Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Mental Health Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kittitas County opts to limit local mental-health tax awards to agencies, not individuals
Summary
At a May 27 study session, Kittitas County staff reported on advisory-committee planning and discussed a request to use a portion of locally controlled mental-health tax funding for an individual in need. Commissioners agreed the county will direct the funds to agencies rather than individual awards and will pursue referrals for the family.
On May 27, 2026, attendees at a Kittitas County Public Health study session discussed use of locally controlled mental-health tax funding after Juvenile Probation asked county staff about supporting a client pending inpatient treatment. County staff said a family requested whether a portion of locally controlled funds could be used for an individual, and noted treatment is listed in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) among eligible uses.
Kasey Knutson, who introduced consultant Robin Read, told commissioners that Juvenile Probation had asked about options for a client facing multiple barriers to inpatient care. Robin Read, contracted to update strategic and action plans for Human Services advisory committees, summarized committee deliverables, including a strategic plan for the one-tenth-of-one-percent Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Advisory Board, an update to the biennial Developmental Disabilities plan, and an implementation plan for the Homelessness and Affordable Housing Committee to align with the 2025'030 Local Homeless Plan for Kittitas County.
The board discussed whether locally collected mental-health tax proceeds should be disbursed to agencies or used for individual awards. According to the meeting record, the commissioners decided "at this time, local tax funding will be used for agencies versus individual requests." Staff discussed next steps to assist the family through referrals and connections with medical social workers; no formal roll-call vote was recorded in the minutes.
The discussion did not identify a statute citation beyond a reference to the RCW generally; staff also noted the funding source and program names discussed in the advisory-committee planning. The board recorded no questions for the consultant during the update and the item concluded with direction to pursue agency-distributed supports and client referrals.
The study session adjourned at 10:44 a.m.
