Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County approves master lease for behavioral health bridge housing at 590 Toyanza; board urges lease‑to‑buy options
Summary
The Calaveras County Board authorized staff to proceed with a master lease and grant‑funded renovations for a behavioral health bridge housing site at 590 Toyanza Drive, while several supervisors urged staff to pursue a lease‑to‑buy option and asked for buy‑versus‑lease cost comparisons.
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Calaveras County Board of Supervisors directed staff to move forward with a master lease and grant‑funded renovations at 590 Toyanza Drive to provide behavioral health bridge housing for Calaveras residents, and asked staff to pursue lease‑to‑buy options where feasible.
Marcus Munoz, Health and Human Services director, told the board the proposal responds to new State Behavioral Health Services Act accountability requirements and a shortage of housing inventory. He said the parcel had become available and the county had secured grant funding for renovation and the initial lease. “We have also secured a grant to renovate the building,” Munoz said. “This is not intended for people outside of the county. This is intended for Calaveras residents.”
Board members expressed concern about committing substantial renovation funds to a property the county would not own and asked whether purchase had been considered. One supervisor asked for a direct buy price; staff provided a quick figure of $750,000 as an approximate purchase price during discussion. Munoz and finance staff said the timing and the grant rules made immediately purchasing less straightforward and that the behavioral health bridge housing grant covers renovations and initial lease through June 30, 2027. Staff said they could pursue a lease‑to‑buy amendment with the owner and return with comparative numbers.
The board debated the tradeoffs — preserving grant funding versus long‑term asset ownership — and some supervisors asked staff to present multiple options in future meetings. A motion to approve the lease and give direction to pursue purchase options when possible carried, with at least one supervisor recording a dissent and a request that staff come back with buy‑vs‑lease cost comparisons.
County staff and members of probation and community service providers spoke in public comment to emphasize the need for transitional housing for people exiting incarceration or institutional settings and to support successful treatment and supervision outcomes. A probation representative said transitional housing would improve supervision and treatment access; other commenters urged the board not to lose available bridge funding.
Next steps recorded in the meeting included staff returning to the board with lease‑to‑buy feasibility details, cost comparisons, and any necessary contract amendments; staff also indicated they could seek to revise the lease to include an option to purchase if the owner would consider it.

