Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Crisis Center topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Cuyahoga County council hears plan for $32 million behavioral health crisis center; resolution to be considered Sept. 23

6438658 · September 12, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Centers for Families and Children presented plans for a multi‑floor crisis receiving center and detox facility on the old St. Vincent Charity campus. Council heard details on services, capacity, timeline and funding sources; Resolution 2025-0241 was introduced for informational purposes and will be considered at the Sept. 23 council meeting.

The Cuyahoga County Committee of the Whole received a presentation Sept. 9 on a proposed comprehensive behavioral health crisis receiving center on the former St. Vincent Charity campus, including a request that council consider Resolution 2025-0241 — a proposed contract for capital funding — at its Sept. 23 meeting.

Eric Morse, president and CEO of the Centers for Families and Children, told the committee the project will renovate the Medical Arts Building on the St. Vincent campus to house a crisis receiving center, detox beds, and a larger outpatient clinic. “This project ... is 1 of, I think, the most important things that I, have the opportunity to be a part of in my, what, 30 year career,” Morse said.

Morse said the full project cost is $32 million to build and outfit the facility. He said the Centers have already been awarded $6.8 million in ARPA dollars administered through OMAS, and the proposal assumes an additional $7 million from the county’s opioid settlement fund; together those sources would bring the project to about $26 million, enough, Morse said, to complete the first and second floors on the timeline required by the state grant. He said the remaining roughly $5 million gap for the third floor is being sought from foundations and high‑net‑worth donors, and that the project team expects to apply for New Markets Tax Credits to close additional capital needs.

The center’s design calls for an urgent‑care‑style, 24/7 crisis receiving operation on the first floor (Morse said planners calculated capacity using a national “Crisis Now” calculator), a crisis stabilization / residential floor intended for 7–10 day stays, and a third‑floor outpatient clinic. Morse described a model in which about 80 percent of guests would be stabilized and discharged the same or next day and receive immediate follow‑up appointments and on‑site pharmacy access; he said the Centers expect 12,000–14,000 episodes per year once fully operational.

Morse outlined anticipated benefits: reduced boarding in hospital emergency departments, fewer jail admissions for people with behavioral health crises and lower overall community costs. “Because we’re starting treatment immediately when someone walks in the door ... we’re often able to stabilize people and release them within that 23‑hour period,” he said.

Council members asked about location, security, partnerships and sustainability. Councilman Cowley asked for the facility address and what security would look like; Morse gave the site address and said the Centers may partner with the Sisters of Charity’s campus security and will have at least one security guard at the entrance and one patrolling the lot. Council members asked how the proposal differs from the existing diversion center; Morse said the proposed center is designed to serve involuntary and voluntary patients, including accepting involuntary “pink slip” transfers, and to provide a secure setting that can retain and evaluate patients while initiating treatment.

Several council members pressed on operational sustainability. Morse presented an operating budget estimate showing first‑year operating subsidies and revenue sources: ADAMs Board funding, fee‑for‑service Medicaid billing (he said the budget conservatively assumes 60 percent Medicaid coverage among clients), and county opioid funds for the first three years. He estimated first‑year operating costs of about $3 million for the crisis receiving center, roughly $1–2 million for crisis stabilization depending on scale, and approximately $3 million a year for the detox unit. Morse said staffing needs will be significant and that the Centers anticipate hiring roughly 164–170 full‑time equivalent positions as the site scales up.

Morse acknowledged risks if key capital or tax credit awards are not obtained on schedule, and said the Centers have contingency plans (additional debt capacity, reserve funds, donor outreach). He said the grant that helped trigger the project carried a timetable that required plans and a contractor to be in place to keep the $6.8 million award; the Centers began construction to meet the state deadline, Morse said.

Council members also asked about coordination with courts, prosecutors, EMS and local hospitals; Morse said conversations are ongoing and that the Centers plan a community advisory board and additional partner outreach. Councilwoman Simon and others asked whether repurposing existing county or hospital space had been examined; Morse said he had discussed options with MetroHealth but that MetroHealth decided not to proceed on this project and that the state ARPA award was tied to the current site plan.

Resolution 2025‑0241 was read into the record Sept. 9 as “authorizing a contract with the Centers for Families and Children in the amount not to exceed $7,000,000 for capital funding toward the construction of a new comprehensive behavioral health center with priority for the development of a detoxification unit,” effective through Dec. 31, 2026. The resolution was placed on the agenda for informational purposes only at the Committee of the Whole meeting and was not before the committee for a final vote; council will consider the legislation at the Sept. 23 council meeting, Morse said.

The presentation closed with council members requesting follow‑up briefings and a more detailed operating budget and asking for meetings with judges, prosecutors and city administration before the council acts. Morse offered to arrange site visits to comparable facilities for councilmembers.

Votes at a glance: at this meeting council approved a procedural motion to excuse Councilmember Conwell from the Sept. 9 meeting and later adopted a roll‑call motion to convene an executive session to discuss pending or imminent court action (roll call recorded as yes by Schlepper, Jones, Turner, Hauser, Simon, Kelly, Sweeney, Castleberry, Gallagher and Miller).