50% Local Share
Where do these monies live?
This share is distributed to 125 participating local governments by county according to Exhibit B of the MOU between Washington municipalities.[1] Non-participating local governments’ amounts are reallocated to those participating.[2]
Intra-county allocations are determined by regional agreements and decision-making structures for each of the nine predefined Washington State Accountable Communities of Health Regions (Allocation Regions).[3] Each region can either determine its own sub-allocation of funds among its counties, cities, and towns or use the MOU’s default intra-region allocation formula.[4] Regions are also free to also pool their shares for joint uses, and local governments may reallocate their shares to their regional Opioid Abatement Councils (OACs).[5]
What can this share be spent on?
With limited exceptions,[6] this share must be spent only on the opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[7] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and other strategies.
Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?
Local governments decide autonomously (with regional council oversight). Decisionmakers for the local governments may ultimately decide for themselves how to spend their monies on Exhibit E approved uses.[8]
Each region must establish an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee regional distributions, review the expenditures of participating local governments in the region, and publish its activities to a dashboard.[9] To receive their monies directly, local governments are required to create a process for receiving, reviewing, and approving or denying funding proposals; ensure opportunities for community input; and report its expenditures to its regional OAC and the public.[10] Regional OACs may suspend participating local governments’ direct payments if they use funds for non-approved uses, fail to satisfy the MOU’s reporting requirements, or fail to meet the conditions for direct payment described above.[11]
If participating local governments forego their shares, regional OACs are responsible for directing and administering the distribution of those funds based on proposals from community groups or localities.[12]
Is this share attached to an explicit bar against supplantation?
No, supplantation is not prohibited. Like most states, Washington does not explicitly prohibit supplantation uses of its opioid settlement funds. This means that the 50% 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?
Eventually (public reporting required). Opioid settlement expenditures are not officially published in a centralized location for this share. Expenditure data will likely be published by the Regional Opioid Abatement Councils (OACs), given that each are required to “[d]evelop[] and maintain[] a centralized public dashboard or other repository for the publication of expenditure data.”[13]
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
Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Settling Opioid Distributors in Washington State (Allocation Agreement I) Paras. 9.B-10, Washington State Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Certain Opioid Manufacturers and Pharmacies (Allocation Agreement II) Paras. 10.B-11, One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities (MOU) B.1 (“All Opioid Funds shall be held in a [Qualified Settlement Account] and distributed by the Trustee, for the benefit of the Participating Local Governments, only in a manner consistent with this MOU”) and MOU B.3 (referring to Exhibit B). See also Allocation Agreement I and Allocation Agreement II Para. 3.A-3.D (defining “Participating Local Governments” to mean those participating in Washington’s opioid settlement agreements) and Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The 125 eligible cities and counties that signed onto the distributors settlement are covered by a memorandum of understanding (MOU),” and “[a]ll 125 of these cities and counties signed onto the MOU as of 10/3/22”). ↑
MOU B.3 (“In the event any county does not participate in this MOU, that county’s percentage share shall be reallocated proportionally amongst the Participating Counties by applying this same methodology to only the Participating Counties”), MOU C.4(c) (“Cities and towns with a population of less than 10,000 shall be excluded from the allocation, with the exception of cities and towns that are Litigating Participating Local Governments) and MOU C.4(f) (“A Local Government that chooses not to become a Participating Local Government will not receive a direct allocation of Opioid Funds. The portion of the Opioid Funds that would have been allocated to a Local Government that is not a Participating Local Government shall be redistributed to Participating Counties in the manner directed in C.4.a above”). ↑
MOU B.4 (“Allocation and distribution of Opioid Funds within each Participating County will be based on regional agreements as described in Section C”) and MOU C.1 (“For the purpose of this MOU, the regional structure for decision-making related to opioid fund allocation will be based upon the nine (9) predefined Washington State Accountable Community of Health Regions (‘Allocation Regions’)”). See, e.g., Memorandum of Understanding Between North Sound Region Participating Local Governments and North Sound Behavioral Health Administrative Services Organization. ↑
MOU C.2 (“Opioid Funds will be allocated, distributed and managed within each Allocation Region, as determined by its Regional Agreement as set forth below. If an Allocation Region does not have a Regional Agreement enumerated in this MOU, and does not subsequently adopt a Regional Agreement per Section C.5, the default mechanism for allocation, distribution and management of Opioid Funds described in Section C.4.a will apply. Each Allocation Region must have an OAC whose composition and responsibilities shall be defined by Regional Agreement or as set forth in Section C.4”) and MOU C.4(a) (describing that “Opioid Funds shall be allocated within each Allocation Region by taking the allocation for a Participating County from Exhibit B and apportioning those funds between that Participating County and its Participating Cities and Towns” and that “[a] Participating County, and the Cities and Towns within it may enter into a separate intra-county allocation agreement to modify how the Opioid Funds are allocated amongst themselves, provided the modification is in writing and agreed to by all Participating Local Governments in the County. Such an agreement shall not modify any of the other terms or requirements of this MOU”). ↑
MOU C.5 (“Participating Local Governments may agree and elect to share, pool, or collaborate with their respective allocation of Opioid Funds in any manner they choose by adopting a Regional Agreement”). See also MOU C.2 (requiring that each Allocation Region have an Opioid Abatement Council) and MOU C.4(d) (“Each Participating County, City, or Town may elect to have its share re-allocated to the OAC in which it is located. The OAC will then utilize this share for the benefit of Participating Local Governments within that Allocation Region, consistent with the Approved Purposes set forth in Exhibit A”). ↑
Allocation Agreement I Para. 11.I and Allocation Agreement II Para. 12.H (depositing 15% of the Local Government Share in the Government Fee Fund (GFF) to pay local governments’ continency fees), MOU C.4(b) (“10% of the Opioid Funds received by the Region will be reserved, on an annual basis, for administrative costs related to the [Opioid Abatement Council]. The OAC will provide an annual accounting for actual costs and any reserved funds that exceed actual costs will be reallocated to Participating Local Governments within the Region”), MOU C.4(e) (“Reasonable administrative costs for a Participating Local Government to administer its allocation of Opioid Funds shall not exceed actual costs or 10% of the Participating Local Government’s allocation of Opioid Funds, whichever is less”), MOU D.1-D.2 (describing the Government Fee Fund (GFF) and 15% of funding going to it). ↑
MOU A.2 (“‘Approved Purpose(s)’ shall mean the strategies specified and set forth in the Opioid Abatement Strategies attached as Exhibit A”) and MOU B.2 (“All Opioid Funds, regardless of allocation, shall be utilized pursuant to Approved Purposes as defined herein and set forth in Exhibit A”). See Allocation Agreement I Para. 11.B, Allocation Agreement II Para. 12.A (“Exhibit A of the MOU is replaced by Exhibit E”) and Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Exhibit E provides a non-exhaustive list of expenditures that qualify as being paid for Opioid Remediation”). ↑
MOU C.4(e) (“Participating Local Governments that receive a direct payment maintain full discretion over the use and distribution of their allocation of Opioid Funds, provided the Opioid Funds are used solely for Approved Purposes”). See, e.g., Teresa Simpson. Settlement funds to be used to combat opioid epidemic. Whitman County Gazette. July 4, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (describing process by which Whitman County’s Board of Health recommends expenditures, which Commissioners then approve). ↑
MOU C.4(h) (“Prior to any distribution of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region, The Participating Local Governments must establish an Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to oversee Opioid Fund allocation, distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution. The OAC may be a preexisting regional body or may be a new body created for purposes of executing the obligations of this MOU”) and MOU C.4(j)(i)-(vii) (describing regional OACs’ oversight duties, including dashboard creation). ↑
Allocation Agreement I 11.F, i.e. an amendment to add MOU C.4(g)(vii) (“If a Participating Local Government receiving a direct payment (a) uses Opioid Funds other than as provided for in the Distributors Settlement, (b) does not comply with conditions for receiving direct payments under the MOU, or (c) does not promptly submit necessary reporting and compliance information to its Regional Opioid Abatement Counsel (“Regional OAC”) as defined at Section C.4.h of the MOU, then the Regional OAC may suspend direct payments to the Participating Local Government after notice, an opportunity to cure, and sufficient due process. If direct payments to Participating Local Government are suspended, the payments shall be treated as if the Participating Local Government is foregoing their allocation of Opioid Funds pursuant to Section C.4.d and C.4.j.iii of the MOU. In the event of a suspension, the Regional OAC shall give prompt notice to the suspended Participating Local Government and the Settlement Fund Administrator specifying the reasons for the suspension, the process for reinstatement, the factors that will be considered for reinstatement, and the due process that will be provided. A suspended Participating Local Government may apply to the Regional OAC to be reinstated for direct payments no earlier than five years after the suspension”). ↑
MOU C.4(j)(iii) (“In the case where Participating Local Governments chose to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds: … Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region. … Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use by Participating Local Governments or community groups whose proposals are approved by the OAC. … Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds”). ↑
Last updated
