Coffee County opiate abatement committee approves $21,000 for probation services, defers coalition’s larger funding request pending budget review

The Coffee County Opiate Abatement Committee on the evening it met approved a $21,000 disbursement to the county probation office and delayed action on a larger recovery‑coalition funding request until members and the budget director can review past expenditures and payroll figures.

Linda Baker, identified by the chair as director of Coffee County Probation Services, asked the committee for a $21,000 allocation drawn from opioid‑settlement funds. Baker presented an expense summary that included 20 hygiene bags (about $400), 100 cognitive‑behavioral workbooks ($1,100), two women’s self‑esteem group sessions with modest supplies, six iPads listed at about $500 each, and registration, lodging and per‑diem for an RX Drug Summit. "If you total all of that up, it comes to $20,132.76. We're requesting $21,000," Baker said, adding the request included a small inflation cushion. She told members the items support clients who frequently face homelessness, treatment barriers and other drug‑related needs.

Chair Judge Robert Carter and other committee members pressed Baker on documentation requirements. Members said the county expects an audit and needs attendance rosters, invoices and case counts that link purchases to drug‑related services. "We need to have data to justify the expenditures," Carter said. Baker said she had included fiscal‑year counts of alcohol/drug assessments and inpatient treatment completions in the packet and that staff could provide further statistics tying equipment and programs to drug‑related casework.

After the discussion the committee voted by voice to approve the probation office request; the transcript records committee members responding "aye" but does not show individual tallies.

Alan Burnett, who identified himself as representing the Coffee County Collaborative Coalition and Coffee County Recovery Court, then presented a funding request consistent with last year’s award total (the coalition received $160,200 last year). Burnett said he seeks funding to continue recovery‑court services, expand community trainings and youth outreach, and to strengthen school partnerships. He proposed repurposing $20,000 that previously purchased "Lambie kits" toward a part‑time position to coordinate coalition activities and school liaisons.

Burnett also reported the coalition has three naloxone kits deployed and has ordered 40 additional naloxone boxes at about $1.20 each for placement in public facilities. "Anywhere where you have community, where it's easily accessible," he said when asked about likely sites, listing rec centers, the courthouse and coordination with the health department; he said the coalition has discussed liaison roles with school superintendents.

Committee members did not act on the coalition’s request. Several members — citing that much of the coalition budget is payroll — asked for a full review of prior budget cycles and payroll details so the budget director (repeatedly named in the discussion as Maryann) can confirm how previous funds were spent and whether any budget amendment is required. One member moved to defer action pending that review; the motion passed and the committee agreed to reconvene after members and budget staff examine the coalition’s submitted invoices and payroll records.

The committee set a follow‑up meeting for July 9 at 5:30 p.m. to review the additional documentation and finalize decisions on deferred funding requests.

What the committee said matters: the panel is exercising oversight over opioid‑settlement awards and emphasizing documentation to meet state accountability and audit expectations. The approved probation allocation is modest and immediately actionable; the larger coalition request will need more detailed financial justification before the committee will release additional funds.