Clark County reviews opioid‑settlement spending plan, seeks RFP process for Recovery Community Center

Clark County fiscal court on July 10 received guidance on spending opioid‑settlement funds and on structuring a Recovery Community Center (RCC) request for proposals. Lauren Carr, advisory advisor at KAGO, told the court the state commission recently moved from quarterly certification to an annual online reporting process and urged counties to use the new system when they report how settlement funds are spent.

Carr said the settlement permits limited reimbursement for past jail‑based treatment beginning at the settlement date and stressed that counties should avoid supplanting existing state funding. “If you paid for treatment in the jail, you can utilize this funding for that,” Carr said. She added that some settlements allow reimbursements going back to the settlement date but that only about 15% of funds, in many cases, may be used for certain historical expenses.

She described common uses other counties have adopted, including expanded in‑jail treatment programs and "recovery backpacks" that provide Narcan and supplies to people leaving jail. Carr advised using memoranda of understanding or contracts with grantees so the county has documentation if a contractor fails to comply or goes out of business. “At the end of the day, the county is responsible for these funds,” she said.

Representatives of local recovery services told the court the RCC is a nonclinical, peer‑led resource that can provide barrier relief (transportation, housing navigation, backpacks, and other supports). They said the Recovery Ready Communities site visit on July 23 will identify community gaps, and recommended tying RFP priorities to the resulting gap analysis.

Magistrates and staff debated whether to hire an outside manager to handle disbursement administration and reporting. County staff said KAGO (and KACO materials) can review proposals and offer feedback but does not serve as a hands‑on fiscal manager for a single county without a contract. Court members expressed interest in a third‑party administrator to provide an additional approval layer and relieve commissioners of long‑term oversight duties.

Action: The court agreed to place KACO’s RFP template and related documents on a future agenda for formal approval and authorized staff to proceed with preparatory work (motion carried).