Thursday, October 1, 2026
Thurston County has activated its Opioid Abatement Council (OAC), a mandatory mechanism under the One Washington Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The council’s formation allows the county and its partner cities, namely Lacey, Tumwater and Olympia, to begin managing and spending opioid settlement dollars earmarked for opioid remediation.
The issue was discussed during the Thurston County Board of County Commissioners work session on Wednesday, March 26.
According to Opioid Response Program Manager Katie Strozyk, the “participation and signing the One Washington MOU was required as a condition of direct payment of opioid funds.”
She also said the MOU obligated “every jurisdiction in Washington to sign on” and adhere to a uniform framework that governs how settlement funds are used, tracked and reported.
The county couldn’t spend its share until the council was in place. The cities of Lacey, Tumwater and Olympia faced the same restriction.
“This body had to be created before anyone is allowed to touch their funds at all. We were just able to form our OAC last month, and so we couldn’t spend any of our money,” Strozyk said.
Originally, Thurston County belonged to a seven-county allocation block with Lewis, Mason, Cowlitz, Grays Harbor, Pacific and Wahkiakum counties.
However, Strozyk explained that grouping was unwieldy due to the large geographic and administrative spread.
“I believe that was two years ago, (the counties) realized that that’s a huge region to try to convene these opioid abatement councils with. … It got a lot more complicated … because places like Wahkiakum County are getting such little money and they really don’t have infrastructure stood up,” she said.
To address the issue, an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) was signed in 2023, which enables Thurston County and its three partner cities to implement their own sub-region and form a localized OAC.
As a result, Strozyk revealed it allowed the group to move forward with a more manageable governance model.
Furthermore, Strozyk said the council’s function is not to award funding but to ensure spending aligns with legal uses laid out in the MOU.
“They oversee allocation, distribution, expenditures and dispute resolution … making sure that the allocations follow legal requirements for being within opioid remediation,” she explained.
Strozyk added that compliance alone isn’t enough. Jurisdictions must gather “community-based input on priorities” before funding decisions are made.
To meet the said obligation, Thurston County created an Opioid Response Plan built with “community-based feedback, stakeholders, lived experience, cross sector.”
In fall 2023, the county circulated a public survey asking residents to rank priorities based on the MOU’s core strategies. The effort generated more than 100 responses.
The strategies include Naloxone distribution, medication-assisted treatment, services for pregnant and postpartum individuals, neonatal care, peer-led recovery programs and syringe service expansion.
In connection with the developments mentioned, the MOU also mandates that each jurisdiction develop a public data dashboard showing how funds are received and spent.
Strozyk said Thurston County’s dashboard is already built and contains revenue data, though no expenditures are listed because allocations have yet to be made.
She noted while the state built its own dashboard, it is not public-facing and doesn’t meet the visibility requirements in the MOU.
Under settlement terms, each jurisdiction may use 10% for administration, and the county has access to another 10% for overseeing the council.
Both were left untouched, Strozyk reported. The MOU does let jurisdictions back out and give up their share, but so far, none in Washington have opted to do that.
The ILA forbids unified disbursements under the current agreement.
“Right now the MOU, it not only doesn’t require pooling of funds, but it kind of excludes the pooling of funds,” Strozyk said.
Still, she noted there was interest in reconsidering because “all of the jurisdictions were expressing wanting to revisit that MOU and revisit a discussion around pooling funds.”
To map out upcoming allocations, Commissioner Rachel Grant said the existing community-built response plan already provides direction on how the funds should be spent.
“There’s a plan … with the priorities already set by the people of the county.”
When it comes to tribal engagement, even though their governments aren’t bound by the MOU, Strozyk said, “they’ve been heavily involved … for multiple years now” in Thurston County’s opioid response efforts.
At its next scheduled meeting, the council will take up the task of examining the legal architecture of the MOU and ILA, and consider introducing edits to improve joint efforts or explore regional planning.
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
The_Armed_Gardener
Just say no to the government opioid funds. Don't be naive or pretend not to know how this will go.
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help." - Ronald Reagan
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
Honestyandrealityguy
About 14 years ago, our politicians passed a law that limited what pain doctors could do to treat pain, such as shots, etc. Instead, they wanted pain pills and opioids. So the pain doctors pretty much left the state and now we have a drug problem and somehow the politicians are avoiding the right answer. Makes me wonder who got paid to pass the law 14 years ago. Sad.
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
HotTractor
The real culprit of the opioid problem is Purdue Pharma and it's owners.
https://www.propublica.org/article/richard-sackler-oxycontin-oxycodone-strength-conceal-from-doctors-sealed-testimony
Tuesday, April 1, 2025 Report this
OlyBlues
Thurston County does not have a good history of compliance with funds like this. 10% admin fees, 10% cost to run the council.....sounds like a recipe for a county slush fund. The county should set up a dashboard for the public to track the spending for this project in full transparency. Anything less just invites more fraud and misspending like the county seems to be good at.
Wednesday, April 2, 2025 Report this
ChuckCross
Do not under rate the value of your vote!! Note that the County thinks a survey response rate of 100 county residents is sufficient to base their decisions on regarding initiation of a drug program. Wit a county population of ruffly 300,000, would you think, if the County program was a major concern, that the populace would not be heavily involved in attacking the problem???? One other item to note --- nowhere in this article is the total amount of funding mentioned. I wonder why.
Wednesday, April 2, 2025 Report this