SB1901

Terms: voting members serve staggered six-year terms, with four or five expiring on February 1 of each odd-numbered year. At the first council meeting on or after the law takes effect, members must draw lots: four terms expire February 1, 2027; four in 2029; five in 2031. The existing council has 13 voting members and a nonvoting comptroller or designee as presiding officer. The bill does not create 14 voting seats. Final law, Sections 1 and 5; Existing council membership.

Conflicts of interest: a member must not participate in reviewing, discussing, deliberating or voting on an award application when the member knows that the member or a relative within the first degree by blood or marriage has a professional or financial interest in an entity directly receiving or applying for council money. First-degree relationships include a parent or child and a spouse, with corresponding first-degree relationships through marriage. This is a participation restriction, not a blanket ban on every related entity applying. The council may adopt additional conflict standards by rule to implement the section or comply with the referenced state ethics law. Final law, Section 2; Blood-relationship degrees; Marriage-relationship degrees.

Local money that is not deposited or is refused: the trust company may redirect money distributed—or that should have been distributed—to counties or municipalities under Section 403.506(c)(1) if a locality does not deposit it before the second anniversary of distribution, or sends written notice affirmatively forfeiting or refusing it. The destination is the council allocation described in Section 403.506(c)(2)(B), not unrestricted general revenue. The existing local distribution is 15% of the specified settlement total; the referenced council allocation is the remainder of the separate 70% allocation after its specified $5 million legal-services allocation. SB1901 does not rewrite those percentages. “Not deposited” is the trigger; it is not a general rule taking back all money unspent within two years. Final law, Section 3; Existing trust-fund allocation rules.

Voting rule removed: the repealed Section 403.509(c) required at least four regional appointees and four members from the other specified appointment groups to approve any decision or strategy. The bill removes that particular requirement; it does not itself state a replacement numerical voting threshold. Final law, Section 4; Repealed approval rule and retained duties.

Passage: all five published versions have identical operative provisions, with no indexed amendments. The final certified votes were 31–0 in the Senate and 146–0 in the House, with two House members present but not voting. The bill met its immediate-effect threshold and took effect when signed May 30, rather than its fallback September 1 date. Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Final law, Section 6 and certification; Version index; Amendment index; History.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

Staggered terms create a scheduled rotation, and recusal requirements limit participation in funding decisions involving specified interests. The reallocation authority can move eligible undeposited or refused local money into council-directed opioid-abatement funding. It is permission to reallocate under stated conditions, not proof that any locality has lost money or that awards have already changed. Final law; Council purpose; Trust-fund purposes.

Both the April 7 introduced-bill and April 25 Senate-passed fiscal notes anticipate no state or local-government fiscal implication and assume implementation costs can be absorbed with existing resources. They do not estimate how much local money might be redirected or show that administrative work is cost-free. Introduced fiscal note; Senate-passed fiscal note.