County staff voice uncertainty over Behavioral Health Services Act funding and mobile crisis reimbursements

San Benito County staff raised concerns during a budget and program briefing about which behavioral-health services will be reimbursed under the county's Behavioral Health Services Act planning and whether costs now covered by eligible funds could shift to the county general fund.

The issue matters because staff said the county faces a tight timeline to finalize a draft Behavioral Health Services Act plan and that unclear funding rules could leave the county paying for services previously reimbursed, increasing pressure on the general fund and on services for people with severe mental-health conditions.

A staff speaker (Speaker 1, Staff member) said the county has an allocated amount for a San Diego-based population and that departments face a "huge heavy lift" to complete the Behavioral Health Services Act service plan by a March 30 draft, though details about what will be reimbursed remain unsettled. Speaker 2 (Staff member) described existing practice where some current funding is being used to offset the cost of the county's mobile crisis services and other programs; Speaker 2 said that county departments are "utiliz[ing] to offset cost for the mobile crisis" and similar programs.

Speaker 1 stressed a core concern: if the county continues buying services that later will not be covered under the new funding structure, the county could be reimbursed through one-time funds and then required to cover ongoing costs from the general fund. "My biggest concern is . . . if we're buying services that are no longer going to be covered through [designated] funds, and we are being reimbursed for those services, and come to general fund without having any idea of what's gonna be . . . possible for us to be able to do it for," Speaker 1 said during the discussion. The speaker called for clearer delineation of which services will remain eligible and for monitoring the budgetary impacts.

Staff indicated the Behavioral Health Services Act funding would be focused on individuals with severe mental-health conditions. Speaker 2 said the county is "looking to" target supports to those individuals and noted concern about how provisions such as a referenced "$5 pay" (as discussed in the meeting) would apply to behavioral health services "when that kicks in," though the transcript does not specify the program or statutory authority tied to that phrase.

Multiple staff speakers requested deeper follow-up and routine updates for the board and stakeholders to track shifting funding sources and program impacts. A public commenter (Speaker 7, Public commenter) asked for clarity on a $5,000,000 allocation and which parties would receive funds; staff responded that the distribution was "not reported today," and the transcript shows no resolution to that question.

The presentation and discussion did not include a formal vote on policy changes; staff described planning and analysis in progress and repeatedly called for additional information and regular briefings as the Behavioral Health Services Act plan is finalized.

Additional context from the meeting includes references to CalWORKS and AB 920 (transcript text: "AB 9 20") in the budget discussion; the meeting record does not include clear attribution from staff linking those authorities directly to the Behavioral Health Services Act funding questions.

Notes: The record contains technical and timing references (a March 30 draft and repeated requests for follow-up) but does not contain a final determination about which services will be eligible for ongoing reimbursement or whether the board took any formal action to amend funding allocations.