Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Healthcare Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer says Lee County is 'shovel ready' for 52‑bed substance use disorder facility, seeks opioid‑abatement partnership
Summary
A developer told the board a 52‑bed ASAM facility with 10 forensic beds is 75% shovel ready, has $1.75 million in private investment, and may qualify for opioid‑abatement grants; he asked the county for guidance on partnering and pursuing funds.
A developer seeking to locate a substance use disorder facility in Lee County told the Board of Supervisors on July 15 that the project is far enough along to seek county support and potential opioid‑abatement funding.
"This project, so far, has spent over $1,700,000 of private money to get to this place," the presenter said, describing the proposal as a 52‑bed ASAM facility with 10 beds designated for forensic residents. He said the project uses local, licensed contractors and includes a separate doctor's office and IV therapy clinic to serve residents and the surrounding community.
The presenter argued local placement would reduce county costs: "When we have a building that is ready to go ... we have 10 beds for which will allow police to watch their inmates in the facility," he said, adding that keeping people in‑county would cut police overtime and out‑of‑state placements. The developer described the project as a $13,000,000 undertaking and said he had invested $1,750,000 to date.
County staff explained the local opioid abatement funding structure and application options, describing three 'buckets' of funds: a direct allocation the county has used for a county work program, a competitive grant pool administered by the county, and an additional competitive bucket available to jurisdictions meeting a 'gold standard' test that dedicates opioid funds fully to abatement projects.
The developer asked for guidance on how to partner with the county and apply for opioid‑abatement grants. County staff offered to provide the application materials and to schedule follow‑up meetings to explore eligibility and potential county requirements for grant applications.
No formal county commitment or vote on partnership or funding was recorded at the meeting; the developer told supervisors he would provide digital plans and meet with county staff.
The board earlier handled routine approvals and moved on to other agenda items after the presentation.
