Davis County officials and criminal justice partners spent the budget committee meeting discussing how best to use roughly $17.3 million in confirmed opioid settlement funds and whether to preserve principal to generate ongoing interest.

Committee members and county attorneys presented competing proposals that mix one-time capital purchases — including a $200,000 body scanner for the jail and $25,000 in naloxone (Narcan) kits — and ongoing personnel and program costs such as inmate reentry assistance, pretrial supports and new divisions inside the county attorney’s office. County staff cautioned that the confirmed settlements total $17.3 million through 2038 and that the county will receive additional payments in future years but not at levels to sustain large ongoing costs indefinitely.

The discussion focused on two overarching choices: spend down principal to fund programs now (a 15‑year spending horizon was modeled) or preserve more principal as an endowment and use only investment returns to support programs. Scott (meeting moderator/staff) presented a projection showing current expected cash flows and interest, and he said the modeled plan could fund the proposal through about 2040 but would create “a fiscal cliff” after that point unless the county identified roughly $2.25–$2.5 million a year in new tax revenue or other general-fund support to continue services.

Troy Rawlings, county attorney, outlined a plan to build a new division in his office to handle opioid-related cases and diversion programs required under a 2023 state statute. Rawlings and others emphasized a preference for funding some front-end, high-impact, one-time items first — for example, the body scanner and naloxone — then funding flexible, adjustable line items (bus passes, ankle-monitor fees, short-term supports) rather than immediately committing to multiple new full-time staff entirely funded by settlement dollars.

Todd Dutzinger, a public defender present at the meeting, described the value of a forensic social worker and an administrative screening role modeled on a long-retired staffer, Kathy Morris, who previously screened incoming cases and routed potentially eligible clients to diversion, drug court or mental-health tracks. Dutzinger said the forensic social worker would help obtain medical records and quickly establish whether defendants have mental-health or substance-use needs; he suggested starting with one social worker and noting the likely need for temporary office space.

Brandon Hatch of Davis Behavioral Health urged funding for positions that support treatment access and highlighted constraints in current treatment funding: “This year we received $19,000 to provide drug court treatment,” Hatch said, calling that amount insufficient compared with typical program costs (he estimated roughly $100,000 as the program’s overall cost). He also noted federal opioid treatment grants Davis Behavioral has received in prior years and warned that those grants have limited terms and will eventually expire.

Several criminal-justice presenters described lower-cost, flexible items that can be scaled year to year — bus passes, ankle-monitor subsidies, and case-management software licenses — and recommended prioritizing items that maximize the number of people helped per dollar. Todd and others listed startup and ongoing cost estimates for different proposals: a startup cost for office furnishings of “about 30 to 40,000” and ongoing personnel estimates “between $3.24 and $4.80” (as stated in the meeting record; units and time frames were discussed but not finalized). Participants repeatedly emphasized that some numeric items are estimates to be refined.

There was no vote or formal decision at the meeting. The committee asked staff to return with more refined scenarios, including 1) a spend-down plan that phases program funding over 15–20 years and 2) a preservation/endowment option that would invest principal and use interest to support programs slowly over time. The county attorney’s office also proposed cost-sharing (paying part of new positions from the general fund and part from settlement funds) so that new hires could perform opioid-related duties and other general duties, thereby reducing the amount paid solely from settlement money.

Officials noted legal and implementation constraints. Rawlings and others referenced a 2023 state statute that affects how diversion and related programs must be structured; the group also discussed the county’s settlement agreement receipts (including pending Purdue-related distributions) as the allowable funding source and emphasized that internal allocation decisions must comply with those agreements. Several speakers urged caution about creating permanent recurring costs funded entirely by a limited settlement principal.

The meeting concluded with staff committing to return with refined budgets, technology cost estimates for case-management software, clearer staffing proposals (including potential shared‑funding models), and an endowment vs. spend-down scenario for the commission’s consideration.