Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Houston County committee hears UT consultant explain opioid-settlement funding, reporting and limits
Summary
Trevor Henderson of the University of Tennessee——s SMART initiative told the Houston County Opioid Abatement Committee that county governments receive two primary settlement funding streams with different rules and reporting requirements, and urged use of Exhibit E to document allowable expenditures.
Trevor Henderson, a Tennessee SMART initiative consultant with the University of Tennessee Institute for Public Service, told the Houston County Opioid Abatement Committee on an informational call that the settlement funds flowing to counties come in several distinct streams, each with different allowable uses and timelines.
Henderson said the national and state settlement framework produces two local funding streams: a subdivision (county) payment and a state-allocated abatement payment. "These funds are not enough money to solve this problem," Henderson said, adding that counties will need to prioritize and coordinate how the money is spent.
Why it matters: The committee will decide how to allocate limited settlement money that is intended for drug-overdose remediation and related services. Some funds have strict spending windows and reporting obligations; others do not. County officials must document allowable uses carefully because auditors and the state expect program-level records.
Henderson outlined the broad breakdown he presented to the committee: a portion of settlement money flows directly to counties as a subdivision payment, while a larger share goes through the State Opioid Abatement Council and is then split again (Henderson summarized this split as 35% to direct county abatement payments and 65% to competitive grants). He said another roughly 15% is paid into state coffers (figure described as part of the national allocation pattern) and that the state portion is re-calculated every four years based on fatal and nonfatal overdoses, prescribing rates and population.
Henderson emphasized two practical rules that the committee should use when deciding on grants and contracts: Exhibit E of the settlement agreement lists allowable activities and is the primary reference for what counts as an acceptable expenditure; and the state-allocated abatement funds have stricter timing rules. "Exhibit E is your bible," Henderson said, and he added that the state-directed pot must be allocated within two years of receipt and spent within two additional years (a four-year allocation/spend cycle tied to each payment).
He described examples counties have funded: recovery housing and recovery navigators in emergency departments, naloxone distribution, prevention in schools, jail-based programs, syringe-services expansion where permitted, certified peer recovery specialists and treatment slots. He also described administrative approaches used elsewhere: some counties pool the money into a general county pot and allocate internally; others run an annual community application process to score proposals; and some counties hire staff (often in finance) to manage applications, reporting and grant compliance.
Henderson warned that the state-level calculation means a county's share from the state pot may decline if local overdose indicators improve, and that settlement estimates fluctuate as companies sign or renegotiate settlements. He recommended coordinating with county finance to confirm actual receipts rather than relying only on estimates.
On reporting and oversight, Henderson said the mayor's office typically receives the annual reporting email and that counties must report only when funds are used for activities that fall outside Exhibit E categories; otherwise the reporting form can be ignored for routine allowable spending. He urged transparency and written contracts or agreements when funding programs in other counties so Houston County can document that its residents were served.
Committee members discussed a proposal from a recovery-housing project that included rent, utilities and transportation in its budget. Henderson said those items could fit under "recovery support and wraparound services" but that application forms and contracts should require line-item detail on how many beds or slots, how many people served and how outcomes will be measured. He said template application forms, work plans and example contracts are available from the SMART initiative and CTAS and MTAS.
Henderson offered technical assistance free of charge through the UT SMART initiative and said his team can share templates and connect the committee with other counties doing similar projects. He said the SMART initiative had recently become an official partner with the State Opioid Abatement Council and that his team can help counties with program design and data tracking.
The committee did not take a formal vote during the meeting. Members tentatively agreed to meet again in July to review a local funding request and continued planning; a July 15 meeting date was discussed.
Henderson concluded, "I am available to you. I'm free of charge. If I don't know the answer to the question, I will go try and find the answer to the question."
