Funding Advisory Council approves $3.52 million behavioral-health request after debate over 'emergent' funds

The McLean County Funding Advisory Council voted to recommend a $3,517,344 request for community behavioral-health initiatives funded by the mental-health and public-safety shared-sales-tax fund.

The council’s discussion centered on how to allocate a large community-directed bucket for 2026 and how to define and deploy an "emergent" funding stream for unplanned or urgent behavioral‑health needs. Two competing priorities emerged: members urging that a sizable, ready pool be available to move quickly on community needs; and members urging a narrower, clearly defined emergent policy and a stronger process before committing the full amount.

Council staff told members the community behavioral-health ask includes salaries to support the grants program manager (a position the council previously recommended), operating and medical supplies for the FUSE program, and contract services. Staff said the total ask for the community behavioral-health portion is $3,517,344 and that contract services and competitive community grants would account for a large share of that amount. Staff also noted the department is pursuing reimbursement and sustainability pathways (including making services billable to Medicaid/insurance) so some programs can transition to community providers.

A motion to sharply reduce a proposed community contract line (a suggested cut to $50,000 from a roughly $2.25 million community-program bucket) was brought forward and lost on a roll-call vote. The roll call recorded: Stephanie Barish — No; Sheila Motney — Yes; Lizzie Johnston — No; Will Scanlon — No; Kevin McCarthy — Yes. The amendment did not pass. The original recommendation was then considered and approved by the FAC and will be forwarded to the county executive committee and county board for inclusion in the 2026 county budget process.

Members and staff discussed next steps and timing. Staff said a grants program manager will begin work in early October and will help craft requests for proposals (RFPs) or requests for information (RFIs) that map back to a behavioral-health action plan that staff expect to finalize in October. Several members asked that the FAC reconvene after the action plan is final so the council can advise on the way the community bucket will be apportioned; staff said that is possible and noted that formal budget amendments may still be required through the county process in December once the county’s budget is adopted.

Discussion also covered the FUSE program, a case-management model for frequent users of emergency services and the jail. Staff said the program has served dozens of clients since 2019 and that outcome data compiled by a research contractor show declines in system contacts for participants. Staff said the program is intended to be transitioned to a community provider (Center for Human Services was discussed as an example of a potential long-term operator) once the program becomes billable and sustainable.

Staff also reported that a trauma‑focused training (EMDR) contract for providers filled quickly and that a large, immediate training demand exists among local clinicians. Members said that fact supports allocating a portion of the community bucket to workforce development and professional training.

Before concluding the discussion, several council members asked staff to prepare a clearer explanation showing (a) how the FAC‑recommended slice of the shared-sales-tax fund fits with other county mental-health spending; and (b) what spending would look like in practice once the behavioral-health action plan is finalized.