Commissioners discuss pooling opioid‑settlement funds; ask staff for county needs assessment before approving interlocal agreement

Thurston County commissioners discussed a proposed interlocal agreement to pool opioid settlement funds under a county‑led opioid abatement council and directed staff to assess county program needs before approving the ILA.

Public Health Director Jen Bright presented a revised ILA that would allow jurisdictions in the county to pool opioid settlement funds and route funding recommendations through the opioid abatement council (OAC) to the Board of County Commissioners. Bright told commissioners the draft ILA mirrors the Regional Housing Council’s approval structure and includes a mechanism allowing jurisdictions to withdraw funds if they prefer to retain them.

Bright said the OAC and the Health Department want spending to align with the county’s opioid response plan and the 1Washington memorandum of understanding (1Washington MOU) that governs allowable uses for settlement money. “Those community‑identified priority areas just as a reminder are expanded access to treatment, primarily medications for opioid use disorder, warm handoff grant programs… and first‑responder based grants,” Bright said.

Commissioners expressed broad support for a pooled approach but several asked for a pause so staff could review the county’s immediate needs and the fit between settlement funding and programs already under budget pressure. Commissioner Mejia asked the county manager to consult with Public Health — including Katie and Dr. Freiheit — and report back on county needs before the board approves the ILA. Commissioner Green and others raised the jail’s treatment needs as an example, noting the sheriff’s estimate for adding methadone treatment services was about $800,000 annually; staff said they are refining that number with the sheriff’s fiscal team.

County and Public Health staff said there is no federal requirement to spend settlement funds within a specific timeline and that some opioid settlements pay out over multiple years. Bright noted the 1Washington MOU and the county opioid response plan would still constrain allowable uses even if jurisdictions keep their funds rather than pooling them.

Rather than voting on the ILA at the meeting, commissioners directed the county manager and Public Health staff to convene follow‑up conversations, reconcile county service needs (prevention, treatment, in‑jail services), and return with a recommendation. Commissioners also discussed program reporting, how pooled funds might reduce administrative overhead for smaller jurisdictions, and how the OAC intends for its funding recommendations to align with the Board of Health’s opioid response plan.

Quotations in this article come from commissioners and staff who spoke during the recorded discussion. The transcript did not include a final approval vote on the ILA at this meeting.