Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners approve Health First subgrants but exclude Feeding Team over perceived conflict
Summary
County commissioners approved 2026 Health First subgrant awards to local nonprofits but removed one applicant, The Feeding Team, from the slate after a commissioner raised perception concerns about an elected official’s association; The Feeding Team’s requested infrastructure grant had been reduced to $10,000.
Hamilton County commissioners approved a package of 2026 Health First subgrant agreements Nov. 24, but removed one applicant, The Feeding Team, from the board’s approvals after concerns about a perceived conflict of interest.
Health staff presented six proposed subgrantees recommended by the nonprofit committee: Trinity Free Clinic, Harvest Food Bank, Heart and Soul Clinic, Teeter Organic Farms, The Feeding Team, and the Hamilton County Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Staff said five of the six had come through committee review and fit within core public‑health services.
During discussion, an unidentified commissioner objected to approving The Feeding Team because an elected official is associated with that organization and “I just don’t like the way the perception looks,” saying that even with a conflict‑of‑interest disclosure the arrangement could appear problematic. Health staff and county legal counsel reported they had reviewed the application and asked The Feeding Team to amend its request to focus on infrastructure rather than direct food purchases; the revised ask was $10,000 to produce approximately 10 pantry units (originally requested $15,000).
Rather than approving the full slate including The Feeding Team, a commissioner moved and the board approved a motion to fund all recommended subgrantees except The Feeding Team. The motion carried by voice vote.
Staff said the funding approach was intended to support core public‑health infrastructure and that legal staff had worked with applicants on scope. The exclusion was a procedural decision by the commissioners at this meeting; staff may return with further documentation or revised applications.
