Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss using opioid settlement funds for a crisis receiving center; direct staff to coordinate with mental‑health partners
Summary
County officials reviewed current opioid settlement receipts (~$2.99M), projected future settlements (~$6.3M through 2038), and discussed using the funds toward a crisis receiving center; staff were asked to consult the mental health and recovery board and Dr. Watson and report back.
Clermont County commissioners discussed the county’s opioid settlement funds and potential use of those funds to support a crisis receiving center at the June 4 meeting.
Emily (auditor/finance staff) reported the county has received $2,994,297.01 in opioid‑related settlement funds to date and has allocated $81,120 to cover an increase in medical assisted treatment (MAT) nursing services in the jail. The county has estimates of additional settlements projected to come through 2038 totaling about $6,300,000, for a combined figure of just over $9 million when summed with funds already received, Emily said.
Commissioners said settlement funds are restricted by the settlement terms and cannot be returned directly to taxpayers; rather, they must be spent on eligible opioid‑related remediation activities such as treatment, prevention, and crisis services. Commissioners discussed the importance of a crisis receiving center (described in the meeting as a facility to triage and assist individuals in behavioral health or substance use crisis rather than routing them to jail or an emergency room) and noted that some capital costs for that effort have been covered by ARPA and other grants.
Board members asked staff — including County Administrator and commissioner designees — to coordinate with Dr. Watson and the mental health and recovery board to obtain details on operational costs and how settlement funds could be applied (for example, reimbursement of future operating costs). Commissioners directed staff to hold existing settlement funds for that purpose and requested a follow‑up report with specifics so the board can confirm appropriate use in compliance with settlement terms.
No binding appropriation of the settlement funds was made at the meeting; commissioners instructed staff to return with more detailed cost and funding plans and to ensure any allocations flow through the Mental Health and Recovery Board or other appropriate authorities, consistent with settlement restrictions.
Commissioners noted the time sensitivity of planning and asked staff to expedite the information gathering.
