Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

County staff outline behavioral‑health performance contract; board seeks clearer timing and reports

Essex County Board of Supervisors · November 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Middle Peninsula–Northern Neck Behavioral Health staff briefed the board on a biannual FY26–27 performance contract with DBHDS, saying Essex’s local match is 7.4% (cap up to 10%) and the board requested finalized financials, year‑end reports and clearer timing after contracts took effect July 1.

Amanda, representing the Middle Peninsula–Northern Neck Behavioral Health authority, presented the biannual performance contract required by the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for fiscal years 2026–27.

Amanda described the contract as a program and finance agreement that explains services and local allocations; she said Essex County’s portion of the local match is 7.4% and that the board of directors voted to request a 3.5% increase for FY27 to account for new state/federal funds (including Marcus Alert and permanent supportive housing). She stated the local match does not exceed a 10% cap and that when state or federal funds increase the local match obligation rises accordingly.

Supervisors raised procedural concerns about timing: the contract term began July 1 but county review materials arrived late. Amanda said there are delays at the state department, that the packet the board saw was preliminary, and that her finance director (Ken Hickman) would provide finalized spreadsheets and end‑of‑year reporting once available. She agreed to pass questions and concerns back to the Department of Behavioral Health and provide the requested documentation.

Board members also asked about fiscal mechanics (Medicaid billing reliance, supplanting rules and the need for in‑kind matches when the local percentage is below the designated match rate). Amanda confirmed the authority relies heavily on insurance and explained that supplanting restrictions require careful accounting; she said there is no county liability for CSB activities beyond the contractual local match and that the agency maintains insurance.

What’s next: Amanda said she will deliver finalized financial numbers and the performance dashboard when available and will raise the board’s timing concerns with the department.

Provenance: presentation and Q&A (SEG 1131–SEG 1410).