Contract review committee to redraft funding request; pushes for select-board discussion on substance-misuse allotment

The Contract Review Committee on July 18 agreed to revise a draft letter to the Select Board and town management to emphasize preserving substance-misuse funding and to request a mechanism for predictable year-to-year increases. Committee members said they will first meet with town legal or finance staff to clarify procurement and municipal finance constraints before finalizing the letter. “We’re asking that $825,000,” Chairperson Veronica Bolczyk said of the broader funding request as committee members discussed funding scenarios and longer-term needs. Bolczyk and staff warned that, without a commitment, the town’s substance-misuse allotment could fall sharply: committee discussion estimated the allotment might drop to “about a third” of current levels — “between 50 and 65,000,” a participant said during the meeting. Members proposed narrowing the outgoing letter to focus on two near-term items: (1) sustaining substance-misuse allotments and (2) a cost-of-living adjustment so recurring human-services allotments do not erode. Joanna Roach urged an early conversation with town counsel and municipal finance staff to determine whether some long-term recipients should be treated differently (for example, operational subsidies versus program seed grants): “I think the organizations whose budgets we largely make a contribution to should be excluded from this grant,” she said, arguing that organizations receiving substantial recurring operational support should not be forced through the same competitive program process. The committee set a next step: invite town counsel/municipal finance for a procurement and budget “101” and brainstorming session to discuss options and any procurement or municipal finance constraints. Bolczyk proposed scheduling that briefing for August 1; if town counsel is not available, August 8 was offered as an alternative. After that meeting the CRC will rework the letter and seek a Select Board agenda slot for direct discussion. Committee members also discussed public outreach: they preferred presenting recommendations in person at a Select Board meeting so the rationale would be on the public record. Members said they want to publicize the recommended grant total before publishing the grant RFP so potential applicants know the funding envelope.