Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs how to spend opioid settlement receipts; staff proposes RFP and selection committee
Summary
Staff outlined Lynnwood’s opioid settlement receipts — roughly $3.4 million over 17 years — and proposed an RFP and a selection committee to allocate an initial $500,000. Council members debated whether to issue a public RFP or allocate funds directly to in‑city programs.
Lynnwood — City staff presented the city’s opioid settlement receipts and requested policy direction on how to allocate the funds, including whether to issue a public request for proposals and form a selection committee.
The context: Lynnwood joined multi-jurisdictional agreements that distribute settlement proceeds from opioid-related lawsuits against distributors and manufacturers. Planning and human-services staff presented a summary of settlements and Lynnwood’s expected share: "Over the next 17 years, we are set to receive almost $3,400,000," Assistant City Administrator/Finance staff told the council, describing a mix of one-time payments and multi-year installments.
Approved but-unused allocations: the council has already approved a $400,000 placeholder in the city budget for medication-assisted treatment (MAT) in the jail; staff reported those dollars have not been spent because the police department obtained a separate grant for the service. The council also approved roughly $42,000 in March 2025 for the city’s share of a shared social-worker position with Mountlake Terrace; that expenditure is in place.
Staff proposal: Human Services Coordinator Kyle Ward and Assistant City Administrator Julie Moore asked the council whether it wants staff to solicit proposals. Their recommended approach was to set aside an initial chunk (staff suggested $500,000 as an example), release an RFP for evidence-based programs that align with the opioid-abatement MOU, convene a selection committee composed of city staff and a human-services commissioner, and award one or more multi-year grants rather than many small “peanut-butter” awards.
Why it matters: staff said the county and other cities use their opioid funds in different ways — from naloxone distribution and recovery helplines to “leave-behind” naloxone programs and hospital-linked recovery beds — and said Lynnwood should set criteria for eligibility, sustainability and whether grants must serve only Lynnwood residents.
Council reaction: opinions varied. Council Member Hirst said he prefers directing money to established local programs (for example, the jail’s reentry and diversion programs or community court) rather than opening a wide RFP process. Council Member Coelho and others supported a selection committee and evidence-based scoring rubric to ensure sustainable, high-impact grants. Several council members suggested staff return with a narrower set of criteria for how much of the fund must serve residents with opioid use disorder specifically (for example, 90–100 percent) and whether to require local residency or accept regional providers that serve Lynnwood residents.
Next steps: staff asked for direction on whether to proceed with an RFP and whether the council wants explicit thresholds (percentage of funds serving people with opioid use disorder, minimum service-area requirements, program-duration expectations). If the council approves a solicitation, staff proposed a two‑year grant window for selected programs, quarterly reporting to the city and public posting of all allocations as required by the MOU.
Ending: Council members asked staff to return with a draft RFP or, alternately, a short list of vetted local programs that could receive direct council-approved awards. Several members asked staff to consult peer cities about best practices before publishing a solicitation.
