Johnson County staff presented a draft framework Thursday for how to spend opioid settlement funds the county is receiving from national litigation settlements. Grants manager Genevieve Angla recommended a balanced approach that would prioritize stabilizing existing opioid‑related services, expanding recovery supports, and setting aside a smaller share for new prevention and pilot programs.

Angla told supervisors the county has received about $2.1 million to date and expects payments to continue through 2038, with an estimated total exceeding $6 million. Under the settlement MOU with the state, at least 75 percent of funds should fund core strategies identified in the agreement; up to 2.5 percent may be used for administration if tied to opioid activities.

Angla proposed a draft allocation by program type using a balanced annual spending model (roughly $500,000/year under a midline scenario). Her recommended distribution in the presentation placed about 50 percent of annual funds toward offsetting existing county costs for core services (medical‑assisted treatment (MAT), triage/sobering, ambulance support and related services), 30 percent toward expanding existing programs (housing, recovery supports, additional treatment capacity) and 20 percent toward new initiatives (education, prevention, pilot projects). After discussion and input from supervisors and community partners at the meeting, supervisors expressed a preference to increase the share stabilizing and supporting existing services. The group converged on a preliminary working split of approximately 65 percent to offset existing costs, 25 percent to expand existing services, and roughly 10 percent for new initiatives, with the understanding the allocation could change as data on opioid‑related utilization improves.

County staff said they favor a proportional reimbursement model for entities such as Guideline Center, reimbursing opioid‑related costs based on client utilization (for example, if 10 percent of triage clients have opioid use disorder, 10 percent of eligible costs could be covered by opioid funds). County legal staff advised maintaining strict audit trails and verifying that proposed uses comply with the state MOU; staff said they would work with the county attorney’s office to translate the high‑level allocations into MOUs and reporting procedures.

Supervisors asked for more data collection and an annual review process so the allocations can be adjusted if the local profile of opioid‑related needs changes. Guideline Center clinical leaders and public‑health staff urged the board to prioritize sustaining existing services such as MAT, sobering and triage because those are the access points for people with opioid use disorder. Supervisors asked staff to return with formal MOUs and a proposed competitive RFP process for part of the funds; staff said they expect to design an RFP for FY27 and suggested annual reviews and data tracking to measure program impact.

The board did not vote on a final spending plan Thursday; supervisors gave staff direction to refine the framework based on the 65/25/10 working split and to develop the MOUs, RFP process, and reporting methodology for future board approval.