A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Siskiyou supervisors approve behavioral-health housing contract for two Yreka homes

July 14, 2026 | Siskiyou County, California


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Siskiyou supervisors approve behavioral-health housing contract for two Yreka homes
The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted to continue a contract that houses behavioral-health clients in two privately owned Yreka homes, approving about $116,400 in annual costs and directing staff to pursue regional facility options.

Sarah Kolague, Health and Human Services, told the board the county uses two houses owned by local landlords as a lower-cost alternative to placing clients in motels. "This is actually a house that is owned by one of the motel owners...so we do longer-term housing in several houses in the community," Kolague said, adding the county pays gaps in rent and provides case-management support.

County Administrator Angela Davis read contract details into the record, citing an FY 25–26 total of $116,400: "One property is $56,400 a year and the second property is $60,000 a year," and listing monthly rents of $5,500 and $5,800. Davis also confirmed occupancy of about 11 clients across the two homes.

Several board members questioned the cost and broader market effects of leasing residential homes for program housing. One supervisor warned that paying high rates for small homes could draw investors and reduce housing supply for families. Another member said the county has limited options and noted long waits for Section 8 vouchers: "There's not enough suppliers for that," the committee member said.

Supervisor Brian Schneeck moved to approve the contract with direction that behavioral-health staff pursue building or partnering on a regional facility so the county does not continue to rely on privately owned residences in thin markets; a colleague seconded the motion. The motion passed 4–1, with Supervisor Harris recorded as the lone no vote.

Supporters of the contract defended it as the cheapest available option for this client population and said the county is constrained by federal and program rules that prioritize housing-first models. Kolague told the board: "We are now required under the HSA to spend a third of that money that we receive on housing, and this is the cheapest option."

The board’s approval keeps case-management placements in place for now. Staff were directed to report back on regional partnerships and longer-term facility planning.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee