Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Opioid Recovery topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables action on $403,000 opioid-recovery funding amid investigation concerns
Summary
City council debated whether to move forward with using roughly $403,000 in South Carolina Opioid Recovery funds through two nonprofit subawardees. Members worried the nonprofits are under investigation; council voted to table final program decisions while the probe continues.
City of North Charleston councilmembers debated whether to proceed with disbursing roughly $403,000 in Opioid Recovery funds to two nonprofit organizations and ultimately voted to table further action.
The item under discussion was a resolution and subaward approach in which the city would accept the state-setaside opioid recovery money and allow nonprofits to operate programs as subawardees. Several councilmembers said they were uncomfortable working with nonprofits connected to an ongoing FBI investigation and urged caution. One councilmember said the city should not act while the probe is unresolved.
City staff and supporters said the nonprofits brought grant-writing experience and that the funds are guaranteed to political subdivisions. A city grant staffer explained: "The way the South Carolina Opioid Recovery Board works is that money is actually set aside because the city is a guaranteed political subdivision," and that the nonprofits would operate as subawardees through the city's application process.
Council members pressed staff on practical questions: whether the funds already sit in a city account (staff said they appear to be in the account), whether the city must formally accept the money immediately (acceptance can be recorded while program details are finalized), and whether the funds could be used in coordination with the county or paid to a county program operating within city limits (staff said that is possible if services occur inside city limits).
After exchanges about vetting, the need for memoranda of understanding, and whether an MOU should precede any engagement, the council approved a motion to table the resolution. The tabling vote superseded earlier motions and pauses any formal subaward process while the investigation and additional vetting occur.
Next steps: Council directed staff to coordinate with the police department, grant coordinators and legal counsel to clarify vetting requirements and the timing for program acceptance. No funds were rescinded; the city will revisit the item after the probe and staff follow-up are complete.
