Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Opioid Response Grant topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Justices advance sheriff’s opioid-response grant amendment after questions about Narcan, equipment and late filing

3764551 · June 10, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Pulaski County justices voted to send Ordinance 25I48, an amendment to the sheriff’s opioid-response grant appropriation, to the full quorum court with a "due pass" recommendation after extended questioning about spending, a late filing and required grant reporting.

Pulaski County quorum court justices voted to send Ordinance 25I48 — an amendment to the sheriff’s Opioid Response Team grant appropriation — to the full court with a “due pass” recommendation after several justices pressed the sheriff’s office and county grant staff for details about spending, a $23,000 Narcan line item, and whether required milestones and reports have been submitted.

The matter was introduced by Justice Massey, who moved to forward the ordinance. Captain Mike Blaine of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Office (Criminal Investigations Division) told justices the amendment shifts previously recognized salary dollars into maintenance and operations (M&O) so equipment can be purchased for the team. “What wasn’t processed was M&O, which was needed for equipment for the detective and the counselor that’s responsible for response to the OR team to abide by the guidelines of the grant,” Blaine said.

The discussion mattered because the grant’s second year starts July 1 and justices said they needed clearer documentation before final approval. Justice Davis pressed operational questions, asking, “So how is this helping our community if we’re not out in the community?” She questioned why only payroll expenses appeared in records and why there were no gas receipts or equipment purchases reported. Justice Stowers and others also asked whether the county risked losing grant funds if the vote were delayed.

Katie Hargis, the county grants administrator, told the court she did not know whether all grant milestones had been met but said the grant requires quarterly reporting to the state and that the sheriff’s office provides monthly reports internally. “They do have milestones they have to meet, and they have quarterly reporting that they have to make,” Hargis said. She agreed to provide the court copies of those reports and to distribute them before the full court meeting.

Justices and county staff cited several line items and figures during the exchange. The amendment recognizes $35,000 that had not previously been recognized and adds it to previously recognized but unspent funds (reported in the packet as about $169,298), which the county comptroller explained totaled the ordinance amount as presented. Captain Blaine identified a roughly $97,000 line for Cellebrite mobile-forensics software and a reported $23,000 line item for Narcan. Blaine said some equipment purchases had been deferred and that detectives had been using sheriff’s office equipment while grant M&O dollars were allocated to salary in the initial appropriation.

Justices repeatedly objected to the item being late on the agenda and said missing detail made it difficult to perform oversight. Justice Stowers said he would vote “present” at the committee level and asked the sheriff’s office to provide the requested documentation ahead of the full quorum court meeting. Hargis and Blaine agreed to distribute quarterly reports and other supporting documents several days before the full-court vote.

Action taken: the court voted to send Ordinance 25I48 to the full quorum court with a due-pass recommendation. The committee roll call, as recorded at the meeting, produced 10 ayes, 1 no (Justice Davis) and 1 present; three justices were absent. The full quorum court will decide final approval after receiving the additional documentation requested by justices.

The clerk and county staff said the grantor will perform an annual evaluation in mid-July; justices said that evaluation would be relevant to their review. The sheriff’s office and grant administrator committed to submitting monthly/quarterly reports and any state correspondence about milestones to the justices before the full-court meeting.