How does a new mental health facility fit into the county's infrastructure picture?

The decision last week by Milwaukee County's Health and Human Needs Committee to "put the brakes" on planning for a new inpatient mental health facility - as reported in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - was welcomed by many mental health advocates, who have been urging the county to prioritize community-based care and substantially shrink its inpatient capacity. That sentiment is largely consistent with the recommendations of a national consultant - the Human Services Research Institute - contained in a 2010 report co-authored by the Public Policy Forum.

But also embedded in the committee's decision - as reflected by comments from the county executive - is the encouraging recognition that any possible new mental health complex must be considered within the context of the county's overall infrastructure needs.

For the past several years, as supervisors and administrators have argued over where and how large to build a new mental health complex, they have done so without the perspective of an overall facilities management and capital financing plan. Such a plan is needed not only to provide a clearer picture of the breadth and cost of the county's total infrastructure challenges, but also to assess how a potential significant investment in a new mental health complex will jive with the county's limited borrowing capacity.

The need for such a plan also was hammered home last week by a new report from the county's parks director, which recommended spending $15 million in each of the next five years to address a significant infrastructure backlog.

To put that request into context, the county currently has a policy that caps annual borrowing for capital needs at a little over $30 million. That means if policymakers heed the recommendation and want it to be part of the county's annual general obligation bonding, then almost half the annual allotment would be used simply for repairs and maintenance in the parks. That, in turn, would leave little room for capital needs related to the Zoo, Courthouse Complex, corrections facilities, information technology, transit, economic development, and county trunk highways.

The good news is that per a recommendation of its Long-Range Strategic Planning Committee, the county has hired a consultant to perform a comprehensive analysis of its existing infrastructure and help develop a master infrastructure plan. It is within the context of that planning process and the ongoing deliberations about the nature of the county's mental health care delivery system that the discussion about a new mental health complex would best proceed.

Framing the issues for the county executive candidates

During the past three years, the Public Policy Forum has churned out more than a half-dozen reports on issues pertaining to Milwaukee County government as part of our mission to educate the public about key policy issues impacting the region's economy and quality of life.

Those include an award-winning report on the county's transit funding crisis; a comprehensive review of the fiscal condition of its parks system and cultural facilities; another award-winning assessment of its overall fiscal condition; a redesign plan for its adult mental health system; and a carefully-researched analysis of potential substantive changes to its governance structure.

Today, we release a 2011 Milwaukee County Executive Election Brief that describes and frames those issues in a manner designed to be comprehensible to voters and helpful to the candidates themselves. The report begins with an overview of Milwaukee County’s budget and finances that provides a broad sense of the county’s budgetary structure and its longstanding fiscal challenges. Then, it summarizes and updates our recent research on the structural deficit, mass transit, mental health, and parks/recreation/culture. Each section concludes with a set of questions and policy considerations that should be foremost in the minds of candidates and voters.

Our goal, as always, is to cut through the politics and boil down these controversial issues to their basics. Doing so shows that in many respects, the issues and problems facing Milwaukee County government are elementary in nature and demand equally elementary, yet politically difficult, responses. Our hope is that the candidates will acknowledge the relatively uncomplicated roots of the county's challenges and candidly discuss their proposed solutions.

The full report can be accessed here. Also, tomorrow's the last day to sign up here for our February 4 county executive candidates forum, at which the report will be discussed.

Some states see economic benefit from prison farms

Milwaukee County Parks Director Sue Black's assertion last week that her department lacks the funds to take over the Farm and Fish Hatchery has reignited debate about the farm. This year's county budget transferred the program – a perennial target for cuts by the Walker administration -- from the sheriff’s office to the parks department midyear, at a reduced funding amount. The County Board's finance committee recommended a modified version of the plan to move the program, and the issue will be discussed by the full County Board on Thursday.

Supporters tout several benefits of the program: the harvested crops are donated to food pantries; the fish stock county ponds; and inmates learn work skills. Those less enthusiastic about the program question its appropriateness for a correctional environment and its necessity given the county's severe financial challenges.

Interestingly, Milwaukee's discussion about closing its farm due to lack of funds comes at a time when corrections facilities in other parts of the country are looking to prison and jail farms as a way to save money. Governing magazine, for example, cites two correctional gardens employed to feed inmates.

One Connecticut prison's savings of more than $5,000 in the summer of 2009 influenced the Corrections Commissioner to replicate prison farms across the state. Those prisons that already have gardens are being asked to expand them. In addition to lower food costs, savings include paying less to dispose of waste at the prison (kitchen scraps are composted), and not having to pay for flowers in landscaping (flowers are grown from donated seeds).

Meanwhile, an Ohio sheriff was so pleased with the way his jail farm is feeding the inmates that he plans to introduce a chicken-raising effort, estimating that for every 50 donated chickens the inmates raise, the jail cafeteria will get 300 pounds of meat. His actions, which in addition to growing food included eliminating all red meat and hot dinners, saved $25,000 on food costs in 2009.

Milwaukee's farm operation differs from the examples in Connecticut and Ohio in that the crops are used to feed the poor and not to feed the inmates. Prior to Milwaukee County's decision to privatize the House of Correction's food service in 2003, the crops were used to supplement inmate meals. Following privatization, however, Hunger Task Force stepped in to distribute the unwanted produce to area food pantries. In addition, while both the Connecticut prison and Ohio jail received their gardening supplies through donations, Milwaukee has found private support harder to come by.

It remains to be seen whether Milwaukee County's program will survive, but the Connecticut and Ohio programs show that in some cases prison farms may be opportunities for savings, as opposed to drains on already challenged budgets.

Stimulus or no stimulus, Milwaukee County needs an infrastructure plan

Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's statement (as reported in today's Journal Sentinel) that he will not request federal stimulus funds already has generated considerable reaction from other elected officials and in the blogosphere, and likely will continue to do so. While taking sides in the ideological debate over the need for and composition of a stimulus package is not the purpose of this piece (see previous Milwaukee Talkie blogs on stimulus here and here), my two cents - based on the Forum's previous research on county government - is simple: something must happen soon to address Milwaukee County's pressing infrastructure needs.

Our report last May on the county's transit funding crisis outlined how the imminent need to purchase 150 new buses (at a cost of approximately $56 million) could soon require the county to reduce transit service by up to 30%. Meanwhile, our analysis of county-owned parks and cultural institutions concluded that:

Major maintenance and basic infrastructure repair needs are significant and growing at each of the county-owned assets, with the exception of the Milwaukee County Historical Society headquarters, which is in the final stages of a major renovation. Among the more significant deferred maintenance/infrastructure needs assessment totals are $10 to $15 million for the Milwaukee Public Museum, $5.5 to $8.5 million for the Milwaukee County Zoo (plus a $130 million capital improvements wish list), and $276.6 million in the Milwaukee County Parks.

Many are quick to blame the county executive's position on tax increases for these infrastructure backlogs. A far less commonly understood and perhaps more important contributor, however, is the 2003 decision made by both the executive and county board to cap annual debt issuance for capital projects at approximately $30 million per year.

That decision was predicated on an equally important decision made that year to refinance approximately $100 million of long-term debt. The refinancing plan was structured in a manner that provided a significant near-term reduction in annual debt service payments (in order to generate operating budget relief), but that caused a spike in those payments in the out years. County policymakers prudently recognized that failure to control new debt in the interim would cause significant long-term problems, so they instituted an annual bonding cap. Today, an area of county fiscal affairs that is praised by bond rating agencies is its sound management and rapid repayment of its debt.

The catch, however, is that the policy to limit annual capital bonding did not necessarily reflect the county's infrastructure needs, was not accompanied by an analysis of those needs versus the resources available, and did not result in a plan to address the mismatch. That remains the problem today.

Are federal stimulus funds the solution to that problem? Probably not, given the depth of the county's needs and the uncertainty as to whether those needs even would be eligible for stimulus dollars.

But those who are taking options off the table that could at least help - and this goes for the county executive with regard to stimulus funds as well as supervisors who have rejected analysis of a sale or lease of General Mitchell Airport and closure of county pools - have an obligation to specify the realistic solutions they have in mind to comprehensively address the county's infrastructure needs and the legislative strategy they intend to pursue to implement those solutions.

Whether it's addressing the county's infrastructure repair backlog, solving its transit funding crisis, or figuring out how to fix or replace its aging mental health complex, it is time for less politicking and more real and honest consensus-building and planning.

PPF Pearls: Rating the parks' amenities

Yesterday's newstory regarding the poor conditions of the restrooms in some Milwaukee County parks could have been written six years ago. Throughout the summer of 2002, the Forum sent trained assessors into the county parks to rate them on amenities, recreation, and green space. The ratings were based on a four-point scale, roughly equivalent to letter grades.

While the Parks Department gave 11 individual restrooms an F grade, our assessors found nine parks in which the overall restroom score was below 2.0 (or below a D grade). The lowest scoring parks restrooms, at 1.5, were Holler and Cudahy parks.

While some of our poor park restroom ratings were surprising, such as a 1.8 score for the otherwise well-maintained Brown Deer Park, we found that the overall ratings for all the features in a park were highly correlated with certain neighborhood features.

The highest scoring parks overall were significantly more likely to be located in neighborhoods with higher percentages of white residents, with higher home values, and with higher median incomes. This relationship may or may not be causal. And, if causal, is not necessarily due to the neighborhood residents' treatment of the park. Spending decisions and priorities of the Parks Department may be influenced by the type of neighborhood in which a park is located.

However, this week's newstory seems to indicate that the Parks Department is using data regarding relative conditions among parks to make spending decisions. Nevertheless, a tight county budget will mean not all needs can be met in all parks. Our 2002 report examined several alternative scenarios for generating more revenue to fund park maintenance and improvements. For example, had a $0.83 per $1,000 property tax rate been dedicated to the parks in 2002, it would have generated over $40 million in tax revenue in 2008, based on the growth in property values since then.

Without a solution to declining tax levy support for parks maintenance, or a re-evaluation of just how many parks we can realistically support, Milwaukee County residents can expect only more poor ratings for our parks' amenities.

PPF Pearls: Parks budget mowed again

(click image to enlarge)

The Forum's 2002 comprehensive analysis of the Milwaukee County Parks system's condition and financial stability found that by 2000, spending on the parks had declined to two-thirds of what it was in the 1970's. Today's news that the parks department budget may be cut by $4.3 million begs the question: At what point is property tax support for park system no longer sustainable?

At this point, the proposed 2008 tax levy support for the parks department is $21.3 million, an almost 10% decline since 2000, when adjusted for inflation. In fact, the proposed $21.3 million, when adjusted for inflation, is exactly in line with the decline projected in our 2002 report: if the trend is not interrupted, we anticipate tax levy support for parks in 2016 to be $13.1 million. This decline in property tax levy support is an indicator that the county budget puts the parks department ever lower on the priority list.

Milwaukee citizens and policymakers wanting to revisit the notion of dedicated, independent funding for the parks are encouraged to read our 2002 report for an analysis of the options.

NOTE: PPF Pearls are regular blog posts highlighting findings from past PPF reports.

Playground politics

What's the hottest new component of neighborhood development? Playground design. As childhood obesity grows and schools devote less time to recess, the importance of good playground design garners more attention. Last week's Newsweek highlights innovative public playgrounds across the country. Note that of the five highlighted, at least four were fully or partially funded with private donations.

This month's Governing magazine provides insight into why publicly funded playgrounds tend to be "home to dull, pre-fab plastic equipment." Local politics. Local governments are risk-adverse when it comes to liability, maintenance, and cost. Quotes the Governing article:

"I don't see a lot of change in parks departments unless there's somebody at the local level who really wants to agitate for it," says Susan Solomon, author of American Playgrounds. "They won't say we need to make massive change because everybody is so afraid of liability."

A one-acre playground in New York City to be designed by architect Frank Gehry will include vegetal walls and cost $4 million, which will be raised by a private group. Another new playground in New York City, designed by the Rockwell Group, includes "a selection of blocks, buckets, shovels and the like that lets youngsters build something, tear it down and start all over again." It's unclear from news reports whether the city will own and/or maintain these playgrounds--a key determinate of liability.

Southeast Wisconsin has seen some of the private funding phenomenon. The Friends of Bradford Beach formed in 2005 to raise money for a playground and water garden at Bradford Beach. Their goal is to raise $500,000. Racine's North Beach boasts a 20,000-square-foot sunken "pirate ship" for climbing and imaginative play. The $270,000 cost was raised privately from residents and businesses. Without private donations local parks officials tend to play it safe: a Forum survey of all Milwaukee County parks in 2002 found most park playgrounds, while newer, had few distinguishing features. There are pockets of innovation, like the Gordon Park splash pad, which show that local officials aren't immune to kids' needs and can move away from cookie cutter design without increasing risk unacceptably.

The appropriateness of raising private funds to initiate innovative recreation opportunities has been debated over the past week after the announcement of a $4 million challenge grant to renovate the Hoyt Park pool in Wauwatosa. Many are classifying the donation as a win-win, with County Executive Walker stating that private donations for the Hoyt Park pool will allow county funds to be used for other pools. The Journal Sentinel article states that the Friends of Hoyt Park and Pool organization is proposing to building and operate the pool under a lease with the county, similar to the relationship between the county and the Urban Ecology Center in Riverside Park. A key element in the county's support seems to be the Friends' group's recognition of the need to fundraise for operating expenses as well as capital expenses. According to the WauwatosaNOW website, Friends of Hoyt Park President Denise Lindberg estimates the construction costs at $6 million. but also

plan[s] to have two $1 million endowments set aside - one to cover operational needs to ensure that all things that need to be fixed will be fixed during those first few years of operation and another to make sure there are adequate funds on hand for security and safety needs.

If the Hoyt Park pool model succeeds, expect future public playgrounds to be built and operated privately as well. From all reports, this is a practice gaining favor across the country as policymakers eschew innovative, high-risk recreational developments in the midst of tight budgets.

UPDATE: Supporters of another county pool announce a fundraising effort: Hales Corner Pool