Douglas County outlines behavioral health fund uses; staff flag housing, 0‑suicide and substance use as priorities

Douglas County staff and partners on (presentation date) gave the Board of County Commissioners a detailed status update of the county’s behavioral health fund, how the fund has been used to expand local services and how staff plan to prioritize dollars in the 2026 budget.

County Administrator Sarah Plinske and staff presented the fund’s high‑level numbers and policy priorities. Plinske said annual revenue into the behavioral health fund is about $12.7 million, composed of approximately $6.6 million from the county’s quarter‑cent behavioral health sales tax and about $5.2 million in property‑tax‑derived transfers that previously supported behavioral health in the general fund. Staff said ongoing expenditures in 2025 are about $10.8 million and onetime capital spending in 2025 was about $3.1 million.

Why it matters: the behavioral health fund supports a range of services the county and partners have expanded in recent years — from crisis response and mobile teams to supportive housing, school‑based “wrap” services and substance use treatment. Commissioners and staff said those investments have reduced emergency department behavioral‑health visits and jail bookings, and they flagged risk that state or federal funding changes could affect some partner programs.

How the money is being used: staff said the largest ongoing recipient is Bert Nash Community Mental Health Center, which receives county support to offset sliding fees for uninsured or underinsured patients. Other ongoing investments include medication‑assisted treatment and residential treatment subsidies across multiple provider partners (DECA, MIR, Heartland), psychiatric infrastructure funding (to support psychiatrists and APRNs at local clinics), the mobile response team and a flexible housing pool to support people experiencing homelessness. Capital projects funded in 2025 included transitional housing and supportive‑housing projects developed with community partners such as Ninth Street Missionary Baptist Church, Family Promise and tenants‑to‑homeowners initiatives.

Community health improvement plan and priorities: staff said the county aligns investments with the community health improvement plan (CHIP) and the behavioral‑health plank in particular. Bob Trianski, who presented project details, described six objectives that will guide 2026 funding: prioritize prevention, increase supportive housing (a stated aim is to achieve functional zero for chronically homeless households by 2029), implement 0‑suicide strategies, integrate lived experience (peer support) across the system, optimize the behavioral health crisis response continuum (988, mobile team, treatment and recovery center and care coordination), and improve access to care. Trianski said many of the county’s investments are a product of collaboration and multiple funding streams, including federal grants, ARPA/CARES funds and private foundations.

Budget posture and reserves: staff described a 25% operating fund‑balance target (about $3.2 million) to preserve an operating reserve so the county can continue services through revenue downturns while transitions are made. Plinske said commissioners had in 2025 moved roughly $917,000 of projects that had been funded from property‑tax sources into the behavioral health fund to help reduce the mill levy in 2025; she emphasized the county is attempting to match ongoing revenue with ongoing operating commitments.

Questions from commissioners and public comment: commissioners asked for clearer links between funded partners and specific CHIP strategies and for better public dashboards showing outcomes (for example, homelessness categories and exit outcomes). Community commenters urged clearer performance metrics for homelessness and thanked the county for support: Patrick Schmitz of Bert Nash thanked the county for ongoing funding; a resident urged development of housing that accommodates relapse among people with substance use disorder so people are not repeatedly excluded from services.

Next steps: Plinske said the priorities discussed will be included in the 2026 proposed budget materials for commissioners’ review, and staff plan to refine performance measures and the public dashboard. No formal commission action was taken at the meeting; the item was presented as informational.