Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Black Hawk County supervisors narrow opioid-settlement plan; ask large applicants to present
Summary
Supervisors reviewed four proposals for opioid settlement funds and signaled a committee recommendation to allocate $750,000 over 18 months while asking City United and the sheriff’s office to present details before final awards.
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Black Hawk County supervisors discussed how to distribute opioid settlement dollars on Nov. 25, with committee staff recommending $750,000 be allocated across an 18‑month period while leaving larger requests subject to further review.
The committee representative told the board that the county has “at least 1,200,000.0 in sitting in the bank account” and proposed using $750,000 for the next 18 months to fund programs the committee prioritized. Board members flagged a $415,000 request from the sheriff's office as one of the largest and asked for more detailed presentations from that office and from City United before making final award decisions.
Why it matters: the county is balancing the desire to fund multiple community programs against the need to preserve a sustainable funding stream from settlement proceeds. Several supervisors said they wanted additional detail, particularly on staffing and overlap with existing contracts, before approving large awards.
Board members and staff said four applications were received and that, while the total requested dollars were below initial budget estimates, the largest proposals required more vetting. One supervisor emphasized accountability and longevity, saying the funds should “last as long as we can and not just give out funding because it was requested.”
Next steps: supervisors asked staff to invite City United and the sheriff’s office to present at the next meeting so members can ask operational and budget questions. Staff noted the committee’s projected contract start date of Jan. 1 and that applicants might benefit from knowing preliminary county decisions before applying for concurrent state grants.
The meeting record shows the board did not vote on final allocations on Nov. 25; instead, it set the next meeting for presentations and additional scoring before any formal awards are made.

