Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prevention Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission requests county counselor opinion before allocating special‑alcohol funds to Community Involvement Team’s Camp Shield
Summary
The Geary County Community Involvement Team presented results of its Camp Shield youth program and sought continued funding from the county’s special‑alcohol fund. The commission asked County Counselor Betsy for a written legal opinion on whether the proposed uses fall within the statute before making an appropriation.
Representatives of the Geary County Sheriff’s Community Involvement Team (CIT) asked the county to continue funding their youth Camp Shield and other prevention activities and requested $25,000 from the county’s special‑alcohol fund for 2026. Commissioners agreed to seek a written legal opinion from the county counselor on statutory restrictions before allocating funds.
CIT treasurer Laura (last name not provided) and Taylor (vice president) described this year’s camp programming — alcohol and drug education, bullying prevention, safe‑dating education and internet safety — and told the commission the camp expanded its education components and vendor partnerships. They also explained a recent shipment of T-shirts and hoodies and said most vendors sold out at recent events.
Why it matters: The county’s special‑alcohol fund is subject to a statute that limits eligible uses to alcohol and drug treatment and prevention activities. Commissioners raised questions about how broadly the county may allocate the fund for events and community outreach, and whether specific items listed in the CIT’s proposal (for example, festival booths or general event supplies) would qualify.
Legal review requested: County Counselor Betsy reviewed the statute and emailed commissioners an initial assessment during the meeting, saying in part that Camp Shield “would qualify as a program or service whose principal purpose is alcoholism and drug abuse prevention and education,” but that “some of the auxiliary services and events listed as possible ability if extra funds were available would need clarification to determine if they were in accordance with the statutory requirements.” Commissioners directed staff to request a formal written opinion and asked the CIT to provide an itemized use‑of‑funds list for any proposed allocation.
Funding request and next steps: The CIT noted that it had asked for $25,000 but said it could consider a lower upfront payment if commissioners preferred. Commissioners did not approve funds at the meeting; they asked for the written legal opinion and further clarification of intended expenditures before deciding.
Ending: CIT representatives said they would provide a detailed budget and work with the county counselor on the legal questions. County staff will include the CIT request and the counselor’s formal opinion in upcoming budget deliberations.
