Sedgwick County, Wichita review Stedman Group plan to spend roughly $15.5M in opioid settlement funds

Sedgwick County commissioners on Feb. 18 heard a final-draft strategic plan from the Stedman Group and the Wichita Sedgwick Opioid Settlement Consortium recommending priorities and governance options for about $15,500,000 estimated to be available over the life of the opioid settlements to the combined city and county local allocation.

The plan, developed by a community consortium and presented by Stedman consultants, lays out a vision, measurable goals and recommended dollar allocations across four strategy areas—stigma reduction and outreach, integrated care, overdose prevention and expanded treatment—and a planning-and-coordination allocation the consultants estimated at about 15 percent of available funds (roughly $2,325,000). The consultants said the total is an estimate and will be updated as additional settlements finalize and state distributions are adjusted.

Rhiannon Strait, senior consultant with the Stedman Group, said, "the work we're presenting to you today is the product of the efforts of the consortium," and emphasized that the plan reflects community co‑creation and would not be substantially rewritten by consultants without the consortium's input.

Why it matters: the presentation is intended to give elected officials a structured, evidence‑based way to allocate local opioid‑settlement dollars within the limits of the state memorandum of understanding (MOU) and Exhibit E, the document consultants identified as defining allowable and unallowable uses. Commissioners and staff framed the discussion as an initial step toward deciding a governance approach, procurement mechanisms and which goals to fund first.

Key facts and recommendations

- Estimated funds: Stedman and staff said a combined Wichita–Sedgwick total of about $15,500,000 is expected over the settlement term; consultants noted amounts may rise slightly as remaining litigation finalizes and the Kansas attorney general updates estimates.

- Timing and structure of payments: consultants said the settlement disbursements will arrive in annual installments that are "front loaded," meaning earlier years receive larger payments, which informed their sustainability recommendations.

- Allowable uses: presenters repeatedly referenced the national MOU and its Exhibit E as the governing guidance for allowable spending. Consultants listed treatment (including medications for opioid use disorder and withdrawal management), recovery supports, connections to care, prevention (including school‑based programs and prescribing best practices), and harm‑reduction activities such as naloxone distribution. They also noted unallowable items, including using settlement dollars to supplant existing funding and purchases such as police vehicles or weapons that are not opioid abatement.

- Four strategy areas: the consortium narrowed an initial list down to four focused strategies—(1) stigma reduction and community outreach/education, (2) integrated care across medical and behavioral services, (3) overdose prevention and harm reduction, and (4) expanded treatment. Each strategy in the plan includes a small set of measurable goals and suggested metrics for evaluation.

- Planning and coordination: the consultants recommended allocating a portion of funds to infrastructure (governance, implementation, communications and evaluation). They characterized their 15 percent estimate as high‑end, intended to avoid underfunding implementation capacity; presenters said actual administrative spending could be adjusted by elected officials.

- Governance options: Stedman presented four governance models ranging from a city/county‑run, tightly controlled process to a community‑driven independent body. Consultants said the consortium favored models that incorporate an advisory body or a public–private partnership that balances transparency, accountability and community engagement while leaving ultimate budget decisions to elected officials.

Discussion and concerns raised

Commissioner Jeff Herndon (full name and title shown at first reference), who spoke at length, said Sedgwick County "led on this issue" during earlier litigation and voiced frustration that allocations are driven largely by population formulas rather than local burden of harm. Herndon said the county bore early costs and expected a larger return to address local impacts.

Sheriff Leifkind said he favors a governance model that combines city and county oversight with community advisory input and cautioned against awarding funds to entities without track records. "I don't wanna see that happen with this particular money," he said of potential misuse.

Consultants and staff also described how the state's 75 percent share is being distributed. Rhiannon Strait and Burke Fishburne said the Sunflower Foundation has issued multiple rounds of RFPs for statewide funds and that local providers, including Wichita‑area groups, have received one‑year grants. They recommended local officials "braid" state and local funding to avoid duplication and to sustain programs beyond settlement dollars.

Expenditures to date and next steps

County staff reported limited local spending so far. County counsel and finance staff told the commission the only recorded expenditures to date were early 2023 costs and contract payments; the county reported cumulative spending in the range of several hundred thousand dollars to date, with line items cited including a mass spectrometer purchase and an advertising campaign. Consultants and staff agreed that much of the remaining $15.5 million remains unspent and would be distributed by a future implementation process.

No formal vote or final decision was taken at the staff meeting. Commissioners and Stedman staff agreed to return material for an en banc discussion and suggested an internal workshop or briefing before that public session. Consultants provided a spreadsheet that they described as the operational "guts" of the plan and said it contains the activity‑level budgets, timelines and evaluation measures recommended for procurement and implementation.

What commissioners will decide next

Commissioners must decide whether to adopt the consultant recommendations, choose a governance model, authorize solicitation(s) (RFPs/grants) for priority activities, and determine how much of the planning/coordination allocation to devote to external administrative support vs. in‑house staffing. Staff and consultants repeatedly recommended a competitive acquisition process to maximize transparency and accountability.

Ending note

Presenters told commissioners the strategic plan is intentionally focused and not intended to "do everything"; rather, it is a prioritized, evidence‑based roadmap that the city and county can adopt in whole or in part. Consultants said they expect to update allocations as settlement totals change and to support the city and county through the next steps in governance and procurement.