Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Behavioral Health topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts Behavioral Health Services Act integrated plan and three‑year budget; questions raised about suicide prevention funding
Summary
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors adopted the Behavioral Health Services Act integrated plan and budget (FY2026–2029). Presenters outlined distribution changes under Prop 1 (housing emphasis, new reporting) and warned the BHSA reduces prior MHSA allocations by 5%, affecting some local prevention programs such as universal suicide prevention.
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors voted to adopt the new Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA) integrated plan and the county budget for fiscal years 2026–2029 after a public presentation and community outreach summary from Behavioral Health staff.
Behavioral Health Director Emmy Bosler Rogers and Oliver Gonzalez, the county’s BHSA coordinator, told the board the BHSA (the state reform of the prior Mental Health Services Act) changes how the so‑called “millionaires tax” is distributed: 10% is now allocated to state oversight and technical support while 90% flows to counties under a formula. Gonzalez summarized the practical consequences: “One point that I've made throughout this presentation is that the BHSA is a major system redesign and it's not a funding increase,” noting the reallocation effectively reduces locally available funds compared with the prior MHSA setup.
Under the new BHSA rules the state prescribes three core buckets for county spending: housing interventions (30% of county allocation), behavioral health services and supports (35%), and full service partnerships (35%). Humboldt County staff estimated the FY26‑27 BHSA allocation at about $11.2 million and presented a proposed distribution consistent with the state percentages. The housing bucket can now fund rental subsidies, operating subsidies and development of permanent supportive housing; staff noted some housing dollars were previously used within full service partnerships and that counties must not limit housing funds only to FSP clients.
Gonzalez said the BHSA imposes new reporting and program requirements, including a 51% carve‑out within BHSS for early intervention and an additional emphasis that 51% of early intervention funding target people age 25 and younger. Counties must also maximize billable medical revenue before using BHSA funds when applicable, he said, and evidence‑based practice requirements for some FSP elements may challenge small or rural counties.
Supervisors pressed staff on the fate of local suicide prevention work. The county’s MHSA historically funded universal prevention efforts, including suicide prevention partnerships; under BHSA the state is collecting an additional 5% for population‑based prevention and the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) will administer that funding to local public health jurisdictions and community partners. Michelle from Public Health told the board CDPH’s allocation process requires counties to have a suicide prevention plan tied to the county health assessment and improvement plan; CDPH will distribute funds to support those activities.
Public commenters and board members urged continued support for key local programs cited in the outreach process — including HCTC youth services and the Hope Center — even as funding rules change. The board adopted the integrated plan and budget by roll call and authorized the behavioral health director to sign the certification form and submit the plan to the state, subject to non‑material corrections.
What happens next: Behavioral Health staff will work with county fiscal teams and public health to track CDPH allocations for population‑based prevention, continue community program planning, and return with required annual updates and performance reports to the state.
