opioid settlement MONEY: STATE REPORTS DON'T MATCH THE BOOKS

Money intended to help Monroe confront the devastating opioid epidemic is now at the center of serious financial accountability questions in Monroe Township. An independent investigation by Opioid Audit, using public records obtained from Monroe Township and the New Jersey Department of Human Services, identifies discrepancies between the expenditures Monroe certified to the state and payments recorded in township financial accounts.

The findings involve police payroll, consulting contracts, advertising, memorial-vigil expenses and financial reports that do not reconcile with the municipal accounting records reviewed. The independent watchdog assigned Monroe Township a provisional F grade, based on its own published methodology. The grade is not a finding by a New Jersey government agency. Nevertheless, the underlying records raise substantial questions that municipal officials should address publicly. [1]

According to the published investigation:

• $288,597.68 - Total opioid settlement funds received.
• $190,062.37 - Total expenditures Monroe reported to NJ for fiscal years 2023–2026.
• $138,020.38 - Payments identified in accounting records reviewed.
• $52,041.99 - Net difference between the reported spending and the identified ledger payments.
• $181,297.29 - Unspent and uncommitted funds Monroe reported having on hand in its FY2026 submission.

The independent investigation also identifies $120,343 in state-certified expenditures without corresponding payees in the records it examined. That figure is different from the $52,041.99 net discrepancy because overstatements and understatements across fiscal years offset one another. The available ledger production is partial. These figures therefore establish reporting discrepancies requiring reconciliation, not that money has been stolen or is necessarily missing from a bank account. [1][2]

The fundamental question is straightforward: Why do the expenditures Monroe Township reported to New Jersey differ from the payments appearing in its own financial records? 

One particularly significant finding involves township payroll. According to the municipal records identified by Opioid Audit, purchase order 24-00917, dated March 14, 2024, included a charge of $46,680.25 to an account titled Opioid Grant Funds – Police Salaries. The same payroll voucher included substantial ordinary police salary appropriations. The question is whether the opioid-funded portion paid for documented, eligible addiction prevention, treatment, recovery or other authorized opioid-remediation activities.

The independent investigation reports that no specific qualifying program supporting this payroll charge was identified in the records produced. There is another significant problem. Monroe's FY2023 report certified $46,680.25 for an opioid task force, although the matching police payroll expenditure identified in the accounting records is dated March 2024 - eight months after the close of the reporting year. 

How could money be reported as spent during one fiscal year when the identified matching payroll charge occurred the following year?

The township needs to produce the payroll allocation records, personnel assignments, documented work activities and accounting adjustments establishing exactly what the money paid for and when. [1][3]

The independent investigation identifies $66,000 in payments to Civic Solutions, LLC, spanning March 2024 through July 2026. These payments included recurring amounts of approximately $2,700 and $3,000. Official township resolutions independently establish that Monroe approved successive professional-services engagements with Civic Solutions.

January 22, 2025 - Resolution R:62-2025

The township authorized an agreement with Civic Solutions for up to $30,000, describing activities including community meetings, a HALO group, a public reflection area, a memorial vigil and branding for the Mayor's Committee on Addiction Awareness.

February 11, 2026 - Resolution R:105-2026

Council authorized another agreement of up to $30,000, identifying substantially similar services. Both agreements were authorized without public bidding under the professional-services exception in New Jersey procurement law, using a non-fair-and-open process. That procedure can be lawful when statutory requirements are met. The resolutions reference written proposals and indicate that executed agreements are available for public inspection. However, the independent audit reports that contracts and supporting deliverables were absent from the particular records it received. [4][5][6]

The contracts were formally authorized. What remains to be established is precisely what work was delivered, how performance was documented, and why each charge qualified for opioid settlement funding.

The public deserves answers to several questions. What specific services did Civic Solutions provide for $66,000? Where are the monthly reports, meeting minutes, program evaluations and completed deliverables? How many residents directly benefited? What evidence supports the claimed addiction-prevention or recovery outcomes? And why did the township's 2025 and 2026 resolutions describe remarkably similar activities, including a second annual memorial vigil, in successive years? The concern is the municipality's responsibility to demonstrate that restricted public funds were spent appropriately.

While opioid settlement funds are intended to address an ongoing public-health emergency, township accounting records reviewed by Opioid Audit identify the following memorial-vigil expenditures:

• $5,942.50 - Spark Creative Group, LLC: vigil advertising.
• $5,800.00 - Spark Creative Group, LLC: vigil audio system.
• $350.00 - Photography by Curtis Brown: vigil photography.

Total identified: $12,092.50.

The records also identify a later $12,743.40 payment to Spark Creative Group for marketing and project management. A public-awareness event can have a legitimate opioid-prevention purpose. But using restricted settlement funds requires more than describing an event as community awareness. The expenditure must be supported by an allowable purpose and appropriate documentation.

Yet Monroe's FY2025 state report identified no newly funded programs, even as the accounting records included payments associated with a memorial vigil. [1][7]

Why were these activities funded through opioid accounts without a corresponding program appearing in that year's state submission?

Where are the advertising contracts, invoices, outreach materials, program evaluations and evidence showing how the spending furthered opioid prevention or recovery? A memorial vigil may honor victims and families. But public officials must still explain how the spending complies with the settlement requirements.

The independent investigation compared Monroe's state submissions with the township payment records it obtained. 

2023: $46,680.25 - Identified Payments: $0

2024: $92,562.75 - Identified Payments: $57,480.25

2025: $21,191.74 - Identified Payments: $37,292.50

2026: $29,627.63 - Identified Payments: $40,247.63

These are not minor rounding differences.

For FY2023 and FY2024, the certified expenditures exceeded payments identified within the corresponding reporting periods. For FY2025 and FY2026, the identified payments exceeded what was certified to the state. Timing adjustments, journal entries, incomplete records or accounting classifications may explain some differences. But those explanations must be supported by actual documentation.

Four consecutive fiscal years of discrepancies demand a complete accounting, not assumptions, estimates or assurances. [1][2]

New Jersey law and the national settlement agreements place restrictions on how opioid settlement proceeds may be spent. Under N.J.S.A. 26:2G-39, the applicable settlement agreements and New Jersey's Attorney General memorandum of agreement, the funds are primarily intended for eligible opioid-remediation activities.

Those activities include addiction treatment, recovery support, prevention, overdose reduction, education, qualifying training and related programs. The New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller also explains that settlement funds must supplement, not supplant, existing government spending on approved purposes.

In other words, municipalities cannot simply substitute settlement money for ordinary budget expenditures that otherwise would have been paid from existing revenue.

The comptroller further identifies limits on non-remediation administrative and related expenditures, including a five-percent restriction applicable to certain categories of costs. Whether Monroe's specific expenditures fall within those categories requires examination of the actual supporting documents. [8][9]

That makes Monroe's police salary allocation, consulting expenditures and administrative classifications especially important. The municipality must establish which legal spending authorization applies to each payment.

This is not merely a theoretical concern. In July 2025, the New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller released an investigation into Irvington Township's management of opioid settlement funds. The comptroller found that Irvington had spent approximately $632,000 on two opioid-awareness concerts, raising substantial concerns about permissible uses, procurement, oversight and public accountability.

The investigation described expenditures involving event promotion, catering and other costs, along with significant payments to businesses connected to a township employee.

The state investigation resulted in extensive recommendations and referrals to other government agencies. [10] The Irvington case demonstrates that state oversight authorities have investigated local opioid-settlement spending involving events, promotion and municipal financial practices. 

Monroe's records deserve an equally rigorous examination of eligibility, documentation and reporting accuracy. 

The administration and township officials responsible for authorizing expenditures, maintaining financial records and submitting state reports should publicly address the following:

1. Why do the FY2023–FY2026 state-certified expenditure totals differ from the available township payment records?
2. What specific opioid-remediation work justified the $46,680.25 police payroll allocation?
3. What documents explain the apparent fiscal-year mismatch involving that payroll charge?
4. What deliverables, documented services and measurable outcomes support $66,000 in payments to Civic Solutions?
5. Why did successive consultant agreements describe substantially similar project activities?
6. What opioid-prevention or recovery programs justify the memorial-vigil advertising, equipment, photography and marketing expenditures?
7. Why were certain expenses reported as administrative costs rather than identified as specific funded programs?
8. Were the township's annual reports independently reconciled to its accounting system before submission?
9. Who prepared, reviewed and certified those reports?
10. Have any reports been corrected, amended or referred for independent review?

These are specific questions grounded in actual financial records and government documents.

Opioid settlement money exists because addiction, overdose deaths and the resulting consequences have devastated families and communities. Those funds were not provided as unrestricted municipal revenue. They carry a public responsibility: to support legitimate, documented efforts addressing the opioid crisis.

Monroe Township has received nearly $289,000. The available records identify major questions involving police payroll, professional-services contracts, promotional expenses and state financial certifications.

Monroe Township should publish a complete reconciliation of every settlement dollar received, every expenditure charged, every vendor paid and every qualifying program delivered.

It should also release the supporting contracts, purchase orders, invoices, work products & records establishing that the expenditures met settlement requirements.

An independent review by the appropriate state oversight authorities would help determine whether reporting corrections, repayment or other action is warranted.

The issue is not whether Monroe Township held a vigil or formed an addiction-awareness committee. The issue is whether public officials can document that restricted settlement funds were spent lawfully, accurately reported and used for their intended purpose.

The financial records have raised the questions. Now Monroe Township must provide the answers.

[1] Independent Opioid Audit - Monroe Township, Gloucester County. Contains the provisional grade, methodology, municipal ledger analysis, payment history and supporting findings.

https://opioidaudit.com/nj/gloucester/monroe-twp

[2] New Jersey Department of Human Services - Annual Opioid Settlement Reports. State-reported receipts, expenditures, program descriptions and remaining balances for Monroe Township.

https://www.nj.gov/opioidfunds/

[3] Monroe Township payroll voucher 24-00917, March 14, 2024. Identified through the audit's supporting document collection, including the $46,680.25 opioid-account allocation.

https://opioidaudit.com/nj/gloucester/monroe-twp

[4] Monroe Township Resolution R:62-2025, January 22, 2025. Civic Solutions professional-services authorization, $30,000 ceiling, proposal reference and stated work activities.

https://monroetownshipnj.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/R_62-2025.pdf

[5] Monroe Township Resolution R:105-2026, February 11, 2026. Subsequent Civic Solutions professional-services authorization, $30,000 ceiling and proposal reference.

https://monroetownshipnj.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/R-105-2026.pdf

[6] Monroe Township Council Resolution Records. Official resolutions, including professional-services contract authorizations.

https://monroetownshipnj.org/township-council/resolutions/

[7] Opioid Audit - Vendor payments and FY2025 reporting comparison. Supporting ledger references for Spark Creative Group, Photography by Curtis Brown and Civic Solutions.

https://opioidaudit.com/nj/gloucester/monroe-twp

[8] New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller - Opioid Settlement Funds. Official explanation of approved spending, restrictions, supplement-not-supplant requirements, reporting and oversight.

https://www.nj.gov/comptroller/resources/opioidsetfunds.shtml

[9] New Jersey Department of Human Services - Settlement Funding FAQ. Describes local government spending requirements and authorized uses under the settlements.

https://www.nj.gov/opioidfunds/faqs/

[10] New Jersey Office of the State Comptroller - Investigation of Irvington's Mismanagement of Opioid Settlement Funds, July 8, 2025. Official state investigation detailing expenditures, oversight findings and recommendations.

https://www.nj.gov/comptroller/reports/2025/20250708.shtml