GREENFIELD — With an eye toward ensuring community feedback informs how the city spends its state-administered opioid abatement funds, city councilors are giving further thought on whether to transfer the money into a Special Purpose Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund.

Transferring the money into a such a fund would give the Mayor’s Office, rather than City Council, oversight in the spending of approximately $1.7 million in opioid settlement funds. However, councilors’ expressed concerns at Wednesday’s meeting that transferring the money from its current stabilization account, where it needs council approval to be spent, into an account overseen by the mayor might stir problems in future administrations.

“I still feel a little bit split on this,” Precinct 1 Councilor Katherine Golub said. “I trust what I’m hearing, I’m excited about what I’m hearing. I trust the current mayor on this, but I wonder what would prevent future mayors from spending the funds without listening to advocacy from the community.”

The nationwide opioid settlement, announced in July 2021, set Massachusetts up to receive more than $500 million of the $26 billion settlement, according to the Attorney General’s Office. The agreement, according to then-Attorney General Maura Healey, resolved investigations and litigation over pharmaceutical companies’ roles in fueling the opioid epidemic.

With funds expected to flow into the city over the next 15 years, Mayor Virginia Desorgher’s office formed an advisory group made up of opioid experts, city councilors and those personally impacted by addiction to determine how best to use the money to combat impacts of the opioid epidemic in Greenfield.

At-Large Councilor Michael Terounzo noted that even if the money were to be transferred, use of the funding would still have to comply with state-drawn parameters on how municipalities can spend the opioid settlement.

Terounzo said that although he values the council’s oversight over municipal spending, he believes mayoral oversight would expedite the process of distributing the funds, which he said are urgently needed in the community. He added that the newly formed advisory group, if it were to be maintained, would provide enough oversight for appropriate distribution.

“While I share those concerns, I think what was said earlier over the expediency of the need of some of these funds takes a bigger weight than the direct oversight of all the funds,” Terounzo said. “In this case, especially, I think [City Council oversight] would just drag out a process that I don’t think any of us are equipped for.”

Precinct 5 Councilor Marianne Bullock, who serves on the advisory group, noted that although state and federal governments have parameters in place for the distribution of these funds — such as required community feedback — the guidelines are still vague enough to warrant concern for future administrations’ spending. Bullock noted that since the opioid advisory group is not a formal city body, future mayoral administrations could, in theory, allocate all of the funds to one nonprofit or organization without regard to the public’s viewpoints.

“The parameters are specific, but broad, and they leave a lot of discretion up to people. Some municipalities have decided that all of these funds are going to the county jail, or all of these funds are going directly to the Police Department, or we’re only going to use them for one specific thing,” Bullock commented. “I have questions and concerns about a changeover of power in the executive office and what that would mean. … The intention is that the public really gets to decide how this money is dispersed.”

At-Large Councilor Wahab Minhas, who also serves on the advisory board, echoed Bullock’s remarks, adding that a future mayor could choose to allocate funds to an organization that appears to be helping mitigate the impact of opioid addiction in Greenfield, but is, in fact, not meeting the community’s needs.

“Just as a clarification, the advisory board doesn’t have any power. Ginny is nice right now, but Ginny is not going to be the mayor for 15 years. We have to legislate and think about the long run and legislate in principal, not based on who is in what position,” Minhas said. “In 10 years, if we have someone we don’t really like, now we’re just giving them total and complete control over these decisions.”

After At-Large Councilor John Garrett suggested making the opioid advisory board an official mayor-appointed city body to ensure spending decisions are passed through a more diverse array of officials, Golub motioned to table the discussion on revoking the transfer of money to the Special Purpose Opioid Settlement Stabilization Fund until the council has a better understanding of how public opinion would shape decision-making under each option. The council voted 9-2 to table discussion, with Minhas and Precinct 7 Councilor William “Wid” Perry voting “no.”

Anthony Cammalleri can be reached at acammalleri@recorder.com or 413-930-4429.