Albuquerque council, mayor clash in opioid settlement debate

The Albuquerque City Council voted 8-1 to allocate millions of dollars toward a plan to help reduce the harms of the opioid epidemic.

The vote late Monday night assigned about $21 million primarily to nonprofit organizations in Albuquerque. The money stems from a generational settlement between U.S. states and municipalities against large pharmaceutical companies that overprescribed opioids for decades and sent the U.S. into a crisis that’s killed thousands of New Mexicans.

“This is money that we’ve received as a government because people have lost their lives,” Councilor Nichole Rogers said during a committee meeting before the council meeting. “We have an opportunity to do something really great with this money.”

In all, the city of Albuquerque is set to receive about $80 million. The money does not come all at once. Instead, the lawsuits require the money to be dispersed in small amounts until 2038. So far, the city has received about $30 million of the settlement and allocated about $9 million. That left about $21 million for the council to assign.

Monday’s vote set aside $2 million in small grants for small providers working to help people in the throes of opioid use disorder. Specifically, the resolution said the money is meant for “growing, training and sustaining” small providers.

The resolution also sent $1.8 million to Albuquerque Public Schools’ Crossroads program, which seeks to intervene and prevent drug use among the district’s students. It will send another $3 million over the next two years.

About $2.3 million per year will go to the Mayor’s Office but cannot be used for police vehicles, police salaries, safe-use sites or naloxone vending machines. Additionally, 40% must be spent on disconnected youth, while 60% must be used on treatment efforts.

However, the most controversial allocation was $10 million for nonprofits providing treatment for capital improvements such as adding space or repairing buildings. Rogers successfully amended the resolution to allow nonprofits to spend money on augmenting services as well.

But that didn’t stop councilors from criticizing the narrative around this money.

“This is the one that’s had the most incorrect information shared,” Councilor Tammy Fiebelkorn said, referring to a portrayal from the Mayor’s Office that the council wanted to use the settlement money for brick-and-mortar projects.

“An initial proposal from some City Councilors and County Commissioners would tie up the funds to build new facilities, which would take years,” the Mayor’s Office said in a news release on March 31.

After the news release was published, several articles and television news reports reiterated that point, although some included Fiebelkorn’s rejection.

“I want to be clear. Nowhere in the bill before you tonight does it say anything about anyone building a new building,” Fiebelkorn said. “That is not a thing.”

Chief Administrative Officer Samantha Sengel argued the best use of the money was to expand services offered by the city. In a counterproposal, the city officials said they’d like to see the money used to expand their workforce in a number of areas, but much of it connected to the Gateway Center.

“We are in crisis,” Sengel said. “And the city’s dollars need to be going to providing services for people.”

A spokesperson for the mayor also pushed back on Fiebelkorn’s remarks, pointing out the original resolution calls for the $10 million to be used for shovel-ready projects.

“We have been consistent that opioid settlement funds need to be used to provide services for people suffering from addiction today, instead of down the road,” said city spokesperson Staci Drangmeister. “We have already built the First Responder Receiving Area, Medical Sobering Center, Medical Respite, recovery housing and shelter beds for stabilization. Now it’s time to fully fund services at these facilities to help people off the street and into support.”

Councilors said the non-recurring settlement money shouldn’t be used for operating expenses because once it’s gone, it’s gone.

If the money is used to pay for services at the Gateway Center, the council would have to find another way to pay for them or cut them in the future, several councilors said.

The lone vote against the measure came from Councilor Klarissa Peña. Peña said the plan should be deferred to another meeting so the council could weigh the pros and cons of the Mayor’s Office proposal. Peña and Councilor Brook Bassan were the only councilors who voted to defer action.

“We’ve given so much one-time funding to the Gateway Centers,” Councilor Dan Lewis said. “What I think is better now is that we give dollars to treatment centers and to programs like APS (Crossroads).”