Suquamish committee questions King County plan to retain unspent opioid-abatement funds; asks staff to draft position
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City staff told the Finance & Administration Committee on Sept. 8 that King County’s opioid-abatement council proposed an amendment that would allow it to retain unspent funds; the committee requested a position statement asking that unspent dollars roll into local service delivery unless a clear justification for County retention is provided.
The Suquamish Finance & Administration Committee on Sept. 8 heard from staff about a proposed amendment to the King County Opioid Abatement Council interlocal agreement (ILA) that would change how unspent opioid-settlement funds are treated. Tina, a city staff member who represents the city on the County council, told the committee she and other cities are concerned that the amendment would let King County retain prior-year unspent funds rather than returning those dollars to member cities for local service delivery.
Tina summarized the background: the Washington State Attorney General negotiated settlements with multiple pharmaceutical companies; settlement funds for cities are administered through an opioid-abatement council in each county. Under the current arrangement, 10% of a city’s settlement allocation is sent to King County, and any under-spend by King County is credited back to the cities in subsequent years. "A lot of cities are really concerned," Tina said, because the proposed change could mean more funding is retained at the county level instead of being available locally.
Why it matters: Cities use opioid-settlement funds for addiction treatment, prevention, community outreach and other abatement activities. Committee members said they want transparency and accounting from King County and questioned why unspent administrative or oversight dollars would not be returned to the pool for service delivery.
The committee discussed possible responses: provide feedback through the Finance & Administration committee, request more detailed accounting from King County, or ask for an audit to understand spending patterns. Tina said King County has paused approval of the proposed ILA amendment to collect feedback.
Action requested: the committee asked staff to draft a position statement for review in F&A that will express the city’s concerns; the suggested language is that the city "does not see reason for retention of prior-year funds at the King County level versus rolling them into services delivery in the subsequent year," subject to any County explanations for retention. The committee said it could escalate the matter to the full City Council depending on follow-up information and responses from King County.
Next steps: staff will prepare the position statement and circulate it to the committee; the item will remain on the F&A agenda for further discussion and possible formal council direction.