Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County court agrees to join Midland Health community initiative; names county rep and OKs seal use
Summary
After a presentation citing high diabetes prevalence and low per-capita mental-health providers, the Midland County Commissioners Court voted to partner with Midland Health on a quarterly community health campaign, approved use of the county seal by Midland Health, and appointed Samuel Eaton as the county representative.
Tasha Richardson, introduced by Midland County Public Information Officer Samuel Eaton, briefed the Midland County Commissioners Court on Midland Health's 2025 Community Health Needs Assessment and asked the court to join a multi-agency initiative to promote health resources.
"The percentage of diabetes for our population is at 18.2 percent for Midland County compared to the state of Texas at 12.7," Richardson said, and she also noted mental-health provider density in Midland County (104.7 per 100,000) is well below state and national benchmarks. Richardson asked the court to participate as a community partner in quarterly marketing campaigns and public outreach coordinated by Midland Health, noting the effort is not a request for county funds.
The court voted to participate in the initiative. Commissioner (Speaker 4) moved the participation motion, a second was offered, and the motion passed. The court separately approved a motion to allow Midland Health to use the Midland County seal on outreach materials and appointed Samuel Eaton as the county representative to the new committee.
According to Richardson, Midland Health expects to coordinate with the city of Midland, Midland ISD and Midland College and to use existing county communication channels to amplify outreach on topics such as mental health and access to care. The full assessment and supporting statistics appear in the committee backup materials and at midlandhealth.org, Richardson said.
The court's actions were procedural approvals to join the partnership and assign a county point of contact; no county financial contribution was requested or authorized during the meeting. The court moved on to other agenda items after the votes.
