30% Local Share
Where do these monies live?
South Dakota’s local share is distributed directly to its 66 participating localities according to the percentages listed in the MOA’s Exhibit B.[1]
What can this share be spent on?
With limited exceptions,[2] this share must be spent on uses that “fall within” or are “otherwise consistent with” Exhibit A of its MOA.[3] Reimbursement uses of opioid settlement funds are specifically prohibited statewide.[4]
Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA largely mirrors the national settlement agreement’s Exhibit E, Schedule B,[5] which includes treatment, prevention, harm reduction, and other strategies.
Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?
Local governments decide autonomously (but must certify proper uses and counties consult their cities and towns). Decisionmakers for the cities and counties decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Approved Uses,[6] provided that counties “regularly consult with and receive input” from their cities and towns and make “reasonable and good faith efforts” to collaborate with them on fund uses.[7] Additionally, localities must certify to the Opioid Advisory Committee — before and after spend — that funds were used according to Exhibit A of South Dakota’s MOA.[8]
Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, South Dakota does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the local share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.
Can I see how this share has been spent?
Up to each locality (no public reporting required, only intrastate). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share, and local governments are required to report its expenditures only to the Advisory Committee.[9] The state has committed to include information on projects and strategies funded by local governments in its 2024 annual report,[10] but the specificity of any expenditure information remains to be seen.
Visit OpioidSettlementTracker.com’s Expenditure Report Tracker for an updated collection of states’ and localities’ available expenditure reports.
What else should I know?
Not applicable.
Citations
This includes 1) counties and 2) cities or towns with populations over 10,000. South Dakota Opioid Settlement Memorandum of Understanding (MOA) II.B. Cf. Opioid Advisory Committee Meeting (August 24, 2022) (“68 partnering counties/cities”). Participating localities excludes the minority of localities that opted to redistribute their shares to the state, as permitted by the MOA. MOA II.C. See also Caleb Barber. Most, but not all local governments in South Dakota receive opioid settlement money. Mitchell Republic. Oct. 17, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Thirteen county governments declined to participate in the funding distribution: Bennett, Buffalo, Day, Douglas, Haakon, Hamlin, Hyde, Kingsbury, Lyman, Marshall, Miner, Moody and Stanley. That resulted in about $20,000 going back to the state pile of funds to be distributed. Commissioners for the county governments that chose not to participate in the settlement funds cited the odd intervals and negligible amounts as being a main reason why they decided against accepting them”). ↑
MOA V (providing merely that no attorneys’ fees will be drawn from the “Statewide Share,” and perhaps implying by omission that local governments’ attorneys’ fees will be drawn out of their own “Localized Share”).There are only superficial differences between the national settlement’s Exhibit E and South Dakota’s Exhibit A. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not expressly state. Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). See also Makenzie Huber. Pennington County in dispute with state over opioid settlement amounts. South Dakota Searchlight. August 28, 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Pennington County is arguing in court that the state should recalculate its national opioid settlement amounts to pay the county’s litigation costs. … It owes 15% of its entire Janssen settlement in legal fees, which as of the third round of settlements adds up to roughly $14,000, not including future allocations”). ↑
MOA I.A (“‘Approved Use(s)’ means purposes related to opioid abuse treatment, prevention, and recovery programs that fall within, or otherwise consistent with, the list of uses set out in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference”). MOA III.C (The Localized Share must be used only for (1) Approved Uses by Participating Local Governments or (2) grants for Approved Uses”). ↑
MOA III.A. ↑
The differences are superficial and non-substantive. Note that the national settlements provide for administrative expenses as an approved use, which South Dakota may incorporate but does not expressly state. See Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation. Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”). ↑
MOA III.A-C. ↑
MOA VI.A-B. ↑
MOA VI.B. ↑
Federal Opioid Funding Annual Report. South Dakota Department of Health and South Dakota Department of Social Services. 2023. Accessed August 26, 2024 (“Participating local governments’ awards were made in Calendar Year 2023 due to the original disbursement occurring at the very end of 2022. Programs, strategies, and projects funded by participating local governments will be included in the 2024 Annual Opioid Report”). ↑
Last updated
