Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Millage Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washtenaw County commission on aging advances detailed priorities for proposed senior millage
Summary
The Commission on Aging reviewed a Healthy Aging Collaborative proposal that narrows possible uses for a proposed senior millage to six priority areas — nutrition, transportation, caregiver supports, senior centers, housing and a central resource hub — and discussed implementation, evaluation and oversight to avoid supplanting existing funding.
The Washtenaw County Commission on Aging reviewed recommendations from the Healthy Aging Collaborative that lay out six priority areas for a proposed senior millage and discussed next steps for implementation and oversight.
Dina, presenting the collaborative’s summary, said the group “narrowed in on six priority areas, and that's … senior nutrition, transportation, support family and informal caregivers, support senior centers, housing, and creating a central hub for navigating resources.” The recommendations aim to give commissioners concrete options for how millage dollars could be spent rather than only broad categories.
Why it matters: commissioners and advocates said clear, measurable proposals will make it easier to allocate limited millage funds and show progress to voters. Participants urged early-year priorities that can demonstrate impact, and recommended built-in evaluation: an annual report plus needs assessments every three years, already reflected in the existing policy framework.
Key recommendations presented included expanding home-delivered meals and culturally appropriate food pantry resources, studying the feasibility of billing health plans for food services, increasing care navigators to boost SNAP enrollment, and investing in transportation options ranging from door-through-door service to non-emergency medical transport. On housing, presenters emphasized aging-in-place supports such as home modifications, short-term home health aides and shared-living pilots.
The collaborative also recommended creating a county Office on Aging to host a central resource hub coordinated with existing services (211 and AgeWays). Dina said the hub should deliver “warm handoffs” and, in some cases, short-term care management to stabilize older adults who are in crisis.
Commissioners and subcommittee members discussed practical details: defining which organizations qualify as a “senior center” (lists ranged in the discussion from about eight to 15 organizations), whether proposed senior-center allocations would be a per-center line item or a single pot to be distributed, and safeguards against supplanting existing local funding. The subcommittee recommended clarifying those formulas and publishing specific RFP criteria in advance to address past criticism of procurement processes.
Several commissioners asked that the collaborative’s document be redistributed to attendees; presenters said they had already shared it with county commissioners and would resend it to the group. Annie, representing county administration, said county staff and commissioners have been receptive to the recommendations and that they are working to refine the implementation framework.
Next steps: the commission’s subcommittees will continue to refine the proposal and feed recommendations to county commissioners, who are expected to finalize millage language soon. The commission will meet again on June 6, when Catholic Charities will present on senior services.
Ending: The commission did not take a final vote on millage specifics at this meeting; members were encouraged to continue advising their county commissioners and to look for forthcoming draft policy language that will set allocation formulas and oversight structures.
