Wichita, Sedgwick County move to form joint advisory coalition to spend opioid settlement funds

Chairman Beatty, Sedgwick County Commission, and Wichita city leaders on Tuesday outlined a plan to create a joint advisory body to manage local shares of opioid settlement funds and recommended steps to launch procurement and oversight work.

Rusty Leeds, a Sedgwick County staff member, told the en banc meeting that the county and city jointly hired the Steadman Group for a needs assessment and strategic plan and that staff recommends standing up a governance structure called the Wichita–Sedgwick County Addiction Intervention Coalition to advise both governing bodies on spending.

The coalition would be an advisory board of 11–15 voting members drawn from treatment and prevention sectors — social services, parole and probation, medical and mental health providers, academics, courts and law enforcement — and include people with lived experience, Leeds said. “This group will be responsible for ensuring that the performance of those who receive the money is monitored and measured,” Leeds said.

Leeds said the coalition’s duties would include advising on allocations, helping prepare request-for-proposals, reviewing proposals against RFP criteria and recommending awards to the city council and county commission. He recommended joint procurement so there is a single RFP meeting both bodies’ procurement rules, and that awarded contractors hold dual contracts so each jurisdiction reports spending separately to the state.

Staff said the initiative is subject to the Kansas Fights Addiction Act, guidance from the Kansas attorney general’s office, the Kansas Open Meetings Act and the Kansas Open Records Act. Leeds said the coalition would have ethics and conflict-of-interest rules and would post RFPs and spending information on a public web presence.

City and county staff recommended hiring a third-party consultant paid from opioid funds to coordinate the advisory board and independently monitor performance, and they proposed that city and county managers identify nominees for the advisory board and present them for ratification.

Discussion at the meeting centered on several practical questions: how large an administration set-aside should be, whether contracts should run longer than a single year, whether city or county elected officials should serve on the advisory board, and whether one governing body should lead instead of a joint structure.

Council member Mike Hoheisel and several county commissioners urged prioritizing “medical detox beds” and programs that expand treatment capacity. Several speakers criticized the recommended 15% administration allocation in the Steadman plan as high and urged lowering it to direct more money to services. Leeds said Stedman used averages from other jurisdictions and that the proposed 15% was not final.

Financial figures cited in the meeting included the national settlement total (noted by staff as $49,700,000,000), a Kansas state allocation of about $190,000,000, and a combined Wichita–Sedgwick County share staff estimated at $15,500,000 over the settlement’s life. Speakers noted the funds arrive over many years (13–15 years was discussed) and that Sedgwick County’s current balance is about $2,500,000 while the city side had roughly $2,955,000 through 2024, meaning roughly $5,000,000 was currently available in aggregate.

Leaders discussed possible multi-year contracts to allow providers to sustain new programs. Leeds said many state-level contracts have been one-year awards that limit program development; he said the coalition could consider longer agreements.

Legal and procedural issues arose. Some commissioners expressed concern that elected members on an advisory board could create conflicts requiring recusal at final appropriation votes. Justin Wagner, county counsel, said it is unclear whether one municipality may simply transfer its funds to the other for administration and advised seeking clarity from the attorney general’s office. County staff noted the MOU and resolution approach would be used to clarify procurement, reporting, and accounting.

Timing and next steps presented by staff were: finalize a joint resolution creating the advisory board; draft and finalize a financial and procurement MOU; have managers identify nominees for board seats for governing-body ratification; issue a joint RFP for a third-party consultant to coordinate and evaluate grantees; and launch the coalition training and meetings in 2025. Leeds said the implementation phase was slated through the first through third quarters of 2025 and that the coalition could be stood up by late Q2 if councils ratify nominees and the MOU is finalized.

No formal vote or ordinance was taken at the meeting; commissioners and council members expressed general consensus to move the plan forward and to accelerate the timeline. Leeds and county staff said legal counsel had drafted resolution language and the financial MOU was in progress and could be on governing-body agendas in early June.

Speakers raised policy priorities and tradeoffs the coalition will address, including whether to emphasize overdose prevention (Narcan distribution), school-based prevention and public education, jail- and MAC-adjacent programs, medical detox, and services for uninsured or underinsured people experiencing homelessness. Several participants said a pooled fund would have greater purchasing power and urged outreach to the attorney general’s office and the Sunflower Coalition to explore aligning state and local spending.

Leeds closed by asking for questions and said staff would return with draft resolution, MOU and RFP language. Chairman Beatty and city leaders expressed urgency about speeding implementation so the community can access services sooner.

Ending: The item closed without a formal vote; staff will finalize the draft resolution and MOU and seek ratification on upcoming agendas so the coalition can be appointed and begin work on RFPs and allocations later in 2025.