Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners discuss opioid settlement fund uses and application process
Summary
A commissioner reported that an attorney general MOU and statute outline permitted opioid settlement uses — naloxone distribution/training, treatment access, jail-based programs, prevention and evaluation — and suggested adopting a county application process; commissioners agreed to review and tailor the form before any award decisions.
Commissioner Micah Mobernke told the board he researched how Bourbon County could access opioid settlement funds and said the Kansas Association of Counties and an attorney general memorandum of understanding identify a broad set of permissible uses.
"There are more things that you can use it for than what you can't use it for," Mobernke said, summarizing the review and noting he distributed copies of the application materials and the statute to commissioners.
Commissioners cited eligible program types discussed in the memo and packet, including purchase and distribution of naloxone and associated training, expanding low-threshold access to medication-assisted treatment, creation or expansion of warm hand-off programs and coordinated recovery services, provision of evidence-based jail- or prison-based behavioral-health services, school- and community-based prevention initiatives, and evaluation and data-collection activities.
Board members asked logistical questions about where applications should be filed and how awards would be managed. The packet notes that the maximum award per application is $50,000; commissioners also said the county has received relatively small, earlier opioid-related payments and that additional grants may be available through the Kansas Association account. Mobernke said he would not modify the application unless the commission supported using that approach; commissioners asked staff to circulate the supporting statute and MOU and to bring a county-adapted application back for review.
No final awards were made at the meeting; the proposal was tabled pending a county-specific application form and further review of eligibility and fund size.
