New Town supervisors table decision to obligate $133,000 in opioid settlement funds to Bucks County

The New Town Township Board of Supervisors voted June 10 to table a proposed memorandum of understanding that would obligate this year’s opioid settlement distribution to Bucks County, delaying a final decision while board members pursue additional information about permitted uses and local alternatives.

The solicitor introduced the draft MOU and said it would obligate the township’s opioid settlement funds to the county, include reporting and indemnification provisions and carry an initial two‑year term that would roll forward annually unless a municipality gives 90 days' written notice. The solicitor said the MOU is intended to ensure the county uses the funds for permitted purposes under the settlement administrator’s rules.

Concerned supervisors sought specifics about what New Town would receive in return. One supervisor asked, “Since we’re giving [the money] to Bucks County, are we getting anything in return?” The solicitor and manager replied the county administers programs such as the co‑responder program that can serve New Town residents, and that some county services (for example, Narcan distribution and county treatment programs) better match the settlement’s allowable uses than township functions.

Public commenters urged alternative approaches. Charlie Foyer, who said he had worked with opioid‑settlement mechanisms, noted Bucks County’s broader allocation and recommended keeping funds local where possible to support Council Rock School District interventions for students suspended for possession. "It's my suggestion that New Town keep its 133,000 to be used for Council Rock," he said, arguing educational interventions could qualify under the settlement rules.

Board members raised legal and practical constraints. Several supervisors noted the settlement’s Exhibit E limits some types of spending (one board member said labor costs are not an approved use), and others said the township lacks infrastructure for many permitted programs (rehab centers, treatment facilities). The manager and solicitor explained that, absent a clear permitted local use, obligating the funds to the county preserves the township’s current and future distributions and supports county‑level services available to New Town residents.

With a deadline looming for obligating funds, one supervisor moved to table the MOU to research options and request additional documentation (including Exhibit E and examples of how neighboring municipalities have used their settlement money). The motion to table received a second and passed by voice vote.

The board did not approve the MOU; instead it deferred action to a future meeting to allow time to collect exhibit documentation, explore grant application options with the county, and consider narrowly tailored local programs that could meet settlement requirements. The solicitor said the township has an extension until the end of the month to obligate funds, and the board asked staff to circulate Exhibit E and relevant county program details ahead of the follow‑up meeting.

Next steps: the board directed staff to provide the MOU exhibit and related documentation, to research whether specific local uses (for schools or educational programming) qualify under the settlement guidance, and to schedule follow‑up discussion before the township’s obligation deadline.