Okay. Good evening Good evening everybody. Um uh Welcome to the Greenfield Opioid Use and Prevention uh Commission. Uh this meeting is being recorded by the Greenfield Opioid Use and Prevention Commission and by the City of Greenfield uh and the chair is utilizing an
artificial intelligent note taker. If any person present is doing the same, you must notify the chairperson at this time. Okay. So, we're going to do a call to order and since we have members on Zoom, we'll do a roll call. Uh just simply say here or present. Uh Jeffrey.
>> Here. >> Pedro. >> Here. >> Anna. >> Here. >> Sarah. Here. Uh we do have a quorum. Um all right. So, the first uh agenda item is to approve the Opioid Use and Prevention Commission meeting minutes
from May 18th, 2026. May I hear a motion? >> I have motion to pass the meeting minutes. >> Thank you. May I have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Roll call vote. Anna. >> Yes. >> Pedro.
>> Yes. >> Jeffrey. >> Yes. >> Sarah. >> Yes. We have unanimous approval of >> the May 18th, 2026 Opioid Use and Prevention Commission meeting minutes. Um due to the fact that um actually the next thing is public comment, so I guess
we'll go through that, too. Uh public comment, members of the public may speak for up to 3 minutes as recognized by the chair per Chapter 49 Hybrid Ordinance. Members of the public attending virtually or in person may comment by raising their hand and stating their name and address or
precinct. I do not see any members of the public present. Uh so, we we're going to move on. Um I would like to um move to suspend the rules so that we may hear from Liz WhyNot um who's here today
to talk about our TTA uh from Rise Mosaic. May I hear a motion to suspend the rules? >> Motion to suspend the rules. >> May I hear a second? >> Second. >> Okay, Anna. >> Yes. >> Jeffrey. >> Yes. >> Ida.
>> Yes. >> Area yes. We have unanimous to suspend the rules and welcome Liz WhyNot. The floor is yours. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> Thank you. Hi, everybody. Uh Yes, so I think I was asked to come here
to talk a little bit about Mosaic's community grant program or just a little bit about how that's structured and then potential support that Mosaic TTA can provide. Um So, I'm I'm glad you asked about this because this is a
something where it'll it'll uh I guess push us to create a formal resource to share cuz it's so it's really good that you're asking this. Um So, I just just to give [clears throat] a little bit of background. Uh I oversee Mosaic's training and
technical assistance program, so I support all the municipalities in their spending of the opioid abatement funds. Um Mosaic is a public-private partnership that's that's funded by BSAS and powered by Rise Massachusetts. That's that's the
organization I work for. Um and Mosaic has uh two programs under it and they're all basically funded through the the ORF settlement funds. Um So, I oversee the support of the municipalities and then the other
department is the community grant making program. Um which which started again when the when the state when the state's portion of the ORF funds became available and they partnered and create DPH and Rise partnered to create the Mosaic
program um primarily to get to make it so that like smaller grassroots orgs or people that couldn't apply to the DPH systems could apply for this community grant program. Um So, they've been doing this for a few
years. They They have community reviewers. I know like I I've been one before I started at Rise. I think you know, Pedro has been one and a lot of other people are on their list. Um >> [clears throat] >> so, it's really good. And and there's there's also a lot of things that you
can do to decide how you want your community review to look. Um so, it it obviously doesn't have to look like this, but I'll just talk a little bit about how it is. Uh So, the the the pool of people has been
built up over the years. Um and it's basically like collected through an Excel document. And I think over the years it's done through different forms of recruitment and applications to apply to be on the reviewer. Um and they keep
a list. And when it's time to like put out a grant, um I know that they like look at the pool of applicants and try to think about representation. So, regional representation. Um
Uh having people that for like the different care continuum. So, like prevention, recovery, uh race, ethnicity, age, and also professional background. So, you know, subject matter experts and people with lived experience. >> [clears throat] >> Um They it's tracked and
uh again, it like shifts intentionally depending on what the grant is focused on. So, like we'll have a Mosaic Municipal Matching Grant this fall where municipalities could apply and match for funds just in case you want that on your radar. Um
so, like with that we'd want you know, it'd be good to have people with municipal experience or something like that versus another one like family resilience um grant that was for families. So, you know, things like that. Um RISE provides training which I
can I can share information around that for you. Uh they do training on things like conflict of interest and um implicit bias training um and [clears throat] have different resources for that. And they of course also talk about like how the grant works
and they create packets for everybody. So, like all of all of that what RISE's has looked like, I can provide templates and and everything um around that. And then so once uh the the people are chosen from
this big application, it's usually about three people that review each application. Um and then so so Mosaic staff will look at all the grants and then they'll take they may take ones out that they know are ineligible and stuff like that. But then other than
that, all of the grants go through this review committee and um they there's a a score sheet and so we have tablets for that and rubrics um and then everybody does a score. They're averaged.
Uh then they're they're weighted for overdose burden and underserved communities because it is across the state. Um and then also RISE wants to ensure equitable distribution across geography and care continuum. So, there is a little bit of that after it comes in.
But for the majority, the community reviewers are really deciding. It we only look they RISE only looks at the applications with the highest scores based on that basically. Um and then final recommendations go to BSAS and RISE's board of approval. So, you know, they have that who makes the
final decisions people. Um and then they get that from them and yeah, so that that's kind of like the basic. Um I also got Boston. Boston provided a little feedback about how they did it, and [clears throat] they
when they did their community feedback uh for their grant program like a couple years ago, they did outreach. Um they they say they they see value in municipalities doing an application process for reviewers, but but um just for the Boston some
cities, you know, felt constrained by the time. So, they asked uh staff and people they knew for recommendations on who should be on the reviewer, and um they also wanted to like they thought about shaping the composition of the
committees that they chose based on the RFP that they were reviewing. So, bringing in the relevant expertise. Um and >> [clears throat] >> the the some of the takeaways they mentioned is that coordinating all of the different reviewers was a lot of
work. Um payment and expectations is appropriate to like uh set that up appropriately and and communicate if you have a long administrative process. Green equity money taking a while to come out if if
that is if you're able to do that as a municipality. Um yeah, and then you want to let your administrative people know so they understand what the invoicing will look like. They did a series of trainings, um and then in their in their packet that
that they gave, they provided all of the proposals, the rubric, conflict of interest, confidentiality, and guidance for walking through the various documents. Um the staff were also available to talk on the phone, which does happen. People will have questions. Um people will also not
always be familiar with technology. Like there's going to be a lot of uh things like that you want to take in consideration. Um and then they did a final debrief for one of their grant programs because they got so many and they found it useful to discuss
um contextually the differences. So, those are just two examples and then but you can again do um in different ways like you could do uh a um like a uh I'm sorry, a consensus for final
applications where you have a discussion and you all uh look at your scores and then you decide what the final score should be for each application and and um do the final that way. Um yeah, I don't know. But [clears throat] but so I can provide support in
developing like helping with like identifying the structure and creating templates and just kind of like helping anything with that. Um you know, I can provide support with thinking about like the strategy, what the design should look like. One other thing, if it's hard for Greenfield to
give out money, uh you could potentially look into contracting with an organization to do it if that's possible. That might be an easier way to get money out. Um yeah, and then yeah, and just navigating all of those things, compensation, decision-making
structures, equity questions. Um you know, we can help with providing training to the municipal side for for that uh and just kind of like be there for Q&A um along the way.
And so yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you, Liz. Um thank you for coming and talking to us about um RISE, Mosaic, and TTA again. I think um that could be helpful um if you know, if if we're going to be the
sole folks that are going to be looking at the grants and it would be helpful for us to also um have some of those trainings. You know, I am also a Rise Grant reviewer and I appreciated the implicit bias training because I learned about biases I didn't even know they had a name. You know, it was like, oh wow, yeah, okay.
It was very helpful. Does any of the rest of the commissioners have any questions for Liz about what she just talked about? >> I do. >> Go ahead, Jackie. >> Thank you very much for that presentation. It's very helpful. When
you mention compensation, do you mean compensation for the reviewers? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yes. >> all going to be managed and dealt with? >> Yep. >> And you said And is that related to the invoicing you mentioned or is the
invoicing related to the actual grant? >> I'm I'm talking about the stipends invoicing for that. Like like setting it up. I mean, we we It's just a back best practice to pay people. So, that that's what Mosaic does. And
you So, you'd want to determine if you want to do that and then also how much um decide if it's a lump sum or do it like per application. Like there's all sorts of ways and and I could I could create some writing something just to kind of like have that if you choose do choose to go through that just some like things
to consider and and um yeah. >> I think that would be helpful. You know, I appreciate the payment as a grant reviewer. It's our time and our expertise and you know, looking at these grants that are thoughtfully submitted by different
folks. So, I definitely I learned a lot in that process myself about what goes into, you know, grants. >> And did you find that folks needed help filling out the application? >> Yeah, sometimes. I think people
definitely have have have clarifying questions. There's always a a level of understanding. A A of people haven't done community grant reviewing before. Um and again, people have trouble with technology sometimes. Like there's those little things that they might
just need some more support than might be expected. So, like who will do that and what will that time, if that time should be compensated and I don't know. >> Is that usually the reviewer that helps? >> [clears throat] >> Um
>> The applicant? No. >> No. Yeah. No, it it would be you'd have to decide uh who would be responsible for that um and if I I I believe honestly in compensating for administrative work um cuz I think
again, like it does take time to do all this um and would and so it would be allowable to also do that if that's if that's a route that this community wants the commission wants to go on. >> Thank you. And Pedro has his hand raised. Thank you.
Um now, thanks Liz for um for the presentation. Um my question is if as I I did reviews for RISE as well and I think I've done them for other grants reviews as well. Um but my question is about the rubric. Like how did you guys
come up with the rubric and do you have guidelines on creating like the scoring rubric for the grants coming in? >> Yeah, that's a good question and something that I'd want to get back to you about with more detailed information cuz there's a lot of different rubrics
that you can consider. Um but you'll want to think I think about like what do you want to capture and what is the criteria that you're looking for as a way to score. Um I'm forgetting how RISE has done it
from from what I've seen. But uh Yeah. >> I I've seen different ones. I've seen RISE's >> Yeah. >> and then I was part of the Holyoke um one as well. Um so there's looked a little different as well. So I'm just thinking about now
Greenfield what that might look like as you know, we start you know, requesting the the applications to come in and start reviewing them to create that rubric on >> [clears throat] >> I'm just a guide on how to uh rate them, I guess. >> And if you wanted to share the RFP like
if you if you wanted to do this, I'd be happy to like take a look at it and give suggestions for a rubric or or anything like that just to make things faster for you all. Like whatever you feel comfortable >> We have a rubric that I created that that is part of their package this month, but I'd be happy to send that to you to to get your input absolutely. Um
you know, I took into consideration the things that I knew about how Rise used their rubric um and all the things you just said. Um but I'm not a grant writer either. So definitely, you know, whatever we decide tonight about the documents that have been created
definitely will uh seek your your guidance on that cuz I think it would be super helpful. Um cuz this is all new to many of us you know, doing this work. So we're going to make sure that we're intentional. Um Anna >> Yeah, um
I'm thinking about the relative balance of administrative work and if it is easier to put the work on us even though it's more work on us than it is to try to delegate to a bigger pool of potential reviewers. But I am really interested in an idea of
community reviewers. So one question I had is if um if the reviewers are looking at applications blind or if they see like all of the background information and who submitted it. And also are reviewers just um is it one reviewer per application or
does the pool have multiple people reviewing the same application? >> And again, you can do this in any way you want, but Mosaic um it's not blind. Um, but they well, it's different here, but because they're statewide, they they try
to like if I did one in Western Mass, they'd give me Boston ones like for example, you know, to try to get that conflict of interest. Um, so that's why the the implicit bias training is really important. And then usually it's three reviewers per application for Mosaic.
Um, yeah. But I can yeah, and then Boston, um, I don't know if they did three reviewers. But yeah, I can find I can find that out. >> Any other, um, questions or
>> reviewers in total is what they had what they had and they were seeking out people like impacted in recovery cuz they did the Boston like the overdose support fund like Halo. Um, black Latino folks from priority neighborhoods reflecting overdose epidemiology.
Service providers, uh, subject matter experts in the care continuum, faith representation, and they had a mixture of leaders and lay citizens is how they wrote it. Um, so yeah, so it's really it's really up to you and you don't I mean you don't
have to do a community reviewer. It's not it's not obviously required and all of this is your decision. Yeah. >> Absolutely. Thank you, Liz. Um, any other comments or questions? >> Yes. Thank you. Are community
reviewers in your experience basically best practices for each community that does this does the grant process or is this unique? >> Um, well, especially cuz this is opioid this these funds are like the people's money and
and here because of the devastation of communities, uh, it is it is good to have representation review the grants. So, um and and have an open transparent process
too that like the community can understand. Um but things like logistics and time and budget, I mean those are all real things that municipalities have to decide. So, it's not it's not required, but it's definitely good to consider
um seriously, you know. >> Yeah, and I was, you know, thinking of um like inclusivity, you know, a lot of stuff that we've talked about about, you know, including um the people impacted uh in every part of the process and that
sort of got me like my my brain heart percolating and and, you know, uh about how can we be even more inclusive and and transparent in the process by including the very people to help us make the decisions about the
money, you know, and and holding space for all the things that have been brought up, you know, it is a lot to kind of set it up as at first, um but then you'd have like a whole like a like a catalog of community reviewers um that we would know um you know, where
they fit into that um continuum. So, you know, if we whatever grant that we're going to be putting forward is okay, this person has this experience, but it's a lot of administrative coordination, so >> It is. >> I just want to hold space for that and I see that Abby has her hand raised.
>> Hi y'all. Sorry I was a little bit late. Thanks Liz for coming and presenting. Um I do like the idea of a community review um you know, committee, but I also am
holding the time that it's going to take to set that up and that folks have already been waiting years for this money to be uh to begin to be out in the community in a bigger way than what we've been able to do so far. So, I'm
thinking like is it like we could like I don't know if this is a You're saying there's no like real rules, just guidelines, Liz? So, like we could we could review the initial ones knowing that this is on the agenda for us to build out a community
review system in the future to be launched like next year or something. Um so that we can get some funds out into the community quicker than than like holding the process up on a review committee. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yeah, definitely. Yeah.
>> And and I'm glad that you brought that up, Abby, cuz I was thinking about that, you know, that it you know, our intention is to get that money out, um you know, in in the first round, you know, in the first year, get the money out, and then, you know, we can work on creating a community
reviewer team, and and I think I tilted a little bit that way when just the resources that Rise can offer, you know, the TTA, the support. So, we're not doing this in a vacuum. We have the support of, you know, not just Liz, but your team at Rise, you know, that can
support us. Um so, yeah, that's that's sort of like what my my thinking was as well. Um >> And and there's also a lot you'll want to get um the you'll want to decide on with the like how are you going to review the
proposals and um who will make the final decisions. Again, like the consensus model is one that Boston used in their final review process. So, they all compared it individually, then came together, uh compared their scores for each application, and then decided together
which which ones to fund. Um and also like you can, you know, create things like like you want the care continuum. You want prevention, harm reduction, treatment, recovery, and those. So, like there's there's different things that you could set up ahead of times to have like a grid or something to help you
make those final decisions. And I can I can help too with just creating some suggestions or examples of of how to you could prepare for that. >> So it was it the Boston Public Health Commission that did that or was it the
actual Halo project cuz >> No, Boston Public Health Commission was Halo before it was >> Cuz we've had them here both here the second month that we were in [clears throat] existence to talk about the the burial fund, but maybe we can invite them again to talk about that piece as well.
>> Halo No, but not I don't I don't think cuz Halo's they're an organization, so they'll they're different, but before again before it was Halo all that money was from the Boston Health Commission, so >> That's yeah, that's where it started.
But a lot of other a lot of municipalities have like opioid commissions that make the decisions. And I mean honestly some towns have it where it's just like the people that work in the town. So having this representation in itself like and deciding it through this
committee makes sense especially for first year. >> All right. Any other questions or comments for Liz? We can give her back some of her time this evening unless you want to stay you're welcome to stay. >> I'll I'll stay for a little while and then I can dip out in a little bit.
>> All righty, so the next item on our agenda is old business A which is discussion and potential vote on application process requirements documents for funding requests from individuals and from
organizations. And that was part of your packet. So let me just scroll down. There was a lot, but I you know I tried to you know take into consideration all the suggestions that we've had the last couple meetings about um
what y'all felt needed to be in in this document. Um so I'm just going to start at um the page that says four track program at a glance. Um I don't have page numbers on here, so I
think it might be a >> Page six at the top. >> Thank you, page six. Thank you, Anna. Um so on that is just this is some suggestions. Um I know that we talked about having, you know, three tiers for the organization,
um individual project-based microgrant, and also the individual recovery support mini grant. Um these numbers aren't final. Uh they're up for edits. Um that's why I have my computer here and open um so that if the numbers don't feel okay to anybody on this commission, uh
please speak up um cuz that's what we're here to do. Um And I and I remember like some of the things about the review timeline um and some anxieties around uh our folks on the committee not knowing, right? When are you going to review it? Um
and so for the individual one, I was thinking about those urgent needs, you know, and and that would require us to call uh a a meeting outside of our meeting, our regularly scheduled meeting. So, you know, it would be one of those things where we have a request
um that's kind of urgent um and then the email will go out just seeing availability to make sure that we have at least have a quorum uh to discuss the the urgent need. Um so, the floor is open. What do you think about the numbers, Anna?
>> Um just real quick, are we putting a pin in the tier three ones for now? Just um >> Uh oh, yes. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, um thank you for reminding me. >> um >> Yeah, has to go. Um thank you, Anna, for that for that reminder. Yeah, so the the
25 grand one, um we are going to be uh inviting the financial department of City Greenfield who and I did reach out to to try to attend this meeting and they they have not responded. Um and the office of Inspector General is able to
meet with us next month. That could address that $25,000 level grant to so we can understand from the 30B procurement law like where does that land? What is What kind of support do we need from the
city cuz that's something outside of what we do. Uh and we want to make sure that we're in alignment with the 30B procurement law. Um so we're just going to pin like Anna said it we're we're just going to set aside the the $25,000 one for now. Uh
Abby. >> Um I just want I I think the timeline I um I was thinking about this the other day when I was reading it. Um I think that it needs to be written more in in like language that reflects the
next committee meeting. Otherwise, you know, somebody submits an application today and we said 30 days or 14 days or whatnot. Um we could be
looking at applications a few a week and I don't think any of us really have time for that. So, like I think saying something like you know, it'll be reviewed in the following commission meeting from the date of the application. >> Okay.
>> You know, something like that and then I think that can just be standard for no matter what tier, you know, like we'll just look at it the next commission meeting. If we want to or um you know, for those bigger ones like when we when we start talking about
the $25,000 one, maybe we say two commission meetings. But um um you know, and then I guess that there's also like I I think that we're going to have a little bit of a flood at first, and then it's going to take raff a little bit, to be honest, cuz I know
people are waiting to submit applications. There's already been requests that have been submitted. Um you know, so that's something to consider as well. And then the individual, like the 14 days, um
five if urgent. I think we should have some guidelines on what is considered urgent, you know, because then it's just left to interpretation. And our interpretation of urgent might be different from the person that's
applying. And you know, then there's more transparency. >> That sounds like a a good idea, Abby. I'm just updating this. Give me 1 second. Okay. >> I'd like to hear what other people think maybe before we update it. >> Yeah, yeah.
>> I was going to say I totally I totally agree with that, and I like I like that idea of it will be reviewed at the next meeting, and we all just kind of have to emotionally prepare for what the first couple ones are going to look like for us. But, it will, I think, be a reasonable rhythm. And then we just
want to think um our our annual sort of fiscal cycle will give us an opportunity to look at the budget that we're spending, but it doesn't we don't have to make the applicants worry about that. It really is responsive to when they submit. And I did have a thought just re- when I was reading through it about
the individual applications, which is that um you know, a if there is something that people need in in less than 2 weeks, or even less than a month, that could be a good opportunity for a smaller project-based grant. So, somebody could say or an
organization could say, we want to provide immediate support for people, and so we give them a grant and they can turn it over within a couple days if they want to. Um, which is not to say that people shouldn't apply for the individual
support, too, but that might be a way to take a little bit of the like immediate pressure off of us. I totally am comfortable with us like needing to convene in short notice for something like the burial fund, because that's just the way it is, but maybe for some of those other needs we can
delegate. >> No, I I I agree with that as well. I mean, I think that's a really good idea. Um, because it it really, um, kind of puts that pressure off of us, and another organ can fill the need, um, in the community uh with that. I like that.
What What do other folks think about that? And what Abby, uh, brought brought forward. >> I >> [clears throat] >> Excuse me. I like the idea of the reviewing at the next meeting, um, just for like the timeline sake,
um, as as applicants come in. Um, I do think about the like the individual stuff when individuals like an emergency comes up, they might need the funding. So, I don't know if there's like an emergency bucket or anything like that. But, I do
like the idea of Anna just mentioned where organization can have a grant to deal with any like emergency needs, like timely ones that need within before the 30 days, before we meet again to vote on it, you know? Like they need something in the
next 3 days and compared to the next 2 weeks before we have our next meeting. So, yeah. But, I agree. >> I agree. I think Abby's idea is very realistic. Um, and I also agree that you know, you all have mentioned if I remember correctly
that individuals do need um, immediate funding for day-to-day things related to recovery. Um, I just wonder what organization would we be tasking that to and would
they actually be faster than us? >> They They would have to apply for the individual project-based microgrant. We wouldn't be appointing anybody to do that. It would have to go through the process. >> Right. So, they would apply for like 2,500 for example, right? And then we
would refer immediate need applicants to them for payment. And they wouldn't really even have We don't know what their process would be. >> Well, we would still have the process for um, you know, to report the status of of how they spent the grant. That
still exists. So, the process would be the same. It's just that there whoever whoever is out there in in the community um, that wants to go for individual project-based microgrant, um, you know, they'd go through the process like everybody else and if they got they
got approval, um, then we would know, hey, you know, this is an organization or we call it the community now. Hey, this organization got this grant. This is what the grant is for uh, and let the organization lead that, you know, whatever PR they want to do for that. But we could say if somebody reaches out
to us, hey, we can't support you in in the 5-day urgent need, but this organization absolutely can. Um, I think that's a really excellent idea. >> Okay. Yeah, makes sense. >> Yeah, Abby. >> Maybe we should consider having a completely separate like bucket. Like
when Pedro said like maybe there's another bucket, it got me thinking, yeah, like we should have a separate like this is emergency funds, and I'm thinking more than 2,500, you know? Like, and then it's because it's for a year is what I'm assuming, and
um >> [sighs and gasps] >> and then we put out like a request for organizations for um to apply for that separate. And and then one other thing I was thinking is I don't remember us talking about
um and I might have just missed it. Uh the same organization putting in multiple times. Like, what's the criteria around that? Or the same individuals putting in for multiple times depending on like it Oh, well, I
put in for this tier, but then do I get to put in for that tier? Do I get to put in every year? Do I get to put in twice this year? You know what I mean? So, I think I don't remember us having a discussion about that. I think that would be really important to
make clear. >> Yeah, and in the in the packet is both both um suggestions that I created for um and you know, when we get there, what that looks like is individuals quarterly, um or maybe more, you know, depending on
what we we we vote on. Organizations are um yearly because they're larger capacity things. Um and what was the other question What was the other thing that you said? Abby. >> Um I think she said basically put out an
RFP for an org to administer emergent or yeah. >> Yeah. Oh, the the um more than more than one thing. That's the other thing that she mentioned. So, in in this is the suggestion that um once a year they can apply for whether it's
individual or organization, they can apply once a year. Um because the grant parameters, if we approve them, is they have to be completed within a year. Um, some of them can't be, you know, we have to talk about that, too. If it's 25,000, they might not be able to complete it in a
year, but individuals, um, so like so those are some of the um, like loose kind of structure that I created that we can look at. Uh, cuz that's a really good thing you brought up, Abby. Um, is What What is the What is the frequency of of these grants? And are they allowed
to apply for more than one tier? Um, you know, my thinking is, you know, to set the policy with No. They They can apply for one grant a year. Um, So, um, if if we want to move further down the document, maybe we can look at that. Uh,
and it'll be on the the grant page. Um, Yep. Let's see. >> All right, I was looking for it, but >> I'm I'm I'm go I'm getting there. Um, do do do
All right. Let's see. There's so much in here. I You know, I decided to like just bundle it instead of doing like six different documents, and now I got to find where it is. If anybody finds it first, you go. >> [laughter]
>> All right, so let's see. >> Oh, I found it. I don't know what page it is, but it's at It's under program overview, track one, organizational grant, three tiers. And then it says eligible organizational applicants,
applications reviewed quarterly. Is that what you were saying? >> Yeah. Yep, there it is. Okay. Um, Okay, wait a minute. I I I'm on a different page. I'm sorry. I should have I should have numbered these.
Um background Anna, did you find it? Could you tell me like what the the top of the page is cuz I apologize everybody. I just It's been a long day. Um See, application review process.
governance and oversight Oh, there it is. No. >> Sorry, is it this the application and review process section seven? >> Section seven? >> Yeah, okay, thank you. So, that's page 12 of the PDF if you guys have your agenda around. >> There we go. >> [laughter]
>> Section seven, all right. So, uh what do folks think about section seven? Uh what do you think about that the timeline that is as it's written there that um >> [clears throat] >> individual uh project-based mini grant and
individual um recovery support mini grant are quarterly and the uh all all tiers of the org are yearly. And we can make a decision about how many of those we're we're going to
review yearly because we may not get um a request for all three tiers of the org. So, give folks like just a a minute to kind of look that over and see what you think. Um Okay. Bye.
Um And and I obviously edit the timelines uh at to reflect what we just talked about and seem like there was a consensus of um will be reviewed at at next commission meeting. >> I'm so sorry. I think I'm confused now.
Are we when you say quarterly and yearly, do you mean there'll be one decision per year? >> Yeah, for the orgs. Just for the org cuz they're larger. You know, that's just a suggestion. And then the the individual
project-based mini grant, we could do quarterly because they're smaller amounts. If if the commissioners agree. Uh that that was sort of my strategy of, you know, the individual ones we could support many more individual requests than we can larger orgs, you know, with
the money that we have um that, you know, is kind of spread out over the next 17 years. Um with different amounts dropping in our bank account each year. Um and Abby has her hand raised. Uh you're still on mute, Abby.
>> Abby, you're muted. >> Sorry about that. I'm still kind of confused at first of what page we're on because my pages don't say page seven is not that section and then >> you on? What section did you see that? That's you can let us know and then
we'll we'll get there cuz I It's a large document. I'm trying to find where it is. >> Well, yeah, I've seen a lot of the same information in multiple sections. So, what I was looking at it said like quarterly
review and and I didn't see any annual reviews. So, that's why I was like, oh, maybe I'm on the wrong section. >> Okay, but it does have a number not is not a page number. There are there are sections. What sections are you looking at? >> Application and review process.
>> Is there a number to it? >> Seven, application and review process, right? Review timelines. >> All right, so you >> But that to me reads like when we are going to review their application. It's not talking about
like if they get to submit another application every quarter or is that what we're talking about, annually? >> Oh, no, that's that's not there. Let me just find it. I'm sorry. Let's see. I think it's down. Who should apply?
Background. Let's see. >> Yeah, I guess my question on that is too, um like are we can individuals apply whenever? Is there an applying like a period where we're going to accept applications, close it out?
Or is it just they apply whenever? And then we review them as they come in or is there going to be like I said, like a timeline of when we're going to be accepting applications, they close out, we review, we grant whoever we decide we're going to grant to, and then we open it back
up. Is that going to be quarterly or cuz I'm just thinking about like if individuals do want to reapply for funding. Say they do one project, they they get granted, um three months later, we open it back up for applications, they reapply for a
different project. And is that allowed? >> Um cuz I'm looking at program recipients may reapply after 12 months from the completion of their pre-previous project. >> Where did you see that? >> That is Now, I just lost it. Oh my sorry.
>> If it If it helps the submission instructions, I think is where you talk about the review timeline and that's page 30 of the PDF. Or at least it is my page 30. >> Oh, it's Okay. >> So, this is why I was confused and
>> I'm using a Google Doc. That's why. >> Yeah, the the pagination also might have gotten um thrown off by the PDF, but um it tells the applicant that applications are accepted on a rolling basis and reviewed quarterly, but then it also
says that the review timeline is 30 days for tier one, 45 days for tier two. So, I was thinking earlier when we were talking about like whether we could just review at a meeting that everything is basically rolling and you'll get review you
submit, you'll get reviewed at the next meeting and if you get awarded, you have a year to complete your project. >> Yeah, that that Thank you for Yeah, that's exactly the the the format. It would be a rolling.
So, they could apply anytime. Um right? Basically, okay. I mean >> Maybe we shouldn't do rolling for organizations. Maybe we should do like organizations
apply like shortly after the beginning of the fiscal year and then have you know, 11 months or whatever or maybe they get an extension if they didn't have time to complete the project. You know, I think organizations are a
little more um able to like hold that kind of it's not so immediate like need, you know? And um individuals that are like and I think this is another reason why maybe having a separate thing for the
emergency stuff um because then you know, if it's emergency, they can get the money right away. But anybody else, even if it's an individual doing a project, you know, having something like a quarterly
um or even bi-annual um accepting of applications, I think is is reasonable and um wouldn't overburden the commission and allow us time to work
on other things like setting up the review committee. So like individuals that have emergencies, we put out a separate thing for an organization to you know, get 5,000, 10,000, whatever for the year and anybody with
emergencies goes to that organization. Then we have like quarterly individual small like um uh grants on the the uh tiers, you know,
and then the orgs maybe bi-annually or something. Or even annually. >> I I liked how how you just you wrote that down, Abby. Um cuz uh so I'm wondering if we could also do like
we have these, but could we also put out an RFR for that emergency fund to seek organizations outside of like we have our the grant process, but maybe we could do that. Um come up with the one for for next meeting.
Um and then vote on it and then we could we could just put out that RFR so that um we can get that org, you know, with the money and ready to roll for that emergency need. I really like how you you kind of um presented that, Abby. Um,
I'm I'm really thinking of orgs annually. Um, you know, and and we can continue to assess, you know, but they they do change grant parameters, you know, we're allowed to do that as long as we're notifying the community uh and advance. advance, so we could try yearly and if
it seems like it's not, or do you want to try bi-annually? And if it's too much, we could, you know, the next rounds we could tailor it back to annually. Uh what others think about that? And I see Pedro has his hand raised. >> Yeah, I like the idea of um
organizations bi-annually um because it's it's 25,000 uh for for an organization. Like 25,000 is a lot of money. I don't have $20 $25,000 in my bank account, but you know, but for an organization, that doesn't that's really not a lot of money. I feel like an
organization submitting for a grant for $25,000, they can probably do that in 6 months. Um and then give them an opportunity to kind of resubmit um to continue the work. So, I do like the bi-annually. I do like the idea of of having
for individuals possibly rolling. That way we continue to see them and it doesn't hold them up. Like we don't have to wait they don't have to wait 6 months um for the next release or the applications to come in. Um so, I think maybe possibly like rolling for individuals cuz I just think about like stuff coming up for individuals and I
don't want to hold up that process. Um I think, you know, as they come in, we can review them in next meetings um to make sure they're receiving the funds just in case it is emergency until an organization submits and does the emergency grant thing um that that was mentioned. So, I think in the in the
meantime we can have like a rolling for individuals and probably bi-annual for organizations. >> Right. Um let me just I'll go ahead Anna. >> Oh yeah, I I feel comfortable with this and I think just to clarify cuz I want to make sure you guys
agree that this is a good idea. For the if we think that we want to give a grant to an organization to do like emergency small emergency response, we could instead of waiting for an organization to um get inspired and apply, we could put
out a a totally separate grant that is like just for this. We're like looking for organizations to administer a program that will provide small emergency assistance and we'd probably have to pay the organization a small amount to administer it, which is fair
by what Liz said. Um but yeah, so I know we're adding ever more grants to the pile sir, >> Oh no, I no, I like this. This is this is what we're built for, you know, to have these conversations that we hear something that's a good idea. It's like how can we do it? Like how you know, cuz I'm
excited about that. I'm excited to put out a grant specifically for orgs to support that that basic needs, whatever it is, you know, we know those of us who lived experience, we understand what that looks like and sometimes you can't wait. Um and we're we're built in the
structure that we have to cuz of the open meeting law and things like that, we're kind of like hemmed up with certain things. Now, I'm I'm really excited. This is what I hoped was going to come out of what I created. You know, it wasn't I never thought it was going to be the end result. I mean, this is is
going to is probably going to change a couple more times and that's okay. Um you know, we we all should be comfortable on what we're putting out there for the community and I wanted to give Jeffrey an opportunity to just to kind of weigh in about uh your thoughts about the changes um that have been
suggested. >> Sure. Uh they make a lot of sense. I agree with Abby and and Anna. I think [clears throat] we should I mean, the terminology solicit proposals or whatever the process is
for these organizations that will help individuals because as you mentioned, a lot of times they need money tomorrow or in 3 days for the small things related to recovery and stability. So, I I I'm a little bit on the outside
here. I assume you might have this group might have some organizations in mind that would submit proposals. >> It's up to the community, you know, and I think you know, we we really can't put a name out into our meeting cuz that would
imply that we have some a bias, right? Whether it's positive or negative. Um but, you know, putting the information out there where the organizations that um maybe interested can see it. They know, "Hey, this this is this is you know, we
can put that out before we even finish completing the grant process. We can put that we can get something together for next month. We can vote on it." And then we could push it out there. The city website is available for us. The Facebook page, you know, we all are are connected
uh in the recovery harm reduction uh family member loss community. You know, we can put the word out there that, "Hey, we have this grant. This is what it's for. This is what we're looking for." Um and let them come to us and and I wouldn't be surprised if we're going to have some responses pretty quickly uh
for folks that were like, "Yeah, I'll do that." Um So, it's not >> Yeah, I guess I I guess I generalized my comment, but yeah, that that sounds that's what I was thinking, but you you we're going to know the organizations. We don't have to favor anyone. That's
not what I'm suggesting. Do you think 2,500 is enough though? Or a thousand? What are we talking about? >> Well, that we I don't think we've really agreed on a on a number. Um I think that's something we can um
probably discuss next next next month, you know. I'll create the the application um and put a couple numbers in there and see what what the what you folks think about that. Um If If somebody wants to work with me,
uh I would welcome the support on that. Um >> Yeah, and this is really great work on all this documentation. >> And Abby, thank you, Jeff. >> Um I I'd be happy to work with you, Sarah, on this.
Um I I just wanted I one more clarifying thing from what you'd said, Pedro. When you said the individual, you're you mean the the individual um emergency um res- um
money would be rolling, but the individual project-based micro grant, that would be a part of like >> Mhm. >> not the rolling, right? That'd be a part of like the every whatever we said uh 6 months. >> Well, I I was even thinking both of them can be rolling cuz now I'm
thinking of like if we're going to release a grant for an organization to do to handle the emergency funding piece, I think the individual like project-based ones we can keep on a rolling basis cuz I feel like things are going to come up for individuals, you know.
Um I think the bigger ones for like the orgs having them bi-monthly, but again, I'm >> So, the personal recovery needs would go to this new um RFR that we're putting out, but we would review it rolling immediately. And
then community projects would stay ro- And then the org stuff would be bi-annual. That's what we're talking about. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay, I just wanted to make sure. And you know, I think I just want to say
this here. I think our amounts are kind of low. >> Okay. >> Even for um Maybe not for individuals, $1,000 for an immediate need. Like I'm thinking about what an immediate need is, you know, that can't be satisfied by another um
already existing program in our area. $1,000 I think is good. Like, oh, my tires, you know, I need new tires for my car to get to my meetings and to work and whatnot. You know, that's about $850 to $1,000, you know, so
um $2,500 to kick something off uh grassroots is low, I think. Um and certainly for orgs to do any kind of program, those amounts are really low. >> Yeah. >> Like really low.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And and uh and I apologize that I intended to provide like a a snapshot of um all of those levels of funding with um the money that we're anticipated to
receive for the next 17 years so we could look look at it um per year, you know, with these numbers. And I'm I'm sorry I ran out of time, but maybe that's something you and I can work on, Abby. Um is is cuz that was in my mind, too, is like we have X amount of dollars. There's two factors
that we don't know yet. Um we don't know the Purdue numbers cuz they have not hit the the bank account yet. Um I gave the city like um some soft numbers that I got from the AG's office, but that was like last year. Um so I that settlement for Purdue is done. So that money should
be coming and then those four other distributors, um those are the intangibles that I didn't know. Um and there I wasn't able to get that information. Uh I may reach out to Erica Hensel and seeing if she has an update for us about, you know,
projected numbers, right? They they have to say that because it until it hits the bank account. So, if you would be willing to work on that with me, Abby, so that we can look at that, you know, and we can see this outside and seeing how high can it go. Cuz you know, I I'd love to give out as
much money as we can for what's, you know, for the request, but also be mindful of we have X amount of money for 17 years and if we're doing these yearly, quarterly, so that's a really excellent point Abby and I'd be happy to work with you on that. Um
>> One more thing I just want to say here about this and then I'll stop. Um the tiers for the organization, like I'm thinking is there a way for us to simplify this by like I know that I've applied for grants for the organization
that I work for that says like grants awarded from this amount to up to this amount. So, like it doesn't have to be like I don't have to apply for a $200,000 grant, I can apply for a $10,000 grant for my project. And then
they're going to cap the amount of awards that they give out at a certain amount, which I assume is within their budget. Like this is how much money we have to grant. So, say we have $100,000 a year to grant. I don't know how much we have. Let's say we have $100,000 a
year to grant. We've already have like and that's just for these grants. Then we can say, you know, grants accepted from, you know, 10,000 to 50,000 per organization up to a total grant amount of X amount of dollars for the for the
year that we're granting out, something like that. Then it's like you don't have to pick a tier. You don't have to you can just this is my project, you know, and um this is what and then, you know, when we're deciding, oh, we'll give Joe this
amount of money and Sally organization that amount of money. You know what I mean? Like it just simplifies it a little. And then there somewhere I had read a 5% admin. And it that also like we pay substantially more than that
organizations for admin support. Like we pay like a lot of these smaller organizations are part of a larger organization and there's requirements for X percent to go to said parent
organization. Excuse me, umbrella organization to pay for things like, you know, payroll, IT support, you know, things like that. Workers comp, all this stuff. So, insurances.
I don't even know everything that's >> [laughter] >> included in all that. It's a long list. Um, so I think that we should look at that as well when we do our review. >> And and I had an idea. Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Abby. >> Yeah, that taking the second one first, that admin
point totally well taken and I feel like that it's often in the realm of like 15% is what I see in grants. So, fair enough. Just devil's advocate regarding the tiers and maybe the idea is to consolidate some of
the organizational tiers, but what I did like about Sarah's draft is that it's an easier application for the lower tiers. Like there it's it's lower threshold basically. So, the organization depending on its own capacity can decide
how much they want to put into it, which just feels like proportionate to for higher dollar amounts we want a little more due diligence, but maybe like the difference between 5,000 and 10,000 is kind of arbitrary. I just yeah,
have a look at like the rubric cuz I did like that part. I liked the idea of having a lower threshold option for a lower dollar amount. >> Yeah, cuz you know, you might have a non-profit organization that, you know, they're an org, but they may not have a lot of
capacity and and I was thinking about like the grants that that I reviewed and the tiers that they had and the requirements of, you know, if you're going to ask for $10,000 to $25,000, then you know, these are these are actually standard, you know, whether
it's a grant through Rise or it's, you know, an RFR that you're responding through CommBuys, which is the Massachusetts you know, it's a it's a buyer thing where you can go for state grants and things like that. It's a state
do that a lot with the work that I do and I've learned a lot, you know, just about like what kind of things can we reasonably expect. I I like the tier one to be low threshold. Maybe we could incorporate tier tier have two tiers. Tier one would be 5,000
and tier two would be from 10 to 25, but cuz the like you said the 10 to 25 is about the same kind of requirement of what's expected. You know, you want to make sure that they're able to support what they're asking for, that they're able to support the
project, that they have the infrastructure to do that, that they have the stability to do that. And and so that's in this draft I just pulled in things that I've seen as as kind of standard, you know, best practices requirements, but
you know, let Pedro go. Like what do you think about condensing, you know, tier one and tier three and just having two tiers? And and Pedro go for it. >> Now, when Abby was talking just brought up some questions for me, too, I guess. Like yearly, how much are we going to be
releasing as far as grants? Like is that a number we decide or are we just going to take things in now? Like, how much do we got a year? Say for instance, organization, there's three organizations, they all submit for a $25,000 grant and they're great and we want to accept them, but does that leave
us with, you know, $25,000 left for everything else that everybody else wants to submit. So, are we like capping the amount of like individual grants, organizational grants? And I don't know, for me I I was thinking this was like a a mini grant proposal. Um that's why I I felt like the number
was like the $25,000. I don't know if we're going to like the following year allow like a bigger grants for um bigger organizations to be part of that as well. Um where they might need a $100,000 to run some programming for the whole year, you know? So, again, I don't
know like how much we actually have. I don't know how much if we're going to do things like yearly. Like, this year we're going to release $100,000 in grants and we're going to accept tier one, tier two, tier three, you know, from organizations all the way
down to individuals. Um and this is the $100,000 we're going to use for this year. And then next year is it going to be like bigger grants for bigger orgs or whatnot. >> Yeah, I think that's you know, the conversation that we were just having about, you know, working on that budget proposal to see what that looks like.
And Abby and I Abby said that she would work with me on that. So, that next month we should have a snapshot about and and different models. Like, when I was thinking of that, I was thinking of, you know, the three tiers. Like, what if we gave one, you know, gave a grant for
each of those tiers, you know, in in that year. And then the quarterly um individual ones and then what that looks like with what, you know, we have what is it like just shy of 600,000 right now in our coffers. Um there is 1.7 million
anticipated to come to the city of Greenfield and that excludes the Purdue and the four other distributors that we have not received numbers for. So those are yeah, those are really good thoughts free Joe and Abby and I will be working on that together to hopefully you know
be able to show that so that so we can make those decisions. How many of these are are we going to reasonably do we do we want to in year two think about what you just suggested a larger you know there there's there's plenty of need out there.
You know I I I know I'm speaking to the choir here but there's plenty of need you know with the federal funding cuts and then the state cuts because of federal funding cuts and you know um there's a lot of need. And so you know we I think my hope is that we'll be
intentional and be flexible and be able to pivot you know after year one if it's becoming apparent that the need is greater and that we needed we need to you know edit our approach. Um we're allowed to do that. >> You know cuz I I think about I not only
just like the resources and the funding getting cut and the funding cuts but like certain resources that we no longer have an area. Um and we all know transportation's an issue as well. I see orgs like you know some have been in different communities have been awarded grants
where they provide transportation now. You know um Highway to Hope for or for Holyoke they pick people up bring them to to to to to treatment. Um and places they need to go like we have no acute detox services here in the in Western Mass anymore so most of it is
a trek for individuals. So I look at individuals possibly submitting for some transportation um and provide that and that $25,000 isn't going to cover that. You know so I just look at at things like that that people might want to do. There's a lot of great work happening already but I think about like the area
that we're in in Greenfield. Um Greenfield's probably the biggest like town city almost uh but everything surrounding that's pretty rural and transportation is an issue. So I think about individuals possibly submitting for that and I don't think $25,000 will
cover it. So again, just keeping that in mind. >> Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Um So it sounds like we got some work to do on this. And I'm just looking at
um beyond that um in the actual document um and and looking at the actual like applications and what they look like. Abby, I see your hand is raised.
>> Can I suggest that we table this until we know how much money we have per year? Like I feel like that's like the starting point. I mean, Sarah, and you and I can certainly work on, you know, doing some of these revisions we've already talked about tonight, but
um I'm feeling a little bit like we're creating something without knowing like what the parameters are yet, you know? Like we need to know how much Like cuz if we have if we only have $100,000, that's going to shift really drastically
what we're going to do if we had Say if we had $300,000, you know? And we've already committed to the burial fund of of 50,000, I think, or 55,000. And if we only have $100,000 a year or $150,000 a year, that's a big chunk of
it that's already set aside for the burial fund. We want to give $1,000 per person up to $1,000 per person for emergency needs. 10 people, you know, that's $10,000.
So probably won't be able to support more than 10 people. You know what I'm saying? So we we have to know do we even have money enough to do these grants before we're going through this whole process, I think, of like, yeah, we've got 650 in the bank now.
But, you know, is that going to continue? Cuz that's going to really dictate the language that we use, the parameters we put out there for people to apply. Let to make sure that we're transparent, let them know like, yeah, we can give you this grant or that grant this year,
but then that's our reserve money that's gone. You know, and we're only going to have this much more coming in every year. So, I think we got to like really lay that out first before we can make any kind of decisions on this tier, that tier, this amount, that
amount. >> So, you'd you want to table the entire document because there's there's much more document than than the the grants. So, I mean, there's other items, I think, what Anna worked on. Um Uh so, what does the commission feel? Do they want to table this for next month
until um we can provide some of those numbers? Anna? >> Um Well, I just want to make sure I understand what we mean about how much we have, right? Because we know how much We know how much we currently have, and and Sarah just gave us the estimate of
what is expected to come. Um technically speaking, we have all of that, right? Like, this is not tied to an annual city budget in any way, so we don't need to appropriate a certain amount for So, we
could say we're going to spend $600,000 on grants this year. We don't obviously intend to do that, which is why I like I feel like starting from what's the average revenue per year is a good way to start of like roughly how much we want to spend per year, but I just want
to clarify that like we do we do kind of know the amounts that we're dealing with. We just haven't made a decision as a committee about what our limit is per year. Um and to my mind I you know, the uh
the smaller grants to individuals for for basic needs and to individuals for small projects, it seemed to me like but I I I I may have been wrong in thinking this way, but that like it was a small enough amount that it would be nice to
kind of at least get that ball rolling and get the application out there. Um, cuz I'm not too worried about it hitting our limit. Um, so I don't know if we want to maybe break apart this into uh more digestible bits or just or just
come back to it next month, but yeah. >> What other other commissioners feel about um tabling, continue to talk about bits and pieces of it like Anna said. >> Um, I'm open to talk keep continuing
talking, but I'm also open to tabling cuz again I I think about what's our number this year? Like I I understand Anna, we have this 650,000, but I don't realistically I don't think we're going to spend 650,000 the first year, you know,
um awarding grants. I know we'll probably get a lot coming in, uh but I I think it's good to set up some parameters around that as well like we're actually going to release 250,000 this year. Um, and this is where we're going to open it up for. We have tiers for organizations up to $25,000,
$10,000, $5,000 individuals, and kind of release it that way. That way we have and this is I think for year one it's a good start as you know, we're we're we're building the plane as we we're flying too, you know. Um, we're creating the document now. I
think giving it to year one and set a parameter around that, that'll help out, you know, for for years to come as well. >> Thank you, Benjo and Jeffrey. >> Uh so you mentioned you're going to have help from some city financial people to figure this out? >> No, I didn't
>> I misunderstand that? >> I have invited the the the financial director um, to support only the um, the upper level in or grant because it's above the threshold uh, for 30B. Um, so we need we we need to hear from
the financial director and the office of Inspector General um, who also said that they could attend next month's meeting which would give us like what that looks like. What is the requirements cuz they're very different from all the rest of the other grant levels. Is that so
that that's what I meant by that is that um, we want the city to chime in. Um, we are we are a public body of the city. Um, we're we are we holding into city council but you know, due diligence is just connecting with the city's the financial department saying, "Hey, you know, we're thinking about doing this.
Um, could you give us some some guidelines and making sure that we don't get in in trouble with the uh, state or the OAG for violating 30B. Um, but yeah, I mean I'm I'm I'm amenable. I mean I I I mean to say I I hold what Anna just said but I
also am amenable to um, creating creating that um, that budget with Abby. Uh, so that way we can figure out how how many we can do each year,
each quarter, what that looks like. Um, and then you know, cuz we're we're we holding to the community to tell them how many um, grants are available, right? So if we're doing orgs for one year, um, you know, maybe we we say we are going
to um, push two two through the first year. That's what those are things that we have to discuss but we can't really discuss those without the money money numbers or the budget like projection of if we went this way, this is what it looks like. Um, because then all the other stuff is going to like kind of
fall into place. Um, and then I >> Right. >> I can edit the document of what we discussed so that reflects our changes and then we can look at it again next month. And that will also give folks It's a lengthy document. I understand and I definitely want folks to have the
time to go through all of it, review it, write notes. Um, you know, if it wasn't brought up in this meeting, bring it up next meeting and um you know, we do things together. And and also, you know, Yancey's not here or Michael and I'd really love to hear from them as well.
Um, so >> Okay, but you we we we know we have 600, a little more than 600 and you mentioned another 1.3, I think. Do we have that, did you say? >> No. Well, the the settlement is on a yearly frequency. So, we do know um, the
opioid um, settlement look up tool through the state. Um, anybody can go on there and look in Greenfield and you can see what our yearly disbursements from the known settlements are already. So, we're right now uh, we are going to be
receiving 1.7 million over the next 17 years. >> Oh, 17 years. Okay. >> some of the other some of those settlements were front-loaded, meaning, you know, we got like 300,000 right away. Uh, 200,000 right away uh, or
other. Uh, but we also have to remember that we set aside that we may not use. But, we set aside 55,000 for for burial every year. So, that comes right off the table uh, immediately. Uh, and so you know, Abby and I will work on that together of
creating a snapshot so we can all look at it and make make some good informed decisions about grant frequency, how many um, how much money, if we want to go higher um So, I I I think we have a consensus that we're okay with tabling.
Um, so can I hear a motion uh to table this discussion until next month? >> I motion to table this discussion till next month. >> I have a second, please. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh, Anna? >> Yes. >> Jeffrey? >> Yes. >> Abby?
>> Yes. >> Major? >> Yes. >> There we go. Yes, we have a unanimous to table this discussion until um, next month. So, the next item up for uh new business is um discussion on creating a general uh
OUP commission email or physical mailbox for grant submissions. Um, I was thinking about this and I haven't had a discussion with the city even though when it when we they told us pretty much when this commission was formed that we weren't going to have city emails like counselors do.
Um, so I we could go either way. We could set up a a Gmail. Like I set up a fake Gmail. Um, I mean, it's not fake. It's my commission Gmail, but it's, you know, a a separate one and I mean, fake, it's real. Um, but, you know, it would be info@you-oupcommission@gmail.com.
Uh, if the city allows us to have just that one, then it would be what at greenfield-ma.gov. Uh, but just a really simple way for people to either send it and um I'm thinking the physical mailbox would
be the mayor's office if people wanted to mail physically snail mail it in, they would send it to the mayor's office. Uh, it would be OUP commission care of mayor's office uh Greenfield, Mass. So, what do folks think about that? That idea? Are we aligned?
>> I I think it's needed. So, yeah, I agree with it. >> I feel the same way. >> Sounds good. >> Anna? >> Yeah, I agree. I I will ask IT. I don't know what the policy is for new email addresses, but I think the only thing to
think about is open meeting law. Um so for one of my other committees I said uh staff the Community Preservation Committee and there is a CPC at greenfieldmass email address and it only goes to the city staff and the chair.
Right? Um because if we're all hooked up to the same email address then it becomes an open meeting law thing. But I do think that I mean that would be OUP@ would be easy for people to remember. >> Yeah and I'd be I you know I'd be happy to have you know cuz as as a chair like
I created an email for the for for the chair. Um and then whoever's in the seat, you know, can make their own decisions about which email they want to use as chair. Uh but this is what my thought is is that um maybe the it should just go to the secretary um and
the secretary will inform the chair uh that there's an application. Uh so it's just one-to-one um and then we'll add it to the agenda um at the next meeting. You know, as we had you know, discussed that that's kind of what how we wanted to roll. So what do folks think about
that? Uh that info@OUPCommission should go to um the secretary of the commission. Uh whoever that is. I mean it's Anna right now and it you know, we have elections it might be somebody else but they would still have access to that email. >> And the city >> And the city person. Yeah, there's always yeah cuz the clerk uh recommended
that there's always another person on communications um which is just best practices. So um are we in agreement with that? I see see some nodding heads. >> It works. >> Uh so can I have a motion that we like to uh have Anna uh
go to the IT department and see if we can Abby? >> Sorry, I got a quick question. Isn't Anna aren't you the city person and the secretary? >> Yes. >> Right. So I don't think that really works right now to have it be for two
people. So I think it would have to be chair and secretary / city person. >> No, that's a good point. Thanks for bringing that up. So, chair and secretary. Um so, that that email So, if you could check that out, Anna. Uh so, the motion is that
um we you would like Anna to explore with the city uh at either getting an official city email or creating a a a a Gmail uh from info@oupcommission. Um can I hear a motion? And you could
just say >> Hey, I'll [clears throat] make a motion for Anna to explore uh the email for the OUP commission. >> Thank you, Pedro. And uh and I think I forgot to say this like many, many months ago cuz like I forget what people
say, too. It's not a reflection on you, Pedro. Like something goes out of my mind. You can say so moved. You know, when I when I ask for a motion and and I say the motion, uh anybody can just say so moved. Um and then so, can I hear a second? >> Second. >> A quick
uh a quick question though. What about also a text >> Wait, hold on. >> number like doctors' offices use? >> Definitely. We're We're in the middle of a motion, so can you just table that for 1 second um until we vote? Uh thank you. So, how do you vote, Jeff? >> Yes.
>> Abby? >> Yes. >> Pedro? >> Yes. >> Anna? >> Yes. >> Sarah, yes. Okay, we have a unanimous uh uh to have Anna explore the info@oupcommission email with the IT department. Uh and Jeffrey, go for it.
>> Uh I just thought if we're going to be as transparent as possible, you know how doctors' offices are using texts now and we could maybe also have a text number that either goes to an email or to a somebody's phone. >> Uh >> It might be overkill.
>> I I would need to consult with the city's legal department on that um because that that could be an open meeting violation. And also, if if there was ever a uh a request for records, they could essentially elect the three entire phone. Um cuz it's a text. I mean, there's
Yeah, there's texts are usually not recommended for those kind of things cuz they're really not. Uh I'm surprised the doctors use it. I'm a former HIPAA compliance officer. So, when I hear texting patient information, I'm like, "No!" >> [laughter] >> No, even in the recovery world, you know, we don't we don't text recovery
information. Um I have a phone call with my coaches or uh we we meet in person about it. Uh all right. So, um the next item up for discussion, and I'd be happy to table this until Yems and uh Michael are
present, is discussion on procedure for signing up to represent OUP commission at community events. Um I did send an email out with a couple dates of opportunities. I I got one response. So, I want to find a better way that that works for people. I understand
everybody's busy. Uh we're all doing like 50 million things. Um I just wanted to explore an easier way uh to sign up for community events where we could table and talk about um the OUP commission. Um as far as the
farmers market is concerned, um we do not need a permit to table at the farmers market cuz we're not selling anything. Um so, we we're absolutely welcome to show up at any Saturday um and table and and, you know, just sharing information about the commission
with the community. Um so, um I'd be happy to table that if I can hear a motion from somebody to table that. >> Uh I will make that motion, but I have a quick just announcement to add before I do on this topic, which is that um
counselor City Councilor Buldoc, uh who is, I believe, a Precinct 7 counselor, um is looking to put together what they're calling a committee fair this spring. Um it'll probably be in this room in the John Zon and
representative from all the city boards and committees can come and tell the public what their committee does and try to get people interested. So, I just wanted to add that to our list and I kind of assume in fact I already told her that you guys would be interested. So, hopefully you are but
no firm plans for that. Look. No, Sarah Baldock. I know that very confusing. Sarah, okay. >> Thank you. I love that. So, um >> And sorry motion to table new business items to you till
next month. >> Second. All right, Abby. >> Yes. >> Pedro. >> Yes. >> Jeffrey. >> Yes. >> Anna. >> Yes. >> Sarah. Okay, we have a unanimous approval to table the discussion on
procedure for setting up for to represent OUP commission at community events. That is the end of our agenda. The next scheduled meeting will be on July 20th, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. at the John Zon Community Center and on Zoom.
Can I hear a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Okay, Abby. >> Yes. >> Pedro. >> Yes. >> Jeffrey. >> Yes. >> Anna. >> Yes. >> Sarah. We have a unanimous
motion to adjourn at 6:33 p.m. Thank you, everybody.