Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Opioid Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board discusses whether re-organizing nonprofit Atlas could qualify for opioid funds; no formal request
Summary
Supervisors discussed an inquiry about using county opioid-allocation funds for Atlas, which is reorganizing, and raised questions about licensing, qualifying activities and the need to consult the county attorney before any funding decision.
The Osceola County Board of Supervisors discussed a preliminary inquiry about whether opioid-settlement funds could support an organization called Atlas but took no formal action.
A supervisor said Atlas has approached the county and is in a reorganization phase and is not ready to present a formal funding request. The supervisor said they had discussed the question with a county staff member (Andre), who could not find an immediate legal bar to the idea but recommended consulting the county attorney. The board flagged two concerns: whether Atlas provides qualifying services (such as licensed counseling or documented evidence-based programs) and whether the organization's current structure and licensing would meet the legal and grant requirements for opioid-allocation spending.
Board members noted Atlas currently operates largely on donations and that, as presented, it may lack licensed providers. One supervisor said Atlas might deliver education programming that could potentially qualify, but emphasized that staff should check legal and eligibility issues before any funds are committed. The board agreed the county attorney should be consulted and that Atlas should be asked to return with a formal request and documentation of services, licensing, and proposed use of funds.
Why it matters: opioid-settlement and allocation funds typically have qualifying uses and reporting requirements; allocating funds to local organizations requires legal review and documentation of how activities fit approved categories. The board left the topic at discussion and asked staff to follow up rather than moving forward with funding at this meeting.
