Washtenaw commissioners outline office, senior‑center support and RFP cycle to spend $11.5 million older‑adults millage

Washtenaw County commissioners who drafted an implementation plan for the older‑adults millage told colleagues April 2 they intend to create a county Office of Aging Services, fund senior centers and nutrition programs, and run three‑year competitive funding cycles to distribute the roughly $11.5 million raised annually by the half‑mill approved by voters last November.

The plan, presented by Commissioner Somerville and a co‑sponsor, calls for a director of aging services reporting to the county administrator, an Aging Resources Center to provide a warm handoff for older adults and caregivers, and a contracted needs assessment on a three‑year cycle to drive requests for proposals. Commissioners said they expect a mix of county‑delivered services and grants to community providers, with auditing and outcome reporting required of contractors.

Why it matters: The millage revenue is designated by voters for older‑adult services and will be collected beginning this tax year. Commissioners said they want a visible county office to coordinate programs and to make it easier for residents and elected officials to track how the funds are used.

Somerville framed core priorities as: a county‑run intake and resource hub; guaranteed foundational support for qualified senior centers; no‑wait home‑delivered meals (or funding to fill current gaps and future demand); door‑to‑door transportation focused on clinical and government appointments; a needs‑assessment and three‑year RFP cycle that funds multi‑year contracts; and a housing strategy including a proposed older‑adult housing trust to prevent and end senior homelessness.

On organization and procurement: The draft asks that certain nutrition staff now inside other departments be moved into the new Office of Aging Services and proposes a nine‑member review committee for RFPs (including county staff and Commission on Aging members). Presenters recommended three‑year awards so funded partners have time to implement programs without annual reapplication. The document also highlights procurement, oversight and auditing steps the county would use to measure outcomes and report annually to the Board of Commissioners and taxpayers.

On senior centers and operational support: The plan proposes a “foundational” allocation for ‘‘qualified’’ senior centers, often described as a center recognized by its local municipal partner that serves a region of the county. Commissioners discussed a working figure of $200,000 as a baseline for each qualified center, and several commissioners urged that the policy include guardrails so the funding goes to established senior centers rather than to newly formed entities seeking the money. Commissioners asked staff to draft clearer eligibility criteria tied to municipal recognition or resolutions for centers that seek funding.

On transportation: Presenters and commissioners distinguished “door‑to‑door” service — where a resident exits their home and boards a vehicle — from “through‑door” service, where a driver or aide would enter a home to assist a person into a vehicle. Officials said through‑door service raises greater liability and insurance issues; the draft prioritizes door‑to‑door but leaves flexibility for proposals that include visiting nurses or more intensive assistance to be considered through the RFP process.

On housing and homelessness prevention: Commissioners said the millage should fund prevention programs, crisis intervention and an older‑adult housing trust to help build or preserve units sized and priced for aging households. Commissioners stressed coordination with existing county housing and weatherization programs, and underscored the need to avoid unnecessary duplication of services.

On smaller providers and technical assistance: Presenters and several commissioners said the RFP process should include technical assistance and capacity building so grassroots groups and small community groups can apply and comply with reporting and audits. That assistance could include help preparing applications, meeting contract compliance and learning reporting systems.

Oversight and transparency: The draft makes annual public reporting a key component: the Office of Aging Services would compile and present an annual report to the board detailing programs, resources and outcomes funded by the millage. Presenters said contractor oversight and audits would be built into grants and contracts to ensure outcomes and to allow the board to report back to voters.

Next steps and timing: Commissioners asked staff to return with more concrete language, including eligibility definitions for senior‑center funding, the proposed composition and conflict‑of‑interest rules for the RFP review committee, and a staffing plan for the proposed Office of Aging Services. Several commissioners urged moving some senior‑center operational funds quickly to providers in need while the county develops the full administrative framework.

Smaller procedural notes: Commissioners discussed whether administration of the office should sit inside an existing department such as Office of Community and Economic Development (OCED) or be a standalone office reporting to the county administrator. Some commissioners said they were open to either structure so long as there is clarity, operational capacity and county accountability.

Where debates remained: Commissioners expressed differing emphases — some urged more county direct service provision and hiring of permanent staff to signal long‑term commitment; others emphasized using the RFP process to tap the existing provider network and fund proven community partners. Commissioners agreed more specificity on grant recognition, conflict‑of‑interest disclosures for review committee members and a clear timeline for moving operational funds to senior centers would be needed before finalizing a policy.

What to watch next: Staff will bring back a revised draft that tightens definitions (qualified senior center, funding per center), clarifies procurement and conflict disclosures for review panels, and provides a staffing estimate for the proposed Office of Aging Services. Commissioners signaled support for distributing some operational senior‑center funds on an expedited basis while the broader administrative rules and RFP cycle are finalized.