Commissioners press county staff on who will pay to run new behavioral health care center as construction costs rise

Oklahoma County commissioners on Friday received a progress report on the new behavioral health care center that highlighted rising construction costs and left key questions about who will pay for day‑to‑day operations unanswered.

Stacy, the county project lead, told commissioners the project originally negotiated under a construction manager at risk (CMAR) contract totaled $44,400,000 with an expected 10% contingency (~$4 million). After bid results and continued price escalation the contingency has largely been consumed, leaving roughly $59,000 remaining against escalation that “ate up nearly $4,000,000,” Stacy said. She added that about 21 change orders have been submitted to date — roughly half approved and half denied — and staff are pursuing recovery of about $1 million from an oil company; the district attorney has the matter.

Stacy said the CMAR approach and close oversight have helped maintain quality: more than 30 county staff are tracking the project and contractors were required to remove defective concrete and block found during testing. The project remains on a tight schedule with a stated completion deadline in late 2026 and staff warned that a harsh winter could threaten the timeline.

Commissioners also reviewed design decisions intended to reduce self‑harm risk. Stacy said HOK, the architect, included antiligature fixtures and that an operator selection process concluded recently; staff expect to name an operator between Thanksgiving and Christmas so the vendor can help finalize equipment orders and operational planning.

But the discussion turned pointed when commissioners asked where ongoing operating dollars will come from once the facility opens. Multiple commissioners said they had not seen a clear plan identifying the day‑to‑day funding source. “Has the day‑to‑day operation been identified? It has to be operated day to day,” one commissioner asked. Stacy replied that determining operational funding is or will be the responsibility of the budget board, but other commissioners said that responsibility had not produced an answer.

One commissioner warned of the fiscal risk: “I'm opposed to bankrupting the county with things that we can't afford,” the commissioner said, urging the body to identify whether property‑tax capacity or some form of sales tax would be required to sustain the facility. County staff noted that property tax revenue likely cannot cover the full operating cost and that, if additional revenue is required, a sales tax would be one option.

The county is continuing construction while staff and commissioners debate the operational funding plan. No final decision on operational funding was made at the meeting; next steps cited by staff included further work by the budget board and follow‑ups with commissioners about fiscal options.