Commissioners split on pooling opioid settlement funds; vote to approve ILA fails, discussion to be revived after budget briefings

Thurston County commissioners debated but did not approve a proposed interlocal agreement (ILA) to pool opioid settlement funds with the county’s cities and regional partners during their Sept. 10 work session. The motion to enter the pooled ILA failed on a voice vote. Later the board voted to revisit the ILA after presentations on the treatment sales tax (TST) and the elected officials’ budget presentations.

Public health staff and the county’s opioid response coordinator described two models. Under a pooled model staff would consolidate the county’s roughly 70 percent share of settlement funds with municipal shares (the three cities together receive the remaining roughly 30 percent) and operate under a regional governance structure that would recommend allocations to each governing body. Staff said the county has historically administered opioid‑response programming and that the cities generally lack the dedicated administrative capacity and technical expertise to manage their shares without county assistance.

Supporters of pooling argued regional coordination would reduce fragmentation, improve the county’s ability to match state or federal grants (by creating a larger local match source), and allow a single set of priorities for treatment, prevention and recovery services. Several commissioners also stressed that the county’s role could include administrative oversight with final fiscal authority remaining with the county commission for contracting and approvals.

Opponents voiced concern that pooling could jeopardize the county’s ability to protect programs tied to county responsibilities—most notably jail‑based obligations such as medication‑assisted treatment —and reduce the board’s control over funds that the county needs to meet legal and operational mandates. Some commissioners said the county’s budget pressures make it risky to relinquish decision‑making or to depend on a regional body to prioritize county‑specific mandates.

The board first took a vote on an ILA motion; after the vote failed a subsequent motion to “revive” discussion after the board receives presentations on TST and elected officials’ budgets passed. Staff said the opioid abatement council (OAC) must still exist under state settlement MOU requirements and that the jurisdictions can continue to coordinate even if funds are not pooled.

Clarifying details provided in the meeting: staff said Thurston County’s total share from current opioid settlements is roughly $11 million over 17 years (county portion ~70 percent). Staff and several commissioners emphasized that allowable uses are defined by the MOU and that pooling would not permit unrestricted spending, but raised practical concerns about ensuring existing county programs and mandated services are preserved under a pooled governance model.

Ending: The board instructed staff to return to the opioid ILA discussion after the TST briefing and the elected officials’ budget presentations (scheduled in the next board meeting cycle); staff also noted the OAC will continue to function and report publicly under existing agreements while the topic is revisited.