Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Fund Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County details behavioral health fund, priorities and planned 2026 budgeting
Summary
Douglas County staff presented an overview of the behavioral health fund at a June meeting, reviewing the fund balance, revenue sources and how county dollars are being used for supportive housing, psychiatric services, substance‑use treatment and prevention.
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Fund Overview topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County staff presented an overview of behavioral health project funding at a June meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, reviewing the fund’s balance, revenue mix and how the county has directed one‑time and ongoing dollars to local partners.
County Administrator Sarah Plenske and Bob Tryansky summarized 2025 activity and the direction for the 2026 budget. Staff said the fund includes revenue from the county’s quarter‑cent behavioral health sales tax and transfers of property tax dollars that previously supported behavioral health in the general fund; staff reported combined anticipated revenue of about $12.7 million for 2025 (roughly $6.6 million in sales tax and $5.2 million in transferred property tax). Staff corrected an internal transcription error and said the fund balance at the start of 2025 was about $22.07 million (rounded), not the larger figure that appeared in a slide.
Why it matters: The fund supports ongoing care (community mental health provider support, medication‑assisted treatment, wrap services in schools) and one‑time capital projects (supportive housing, transitional housing and facility upgrades). County leaders said they are trying to align ongoing operating costs with ongoing revenue and reserve the fund balance for one‑time investments or short‑term transitions.
What staff reported
- Fund arithmetic (2025, rounded): beginning fund balance about $22.07 million; anticipated 2025 revenue about $12.7 million (sales tax $6.6M + property tax transfer $5.2M); anticipated ongoing expenditures about $10.8M; one‑time capital spending in 2025 about $3.1M. Staff said the county targets a 25% operating reserve (they cited a target around $3.2M) and estimated about $14.4M available for one‑time capital projects after required reserves and ongoing obligations. - One‑time projects in 2025: capital support for supportive housing and shelter projects including Ninth Street Missionary Baptist transitional housing, Family Promise family emergency shelter, and DECA women’s transitional housing. Several projects were previously funded from ARPA or CARES Act; the county has used the behavioral health fund to sustain or replace some of that one‑time capital. - Ongoing recipients and programs: Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center remains a largest ongoing recipient (county funds offset Bert Nash’s sliding fee scale for uninsured/underinsured patients); the county funds medication‑assisted treatment and residential treatment subsidies across multiple partners (DECA, Heartland Community Health, MIR), mobile crisis teams, peer‑support integration and the Wrap school‑based program (funding for school‑based workers across secondary schools). - Pooled funding approach: staff described a move toward pooled/subscription funding for substance‑use treatment and other services so county dollars can be allocated across partners and adjusted quarterly based on actual billing and utilization.
Discussion and priorities
Staff emphasized the Community Health Improvement Plan (CHIP) behavioral‑health plank as the strategic framework. Commissioners and staff discussed stronger linkage between funded partner proposals and specific CHIP strategies and the need for clearer, publicly accessible performance metrics. Public commenter John Imes urged robust, system‑level metrics for homelessness and program outcomes; Imes said, “A fully functioning system of care requires a system level set of metrics to measure goal attainment.”
Commissioners raised the long‑term funding risk from state funding sources (including KDADS amounts that support the local treatment and recovery center) and asked staff to plan for contingencies. Commissioners also asked for better dashboard displays that link funded partners, expenditures and outcomes to CHIP objectives. Staff said the 2026 proposed budget will include refined requests and a clearer mapping of projects to CHIP priorities.
Ending
The item was informational; no formal vote was taken. Staff will present the behavioral health projects budget and partner proposals during the county’s 2026 budget process and return with more detailed metrics and a proposed funding alignment that maps partner activities to CHIP strategies.

