Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Health Millage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Washtenaw commissioners face heated public comment over proposed health‑access millage
Summary
Dozens of residents and safety‑net providers urged Washtenaw County commissioners to put a health‑access millage on the Nov. ballot to shore up coverage expected to be lost from federal changes; opponents warned of higher property taxes and objected to funding Planned Parenthood. The board directed staff to produce alternatives and tabled immediate final action.
The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners spent much of its Aug. 5 meeting fielding three hours of public comment over a proposed public‑health access millage that would raise up to 0.25 mills if placed before voters.
Supporters — including Reverend Alex Plumb, CEO of Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, and Ron Romero, a family physician and Packard Health board president — urged commissioners to give voters a choice to protect safety‑net care that could be lost when federal changes take effect. “Passing this resolution on final reading tonight gives voters the choice to vote on whether or not to fund critical health care access needs,” Plumb said, describing a teenager who received life‑saving follow‑up care only after community providers intervened. Romero said the county’s proposal would be about $40 a year per household on a $200,000 home and warned that an estimated 12,000–18,000 county residents could lose coverage next year.
Opponents argued the levy would be an added burden on homeowners and raised objections to the potential that 25% of millage funds could be distributed to reproductive‑health providers, including Planned Parenthood. “It is a bad decision to burden Washtenaw County taxpayers with any tax increase,” said one speaker, who urged the board not to put the measure on the November ballot. Several speakers also claimed, without documentary evidence presented at the meeting, that Planned Parenthood is politically partisan and contributes heavily to campaigns.
Commissioners debated three paths short of an immediate levy: (1) a tax‑neutral offset model that would reduce other millages if voters approve the new levy, (2) placing a straightforward 0.25‑mil question on the ballot, or (3) an alternative administrative funding plan that would use existing one‑time funds and targeted transfers in year one and return with a longer proposal in the FY‑28 budget process.
After amendments and debate, the board voted to table the final‑reading millage motion and directed county administration to develop an alternatives analysis for FY‑27 and FY‑28 that explicitly explores non‑millage options and potential short‑term funding to keep services running. The board also amended ballot language during discussion to the 0.25‑mil level and left open the option to place a rate question before voters later.
What’s next: Administration will return with a detailed alternatives analysis and a proposed approach to sustain safety‑net services in the near term. If the board wants a November ballot question, the board must still act before statutory ballot‑printing deadlines; if it leaves the measure on the table, commissioners can revisit it once they have staff analysis and fiscal numbers.
