A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Board approves participation in Purdue and manufacturer opioid settlements, directs counsel to finalize documents

August 27, 2025 | Floyd County, Virginia


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Board approves participation in Purdue and manufacturer opioid settlements, directs counsel to finalize documents
The Floyd County Board of Supervisors voted to participate in proposed multi‑party opioid settlements, authorizing the county attorney or the county’s outside counsel to sign documents to finalize Floyd County’s participation.

County legal counsel summarized two proposed settlement groupings: a Purdue/Sackler settlement (noting prior votes on earlier Purdue‑related agreements) and a separate group of manufacturers representing roughly $700 million nationally. Counsel said participating localities will receive settlement funds distributed through a state‑level opioid abatement authority and through direct allocations; funds are restricted for opioid‑abatement uses and must be spent in accordance with the formula and MOU that accompany the settlements.

Why it matters: settlements produce restricted funding for addiction treatment, prevention and abatement programs and may augment local behavioral‑health capacity. Supervisors questioned allocation shares and the proportion of funds flowing to the state opioid abatement authority versus direct local allocations; counsel indicated the authority receives a substantial share while localities receive allocations according to the settlement formula and implementation agreements.

Discussion versus decision: after legal briefing and questions the Board took two formal votes — first to approve participation in the Purdue/Sackler settlement documents and then to approve participation in the manufacturers’ settlement — and authorized counsel to execute necessary documents. One supervisor asked that his dissent be noted: he voted against the manufacturer resolution on principle, arguing other responsible parties (prescribers) had not been similarly pursued.

Ending: Both resolutions passed by recorded vote; counsel will complete required documentation and the county will be eligible to receive opioid‑abatement funds distributed according to settlement terms and state allocation rules.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee

Sponsors

Proudly supported by sponsors who keep Virginia articles free in 2026

Scribe from Workplace AI
Scribe from Workplace AI