Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board directs district-based distribution of opioid settlement funds, favors supervisor-directed agreements
Summary
Mohave County supervisors voted to allocate opioid settlement funds by supervisor district using a process where individual supervisors nominate recipients for funding agreements subject to board approval rather than a centralized RFP evaluation.
The Mohave County Board of Supervisors voted April 21 to adopt a district-directed distribution strategy for the county's opioid settlement receipts. The adopted approach directs supervisors to propose recipients in their districts and have funding agreements prepared for Board approval rather than using a centrally administered RFP evaluation for all awards.
Why it matters: National opioid settlements provide multi-year funds to local governments for opioid-related treatment, prevention and related costs. Mohave County staff recommended a predictable, competitive RFP process; procurement and public-health teams described trade-offs between central evaluation and supervisor-directed agreements.
Staff recommendation and analysis: Public-health and procurement staff recommended dividing available funds evenly among the county's five supervisor districts and awarding three tiers of grants per district (large/medium/small), with payments drawn from specific settlement-participant accounts as required by accounting guidance. Director Ryan Morien proposed $300,000 per district (total $1.5 million for this award cycle), split into one $150,000, one $100,000 and one $50,000 award per district; staff noted settlement-participant funds cannot be commingled and that the funds arrive in varying amounts and years.
Two procedural options: Procurement outlined (1) an RFP process that would create a scored, transparent evaluation and select top-scoring proposals for awards and (2) a supervisor-directed funding agreement process modeled after ARPA awards in which supervisors work one-on-one with applicants and the county attorney prepares funding agreements for board approval. Procurement said RFPs centralize vetting and standardize reporting expectations; supervisor-directed agreements give district supervisors more control and easier local vetting but put more responsibility on supervisors and county legal staff to structure compliant agreements.
Board decision and vote: Supervisor Gold (moved) and a second were recorded and the board approved the supervisor-directed funding-agreement option. The vote was recorded with a majority in favor and a single recorded dissent. The board directed staff to implement option 2 consistent with settlement accounting rules and to work with the county attorney to prepare funding agreements and reporting terms.
Fiscal notes and timing: Morien emphasized the settlements are multi-year (participants have schedules from roughly six to 18 years) and distributions vary by year; the county will set an annual award cycle and reconcile awards to the particular settlement-participant accounts used to fund them. Staff said they will provide templates, reporting schedules and recipient-eligibility guidance to supervisors and will return with implementation steps and timelines.
