Commission On Aging Targeted For Potential Changes

Grand Traverse County’s Commission on Aging (COA) is the latest county department targeted for review and possible restructuring – a process some COA officials worry will result in cut services and staff.

COA board members called a special meeting for 9am this morning (Tuesday) to discuss a new internal panel formed by county administration to review “a number of issues at the COA that have been brought to our attention,” according to a memo from County Administrator Tom Menzel and Deputy Administrator Jennifer DeHaan. The panel – comprised of several county department heads and the COA chair and deputy director – will review the organizational structure of COA, licensing and regulation compliance, “high turnover” in the department, client backlogs, and the possibility of relocating or merging COA elsewhere in the county.

COA offers several programs designed to maintain and improve the quality of life for residents 60 years old and older to keep them living in their homes, including housecleaning, health care, yard maintenance and heating assistance. The department has a $2.7 million budget and is self-funded through a local millage, client fees and donations.

“The intent is to do an audit of the department as we are attempting to do with every department in the county,” Menzel says of the panel's formation. “We’re not singling COA out. It’s simply a diagnostic process we’re using to evaluate what’s been done well and what can be improved on. It shouldn’t be seen as threatening.”

But following significant shake-ups in county departments including animal control, soil erosion and sedimentation control, and information technology (IT), COA representatives wonder what's in store for them. The presence of two health department officials on the panel – coupled with memo discussion about moving COA to the Department of Public Works building on LaFranier Road and exploring “partner” opportunities with the health department – have raised suspicions COA is targeted for a merger with the health department.

“I’ve had many people share that as a serious concern with me,” says COA Deputy Director Laura Green, who says board members were “surprised and upset” by the sudden announcement of the audit. “I’m struggling right now to find a link between (the health department and COA), because I don’t see one. We have a different mission and duty to this community. Our services are separate, and we should remain separate.”

Green notes COA currently maintains a $1.3 million fund balance, a number that is expected to climb to $2 million by the end of 2016 – making the department fiscally stable and able to operate independently of the county’s general fund. She also says issues identified in the administration’s memo, such as client backlogs because of staffing shortages and recent department turnover (a trend countywide), are not emblematic of COA-created problems. “We had 83.3 percent of voters approve our millage request,” she says, referring to the August 2 six-year renewal of the department’s millage. “We wouldn’t have won in a landslide if the community wasn’t happy with what we’re doing and how we’re doing it.”

Whether voters’ approval of the millage constitutes a clear directive to preserve COA’s existing structure, staff and programming could prove to be a key discussion point. The panel's formation and audit of COA wasn't announced until after the election – and a merger with another county department carries the potential for millage dollars to be spent in ways voters hadn’t anticipated.

“The voters voted for what they are receiving now and what they know they have, that is quite clear,” Green believes. “That’s what the COA board of directors and staff knows and stands behind.”

But Menzel – who says all options are “open to consideration” by the panel, including a possible merger with the health department – sees things differently.

“I look upon it as an organization saying thank you to the voters who supported (the millage) to make sure their trust in the organization is well-founded and validated,” he says. “I think people who supported (COA) in the millage would say, ‘OK, they’re going to make sure the resources we gave them are used in the most efficient way possible.’ It's a healthy process. Just because you’re doing well doesn’t mean you can’t do better.”