Commissioners discuss opioid-settlement and State Question 7-81 funds; decide not to rescind local contracts pending paperwork

The Haskell County Board of Commissioners discussed contracts signed on Feb. 3, 2025, tied to opioid settlement funds, State Question 7-81 funds and an opioid abatement grant, and addressed auditor concerns about documentation and fund availability.

A county official explained there are three pools of funds under discussion: (1) the opioid settlement fund derived from lawsuits against manufacturers, with permitted uses including medication and therapeutic interventions for opioid use disorder and recovery support services; (2) funds tied to State Question 7-81, passed in 2016 to reclassify certain drug charges and return savings to counties for diversion and substance-use services; and (3) an opioid abatement grant channeled through the state attorney general's office intended to support recovery housing. The official said the county's grant administrator, the executive director of OCAR, Susan Williams, was not present but offered to appear at a future meeting to explain the grant in person.

Commissioners and staff reviewed contracts previously signed with local providers (identified in the discussion as Oakheart/O'Kara/OAKHEART in the meeting record) and discussed whether to rescind them after auditors questioned whether the minutes and paperwork reflected the contract terms and whether the county had secured the corresponding revenue. Auditors had raised concern that the minutes did not record certain payment commitments and that some funding streams (particularly the 7-81 allocations) had not yet been released to counties. The county official said she had contacted the State Auditor and the Attorney General's office; the AG's office contact (Eric) advised that the county had discretion but explained the nature of the relevant foundation and programs.

During the discussion commissioners said the county had received $104,000 so far from the settlement but had already committed $89,000 in contracts. Commissioners and staff agreed the correct course was to ensure the meeting minutes and contract paperwork clearly reflect the intended uses and terms rather than rescind the contracts. One commissioner suggested reworking the minutes to reflect the contract details; commissioners indicated they would not rescind the contracts but asked staff to confirm paperwork and funding awards before paying invoices.

The commissioners also discussed contract line items for administrative fees (a 10% fee for the grant writer and 10% for the administrator was referenced in the meeting as an expectation, and an awarding amount of $132,000 was cited), but the presenter and auditors said those figures did not appear in the executed contracts. Commissioners were advised that some invoices might be paid only upon receipt of the awarded funds and that, as of the discussion, the county had not received an award letter or confirmed 7-81 receipts from the state treasurer.

The board asked the grant administrator to appear at a subsequent meeting or to offer an informal briefing so commissioners could review paperwork before further disbursements. A county staff member told commissioners that paperwork related to the contracts was available at the county office for their review prior to meetings.

No formal motion to rescind the contracts was recorded; commissioners stated they would not rescind and directed staff to ensure documentation and accurate minutes before releasing payments.