Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Settlement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends opting into expanded opioid settlement that adds six pharmacy defendants
Summary
The Public Safety committee heard a request to join a direct settlement adding six pharmacy companies to a statewide MDL; the law director said details and allocation schedules were limited, the May 4 deadline prompted a second‑reading passage request, and staff said previously used funds paid for cameras, scholarships and mental‑health programs.
The Public Safety Committee on March 24 considered Resolution 2026‑R‑15, a request to participate in a direct settlement that would add six pharmacy defendants to a multi‑district opioid settlement. The resolution asks council to opt in and declares an emergency to meet an administrative deadline.
The law director told the committee the council is being asked to give authority so national counsel can include the additional companies in the existing MDL; the submission requires signatures and has a May 4 deadline. He said the request included limited detail and that allocation schedules showing city‑level shares often follow later negotiations. “They gave us a deadline of May 4, which is why we requested 2nd reading passage just to make sure we have time to get it turned in,” the law director said.
Director Dean and other administration presenters summarized prior uses of the local opioid settlement fund: about $20,000 spent on Flock cameras in the last year, a limited scholarship for families affected by drugs, and funds earmarked for public prevention/awareness and spring programming. Staff noted some money had been used to support mental‑health awareness events and suicide‑prevention resources.
Councilmembers said they had no principled objection to opting in, but several requested more detailed allocation data before the second reading vote. One councilmember pointed out the city’s opioid funds are restricted to specific buckets (training, direct services and education/awareness) and that the city must follow statutory restrictions on how the money is spent. Members directed staff to attempt to obtain any plan of allocation showing the city’s expected percentage share so they can review it before voting on the second reading.
The committee agreed to bring the resolution forward for second‑reading passage at the next meeting so the city can meet deadlines if it chooses to opt in; staff committed to collect and circulate allocation information when available.
