Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Opioids topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mount Pleasant to pursue community partnerships, consider fronting funds for opioid settlement programs
Summary
In a work session, staff presented options for using the city's $130,098 opioid settlement allocation; commissioners favored partnering with local health providers and exploring upfront funding (for example from marijuana revenue) to scale naloxone distribution, recovery housing and harm-reduction services.
City staff presented a research briefing and options for using Mount Pleasant’s share of opioid settlement money during a work session. The city’s portion is modest — roughly $130,098 over 18 years — while Isabella County’s allocation is several million. Meeting presenters outlined eligible uses (the so-called Exhibit E list) and recommended prioritizing harm reduction, treatment access and partnerships with local providers.
Key options discussed included bulk purchasing of naloxone and fentanyl-test strips, installing public dispensing/vending machines with free naloxone and testing strips, funding recovery housing with no sobriety requirement, mobile harm-reduction units, and educational materials. Staff estimated naloxone costs at about $5 per dose (generic) and test strips at roughly $0.50 each in bulk.
Commissioners and staff emphasized partnering with existing local organizations rather than duplicating services. Potential partners mentioned were Central Michigan University health programs, the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe and Tribal health services, Isabella County health providers and Bear River Health. Several commissioners suggested the city could front one-time funds (for example from marijuana tax revenue) to establish programs quickly and then use the annual opioid settlement payments to replenish or continue them.
Direction given: staff (intern and public health liaisons) were asked to contact local partners, gather existing program details and return with a recommended spending plan and options for upfront funding and reimbursement strategies. Staff reiterated payout timing is uncertain and the city will receive settlement dollars over many years; commissioners asked staff to consider reimbursement mechanisms and partnering so small city allocation can be leveraged effectively.
