LGCC adopts joint opioid settlement implementation plan after debate over school prevention funding and work‑plan exhibits

The Local Government Coordinating Commission voted to accept a joint opioid settlement implementation plan on March 4, 2025, approving policy guidance for how city, county and Albuquerque Public Schools (APS) officials should prioritize settlement dollars. The final motion passed by recorded vote after several amendments and extensive debate about exhibits that list proposed projects and dollar amounts.

Why it matters: The plan sets local priorities for roughly the next three years of opioid‑settlement funding for Bernalillo County and the City of Albuquerque, including prevention, treatment, recovery housing and community‑based services. Commissioners and city and county staff debated how prescriptive the document should be about specific line‑item proposals and whether APS’s Crossroads prevention program should receive the levels of funding recommended in earlier drafts.

Public commenters including APS counselors urged the commission to fund school‑based prevention. Jennifer Topley, a behavioral health therapist for Albuquerque Public Schools, said, “prevention starts long before addiction takes hold,” and described school therapists’ role in early intervention. Samantha Ashby, a Crossroads counselor, told the commission that “expansion of these programs will save lives,” and said additional counselors would help reach students before substance use begins. Debbie Medina and Michelle Medved, both Crossroads counselors, also described classroom work and student outcomes during public comment.

Commissioners and staff discussed three substantive amendments during the meeting. Councilor Rogers moved Amendment 1 to remove a line in the draft guidance that would have allowed capital projects described as “capital projects supporting youth and families in hard hit communities, recreation facilities, and community centers” to be an eligible settlement use. City legal staff warned the language could be “too attenuated” to comfortably fit allowable settlement categories. Alan Hines of the City Attorney’s office said, “It’s not expressly prohibited,” but advised there was significant legal risk in stretching the eligible categories to include new construction. The commission approved Amendment 1 unanimously.

A second amendment added a cross‑reference to the state allocation agreement under the heading of restricted uses, directing users of the plan to consult the New Mexico allocation agreement for the settlement’s explicit restrictions. That amendment also passed on roll call.

The commission spent substantial time debating whether to include example work plans and dollar amounts submitted by the city, county and APS as exhibits to the policy guidance. Staff from both jurisdictions said their exhibits reflected updated departmental proposals developed in working group meetings; city staff described changes including removing a proposed $900,000 line for naloxone vending machines and adding approximately $5 million for expanded recovery housing. County and city staff said the exhibit labeled “Exhibit D” had been updated and a floor substitute was offered to ensure the newest spreadsheet would be published.

Several commissioners and members of the public said the exhibits’ itemized dollar totals were confusing because they did not align with the amounts each jurisdiction holds at a given moment or the timing of payments the jurisdictions will receive from the national settlement. Councilor Fiebelkorn and others asked that exhibits be relabeled as examples to reduce public confusion about what will actually be appropriated; a motion to relabel exhibits as “detailed examples” failed on a roll call.

The commission considered but rejected a late amendment that would have reduced the recommended APS Crossroads allocation. Councilor Rogers offered substitute language to cap municipal/county contributions to APS at $1.2 million per year for three years; city and county members argued the original, larger recommendation was intended to fully fund the APS expansion request and had been discussed previously. The proposed reduction failed on a roll call vote (8 opposed, 2 in favor). After further procedural amendments — including one that added specific restricted uses to prohibit safe‑use sites and vending machines — the commission voted to adopt the joint implementation plan. The final adoption passed by recorded vote (8 in favor, 2 opposed).

What the plan does and does not do: The adopted document is a policy guidance and set of recommended priorities and exhibits; it does not itself appropriate funds or replace the separate budget and procurement processes of the City of Albuquerque, Bernalillo County or APS. Commissioners repeatedly emphasized that final allocations and contracts remain subject to each governing body’s formal appropriation and procurement rules.

Next steps: The commission said the plan and its exhibits will be posted online and returned to the respective governing bodies for formal appropriation and implementation. Staff from the city and county said they will continue to refine budgets and program details and that procurement, eligibility and reporting requirements remain part of subsequent implementation work.

Quotes

“Prevention starts long before addiction takes hold,” Jennifer Topley, behavioral health therapist, Albuquerque Public Schools, said during public comment.

“Expansion of these programs will save lives,” Samantha Ashby, Crossroads counselor, told the commission.

“It’s not expressly prohibited,” Alan Hines, City Attorney’s office, said of using settlement dollars for capital projects, while cautioning it could be “too attenuated” to be safe.

The commission closed the meeting after scheduling its next session for April 17, 2025.