County task force proposes $953,000 annual opioid settlement budget, grants program and investment plan

Deputy Administrator Smith, reporting as staff liaison to the opioid settlement fund task force, presented the task force’s final report and recommended a structured three‑year approach that would draw roughly $947,800–$953,076 per year from known settlement payments to fund treatment, prevention, harm reduction and recovery supports.

The plan would allocate funding by category (50% treatment, 20% prevention, 20% harm reduction, 10% recovery), set up a community grant program with both one‑ and multi‑year award cycles, and direct the county treasurer to invest settlement dollars so that interest would be returned to the opioid fund. The task force also proposed two options to manage grants administration: hire a full‑time county position (estimated about $100,000 including fringes and $10,000 operational costs) or contract with an outside organization (allowable administrative spending estimated at about 7.5%–15% of program dollars under the settlement terms).

"They were present. They showed up. They did the hard work, and they have put together this report," Deputy Administrator Smith told the board, summarizing the work of the volunteer task force.

Task force members told the board they used a conservative estimate of total, known settlement receipts (about $14.6 million spread over 16 years) to calculate the proposed annual budget; they noted other settlements may later increase the total. Smith said the county has received roughly $3–$4 million so far and recommended drawing less than $1 million per year so funds remain in reserve.

Smith and the finance staff also described a proposed grant cycle timeline aimed at issuing awards so that funded activities align with the county fiscal year (July 1–June 30), and recommended a low‑barrier application and reporting process tailored to community nonprofits. The task force urged cross‑organizational collaboration and suggested giving higher review scores to multi‑organization proposals or proposals that align opioid remediation goals with other county funding streams (for example, housing or senior millage projects that also address substance use disorder needs).

Board members questioned definitions (treatment vs. recovery), long‑term financing and whether interest on pooled funds was already being credited to the opioid funds. Administrator Caitlin clarified that settlement dollars currently sit in the county’s pooled cash and are earning investment income but are not yet tracked separately; she said treasury and administration have discussed separate accounting and that the treasurer could attribute interest going forward.

Treasurer staff earlier reported the county’s investment portfolio returned 4.34% for December and recommended investing settlement dollars with the treasurer’s office and routing any interest back to the opioid fund. Commissioners pressed for a clear, implementable plan and more financial detail, especially to understand program longevity if additional settlements or interest income are added.

After discussion, the board signaled consensus on the following directions: approve the task force’s recommended annual budget framework for year one (about $953,000), proceed with investing the unallocated settlement funds with the treasurer with interest credited back to the opioid budget, implement the community grants program and funding categories as recommended (50/20/20/10), and seek an RFP for external administration of grants while preserving the option to create a county staff position later.

The task force recommended a community needs assessment be repeated every three to five years to adjust priorities as community needs evolve. Commissioners also asked staff to return a detailed financial breakout of the internal department allocations and to present investment accounting options showing how prior receipts and future interest would be credited to the opioid fund.

Deputy Administrator Smith said she would provide the board a full budget breakdown and work with the treasurer to identify the exact dollar amount available for investment after removing the first year’s budgeted draw. Board members asked administration to bring back implementation steps for procurement or hiring, the proposed RFP, and a reporting framework that would let the county report outcomes publicly as required by settlement terms.