Friday, October 2, 2026
An effort to merge opioid settlement money into a regional fund failed to pass muster with the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners.
The board debated a proposed interlocal agreement (ILA) related to the settlement money at a work session on Wednesday, Sept. 10, but a motion to approve it failed after an extended discussion.
The ILA would have combined the county’s just under 70% share of the settlement money with the other 30% held by Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater.
The proposal called for the Opioid Abatement Council (OAC) to recommend spending with the board deciding whether to approve or send the plan back for changes.
County Manager Leonard Hernandez said the draft is a by-product of months of negotiations and the desire of cities for a shared budget process.
He said stakeholders were waiting for clarity on whether the county would move forward with the agreement.
Hernandez said the ILA included two main features: pooled settlement funds and a decision matrix modeled on the Regional Housing Council (RHC).
He also said if the board chose not to pool funds, the council would still exist, but cities would be left to manage their own allocations with limited administrative capacity.
Thurston County Opioid Response Coordinator Katie Strozyk said the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governs settlement money across the state. It requires every county to maintain an OAC to review spending, publish annual reports and resolve disputes.
“We have an existing ILA that’s signed by all of the jurisdictions. It specifies that it doesn’t constitute a shared budget with pooling of funds,” she said.
Strozyk saidwithout pooling, the cities could face challenges in designing their own programs.
She said Thurston County has led the opioid response team and response plan for years, while cities lack staff and expertise in managing treatment contracts or community input processes.
“It really leaves the cities at a huge disadvantage for serving our community,” she said.
The financial backdrop shaped much of the debate.
Hernandez previewed a coming presentation on the Treatment Sales Tax (TST) fund. It is the county’s 0.1% sales tax for behavioral health and therapeutic court programs, authorized under Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.14.460.
He said revenue is “just over $8 million,” while costs range from $9 million to $11 million. Hernandez said the county has been spending down reserves and now must cut programs unless trends improve.
He noted TST supports positions in law and justice departments, corrections and pretrial services, which could face reductions if the shortfall continues.
Board Chair Tye Menser drew a connection between the funding gap and the decision on pooling opioid dollars. He said his priority through December was the budget process and avoiding choices that could reduce financial flexibility.
Menser reminded the board that in a prior round of reductions the board had spent three weeks cutting only $3.2 million after targeting $8 million, and now the current task is to close a $25 million gap.
He also cited federal disability law and guidance requiring access to medication for opioid use disorder in jails.
“There’s a federal law and federal lawyers saying that it is … an absolute legal mandate,” said Menser, noting the county must comply.
He said cities, which do not run a jail, may not prioritize methadone treatment and could push to direct settlement dollars elsewhere.
Board Vice Chair Wayne Fournier echoed the same concern. He said pooling sounded “dangerous at this time” because the county could lose the ability to protect programs it has already built.
He argued while collaboration can work in theory, the county cannot risk ceding control of the majority of funds.
Fournier warned that once control shifts to a regional process, the county may be left to vote down plans and send them back wherein it will add unnecessary delay while local programs wait.
He said the county’s responsibility to maintain existing services outweighed the risks of entering a pooled model.
Other board commissioners argued otherwise.
Commissioner Emily Clouse said she “strongly supports the pooling of funds,” adding the opioid crisis is a regional problem.
She credited county staff with years of work on the agreement and said pooling would strengthen the region’s ability to secure outside grants.
Clouse also stressed that staffers are “subject matter experts” who had built safeguards into the ILA, including provisions that would provide the board final approval and allow jurisdictions to withdraw if dissatisfied.
She then said speculation about cities undermining programs was unfounded and collaboration would mirror recent improvements at the RHC.
Commissioner Rachel Grant also supported the proposed ILA.
She pointed to four overdose deaths in the county in the two weeks before the meeting that involved men ages 20 to 26.
She argued that pooling money would expand treatment and prevention, and show city partners the county trusts them to help direct dollars.
Grant warned that refusing to pool would “literally throw it in the faces of our partners” and suggested it would damage interjurisdictional trust. She also said pooling would increase eligibility for state and federal grants that require local matching funds.
Commissioner Carolina Mejia, who has supported pooling in the past, said she could not vote for the ILA without more information.
She recalled that cities were once reluctant to join such models and cited earlier disputes over the RHC, but emphasized the county had always been open to collaboration.
“We’ve been waiting for the jurisdictions,” she said.
Mejia asked if the county could reserve a percentage of its share to cover jail obligations, while joining a pool.
“If we were able to keep at least a percentage for us to give us a little bit of padding, I would feel more comfortable,” she said.
Mejia added while she still valued regional cooperation, she wanted to see the full TST presentation and budget outlook first.
Opioid ILA vote fails
After a heated debate, Clouse moved to approve the ILA and Grant seconded. The motion failed on a voice vote; commissioners had split beforehand, with Clouse and Grant in favor and the others opposed or undecided.
Mejia reiterated that she needed more budget data and wanted to see the TST outlook before committing.
Hernandez reminded the board that jurisdictional partners expected direction soon. He said frustration could follow if no answer came, but county staff would “work that through” if necessary. He also noted that cities were already pressing Strozyk for clarity.
Mejia then moved to bring the issue back after the TST presentation and budget hearings from elected officials on Sept. 17.
Menser restated the motion to revive the ILA discussion following those briefings, and this time the motion carried.
Clouse asked about timing. Strozyk responded that the next meeting of the OAC is scheduled in early October, while Menser linked the discussion to the December budget process.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here