Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioids topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kent County directs opioid settlement funds to local programs; some commissioners criticize settlements as inadequate
Summary
Kent County adopted two resolutions to accept opioid-related settlement funds from Purdue/Sackler and manufacturer/distributor defendants. The board approved both allocations while some commissioners called the settlements a "slap on the hand" and urged careful oversight to ensure funds reduce overdose and addiction harms locally.
The Kent County Board of Commissioners on Thursday approved two resolutions accepting opioid-related settlement funds and directing allocations, adopting Resolution 75 (Purdue/Sackler settlement) and Resolution 76 (manufacturer/distributor settlements).
Vice Chair Burrell moved Resolution 75; the board approved it on a roll call with 18 yeas and 1 nay. Vice Chair Burrell then moved Resolution 76, which likewise passed with an 18–1 roll-call outcome. Commissioner Ponstein delivered the lone recorded “no” votes on both items, saying the settlements amount to “a little slap on the hands” for companies that profited from opioid sales and criticizing the structure of class-action payouts. Commissioner Womack urged rigorous oversight and measurable outcomes, particularly to ensure funds are used to save lives and reach young people exposed to substances. Administrator Vandenberg and staff said use of settlement funds will be governed by the county’s opioid task-force allocation plan, which the board previously approved; as additional settlements arrive, staff and the task force will prepare updated recommendations for the board.
Commissioner LeGrand said the funding supports work in the county jail and substance-use disorder treatment programs and noted the potential for state-level cuts to SUD treatment funding that could increase the importance of local resources. Board members said the county will convene the opioid task force and county departments starting in January to prepare the next round of recommendations.
Why it matters: The settlements provide recurring streams of funds intended for treatment, prevention, and related services. Commissioners debated the adequacy of the settlements and emphasized the need for accountability and for outcomes-focused spending.
What’s next: County departments and the opioid task force will convene to draft the next allocation recommendations and provide the board with updates and reports on program impact.
