Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ellis County approves letter supporting NTBHA grant application for mental-health deputy, reserves right to accept grant later
Summary
The court approved a letter of support for a Health and Human Services Commission grant to fund a mental health deputy and jail in-reach clinicians, but amended the motion to preserve the county's option to accept or reject any award after terms and the required county match are known.
Ellis County Commissioners Court voted unanimously to provide a letter of support for a grant application from the North Texas Behavioral Health Authority (NTBHA) to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) seeking funding for one mental health deputy and a jail in-reach team.
During the discussion, NTBHA representatives, including Chad Anderson, described the application as a request of roughly $800,000 to fund both a mental-health deputy and four jail in-reach clinicians (one licensed clinician and three qualified mental health professionals). Anderson and behavioral health director Caitlin Wilkinson said the program would operate through an interlocal relationship; NTBHA is the applicant and would pay staff salaries under the proposed model.
Commissioners pressed for clarity on the county’s financial exposure. NTBHA staff said the grant requires a county match and that the match could be up to roughly 50 percent of the awarded amount, which commissioners estimated could amount to about $400,000 depending on the final award and how HHSC allocates funds. NTBHA said some or all of that match might be met with in‑kind contributions — for example, office space, vehicles, or existing interlocal expenditures — rather than a single cash payment.
Judge and commissioners emphasized that the court was being asked only for a letter of support and that the court would retain authority to accept or decline any awarded grant after the state provides the final amount and match requirements. After discussion the court approved the letter of support and later amended the motion to explicitly record that the county’s approval was limited to a letter of support and that acceptance of any awarded grant would come back to the court for separate approval.
No contract or budget appropriation was executed at the meeting. County staff noted standard practice would route any accepted grant through the auditor’s office and legal review before execution.
