Regular-General Government # 33.
Board of Supervisors
County Administrator
- Meeting Date:
- 04/29/2025
- Brief Title
- Board Directed Projects Update
From:
Michael Webb, Chief Administrative Officer, County Administrator's Office
Staff Contact:
Alexander Tengolics, Director of Strategic Operations, County Administrator's Office, x8560
Supervisorial District Impact:
Countywide
Subject
Receive update on Board Directed Projects expenditures; consider reallocation of Board Directed Projects funds in the amount of $3.2 million, including $3 million from the Crisis Now 2.0 allocation for a behavioral health receiving center/sobering center and $200,000 from Child Welfare allocation, to other projects and/or to close the budget gap. (No general fund impact) (Webb/Tengolics) (Est. Time: 15 min)
Recommended Action
- Receive update on Board Directed Projects expenditures;
- Consider reallocating $3 million of Crisis Now 2.0 unused funding for a behavioral health receiving center/sobering center, with $2 million directed towards addressing the County's budget gap and $1 million directed towards supporting other behavioral health services; and
- Consider reallocating $200,000 of Child Welfare unused funding to address the County's budget gap.
Strategic Plan Goal(s)
 |
Thriving Residents |
 |
Safe Communities |
Reason for Recommended Action/Background
Attachment A provides the funding allocations for all Board Directed Projects, including expenditures to date and funds remaining to be spent. Attachment B details the most recent quarterly and/or final project reports. However, staff is recommending the Board consider reallocating funding for two Board Directed projects - Crisis Now 2.0 and Child Welfare.
A. Proposed Reallocation of $3m in Crisis Now 2.0 Funds
Previously, the Board had set aside $3,000,000 to support the construction of a 24/7 behavioral health receiving center/sobering center (BHRC) as part of the Crisis Now 2.0 project for both mental health and sobering crisis services. This center would have eight crisis chairs where the public could receive mental health treatment, sobering services, and connections to ongoing behavioral health supports post-crisis. However, the receiving center component now faces growing cost pressures, while revenues, which could support the program, such as Mental Health Services Act funding, are also increasingly questionable. Additionally, the $850,000 congressional earmark that was previously secured will not be moving forward due to the FY25 Continuing Resolution that was recently signed into law. In sum, staff no longer believes the BHRC is a viable project and, as such, is recommending the Board consider reallocation of the funding. Below are three potential options for the Board to consider.
Staff recommends exploring a combination of Options 2 and 3. This recommendation includes setting aside $1m to support implementation of a pilot Crisis Now receiving center ($820,000), possibly in two sites, and to fund a second co-responder clinician for Davis ($180,000), who is embedded in the Davis Police Department. Woodland and West Sacramento currently have two co-responders each, bringing the number of County clinicians embedded with police departments to respond to mental health emergencies to a total of six. HHSA has met with city and hospital partners to explain its recommendation to pivot to an alternative plan for the Crisis Now receiving center. HHSA answered questions and committed to a follow-up meeting, pending Board direction on how to proceed. The remaining $2m is recommended for reallocation to assist in closing the County’s approximate $9m budget gap for FY26.
The three options for implementation of a Crisis Now receiving center are as follows, with Options 2 and 3 using the reduced funding allocation of $820,000 from the current Crisis Now 2.0 funding noted above:
Option 1: No change from current funding - Implement the BHRC as currently planned (“Crisis Now 2.0”) using the current $3m allocation
A. Proposed Reallocation of $3m in Crisis Now 2.0 Funds
Previously, the Board had set aside $3,000,000 to support the construction of a 24/7 behavioral health receiving center/sobering center (BHRC) as part of the Crisis Now 2.0 project for both mental health and sobering crisis services. This center would have eight crisis chairs where the public could receive mental health treatment, sobering services, and connections to ongoing behavioral health supports post-crisis. However, the receiving center component now faces growing cost pressures, while revenues, which could support the program, such as Mental Health Services Act funding, are also increasingly questionable. Additionally, the $850,000 congressional earmark that was previously secured will not be moving forward due to the FY25 Continuing Resolution that was recently signed into law. In sum, staff no longer believes the BHRC is a viable project and, as such, is recommending the Board consider reallocation of the funding. Below are three potential options for the Board to consider.
Staff recommends exploring a combination of Options 2 and 3. This recommendation includes setting aside $1m to support implementation of a pilot Crisis Now receiving center ($820,000), possibly in two sites, and to fund a second co-responder clinician for Davis ($180,000), who is embedded in the Davis Police Department. Woodland and West Sacramento currently have two co-responders each, bringing the number of County clinicians embedded with police departments to respond to mental health emergencies to a total of six. HHSA has met with city and hospital partners to explain its recommendation to pivot to an alternative plan for the Crisis Now receiving center. HHSA answered questions and committed to a follow-up meeting, pending Board direction on how to proceed. The remaining $2m is recommended for reallocation to assist in closing the County’s approximate $9m budget gap for FY26.
The three options for implementation of a Crisis Now receiving center are as follows, with Options 2 and 3 using the reduced funding allocation of $820,000 from the current Crisis Now 2.0 funding noted above:
Option 1: No change from current funding - Implement the BHRC as currently planned (“Crisis Now 2.0”) using the current $3m allocation
- Pros: Allows HHSA to fulfill promise to the community to completely build out the Crisis Now continuum of services; the BHRC is the only remaining component that is missing.
- Cons: Prohibitively expensive in the current economic climate, as there is currently inadequate funding to support this project through the proposed three-year pilot period. Not all the proposed funding is guaranteed at this time, and a great deal of flexible funding (up to $3 million of Board Directed Projects funds) could be better spent addressing the countywide budget deficit or fund other behavioral health needs. Even if there were adequate funds for the three-year pilot, it would be a questionable decision to move forward, as there is no current sustainable plan for funding.
Option 2: Explore the feasibility of implementing a modified BHRC in partnership with a current contractor. This could potentially involve transporting clients in crisis directly to a facility in Woodland and would involve modifying an existing structure.
- Pros: Allows HHSA to fulfill its promise to the community to completely build out the Crisis Now continuum of services. Strengthens existing relationship with current contractor.
- Cons: Costs are uncertain, especially with renovating the existing structure. There are no guarantees that HHSA and the contractor will come to a satisfactory agreement. HHSA would be starting over with this plan, and it may take a significant amount of time to properly implement.
Option 3: Explore the feasibility of contracting with a facility in Sacramento to utilize an existing program that provides similar services to the proposed BHRC.
- Pros: This is an existing facility that can provide a comparable level of service to the proposed BHRC. Establishing services would require the development of a contract, and the facility is currently Medi-Cal site certified by Sacramento County.
- Cons: Costs are unknown, and the distance from Yolo County is a concern. The facility is approximately 30 miles from Woodland, so using this option would require the development of an option to transport clients to and from the facility.
B. Proposed Reallocation of $200,000 in Child Welfare Funds
Additionally, staff recommends reallocation of $200,000 from Child Welfare funding to help close the County's budget gap. These funds had been allocated to support a contract that will expire on June 30, 2025, and the remaining $200,000 is no longer needed for its original purpose.
C. Conclusion
In summary, staff recommends the Board reallocate the $3,000,000 in previously identified funding for Crisis Now, with $2,000,000 being set aside to assist in addressing the County’s budget gap and $1,000,000 being directed to support other behavioral health services; and additionally, staff recommends the $200,000 in unused Child Welfare funds also be set aside to assist in addressing the County’s budget gap.
Additionally, staff recommends reallocation of $200,000 from Child Welfare funding to help close the County's budget gap. These funds had been allocated to support a contract that will expire on June 30, 2025, and the remaining $200,000 is no longer needed for its original purpose.
C. Conclusion
In summary, staff recommends the Board reallocate the $3,000,000 in previously identified funding for Crisis Now, with $2,000,000 being set aside to assist in addressing the County’s budget gap and $1,000,000 being directed to support other behavioral health services; and additionally, staff recommends the $200,000 in unused Child Welfare funds also be set aside to assist in addressing the County’s budget gap.
Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies)
County Administrator's Office
Health and Human Services
Financial Services
County Counsel
Health and Human Services
Financial Services
County Counsel
Fiscal Impact
No Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact (Expenditure)
- Total cost of recommended action:
- $ 0
- Amount budgeted for expenditure:
- $ 0
- Additional expenditure authority needed:
- $ 0
- One-time commitment:
- Yes
Source of Funds for this Expenditure
- Board Directed Projects
- $0
Further explanation as needed:
No general fund impact is anticipated to occur in association with this item.
Attachments
Form Review
| Inbox | Reviewed By | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Berenice Espitia (Originator) | Berenice Espitia | 04/01/2025 03:00 PM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/02/2025 09:15 AM |
| Berenice Espitia (Originator) | Berenice Espitia | 04/17/2025 04:15 PM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/17/2025 05:49 PM |
| Berenice Espitia (Originator) | Berenice Espitia | 04/18/2025 11:06 AM |
| Kimberly Hood | Julie Dachtler | 04/18/2025 11:43 AM |
| Berenice Espitia (Originator) | Berenice Espitia | 04/18/2025 12:05 PM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/18/2025 03:14 PM |
| Berenice Espitia (Originator) | Berenice Espitia | 04/22/2025 10:13 AM |
| Kimberly Hood | Kimberly Hood | 04/23/2025 10:12 AM |
| Mark Bryan | Mark Bryan | 04/23/2025 01:10 PM |
| Cindy Perez | Cindy Perez | 04/23/2025 02:06 PM |
| Mark Bryan | Mark Bryan | 04/24/2025 04:05 PM |
- Form Started By:
- Berenice Espitia
- Started On:
- 02/25/2025 11:41 AM
- Final Approval Date:
- 04/24/2025