Chippewa County makes CRI independent

Email this story Print this story Archives

4 comment(s)

By MARK GUNDERMAN
mark.gunderman@lee.net
Wednesday, December 10, 2008 12:05 PM CST

One of Chippewa County’s successful programs is now on its own.

The Chippewa County Board on Tuesday approved giving Chippewa River Industries an independent, non-profit status, taking it and the clients it serves out of county control.

Almost everyone agreed it was all for the best, though a number of reservations have been expressed over whether the new state of affairs will best serve the people the program is meant to help.

Chippewa River Industries is a county-owned business set up as a workplace for developmentally disabled, handicapped, mentally ill, and other people who might otherwise have trouble finding suitable employment.

Workers do light assembly work on contract with private companies, and in many cases workers “graduate” to better employment in a private sector business.

The program helps people become more productive citizens while lessening the cost to taxpayers of services for the Human Services clients who worked there.

A few years ago, the county financed construction of a new building to house the program, at a cost of $1.6 million including the land, with proceeds from sale of products.

But the picture changed when the state regionalized its long-term care system. Instead of reimbursing counties for services to people with special needs, the state funded regional care private agencies. In this area, it’s Community Health Partnerships.

The change meant that the county became responsible for just 12 percent of CRI’s long-term care service revenue, while Community Health Partnerships controlled 80 percent of it.

“Long-term care reform changed the way we do business when it comes to CRI,” Chippewa County Administrator Bill Reynolds told the county board Tuesday. “Essentially, CHP has the determining factor as to what happens to CRI in the future.“

Reynolds foresaw a point at which CHP might use similar work centers in other counties in its regional approach, and the county would end up pouring tax money into CRI to keep it afloat.

Selling it outright or making it an independent non-profit like others in the area were considered the best options.

The measure placed before the county board was not a new concept. The possibility of spinning off CRI as a non-profit was openly discussed and publicized last spring and summer, and it would follow a pattern of actions taken in other counties years ago.

Considering that the county still owes nearly $1 million on the new CRI facility, and the program has $1.6 million in assets, spinning it off into a non-profit is a rather complex maneuver.

The resolution approved calls for the sale of the building and assets of CRI to an independent non-profit CRI for $1.3 million, payable on a land contract over 15 years at 3 percent interest. The resolution also calls for a $100,000 no-interest loan payable over seven years to help with cash flow for operating costs.

The one dissenting voice in approval of the resolution authorizing the sale was from supervisor Mary Ann King.

“I would prefer a sale where we had the money up front,” King said.

However, the Human Services Board, which used to oversee the program, and the CRI’s governing board approved the non-profit model, which was also approved by the Administrative Committee.

Reynolds defended the concept of making CRI independent. He predicted that under continued county control, the program would require tax levy money in the future, and the county ownership was preventing outside agencies from partnering with and helping CRI.

Board members, though, were worried about the risks, and the services to CRI clients.

Supervisor Mike Murphy asked what happens when CRI runs into trouble.

Reynolds said that was a good question, but more to the point was what happens if the county continued ownership and the program was certain to run into trouble.

“The (changes in the) program has made these people much more vulnerable down the line,” said Supervisor Jerilyn Brost. “We might end up with the building back. God knows the county doesn’t do any good selling anything.”

Reynolds acknowledged that all were valid concerns.

Supervisor Larry Willkom tried to reassure his colleagues.

“We are all concerned about ’what ifs.’” he said. “But for many years now counties have been getting out of the business of operating a service like this.”

Oddly, most of the discussion on the issue came after the board vote, in which supervisors Mary Ellen Brehm and Gary Misfeldt abstained, along with King’s no vote. After the vote, a question from the floor generated most of the discussion.