Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Manatee County delays opioid‑impact grant awards after commissioners request more data
Summary
County staff recommended awarding $1.0 million in opioid impact grant funds across six programs, but commissioners directed staff to defer final approval to the Aug. 5 meeting and provide additional evidence and scoring materials after public concerns about selection and scale.
Manatee County commissioners deferred final approval of the FY25–26 Opioid Impact Grant funding recommendations on July 29 after commissioners and members of the public raised questions about the selection process and program evidence. The board voted to postpone the decision to the Aug. 5 regular meeting (or soon thereafter) to allow staff to supply additional materials requested by the commission.
Andrew Kunkel, the county’s opioid response and policy coordinator, presented a competitive cycle that produced 28 applications requesting roughly $12.4 million; six programs were recommended for the $1.0 million allocation. Recommended awards included home‑based support for families (Safe Children Coalition CAPTA), early recovery funding for women (Freedom Recovery Campus / Harvest House), housing‑stability programs (Turning Points and Vital Steps), jail‑reentry medication support (Operation PAR MAPS), and a school‑based prevention package (Strong Futures).
Commissioners asked for more documentation about the scoring matrix and evidence of prior program outcomes before finalizing awards. Commissioner Felt asked staff to provide historical performance and application evidence for Turning Points’ housing stabilization model; Deputy Director James Kredshall said committee score sheets and applications can be made available. Commissioner Ballard and others also requested clarity on residency and eligibility requirements, sustainability and whether award recipients have matching funds or site readiness.
Multiple nonprofit leaders and people with lived experience urged funding for front‑line recovery support and smaller grassroots providers. Voices from the public, including leaders of local sober‑living and recovery organizations, argued that some smaller providers did not receive recommended funding and that dollars could be better distributed to community‑based programs providing direct services and housing placements.
County staff said the review committee included county staff and subject matter experts and used an 110‑point scoring matrix; staff emphasized the programmatic reporting template that will accompany awards and the public dashboard to be released after final selections. The board asked staff to provide the committee’s scoring matrix, the applications for recommended providers, and a summary of the justification for each award before the next meeting.
The board voted to defer the awards and the associated resolution authorizing the county administrator to execute funding agreements. County staff said the program timeline allows the short deferral without jeopardizing the funding cycle.
Next steps: staff will compile the scoring matrix, application materials and outcome evidence and return for a final vote on Aug. 5 or as soon thereafter as practicable.
