Davis County budget committee debates spending, staffing and a possible endowment for $17.3M in opioid settlement funds

Davis County budget committee members spent most of their meeting reviewing how to allocate roughly $17.3 million in confirmed opioid settlement proceeds and weighing whether to spend down principal to fund programs now or preserve capital in an endowment.

The discussion, led by a budget presenter identified in the meeting as Scott, reviewed a projection showing near-term receipts of about $1 million a year and then a long taper. Scott presented a scenario built from a proposal circulated by county criminal-justice staff that combined one-time items and ongoing personnel costs. "If we fund a body scanner for the jail, one time, $200,000," Scott said, and he listed an initial $25,000 for naloxone kits plus an ongoing full-time reentry assistance position and other personnel and program funds. Scott warned that funding all proposed items now would create a fiscal cliff in roughly 15 years unless the county phases programs into general fund support or replenishes principal.

Why it matters: committee members said the settlements offer an uncommon funding stream tailored to opioid remediation, but the money is finite and structured over many years. Commissioners and staff debated a range of practical priorities — immediate, high-impact one-time purchases versus ongoing staff costs — and the risk that short-term spending will force difficult trade-offs when receipts decline.

Key proposals and estimates: presenters grouped requests into three tiers. Near-term, lower-cost, high-impact items included a jail body scanner (estimated $200,000) and naloxone (Narcan) kits (initial $25,000 with modest annual replenishment). Flexible operating requests named small out-of-pocket supports (examples cited: ankle-monitor payments, bus passes) to keep people out of custody while they stabilize. Mid-to-higher-cost requests included a reentry coordinator position and several new staff positions split across the county attorney's office, public defender screening/support, and a proposed substance-use/mental-health division. One example figure discussed for program seed or operating ranges was a roughly $100,000 annual treatment gap for drug court services at Davis Behavioral.

County Attorney Troy Rawlings described a design that emphasizes front-end screening and a "Kathy Morris"–style administrative screening role to route eligible cases into diversion, drug court or mental-health court. Rawlings said the screening position would help identify clients who could avoid plea-in-advance outcomes that carry professional licensing or immigration consequences. Rawlings also proposed funding some new positions partly from the general fund so staff could perform broader county duties when opioid-specific work is not full-time. He criticized a state 2023 statute on this subject, saying, "I still think the 2023 statute is illegal and unconstitutional," and urged practical structuring that complies with the law while conserving settlement dollars.

Davis Behavioral representatives flagged a funding shortfall for treatment: they reported receiving about $19,000 this year to support drug court treatment but estimated program needs closer to $100,000. Brandon Hatch and other Davis Behavioral staff said medication-assisted treatment and other services currently supported by federal opioid grants may shrink or expire in coming years, which would affect capacity and program planning.

Technology and support costs were also mentioned: staff warned that standing up case-management tools will add recurring IT costs (eProsecutor was cited at about $2,000 per user per year and prosecutorial users at about $1,200 per user per year) plus hardware and integration expenses.

Endowment versus spend-down: Scott said he would prepare an alternate scenario that places settlement principal into an endowment so the county could draw interest over time rather than spend down principal immediately. That option would delay large program starts but could produce sustainable interest income; the spend-down model would enable earlier, broader spending but risk a long-term funding cliff around year 15 unless the county transitions programs to general-fund support.

Next steps: committee members asked staff to refine line items, include missing IT and facilities costs, and produce comparative scenarios (endowment/draw versus phased spend-down) for later consideration. The meeting closed with a request to return with more precise cost estimates and an implementation plan that addresses office space, staffing splits between opioid and general duties, and how Davis Behavioral would participate.

The committee did not take a formal vote on allocations at this meeting; staff were asked to return with refined scenarios and cost breakdowns.