Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Opioid work group asks commissioners for priorities, clarifies settlement rules and reporting
Summary
Fremont County opioid work group briefed commissioners on roughly $1.1 million in settlement funds, sought direction on prioritization and eligibility, and said legal restrictions and state guidance have delayed spending.
The Fremont County opioid work group presented its annual reports and asked the Board of County Commissioners to set priorities and provide a decision framework for distributing opioid settlement funds that the county has not yet spent.
Casey Murray, who identified herself as the group’s budget manager, told commissioners the work group received $541,650.08 in calendar year 2024 and that total opioid-related funds on the county ledger amount to $1,096,664.04, which includes a smaller National Opioid Abatement Trust (NOAP) payment of $24,335.97. Murray said the county receives multiple settlement payments on different schedules and from different sources, and that some payments arrive in bits and pieces as settlements and subawards are finalized.
The group requested clarity on who may apply — whether funds should be reserved for Fremont County government agencies only, extended to nonprofits and private providers, or shared with tribal governments where projects are joint. Commissioners asked if tribal settlement dollars were separate; Murray said the Eastern Shoshone and Arapaho tribes have received opioid settlement funds and the county has not received details from tribal recipients about how they intend to spend their shares.
Murray and other participants stressed that the county must follow the memorandum of agreement that governs opioid settlement expenditures. The board was told that the memorandum allows uses only for prevention or abatement strategies (treatment, prevention, first-responder support, research and other enumerated sub-strategies). County civil attorneys review proposals for consistency with the memorandum and, where necessary, consult the state Attorney General’s office. That review process has delayed some projects; the work group said no county opioid money has been spent yet because of legal and interpretive uncertainty.
Commissioners urged the work group to form a formal review committee that would advertise for proposals, vet applications to ensure they meet the memorandum’s criteria, and then bring recommended awards to the full commission for approval. Several commissioners said they did not want to micromanage the committee but wanted the county to retain final approval. Commissioners also asked to receive notice when funds are awarded.
The work group described one concrete project under review: purchasing 24/7 drug-testing machines (Dräger units). Murray said the county has assembled usage and needs data for that project but has not yet obtained Attorney General concurrence required for approval.
On allowable funding types, Murray told the board that the memorandum generally does not permit using opioid settlement funds for salaries. Transitional housing may be supported in the form of limited payments (for example, paying a portion of rent for an individual in treatment) rather than buying or building housing outright. The group requested guidance on whether the board preferred prioritizing county agencies or broader community applicants; several commissioners said they favored keeping funds within Fremont County and prioritizing direct services and prevention systems.
The board asked the work group to schedule a meeting with a commissioner liaison, to produce clearer written application guidelines aligned to the memorandum and to coordinate with tribal recipients to reduce duplication.
