Dane County committee weighs priorities for opioid-settlement dollars, debates balance between harm reduction and other services

Dane County’s Health & Human Needs Committee opioid settlement subcommittee met June 9 to review possible approaches for spending incoming opioid-settlement dollars and to set a process for making formal recommendations to the county’s Health & Human Needs (HHN) committee ahead of the 2026 budget cycle.

The subcommittee’s discussion centered on a staff analysis showing most current settlement funding is directed to harm-reduction activities and on the proposed Harm Reduction Center and drop-in services. Todd Campbell, Division Administrator, presented budget alignment information and said, “we have 83% of our funding allocated to the harm reduction area. . . If we continue with the current spending plan as it is in 2026, that percentage for harm reduction increases to 93%.” He and other members clarified that the 93% projection assumes full staffing and full utilization of the planned drop-in center.

Why it matters: the settlement documents (referred to repeatedly as “Schedule E” or “Exhibit E”) specify categories where municipalities may spend opioid-settlement funds — treatment, prevention, harm reduction, recovery support and remediation — but do not mandate percentages. Committee members debated whether the county’s current distribution, which they said heavily favors harm reduction, matches community needs and the settlement’s intent.

Discussion highlights - Harm reduction vs. other strategies: Several members — including Vice Chair Gailey and other supervisors — argued harm reduction is a front-line, life-saving response and must remain a major focus. One committee member summarized the position: “Harm reduction is not a delayed tactic. It's a life saving dignity affirming public health response.” Other members cautioned that treatment, prevention and supports for specific populations (for example, mothers and babies affected by neonatal abstinence) also need explicit consideration. - Drop-in/Harm Reduction Center scope: Members emphasized that the Harm Reduction Center’s final design has not been defined and that it could include a range of services (syringe service staffing, referral and linkage to treatment, educational and shelter-related supports). Several supervisors said they had heard strong public support for a center that provides low-barrier access and multiple services. - Data, overlap and allowable uses: Dr. Elizabeth Salisbury Afshar noted that Schedule E lists allowable strategies but does not indicate which are most needed locally. She urged the group to combine evidence (medical examiner fatality data, syringe service program data, HHS program lists) with knowledge of existing funded services to identify gaps rather than fund duplicative efforts. Members suggested adding a column to the committee’s working spreadsheet to record whether each strategy is already funded elsewhere and what evidence supports new investment. - Process and staffing: Multiple participants recommended creating clearer application and review processes (timing, basic proposal requirements, expected turnaround) and suggested the county consider funding a half-time or project coordinator to shepherd requests, compile data, draft RFPs and monitor outcomes. Several members said the administrative burden of managing growing settlement dollars and contracts exceeds existing bandwidth. - Equity and priority populations: Members repeatedly urged prioritizing people most affected by overdose: individuals experiencing homelessness, Black men, indigenous people, transgender people and people with lived experience. The committee also discussed programming for adolescents and for mothers and infants (neonatal abstinence concerns were raised during prior public comment) as areas that appeared in past testimony and recommended reports. - Existing commitments: Heidi (head of HHN) advised against undoing prior county board decisions that have already authorized work on the Harm Reduction Center. She said the subcommittee should not slow projects already in process, while still documenting where additional treatment or prevention investments might be advisable.

Formal actions - The committee approved the minutes from the May 12, 2025 meeting by voice vote; the motion was seconded by Todd Campbell and the chair called the ayes. (Recorded as approved; no nays were recorded in the meeting transcript.)

Next steps and deliverables The committee agreed to treat the June 9 meeting as a scoping and prioritization discussion rather than to vote on specific 2026 funding recommendations. Members asked staff to circulate the spreadsheet used during the meeting (Schedule E / Exhibit E with a second tab of strategies and a third tab listing already-funded programs). The subcommittee plans to meet again June 23 at 5 p.m., and co-chairs expect to have a draft framework or recommendation outline to present to HHN in July if the subcommittee finalizes priorities.

Committee members and staff also asked public health and human services to prepare gap analyses and program inventories to show where county dollars are already deployed and where settlement funds could fill unmet needs. Multiple members suggested the subcommittee or county should explore hiring a dedicated coordinator (possibly part-time) to manage proposal intake, RFPs and performance reporting for settlement-funded work.

Taper/ending Committee members reiterated that the settlement document authorizes multiple strategy areas and that the group’s task is to match allowable uses to local needs, balance urgency and sustainability, and create transparent processes for proposals and oversight. The subcommittee closed by directing staff to distribute the meeting spreadsheet as a read-only PDF and to convene again June 23 for further drafting and public input.