Davis Behavioral Health reports service trends, funding uncertainty to county budget committee

Davis Behavioral Health directors told the Davis County Budget Committee on a recent agenda item that the number of unique clients served in the county has declined slightly while the total number of services delivered rose to about 240,000, and that funding from federal block grants and other sources is uncertain for the coming year.

The presentation, given by Brandon Hatch, director of Davis Behavioral Health, and Ronnie Westergaard, the agency’s chief financial officer, summarized service trends, substance-use patterns, and the agency’s FY budget request to the county. Hatch said the rise in service counts alongside a drop in unique clients suggests those who do seek care have more severe needs. “The goal of mobile crisis is to keep people out of the jail, keep them out of emergency rooms, keep them at home,” Hatch said, describing the mobile crisis outreach team’s purpose.

Committee members heard several budget details and cautions. Hatch and Westergaard said crisis calls have fallen by just over 1,000 in the reporting period, and that adults aged roughly 27–64 make up the largest share of crisis calls. On substance use, Hatch said methamphetamine remains the leading substance seen in county services, with heroin and fentanyl also significant and polysubstance use common. Westergaard noted marijuana-related cases have remained relatively low despite legal changes.

On funding, Davis Behavioral Health staff explained the agency reports on a state fiscal year and detailed recent swings in grant allocations. They said the Mental Health Block Grant and the Substance Abuse Block Grant both decreased (figures described by staff as roughly $400,000 for the mental health grant and $400,000–$600,000 for the substance abuse grant), and that some federal pass-through programs (including Partners for Success and a federal SOR/SOR-related allocation) are reported on a federal fiscal year and currently include only the first quarter of funding. Westergaard said the State Opioid Response (SOR) program “may be the last year that we have that program,” and that the office does not yet know if it will be extended.

Staff warned of possible federal cuts and uncertainty in Medicaid reimbursement rates. Hatch and Westergaard said the state has advised planning for potential reductions from federal block grants; a state finance representative, Kyle Larson, is reported to have modeled a 25% cut for his office’s budget, though staff said it is unclear whether and how that will translate to local allocations.

The presenters reviewed local funding and the agency’s county request. Westergaard said Davis Behavioral Health’s county general-fund appropriation last year was reported as about 1.522 (figure cited by staff) and that the current general-fund request is about 1.56 (staff described the proposed county request as roughly a 2.5% increase over approved funding last year). The agency noted the county funding request does not fully cover recent pay increases and that the 2.5% increase is less than the agency’s recent cost-of-living increases.

Committee members and staff also discussed the opioid-settlement funds the county will receive. Hatch said roughly $17 million has been awarded to the county under the settlement but not yet paid; spread over 20 years, staff estimate that yields about $750,000–$850,000 per year for ongoing programs if set up as a 20‑year program. Hatch said the agency will return with a proposal outlining priorities for those funds and cautioned against creating ongoing obligations that would outlast the settlement dollars.

Speakers described potential uses for settlement dollars focused on opioid-specific services: medication-assisted treatment, jail-based services for people with opioid use disorder, pretrial release programming, and enhanced support for drug court. Staff said current drug court funding leaves a relatively small amount for treatment after county administrative costs, and described past proposals to rebalance those allocations so more treatment dollars flow through. “It’s really difficult for us to provide drug court services with $19,000,” Hatch said of the current pass-through amount to treatment services.

Committee members scheduled a separate opioid-settlement discussion that will include the sheriff’s office, public defenders and county attorneys. Staff asked committee members to attend and said they would present more detailed proposals at future budget meetings. Several committee members thanked staff for the presentation; no formal votes were taken during the budget briefing.

The presentation combined program statistics, short-term funding adjustments and longer-term planning for one-time settlement dollars; staff emphasized uncertainty about federal block grants and Medicaid rate negotiations as risks to service continuity. The agency asked the committee to consider the modest county request while staff pursue detailed proposals for settlement spending and seek clarity from state and federal partners about next year’s allocations.