Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Recovery Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Funding approved for Cumberland neighborhood service center after debate over county guarantees
Summary
A local committee approved $25,000 toward furnishings for a Cumberland neighborhood service center after members pressed the presenter for written guarantees that Houston County residents would be served; the project operator said it will open July 1 and house residents transitioning from treatment.
A local committee voted to provide $25,000 toward furnishings for a proposed Cumberland neighborhood service center after a multi-hour discussion about whether funds could be sent to a program based in another county without guarantees it would serve Houston County residents.
The presenter, introduced as April, told the group the project includes 19 townhomes and a 3,500-square-foot neighborhood service center on 3.5 acres and is intended to house people transitioning from residential treatment into long-term placements. April said the operator expects to "go live July 1," will offer transportation for residents and run three community meetings a week. She said the capital costs for the townhomes were covered by the Department of Mental Health and TOAC and that Mid Cumberland and several counties in the judicial district contributed funds.
Committee members pressed for specifics about who would qualify for beds and whether Houston County residents would be given priority. A committee member asking for safeguards said, "I still think there's a problem with us giving the money out to another county with no guarantees, coming back," and urged written language ensuring access. April responded that she is from the area and expects to receive calls and referrals from Houston County, adding the operator has already negotiated MOUs and can tweak contract language as needed.
On financing, April said the project requested $30,000 for furnishings but presented per-unit furnishing estimates of about $24,000. During the meeting the committee moved to provide a reduced amount; the motion discussed referenced $25,000. The committee took a roll-call vote and the tally recorded in the minutes was: Randall — yes; Nanette — yes; Al — yes; Howard — no; Charles — no; Robert — yes. The motion carried and April said she would forward the item to the full commission for final action.
The presenter described operational details the committee requested: the program will have a 72-person capacity, a law-enforcement officer will reside in one townhouse for on-site security, and Lipscomb University has been asked to handle program data collection. April said residents would pay a $150 weekly fee (about $600 monthly) and would retain paychecks when employed; the operator expects many residents to move on within six to eight months on average.
The committee did not require additional conditions beyond the written MOU/contract language it requested; the approved amount will be subject to standard county contracting and accounting procedures and to the expectation that funds used outside the county must be repaid if the agreed conditions are not met. The committee referred the matter to the full commission for final approval and noted the award will be reflected in the county opioid-abatement account balance when the funds are deposited.
The meeting transcript does not specify the formal name of the committee or the meeting date; those details will appear in the full commission packet when the item is transmitted for final action.
