Sumner County panel backs funding for recovery center build-out, debates indirect costs for partner services

A Sumner County opioid committee on May 8 discussed appropriating county funds to build out a recovery services site and to buy security and mail-scanning equipment for the sheriff’s office, and members debated whether to limit indirect costs claimed by a nonprofit partner.

The presentation by Speaker 2, staff member, said the project budget currently stands at $632,000 for the build-out, with $500,000 set aside by the county and $132,000 already appropriated to a nonprofit partner for build-out work. Speaker 2 also said the county may contract an architect, which “would be roughly a hundred to a hundred and 10,000,” and that a site walk-through with Judge Hunter and a member of the sheriff’s office is scheduled for June 4 to prepare a proposal and final scope.

The committee also discussed buying screening equipment for the jail. Speaker 2 described a plan to acquire additional body scanners and a new mail scanner for detection of contraband in inmate mail, saying the mail scanner “uses no radiation. It uses radio frequency ways to scan the mail,” and that vendor support includes 24/7 expert review and maintenance.

Discussion centered on how county-appropriated funds would be administered when given to Volunteer Behavioral Health and other contracted providers. Speaker 2 said the partner’s two‑year project budget includes an indirect cost line at 26.9 percent (listed in the proposal as $24,433). Committee members asked whether the county can place limits or reporting requirements on those indirect funds. One committee member noted the state Office of Comptroller (referred to in the meeting as “the state of OAC”) applies a 15 percent limit to indirect costs on its contracts and asked whether the county should match that or set a different cap for appropriations.

Speaker 2 explained that county appropriations operate like contracted services: once funds are released they are used by the contractor to meet the needs of the program, and the county does not perform line‑by‑line oversight of every expenditure. The presenter said county practice allows indirect costs for contracted services but confirmed the state limit of 15 percent applies only to state contracts and “does not impact anything that we have over our funds.”

After extended discussion about transparency and stewardship of public dollars, a committee member moved to fund the project with the condition that the nonprofit provide quarterly reports that detail how indirect funds are used. The motion text recorded in the transcript was: “I make a motion that we fund this project, but that we ask for a quarterly report on the indirect funds.” The second, the tally and any formal vote were not recorded in the transcript excerpt provided.

Committee members also discussed an administrative option to reduce the partner’s indirect rate from 26.9 percent to 15 percent and reallocate the difference — one presenter calculated that lowering the indirect rate from 26.9 percent to 15 percent would free roughly $10,880 that could be redirected within county appropriations. The committee did not adopt a final policy change on indirect rates during the recorded discussion; members asked for quarterly reporting and discussed placing an indirect‑cost cap in future grant cycles (10–15 percent was mentioned as guidance).

The committee clarified the proposed contract with Volunteer Behavioral Health would supplement existing behavioral‑health hours provided under the county’s health contract; Speaker 2 characterized the arrangement as helping returning inmates connect to TennCare and community services. Staff repeatedly described the project as a two‑year budget and said a federal grant the partners hope to access is temporarily suspended; both county staff and the nonprofit have expressed interest in applying if that federal funding returns.

No formal final appropriation vote appears in the transcript excerpt. Committee members directed staff to bring further information — invoices, more precise budget breakout, and the results of the June 4 site walk-through — to a future meeting for additional review.

Ending: The discussion will continue at a subsequent committee meeting; staff was asked to provide a more detailed invoice breakdown and to include quarterly reporting provisions if appropriations proceed.