Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Facility topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves $675,000 contract step for CARES campus property despite deed-restriction concerns
Summary
Commissioners voted 3–1 to move forward with architectural and engineering work related to the county's CARES campus property while staff continue to review deed restrictions and use options for behavioral-health services.
The Board of County Commissioners voted 3–1 on April 8 to approve the next contract step tied to hardening and renovating a county-owned property intended to expand behavioral-health and supportive-housing capacity, despite concerns from one commissioner about deed restrictions on the site.
Background and debate: The county purchased a former hospital building for the CARES campus and has been seeking to use ARPA funds and partner funding to convert the site for subacute behavioral-health and related services. Staff presented a contract for architectural and engineering services of about $675,000 to begin necessary design and permitting work so the county does not lose state ARPA funding opportunities. Commissioner Mike Clark objected, saying deed restrictions on the property include multiple prohibitions — including inpatient psychiatric and some residential treatment uses — and urging staff to resolve restrictions before obligating more funds.
Staff response: County Manager Eric Brown and Assistant staff said the contract step is intended to obligate funds required by the state while the county finalizes the site’s permitted uses. Assistant county staff noted the county identified carve-outs in the deed terms that would allow the specific subacute inpatient and pediatric behavioral-health uses the county proposes. The county also said it is working with the District Attorney’s office and potential health-system partners to clarify allowable uses and licensing paths.
Why it matters: The property is central to the county’s plan to expand local capacity for behavioral-health treatment and avoid long out-of-area placements. Commissioner Clark pressed staff to confirm legal and licensing compliance before additional spending; others argued that obligating design funds preserves eligibility for state and federal dollars and allows necessary design work to proceed.
Vote and next steps: The motion to proceed with the contract for architectural/engineering work passed 3–1 (Commissioner Clark opposed). Staff said any further expenditures would stop if legal review or partner negotiations change the plan; staff will continue to work with the county DA and potential providers and report back to the commission.
Ending: The board’s action keeps the county on a schedule to use external funding for facility improvements while staff work to resolve deed-restriction language and licensing questions. Commissioners directed staff to return with clarifications on legal constraints and a timeline for design and implementation.
