Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reopens True North behavioral‑health conversation, votes to draft conditional letter of support
Summary
After new financial and operational information, the board voted 5-0 to direct staff to return a draft letter of support for the True North Behavioral Health Campus that includes conditions on county fiscal exposure, prioritization of Shasta County residents, and safety and reimbursement safeguards.
The Shasta County Board of Supervisors reopened discussion on the True North Behavioral Health Campus application during its Dec. 9 meeting and directed staff to prepare a draft letter of support that includes specific conditions the board requested.
Supervisor Matt Plummer, who brought the item back for discussion, said recent information about payer mix and reimbursement had changed the county’s calculus and made it worth pursuing a conditional support letter. Plummer moved that staff bring back an amended Administrative Policy 101 item and then amended his motion to request a board letter of support conditioned on: (1) applicant‑borne reimbursement of any incremental HHSA costs; (2) a commitment from the operator to prioritize Shasta County residents over out‑of‑county placements when feasible; (3) rigorous on‑site safeguards for staff and the public and regular verification of mandated protocols; and (4) consideration of law‑enforcement reimbursement where appropriate.
Health and Human Services director Christy Coleman told the board the county had been engaging DHCS and other partners and that recent clarifications about payer mix, Medi‑Cal coverage and staffing made the project potentially financially beneficial to the county. Coleman recommended continuing conversations so the county can negotiate operational terms and protections before committing resources.
The item drew extensive public testimony. Supporters said the county lacks adequate behavioral‑health beds and cited long emergency‑room holds; opponents warned about fiscal risk, out‑of‑county clients filling slots, and local impacts. One public speaker said calling the project “evil” in an earlier board meeting had been harmful to the public process; others urged the board not to rush and to secure written commitments.
After a lengthy exchange about timing and guarantees, the board voted 5‑0 to have staff and an ad‑hoc group of supervisors draft a conditional letter of support and return it for board approval.
