Commissioners debate opioid‑settlement spending; staff to seek DOJ guidance before reallocating funds

Beaufort County commissioners engaged in a heated, extended debate over how to spend a portion of opioid settlement proceeds, and directed staff to obtain written guidance from the settlement administrators before approving additional reallocations. The county's behavioral health task force presented three pilot projects it recommended for funding from the local opioid settlement money: District 2 Recovery Court ($10,000), Belhaven After School Community Center ($10,000) and Prevention Point ($7,000). Task‑force staff said the funding request totals $27,000 and that an existing community pilot line in the county spending plan held $20,000; the request would require reallocation of $7,000 from a “future opioid expenditure” line to fully fund the three grants. Dispute over prior votes: Commissioner H. Richardson repeatedly referenced a June motion he said the board passed "to fund an additional $20,000 to District 2 recovery court out of the opioid settlement," and said that reduced the available settlement spending authority; staff and the county finance officer said the task force process and the special‑revenue restrictions require the county to follow the collaborative allocation process it told the state it would use. The county finance officer recommended, if commissioners wanted to add funds beyond the task‑force recommendation, that any extra dollars be taken from general‑fund fund balance to avoid risking noncompliance. Motion and outcome: Multiple motions were proposed. A motion to transfer $10,000 from the general fund to the recovery court passed on a voice vote after much discussion; a parallel motion to reallocate settlement funds that would have changed the spending authorization failed at the meeting. Commissioners directed staff to contact the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and state settlement administrators for written confirmation about whether the proposed reallocations are permissible under the settlement terms and to return with an updated, itemized spending authorization for the settlement funds at the next meeting. Why it matters: The county has a multi‑year allocation of opioid settlement proceeds intended for prevention, treatment and recovery. Commissioners and staff differed on whether a prior board vote had already reduced the settlement spending plan and on whether adding funds for the recovery court would be allowed within the settlement guidance; staff said DOJ and state administrators regularly monitor local spending and seek written confirmation before making atypical reallocations. Ending: The board asked staff to gather written guidance from DOJ/state settlement contacts and to circulate that information — including the names and contact details of the state or federal reviewers — to the full board before the next meeting.