My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG 2001 03 26
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
2001
>
AG 2001 03 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/25/2002 4:51:10 PM
Creation date
11/27/2017 11:45:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/26/2001
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
262
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
served by local MH/DD/SA programs, what benefits they are <br /> entitled to receive, how much this will cost, and who will pay; this <br /> has not been done. Therefore the level of county participation in <br /> cost both now and in the future is utterly undetermined All that <br /> has been determined is that under I-LB. 381, counties "SHALL" <br /> appropriate funds for MH/DD/$A. <br />b) In H.B. 381, Section 1. I. -122C-2 (1), (2), (3), (4) mandates <br /> counties to participate in funding what are known as "core <br /> services" (see section 1.2. (a) (2)- H.B. 381). The level of county <br /> participation is undefined now and can be redefined in the <br /> future. <br />c) It is well known that discussion exists within the Legislative <br /> Oversight Committee to the effect that, "ideally", counties should <br /> become responsible for "core services" while the state should be <br /> responsible for "targeted services" (see section 1.2. (a) (10) - <br /> 380. <br />d) Our calculations show that the existing cost for ."core services" at <br /> Piedmont is 108% greater than the total contributions of atl 4 <br /> counties. <br /> · Included in "core services" is Emergency Services, one of <br /> the most expensive, labor intensive, high risk programs. <br /> <br />COMPLEXITY & THEREFORE COST <br /> <br />Besides the mandate for counties to fund local MI4JDD/SA services and to take <br />on all risks, responsibilkies, and liabilities, the state is requiring counties to <br />submit a 22-part business plan (122C-89) for how it will achieve an Interlocal <br />agreement, re-implement the service system that this shift unnecessarily <br />dismantles, and achieve cost savings that must be reinvested into new or <br />expanded services. <br /> <br />1. Among the unknowns and further complexities for this proposed shiI5 are: <br /> <br /> a) Selection ora "lead county"among (our 4) counties. <br /> b) Apportion cost. <br /> 0 Apportion liability. <br /> d) Absorb into (expand) county government nearly 550 new <br /> employees. <br /> e) Dovetail financial and information system functions of MH/DD/SA <br /> into county government. <br />99 Please refer to the attachments entitled "Key Points, H..B. 381" & <br /> "Interlocal Cooperation and City-County Consolidation". <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.