Issue of the Month: John Ball Zoo

During the past several years the county has partnered with the John Ball Zoological Society in operation of the John Ball Zoo through two structures—the county owns and funds the operations, and the Zoological Society provides fund raising for new projects. A study completed in early 2011 found this business model was not consistent with zoo industry accepted best practices and was not an efficient model for a sustainable long-term future. Many of our private local Foundation funding entities concurred with this finding. The Zoo Society and County agreed to form a Transition Committee in mid-2011 to develop a new non-profit entity with responsibility for both functions. This Transition Committee designed a new non-profit governance structure with a new Board and management structure. Even though the Zoo Society was active in the Transition Committee work and formation of the final governance structure, concerns have recently been expressed by the Zoo Society members that this direction is wrong. There is a feeling the work expended on behalf of the zoo by the Society has not been sufficiently recognized. This is causing delay in implementation of the new structure, and consequently delay in pursuing a new method of providing the community a quality zoo with a sustainable future. The County Commission Chair has recently communicated the intent of the County Commission to move forward with the recommended changes, and invited the Society members to continue their involvement by serving as board members of the new non-profit. It is unfortunate there is continued dissension about this direction since we started out with mutual intent to find the best possible sustainable operational model for this community asset.

Issue of the Month: Cooperation, Collaboration and Consolidation

The County Commission’s Community Collaboration Work Group recently heard the first part of our consultant’s review of intergovernmental collaboration efforts throughout the country. This first report concentrated on looking at our own county’s past efforts in creating collaborative arrangements, and identified issues facing our county in the future. Based on discussions with local officials and research of media reports, the Upjohn Institute concluded the following:

1. Government units in Kent County have an impressive history of working together in the past. These past successful partnerships will make future collaborative efforts more likely.
2. The type of services that work best for collaborative efforts are those that require large capital investments or are so costly as to inhibit an individual unit from implementing.
3. There are some structural barriers to future collaborations in our county, however, such as differences in service provision standards and costs for different units of local government.
4. There are strong beliefs that certain core services such as fire or police, must be provided locally in order to preserve local government autonomy and accountability.
5. There doesn’t seem to be a unified vision or strategy among Kent County units of government on how to address major challenging issues such as urban sprawl, local government service inefficiencies, and inequities in household income and housing values between the inner ring of cities and townships and villages that affect each government’s finances.

Thus, although this first report concludes that more successful collaborative efforts will be forthcoming, there is a sense that “without a community-wide dialogue to discuss both a regional vision and comprehensive strategy” about some very critical issues affecting the entire region, “the long-term future of the county’s inner cities is uncertain.” The second report examining impact of other area’s governmental consolidation efforts on these issues will be later.

Issue of the Month: Kent County Public Health Department

The Kent County Health Department has a central administrative and training building, plus five public health clinics throughout the county offering immunizations and health services through the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) health program. Much of the Department’s work takes place in the field. Public health nurses and caseworkers make thousands of home visits each year, teaching parenting skills, inspecting homes for lead poisoning, and supporting families’ health needs. Sanitarians inspect restaurants, swimming pools, adult care facilities, well and septic systems, and public and private water supply systems. Medical Examiners perform autopsies of suspicious deaths. Many of the services provided by the Health Department are mandated by the State, and are supposed to be funded at least 50% by the state. Unfortunately, over the years the mandates have remained, but the percentage of state funding is much lower than 50%, forcing the county to come up with the extra funds. It is noteworthy that many years ago the county health department and the city health department combined into a single county wide health department—an early example of local governmental consolidation. The total operating budget of the health department is $25 M, with a staff of 250. The money available to provide services has been declining the past several years as the amount of tax dollars available to the county declines. The Health Department recently led a community wide effort to identify priority health issues that will guide the service decisions during the next decade. The Health Department is managed by an appointed Administrative Health Officer and a Community Health Advisory Council. More information available at www.accesskent.com/health.

Issue of the Month: Kent County Mental Health—Network 180

Network 180, our county’s community mental health agency was formed in the early 2000’s to replace the old county department of mental health. The county commission makes annual appointments of board members to the Network 180 Board. Network 180 has an annual operating budget of $143 M budget, almost as much as the county operations budget. Most of Network 180’s funds come from state Medicaid allocations, but there is about $4 M coming from Kent County—the annual contribution from the county general fund of $2 M, plus state liquor tax distribution of $1.8 M, and another $320,000 from Kent County to use in Prevention Services. The agency served nearly 100,000 Kent County citizens in 2011 with services to persons with developmental disabilities, mental illness, substance use disorders, children & families with mental health issues, and a myriad of prevention services. Key issues for the Board and staff this coming year will be successfully integrating the new regulations of the nation’s Affordable Care Act, and implementation of the Center for Medicaid/Medicare’s new integrated medicine model. Network 180 has a significant presence in the county jail with its services to offenders with mental health issues. They also collaborate with schools in helping families with social issues that may affect a child’s learning environment.

Issue of the Month: Kent County Health Disparities

Access to quality health care is one of the biggest concerns for people of Kent County. Several recent studies show that racially-centered and socioeconomic disparities exist today, with certain groups of people receiving less intensive and lower quality care. The KC Health Department held a forum of community stakeholders to discuss these disparities. The 2011 National Health Care Disparities Report found: (1) health care quality and access are suboptimal, especially for minority and low income groups, (2)Quality for these groups is improving, but access is not improving, (3) urgent attention is needed to ensure improvements in quality and reducing disparities. Representatives from the African American, Dr. Khan Need, Director of the African American Health Institute; Native American Community, Mr. Levi Rickert, Editor, Native News Network, and Ms. Pam Satterly, RN at the Sparta Hispanic Health Clinic addressed the audience about differences they see in their practices and experiences. There was considerable interest shown by the audience as evident from the level of attendance and questions. We as a county, need to be aware of these disparities, and help to find a solution within current resources. What hurts one segment of the population hurts us all.

Issue of the Month: Kent County Land Bank

Kent County’s Land Bank has been quietly rescuing some foreclosed homes and— by partnering with non-profit developers—getting some rehabilitated housing back into the market. The Land Bank was created more than a year ago, and already is making a big difference. The Land Bank’s 3 basic areas of focus are (1) Real Estate Foreclosures, (2) Community and Economic Development, and (3) Land Assembly- Preservation for Public Use. The Land Bank recently hired an Executive Director and moved into a space rented from the county at 82 Ionia Ave NW. It is moving forward in finding funding for its efforts, and has successfully attracted positive reception from several funders. No county general funds are being placed into the Land Bank. One successful project of the Land Bank resulted in rehabilitation of a distressed and foreclosed industrial property in Sparta. By obtaining this property, the Land Bank was able to take care of the environmental concerns. As the property is gaining new life, it is getting attention from industrial users, and will soon be back on the tax role and hiring employees as a busy industrial asset in the Sparta area. The county’s residential tax foreclosure process is now underway. The Land Bank will actively work to acquire some of those sites and get them back into use. See more at http://www.accesskent.com/YourGovernment/Treasurer/land_bank.htm.

Issue of the Month: Kent County Animal Shelter Services

Kent County’s Animal Shelter is making a concerted effort to inform residents of the service offered to citizens regarding animal management in our county. The Shelter has 6 Animal Control Officers who are on duty or call 24 hours a day to address public safety and law enforcement in regards to animals. The specific duties of the Animal Control Officers are (1) help animals who are roaming freely, or have inadequate shelter or care, (2) enforce licensing and anti-cruelty regulations (3) impound stray dogs or livestock (4) issue corrective actions or citations for unlicensed, unvaccinated, or aggressive animal behavior and (5) investigate reports of dog bites and cruelty complaints. Local police get involved with complaints about barking dogs or other disruptive issues. The Animal Shelter is working on an awareness campaign to remind residents of the three “L’s”—leash, license, and love your dog. The Animal Shelter handles licensing—a state law requirement for all dogs—and charges $26 for a dog license (less if the dog is spayed or neutered), and offers a senior’s discount of 1/2 of the charges. Please help our animal friends have a quality life by complying with the Health Department’s animal control efforts. You may call the animal control officers at 632-7300 or your local police department.