June 2026 Minutes

Members in Attendance: Matt Lynch, Randy Ecker, Heath Bechler, Jeff Blubaugh, Mike Hoheisel, Tonya LeBrun(online), Rena Cole (online), Jennifer Mackey (online), Steven Kamau (online), Phillip Brownlee (online)

City/County Representatives: Russell Leeds, Kirk Sponsel, Armand Shukaev, Tim Hallacy, Joe Thomas, Courtney Carpenter (online), Josh Lauber (online)

Consultants: Rebecca Rose and Tara Kunkel (online) – Rulo Strategies

Guests: Kylie Cameron – Representative from the Wichita Eagle

Pre-Meeting Materials: Members were pre-provided, via email, with meeting agenda, minutes from May 18, 2026, Application Form for Review (Rough Draft), and Sedgwick-Wichita OSF Budget Workbook (Rough Draft)

1. Call to Order & Introductions:

a. Meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by President Matt Lynch.

b. Introductions of Coalition, some City and County Staff, and Rulo Strategies made.

c. Attendance included both in-person and online participants; cited above. Eight voting members were present for a quorum.

2. Action Item: Approval of Minutes

a. The Coalition reviewed minutes from May 18, 2026 meeting. No corrections were offered. Motion to approve minutes by Randy Ecker, seconded by Mike Hoheisel. Motion carried unanimously.

3. Discussion Item: Rulo Strategies Consultation – Draft Application, Budget Workbook, and Funding Structure

a. Application Overview: Becky Rose presented the draft provider application developed to accompany future opioid settlement Requests for Proposals (RFPs). The application is intended to standardize responses and provide the Coalition with consistent information regarding applicant qualifications, project scope, community need, target population, proposed activities, outcomes, staffing, and budget.

b. Applicant Eligibility and Structure: Discussion occurred regarding applicant eligibility and the relationship between the application and future RFPs. Armand Shukaev clarified that the application is a standardized response document and that specific licensing, credentialing, or regulatory requirements would be contained within the individual RFPs. The application itself is intended to be used across multiple funding categories.

c. Project Need and Target Population: Rulo reviewed sections requiring applicants to describe the need being addressed, the population to be served, referral pathways, barriers faced by participants, and how proposed services would reduce those barriers. Members discussed the importance of ensuring applicants clearly articulate community impact and measurable need.

d. Program Activities and Strategy Alignment: Applicants will be required to identify the Coalition strategy area being addressed and explain how proposed activities support that strategy. Discussion included treatment expansion, prevention activities, integrated care initiatives, overdose prevention, and other settlement-eligible services.

e. Continuation Funding and Supplanting: Extensive discussion occurred regarding continuation funding and the prohibition against supplanting existing funding sources. Members requested additional examples be included within application materials. Rulo and legal counsel explained that opioid settlement funding may be used to expand services, create new positions, or increase service capacity, but generally may not replace existing funding already supporting a program or position.

f. Financial Accountability: The Coalition discussed financial documentation requirements including audits, financial statements, and financial reviews. Steven Kamau noted that audits may be cost prohibitive for smaller organizations. Members expressed support for flexibility that would allow grassroots organizations to compete while still demonstrating fiscal responsibility. Additional discussion focused on record retention, invoices, timesheets, segregation of funds, and documentation requirements.

g. Funding Distribution and Payer of Last Resort: Members discussed reimbursement-based models versus upfront awards. Treatment and Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT/MOUD) services were discussed as potential reimbursement programs operating under payer-of-last-resort principles, while prevention and education initiatives may be more suitable for upfront annual funding awards.

h. Budget Workbook Review: Rulo reviewed the draft budget workbook including personnel, fringe benefits, contracted services, participant support, supplies, transportation, training, evaluation, and administrative cost categories. The workbook is intended to create consistency among applicants and simplify proposal review.

i. Scoring Rubric: A proposed scoring rubric was presented. Categories included project understanding, demonstrated need, methodology and approach, organizational capacity, outcomes and evaluation, budget, and sustainability. Coalition members discussed weighting of categories and how reviewer comments, strengths, and weaknesses would be incorporated into final scoring recommendations.

j. Future RFP Structure: Discussion occurred regarding issuing separate RFPs for each Coalition strategy area. Members reviewed advantages of category-specific solicitations, including improved comparability of proposals, reduced conflicts of interest, and alignment with previously established strategic priorities. No formal action was taken.

4. Other Business:

a. President Lynch discussed SBIRT (Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment) materials received through a Kansas partnership involving KU and UMKC. Members were advised that the materials would be distributed electronically for review. Additional discussion regarding SBIRT and related opportunities is anticipated at a future meeting.

5. Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 1:07 p.m.

The next Wichita-Sedgwick County Addiction Intervention Coalition Meeting
will be on July 20, 2026.