Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rpf Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Genesee County panel narrows opioid settlement RFP priorities to access, outreach and existing assets
Summary
Committee members recommended weighting three priorities — timely access to care, expanding outreach and engagement, and building on existing assets — in the RFP for Genesee County’s opioid settlement funds and asked staff to define measurable community-level outcomes for applicants. The meeting lacked a quorum, so no formal votes were taken.
Deputy Director Marlene Calic told the advisory committee that Genesee County is preparing an RFP to distribute opioid settlement funds and asked the group to refine priorities and reporting expectations. “We have obviously been graced to host the opioid settlement funds,” Calic said, noting decisions must be finalized and approved by the Board of Commissioners.
Amy Delinki of the Michigan Association of Counties, speaking from a clinical and county-policy perspective, suggested three near-term priorities for harm reduction: “timely access to care, expanding outreach and engagement, and building on existing assets.” Members said those priorities should be emphasized in the RFP scoring rubric so applicants can demonstrate how proposed programs would address them.
Members debated RFP design questions that could shape bidder responses. Calic said monthly billing submissions will be required for fiscal monitoring but the committee can ask staff to provide quarterly summaries to the committee and an annual report to the Board. Committee members urged avoiding duplication of existing services and including sustainability criteria so awards do not create short-lived programs.
The group recommended the RFP require applicants to identify a limited set of community-level outcome metrics to establish a baseline and enable multi-year tracking across the 18-year funding horizon. One member observed that too many applicant-reported outcomes can make cross-project evaluation difficult; the committee discussed limiting applicants to a few measurable indicators tied to the priorities.
Staff committed to gathering data to inform RFP design, including treatment bed availability, waitlists, MAT capacity, recovery housing information and local retention data, and to share those figures before the next meeting. Because the meeting did not meet quorum, the committee made no formal recommendations; Calic said staff will circulate materials and a July meeting poll to continue the discussion.
Next steps: staff will prepare suggested priority language, possible outcome metrics, and a draft RFP schedule for committee review and eventual recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
