Cowlitz County weighs options for $2.7 million in opioid-settlement funds; next steps could include committee, RFP or targeted projects

Cowlitz County Health and Human Services briefed the Board on opioid-settlement revenue the county has received, the allowable uses spelled out in the 1 Washington memorandum of understanding and options for allocating the funds locally.

Gina James, director of Health and Human Services, told commissioners the county has received just over $2.7 million in settlement revenue through May and has spent a little more than $30,000 to date. “So far, as of through May, we've received revenue of a little over $2,700,000,” James said. She also said one settlement in the state provides an estimated annual payment of about $400,000 that tapers to about $200,000 and continues for roughly 15–17 years, and that total anticipated payouts shown in county materials amount to roughly $7 million over time.

James reviewed the memorandum of understanding’s structure: it lists core strategies that should be prioritized (naloxone distribution, treatment expansion, services for pregnant and postpartum women, services for incarcerated populations, prevention, and syringe-service programs with linkage to care) and a broader list of allowable uses tied to opioid use disorder. She explained that regional participants are required by the agreement to name an opioid abatement council for oversight; the county leads the regional council and must post expenditures publicly. “That group doesn’t have to approve anything ahead of time,” James said; the council serves as a regional check and a place to raise complaints or questions about allowable uses.

Commissioners and members of the public discussed next steps. Jennifer Leach with WSU Extension recommended creating a time-limited subcommittee that includes treatment and prevention providers, coroner representation and people with lived experience, and suggested using an RFP process to invite evidence-based proposals that include performance objectives and evaluation. “I would suggest a process … to possibly put together a subcommittee … to really maybe have some treatment providers at the table, prevention providers … and come forward with a recommendation for you,” Leach said.

Commissioners asked whether the settlement funds could be combined with other local or state revenue streams; James said there are overlaps with other funding sources (for example, document recording fees used for housing-related programs or the criminal justice treatment account for drug-court services) but emphasized that eligible uses under the memorandum must be tied to opioid use disorder prevention, treatment or related services.

No final allocation or formal vote occurred at the meeting. Staff outlined options for proceeding: continue to hold funds and solicit community input; form a short-term stakeholder committee to recommend priorities; issue an RFP for evidence-based programs; or target the funds to a locally prioritized facility or program. Several commissioners and members of the public expressed support for a process that balances tangible services (treatment beds or facilities) with prevention and evidence-based programs; James said staff will return with options and recommended next steps for board direction.

Public commenters indicated local appetite for treatment facilities and prevention work; James said the county will continue taking inquiries and will work with the opioid abatement council, legal staff and partner agencies when considering requests. The county’s settlement landing page will continue to show posted expenditures as required by the memorandum.