Budget board presses for clear financial plan for behavioral health center and new jail

The Oklahoma County Budget Board and county commissioners spent the bulk of the meeting pressing for a clear, shared financial plan for a proposed behavioral health center and the county’s new jail project.

Board members asked commissioners and staff to provide concrete cost and revenue estimates, timelines and identified responsible parties for day-to-day operations, noting the county must avoid opening new facilities without funding in place.

The item drew sustained discussion about who would operate the behavioral health center, how the county might bill Medicaid and Medicare for services, and how the county will pay routine operating costs for both the new jail and the existing facility while both remain in service.

“I thought that it would be good for us to continue the discussion about the funding of the behavioral health center,” said Marissa Treat, during the board’s item on funding adequacy. Treat asked who will manage the program and whether funds could be used for the new behavioral health center. A staff member reported grant and contract revenues are involved and that a recruitment process is underway to hire a grants specialist and financial support staff to monitor grants and compliance.

Commissioner Steve Mason (chairman) said the behavioral health center project recently had regulatory clarity and that funding conversations were ongoing with community stakeholders and subject-matter committees. Mason said state and national models show behavioral health centers can bill private insurance, Medicare and Medicaid when they operate as treatment centers rather than purely as incarceration facilities; he noted a 75-foot separation between the proposed center and the jail has been included in design work.

Sheriff Tommy Johnson raised operational concerns, including whether the proposed model would be treated as a correctional facility for purposes of billing and whether Department of Mental Health (ODMHSAS) commitments to pay would be reliable given past payment issues. “If they’re not paying the bills to the current jail, we’ve got to have these real conversations,” Johnson said, asking for clarity before relying on external payors.

County staff and commissioners reported several parallel workstreams: an architect and engineers preparing plans and allowances; a citizens’ advisory committee and subject-matter experts reviewing appropriate facility size and operational design; and conversations with ODMHSAS and other partners about potential management and billing. Commissioners said some details could be finalized now that legal and site questions were recently resolved.

Board members pressed for additional documentation: a written plan that explains anticipated daily operating costs (staffing, utilities and clinical staff), a legal opinion on Medicare/Medicaid eligibility for the facility as proposed, and clear identification of which county office or outside partner will manage and bill for services. Several board members said they would submit a list of questions for commissioners and department staff to answer at a future meeting.

The board considered, then ultimately voted on, a motion to clarify prior direction to the Budget and Evaluation Team (BET) asking BET to study financial options for the new jail and the continued operations of the existing jail. The motion initially recorded a 4–3 voice result but was ruled to require a five‑vote threshold under the county’s statutory interpretation; as a result the motion failed. Meeting minutes show the board agreed BET should await finalized design and cost numbers from architects and the citizen committee before producing formal financial recommendations.

Board members and commissioners repeatedly said they want transparency and early involvement of the budget board as written cost estimates and operational plans are finalized. Several county officials reiterated that building or opening facilities without a fully funded operating plan would be irresponsible.

The discussion closed with an agreement to continue interagency coordination and to route finalized architectural plans, cost allowances and legal opinions through policy and governance and then to BET for financial analysis and recommendations that the full budget board may consider.