They have one more meeting, there could be more amendments coming, but here is what they did last night. County board amendments shitshow, part 2. This is mostly liveblogged, only delayed to insert the amendments and minimally spellcheck.
They approved their minutes. Matt Veldran is on his way, Ronn Ferrell is not here.
Jeremy Levin says that people should focus on the Health and Human Needs amendments, and that they had hearings on the regular budget at the Alliant Energy Center and last week.
CAPITAL BUDGET
AMENDMENT ONE
Increase expenditures and borrowing proceeds by $8,000,000 for planning and development of one or more 24/7 community-based crisis, assessment, and resource centers focused on supporting persons in the community, and diverting persons with mental health, substance abuse, or developmental disability issues who have contact with law enforcement from being arrested and/or admitted to the County jail.
Sister Fran speaks in favor of the crisis restoration center and against jail expansion, but there needs to be some fixing. Crisis restoration has a lot going for it, there is lack of culturally sensitive clinicians and psychiatry. There are long waiting lists for treatment and a lack of beds for AODA treatment as well, so there is a lot of need. She says she says it will take a lot of money to figure out what resources we have in the community and figure out how to move forward.
Heidi Wegleitner asks if $8M seems like it is enough to evaluate what we need. She says probably not but the County Executive also put some money in – $100,000 – it will take a lot of time and a lot of money but we have to get going on it.
Ronnie Barbett says there is a daytime resource center to help with those who are marginalized and homelesss. Due to the laws there will be infractions but people would be better off if they are in housing and have services to help them with good assessment and case management with treatment to hold down the negativity. He says that he wants them to help people do better and not be a problem, but be empowered. A jail is one way to go, but is that the way you really want to go – you want people to be productive members of society and this is a better way to go to increase positivity.
Levin asks for a motion.
Richard Kilmer moves to approve, Wegleitner seconds.
Wegleitner says she is in support of the amendment she drafted. She is interested in allowing for public comment as much as possible. We have decided we’re meeting next week and we may see more amendments next week and as a general rule she is uncomfortable voting on amendments this week since we will see more next week. She says originally they were informed that they would be voting on November 1. She would prefer to move debate and voting so they can consider the amendments as a package. They discuss what the correct motion is. Wegleitner moves to the next meeting, I think Veldran seconded.
Levin says that at the end of the September meeting he was out of town, but since the schedule was put out and an email was sent that they would hear testimony and potentially vote. He says that we can deal with amendments tonight and next week will have a few more amendments in the queue.
Wegleitner says that at last night’s Public Protection and Judiciary Committee they found out that there would be another meeting and more amendments next week and she thinks that they would benefit from hearing the results of that discussion.
Veldran says he agrees, they don’t know when PP&J will be meeting and there is discussion about this. Veldran says that he thought it would be “anything they could vote on” would be voted on.
Levin says they posted 24 hours in advance and the public has seen the motions and are given the right to speak tonight. He is against tabling. He is not supportive of the motion as it stands, he says $100,000 for a mental health feasibility study should be done first. He says the county provides a lot of services and they are decentralized because that is how the community and board has sought to provide the services and that provides for more POS agencies. He is leery of having a restoration center and he doesn’t think that a POS provider would not be capable of providing the services that they want. He says they should do the study, and he will vote against tabling and then against the amendment.
Nick Zweifel says whether you are for or against the jail isn’t the point, he says when they studied the jail they had many options and it was lots of work. Here the amendment is throwing money, but if we want to have services at the level they want them, they should follow that same process. Maybe this should have been part of the jail discussion from the beginning or part of the package to address mental health. If PP&J meets on Tuesday, if this amendment needs to be altered or changed we couldn’t change it in 24 hours. He wouldn’t feel comfortable passing something that might change in light of what happens at PP&J. He gets the need, and supports the need, but he doesn’t get taking away $8M from the jail. He will vote against tabling and vote no on the amendment.
Wegleitner has her hand up and has had it up for a while, but Levin asks for someone who hasn’t spoken.
Hayley Young is concerned about picking this amount and not knowing what services we want and where, she thinks the study will help them determine what they meed, she is not against tabling, but is against this at this time.
Wegleitner says there is a misunderstanding about the amendment. This doesn’t take money from the jail proposal, this adds $8M for planning. IN the 2014 the county board approved $8M for planning and acquisition for a new jail, we got very detailed reports that made recommendations and resulted in us not acquiring land, but there was substantial capital funding to plan. This is what the workgroups told us to do. If we take the same attitude as with the jail, this is complicated, important and we need resources to plan this and give us option and then based on the recommendations we can pursue one or more sites where this can happen. We know there are gaps in our system, that people with mental illness are ending up in jail. The intent is not to throw money and start building something, she doesn’t think that the $100,000 will do what is needed to get us there. Please don’t misinterpret this is building a restoration center, this is a complicated project that takes time and a serious review and that is why we need to dedicate serious resources to the effort with the goal of making it happen. She would appreciate an aye vote to refer to the next meeting, she would like to talk to more people and get input and talk to the county exec’s office and the PP&J people to make sure we have adequate resources to do what we want to do.
Levin appreciates the reasoning, it is different than the jail in terms of planning, when they did the jail amendments 4 years ago it was aimed at our current facilities not meeting the needs of the community and he thinks that the study will show the gaps. We are not required to have a crisis restoration center like we are required to have a jail. We provide many of the mental health services under the 556 recommendations and having a better knowledge and survey would be better and this is at best premature.
Veldran agrees with a lot of comments, he thinks it should be scaled down, but $100,000 isn’t enough. He says that they do these facilities across the nation and he has been looking at it. He thinks this is a good idea, he is hesitant on voting tonight but if he had to, he would vote no.
Young asks if Wegleitner will make changes to the amendments after the discussion. Wegleitner says she would be interested in making changes based on the agenda, she is not guaranteeing that there will be changes.
Veldran asks if they vote the amendment down if they can bring back a similar amendment.
Levin says if it is the exact same they would not vote on it, it wouldn’t require a lot of change. Levin says they can reconsider. Veldran wants to know if they can bring something back something similar. Levin says they have had that in the past and voted for it on the floor, it could be a different amount. He probably would be ok with that.
Young clarifies the motion on the table is to table.
Only Zweifel and Levin vote no. Youth government also votes to table.
Lynn Green clarifies what the motion was and what happened to the original motion.
OPERATING BUDGET AMENDMENTS
PUBLIC COMMENT
Eileen Ziegler from Rape Crisis Center speaks in support of amendment 5. Another person is with her and she speaks as well. She says that it is a difficult decision to decide who get the money and what reach and impact it has. She says that sexual violence impacts everyone, prevention money has a deep impact and minimal compared to the cost of sexual violence. Each rape costs $151,000, and impacts long term income by $241,000 for survivors. Prevention is essential. It impacts everyone. You have seen the stuff on social media and people are asking what we are going to do and this is something you can do. She says that in looking at the jail and incarceration, there is a lot of information about sexual assault and the pipeline to prison. Summer is a facilitator and is on the youth advisory board. She says this is one of the most valuable experience of her life. They did a lot of work researching and presented to rule makers. They educated people on the rape culture and they will consider this when making decisions. The second semester they did podcasts and other education. This isn’t just a Dane County issue but it spreads beyond that.
Ester and Tom spoke next. Ester Olson and Tom Frasier, Levin clarifies. Olson asks for $50,000 for the Focal Points (amendment 2). She says that the projections for the population over 60 indicate a 31.2% increase by 2020. She says that it appears bigger to her because they have had a 4.8 and 4.5% increase over the last two years. As the population grows the needs will grow. They have waiting lists of 6 to 16 weeks of people waiting to get services. Adding $50,000 would alleviate those issues and provide additional services as they need them.
Frasier speaks to amendment 10, cultural diversity. Their original request was for $40,000 and have learned that the office of equity and inclusion can do training and they don’t need $24,500 for training. They also learned this evening that there may be other funds for the translation, but that still leaves the $10,000 for transportation because transportation is limited for all programs – unless you can hitchhike because there is a food program. Olson says it is critical in the rural areas where it is more difficult for seniors to take advantage of programs unless there is transportation.
Veldran asks how many case managers we have now. Ester and Green say 15. There are 15 focal points. Veldran asks if they are distributed evenly, they say there is a formula. Veldran asks if the waiting lists are evenly distributed. Olson says that it is more in the city areas, but she thinks that will change and become more rural. She says that her area has had increases in the last two years – people might be more aware of the resources that are available or it might just be an increase in the population.
Maggie Carden from Institute for Community Alliances speaks in favor of amendment one. She is the HMIS manager for Dane County, which is a data system for homeless services. They work with the Homeless Services Consortium and they have submitted money for the Coordinated Entry project which was voted on by the board and was recommended second only to . . . . . .. . . . . .. . .get the written statement
There was $267,000 – 25% match required, recommended for $40,000 a year from the city. This is a truly collaborative effort, and it will streamlining access to services throughout Dane County.
Ronnie Barbett from Sanctuary Inc is in favor of amendment 9. He says its good, case management services is what is going to help bring about the plan to prevent and end homelessness. Housing is being provided, but the pitfalls that occur form mental illness, AODA issues and social skills need to be reinforced, this money would do outreach and support people staying in housing. He was doing outreach for Operation Welcome Home and case management is really needed. He says he hopes when they talk about it this will go on through. This is what the plan to prevent and end homelessness is all about.
HOW DOES THIS WORK?
Wegleitner says that in order to have the amendment considered then there will be a motion. If its not moved tonight would it be precluded form consideration next week. Levin says that they usually consider it when its in the package. Wegleitner says that it was unclear. Levin says that they were trying to prevent a long meeting next time, he thinks if something isn’t moved it would be considered in the amendments next time.
Kilmer asks if all the amendments were posted? Levin says they were all there yesterday morning. Green says late Monday.
AMENDMENT ONE
Increase expenditures by $30,000 to expand HUD coordinated entry to areas outside the City of Madison.
Levin moves it, Zweifel seconds, he says this matches what the city is funding to help get the HUD grant. He says that he should thank Supervisor Dye for forwarding this to me. He says if anyone wants to be added as a sponsor just ask the author and we can add you tonight. He says that this is money well spent and will draw down further grant money and is partnering us with the city and that is a good way to approach social services.
Young asks why this wasn’t included for $30,000. It was an oversight but will be corrected for Finance.
Veldran asks if they want to go through them all individually and then vote at the end.
Levin says he wants to go through the packet one by one.
Wegleitner asks to be added as a co-sponsor. This is one she has no doubts about, she is comfortable voting tonight, we need this for the consortium and this has been struggling and this is a piece of the puzzle that when it gets functioning will make a huge difference.
Levin says see, we’re making progress. The whole committee (except Ronn Ferrell who isn’t here) signs on as a co-sponsor.
Passes unanimously.
AMENDMENT TWO
Provide an increase of $50,000 to fund additional case management services at the Focal Points
Levin moves, Zweifel seconds. He says that Patrick Downing asked him to do this. This is the case management at the focal point, Dane County is aging slower than the rest of the state, but we are still aging and there hasn’t been increases for a few years. THis was the highest need identified by the AAA board. Veldran, Kilmer, Zweifel sign on.
Wegleitner says we only have $500,000 before they hit the levy cap and they need to look at what they are recommending, and says they need to look at the equity impact, this isn’t a mandated service, but this should be considered with all the amendments. This is a lot of money and the Human Services Board has been working on developing a decision making tool for funding increases and policy decisions. They are working on a template to add predictability, fairness and transparency to how decisions are made. She appreciates the AAA advocacy strength and expertise but they should look at who is not at the table and doesn’t have that same expertise. She moves table to the next meeting.
Veldran seconds. He says he will vote for this, but he wants to look at it together.
Levin speaks against tabling. He says people have a packet and could look at it. Some amendments greatly exceed the $500,000 in the budget and this stays within that allocation. He says that over the last few budgets they did give an increase for AAA board, they are trying to address good case management for seniors. There is more utilization and need, he is against tabling.
Veldran says if they exceed the cap tonight, what happens? We talked last year that we needed to pass a responsible package. Levin says that they haven’t kept to a cap in the past few years. They give it to Finance and look at the package and make changes or accept it and sometimes they adjust the levy amount. Veldran says that we talked about not putting the burden on Finance last year. Levin says if we gobble up a big chunk we will know that some of our amendments will not pass and maybe they will look at the vote of the committee to decide what to support.
Young asks if there is a lower dollar amount that would work? Levin says that other than match amounts, nothing is necessarily steadfast in a dollar amount. This is money that is trying to make up for a number of years where the case management did not keep up with the increasing need. Levin says that in the past they tried to designate a specific focal point and he doesn’t support that and thinks that they should look at the the formula.
Wegleitner wants them to look at the gravity of the need, they have 42 homeless veterans on the street and we have 172 chronically homeless people, and they have been homeless on the streets now. She says that there are waiting lists for case management, but there are people on the street with health issues and families turned away. These are tough choices and we need to look at the most severe needs and how that impacts other systems, she says we should think hard about this and think about it for another week.
Levin again says he opposes, he thinks priorities in human services are broad and we have made strides in dealing with homelessness and mental health and addressing needs of the county at OPP&J, just like EANR, Public Works and others. He says having a broad budget is appropriate.
3-3 tie (Zweifel, Levin, Young) – motion fails.
Wegleitner abstains. 5-0-1 with youth government voting aye.
AMENDMENT THREE
Neither revenues nor expenditures be changed and the following language be added to 2017 RES-252: “The 2018 Budget Proposal contains $100,000 for a comprehensive review of the existing mental health services system in Dane County. This is in response to concerns expressed regarding the lack of adequate and appropriate services to address the needs of those struggling with issues of mental illness. This lack of services is often identified as the cause of incarceration and/or hospitalization or other unnecessary restrictive forms of treatment. The goal is to review the current mental health services system provided by both public and private funders and identify the needs, gaps, and possible solutions to address the issues identified. The feasibility of a Mental
Health Crisis Restoration Facility or other needed crisis responses will be included in the context of this more thorough examination of the available mental health resources in Dane County.”
Levin moves, Zweifel seconds. This is language on the $100,000 for a mental health study. He says this is their chance to wordsmith. PP&J is doing the same thing and Finance will cobble together a final version.
Young asks if NAMI or social service people were asked about the language. Levin says no, this will be put to an RFP and this is broad in its intent. He says that this is general direction to staff and they will fine tune.
Weglietner says it would benefit from more work and feedback from the mental health community and those who worked on the work groups that identified this need. She says some of the language seems like a step backwards, that they will study the reasons we can’t do this. The community has strongly recommended this, we have in resolution 556. Studying the feasibility of something we already said we want to do feels like backtracking. She says it needs more work and input, she would support consideration of this at the next meeting. Levin asks for specifics. Wegleitner says it would benefit from more discussion and input. Wegleitner moves to table, Kilmer seconds.
Young asks if the purpose is to have more input on RFP language. Levin says normally the staff does the RFP, would it refer back to resolution 556 or work by the committee, it might. We try not to micromanage too much and put general themes of what we want to see. What was lacking in the Executive budget was this information.
Young asks if they could add language about the resolution 556 to ensure it gets included.
Zeifel asks if tabling til next week will allow us to reach out to people or consider this more? If those are reasons for tabling to word craft it better, he sees no reason not to do it, but if this is too short of a timeline, then you all will be sitting here (well, I won’t be) doing the same thing. Levin says it was meant to be general, Rusk has a similar amendment at PP&J and they tried to give more than 24 hours notice, it is open to the public and as the maker of the motion, if it goes to next week, he won’t. . . he is leery of getting too much detail with and RFP and working with respondents directing the language and at this point if it gets tabled they will get more public comment next week and supervisors might get more in put but he wont do anything but put it in next week’s packet.
Veldran gets the micromanaging, but would this be in the RFP language, we are directing them. Levin says we are directing staff about what we want to see in an RFP, he is sure it will be more than one paragraph. Lynn Green says this RFP would have a lot of input from the community about what they want to see in the study, NAMI, MOSES and others have been looking at it. She didn’t imagine this paragraph delineating what the RFP will do, this is more of a purpose statement. A lot of thought will go into the goal.
Veldran says he will vote against tabling, he is ok with voting.
Wegleitner says it would be useful to consider what the RFP process look like, does it require HHN and PP&J approval and public input and comment. She appreciates Green is committed to that, but if it was in the budget what that process was she would be more comfortable so people know how to participate in the process so we include people with lived experience with mental health system and being in and out of jail.
Kilmer says he’d like to see what someone form NAMI would say.
Levin suggests that staff will reach out to support organizations and have conversations with support organizations – and make sure they are not trying to sway the study to someone to do the study, but NAMI and MOSES would be those groups so it would be safe for staff to communicate with them. He says if they want to add that, they should add it to the purpose statement and not wait a week. If we do too much wordsmithing we will tie ourselves in knots. He wants them not to talbe and add a sentence about staff talking to NAMI.
YOung asks if the language she would like to see is too prescriptive about a process and which groups to consult. Levin says that it is his understanding but adding language should be ok, Green says they have already talked to them.
Wegleitner says this is fro $100,000 and she is concerned that is not enough money. They moved another item to be tabled, she supports tabling because PP&J is still owrking on it and there will be another budget amendment for more money to provide more detailed and complex review that is more directly related to 556. Levin says this language has nothing to do with putting money in or taking it out, it is current funds in the budget that were not well described. The $100,000 is there and stays unless someone moves to take it out and all they are doing is trying to indicate the purpose of that money.
Tabling fails, only Wegleitner votes aye.
Young moves to amend, to add language regarding reaching out to stakeholders and partners and keeping in mind prior resolutions and legislation. Levin seconds.
Veldran asks what happens if they are part of the process and apply for the RFP. How does that work? Green says that sometimes happen but they indicate they are interested. Levin saks if staff prefaces those comments – Green says they will have to do that. Levin says often times that is done.
Weglietner moves that the proposed RFP language (the scope) shall be approved by the county board and be referred to the Health and Human Needs committee and other chapter 15 committees that provide advice to HHN on services that might be covered in the review.
Green asks for her to repeat it. Levin says if there is no second we don’t need that.
There is no second.
Motion passes on a voice vote.
AMENDMENT FOUR
Provide a budget increase of $1,200 to the LTE line item along with related $100 fringe to allow the Commission on Sensitive Crimes to go back up to 2015 levels of funding.
Young says there is a memo that was sent by the CCR committee (sensitive crimes) and there has been a reduction in hours for the committee. She says there is a mapping assessment on childhood abuse and neglect and other projects this has been used with, this would allow the committees to do more work and bring it back to where it was.
Levin asks about the DD community coordinated response, would that play in to family care or is there other state funding. She says there is alot of work in Coordinated Community rResponse that would impact by this work.
Wegleitner asks if other commissions have LTE lines? Green says the Commission on Sensitive Crimes have had this line for a long time, no other committees have LTEs, but it was put in the budget many years ago to support the efforts of CCR. Wegleitner says we recently had a committee and resolution, did the subcommittee finish their work in the review of the committees. Green says they are working on that now. Wegleitner says she thought that was to look at the inequities across the structure. Having served on committees that don’t have LTE lines, this is news to her, she is uncomfortable supporting it because they would be contributing to this problem while they are in this other process.
Levin asks about the stakeholders – like law enforcement, judicial and others – this crosses multiple agencies – has there ever been dedicated staff? Was this added because no one wanted to add it. Green says that the Commission is staffed by Human Services Department. There was a full time staff person who did this work in the past, there are working groups in specialty areas, they coordinate efforts and run conferences and the LTEs come out of each of the areas. The Rainbow Project works on a group specialty area and has staff that get the money. The Elder Abuse group puts out the pinwheels, these are working CCRs.
Young says that there have been ordinance amendment suggestions about this committee and they are working on it and it won’t be done for months.
Veldran says that this was not used when he was on the committee.
Greens says it was underutilized by they have rejuvenated and in the last year this is the first they went close to going over. Veldran asks if it is a county position. Green says that they are LTEs in Human Services – they staff the groups and take minutes, put out the agendas etc – they do traditional staff and beyond that. Levin asks if other systems have been willing to do this work. Green says right.
Passes unanimously
AMENDMENT FIVE
A Sexual Assault Prevention RFP be funded for $35,000
Young moves, Levin seconds
Sorry, took a quick break . . . sorry I missed the explanation of the amendment.
Youth member speaks in support of more prevention at the High School level and how there have not been the needed messages sent to her an her peers.
Veldran asks if this is a RFP – Young says yes.
Veldran moves to table – Wegleitner seconds.
Levin is against tabling, there is a gap in services that has not been addressed. We hear more and more about the #metoo campaign and how it happens to youth and how ideas are ingrained when people are young and we need a better understanding with the youth.
Veldran says he is not against it, he appreciates the intent to move things along.
Wegleitner agrees, she agrees with the need and importance of the work, but this is a competitive process and she wants to hear more about the other amendments when they consider it and she would like more time to weigh the priorities.
Young asks if Veldran has questions – he says he doesn’t.
The motion to table only has two votes – Veldran and Wegleitner.
Zweifel says this is not a huge dollar amount, its worth discussing and passing, he aught high school for 14 years and he taught at risk kids and there are many triggers that got those kids off the path – and abuse wrecks kids lives and leads them into hopelessness and homelessness. He says any dime they can spend on a child that doesn’t have to experience that anguish is worth it, he says it is probably not enough.
Motion passes. Youth votes Aye – Veldran, Kilmer, Levin and Zweifel are added as sponsors.
TIME CHECK
Wegleitner asks how long they are going to keep going.
Levin says that they are going therough the packet.
AMENDMENT SIX
Provide an increase of $107,000 to fund the Leopold Early Childhood Zone
Levin moves to approve and wants to table. Veldran seconds. This is supervisor Dye’s amendment, there are several more that will be coming.
Zweifel asks waht the other amendments will be since he won’t be here next time. Levin says taht he will make sure he knows.
AMENDMENT SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE
Increase operating expenditures by $300,000 to provide one buss passes for some of the 22,227 SNAP case units.
At the end of fiscal year 2018, any surplus of deficit of general purpose revenue in the Human Services Fund, net of any deficit or surplus in the Badger Prairie Fund, shall be retained in the Human Services Fund. Any surplus will be applied in fiscal year 2019 to support programs of the Human Services Department. Only by a 2/3 vote of the County Board may surplus funds from the Human Services Reserve Fund be appropriated for other purposes.
Increase operating expenditures by $780,000 to fund supportive services for affordable housing admissions and continued occupancy for persons on the Homeless Services Consortium of Dane County’s Priority List, including homeless veterans (42), chronically homeless (268), and homeless youth (71).
No motions are made.
AMENDMENT TEN
Increase funding by a total of $15,500 to meet the increased need for programming in the African American elder population. $10,000 for transportation and $5,500 for translation of brochures and other materials into Spanish
Downing and Clausius have this amendment, Veldran moves to table, Levin seconds. Veldran says that some of the numbers are in flux, Levin agrees and says that there may be funding through other sources. Levin says he’d like a more in depth info on the transportation costs. Veldran asks about being added – does he need to ask the sponsors.
Amendment is tabled.
Items not tabled or where there was no motion will be in the next packet.
November 8th the others will be considered by Personnel & Finance. They will be back here next week Wednesday, amendments can be submitted until noon on Monday the 30th. Staff will send a summary of the actions tonight for the next meeting beyond the minutes. Veldran asks if the amendments are done sooner they could be put out there even sooner. Green says not, they are posted by DOZ. Wegleitner says nothing prohibits them from sending it to the committee in advance. Levin says staff needs to do it one time.
Green asks if the summary should be in legistar, Levin says that the summary could be, similar to they had with Joe’s amendments.
