County board declines to create opioid task force after DHS briefing and strong public comments

The Manitowoc County Board of Supervisors voted 11–10 on a motion to postpone indefinitely a resolution (No. 72) that would have created a county opioid task force, effectively ending consideration of the proposal.

The vote followed a presentation by Michelle Hayes, director of substance use initiatives and a policy advisor at the Wisconsin Department of Health Services, on how national opioid litigation settlement funds flow to Wisconsin and the allowable uses for those funds. Hayes told the board the settlement funds exist to “abate the opioid epidemic” and described reporting requirements and examples of how state funds have been used in Manitowoc County.

Hayes said the national litigation (MDL case 2804) and subsequent settlements have produced money for Wisconsin and that state law (Wisconsin Act 57) and settlement Exhibit E limit how funds may be used. “The dollars support services. They support persons,” Hayes said. She told supervisors the state receives 30% of settlement payments and subdivisions that participated receive 70%; local governments must report annually under the statute Hayes cited.

Nut graf: The item put county oversight and transparency in tension with a broad set of community partners who urged supervisors not to create an additional oversight body that would duplicate existing recovery structures. Several judges, program leaders and people in long-term recovery told the board the county’s Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, drug court, human services and community recovery providers are producing measurable results and that new governance could disrupt those services.

Most presenters at the public-comment period — including three Manitowoc County circuit judges, local recovery-home operators and multiple people in long-term recovery — urged supervisors to preserve and support existing programs instead of forming a new task force. Circuit Judge Mark Rohr told the board, “We do not need an opiate task force.” Judge Bob Duane and Judge Anthony Lambrecht likewise said existing coordinated efforts — particularly the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (CJCC) and drug court — already provide oversight and that funds should go to sustaining treatment and sober living.

Speakers from recovery housing and peer-support organizations said reductions in other grants and the ongoing cost of treatment make the opioid settlement dollars important to maintain current services. Carrie Rideau, administrator and case manager at Lotus Recovery Homes, described the county’s “puzzle” of programs and said the system of care in Manitowoc County has become a statewide model. Multiple people with lived experience described drug court and wraparound services as essential to their recovery and their ability to reunite with family.

Hayes also described state-funded initiatives tied to settlement dollars that have supported the county: a Naloxone Direct program (partnering settlement dollars with federal SAMHSA funding), a room-and-board fund for Medicaid recipients in residential substance use disorder treatment (Manitowoc County received $68,757), and capital funding to expand housing (Hayes said Lighthouse Recovery received just under $200,000 for expansion). Hayes said the state reports quarterly and counties submit annual reports to the Department of Justice and the Joint Committee on Finance.

Board discussion before the vote reflected two main themes. Supervisors who supported the task force argued they needed a coordinated strategy and clearer accounting for settlement dollars the county had received in prior years. A supporter said he had asked county staff for documentation on 2023–24 opioid-related spending and had received “0 evidence” showing where $550,000 appropriated in 2023–24 was spent; he described the task force as a way to collect expertise, ensure oversight and educate the public. Supporters cited other Wisconsin counties that have used settlement funds to create targeted positions and programs (for example, hiring clinical staff, funding sober living slots or purchasing equipment for jails).

Opponents said the county already has multiple oversight bodies and community partners that coordinate services and that adding a task force risked duplication. Several speakers — including judges and recovery providers — said the CJCC, human services and drug court produce measurable, positive outcomes. Opponents also argued the county executive and committee structure are the proper vehicles for budgetary and program oversight.

The decisive motion that ended the item was a motion to postpone the resolution indefinitely. The clerk announced the motion passed 11–10, meaning the resolution will not be considered again and no task force will be created under the current proposal.

Ending: Supervisors and community members who spoke on both sides characterized the debate as fundamentally about accountability and how best to safeguard limited resources for treatment, prevention and harm reduction. The county will continue to receive settlement payments as they are paid, and questions about accounting and strategy were left as topics for future committee oversight and public inquiry.