Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawyer urges Limestone County to sign opioid settlement documents, seek larger state funds
Summary
At a county meeting, an attorney representing coalition counsel described two national opioid settlements, said Limestone County stands to receive modest direct payments and urged the county to apply to the larger statewide fund for additional grants.
Blake Beckham, a private attorney appearing before the Limestone County Commissioners, urged the county to execute settlement documents for two opioid-related national settlements and to apply for grants from the larger statewide fund that receives the bulk of settlement proceeds.
Beckham told commissioners the larger Purdue Pharmaceuticals settlement totals $286,000,000 and described the statewide allocation framework he said is governed by state statute: 70% of certain settlement funds go to a statewide fund, 15% to counties and 15% to another distribution. He said counties that document opioid-related costs — for emergency response, public safety or treatment — can apply to the 70% statewide pot for additional funding.
Beckham said the county’s direct shares in the settlements are small. He cited a $286,000,000 figure for the Purdue settlement and said Limestone County’s direct allocations in materials he provided are modest; for the smaller “gang of eight” manufacturer settlement he said Limestone’s direct share was $5,400. He also said other regional allocations and a Region 16 allocation of $2,000,000 were reflected in the materials he left with the county.
Beckham asked the court-signature pages in tabs 2 and 3 of the commissioners’ meeting packet be signed by the county so the county can accept its direct allocations and be eligible to apply for funds from regional and statewide programs. He suggested the county assign staff to track application opportunities and to document local opioid-related expenses that could justify grants from the statewide pot.
Discussion at the meeting included an acknowledgement from commissioners that they would review the attachments and request follow-up from the law firms flagged in the packet. The transcript shows a request for a motion to authorize signatures, but the final roll-call vote on signing the exhibits is not recorded in the portions of the transcript provided.
Beckham also told commissioners there are still pending cases that could produce future funds, including a trial set for October 2026, and cautioned that fund flows from settlements will be phased over years rather than immediate lump sums.
The county did not record a final decision in the provided transcript excerpt; commissioners asked staff to review the materials and to follow up with the law firm about application procedures and next steps.
