Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Substance Use Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee questions new recovery campus pilot and funding source for recovery services
Summary
Appropriations members discussed a proposed 15‑bed pilot recovery campus and increased funding for recovery centers, raised questions about oversight and whether the opioid abatement advisory committee had reviewed the plan.
Members of the House Appropriations Committee on March 11 discussed a new recovery services proposal the governor included in the FY26 request: a pilot 15‑bed “recovery campus” and additional funding for recovery centers and recovery housing supports.
Human Services Chair Theresa Wood described the proposal as a 15‑bed pilot with $500,000 one‑time for fit‑up and renovation and roughly $1,500,000 in operations in the governor’s proposal (the transcript references $1,500,000 but not the full time period for that amount). Committee members pressed for more detail on program design, length of operation covered by the operational dollars, and whether courts or federal partners had shaped the model. Wood said an RFI had been issued and that the federal judiciary had been involved in conversations to identify gaps in the state’s continuum of substance‑use treatment and step‑down supports.
Several members said they were troubled the $500,000 fit‑up money and the pilot concept had not been reviewed by the opioid abatement special fund advisory committee; Wood said the advisory committee was not presented with the proposal and the committee felt it should have been part of that body’s deliberations. Members also noted limited information on a site; Wood said only “rumors” existed about a location and that details remained under development.
The committee also discussed recovery centers, which Wood described as daytime supports — open evenings or weekends in some cases — focused on relapse prevention and peer and clinical supports. Human Services recommended spending part of prevention funding (dollars derived from the cannabis excise tax that now help fund prevention activities) on recovery centers rather than the opioid settlement fund, arguing centers perform preventive work.
Why it matters: committee members signaled concern that a sizable new pilot needs clearer community engagement, oversight and alignment with the opioid abatement advisory process before base funding is added to the FY26 budget.
The committee asked staff and administration representatives for more detailed cost estimates, siting information, planned services and a clearer explanation of why the opioid abatement advisory committee was not consulted.
