Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washtenaw County commission debates senior millage implementation, senior-center funding and eligibility
Summary
Commissioners and staff discussed details for implementing the proposed senior millage, including a $200,000 base allotment for recognized senior centers, eligibility and non‑supplant provisions, an equity formula under development, and a timeline aiming for a county board second reading on July 2.
The Washtenaw County Commission on Aging spent much of its meeting debating how the county should distribute a proposed senior millage if voters approve it, including how to recognize senior centers, prevent local supplanting of funds and distribute dollars equitably.
Commissioner Marie Gress, summarizing recent board activity, said the county board held a first reading of the millage policy and "they did 2 resolutions. Both of them passed 1st reading." She added the board scheduled a second reading for July 2 and that packet materials are typically released about three Fridays earlier.
At the heart of discussion was a proposal that would provide a $200,000 base allocation to each of 10 recognized senior centers in Washtenaw County. Commissioners described the $200,000 as "floor funding" intended to cover core staff and basic operations so centers could sustain an executive director, program staff and administrative support.
Several commissioners urged safeguards to ensure millage dollars expand services rather than replace existing local funding. Commissioner Marta Larson asked whether recipients would be required to sign agreements so municipalities could not "use millage funds to replace tax funds that they're already allocating." Staff said non‑supplant language is expected to be included in contracts and the millage framework.
Equity and eligibility were recurring themes. Commissioners debated whether to "grandfather" established centers onto an initial list — several speakers noted the board has already produced a list of 10 centers for early distribution — and whether new municipal centers should be required to demonstrate five years of prior activity and audited financials before receiving base funding. "Five years in existence is a pretty long time," one commissioner said, noting the tension between encouraging new local initiatives and protecting the millage's initial objective of maintaining and expanding existing services.
Commissioner Bruce Astring urged the group to develop a transparent formula and process for both equity and future eligibility, pointing out stark differences in population density and costs across the county that could affect distribution. Other commissioners recommended that the commission's millage subcommittee draft specific recommendations on eligibility criteria and equity formulas and return them to the full commission before the board's second reading.
On recognition and branding, commissioners said the policy currently requires agencies receiving millage funds to acknowledge the county's support (for example, county logo on materials), but they pushed back against requiring acknowledgment at every point of service delivery because of logistical concerns for volunteer‑run programs.
Next steps: commissioners agreed to convene the millage subcommittee to prepare recommendations for the board and staff. The commission also flagged contract language to prevent supplanting as a priority for the administration. The county board's next procedural milestone is the second reading scheduled for July 2; staff noted the board packet is expected to be released around June 27.
