Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners direct staff to design grant process for opioid settlement funds and consider drug recovery court funding
Summary
The commission discussed using opioid settlement funds to support drug recovery court operations and asked staff to develop a grant process and return with recommendations at a future work session.
Dickinson County commissioners discussed spending settlement-derived opioid funding and directed staff to develop a grant application process to allocate the money among competing community proposals, with special attention to sustaining the existing drug recovery court.
A request from the Eighth Judicial District’s community advisory board sought about $45,000 to cover a defense attorney and frequent drug testing for participants in the county’s drug recovery court. Commissioners said the court currently draws from the county general fund and that the requested amount would cover testing that can occur three times per week for participants.
Commissioners noted the settlement funds are variable and distributed by ACH as amounts arrive; the county received $59,000 in the prior year and had roughly $82,000 available from past distributions. Members expressed a preference to give priority to sustaining the existing recovery court but also to subject requests to a formal grant process so multiple applicants can be fairly evaluated.
County staff outlined sources of other contributions: a prior $25,000 community foundation grant helped start the program, and the county has been covering some ongoing costs. Commissioners discussed timing and the mechanics of awarding grants tied to known distributions: one option is to open applications after the county knows the prior-year distribution amount so awards can be matched to available funds.
The commission asked staff to draft a straightforward grant application (not unduly long) that requires a proposed budget and organizational chart, and to return with recommendations at a work session in about two weeks. Commissioners said they want criteria and an awarding timetable so applicants understand how decisions are made and so the county can avoid arbitrary selection. No appropriation was made at the meeting; staff were asked to bring back a recommended process and options for award amounts and timing.
