Laserfiche WebLink
FACTS <br /> & <br />STEPS TO TAKE <br /> <br />The Legislative Oversight Committee (LOC) which has introduced H.B. 381 believes that <br />some number of Area Programs are too small (under 200,00 general population) & that some <br />number are too unaccountable <br /> <br />As a consequence they have written a bill which will force a//single counties & small area <br />programs to consolidate to a minimum size of 200,000 & which will shift a//Area Program <br />governance (& cost & liability) to counties <br /> <br />The LOC claims to believe that counties welcome this change~ It is widely believed that the <br />NCACC, which has come out officially as endorsing this bill, has been very narrowly <br />influenced by a small number of counties that are very unhappy with their Area Programs <br /> <br />Through the Council on Community Programs we are aware that a large number of <br />counties (between 50 & 60) - now that they have seen the bill - are staunchly opposed to it <br />because they are both largely satisfied with their Area Programs and because they are <br />unwilling to accept the cost and liability shift mandated by ILB. 381. <br /> <br />These counties are mobilizing to develop county resolutions opposing H.B. 381 as it is <br />written. Resolutions are being sent to all members of the respective counties' state delegates <br />as well as to key leaders in the legislatur~ As well, county commissioners are writing, <br />calling, and meeting with legislators to register opposition. <br /> <br />These same counties are contacting NCACC to register their opposition to H.B. 381 <br /> <br />We believe counties and individuals who oppose H.B. 381 should write resolutions & <br />letters that make the following points: <br /> <br />1. Express opposition to H..B. 381 as it is written in relationship to shiffing governance to <br /> counties (there are parts of the bill that make sense, ~g., the requirement for the state to <br /> develop a comprehensive state plan) <br />2. Express support for Piedmont Area Program <br /> a. That we are valued by your county and the general community <br /> b. That we are cooperative and accountable <br /> c. That we provide high quality services <br />3. That 381 must include the option for counties to retain their Area Programs as currently <br /> constitnted Public Authorities under 122C <br /> <br />IT IS CRUCIAL'FOR YOU TO ACT VIGOUROUSLY TO COUNTER <br />THE PERCEPTION IN THE LEGISLATURE THAT COUNTIES <br />SUPPORT 381 & ITS IMPLICATIONS <br /> <br /> <br />