991-92
119
63.7
134
71.9
397
90.3
425
94.0
1992-93
116
67.4
205
75.1
451
83.2
458
91.9
Greeley District 6
YEAR
Male
Hispanic
Female
Hispanic
Male White
Female
White
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
1990-91
51
58.6
62
67.4
208
90.4
220
92.8
1991-92
44
50.6
57
66.3
187
88.6
194
90.7
1992-93
50
43.5
69
58.5
205
83.0
237
90.8
oiorano
YEAR
Male
Hispanic
Female
Hispanic
Male White
Female
White
%
%
%
%
1990-91
62.8
68.7
80.3
84.7
1991-92
62.8
69.1
82.0
85.5
1992-93
62.8
68.7
80.3
84.7
* Exact graduation numbers were not provided by the State.
2
950490
Total Graduation Rates
Area
Weld County
1989-90
81.8%
1990-91
83.1%
1991-92
82.0%
1992-93
79.0%
District 6
Colorado
79.3%
80.0%
83.0%
78.9%
80.5%
79.9%
75.9%
79.9%
> There are school districts in Weld County which have an enrollment base less
than 10 students. If 5 students graduate, the rate is 50%. Likewise, if all 10
students graduate, the rate is 100%. This must be considered when comparing
Greeley to all of Weld County. It is unfair to compare hundreds of students in
one school district to the few in a rural school district.
Calculation= divide the number of graduates by the membership base.
Membership is derived from the end year counts of eighth graders four years
earlier. Adjusted for the number of students moving in or out of the districts.
Observation: Male graduation rates are consistently below female graduation
rates and the Hispanic graduation rate is consistently below the White
graduation rate. The male Hispanic rate has seen the greatest drop, especially at
the District level.
Source= Colorado Department of Education
3
9504%
Expulsion Rate
Greeley
1992-93= 9 expulsions
1993-94= 74 expulsions
> This reflects an 800% increase from spring of '93 to spring of '94. The
significant increase in the number of expulsions is largely due to new expulsion
rules and guidelines which were adopted after the 1992-93 school year.
> Reasons for expulsion hearings during the 93-94 school year (This list gives
examples, it does not include the entire list)
a. Assault 30
b. Possession of a weapon 29
c. Fighting (2+ times) 18
d. Habitually disruptive 15
e. Possession or distribution 6
of a controlled substance
Source= Greeley Tribune, June 20th
4
950490
Average Teacher Salary
Stated in Dollars
Area
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Weld
$20770
$21938
$23098
$24134
$25423
$26698
$26961
$27247
Dist 6
$24061
$24702
$25920
$26693
$28927
$29869
$30685
$30970
State
$27387
$28651
$29557
$30758 $31819
$33072
$33541
$33826
Stated as a Percentage of the State's Average Salary
Area
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Weld
76%
77%
78%
79%
80%
81%
80%
81%
Dist 6
88%
86%
88%
87%
91%
90%
92%
92%
Observation: The average salaries for both Weld County and District 6 are
consistently below the Colorado State salaries, although the differences have
narrow-ed.
Calculation= Percentage calculated by dividing the Weld or District 6 number
by the State's number for each year. Multiplied by 100 to find a percentage.
Source= Colorado Department of Education
5
950490
Selected Teacher/ Student Ratio
Area
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
Weld
19.46
18.74
18.08
18.33
18.49
18.37
19.28
20.17
Dist 6
27
25.7
26.6
25.6
26.1
26.4
27.3
26.9
State
23.9
23.7
23.6
23.3
23.6
23.9
24.4
24.7
Observation: The District 6 ratios are consistently above state avenges while
Weld County figures are consistently below.
Calculation= The number of students in membership in public schools divided
by the full time equivalency of teaching assignments serving those students as of
fall '91 and '92. Selected teachers includes all teachers with the exception of
special education teachers, chapters 1&2 teachers and teachers in specialized
subject areas such as music, art, physical education, drivers education, and
ROTC.
Source= Colorado Department of Education
6
Educational Attainment of Adults 25 yrs. or Older
1970
Educational Level
Weld
Greeley
Colorado
Median number of
L years completed
12.2
12.5
12.4
1 A[fA
1
Educational Level
Weld %
Greeley %
Colorado %
less than 5 years
elementary
1.6
3.4
1.8
High School
Graduates
68.8
74.0
78.6
4 yrs or more of
college
16.8
24.9
23.0
Educational Level
Weld %
Greeley %
Colorado %
less than 5th
grade
3.1
3.1
1.2
5th to 8th grade
completed
9.0
8.4
4.4
High School
Graduate or
higher
74.9
76.6
84.4
Bachelor's Degree
or higher
18.4
25.1
27.0
> 1970 datum is not extensive because the format of the Census information is
very different from 1980 and 90's information.
Calculation= Number of people in each category divided by the total num_ <,r of
people over 25 years old.
Source= 1970, 1980,1990 Census
7
950490
Test Scores- 1992/93 - Percentage of Tran_itioning Students Who Tested and
Met the Competency Standards
Test Area
5th grade
7th grade
9th grade
12th grade
Writing
72.4%
77.6%
71.4%
85.1%
Reading
Story
90.3%
72.7%
78.0%
87.9%
Reading
Information
81.6%
51.5%
56.2%
63.3%
Reading
Both
79.1%
47.1%
53.0%
62.0%
Passed Both
Reading and
Writing
65.9%
43.7%
47.9%
60.5%
Math-MEAP
63.9%
37.1%
39.1%
34.7%
Passed
Writing,
Reading and
Math
54.9%
29.6%
•
34.6%
33.9%
> In every category of es mg statistics, White students tested higher than
Hispanic students and high socio-economic status students tested higher than
low socio-economic students.
> Since 1990, scores for the students tested have consistently dropped.
> Student's scores consistently drop after transitioning from 5th to 7th grade.
By High School graduation, only 33.9% of the students were able to meet the
competency level.
Source= 1992/93 Weld County School District 6 Transition Assessment Results -
Executive Summary
8
950490
Measurement of Adult Education
Headcounts from AIMS College, 1988-1994, with percentage from Weld County
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
Total
Heads
16257
17121
18638
18422
18130
15445
Weld
Heads
12387
13277
14084
14086
14002
12356
% from
L Weld
76.19
77.65
75.57
76.46
77.23
80.0
> Source= SRO 325 Annual Reports, 1988-94, AIMS College
950490
SOCIO-ECONOMICS
Median Income for Families
Census Year
United States
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
1970
Not Given
$9,555
$8,363
$9,091
1980
$19,917
$21,279
$18,696
$19,194
1990
$35,225
$35,930
$30,800
$30,705
> According to the Census definition, a family consists of a household head and
one or more other persons living in the same household who are related by
blood, marriage, or adoption; all persons in a household who are related to the..
head are regarded as his (her) family.
Observation: For the median income in 1980 to maintain the same purchasing
power in 1990, the 1990 median income would have to be $32,473. So there
was a $1673 loss in purchasing power between 1980 and 1990.
Source= Ann Garrison Report, Economic Analysis, Greeley and Weld County.
Also 1970,80,90 Census.
Free Lunch Program Participation Rate for District 6
YEAR
Number Enrolled
Number of
Students
Percentage
1990-91
3394
11653
29.1%
1991-92
3381
12120
27.9%
1992-93
3920
12563
31.2%
Source= MIS 10/1/92 (Vision Notebook)
10
950490
Youth Poverty Rate
1970
T
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of people
below poverty
263224
14849
6320
% of people
below poverty
12.3%
17.3%
17.8%
# of 18 yr olds
and younger
below poverty
96602
5146
1436
% of poverty
population 18
and younger
37%
35%
23%
1980
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of people
below poverty
284898
16794
6711
% of people
below poverty
10.1%
14.1%
17.6%
# of 18 yr olds
and younger
below poverty
91295
5432
1319
% of poverty
population 18
and younger
32%
32%
20%
11
950490
1990
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of people
below poverty
375214
19594
11044
% of people
below poverty
11.7%
15.4%
19.5%
# of 18 yr olds
and younger
below poverty
126181
6839
3335
% of poverty
population 18
and younger
34%
35%
30%
Observation: The percent of the poverty population under 18 has increased by
50% in Greeley whereas Weld County and the State show much less of an
increase.
Source= 1970, 80, 90 Census
12
950490
Female Headed Family Poverty Rate
1980
1990
/Census Measurement
CO
State
Weld
County
Greeley
City
CO
State
Weld
County
Greeley
City
# Families
744228
31401
12394
861828
34057
14613
Female headed families
86258
3085
1642
121275
4270
2264
% of female headed
families
12%
10%
13%
14%
13%
16%
W female families
below poverty
22452
993
574
36245
1711
990
% female families which
are below poverty
26%
32%
35%
30%
40%
44%
# female families with
children under 18 yrs
62787
2244
1218
86184
3157
1682
# below poverty
20571
854
510
33445
1567
904
% below poverty
33%
38%
42%
39%
50%
54%
# female families with
children under 5 yrs
23073
864
497
30638
1167
685
# below poverty
11144
439
259
17519
794
518
% below poverty
48%
51%
52%
57%
68%
76%
> 1970 data is excluded due to its inconsistencies when compared to the 19 S0
and 90 data.
Observation: Over half of the women who head households and have children
under five live below poverty level.
Calculation= Each percentage was found by using the number counts in each
category as the denominator to find a percentage. For example, the number of
women with kids under 18 below poverty was divided by the number of women
with kids under 18.
Source 1980,90 Census
13
950490
Teen Uve Birth Rate- Weld County
YEAR
AGE
Number
Rate
1987
10-14
5
1.0
15-19
355
52.2
1988
10-14
5
1.0
15-19
296
43.2
1989
10-14
6
1.2
15-19
321
50.3
1990
10-14
11
2.2
15-19
311
55
1991
10-14
8
1.6
15-19
324
55.4
> Measures females who carry to term. This is not a measurement of the teen
pregnancy rate. A decrcase in rates could reflect an increase in abortions or
miscarriages. However, this statistic is used widely by many communities to
present a picture of teen pregnancy.
Calculation= number of live births per 1,000 women in each age group.
Source= Colorado Vital Statistics
14
950490
Homeless Shelter Statistics
1= A Woman's Place
2= Catholic Community Services
3= Greeley Transitional House
4= Disabled American Veterans
Measure
1
2
3
4
'93 Totals
House-
holds
89
587
56
47
779
Families
61
46
56
2
165
Singles
28
541
0
45
614
# of person
nights
4762
6678
5737
781
17958
Adults
61
69
69
4
203
Children
129
94
130
3
356
# turned
away(house
-holds)
38
956
16
NA
1010
Observation: Approximate y 50 homeless persons are housed each night. This
is found by dividing the number of person nights by 365 days.
Source= WIRS 1994 Annual Report
15
950490
Migrant Worker Housing Statistics
1570 local seasonal farm worker families
840 migrant farm worker families
1000 single migrant farm workers
There is a need for:
900 affordable rentals for local seasonal families
780 affordable rentals for migrant families
400 beds for single migrant workers
>75% or the local seasonal families and 95% of the migrant families live in
unaffordable housing.
Source= Catholic Housing Report
16
950490
Female (16+ yrs) Employment Statistics
1970
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of females 16+
121373
32452
15978
%In labor force
38
39
41
%Employed
95
94
94
%Unemployed
5
6
6
%Not in labor
force
62
61
59
With children
under 6
25413
6028
2465
% In labor force
28
32
32
With Children
6yrs to 17 yrs
28939
6454
2397
% In labor force
50
52
59
1980
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of females 16+
1111861
47479
20546
%In labor force
55
50
52
%Employed
94
94
93
%Unemployed
6
6
7
%not in labor
force
45
50
48
With children
under 6
183030
8413
2758
%In labor force
46
45
49
With Children
6yrs to 17 yrs
216952
9190
3046
%In labor force
66
64
75
17
950490
1990
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
# of females 16+
1285459
50280
24526
%In labor force
63
59
59
%Employed
94
95
95,
%Unemployed
6
5
5
%Not in labor
force
37
41
41
With children
under 6
212252
8414
3568
%In labor force
63
62
62
With Children
6yrs to 17 yrs
223097
9209
3736
%In labor force
79
78
80
f .. hnnePhnlfl PTC
> These statistics are for all women 16 and older, not
specifically.
Observation: The percentage of women in the work force is increasing as well
as the number of women with children who are in the work force.
Source 1990 Census
r Qlllllr u V.�i.\, ..---
annual
Year
Colorado
Weld
Greeley
1970
9.1%
11.9%
9.6%
1980
7.4%
10.0%
10.6%
1990 8.6%
10.6%
12.2%
hose income was less than
> 1989 poverty defined as a 4 person fame
Source 1970, 80, 90 Census
18
950490
Food Stamp Statistics
> 24,050 families per month in Weld County receive food stamp assistance
> 65% of those recipients have no High School education
> The average educational level of recipients is 6th grade
> There are no statistics broken down for single mothers receiving food stamps
> Most recipients of food stamps are two parent families
Source= Richard Roe, Weld County Social Services
AFDC Statistics
> 90% of AFDC recipients are single parent families consisting of one adult and
two children.
> 1800 families in Weld County receive AFDC
> Average length a family receives AFDC in Colorado is 13 months.
> $320 is the average amount of the grants awarded
> Medicaid is automatically given to recipients of AFDC. Richard Roe says
this is a driving force of the program. However, a person can get a job and still
qualify for medicaid.
Source= Richard Roe, Weld County Social Services
19
950490
YOUTH STATISTICS
Child Abuse Referrals
1992= 1334 Referrals
Schools reported 28.3% of the child abuse cases. This was the largest source of
child abuse referrals.
*Other agencies with over 50 referrals:
Law Enforcement 14.5%
Neighbors 9.4%
*Where Referrals Come From:(each have over 30 referrals)
Greeley 52.4%
Fort Lupton
Evans
Dacono
Erie
Windsor
>Further information may be obtained from Philip Reichel, UNC Sociology
Dept. There was a pie chart missing from the report I received which may have
more information.
> This information deals only with referrals. It is not an exact measure of how
much child abuse is occurring in Weld County.
Source= Philip Reichel, Department of Sociology, University of Northern
Colorado
Organized Youth programs and activities -Listed are a few of the many
excellent programs for youth in Weld County and Greeley.
1)Just Say No
2)Island Grove Treatment Facility- Parenting program for alcohol and drug
involved kids, teen mothers
3)CARE- Child Advocate Resource Education
4)Weld County Partners
5)Workreation- Parks and Recreation Department
20
950490
Juvenile Arrests in Weld County
1987
1990
1991
1992
1993
juvenile
arrests
1543
1559
1553
1738
1811
forcible
rapes
1
4
2
1
1
larceny/
theft
379
416
391
452
461
Vandalism
58
84
115
86
84
weapons:
carrying,
possession
20
11
9
14
25
narcotic
drug laws -
totals
33
13
12
20
31
DUI
15
16
18
24
21
liquor law
60
27
132
238
210
felony
assaults
13
32
29
14
18
runaways
119
87
60
42
36
Other
845
869
785
847
924
> Other includes burglary, simple assault, fraud, and the "other" category
included in the document's statistics.
Source= Crime in Colorado, Annual Report, Department of Public Safety
21
950490
ECONOMICS
Value of Property in Weld
Total Assessment Valuation:
Residential Property:
Single family Res.
Multi family Res
Condominiums
Mobile Homes
Res. Personal prop.
Vacant Land
Commercial Property
Industrial Property
Agricultural
Natural Resource Property
Oil and Gas Property
Total Assessed Value
State Assessed Property
Grand Total Value
County, 1993
$1,109,709,330
$288,479,140
$241,230,440
$25,554,710
$10,843,090
$10,850,850
$50
$16,643,800
$176,980,060
$111,776,030
$120,960,440
$2,620,190
$284,713,470
$1,002,173,130
$107,536,200
$1,109,709,330
> The 1993 actual value of property in Weld County is $4,614,088,217. The
1988 Weld County property value assessment - grand total- is $1,065,708,930.
Observation: Assessed Value increased 4.1% between 1988 and 1993. This
means the property tax base is growing less than 1% per year which in large
part is due to the Gallagher Amendment.
Source= Abstract of Assessment- Assessed Valuation by Property Class and
District
22
950490
Median Cost to Rent or Own a Home- Weld County
1970
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
Owner Specified
Home
$17,300
Not Reported
$17,800
Specified Renter,
contracted rent
$97
Not Reported
$92
1980
Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
Owner Specified
Home
$64,100
$52,800
$55,300
Specified Renter,
contracted rent
$223
$187
$192
1990 Colorado
Weld County
Greeley
Owner Specified $81,700
Home
$66,800
$69,800
Specified Renter, $361
contracted rent
$305
$312
'Median value of a home is thelocal median singe amity hl
ome vaue.
Observation: Since 1970, the gap has widened between the median values for
the state and the values for Weld County and Greeley.
Source= 1970, 80, 90 Census
23
950490
HEALTH OF WELD COUNTY
Cancer Statistics for the top 6 cancer types- Weld County
A. Colon and Rectum Cancer
* Statewide, about 1/3 of the cases are diagnosed at an early stage (in situ or
localized). In Weld County, only 1/5 of the cases are diagnosed early, when the
disease is much more survivable.
' The likelihood of diagnoses before the age of 75 in Weld is 3.0 for men and
2.3 for women. For the state of Colorado, men are 4.2 and women are 2.9.
'In Weld, 1/4 of the cases have a distant spread while in Colorado it is almost
1/5.
'5 Year survival Rates for spread amounts
localized 85%
regional 60%
distant 5%
Time of diagnoses is critical!
B. Lung Cancer- caused mainly by cigarette smoking, accounts for more years
of potential life lost in Colorado men than any other cancer.
' Weld County rates are lower that the state rates.
*2/3 of Weld County lung cancer patients are diagnosed at age 65 and over.
C. Melanoma- often strikes young adults. 1/3 of the cases are diagnosed before
age 45.
* In Colorado, the incidence rate for men is 10% higher than the U.S. rate and
21% higher for women.
D. Cancer of the Female Breast
'Weld County rate is 20% lower than the rate for Colorado.
24
950490
' Because nearly 60% of the patients are diagnosed before age 65, breast cancer
is the main cancer cause for years of potential life lost for women.
*Nearly 2/3 of the cases in Colorado are diagnosed when the cancer is localized
when survival is better than 90%. For Weld, 50-60% are diagnosed at the early
stages.
* the incidence rate for Weld is 20% lower than the rate for Colorado.
E. Cervical Cancer
* Cancer of the cervix average annual incidence rates per 100,000 population
was higher in Weld County than the U.S. or Colorado. However, not by more
than 1%.
*Almost 80% of cervical cancers are diagnosed in women 20-44 years old.
20% of the cases are diagnosed in 45+ year olds. This indicated a need for
continual screening in childbearing years and beyond.
F. Prostate Cancer
* The prostate cancer incidence rate in Weld was the same as in Colorado.
Both are 16% more than the national rate.
Source= Cancer in Colorado- Weld County 1988-90. American Cancer Society
and CDH.
25
950490
Birth Weights- Weld County
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
# live
births
2143
2120
2164
2202
2253
# low
155
157
151
161
156
Rate
7.2
7.4
7.0
7.3
6.9
> Low birth weight is less than 2500 grams
Calculation= Rates for 89-91 based on a % of the total number of births.
Percentages are based on only those births with weight reported.
Source= Colorado Vital Statistics
Infant Death Rate- Weld County
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
# infant
deaths
30
22
18
17
15
rate of
infant
deaths
14.0
10.4
8.3
7.7
6.7
Observation: Infant death rate has decreased by half.
Calculation= Rates are based on infant deaths per 1,000 live births. Infant death
is death in the first year of life.
Source= Colorado Vital Statistics
26
9.50490
Prenatal Care- Weld County
YR
live
birth
4
1st trimester
2nd trimester
3rd trimester
Unknown
No Care
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
'87
2143
1425
71.5
456
22.9
107
5.4
151
7.0
4
.2
'88
2120
1452
71.3
443
21.8
135
6.6
84
4.0
6
.3
'89
2164
1362
64.5
540
25.6
184
8.7
24
1.1
54
2.5
'90
202
1357
65.7
506
24.5
175
8.5
26
1.3
138
6.3
'91
253
1473
66.8
504
22.8
172
7.8
57
2.6
47
2.1
Calculation= A trimester is a three month period of time. The "no care"
category includes births with care only at delivery. The % for trimester and "no
care" are based on only those births with care reported. % for unknown is
based on the total number of live births.
Source Colorado Vital Statistics
Births by Mothers Education- Weld County
YEAR
Total # of births
<12 yrs education
>12 yrs
education
1987
2143
27%
73%
1988
2120
27%
73%
1989
2164
30%
70%
1990
2202
30%
70%
1991
2253
31%
69%
Observation: The number of babies being born to mothers with more than 12
years of education is decreasing.
Source Colorado Vital Statistics
27
950490
Leading Causes of Death in Weld County
The following data have the number of incidents followed by the rate at which
they occur.
YEAR
Heart
Disease
Malignant
Neoplasms
Cerebra
vascular
disease
COPD
Total
Accidents
Motor
Vehicle
Accidents
1987
267, 191.1
183, 131.0
70,
50.1
54, 38.6
43, 30.8
25, 17.9
1988
265, 186.4
169, 118.9
42,
29.5
51, 35.9
46, 32.4
29, 20.4
1989
249, 173.6
185, 129.0
41,
28.6
63, 43.9
46, 32.1
30, 20.9
1990
261, 197.1
167, 126.1
43,
32.5
58, 43.8
59, 44.5
39, 29.4
1991
247, 182.4 202, 149.2
47,
34.7
61, 45.1
50, 36.9
29, 21.4
>F
or the years 1989,90,91 the total accident column is titled unintentional
injuries.
> Lung Cancer was listed for 1991. The number was 51 and the rate was 37.7.
> Pneumonia/Influenza and suicide (see next statistic) compete with motor
vehicle accidents for a leading cause of death.
Calculation= Rates are per 100,000 population.
Source= Colorado Vital Statistics
28
9504.90
Suicide Rate for Weld County
YEAR
# of
suicides
Rate of
suicide
1987
24
17.2
1988
23
16.2
1989
14
9.8
1990
20
15.1
1991
26
19.2
> Suicide ranks 7th for leading causes of death in Colorado. Nationally, it ranks
8th.
> 1991= 1 out of 40 deaths in Colorado are suicides. Nationally, it is 1 out of
74 deaths.
> Suicide counts from death certificates may be under reported. When
decedents do not leave sufficient evidence to indicate suicide, these deaths may
be classified as unintentional or as deaths where intent could not be determined.
> For Colorado, the highest suicide rates for both sexes, however, were among
the elderly. Based on 10 suicides, the suicide rate for men aged 85 and older
was 105.3 per 100,000. The highest rate amongst women was recorded for ages
65-74 with a rate of 13.6 per 100,000 based on 15 deaths.
Calculation= Rates are deaths per 100,000 population.
Source= Colorado Vital Statistics
Number of Births Paid by Medicaid- Weld County
1991= 30% for Colorado
1991= 37% for Weld County
Source= Weld County Health Department
29
950490
ENVIRONMENT
Volume of Waste per Household
For Greeley
70 lbs. / home / week
or
7/10 of a yard / home / week
Source= BFI Waste Disposal Services
Volume of Water Consumed per Capita
Greeley average residential water use = 203 gallons per day.
* This number is high in comparison to other Front Range Communities such as
Boulder (185), Arvada (159), Westminster (145) and Thornton (126). In part,
this is due to the agricultural economy in the area. However, high residential
use is also a major contributor.
• As stated in The City of Greeley's Draft Water Conservation Technical
Report, Chapter 3, "... about 60% (of the residential water use) is applied to
exterior uses, while the remaining 40% represents interior use. Average interior
use of 80 gallons per capita -day compares well with national averages, while
exterior use by City residents exceeds national and western state averages." The
number of gallons making up the 60% exterior use = 308.
30
950490
Tree Count
Inventoried area covers all trees on public right-of-way in the area from 85
Bypass west to 23rd Avenue and from Island Grove Park (excluded) south to 34
Bypass.
NUMBER
9813
VALUE
$10,108,437
CONDITION
NUMBER
Good
1490
Fair
3318
Poor
1340
Dead
25
> The. majority of the trees in the inventoried area are included in the poor to
dead categories. This is in part due to the fact that Greeley has no tree crews of
its own. Any tree repair is performed by a contracted tree company. The
Forestry Service plays only a limited role in the health maintenance of Greeley's
trees. Greeley does have an ordinance which makes the health and upkeep of
the trees the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. This does not work
in practice because either residents cannot afford major tree repairs or residents
are not educated enough to recognize the signs of a diseased tree.
> Trees are an appreciating asset which must be cared for to ensure long-term
benefits to the community. Maintaining current practice will only lead to a
depreciation of a very valuable asset.
> There are over 3600 available planting spaces in the parkways along city
streets, this is over 1/3 of the total tree spaces.
> Damage to park trees due to vandalism costs Greeley residents about $5,000
each year.
Source= Brook Lee, Karen Scopel and The Greeley Tree Inventory Report
31
950490
Industrial Air Contaminants Released in Pounds/Year for Weld
Companies listed in the Toxic Release Inventory for Weld County
TITLE
PARENT COMPANY
POUNDS RELEASED
Borden Inc.
Borden Inc
79500
Burris Co. Inc.
Inductotherm Industries
11701
Regal Fiberglass Inc.
NA
14765
Western Sugar Co.
Tate & Lyle
54731
Platte Chemical Co.
Conagra Inc.
35331
Loveland Industries Inc.
Conagra Inc.
755
Longmont Foods Mill
Conagra Inc.
0
Coors Biotech Inc.
Adolph Coors Co.
900
Boulder Scientific Co.
NA
1850
Metal Container Corp.
Anheuser-Busch Co.
373248
Universal Forest Prod.
Universal Companies
750
Kodak
Eastman Kodak Co.
1187022
Golden Aluminum Co.
Adolph Coors Co.
24922
Farr Better Feeds
W.R. Grace & Co.
0
TOTAL FOR ALL COMPANIES IN WELD
1785475
> Further information can be obtained from the TRI user support service.
Phone: 202-260-1531
> The word "Toxic" refers to substances which are considered poisonous.
However, not all toxic substances are listed in the toxic release inventory.
Source= This inventory is for 1991 and is available from Michner Library,
Government Publications. University of Colorado, Boulder has the most current
information.
32
950490
ELDERLY
65 and Older Poverty Rate
1990
Weld County
Greeley
Colorado
Females 65+
13.5%
13.8%
12.4%
Males 65+
7.0%
7.0%
6.0%
Total 65+
11.8%
10.8%
10.4%
> In 1991, the poverty rate for people 65 and older in Weld County was below
the National Average. Weld was 11.8% and the Nation was 12.4%.
> Present and future retirees will be better educated and have more economic
flexibility and be in better health.
> Public assistance income for the population 65 and older is 8.8% for Weld,
8.3% for Colorado, and 9.3% for Greeley.
> The percent of people 65 and older receiving social security income compared
to the total is 8.1% for Weld, 7.9% for Colorado, and 8.5% for Greeley.
Source= Linda Piper, Area Agency on Aging
65 and Older Poverty Status
r1990
Weld County
Greeley
Colorado
White
10.9%
11.1%
9.6%
Hispanic
30.5%.
25.7%
23.6%
Source= Linda Piper, Area Agency on Aging
33
950490
M
Q� a)
76 7
LL ap
)
r
O
�—
C
C0
U
/Ln �
N
co
O
O
0
CD
O
N
c1O 43
p ,
AIU ..o) ma)
-V _ Cr mwC O
G. W.: >.
3
-c c.c.'m
go
o �,.: o
e6ewealed
9
1
N
O
a,
N
9
C,
0)
(7
O
Q7
C,
Ct
r
u
O
CU
E
C)
• Percentages represent an average from all school districts in Weld County
U
C
f4
a
N_
2
w
m
C
O
CU
O)
u�
co
C
N
C
d
V
0
C
O
0
U
m
0 •
2n
t N
C f6
O 3
'70 co
J L)
V =
f`6 N
• 0
w -
n. oo N
3 m
o c
L O
N f6
� 7
C
) ▪ O)
'O G)
O E
C
O
d
0:0L
F
N
.G
— c
m y
.0 7
f0
� N
U
N
O
d
to
w
C
• E
a)• 0
• T
L
L CO
N N
H V
N
O
N O
50
Education Indicator
95049°
O
trz
z
C
Co
O
O
0•
c.
N
0
O
C
O
N
Co
Q
O
U
O
O
N
O
O
sieiioa )o spuesnogl
O
National Average
Distict 6 Average
a)
ca
as m
tQ U
C t
yt
0)
E
> o ai
it N
.c U >
m&m
CO El2
O a L.
.O N U
w CO
N N
ca•-
�_
O
o tt a)
z >
y 03
-O a
cenn a Cw
d a) N_
O"'O
t0
751
CD 0 in
'O .r a)
O
d
t
U U 3
cnn N
ca
« CD
0 0 '•
V a) O
UF- TO
c
tD Z'�
f0 r'
N`°
0
w
ca r N
V w O1
_ a)
N E N
w O c%
N N a)
0 N
U (/J
U
O
d
a)
a)
C
a)
T
Pc m
o t
Oa)
O
'TD -
Education Indicator
950490
NA #2
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
1. The quality of health care available for my family is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup SeniorOtherOther l Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 39 10 3 10 13 27
Good 43 10 10 25 25 25
Satisfactory 19 6 8 9 7 5
Fair 8 3 3 2 6 3
Poor 5 0 0 0 3 0
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
16%
10%
6%
0%
28 2 132 28%
59 4 201 43%
26 2 82 17%
17 0 42 9%
7 0 15 3%
472
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
2. The educational opportunities available to my family are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 27 11 8 18 16 23 28 1 132 28%
Good 56 13 10 23 18 27 61 5 213 45%
3 12 7 26 2 78 17%
Satisfactory 20 4 4 14 0 40 8%
Fair 13 1 1 2 4 5 2%
Poor 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 8
60%
45%
40%
36%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
6%
0%
Good
Excaitam
Satisfactory Fair Poor
471
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
3. Employment opportunities within an acceptable distance of our home ere:
Y
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 10 1 0 3 8 3
Good 37 8 11 14 11 19
Satisfactory 29 13 7 10 15 14
Fair 28 3 4 11 14 19
Poor 14 4 1 4 5 7
32%
30%
28%
26%
24%
22%
20%
16%
16%
14%
12%
10%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
4. Recreational opportunities available for my family are:
5 2 32 7%
37 3 140 30%
37 1 126 27%
31 1 111 24%
15 1 51 11%
460
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 22 2 3 5 7 11
Good 46 11 9 12 18 25
Satisfactory 29 8 5 8 9 15
Fair 8 5 5 13 12 7
Poor 10 3 2 5 8 4
40%
36%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Fr
Poor
16 1 67 14%
51 6 178 38%
33 1 108 23%
22 0 72 15%
11 0 43 9%
468
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
5. Cultural and entertainment opportunities for my family ere:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 25 4 1 5 5 15
Good 36 7 7 5 8 22
Satisfactory 28 9 8 10 15 13
Fair 19 9 5 13 14 6
Poor 8 2 2 11 12 3
22%
30%
21%
26%
24%
22%
20%
16%
16%
14%
12%
10%
a
e
4%
2%
0%
Good Satisfactory Fair
?L Vision Together Survey Results
• October 25, 1994
Excellent
13 3 71 15%
50 3 138 30%
26 2 111 24%
19 0 85 18%
22 0 60 13%
465
6. The transportation choices available in our area are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Cenr ters Other Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Responses
Excellent 6 1 0 1 0 3
Good 31 8 7 6 6 11
Satisfactory 44 11 6 9 10 18
Fair 27 6 7 9 13 23
Poor 11 5 4 21 24 10
2a%
26%
24%
22%
20%
1a%
16%
14%
12%
10%
a%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Fair root
assailant - Good Satisfactory
4 4 19 4%
29 1 99 20%
26 5 129 26%
24 2 111 23%
54 1 130 27%
488
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
7. The quality of roads I travel In Weld county are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper FOCUS Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 4 0 0 0 0 2 13 0 19 4%
Good 36 3 4 8 9 20 37 3 120 25%
Satisfactory 38 5 7 10 16 23 24 3 126 26%
Fair 29 10 7 16 26 13 27 2 130 27%
Poor 11 12 6 11 2 4 35 0 81 17%
476
b%
2a%
26%
24%
22%
20%
1e%
15%
14%
12%
10%
e%'
a%
4%
2%
0%
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
a.wi.m
8. The quality of our local law enforcement is:
Satisfactory Fur Poor
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Total Percentage
Centers Responses
Excellent 14 2 1 0 6 4
Good 46 8 6 16 14 35
Satisfactory 38 10 6 16 18 20
Fair 14 5 8 16
11
Poor 4 5
3 1 3 1 1
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
6%
0%
Eminent Good Satisfactory Fair
Poor
11 1 39 8%
45 4 174 37%
39 2 149 31%
26 1 83 18%
12 0 29 8%
474
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
9. The response of local emergency service providers is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 32 5 5 10 20 15 28 3 118 25%
Good 59 15 9 21 15 35 67 3 224 48%
Satisfactory 14 8 7 10 13 8 25 1 86 18%
Fair 6 0 2 4 4 3 10 1 30 6%
Poor 3 1 1 0 0 0 5 0 10 2%
468
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Excollan
Good
64tutactory
F
Poor
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
10. The water quality is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 26 7 2 1 12 17
Good 54 14 13 3 21 22
Satisfactory 26 5 6 3 14 14
Fair 10 1 3 9 5 8
Poor 3 2 0 30 2 1
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
16%
10%
6%
0%
Excellent
Good 6sottnctory Fair Poor
23 2 90 19%
64 4 195 41%
22 2 92 19%
11 0 47 10%
18 0 56 12%
480
950499
Excellent 11 4 2 2
12
Good 37 122
9 1
Satisfactory 41 9 22 13
Fair Y2 2 8 16 1 15 13
Poor 6 0 1 12 4 5 15
0 5
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
11. The air quality is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Total Percentage
Centers Responses
12 0 45 10%
48 2 166 35%
34 4 140 30%
24 2 86 18%
17 0 33 7%
470
12. Environmental conservation and preservation efforts in our area are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Total Percentage
Centers Responses
Excellent 7 3 0 0 1 1
Good 38 8 3 3 7 0 15 5%
25%
Satisfactory 41 13 9 14 15 17 27 0 1
Fair 22 3 8 15 13 17 5320 19 2 171
21
38%
22 2 102
Poor 9 1 3 12 3 511%
14 2 49 11 %
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Excellent
Good Satisfactory Fir roof
448
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
13. Solid waste disposal services are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 9 2 1 1 1 6 5 1 26 6%
Good 34 9 5 5 20 15 45 0 133 29%
Satisfactory 42 15 13 15 20 25 35 3 168 37%
Fair 20 2 3 13 8 12 27 3 88 19%
Poor 8 1 0 9 3 4 13 0 38 8%
453
40%
36%
30%
26%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0
Excellent Good Setisfmory Fair Poor
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
14. Opportunities to have input into community decisions which affect me/us are:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 6 1 0 1 8 7
Good 36 5 7 18 20 23
Satisfactory 35 12 8 18 16 17
Fair 25 8 5 4 8 9
Poor 10 3 4 3 2 5
35%
30%
26%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Excellent
Goad
6eutaetory
Fr
Poor
2 0 25 5%
30 3 142 31%
41 4 151 33%
27 1 87 19%
24 0 51 11%
456
950490 1
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
15. The response of local government officials to my concerns and needs in my area is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 5 0 2 0
Good 29 8 5 10
Satisfactory 38 7 6 14
Fair 19 5 11 14
Poor 19 8 0 3
35%
30%
25%
20%
16%
10%
6
0%
Excellent
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
4 7 2 0 20
11 15 23 3 104
19 24 36 2 146
15 11 44 3 122
5 5 18 0 58
letlerectory Fir
450
16. The quality of housing available to my family is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 8 2 4 4 5 10 15 3 51 11%
Good 46 13 6 15 20 26 37 4 167 36%
Satisfactory 25 8 6 14 14 16 37 1 121 26%
Fair 18 6 1 7 9 8 22 0 71 15%
Poor 13 1 6 4 6 4 19 0 53 11%
463
40%
35%
30%
26%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Facile=
Good
Sflictory
Fir
Poor
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
17. The preservation of historic sites in this area is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Total Percentage
Centers Responses
Excellent 13 3 1 9 3 5
Good 48 14 8 5 13 19
Satisfactory 31 10 9 13 13 20
Fair 16 0 3 7
13 12
Poor 9 2 2 14
9 q
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
7 2 43 10%
42 2 151 33%
33 3 132 29%
23 0 74 16%
24 0 51 11%
451
18. The level of minority participation in my community is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Total Percentage
Centers Responses
Excellent 5 4 3 5 3 2
Good 25 6 6 12 7 4 2 26 1%
9 25 2 92 31
Satisfactory 39 13 11 13 %
Fair 25 3 1 8 16 1422
35 1 136 30%
Poor 17 3 3 3 15 15 23 3 113 8%
1
23 2 81 18%
32%
30%
28%
2e%
24%
22%
20%
18%
1e%
14%
12%
10%
e%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Eacalent
Satisfactory Fair
448
-950410
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
19. In my neighborhood, the level of interaction, caring, support, etc. is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage "
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 17 5 1 6 12 4
Good 33 7 7 16 21 15
Satisfactory 28 10 10 8 10 21
Fair 23 6 4 11 8 12
Poor 12 2 2 3 2 10
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Eaulant Goad Satisfactory Fair Poor
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
7 2 54 12%
54 6 159 34%
30 0 117 25%
19 0 83 18%
17 0 48 10%
461
20. The number of families who are responsible, nurturing and healthy is:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Excellent 12 2 2 4 3 4
Good 37 12 7 14 20 21
Satisfactory 34 10 9 11 14 17
Fair 24 5 5 9 12 16
Poor 7 1 0 3 1 4
40%
35%
30%
26%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Coed Satisfactory Fair Poor
6aplNnt
8 2 37 8%
51 3 165 37%
38 1 134 30%
23 2 96 21%
4 0 20 4%
452
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
Years survey respondents have lived in Weld County:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
0-5 24 4 2 7 6 14
6-10 15 2 5 5 6 7
11-15 18 3 1 4 8 5
18-20 15 4 1 7 7 9
21.25 11 5 5 4 9 12
28 & over 36 11 10 19 20 16
45%
40%
35%
30%
26%
20%
16%
10%
5%
0
0-5 6.10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26 5 wa
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
15 0 72 15%
7 1 48 10%
11 1 49 10%
12 3 58 12%
7 1 54 11%
83 2 197 41%
478
Age of Survey Respondents:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
0-14 1 0 1 0 0 0
15-19 3 3 3 3 1 0
20-24 3 1 5 1 0 1
25-34 27 5 0 7 5 9
35.44 42 11 4 15 15 26
45-54 23 6 4 6 18 14
55-64 7 2 3 1 10 8
85 & over 12 2 4 12 3 5
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
1%
0%
20-24 35-44
0-1415-19 25.34
0 0 2 0%
0 0 13 3%
1 0 12 3%
1 1 55 12%
4 4 121 26%
3 2 76 16%
9 1 41 9%
115 0 153 32%
473
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
Education level attained:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
Grade school 1 0 1 0 0 0 14 0 16 4%
High school 26 12 14 12 5 0 60 0 129 29%
Some college 24 6 4 14 14 8 34 1 105 24%
College 31 4 2 5 15 21 11 2 91 21%
Post grad 18 4 2 14 19 34 4 5 100 23%
441
32%
30%
25%
2e%
24%
22%
20%
1e%
10%
14%
12%
10%
5%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Grad. school Sane dal.g.
High school
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
Ethnicity of Respondents:
College
Part grad
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
White 83 20 17 38 38 55
Hispanic 14 0 2 3 3 5
Black 1 0 0 0 0 0
Asian 0 0 0 3 0 0
Native Amer. 0 0 0 0 0 1
100%
117%
so%
70%
eo%
50%
40%
30%
30%
10%
0%
wiw.
H4p.dc
slack
Mien
Native Am.r.
118 8 377 92%
1 0 28 7%
O 0 1 0%
O 0 3 1%
O 0 1 0%
409
950490
Vision Together Survey Results
October 25, 1994
Zip code of respondents:
Arts Weld Harvest Trapper Focus Stake Roundup Senior Other Total Percentage
Picnic Fair Festival Days Groups Holders Centers Responses
80504 0 0 0 0 2 0
80514 0 0 0 1 0 0
80516 0 0 0 0 0 0
80520 0 0 0 0 1 0
80530 0 0 0 0 7 0
80534 0 2 0 0 6 0
80543 0 1 0 0 14 0
80550 5 0 13 0 0 2
80601 0 0 0 4 0 0
80610 0 1 0 0 0 2
80611 0 2 0 0 8 0
80614 0 0 0 0 0 0
80615 0 2 1 1 1 3
80620 9 1 0 0 3 1
80621 0 4 1 36 0 2
80623 1 0 0 0 0 0
80624 4 0 0 0 0 0
80631 65 6 5 3 2 29
80634 27 4 2 0 0 19
80643 0 1 0 0 0 0
80644 3 3 0 0 0 0
80645 3 0 1 0 0 2
80648 0 0 0 0 5 0
80650 0 0 0 0 2 -0
80651 0 2 0 0 0 0
80742 0 0 0 0 0 1
80754 0 1 0 0 0 0
32%
30%
28%
26%
24%
22%
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
8%
4%
2%
0%
1 3 1%
19 20 5%
1 1 0%
1 2 0%
4 11 3%
1 9 2%
O 15 3%
21 41 9%
10 14 3%
5 1 9 2%
O 10 2%
1 1 0%
1 9 2%
14 28 6%
2 45 10%
O 1 0%
1 5 1%
13 3 126 29%
5 4 61 14%
O 1 0%
16 22 5%
O 6 1%
1 6 1%
17 19 4%
O 2 0%
O 1 0%
O 1 0%
432
80604 80516 80630 180543 80601 80611 80615 806217 80624 l 50634 80644 80648 180651 80754
50514 80520 80534 80550 80610 80614 80620 80623 80631 80643 80645 60650 80742
950490
NA #3
IV - IDENTIFICATION OF UNMET NEEDS OF THE ELDERLY
The Weld County Area Agency on Aging is responsible for assessing the needs of
older persons in Weld County. In 1993 and 1994 data was collected from the following
assessments:
Key Informant Survey: An Assessment of the Services and the Problems and Needs
of Older Adults.
A key informant survey was conducted with 35 Weld agencies under the direction of
Robbyn R. Wacker, Ph.D. of the University of Northern Colorado Gerontology
Program. Agency key informants were asked to indicate the degree to which they
felt various services or conditions were a problem for older adults in Weld County.
The results indicated that:
• Poverty, transportation, medical care and home health care were the top four
issues that informants rated as a major problem.
• Transportation, accidental injury in the home, crime against older adults,
elder abuse, poverty, mental health issues, and home health care were rated
by over 70% of the informants as a moderate or major problem.
There was a lack of consensus on the seriousness of employment, legal
services, ethnic and racial discrimination, services for Hispanic older adults,
services for frail older adults, and case management.
When asked to indicate how serious they thought a variety of reasons were in acting
as barriers to service use for older adults in their community; the following were
seen as somewhat serious or very serious by a majority of the informants:
Reluctance to ask for help
• Eligibility restrictions
• Cost of services
• Lack of information about services
9
950490
• Lack of transportation to services
• Perception of cost as excessive
• Reluctance to rely on non -family for services
Tri-Town Senior Survey
The Tri-Town Senior Survey was conducted in the summer and fall of 1993 to 168
individuals age 60 and over residing in the towns. of Dacono, Frederick, and
Firestone (known as Tri Town). These communities are located in the southwest
sector of Weld County. This was a random sample telephone survey conducted by
trained volunteers under the supervision of Ms Sue Tungate, MSW. Survey
participants averaged 71 years, almost one-third were widowed.
Major findings:
• The Tri Town Senior Center is a well known resource for this community with
over 90% having heard of the center.
• Almost 2/3 of those who do not drive rely on family members for
transportation. About one in eight people reported they face some sort of
difficulty leaving home; most of these have difficulties with ambulation or use
a wheel chair.
• Overall, survey participants leave Weld County and travel to Longmont for
primary appointments and shopping.
• When asked what kind of help would be most useful to them, the most
frequently given response was help with housekeeping or home maintenance.
• More than 70% of the respondents felt that subsidized senior housing was
needed.
• Though 85% thought Tri Town was a good place to live; more than 1/3 of those
responding expressed a wish to have more people to talk to.
10
950490
1994 Survey of Senior Center Coordinators
The Weld County Senior Aide Coordinators, the principal outreach and service link
to rural Weld communities were surveyed by the Area Agency on Aging with the
assistance of Laurie Buys, Ph. D candidate from the University of Northern Colorado
Department of Human Services. The survey instrument was developed to obtain
basic demographic information on each of the Senior Coordinator programs to
determine training needs of the Senior Coordinators, and to determine service gaps
in rural Weld. The major findings included:
• Community services that rural senior coordinators most often refer to are
transportation, hearing aid testing, and volunteer opportunities.
• The highest interest (82%) for future training on how to recognize and support
volunteers.
• Other training requests (50% or more responding) were for how to work with
difficult people, how to manage time, how to market senior centers, how to
recruit and train volunteers, and how to write small grants for funding.
The most frequently offered services at the rural senior centers (60% or more
responding) were the Senior Nutrition Program (78%), health screening (67%),
tax assistance (67%), nutrition education (72%), transportation (72%),
information and referral (67%), bulletin boards (78%), home delivered meals
(83%), personal follow up on referrals (61%), and volunteer opportunities
(78%).
Focus Groups
In April, 1994 the Area Agency on Aging conducted four focus groups, three in
rural Weld and one in Greeley. Fifteen persons were invited from each community
to respond to ten (10) questions. Each focus group concentrated on a particular
consumer group such as widows, care givers, and men. Focus groups discussed
service needs, knowledge of services available, housing, intergenerational
programs, volunteerism, care giving, and challenges of growing old. Several
concern areas were mentioned consistently and are described as follows:
11
9.50490
• Lack of information and understanding about services for seniors and their
families was consistently mentioned.
• Lack of information about how to access the Weld County Transportation
Program was consistently expressed.
All four focus groups unanimously rejected the idea of "shared housing"
programs as a way for seniors to have companionship and reduce living
expenses.
All focus groups supported the idea of intergenerational programs. With the
exception of the men's group; most felt that the schools should do more to
utilize their talents and make them feel more welcome in the schools. (Merr
expressed fear of the risk and liability of volunteering in schools because of
male sex perpetrators in our society.)
• Many expressed concern and frustration with seniors who isolate themselves
and do not participate in educational and recreational activities available to
them.
• Caregivers expressed a need for affordable respite care and more friendly
visitors.
Work and Family Needs Assessment
A Work and Family Needs Assessment was conducted for a consortium of major Weld
County employers in the fall of 1993 by the Work Options Groups, Inc. of Boulder,
Colorado. North Colorado Medical Center, Flood and Peterson Insurance, Weld
County Government, City of Greeley, Bank One, and The Greeley Medical Clinic.
agreed to participate in an employee survey to determine the extent of caregiver
needs. The questionnaire was distributed to all employees of the participating
employers. There were a total of 1,696 questionnaires received from the combined
businesses resulting in a 49% return. Both child care and eldercare issues were
addressed. The following findings regarding eldercare were published in the final
report to the businesses in October, 1993:
12
950490
• 51% of the respondent population was between the ages of 26-40 years old. 14%
were over the age of 50 years. 55% of the population had a total family income
of less than $40,000 per year.
117 of the total respondent population (185) employees indicated that they
currently have elder care responsibilities. 11% of these caregivers assist their
elders with daily care, 9% arrange for their care, 33% assist in emergencies,
and 31% assist with a variety of other services. The result of the
responsibilities was that 38% felt stress at home, 18% felt stress at work, 23%
actually missed work, and 17% felt a financial strain.
73% of the total respondent population indicated that their elderly dependents
live locally which could have implications for additional stress and missed time
at work as the needs of the dependents increase. 38% of those with elder care
responsibilities indicated that they have had difficulty in locating adult care
services. Approximately 200 full days and about 135 partial days were miccad
from work over the past year, by the combined responding employees, as a
result of their elder care responsibilities.
58% of the respondents indicated that they felt they would have some form- of
elder care responsibility in the future, resulting in nearly 2000 employees in
the total group population dealing with elder care issues by the end of the
century. 33% of the respondents indicated that it would happen within 2
years, and another 29% reporting that it would most likely occur within 3 - 5
years. 38% thought it would happen in 5 or more years.
Approximately 30% of the respondents indicated that their work schedules
caused problems with their ability to "balance work and family" due to their
work rotation schedule, working overtime, and working weekends. 69% of the
respondents indicated that they were usually given less than 24 hours notice
when expected to work overtime.
Senior Nutrition Program Survey
In 1992 a 40 question survey written under the direction of Dr. Robbyn Wacker of
the LING Gerontology Program was sent to a random sample of 250 senior nutrition
participants. The purpose of the survey was to determine the level of satisfaction
13
950490
with this program and to determine the impact of the program on the lives of the
participants. From the 2.50 surveys, 137 were returned representing a 65% response
rate. Every nutrition site was represented in the survey except one.
Some of the important findings from the survey are summarized below:
• Health problems and lack of money were most often cited as reasons for not
getting out of the house more
• Almost all of the respondents were either satisfied or very satisfied with the
meal program overall (90%).
Seventy-five percent indicated that they have changed their health habits (fat
and salt) and 17% indicated that the information provided at the nutrition
program helped influence this change.
• Attending the meal program is seen as an important social activity for the
participants (95%) and 75% indicated that the meal program was an important
part of their diet.
• The majority of the respondents disagreed when it was suggested that the
donation amount was too high.
Information and Referral
Weld Information and Referral (WIRS) maintains a data base on all referrals that come
into the agency during the course of a year. According to WIRS , 5 ,588 unduplicated
I & R contacts were received in 1993. Of these contacts 531 or 9.5% were contacts
from individuals 55 years of age and older (no age was given for 72 persons). Food,
housing, assistance with prescription drugs, ramps, and eye and dental care needs
were the predominate requests from the 55 plus calls. Food assistance was the most
frequent request.
14
950490
Waiting Lists for Public Housing
Waiting lists for senior public housing remain high. A September, 1994 telephone
survey of senior housing managers confirms that seniors may expect to wait two to
three years for apartments depending on priorities.
Adult Protection Referrals
The Weld County Department of Social Services keeps data on adult protection cases
and referrals on a monthly basis. Monthly case load averages have increased from
17 cases per month in 1992, 20 cases per month in 1993, and 28 cases per month in
1994. Referrals (not necessarily cases opened) numbered 76 in 1992 and 117 in 1993.
Single Entry Point Analysis of Service Gaps
The Single Entry Point advisory committee, a committee of the Weld County Area
Agency on Aging Advisory Board addressed resource gaps as reported by the case
management staff. While not a scientific assessment of needs, the case managers are
working with 250 clients on a monthly basis. The activities of care plan development
for these essentially home bound clients presents many opportunities to evaluate the
adequacy of resources needed to provide community based care. The following was
determined by this committee to be some of the most significant resource gaps for
case managers:
• limited transportation options for clients who live in rural Weld and for all
clients needing evening service
• limited number of home health agencies that will provide unskilled care to
HCBS clients
• limited adult protection services
• limited number of volunteers willing to assist clients with financial management
and social interaction
• limited number of people who are interested in providing 24 hour live in help
for frail elderly and the young disabled
15
950490
• limited housing options for low income elderly and the young disabled
• limited affordable respite services
• limited access to dental and vision services for low income clients
• limited services for head injured adults
• limited adult foster care homes and alternative care facilities
Summary
Results of the assessments provided few surprises. Overall, respondents confirmed
previously known information. Access to information, transportation, affordable
home health care, lack of third party reimbursement for eye and dental care,
housing and supportive housing options, and elder care are issues for Weld elderly
and their families. For Weld County, except for transportation, these are not
service gaps as much as they are access and affordability issues.
The results of the needs assessments helped establish the community initiatives and
specific actions that will be taken during the next Four Year Plan period. Area
Agency Board members, rural Senior Aide Coordinators, Single Entry Point
committee members, Senior Nutrition/Senior Center committee members, and
participants in public hearings discussed and prioritized the initiatives. This input
will direct time and resources where the most can be achieved in the next four years.
V - PUBLIC INPUT
Two public meetings were held for citizen input on the Weld County Four Year Plan.
Windsor Community Center, Windsor Colorado, November 2, 1994
Twenty - six persons were in attendance. Participants were presented with an
overview of the Weld County Area Agency on Aging and the Four Year Planning
Process. Sections of the plan summarizing the Area Agency's Initiatives for the next
four years and the programs recommended for funding in FY 1995 were made
available to all participants.
16
950499
NA =1
WELD COUNTY
TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN
RAE CONSULTANTS
The Transit Expert
TDA Colorado
9SO490
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 1
II. Study Area Profile 4
III. Weld County Transportation Services 27
W. Demand Analysis and Needs Estimate 49
V. Evaluation of Weld County Transit Services 64
VI. Analysis of Transit Services 66
VII. Operations, Management and Financial Plan 86
APPENDICES
1. Weld County TDP Advisory Committee
2. Transit Demand Analysis
3. Public Meeting Summaries
4. Regional Transit Service
950490
IV. DEMAND ANALYSIS AND NEEDS ESTIMATE
i
Thi'i ,!presents an assessment of public transit and specialized transportation
needs in Greeley and Weld County. Three sections are included in the assessment, a quantitative
transit demand analysis, a qualitative or perceptual assessment, and a summary section which
presents an overall evaluation of unmet transit needs.
Ouantitative Transit Demand Analysis
Transit demand estimation is an analytical procedure for estimating the potential number of
general transit and specialized transportation riders an area may anticipate, given a high level of
transit service. Although a variety of models are available to estimate transit demand, none
provides the level of detail needed to answer specific questions with respect to market segment,
service type, area coverage, trip purpose and days and hours of service. The models do,
however, provide an order -of -magnitude estimate of the potential service demand compared to
existing service levels.
Demand estimates were developed for the Greeley Urbanized Area and for the Non -Urbanized
Area of Weld County. They are aggregated to produce a total county demand estimate. As
stated in a previous chapter, federal transit funding is allocated based on Urbanized Area
population. The Urbanized Area transit demand estimate was prepared using comparative data
from other similar sized western communities. Demand estimates were developed for both fixed
route and paratransit service, as well as a total demand estimate. The specific methodology
utilized is presented in Appendix 2.
For the Non -Urbanized Area of the county the transit demand estimate was developed using four
separate models. These apply multiple regression modeling methods based on transit ridership
factors experienced in small urban and rural areas elsewhere in the United States. Detailed
information on the models used and the results generated is presented in Appendix 2.
Table 18 presents the results of the transit demand analysis for 1993. The estimated demand for
the Greeley Urbanized Area was computed using 1993 population estimates and trips per capita
estimates based on transit ridership levels in other similar sized western communities for both
fixed route and paratransit services. The Urbanized Area demand estimate for fixed route service
in 1993 is 587,716 one-way passenger trips per year. The demand estimate for paratransit trips
is 55,314 trips per year. The combined transit demand estimate for the Urbanized Area for 1993
is 643,030 annual trips. This equates to roughly 2,500 trips per day for a 260 day service year.
For the Non -Urbanized Area the annual demand estimate is 124,895. Of this amount
approximately 30,300 annual trips are estimated for Fort Lupton, 24,200 for Windsor and 70,400
for other rural areas of the county. A more detailed analysis of demand in the county, based on
fare levels, will be completed in the near future. The total Weld County transit demand estimate
49
950490
is 767,925 annual trips, including both the Urbanized and Non -Urbanized Areas.
TABLE 14
Transit Demand Estimates for Greeley and Weld County
(One -Way Passenger Trips Per Year)
Area
Urbanized :area
Fixed Roue
Paratransi
Subtotal
Nonurbanized Area
Fort Lepton
` I ,dsor
Other Rural
Subtotal
Total:
1993 Estimated
Population Demand (1)
Estimate (Trips, Capital
69,143 8.5
69,143 D.S
69,143 9.3
5,467
-.3''4
60,022
70,314
139,957
7
4.5
1.3
1993
Demand
Estimate
587.716
55314
b43;030
30,301
1418-8
70A06
124.895
767.92
1) Fixed 'route .(�.{ ra 1 ps e c oiba. ti �:aLe for , :Urbanized Area b' ec
on data from ElA 1992 Section 15 reports. Estimates for the Non -Urbanized Area
L.. n -sir demand ma,_ mode' Trips per capita rates
rJabased';,�iilas from _ L
ro.!. c.C. here to the nearest tenth, but the fall calculated rate O..as used
c"alc_aate demand est•ima:es.
The transit demand ':cis indicates that elderly and disabled individuals account for
approximately 9.1 of the transit demand in the Urbanized Acea county and for ro e
cthly
4331 in the Acr.-Urbanize:. Area. Over" for the county, the elderly and disabled are estimated
o matte up of the demand.
acsof the Gree'i.e: Urbanized with partici/let-0y high transit demand based on
socioeconomic characteristics are sitcs.nn ) cure 5. The multiple regression models discussed
previously were applied to the Weld County census tracts to estimate transit demand by census
tract. s Errur_ h s, C Tracts 1.00, 4.01, 5 00. 6.00. 7.01, 8.00 and 10.00 have
re.-, '. The Tracts with the highest projected demand based on socioeconomic
n .n � .�
characteristic of esidents were Tracts 1.00, 6.00, 7.01 and 3.00; all of these border 5th
Avenue on the e, e of Gressel:
50
Census Tracts in the Non -Urbanized Area of the County with a high relative demand are shown
in Figure 6. The highest demand are in Tracts 7.02, 19.01, 23.00, 24.00, 25.01 and 25.02. The
Tracts with the highest projected demand per capita are 7.02, 23.00 and 25.01. Table 5 in
Appendix 2 lists the Census Tracts categorized by Urbanized and Non -Urbanized areas of Weld
County. Table 6 in Appendix 2 shows the total demand calculated by census tract, and the
resulting per capita demand derived from these models.
51
95O49
N
Co
9504?'
Weld County
FT. COLLINS
0
dnsv ,le
_ad
Longmont O
ECUUCER
0
�J
Figure 6
Cv
--' GRtCLEY
e,-
County Census Tracts with
=lain Transit Demand
Eu cxing Gam
h
Lone..^am..
(Th
\1
FT. MCRCA'
1 !
Table 19 shows how the existing transit service levels compare to the estimated demand. The
fixed route service operated by the City of Greeley provided ?00,363 one way passenger trips
in 199; according to City records. The Elderly and Disabled (E&D) oaratransit service provided
26,512 trips, for a combined total of 426,.330 tips. Based on this analysis the fixed route service
met approximately 63% of the demand :n 1993 while the paratransit service met roughly .3�c
of the demand. Overall the City operated ser: ice was meeting 66% of the demand, based on this
analysis.
TABLE 19
Estimates of Unmet Transit Need
(One -Way Passenger Trips Per Year)
Urbanized Area
FLled Route
Subtotal
1993
Demand
Estimate
socb
.U'I:
•
Nonurbanized Area
Total
767.92-:
e r ices
_e..Ic S ._:r t! N ...-L:
c}:cludC “institutionalized
1993
E fisting Service
Estimate (1)
Number Percent
400.35 68%
6 8
.:�. 66%
63.752 _ %'e
49._
2;2.293
1993
Estimate of
Unmet Need
Number Percent
216.:0 3
'-J to
d :tot hosed on. THE Bus service data. Foisting
Anita are from \lini-&:s service renoris and
In the Non -Urbanized Area of the co::
6; x:00 transit trips per year. These
pro Bus service in _
de:r.ar
refurS p
S
L s os'thosC more ed L.
traxsu versus
the Mini Bus service is providi;io _ppr^_Stm at ly
oral iss represent 35 of otal trips
The r .. = 6_ are assurued to be .5.1tu;tonal
'general trap_.. _s used here,
antic_'. eau :n e
;tar: or sheltered ac:i':aies.
_ lora! se tin? The s_ ,runs used
vided in Table 20.
TABLE 20
Mini Bus Ridership b7 Sen'ice Cate_or\
Program
Mini Bus
Nutrition
Job Sr vice
Sun -niter Youth
City Contract'.
CESI
Cargo
D�
Head. Start
Overhead
M t HS
Sunp.Food
Jim„ Start
Meal De'.iver:
6,719
74,053
8,539
61.696
1,477
17,623
29
1
Total 199.1.67
1993 'General Transit" ""Institutional'
Total Trips (1) Tr"ps (1)
Ridership Percent Number Percent V -umber
5.045'
7,382
100O
100%
60 100%
100%
5OC
0%.
,r
1C'
Percentage estimates by RAE Consultants, Inc.
8.0-t_
7,382
60
6,2'9
37,029
0
6.170
0r 0
0r 0
0 0
0 0
0C. O
..50% 37,029
100c- 8,539
90e- 55.526
100` 1,477
90 7,2, 15,861
100Y.-
90'2,1 11,954
100: 0
63.752 65-_ 130,41_.
h input from County staff.
Based on .. . Ai_.._ Bus was tee::.
Urbanized area.Virtually all of these :bps
persons who are elderlya:d cr disabled. On .
Overall public and specialized transit c_eratcrs
demanc A'"eid County in 1993. aecordin_ to this
Demand projections :or ._._re years are pbesehted ..
demand Cretie_ and Veld. Co
6! 1 ,ii' _ :ter e Urbanized:
,D`: the _ based on projected pc
countydemand is expected .._ increase
1•37,50u an Me ?0(4n
_ cf the transit de-=_ ._ .n the Yon -
to address the se: -..-1:e demand 'M.
', e:e atatral pu'b:ic tr nsit tr:fps.
n'.etthd> 6_-c. of the e... _tea transit
:As the 'able shows. the estimated
from the 19')_ of over
in 1596 and to 0'.•,j7 6.000 trios
the `in-(-:MArta ofthe
yh'IJ in 1993 to 130,500 _996 anti to
TABLE 21 y: r
Transit Demand Estimates for GreelCounty
(One -Way Passenger Trips Per Year)
z-banixed Area
.. rars Demand
Nonureani Area
Fort <?»?
Pon..aation
Trar:s:c Demand
'Windsor ? y
22 ora« «: <
m c
< s
,:
d mule an.d
\ s \ :,
UwnHd
Trip nu.d. assur.-wd he 2.1y cc
SOURCE: RAE Consultants. Eric.
124.395.
139957
»9a
cafes
1r
It must � that the paG3x » :
g'«transit ri(fefsitipyxa«:
not w:»c x am sane y:s6:: «
as in travel moac from m%:ocy«:
transit :Oder -ship 2: be »22: «: new.
9: 6.
Qualitative Needs Estimates
This section presents an assessment of public and specialized transportation needs based on the
perception of a broad variety of interest groups and the public at large. Included is summary
information from several sources: individual interviews with the Greeley City Council persons
and other community leaders, an on -board riders survey of The Bus, senior citizen surveys and
public meetings. Each of these is summarized below.
City Council and Business Leader Interviews
Generally members of the Greeley City Council were very supportive of the City's transit system.
Their concerns related primarily to the need to obtain more riders and to make the service as cost
effective as possible. They also indicated that they received many comments from the public
regarding "empty buses" on the streets. In terms of need, there was support for a continuation
of the current focus on Greeley residents without transportation alternatives. Additional potential
needs expressed included: evening and weekend service, more to UNC riders, the need to
reassess routes as growth occurs, integration of public transit with school bus service, service to
interconnect the tri-city area, service to residents working outside the county as well as more
service for commuters within Greeley.
Business leaders also expressed support for the service and felt that it needs to carry more riders.
Interest was expressed in expanding City service to new development areas, including "O" Street
and 11th Avenue, growth near the Greeley Mall, and the developing area near EFTC on the east
side of town. One person was particularly interested in developing intercity service between
Greeley, Fort Collins and Loveland as well as service to the Denver metro area. It was not
assumed, however, that service outside of the City/County would be provided by The Bus.
Private sector options were suggested.
University of Northern Colorado
Based on an interview with staff and student representatives at UNC, the following input was
received:
• The main campus is facing serious parking problems as the new stadium and other
smaller projects will be consuming large areas of surface parking.
• A long range parking plan is being developed. Consideration is being given to
limiting parking to specific lots. This would discourage the current practice of
driving short distances between campus parking lots.
• Gunter Hall is being renovated to an academic building which will serve 2,000
students.
57
950490
• A number of off -campus locations are being considered for upperclass and
graduate student housing as there is a severe shortage and real estate values are
high near the main campus. Because of the worsening campus parking situation
UNC will need good shuttle connections from the growing off -campus housing
concentrations.
• Over 500 families are on the list for affordable housing. Single family and
graduate student housing shortages are the most pronounced.
• Public transit is not well marketed to students.
• The University of Arkansas' Razorback Transit system is an example of a good
system for connecting housing and on -campus attractions.
• Student Government (Kami) would be willing to conduct student surveys to learn
more about unmet transit needs if we could provide the questionnaire.
• The University is prohibited from using tax dollars to build or maintain parking
lots.
AIMS Community College
AIMS has three campuses (Greeley, Fort Lupton, Loveland) and approximately 20,000 students.
Of these roughly 70% are part-time students and 30% are full time. There are approximately
4,000 full -time -equivalent students. About half the students are more traditional college students
and half are from the working world. Approximately 80% of the enrollment is at the Greeley
campus, 10% at Fort Lupton and 10% at Loveland. There are no residential facilities at any of
the campuses. Roughly 80% of enrollment at each campus is in the local community with the
remaining 20% dispersed from the outlying areas. There is little inter -campus travel.
Enrollment is growing at about the same rate as the overall rate of growth in Weld County,
around 2% per year. There is significant growth potential at the Fort Lupton campus, which is
tied more closely to the Denver metro area. It is difficult to determine how much and how fast
growth will be. AIMS is assessing growth every two years for planning purposes.
The 25-55 age group makes up a large percentage of the enrollment. The 55+ group is also
large. The average student age is around 30. AIMS is trying to increase the 18-22 age group
enrollment as they are more likely to be full time students, paying full tuition.
There were no complaints regarding the bus system. Students use it quite a bit and it is an
important service.
58
950490
Public Meetings
Two public meetings were held in August and September 1994 to obtain input regarding
perceived needs for additional transit service. One meeting was held in Greeley and another
meeting was held in Dacono. A brief summary of the input obtained from these meetings is
presented below. More detailed summaries are presented in Appendix Ti. An additional public
meeting was held in Greeley on November 1, 1994 to obtain input regarding proposed service
changes. Input from the November public meeting is summarized in Chapter VI Analysis of
Transit Alternatives.
City of Greeley Public Meeting
Major points from the public meeting in Greeley, held August 23, 1994, are presented
below:
-More opportunities are needed for transfers between routes on the City system
-More frequent service is needed
-Route changes are needed to better connect activity centers - a modified grid
system should be examined
-Major employers should be involved in the development of the transit system
-There is a need for transit service to and from other communities in the region
-An increase in operating hours and service on Sunday ins needed
-Better marketing and a change in public attitudes regarding the benefits of transit
is needed
-More paratransit service is needed
-A variety of funding options are needed. Riders should help pay for service
increases but they should be expected to pay all
-Bus passes should be made more easily recognizable by drivers
Dacono Public Meeting
Major points from the public meeting held in Dacono September 22, 1994, are presented
below:
-There is a need for additional transit service from small communities in the
county to larger cities for medical, shopping and personal business trips
-Riders should pay for transit service, especially for expanded service
-A round trip fare of $2.50 would be reasonable between Dacono and Longmont
for example.
-Additional wheelchair accessible service is needed. There are individuals in
small communities who don't participate in Mini Bus services because they can't
count on a wheelchair accessible vehicle always being available.
-There is a need for easier access to vehicles by persons who don't require a
wheelchair but can't negotiate the high entry step onto vehicles
59
950490
Senior Citizen Surveys
Several senior citizen surveys were conducted in 1994. Virtually all of these indicated that
transportation is a significant issue to this segment of the population.
An Assessment of the Services and the Problems and Needs of Older Adults - for the Weld
County Area Ageenncy on A ,g. April, 1994.
• Poverty, transportation, medical care and home health care were the top four
issues that respondents rated as a major problem.
• Over 70% of the respondents rated the following as either a moderate or major
problem:
Transportation
Accidental injury in the home
Crime against older adults
Elder abuse
Poverty
Mental health issues
Home health care
• Those issues seen as either somewhat serious or very serious by the majority of
respondents were:
Reluctance to ask for help
Eligibility restrictions
Cost of services
Lack of information about services
Lack of transportation to services
Perception of cost as excessive
Reluctance to rely on non -family for services
• Transportation Services
- Unmet need: No service on Sunday's and evenings
• RSVP/Senior Companion
- Unmet need: Transportation for clients,
• Respite Care/Home Care
- Unmet needs: Transportation, cost too high
60
950499
Tri-Town Senior Survey - fall, 1993
• Transportation - Most responding drive their own car (75% of women, 88% of
men, 80% overall).
Almost 2/3 of those who do not drive rely on family members (spouse, children,
etc.). About one in ten of these rely on the Mini Bus for Senior Citizens,
although more than a quarter had used the Mini Bus. People who had used the
Mini Bus were mostly very satisfied with the service. Friends and neighbors are
also relied upon for transportation.
About one in eight people reported they face some sort of difficulty leaving home
(about 1/2 of those who report they do not drive). Most of these difficulties
involve problems with ambulation or using a wheel chair.
Implications
• Although most older adults drive their own cars, a significant number do not
(more women than men).
• A significant number of older adults face difficulties leaving home.
• If family members are unavailable to provide transportation, for those who do not
drive, transportation could be a challenge.
• The Mini Bus for Senior Citizens may be an under-utilized resource for those who
do not drive.
Recommendations
• Explore setting up a carpooling network.
• Look for ways to better utilize the Mini Bus on the days it serves this community.
• Explore accessibility issues in the community.
1994 Survey of Senior Center Coordinators
• The community services that coordinators most frequently referred their members
for were: transportation; hearing aid testing; and public or volunteer programs.
In order to reach seniors in the community who were isolated, frail, or home
bound, that might be in need of services, most coordinators reported that they
made phone contacts.
61
950490
• What service do you feel is most needed in your community for seniors?
*Meal site program
*Transportation
*Senior housing
*Exercise
*Accessible bus
*Odd jobs
*Peer counseling
(BOLD means
Adult Clinic
*Intergenerational programs
*Education
*Crafts
*Snow removal
*Meals on Wheels
*Blood pressure clinic
answers given repeatedly)
Focus Groups Summary - Area Agency on Aging, 1994
• Eaton Focus Group, April 6, 1994
- One younger senior strongly favored a regularly scheduled public transportation
system for all ages on a daily basis.
- This group unanimously agreed that transportation is a big problem for seniors.
Pointed out that there is a 12ig information gap about the Mini Bus, most just don't
know how to get the service. Also, said they believe many have reservations
about riding a "Weld County" bus - think it is welfare. Believed seniors would
pay a nominal fee for this service.
• Fort Lupton Focus Group, April 7, 1994
- See need for wheelchair vans because the van through the Fort Lupton Housing
Authority is not wheelchair accessible. Most seniors are not aware of where to
call for transportation. Believe that family is called on most of the time to
provide transportation, but would like not to impose on families too much.
- Services most needed:
Support group for caregivers
Respite care
Transportation for wheelchair bound
Congregate meal program
• Greeley Focus Group, April 8, 1994
- See this as a problem for the disabled. Some expressed concern that there are
home bound seniors who would like to go to church. Some feel that community
volunteers could be more helpful here, but had concerns about insurance.
- Apparently some churches assist with this, but others don't. Most seemed to be
content with the service already in place. Others feel many people are too proud
to ask for help. Were complimentary of the Greeley door to door service, had
friends who have used it.
62
950490
• Evans Focus Group, April 11, 1994
- Nearly all the men use their own private transportation and very few had any
idea of how to get in touch with public transportation or even what was available.
It was unclear whether the Mini Bus for wheelchair transport was available for
Evans. One gentleman pointed out that he had come from a town of 1,200
people, fifty miles from Topeka, KS. These folks on their own had provided two
vans to get people from the small community into Topeka for doctor services.
There was a general consensus that if transportation was provided to smaller
communities than it should be done for the whole county or don't do it at all.
Overall Assessment of Unmet Need
Based on the analysis conducted in this chapter it appears there are significant unmet transit
needs in Greeley and Weld County.
• The quantitative analysis estimates that existing transit services operated by the
City meet approximately 65% of the demand. Interviews with community leaders,
including the Greeley City Council, indicated the following potential needs:
- Expanded evening and weekend service
- Expanded use by UNC students
- Potential commuter trips both within Greeley and to other intra-regional and
inter -regional destinations
- Transit connections among Greeley, Fort Collins & Loveland and to the Denver
metro area.
• The quantitative demand analysis for the County indicated a relatively high unmet
need. Existing services were projected to be meeting roughly 55% of the
estimated demand. Given the demographics of the area, this may include a
significant demand by general public, as well as elderly and disabled, riders. The
unmet demand likely includes additional trips by seniors and others for recreation,
personal business and nutrition; commuter trips to Greeley and to other intra-
regional locations and to the Denver metro area or other specialized medical
facilities. The demands will be fine tuned in August, based on an analysis of
estimated ridership by fare level.
• It is also important to note that the recently completed North Front Range
Regional Transportation Plan identifies a goal of realizing a 10% shift in travel
mode from single occupant vehicles to a combination of increased carpooling,
greater transit use, bicycling and walking. To achieve this goal, a dramatic
increase in transit ridership must occur. Expanded service for work trips and
additional UNC riders may offer the best potential.
63
950490
Public Notice
PUBLIC NOTICE
The Weld County Division of
Human Services plans to submit a
Community Services Block Grant
(CSBG) application to the State of
Colorado. Department of Local
Affairs. CSBG funds are Intended
to fill gaps In services that impact
the low income population of Weld
County. Al this time, it is estimated
that $154,322 will be available for
1995 Weld County projects.
The application being considered
focuses on transportation for the
low income rural elderly and devel-
opmentally dlsabled.
A.public hearing will be held at 9:00
AM on Wednesday, 3/15/95 at
Weld County Commissioners
Public Meeting Room at 915 10th
Street, Greeley Colorado to obtain
citizen input and questions.
The Greeley Daily Tribune
Mardi 12, 1995
950490
WELD COUNTY DIVISION OF HUMAN SERVICES
HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
FEBRUARY 1995
MEMBER
ADDRESS
PHONE 1/
Bolander, Gladys
League of Women Voters
B. J. Dean, Director
ISLAND GROVE Regional Treatment
Center, Incorporated
Gartrell, Ruth
South County
George E Baxter
County Commissioner
Bennett, Don
Senior Representative
Maria Raseberry
FENWC Parent Policy Council
Melanie George -Hernandez
WIRS
Patricia Whitcomb
CDSI
Shana Oster
FENWC Parent Policy Council
Kris Nickels
FENWC Parent Policy Council
P. 0. Box 465
Greeley, CO 80632
1140 M Street
P.O. Box 5100
Greeley, CO 80632
352-6890
356-6664
20099 Southgate Avenue 737-2942
LaSalle, CO 80645 10 to 2 at 351-7582
Centennial Building, 3rd floor 356-4000
Greeley, CO 80632 x 4200
3018 11th Avenue
Evans, CO 80620
2715 1/2 6th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
P. 0. Box 2404
Greeley, CO 80632
3819 St. Vrian
Evans, CO 80620
2148 W 30th St. #1024
Greeley, CO 80631
1210 28th Avenue, #2C
Greeley, CO 80631
353-0008
356-1899
352-9477
339-5360
356-0304
353-8628
950490
lilie
COLORADO
mEmORAnDUm
To
From
Dale K. Hall, Chair
r, -,Ty
fl -
Board of County Commissioners Date ^/15/45
r.1
CLEU,
Walter J. Speckman, Executive Director, Human,Serveos",
2: 27
Approval of Community Services Block Grant
Subject:
Enclosed for Board approval is the Community Services Block Grant for Program
Year 95 to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs from Weld County Division of
Human Services.
The total of the request is for $154,322.
The focus of the grant is linkage of services and access to transportation for
the in -need rural elderly of Weld County.
The funding will allow for staff time to set up, coordinate and train the Senior
Aide volunteer pools in rural Senior sites. The grant also funds the operating
costs of Senior Minibus transportation for the rural elderly from the rural
senior sites. It also subcontracts Weldco's Senior volunteer pool to transport
seniors in volunteer vehicles for one-time needs that Minibus cannot address, and
reimburses the volunteer at $.25/mile.
The term of this request will be March 15, 1995 to March 14, 1996.
If you have any questions, please contact Marilyn Carlino, Fiscal Officer, at
extension 3350.
950490
tgooto.3-'
Hello