Where do these monies live?

The Opioid Abatement Settlement Account holds the state government’s 50% share of Washington State’s opioid settlement funds.[1] Starting July 2025, 20% of this share’s receipts (or $7,750,000, whichever is greater) will be annually transferred from this Account to the newly created Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account.[2]

What can this share be spent on?

In general, and with limited exceptions,[3] this share must be spent only on the forward-looking opioid remediation uses described in the national settlement agreement’s (non-exhaustive) Exhibit E,[4] which includes prevention, harm reduction, treatment, and other strategies.

The Attorney General has expressed that this share will be spent consistently with Washington’s State Opioid and Overdose Response (SOOR) Plan,[5] which focuses on the following priority goals:[6]

1. Prevent opioid misuse

2. Identify and treat substance use disorder

3. Ensure and improve the health and wellness of individuals that use drugs

4. Use data to detect opioid misuse/abuse, monitor illness, injury and death, and evaluate interventions

5. Support individuals in recovery

The 20% of this share that is annually transferred to the Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account (beginning July 2025) must be spent to “address[] the impact of the opioid epidemic in tribal communities” by funding “[p]revention and recovery services,” “treatment programs[,] including medication-assisted treatment,” “peer services,” “awareness campaigns and education,” and “support for first responders.”[7]

Who ultimately decides how to spend this share (and how)?

Workgroups and governor provide input, state legislature decides. The Washington state legislature ultimately decides specific expenditures for this share,[8] inclusive of the 20% allocated to the Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account.[9]

According to FAQ responses authored by the Washington State Health Care Authority,[10] the legislature is informed by input from a chain of key stakeholders:

1. The State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan (SOORP) workgroup provides recommendations to the SOORP “executive sponsors” (representatives from key state agencies and academia).[11]

2. The SOORP executive sponsors use the workgroup’s recommendations to develop their own funding recommendations, which are then provided to the Governor’s office.[12]

3. The SOORP executive sponsors’ recommendations may be integrated into the Governor’s budget, which contains funding proposals for the legislature’s consideration.[13]

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% state share may be spent in ways that replace (or “supplant”) — rather than supplement — existing resources.

Can I see how this share has been spent?

Yes (neither public nor intrastate reporting required). The Attorney General has published a one-time summary of appropriations for the state legislature’s 2023-25 biennium.

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

1. Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Settling Opioid Distributors in Washington State (Allocation Agreement I) Para. 9.A and Washington State Allocation Agreement Governing the Allocation of Funds Paid by Certain Opioid Manufacturers and Pharmacies (Allocation Agreement II) Para. 10.A. Wash. Rev. Code Sec. Sec. 43.79.483(1) (“The opioid abatement settlement account is created in the state treasury. All settlement receipts and moneys that are designated to be used by the state of Washington to abate the opioid epidemic for state use must be deposited into the account”). ↑

2. Laws of 2024, Chapter 210, Sec. 3 (Tribal Opioid Prevention and Treatment Account) (“A new section is added to chapter 43.79 RCW to read as follows: The tribal opioid prevention and treatment account is created in the state treasury. All receipts from the transfer directed in RCW 3.79.483(3) must be deposited in the account”) and Wash. Rev. Code Sec.43.79.483(3) (“Beginning July 1, 2025, and each fiscal year thereafter through June 30, 2031, the state treasurer shall transfer into the tribal opioid prevention and treatment account created in section 3 of this act from the opioid abatement settlement account an amount equal to the greater of $7,750,000 or 20 percent of the settlement receipts and moneys deposited into the opioid abatement settlement account during the prior fiscal year”). ↑

3. Wash Rev. Code Sec. 43.79.483(1) (“Expenditures from the account may only be used for future opioid remediation as provided in the applicable settlement”) (emphasis added) and Distributor Settlement Agreement I.SS (“Qualifying expenditures may include reasonable related administrative expenses”).. ↑

4. Wash Rev. Code Sec.43.79.843(1) (“Expenditures from the account may only be used for future opioid remediation as provided in the applicable settlement. For purposes of this account, "opioid remediation" means the care, treatment, and other programs and expenditures, designed to: (a) Address the use and abuse of opioid products; (b) treat or mitigate opioid use or related disorders; or (c) mitigate other alleged effects of, including those injured as a result of, the opioid epidemic”). Allocation Agreement I Para. 11.B and 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”). ↑

5. See Johnson & Johnson pays $123.34 million to state, local governments following AG Ferguson opioid law suit. Washington Attorney General press release. June 18, 2024. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Legislature will determine how the state share is further allocated in communities around the state. All spending decisions must be consistent with the state Opioid Response Plan”). See also Uniform Application FY 2024/2025 – State Behavioral Health Assessment And Plan (“Washington State identified the State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan as the collaborative framework where consensus recommendations on the use of opioid settlement dollars would be developed and submitted for consideration by the Governor’s Office”). ↑

6. State Opioid and Overdose Response (SOOR) plan. Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

7. Laws of 2024, Chapter 210, Sec. 3. ↑

8. Wash. Rev. Code 43.79.843(1) (“Money in the account may be spent only after appropriation”). See also Washington Opioid Settlement FAQ. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The legislature will approve final use of the 50% of abatement funds and returned AGO attorney fees”). ↑

9. Laws of 2024, Chapter 210, Sec. 3 ("Moneys in the [tribal opioid prevention and treatment account] may be spent only after appropriation”). ↑

10. “The following responses have been … updated as of 01/06/2023.” Washington Opioid Settlement FAQ. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

11. Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The SOORP workgroups (made up of subject matter experts and stakeholders from tribal and local communities) provided recommendations to the SOORP executive sponsors (key state agencies and academia)”). ↑

12. Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The executive sponsors then sent their resulting recommendations to the Office of the Governor”). See, e.g., 2021-22 Opioid Overdose and Response Plan. ↑

13. Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs. HCA. Updated January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024 (“The Governor’s budget includes a set of recommendations for use of the funds for consideration and approval by the Legislature. Opioid settlement items found in DOH and HCA budgets. In the HCA agency recommendation summary, opioid settlement uses are marked “DS” and can be viewed here. In the DOH agency recommendation summary, opioid settlement uses are marked with “Settlement” and can be viewed here”). ↑

Here are the entities that ultimately decide how each of Washington’s opioid settlement shares are spent:

• 50% state share: Washington state legislature

• 50% local share: local officials for counties, cities, and towns

Has the state established an advisory body for settlement funds?

No. Washington has not established an advisory body specifically to inform spending of funds from the 50% state share.[1] However, those involved with Washington’s State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan (SOORP) provide recommendations across numerous funding streams, including opioid settlement funds.[2]

Is the state advisory body required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?

Not applicable.

What is the overall membership of the state advisory body?

Not applicable.

Are local governments required to establish a settlement advisory body? If so, are local advisory bodies required to include member(s) with lived and/or living experience?

Yes, but regional only. Local governments in Washington are not required to establish their own opioid settlement advisory bodies, but local governments within each of Washington’s nine Allocation Regions are required by the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities to establish a regional opioid abatement council (regional OACs) (see, e.g., King County’s Opioid Abatement Council).[3]

A regional OAC, which may be a new or preexisting regional body,[4] must be composed of representatives from participating counties, cities, and towns within the region that have “work or educational experience pertaining to one or more Approved Uses.”[5] Regional OACs are not required to include any member(s) with lived and/or living experience.

Each regional OAC must:

• Oversee the distribution of settlement funds by participating local governments within the region,[6] including reviewing annual expenditure reports to ensure funds were used for approved purposes[7]

• Report and make publicly available opioid settlement fund distributions and expenditures by the region’s OAC and/or its participating local governments,[8] including via a centralized public dashboard that must be updated at least annually[9]

• Hear participating local governments’ complaints regarding misuse of settlement funds within the region or noncompliance with reporting requirements[10]

• Collect outcome-related data from participating local governments to evaluate the use of settlement funds “if necessary”[11]

• Oversee the approval, distribution, and administration of settlement funds where a participating local government opted to forego their direct allocation[12]

Regional OACs are also empowered to take “remedial action” against participating local governments determined to be misusing opioid settlement funds or otherwise failing to comply with the terms of the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities.[13] This includes withholding future settlement funds or requiring the repayment of misspent funds.[14]

What else should I know?

Not applicable.

Citations

1. The state has established a “National Opioid Abatement Trust Subcommittee” of the State Opioid & Overdose Response Plan, but it appears the subcommittee was created solely to satisfy requirements related to the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy. See The State of Washington’s Notice of Government Participation Mechanism Pursuant to Section 5 of the National Abatement Trust II Distribution Procedures. August 12, 2022. Only one independent meeting of the subcommittee is listed on the Washington Healthcare Authority’s website. See National Opioid Abatement Trust (NOAT) Subcommittee March 31, 2023 Agenda (includes list of committee members, presentation on the committee). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

2. See Washington opioid settlement frequently asked questions (FAQ), Question 6 and Question 13. Washington State Health Care Authority. January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

3. One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities (WA Municipalities MOU) Secs. C(2) (“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 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”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

4. WA Municipalities MOU Sec. C(4)(h). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

5. WA Municipalities MOU Sec. C(4)(i) (furthermore, “[t]he method of selecting members, and the terms for which they will serve will be determined by the Allocation Region’s Participating Local Governments”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

6. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(i). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

7. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(ii). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

8. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(iv). Accessed September 1, 2024. Local governments must report “to the OAC and mak[e] publicly available all decisions on Opioid Fund allocation applications, distributions and expenditures” as a condition of receiving a direct payment of settlement funds. Id. at C(4)(g)(vi). ↑

9. WA Municipalities C(4)(j)(v). Accessed September 1, 2024 (a dashboard or “other repository for the publication of expenditure data). ↑

10. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(vii). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

11. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(vi). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

12. WA Municipalities MOU C(4)(j)(iii) Accessed September 1, 2024 (“In the case where Participating Local Governments chose to forego their allocation of Opioid Funds: (i) Approving or denying proposals by Participating Local Governments or community groups to the OAC for use of Opioid Funds within the Allocation Region. (ii) Directing the Trustee to distribute Opioid Funds for use by Participating Local Governments or community groups whose proposals are approved by the OAC. (iii) Administrating and maintaining records of all OAC decisions and distributions of Opioid Funds”). ↑

13. WA Municipalities MOU C(8). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

14. WA Municipalities MOU C(8) (“Such remedial action is left to the discretion of the OAC”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

Can I provide input on spending?

• 50% state share: Yes (not required). Members of the public can attend the State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan (SOORP) learning community meetings and provide input on opioid settlement spending recommendations by contacting the SOORP workgroup leads. Visit the SOORP website to find the dates, times, and attendance information for each SOORP learning community meeting, plus information about past SOORP workgroup meetings. You can find the names and email addresses of lead contacts for each SOORP workgroup on page 39 of the state’s Opioid and Overdose Response Plan,[1] and general questions may be emailed to Kris Shera, Washington’s State Opioid Coordinator, at kris.shera@hca.wa.gov.

• 50% local share: Yes (required). Local governments are required to gather community input on settlement funding priorities as a condition of receiving direct settlement payments.[2] See, e.g., Spokane County (announcing County’s October 2023 public input survey, launched for the public “to share suggestions, ideas and concerns with Spokane County Leadership to support decision making on the use of Opioid Settlement Funding”).[3]

  • Some regional opioid abatement councils have established regular meeting schedules with opportunities to provide public comment.[4] For example, both the Spokane County Opioid Abatement Council and Pierce County Opioid Abatement Council publish meeting schedules on their respective websites and include a dedicated public comment period on each meeting agenda.

  • Some local governments have conducted more extensive community engagement. For example, Public Health Seattle-King County engaged the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use team (READU) at the University of Washington to “design a community engagement consultation process to understand the experiences, needs, and goals of the community to identify priorities for the use of [settlement] funding.”[5] This process, which included focus groups and surveys, resulted in a report and recommendations. King County has also indicated that “[a] community board will be formed in late 2024 to provide ongoing input.”[6]

Can I apply for grants?

It depends. As of September 1, 2024, the state has not yet established any grant opportunities for the 50% state share. Local governments may create grant programs to distribute their share of funds. The existence, parameters, and processes for local settlement grant programs will vary by locality, so stay alert for new opportunities. Visit the Opioid Settlement Community Grants Portal (OpioidSettlementTracker.com and Legal Action Center) for the most up-to-date information on settlement grant opportunities for community organizations.

Where do I go for updates?

• For updates on the state share, visit the Department of Health’s Washington State Opioid Settlements website and refer to the State Opioid and Overdose Response Plan’s website for meeting updates. Sign up to receive email updates and reminders from the state opioid response workgroup here.

• To find updates on the local share, a good starting point is to check the websites for your regional opioid abatement council (see, e.g., the Greater Columbia Region and King County regional OACs), city or county council, or local health department (see, e.g., the settlement-specific webpages of Cowlitz County, King County, and the City of Port Angeles).[7]

What else should I know?

The Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee (SURSAC), a legislatively created body required to include people with lived experience, is responsible for recommending policies to the state legislature and working with the Washington State Health Care Authority to implement the state’s substance use recovery services plan.[8] The SURSAC meets monthly and encourages public comments.[9]

Visit the SURSAC’s website to find the dates, times, and attendance information for upcoming SURSAC meetings and instructions on how to submit public comments during meetings. The website also includes materials and recordings from previous meetings, information about the SURSAC’s Safe Supply Work Group, and an email address to submit written feedback (hcaesb5476@hca.wa.gov).

Citations

1. See Washington opioid settlement frequently asked questions (FAQ), Question 13 (“How can I participate in developing the recommendations for how to use the settlement funds?” “Anyone can provide comments to a SOORP workgroup by contacting the workgroup leads listed in the plan. These workgroups provide input on work from a variety of funding sources, including opioid settlement funds”). Washington State Health Care Authority. January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

2. One Washington Memorandum of Understanding Between Washington Municipalities (Municipalities MOU) Sec. C(4)(g)( ii) (“As a condition of receiving a direct payment, each Participating Local Government that receives a direct payment agrees to undertake the following actions: ii. Ensuring there is opportunity for community-based input on priorities for Opioid Fund programs and services”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

3. Public Survey for Opioid Settlement Funds Now Available. Spokane County news release. October 24, 2023 (Archived). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

4. Note: Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act requires “the governing body of a public agency” to “provide an opportunity at or before every regular meeting at which final action is taken for public comment.” Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 42.30.240(1). Washington’s opioid settlement-related documents do not clarify whether Regional Opioid Abatement Councils (OACs) constitute such governing bodies, but agreements establishing some Regional OACs require compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act. See, e.g., Interlocal Agreement Between Pierce County, Cities of Auburn, Bonney Lake, Edgewood, Fife, Gig Harbor, Lakewood, Puyallup, Sumner, Tacoma, and University Place, Forming PCOAC Sec. 4(A)(3) (“Meetings shall be properly noticed to all Council Members and in compliance with RCW 42.30, the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA)”). Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

5. Opioid Settlement Stakeholder Feedback – Recommendations for the use of opioid settlement funds allocated to Seattle & King County. The University of Washington School of Nursing, guided by the Research with Expert Advisors on Drug Use (READU). June 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

6. See “How is community input being gathered?” King County Opioid Settlement website. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

7. As of January 2023, “[w]hile there is not yet an official coordinating body comprised of state and local officials, it is anticipated that state planning efforts will engage in a coordinated way with local and regional Opioid Advisory Councils in the future. Details about engagement and collaboration with local/regional entities are emerging and will be shared when available,” and the Health Care Authority “expect[s] to work with Association of Washington Cities and Washington State Association of Counties in some way.” Washington opioid settlement frequently asked questions (FAQ), Questions 2 and 4. Washington State Health Care Authority. January 6, 2023. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

8. Wash. Rev. Code. Ann. Secs. 71.24.546(1), (2)(a), and (6)-(7). See also Engrossed Senate Bill 5476 – Responding to the State v. Blake decision by addressing justice system responses and expansion of behavioral health services. Washington State Health Care Authority. June 10, 2021. Accessed September 1, 2024. The SURSAC may propose ways to expend opioid settlement funds. See, e.g., the group’s plan, which was submitted to the Governor in December 2022, proposes funding some strategies with opioid settlement funds, including capital construction costs for new opioid treatment programs (OTPs) and expanding the reach of existing OTPs. ↑

9. See “How to offer public comment during meetings.” SURSAC website. Accessed September 1, 2024. ↑

Washington State Health Care Authority

• State Opioid and Overdose Response plan

• State Opioid and Overdose Response learning community meetings

• Opioid response work group email listserv

• Washington Opioid Settlement FAQs (January 2023)

• Substance Use Recovery Services Advisory Committee (SURSAC)

Washington State Department of Health

• Washington State Opioid Settlements

Washington State Attorney General

• Distributors Washington Settlement

• Johnson & Johnson Opioid Settlement

• Opioid Pharmacy & Manufacturer Settlements

StopOverdose.org

• Washington State Naloxone Finder

The People’s Harm Reduction Alliance

• Free naloxone

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

1. 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”). ↑

2. 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”). ↑

3. 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. ↑

4. 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”). ↑

5. 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”). ↑

6. 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). ↑

7. 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”). ↑

8. 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). ↑

9. 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). ↑

10. MOU C.4(g)(i)-(vi). ↑

11. 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”). ↑

12. 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”). ↑

13. MOU C.4(j)(v). ↑

This Community Guide will describe how Washington is spending its opioid settlements, and whether Washington is working to ensure community access to opioid settlement funds. Last revised September 1, 2024.