Council authorizes negotiations with Smart Initiative and creates working group to assess county payment of consulting fees

Council members debated whether the Opioid Abatement Council should pay for a proposed consulting contract with Smart Initiative — a University-affiliated program the office says has established relationships with counties — or whether counties should directly pay any consultancy fee to help them plan spending of their allocated funds.

At the October meeting staff had presented and the council recorded a motion authorizing the executive director to “engage in contracting negotiations and or execute a contract with Smart Initiative for at least 2 years to assist counties with allocating and spending” (clarified on the record by legal counsel Sam Bukeley as an authorization to negotiate, not an obligation to sign). Several council members raised a fiscal fairness question: some argued county allocations should not be used to pay consultants advising those counties, while others said the counties lack comparable capacity and that a coordinated consultant could improve effective spending.

After discussion the council adopted a motion to create an exploratory working group (a small committee including the executive director, a county association representative and several council members) to consult with counties and report back at the next scheduled meeting. The council also instructed staff to continue negotiations with Smart Initiative during the working group’s fact-finding, and to prepare cost scenarios showing how council-paid vs county-paid consultant fees would affect the council’s administrative percentage.

Council legal counsel and staff reiterated that, under existing state law, the council cannot compel counties to spend or pay a portion of their allocations; any county participation would be voluntary. The working group’s charge is to assess county appetite and bring options back to the full council for a decision.