Sedgwick County and Wichita briefed on $15.5 million opioid settlement strategic plan; governance, allocations left to elected leaders

Stedman Group consultants presented a draft strategic plan on Feb. (date not specified) to Sedgwick County staff and commissioners outlining how the combined City of Wichita and Sedgwick County local share of opioid settlement funds—currently estimated at about $15,500,000 over the settlement period—could be spent.

The presentation said the plan was developed by the Wichita‑Sedgwick Opioid Settlement Consortium (WSOSC), a group of local subject‑matter experts convened under a November 2023 contract with Stedman. "The work we're presenting to you today is the product of the efforts of the consortium," Stedman senior consultant Rhiannon Strait said during the briefing.

The consultants described the settlement architecture and limits. National settlements provide an Exhibit E that lists allowable and unallowable uses; Stedman emphasized that funds may not be used to supplant existing funding and listed specific unallowable purchases such as police vehicles and weapons. Rhiannon Strait said the statewide share of settlements (about 75 percent of the Kansas settlement) is being administered separately and that the local 25 percent municipal bucket is the focus of the city‑county planning work.

The strategic plan centers on four strategies: stigma reduction and community outreach/education; integrated care (coordinating medical, behavioral‑health and social supports); overdose prevention and harm reduction; and expansion of treatment and recovery supports. Burke Fishburne, Stedman Group director for organizational development, said the consortium limited the plan to high‑priority, evidence‑based goals and embedded measurable goal metrics in a spreadsheet intended to be the operational guide. "We wanted to hand off something that implementers could implement on day 1," Fishburne said.

Stedman presented a recommended allocation breakdown that reserves a portion for planning and coordination (a planning/coordination line the consultants modeled at about 15 percent of the pooled local funds, roughly $2,325,000 under the current estimate). Consultants said that estimate is on the high end to avoid underfunding infrastructure such as evaluation, procurement and ongoing project management. County staff reported that a little more than $2,000,000 was already in the combined Wichita‑Sedgwick bank account at the end of 2024 and that cumulative expenditures to date total $364,066.47, including roughly $315,000 for a mass spectrometer and about $49,000 for a GeoMedia advertising campaign targeting high‑school students.

Presenters and county staff stressed that exact dollar amounts and specific program budgets will depend on annual payouts from settlement administrators, future litigation outcomes that could adjust totals, and what other state or federal funding is available to "braid" with local dollars. Stedman and multiple commissioners noted that the state’s 75 percent share (managed, in Kansas, with grant rounds such as those run by the Sunflower Foundation) has already issued competitive RFPs and that local nonprofits can compete for those awards.

Elected officials used the briefing to raise process and equity questions. Commissioner Herndon said he was "disappointed" the county—an early litigant in opioid cases—would receive a smaller local share on a population basis, rather than by measures tied to local opioid impacts: "I can't tell you how disappointed I am that we're talking about such a small amount of revenue today," he said. County counsel and staff described existing reporting requirements: county counsel Justin said the county must submit an annual report to the attorney general and that the county uses a dedicated municipal addiction fund in its financial reports to track receipts and expenditures.

On governance, Stedman presented four broad options: (1) a government‑run process (city/county control); (2) government with an advisory council; (3) a public‑private partnership that contracts out administration; and (4) an independent community‑driven body with city/county acting as fiscal agent. Stedman said the consortium favored models that build stakeholder engagement and transparency while keeping elected officials as final decision‑makers; presenters suggested the middle options (advisory council or third‑party partnership) as the most likely to balance efficiency, accountability and community involvement.

Commissioners and other participants debated operational questions: whether county agencies such as Comcare or existing providers like SAC should receive funds directly; whether planning/coordination set‑asides should be as large as proposed; and how to run procurements (some commissioners recommended public competitive acquisition processes). Sheriff representatives urged vetting to avoid funding organizations with little track record; others stressed the importance of prevention and school‑based education programs.

Next steps described on the record were procedural: Stedman will supply the detailed spreadsheet and consortium list to county staff; staff recommended scheduling an internal workshop before an en banc meeting with Wichita elected officials to settle governance, procurement mechanisms and which goals to fund in early phases. County staff confirmed that no final allocations or contracts were approved at the briefing.

The briefing did not record any formal motions or votes. Consultants and staff framed the materials as a draft strategic plan and implementation roadmap intended to inform upcoming policy decisions by the county commission and Wichita City Council.

The plan, Stedman said, intentionally emphasizes evidence‑based, measurable activities and built‑in evaluation metrics so the county and city can track whether funded programs reduce overdoses and improve care coordination over time.