Sauk County board reconfirms lawyers’ authority in opioid suits, commits settlement funds to matched treatment grant

The Sauk County Board on Wednesday voted to reaffirm its corporate counsel’s authority to add additional defendants to ongoing opioid litigation, addressing a claim from pharmacy-benefit manager OptumRx, and later approved using county opioid settlement funds as a $100,000 match for an outside treatment grant.

The confirmation resolution, described by corporate counsel as a clarification tied to a late claim by OptumRx, was adopted after discussion and a roll-call vote. “Basically what we’re doing is saying, we did allow for this initially, and if we didn’t we allow for it now,” counsel said during the meeting, summarizing counsel’s view of the county’s authorization. The board approved the resolution to confirm counsel’s authority in multi-district litigation MDL 2804 by recorded vote (16 in favor, 9 opposed, 1 abstention, 4 excused).

Why it matters: counsel said the clarification responds to OptumRx’s notice that the county’s earlier authorization did not explicitly authorize adding pharmacy-benefit managers as defendants. Board action preserves the county’s participation while legal teams address OptumRx’s claim. County officials also said prior litigation settlements have already delivered money to the county and that those funds have been used for opioid-related public health purposes.

County leaders said the board has received settlement proceeds to date. “We currently have 1,700,000.0. And that includes interest,” a county official said during the meeting, adding the county spent just under $50,000 on opioid-related public-health work in 2024 and budgeted roughly $120,000 for 2025. The board later approved a separate resolution (Resolution 33) to commit $100,000 of county opioid settlement funds as a local match to a one-year $100,000 grant for treatment and prevention programs; that motion passed 23–2.

Board members who opposed extending authority to add defendants urged caution. “We are poking the bear here,” Supervisor Pepper said, explaining a vote against adding more defendants. Pepper warned of potential indirect consequences for drug prices and questioned whether prescription opioids or illegal imports were driving local overdoses. Other supervisors said the county has used prior settlement money for Narcan, testing strips and other public-health interventions; a county staffer confirmed spending must follow the limits spelled out in the original settlement’s Exhibit E and that funds must be used for opioid-related programs.

Actions and next steps: the county’s corporate counsel will proceed with litigation steps under the board’s confirmed authorization. Separately, the health department was authorized to use $100,000 in opioid settlement funds as a required local match for the one-year grant; officials said the grant’s rules further restrict eligible uses but will allow the county to double the program dollars for approved treatment and prevention activities. County staff said the grant will not fund a sober living facility under its terms, but will support items such as Narcan distribution, staff time for treatment coordination and other opioid-response work.

The meeting packet identified the litigation as part of multi-district litigation MDL 2804; the board’s action was described as a confirmation and ratification of counsel’s authority to add defendants and to continue with civil litigation steps as advised by counsel. No settlement with OptumRx has been reported at the meeting; counsel said OptumRx’s notice seeks removal from the lawsuit unless authorized.