Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Opioid Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves attorney position funded from opioid settlement; debate over use of innovation funds
Summary
The St. Louis County Board approved funding a specialty‑courts attorney position using opioid settlement funds for up to three years, with an amendment to revisit funding sources for year three. The measure passed 6‑1 after commissioners debated whether opioid innovation funds should be reserved for community grants rather than staffing.
St. Louis County commissioners voted 6‑1 Aug. 12 to approve using opioid settlement dollars to fund an attorney position to support specialty courts, with board language amended to require a review of the funding source for the third year.
The original motion to approve funding for specialty‑court staffing was moved and seconded at the board meeting and subsequently amended after discussion. Administration and legal counsel briefed the board on mechanics and phasing; Attorney Mackey advised on meeting procedure when the board substituted revised language. Administrator Gray confirmed the amended language clarifies the board’s expectation that year‑three funding will be revisited.
Why it mattered: Commissioner Grimm publicly opposed using the opioid innovation fund to backfill budgetary staffing needs. Grimm said, “I don't believe we should drain the opioid innovation funds to reduce our budgets,” arguing those dollars should be preserved for community grants and new programs that directly serve people affected by substance use. Other commissioners defended the decision as an interim step to support specialty courts while county budget discussions continue.
Amendment and vote: The board accepted a revised version of the resolution that added a whereas clause referencing the opioid remediation subcommittee meeting minutes and explicitly noted that year‑three funding would be revisited. After debate, the motion to approve the resolution as amended carried 6‑1. Roll‑call recorded Commissioner Graham voting no; Commissioners Boyle, McDonald, Musa, Nelson, Yugovich and Chair Commissioner Harlow voted yes.
Next steps: Administration said the matter of longer‑term funding will be addressed during the upcoming budget process and that the board’s amendment requires review of the funding source for the third year. The approved action will allow the staffing to be posted and funded in the near term subject to the amendment’s condition.
Context: Commissioners also referenced the opioid settlement committee and prior committee of the whole discussions; several board members urged that opioid settlement dollars be targeted at innovation and community grants rather than to offset recurring county staffing costs. The record shows concern over the county’s absence of recent open community solicitation for opioid settlement applications; the board’s amendment seeks to preserve oversight of how the settlement funds are spent beyond the immediate staffing action.
