Supes get progress update
Facility on South Orchard Avenue expected to open in November
The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors got an update this week on several projects being funded by Measure B funds that are currently underway, including a facility being built on South Orchard Avenue next to the Ukiah
Post Office.
That building will house a Crisis Residential Treatment Facility, which Dr. Jenine Miller said is expected to be “operational by November 2021.”
As for the Mobile Crisis and Response Team, Miller said, “We have been working with the Sheriff’s Office and the Ukiah Police
Department, and have hired our first staff (members) for that response. We have hired one team member, who will be working with the Sheriff’s (Office), and we are hoping to get that person onboard quickly and trained, and get them out in the field with the Sheriff’s Office.”
As for the Crisis Assessment and Psychiatric Hospitalization Aftercare Program, Miller said “we are working on a contract to finalize with the current crisis provider in Mendocino County, which is Redwood Community Services. And should be bringing that before the board, hopefully in April.”
As for the Psychiatric Health Facility, or PHF, which Miller described as a “16-bed model… where we can provide 24-hour care and services, and not have to transport clients out of county to get those much-needed services. There has been a lot of different exploring of options for where a PHF could go in Mendocino County, and there’s been a lot of things considered.”
With the former Howard Hospital building in Willits no longer an option due to it being sold to another entity, Fifth District Supervisor Ted Williams said he wanted to explore the “Ranch Proposal” submitted by Deputy Mendocino County Health Officer Noemi Doohan, even though the parcels first suggested for the facility may no longer be available.
“I want to hear more about the Ranch proposal, and specifically see the financial feasibility, and whether the state has any additional funds to pull it off,” Williams said. “It looks like an innovative model, given the inherent NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) attitudes surrounding a mental health facility, so locating it in the unincorporated, far from neighbors, seems like it has maybe some potential?”
Williams then asked “if my colleagues would support asking staff to come back with a more definitive plan and financial projection?”
Second District Supervisor Maureen Mulheren said she would support asking staff to bring the proposal back, describing it as “an idea that many people in our community would be willing to support. There is a NIMBY challenge, and that concept really does, in my mind, embody what a lot of our residents think could happen. I would also like to have a discussion in the near future about working with Adventist Health, and what are the options of working more closely with Adventist Health in regards to a facility, whatever type that might be. But we all know that emergency room use by psychiatric patients takes up a lot of space and staff time, so I would appreciate an update on that.”
“The NIMBYISM idea is deeply disturbing to me, because the implication there is the way that mentally ill people are perceived,” said First District Supervisor Glenn Mccourty. “They’re ill, and they get better when they’re treated. And that’s what we’re trying to do here. It’s not like there’s going to be a constant circling of the facility by people who are in some sort of crisis, if they have a place to go. So having a continuum of care is pretty essential; and having it in a place where the neighbors aren’t disturbed by it, and the (patients) could be in a quiet space to recover.”
Williams said he would like the board to direct staff to come back with two “rough proposals: One in proximity to the hospital, and one in the unincorporated (areas) to avoid the NIMBY and see if we can move faster. And then we can look at the two options side-by-side and think about next steps.
“If we decide that it’s not what we want, we can focus on a facility near the hospital,” he said. “I don’t think we need to put a lot of work into this, I think just an half hour presentation looking at what funding sources may be available, and what services could be provided may give us enough to go on.”
Supervisor Mcgourty said he would support that idea, but that “it also feels like we’re kind of getting into the 11th hour on this five-year cycle of funding. I don’t understand why this wasn’t looked at earlier on in the game? But I agree with Supervisor Williams that we should at least take a look and see if it’s feasible.”
Miller said staff could bring back a presentation regarding the feasibility of the Ranch Proposal, though Chief Executive Officer Carmel Angelo said she was not sure the decision has officially been made to even move forward with a PHF for the county.
“I’m not sure we even had a vote that we would move forward with a PHF,” Angelo said, and Miller confirmed that was correct.
“The people told us (when they voted for Measure B) that they wanted a PHF — it’s our job to pull that off,” said Williams. “Coming up on five years, we just need to do it. And it doesn’t have to be the best plan, but what we can’t have is on year six, we haven’t broken ground and we still don’t know where we’re going to put it. We just have to move forward, the voters have already spoken.”
Angelo then suggested that staff could also bring the county’s recently purchased facility on Whitmore Lane forward as an option, since she said that building would have enough space for a 16-bed PHF, as well as other services.