Shasta supervisors back HHSA opposition to True North BCHIP application, 3–2

Shasta County supervisors voted 3–2 Oct. 24 to send a letter opposing the True North Behavioral Health Campus application for state Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program (BHCIP) round‑2 funds after the county’s Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA) said it could not support the project in its current form.

HHSA Director Christy Coleman told the board that while the county recognizes a need for more behavioral‑health capacity, the proposal lacked key information required for a sustainable, county‑compatible plan. "What I'm saying is that this project doesn't represent the needs of the Shasta County mental health clients, and the operator has a concerning history that has not been addressed," Coleman said during a presentation that outlined concerns about payer mix, fiscal exposure, licensure and staffing.

Why it matters: The application for BCHIP round 2 (the state program administered by the California Department of Health Care Services) is due Oct. 28; state award announcements are expected in 2026. HHSA told the board it could not complete a county cost analysis because the applicant did not provide operating budgets and a clear breakdown of how many Medi‑Cal (medical) beneficiaries the facility would serve. Coleman noted major cost differences by facility type, telling the board that a psychiatric residential treatment facility (PRTF) placement can cost about $113,000 per bed per month compared with roughly $17,000 per bed per month for the short‑term residential treatment program (STRTP) model the county currently uses.

Key details: HHSA expressed several principal concerns: - Payer mix and sustainability: The applicant must show what percentage of beds will serve Medi‑Cal (medical) members, private insurance and private‑pay patients; HHSA said it had not received that detail and therefore could not determine whether the county would bear long‑term costs. - IMD exclusion risk: If the facility does not obtain an IMD (institution for mental disease) exclusion where required, costs for some bed types could become 100% county responsibilities. - Staffing and operational strain: Coleman and Katie Cassidy (Public Health) said the campus would require new county capacity—billing, utilization review, quality management and patients' rights staff—to meet the county's role as the Medi‑Cal administration authority. - Operator history: HHSA flagged past contractual and quality problems associated with the proposed operator, Signature Healthcare, that raised questions about ongoing performance and state reporting.

Public input and board debate: The meeting drew a large public turnout and 33 registered speakers. Proponents — including local clinicians, hospitals, school and health‑system leaders and the project sponsor Arch Collaborative — urged the board to keep the application alive, citing long transport times for children and adults displaced to distant facilities and a broad list of institutional letters of support presented at the hearing. Opponents warned of a "regional" model that could import out‑of‑county patients, place long‑term fiscal burdens on Shasta, and draw local staff away from existing county services.

Board action and vote: Chair Kevin Scribe moved to approve R2 and send the letter opposing the application; the motion was seconded by Supervisor Kellstrom. A substitute motion to send a letter of board support for the applicant (intended to keep the application active while the county studied impacts) failed on a roll call. The original motion — sending the HHSA‑directed letter of opposition — passed 3–2 (yes: Kellstrom, Scribe, Harmon; no: Plummer, Long).

What’s next: The application will be submitted by the applicant to the state on Oct. 28. HHSA and county staff said they remain open to collaboration with the applicant and to reviewing application materials, but they told the board they could not in good conscience endorse the application without additional fiscal and operational assurances.

Vote record: Chair Kevin Scribe — yes; Supervisor Kellstrom — yes; Supervisor Harmon — yes; Supervisor Plummer — no; Supervisor Long — no.

Provenance (excerpt): Christy Coleman presentation (00:04:01): "Okay. Good morning, Chairman Krai and members of the board. I'm Christy Coleman, HSA agency director..." Presentation end (00:15:49): "Alright. Thank you, miss Coleman. That's a a presentation. No vote. We're gonna move on to r 2."