Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-24-2014 Ad Hoc Senior Services CommitteeA _ 1 city of THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS AND COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS OR DURING PUBLIC DISCUSSION * AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, September 24, 2014, 3:30 PM Harvat Hall / City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED a. Minutes of the meeting on 09/03/14 (pages 3-16) b. Correspondence 1) Nancy Olthoff (page 17) c. Memo to Asst. City Mgr. from Director of Transportation Services — Report on SEATS (page 18) 3. DISCUSSION OF SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT a. Second Draft Subcommittee Report - Honohan (previously distributed) (pages 19-25) b. Brief Summary — Bern -Klug (pages 26-27) 4. REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE LOCAL AGENCIES / CONSORTIA a. Elder Services — Dohrmann (no materials in packet) b. Heritage Agency on Agency — Cannon (no materials in packet) c. Johnson County Livable Communities - (no materials in packet) d. Shelter House — Honohan (no materials in packet) e. Pathways- Bern -Klug (no materials in packet) f. Consultation of Religious Communities - Dohrmann (no materials in packet) g. Free Medical Clinic — Younker (no materials in packet) h. MECCA — Dobyns (no materials in packet) i. Johnson County Mental Health — Dobyns (no materials in packet) j. Visiting Nurses Association — Honohan (no materials in packet) k. Compeer — Dobyns (no materials in packet) I. Hospice — Dohrmann (no materials in packet) m. SEATS — Honohan (no materials in packet) n. Hispanic Community follow-up — Webber (no materials in packet) S. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS a. Memo from Jay Honohan —Target Population (pages 28-30) b. Memo from Jay Honohan — Preliminary Draft of Final Report (pages 31-35) c. Memo from Asst. City Manager — Final Report Template (pages 36-44) (agenda continued on page 2) Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Agenda September 24, 2014 Page 2 6. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) 7. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS 8. TENTATIVE THREE MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE October 1 October 15 October 22 November 12 November 24 Special meetings if needed 9. ADJOURNMENT * Speakers are asked to limit remarks to five minutes and wait until after everyone has had the opportunity to speak once before approaching the podium again on the same topic PAGE 3 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE SEPTEMBER 3, 2014-3:30 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Joe Younker (Chair), Jay Honohan, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Mercedes Bern -Klug, Ellen Cannon, Hiram Rick Webber (arrived 3:40) Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr, Michelle Buhrman RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action : None CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meeting on 08/18/14 b. Correspondence — (1) Asst. City Manager Fruin —Aid to Agencies application; (2) City Housing Adm. Rackis — Affordable housing for seniors and persons with disabilities in Johnson County; (3) Susan Shullaw — Senior Housing; (4) Iowa City Hospice Annual Report C. Copy of Res. 14-37 Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented, seconded by Dohrmann. Motion carried, 7-0. DISCUSSION OF SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: Younker noted that on page 30 of the meeting packet there is a memo from Jay Honohan suggesting changes to the draft report, as well as a memo from Dohrmann. Honohan also provided a late handout regarding the Senior Center report. Younker then stated that they would open up the item for discussion. Honohan stated that he has a proposal and that he would volunteer to carry out this proposal. He went on to explain his hope is to get the new draft out to Members as soon as possible so that they have a few weeks to review it. Honohan noted that it is already September and he believes they need to really get moving on the Senior Center's report. He then asked Karr how they could post this draft report for the public to read, and not just as a part of the packet. He would like for it to be available much sooner. Karr stated that they could possibly accomplish this by posting a draft agenda that would include this draft report. Bern -Klug stated that according to the last minutes, the Committee voted to accept the evaluation that was submitted, with the appendices. She asked for some clarification on this. Younker stated that they did accept the draft report that was presented. Honohan stated that this was the initial draft report that was accepted, and that Members were asked to make suggestions, which he would like to discuss at this meeting, as amendments to that initial report. Younker reiterated what the Committee's charge is, adding that this charge includes a summary of the Committee evaluation in the final report to the City Council. He stated that he believes they have two steps to complete here — one is to finalize the Senior Center evaluation, and PAGE 4 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 2 second they need to decide how this report is going to be incorporated into the final report that goes to Council. Younker continued, stating that he would suggest they go through the recommendations today, but that the subcommittee may need to meet to review this final draft in order to make recommendations on how to incorporate it into the final report for Council. Dobyns stated that he would recommend they keep the report in its current draft form, as this would suggest to themselves and to the public that it is potentially malleable. He added that he believes they need to begin discussing what the end product of this Committee is going to be. Dobyns stated that he believes in October they can then finalize the draft without much work. Honohan responded that he would like to discuss his and Dohrmann's amendments at this time so they can decide if they are going to include them in the draft report. Younker tried to clarify Dobyns' point by asking if he is suggesting they table discussion of the comments they have in this packet to a later date or take them up at this meeting. Dobyns responded that he believes the recommendations are going to be part of a larger discussion. Honohan stated again that he would like to discuss the proposed amendments suggested today and move on them. If the Members do not like these amendments, Honohan asked that they let him know. Dohrmann agreed, stating that they need to make a step forward. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion on how to act on the comments that they have received in this meeting packet. Honohan moved that the Committee discuss the proposed amendments and determine which of these they wish to incorporate in the next draft. Dohrmann seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7-0. Younker suggested they begin with the first set of comments, which would be Honohan's memo beginning on page 30 of the packet, and asked Honohan how the late handout compares with what is in the packet. Honohan responded that it is the same thing. Younker stated that for clarification the revisions that will be reviewed are those distributed at the beginning of the meeting, Honohan's memo dated August 29, 2014. Honohan then began a review of these amendments. On page 1, Honohan suggested adding after the charge, "The Senior Center is the primary resource for quality programs and services that promote optimal aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's programs promote active aging in seniors at a consistently high level. As noted in the accreditation report of the National Council of the Aging, National Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its vision and mission statements and serves as a model for senior centers." Honohan stated that he is urging that this be part of the report, as he believes it is accurate and summarizes the Senior Center programs. Younker asked if there was any discussion regarding Honohan's recommendation. He added that he believes they should take up each of these comments separately and then vote on whether they want to incorporate them in the draft report. Honohan moved to accept the stated recommendation from page 1. Webber seconded the motion. Dobyns stated that he would contest that this is the 'primary resource for quality programs'. He believes the suggestion that the Senior Center has primacy over elder resources is overly bold. Dobyns added that he likes to think that substance abuse services, for example, are done well by other organizations. He stated that he believes there are many other organizations in the community that provide good resources, as well. Honohan stated that he used the word 'primary' in talking about the Center's resources, not 'only.' He added that he does believe it is the'only' resource in the community that pushes for senior services, such as classes. Dobyns stated that he and Honohan could go back and forth for some time, with both rebutting. He added that in the interest of time and for respect of the Committee, he believes that other Members should speak up as well. Bern -Klug added that she sees no reason not to include the suggested comments. Younker stated that he would like PAGE 5 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 3 to take up each amendment individually, noting that they do have a motion pending to accept comment #2 at this point. Cannon suggested changing the word 'primary' to 'central' in this statement. Webber added that primacy and primary are not the same concepts, and noted that 'primary' is very clear, that this place provides services that other places do not provide and he believes that is most clearly demonstrated in the effect of one demographic on the other. He gave some examples of various activities at the Center, noting that these are things that other providers do not provide. Honohan then spoke to Cannon's suggestion. He suggested they remove 'primary resource' and say, "The Senior Center is a central resource for quality programs and services." Dohrmann stated that she would agree with this statement. Honohan asked Dobyns if he would agree with this. Dobyns responded that he would not. Returning to the motion, Honohan amended his original statement to use the term 'central resource' instead. Motion as amended carried 6-1, Dobyns in the negative. Younker suggested that before moving on to the third amendment they first take up Honohan's first amendment suggestion. Honohan noted that this suggestion is to strike the sentence, "Charge to this Committee," in an attempt to shorten the report. He noted that the substantive changes he is suggesting are in bold and should probably be taken up first. Younker agreed and moved to Honohan's fourth suggestion in his August 29 memo. Honohan noted that in this one he has cut back on the language where he talks about the Center staff. "Center staff, six full-time, two part-time, all covered by union contract except the Coordinator, and Center volunteers donated 24,300 hours towards the operation of the Center." Honohan moved that this amendment be placed in the draft. Bern -Klug asked if the 24,000 hours was in one year or since the Center opened. Honohan responded that this was for one year — in 2013. Webber seconded the motion. Karr asked if Honohan wanted to amend his motion to add the year 2013, and he stated that he would. Younker thanked Honohan for his effort to streamline the report so that they are concise, but that he wonders if Honohan's suggested revision wouldn't be more appropriate for what is included in the report to Council. He stated that he would suggest they leave the draft as written so that they do have that background information. He asked the Committee to consider that. Honohan responded that this is not a critical item, that he put this in just to cut down the size. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification on what is being cut from the original draft document. She added that they know what Honohan wants to add, but she questioned what is being deleted. Honohan responded that he was going to strike the entire paragraph entitled "People." Younker noted that this appears on page 14 of the packet from the last meeting. Bern -Klug asked if someone had the original draft so that she could see exactly what was being deleted here. Karr asked if she wanted it read or if she would like to see a copy of the draft. Bern -Klug stated that for her it would be easier to see these proposed changes on top of the original draft. This would show exactly what is being struck and what is being added to that document. Younker asked if they could get some copies of the original report for those who do not have copies with them. The conversation then continued, with Younker asking if there was any discussion to be had on amendment #4, while they wait for copies. Bern -Klug asked if she could bring up something about the report, although it is not specifically about #4. Younker stated that she could. Bern -Klug then noted that in response to a comment made earlier today by Dobyns, she wanted to make a comment. She noted that nowhere in the charge from the City Council does it say to compare this senior center with other models of senior centers. From Dobyns' earlier comment, she thought he was suggesting that this is yet to come. She asked if he is adding something to the original Council charge to have the Committee compare this senior center with others. Dobyns replied that no, this is not part of the charge. The charge is to deliberate, and he believes it may be part of their deliberations. He believes it is intrinsic to their charge. Bern -Klug asked if this would be a part of the subcommittee report or as part of the full committee report. Dobyns stated that he is trying to PAGE 6 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 4 avoid being overly literal in this. He gave some examples of why he believes it would be part of the overall discussion. Bern -Klug stated that it was very clear what the subcommittee's charge was, and that it did not include comparison with other models. At this point copies of the report were distributed, and Younker asked Honohan to continue with the review of his amendments. Honohan noted that on page 1, he was going to strike the word 'People,' and everything down to page 3 of the annual report — the number of volunteers — and replacing it with what he has shown in bold, with the addition of '2013.' Dobyns asked if these numbers refer to what is happening now, not what is envisioned for the future. Honohan responded that these are 2013 numbers. Fruin interjected at this point stating that he has a quick recommendation on this particular item. He stated that he appreciates the effort to shrink the size of the report for Council, but that in this particular case some of the background in the original report could provide some valuable information for Council. Honohan stated that he would have no problem leaving this information in the report then. Younker added that he would leave the "People" section as written. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification as to what they were voting for. Younker stated that it is Honohan's amendment to this section. Bern -Klug stated that basically it is what is in the original draft report. Honohan reviewed what his amendment is: the paragraph that says "number of staff' is being deleted; the paragraph that says "six full-time" is being left in as is; receptionist and video are being deleted; volunteers is being left in with the number of hours 'towards the operation of the Center,' and then deleting the next line. Fruin then clarified what he meant, which is to keep this section as written in the original draft report. He believes the extra information will be important for the Council to know. Honohan stated that he would agree to leaving #4 as it is. As to the motion, Karr stated that the mover and seconder can withdraw the motion and no action be taken, or a vote will be needed to close it. Honohan then withdrew his original motion on amendment # 4, and Webber withdrew his second. This section will remain as written in the original draft report. Honohan then moved to page 2 (amendment #5 of his August 29 memo), where he stated he would strike the first line after "Members." He would add the following: The Center's participants are primarily older adults who are physically and mentally able. The small staff is not trained or large enough to provide personal services for individuals who need assistance because of dementia or other cognitive impairments. Nevertheless, many of the Center's participants have disabilities and use walkers, scooters, and canes while at the Center. Typically these individuals participate in passive classes and use exercise equipment that are designed for them. Other activities that they engage in includes cards, music performances, reading newspapers, socializing, many classes, going to support groups, and seeking counseling. The Alzheimer's Association Caregiver's Support Group does meet monthly at the Center. Additionally, the Visiting Nurses' offices at the Center provide health screenings regularly. There are many programs recommended to assist frail, elderly, and homebound individuals that the Center could adopt, but these programs would require additional staff and further, the additional staff would need to be professionally trained individuals. This additional staff would require additional funding that is not expected to be available in the future." Honohan moved to include said wording in the draft report. Dobyns seconded the motion. Dohrmann noted that she has some concerns with the second sentence: "....The small staff is not trained or large enough to provide personal services for individuals who need assistance because of dementia or other cognitive impairments...." She asked that they consider striking this sentence, as there are probably people there already with beginning symptoms of dementia, for example, who still function quite well. She believes the staff is trained to help in some ways, but not necessarily one-on-one. Dobyns suggested they put the period after the word 'assistance,' and not going into the further details. Dohrmann stated that PAGE 7 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 5 she could agree to that. Honohan stated that he would also agree with this, and he amended his motion. Dohrmann then spoke to the next sentence, where Honohan notes walkers, scooters, etc. Honohan stated that what he is talking about is that he knows there are people who use walkers and canes, and at times someone has used their scooter there. Dohrmann suggesting putting: Many of the Center's participants use walkers, scooters, and canes while at the Center. She attempted to further explain her reasoning behind wanting to delete any mention of 'disabilities,' per se, that the Center does provide exercise classes, for example, that can help with participants' mobility issues. Honohan asked Dohrmann to further clarify what she wants on this amendment. She stated that she would delete "Nevertheless," and would say: "Many of the Center's participants use walkers, scooters, and canes while at the Center. Honohan stated that he would accept this amendment to his motion. Dobyns agreed to amend his second, as well. Younker asked if they should consider the addition of "other similar devices," in light of wheelchair use, for example, after'canes.' Honohan stated that he would accept this amendment. Dobyns stated that using 'durable medical equipment' would be a catchall for assisted devices or anything else that would facilitate functioning. Honohan and Dobyns agreed to this amendment. Berg -Klug noted that it appears those individuals using walkers, scooters, canes, and other durable medical equipment are the ones participating in such activities as reading the newspaper, socializing, etc., when in fact these activities are done by all sorts of people, not just that population. She suggested that after where it says 'walkers, scooters, and canes' that the rest of the proposed paragraph be stricken and then go down to where it says: There are many programs recommended to assist frail, elderly, etc. Webber then spoke to this, as well. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if #7 doesn't address her concern here. She stated that she is not necessarily opposed to this, but that it does not appear to be complete, as nowhere in there does it say that people without disabilities are using those same services. Younker agreed that Berg-Klug's point is well taken. Honohan stated that he can leave 'programming, etc.' in the draft report then if that is the Committee's wishes. He then reviewed amendment #5: The small staff is not trained or large enough to provide personal services for individuals who need assistance. Nevertheless, many of the Center's participants use walkers, scooters, canes, and durable medical equipment. Karr noted that they struck the word 'nevertheless' in this section and started with 'Many.' Honohan continued, noting the rest of the paragraph will remain the same. Several Members noted this should be 'or other durable medical equipment.' Younker noted that Bern-Klug's suggestion was to strike a portion of this amendment. She reiterated that the activities listed in this section are not only for those people who use durable medical equipment, that anybody can take part in these activities. She would strike beginning at typically, and go to screenings. She believes if this is listed in another section then they probably don't need it in both sections. Younker then asked for a vote on the revised #5 amendment per their discussion. Motion carried as amended, 7-0. Dobyns noted that he believes this section is well stated as far as additional staffing would be necessary to provide services to this population, but that additional funding is not going to be available. Honohan moved then to #6, stating that he attempted to shorten this paragraph by saying: Membership dues — Iowa City $33, second member $20; Johnson County, including cities $60, $33; non -Johnson County $96. The scholarships for low income are $10. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt the changes in paragraph #6. Honohan moved to accept this amendment as stated. Dobyns seconded this amendment. Dohrmann stated that she believes it is important to clarify that scholarships for low-income persons are available upon request. Honohan stated that he would accept this amendment. Dobyns seconded the change. Younker suggested it be noted that these are annual dues. Honohan agreed to this change. Motion carried as amended , 7-0. PAGE 8 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 6 Number #7 on page 2 was reviewed next. Honohan stated that he is not striking "Programming at the Center," but would like to add to this paragraph: "It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the number of seniors who attend the Center who are not members. Attendance at special events by non-members is often large. Many activities and programs at the Center are available for and are attended by non-members. In the fall program guide for the Center, there are 127 different classes, programs, activities, and special events listed. Of these, 64 are open to the public and membership is not required. 126,126 visits to the Center occurred in fiscal year 2013. Most of the non-members are not included in this figure. Additionally, the Center participates in many citywide events in the downtown area." Honohan moved that this be added after the paragraph, "Programs of the Center." Cannon seconded the motion. Dobyns questioned the first sentence, noting that the use of 'impossible to quantify' suggests that any number in the subsequent portion of the paragraph is not consonant with the first sentence. He suggested that the next sentence read as follows: There is attendance at special events by non-members. In the next sentence, he would eliminate the word 'many,' and say: Activities and programs at the Center are available for and are attended by non-members. In the last sentence there again is the word 'many,' and Dobyns suggested again that they remove this. Dohrmann stated that she would propose they change some of this a bit further, since it is not just seniors who come to events at the Center, that people of all ages can participate at the Center. Members briefly discussed this issue, with Younker noting that they are supposed to receive some information on the number of non-members who attend the Center. He added that if they have this information, now would be a good time to give a report. Webber noted that when he went to meet with someone from the Hispanic community, he came across the Center for Worker Justice because they had a display on the ped mall. He continued on to the location regarding the Hispanic community representative, but that the center does not have regular hours and there were not many people around. Webber then called and was able to set up a meeting with the young woman who is in charge of the center. He stated that he was not at this location for very long the first time and basically acquired a small amount of information and left. However, he was able to return at a time during which a meeting was being held and he sat in on this. At this time he was able to acquire more information from this woman regarding how many programs there are offered at the Senior Center specifically for seniors. He stated that Hispanics are not the only group to use this center. There were two individuals there from Africa, as well, so this will be another resource for several groups of people. Webber added that he has not yet been to see anyone from the Sudanese community. Younker stated that at the last meeting they had discussed how easy it would be for the Center to capture the number of non-members who are participating there. The subcommittee was going to follow up on this issue, or so he thought. Bern -Klug stated that they should check with staff member Michelle Buhrman to let them know if there is any data collected on people who are not members. Buhrman addressed Members, stating that the way they collect statistics at the Senior Center is through attendance sheets and registration at the front desk. They do not have a system to differentiate members and non-members at this time. At larger events, Buhrman stated that they do a head count. At one point the Center asked members to use their membership cards and swipe in when they came to the Center, or to sign in on a sheet. However, staff found that this just did not work out with most not signing in. Buhrman stated that they could analyze the information in their database and see how many members and non-members are taking classes that involve registration. Younker asked if it would be fair to say that at this time there is no formal system in place to determine if members or non-members are attending events at the Center. Buhrman agreed with this assessment. Younker then suggested that they delete the PAGE 9 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 7 first sentence of paragraph #7 and replace it with: Currently there is no formal system in place to determine the number of participants who attend the Center who are not members. Younker added that they could also say that there is attendance at special events by non-members. He asked Honohan if he could accept these changes. Honohan then asked if in the next sentence the words 'is often large' should be deleted. Younker stated that they could state this as anecdotal evidence indicates that participation by non-members is large. Dobyns stated that he would accept anecdotal as a qualifier. Honohan stated that he could accept this amendment. Dobyns asked if they could clarify this amendment, and Younker asked Honohan to read the first two sentences. "Currently no formal system is in place to determine the number of participants who are not members. Anecdotal evidence indicates that attendance at special events by non-members is often large." Dropping down to 'participates in many citywide events,' asking if 'many' should be removed. After discussion. Dobyns agreed 'many' is okay in that sentance. Younker then called for a vote on item #7 as amended. Motion carried, 7-0. Moving on to page 2, item 48, Honohan stated that after the paragraph starting 'Many persons reported high,' he proposes the following be added: Transportation can be and is a major problem for seniors including both those who drive and those who cannot. It has been suggested that classes and activities be spread out into the community from the Center. If this occurred, many seniors would find it difficult, if not impossible, to attend classes and activities that they now attend at the Senior Center on the same day. Even though SEATS is available, it is not a complete solution to transportation to seniors to make timely trips to various locations in Iowa City. Also finding suitable locations for classes away from the Center would be difficult, as most city and school buildings have limited space available during the school year. A central location is clearly the best approach for senior members of the community. Honohan moved that this amendment be made part of the draft document. Failed due to lack of a second. Honohan next covered item #10, suggesting the following amendment: The Senior Center relies heavily on funding by the City of Iowa City from the general fund of tax dollars. Funds from other sources including donations, Johnson County, and Friends of the Center account for approximately 20 to 25% of the budget's operation costs. It is difficult to place a dollar value on human services' programs. Programs which help seniors maintain active lives are considered essential to prevent dementia and disabilities in seniors. This is the role of the Senior Center. The Committee's review and the accreditation report show that the Senior Center serves this role well and that the City of Iowa City should continue its support of the Center. Honohan moved that this amendment to item #10 be made part of the draft document. Bern -Klug asked if this is adding something but not taking anything away. Honohan noted it was. Honohan then stated that he misspoke, that on page 4 he is proposing to strike the first two paragraphs. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan noted that this is one of the items of great concern and he believes they need something like this in the draft. Dobyns stated that he would like to review this one sentence at a time. Where it says 'this is the role of the Senior Center,' as far as preventing dementia and disabilities in seniors, that he believes it is clear that this is the role of many organizations in the community — not just the Senior Center — to provide these types of preventative services for seniors. He believes that to suggest the Center should continue to receive funding due to this is not a good idea, that it is not consistent with the things that staff has stated to the Committee. Honohan responded that he would be willing to modify 'this is the role,' to 'this is a role.' Dobyns stated that he would add 'this is a role of the Senior Center and many other organizations in the community.' Honohan stated that he does not necessarily like this amendment, as he is talking specifically in this paragraph about the funding of the Senior Center, not the funding of other organizations. He added that he believes they will get to the funding of other organizations in the next part of their charge. Dobyns agreed, stating PAGE 10 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 8 that he still believes it is too bold of a statement and recommendation to be made to Council, in light of the realities of the situation that have been presented to the Committee. Cannon suggested they strike the one sentence, 'This is the role of the Senior Center,' and move from after the phrase 'disabilities in seniors,' and go straight to the following sentence, 'the Committee's review......' Honohan stated that he would accept this amendment. He added that in reference to one of Dobyns' complaints, he would suggest that on the next to the last line, instead of the word 'this' say 'its role.' He again stated that he believes this to be an important clause and that they should have something like this in their draft document. Bern -Klug asked what it is that Honohan is saying is the most important clause here. He responded that funding is the issue he is referring to. She suggested they add something about the funding, in its own place, and not tie together how they think the Senior Center is doing and what the City Council should do. Honohan asked how they can put a cost benefit on something like the Senior Center and what it does. He does not think you can do this. He gave examples of some of the class offerings at the Center, asking how you can put a value on this. He believes they need to stress this issue in the report. Younker stated that although he agrees with Honohan, he wonders if this discussion wouldn't be more appropriate during the second part of their charge, under 8b, to make recommendations to Council about use of resources. Honohan noted that he would accept that, as long as the issue is on the table. Bern -Klug stated that she would prefer they don't delete what's on the original draft: 'The subcommittee agrees with the assessment of the Senior Center, delivered by the National Accreditation Committee. The Senior Center is providing excellent programming to the area, and is using resources effectively. The small number of highly motivated and qualified staff members are able to recruit, retain, and engage a large number of members, volunteers, and general community members. The subcommittee evaluation of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center is A -plus.' She suggested that they keep this paragraph in the draft report. Honohan responded that his reason for deleting this paragraph was replacing it with the paragraph they are now considering moving into the second part of their charge. He added that he does not have any objection to what she is suggesting. Younker stated that his suggestion would be that they table the discussion of number 10 and include this in their discussion of recommendations. Honohan stated that this would be acceptable to him. Younker asked Karr where they are with this motion, and she responded that they can either withdraw the motion, or accept a motion to table it, which would take precedence over it, and include it with the discussion of recommendations. Honohan moved to table the discussion of number 10 and to include it with the discussion on the second part of the Committee's charge. Dobyns seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7-0. Dobyns stated that he is confused by Bern-Klug's comment on the draft regarding the National Accreditation Committee. He asked where they are on this — if they have voted on it or not. She responded that it was in the original document. Younker noted that this is still in the draft, under #10. Honohan then proceeded to #12, stating that on page 5 before the first paragraph, he would insert: 'The Senior Center does not record or identify the race or ethnic information of members or non-member seniors who attend classes or activities at the Center. Many participants at the Center are black, Hispanic, and Asian. Yet the numbers are small. The pool of available black, Hispanic, and Asian seniors in the Iowa City area is small.' Honohan noted that he also has an appendices with this, which show the data he received from the database out of Des Moines. Honohan moved the amendment. Dobyns seconded this, and deferring to the group whether to include the table in the appendices. Honohan stated that he believes the database from Des Moines will help to indicate the very small percentages that they have of seniors. He noted that this is a concern of not only this Committee, but also the Steering Committee. They would like to have more participants that are non-white, and the Steering PAGE 11 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 9 Committee has taken steps to try to increase this. Dobyns agreed, stating that there has been undue scrutiny, due to the fact that the percentage of Iowa City that is Latino and African- American are roughly similar to that at the Senior Center. Motion carried, 7-0. Dohrmann then spoke to some amendments (August 25 memo) that she would like to suggest for the report. The issue that she brought forward has to do with accessibility to the Senior Center. Dohrmann believes this is something they need to be more sensitive about. Suggestions that she has provided included providing a public bus stop in front of the ADA - accessible entrance of the Center on Washington Street. Younker asked if this information should be part of the Senior Center evaluation or part of a recommendation to Council. Dohrmann stated that she is agreeable to it being part of a recommendation to Council, that she believes it to be an important issue. Dobyns agreed, but consistent with that he too believes it should be part of the second part of their charge. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to table what is on page 35 to the second part of their discussion concerning recommendations to Council. Dohrmann moved to table this issue to the discussion regarding recommendations to Council. Dobyns seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7-0. REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE: LOCAL AGENCIES / CONSORTIA: Elder Services — None. HAAA — None. JC Livable Communities — None. Shelter House — None. Pathways — None. Consultation of Religious Communities — Dohrmann referred to her memo and stated that she did meet with the Consultation. She stated that she wanted to share some of their concerns, one of the main ones being SEATS service on Sundays. They would like to see this service continue and have even formed a Transportation Committee to look into this issue further. They have talked with Yellow Cab about providing reduced fares and becoming ADA -equipped in order to transport people on Sundays. Dobyns spoke to this issue, as well, noting that both Sunday service and half fares were eliminated. He asked if the Consultation gave an indication of which is more onerous for them — the Sunday service or the half fares. Dohrmann responded that their main focus is the Sunday service. She stated that the Consultation also mentioned lack of affordable mental health care in the community. Dohrmann noted that one strong point the Consultation wanted to stress is how much the various congregations do to help their community members. They tend to take care of each other, and people of all ages appear to help each other as needed. Dohrmann continued, noting that many of the members of the Consultation are seniors. The only other suggestion made during this meeting was whether there would be a way for the City to assist in providing up-to-date referral information. Dohrmann stated that the faith leaders provide a lot of referrals to the many organizations within the community. The primary request, however, was SEATS service on Sundays. Free Medical Clinic — None. MECCA — None. PAGE 12 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 10 JC Mental Health — None. VNA — None. Compeer — Dobyns stated that he does not have any information at this time Hospice — Dohrmann stated she looked into this organization and she provided this grid in the packet. The number of days that people receive care by donations from the community is 1,659. This question came about when discussing Medicare coverages and the gap that often occurs. Annual report was distributed. SEATS — Honohan noted that he gave everyone an amendment or corrected report on SEATS. He spoke to the SEATS budget, noting that he believes it is important to recognize that the City of Iowa City in fiscal year 2014 represented 50% of the SEATS budget. Fares represented only 4% of the budget. Honohan shared some information about the SEATS programs, such as days and times of service, and the current fee schedule. Honohan noted that daily, Monday through Friday, SEATS has 500 trips per day. On Saturday they run 70 to 80 trips. He added that he thought it was significant that the National Standards recommend that they have 26 and a half vehicles. Currently there are 23 SEATS vehicles. Honohan stated that SEATS does not keep records as to seniors and disabled partners. He noted that SEATS is a very important service that they need to discuss further in the next section of their charge. Dobyns then spoke to Sunday service and what the cost would be, stating that he believes they should add this to this specific report. Bern -Klug asked if she understands this correctly, that the majority of people who use SEATS, between 75 and 80%, live in Iowa City, and Iowa City contributes half of SEATS' budget. Honohan stated that this is correct. He added that he was surprised to find out that federal funds only contribute 4% to the SEATS' budget. Fruin asked if he could clarify one thing — that cities are federally mandated to offer the SEATS service, within a range of wherever the regular transit is. Bern -Klug asked if the Council has considered increasing the percentage since most of the riders appears to be Iowa City residents. Fruin noted that when this issue came up about a year and a half ago, Johnson County provided a more significant portion of the budget. When they reduced their portion significantly, it forced the City to cut half fares and Sunday service, but the City actually provides a higher percentage now. Hispanic Community follow-up — Webber noted that there are going to be a couple of meetings in the next few weeks that he intends to attend. He believes it will be a good way to meet with several different ethnic groups at one time, such as the Sudanese community. Dohrmann added that finding out what their needs are will be important. She added to this also, noting that the Senior Center does provide English language learners. There is a Spanish conversation group available, as well as a literature group to promote speaking Spanish. Another resource would be the congregate meals, according to Dohrmann. Honohan moved to accept the reports presented this evening. Dobyns seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7-0. Dobyns asked if they had anything further on Pathways. Bern - Klug noted that she submitted a report several meetings ago. Younker agreed, adding that it was two meetings ago. PAGE 13 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 11 DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS — Referring to page 41 of the packet, Younker noted that he and Vice chair Dohrmann prepared a proposal about how to structure their report to Council. He stated that they are at the point where they need to talk about what their product is going to be and how they plan to present this information to Council; then the Committee needs to go through the process of talking about what their specific recommendations are. Younker stated that they would like to discuss the structure of their report, and in order to not lose important information or overloading Council, the report should be concise. He and Dohrmann suggested they keep the length to four or five pages, and where appropriate, bullet point recommendations should be used. Both agreed that this can then give Council the information they need in deciding if they want further investigation or follow up on any specific points. Younker stated that he would like to discuss the report structure, perhaps even assigning specific portions to Members so that they can begin the drafting process and have some material to review for the next meeting. Honohan stated that he agrees they should make this report as short as possible. He believes they should proceed as Younker and Dohrmann have laid out in their memo. Bern -Klug stated that she is not familiar with these types of reports that Council receives and she asked if this is consistent with what they normally receive. Younker stated that he would defer to Fruin or Dobyns on this question. Fruin stated that they get everything from lengthy to those that are more focused, and he believes that what is being suggested is a good idea. The more concise and direct the Committee can be with their approach, the better. He reminded the Committee that Council also receives copies of their meeting minutes and they also have access to any of the meeting archives should they want further information. Dobyns added that four to five pages is often enough. Members continued to discuss this issue, with everyone agreeing the more concise the report is, the better. Dobyns added that having a narrative executive summary can be very helpful in understanding the rest of the report. Younker noted that they are not locked into these specifications, and he asked if there were any further thoughts on the report for Council. Dobyns stated that they need to remember that the recommendations to Council are sort of a strategic mission. In other words, the Committee doesn't need to get tactical in terms of the micromanagement. The Council will pass on to staff those items that they wish to have further reviewed. Fruin stated that Dobyns made a good point, and he further commented that he does not want to see the Members take their time to decide something, for example, such as how many minutes need to be added to the crosswalk signal so people can cross the street. The Council is going to want to hear a broad, general recommendation, one that they can then pass to staff for processing. Bern -Klug asked if they are aiming for a consensus statement among Members, and Younker replied that he believes they would have a better report for Council if there was consensus, and that it will take a majority approval by the Committee to pass the recommendations. Younker then laid out some specific tasks to try and complete by the next meeting. One involves the Senior Center subcommittee. He asked that the subcommittee meet and take the current version of the draft and come up with some recommendations about how this will be included in the final report to Council, and also, how will it be incorporated into the Committee's executive summary. Secondly, Younker stated that they need to work on an introduction and an overview of what the Committee has done. He asked if someone would take responsibility for this section and start working on this. Honohan stated that he would be glad to start on this, but that it may take a few weeks to work on. Younker stated that he envisions this including an introduction that would include what trends they are considering and would include an overview PAGE 14 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 12 of the process — what did they do, who did they talk to, etc. Younker stated that he believes it would be helpful if all Committee Members could be prepared to talk about some data gaps at the next meeting. By this he means what don't they know, and what are they still not going to know by the time their report is due to Council. He believes they need to be in a position to let Council know that these are questions they are unable to answer. Younker also stated that they need to begin identifying obstacles, including facility considerations which may be hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population. He asked that all Members bring back to the next meeting some proposed obstacles to include in their report. Younker asked Karr what the deadline should be for this information to get in the meeting packet. Karr responded that she would need the information by noon on September 18 with the goal being that members would then have the packets Thursday afternoon, prior to their September 24 meeting. Honohan asked to clarify what his deadline would be for the Senior Center draft report. Karr responded that he needs to get that to her next week, so that that packet will only contain his report and a cover sheet indicating that this is a draft for discussion September 24, and that a full packet will be follow. When the full agenda packet is released the Senior Center draft report will be included as 'previously distributed.' Younker stated that at the next meeting they will then need to refine their recommendations, decide what they are, and talk about who is going to take responsibility for drafting them so that they can move forward. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA): Mary Gravitt stated that she sees mistakes being made already, and objected that audience members are not given copies of what the Committee is discussing, then it should be up on the screen for everyone to see. She added that to her this is a lack of respect. Speaking to the first charge against the Center, Gravitt stated that it was said they did not do anything for the frail and that the Center did not have enough diversity. She stated that she wished Dobyns was still present as she would like to ask him how many doctors from the hospital make house calls if they're so worried about the frail. Secondly, Gravitt noted that the Senior Center is not a jail or a halfway house where people who are not members have to check in or out. As for decentralizing the classrooms and everything at the Center, she reminded the Committee that LEAP was a failure and that was a million dollar failure. The problem with LEAP, according to Gravitt, was you couldn't find the classrooms for the programs. Another issue, Gravitt stated that the Committee should look at the City Charter, that the councilman is looking for three votes to shut the Center down. She then spoke to her handout, noting that it is from the City Finance Director, who told her that the Mayor asked him to get in touch with Mary. She stated that her handout is a copy of what the Finance Director emailed her. She then complained about how difficult it is to access reports, such as this, on the City's web site. Gravitt then stated that she would advise Dr. Dobyns that if he is so worried about frail people, make a house call. She stated again that Member Dobyns is looking for three votes with the Council in order to close the Senior Center. She added that the SEATS discussion has more to it than is being said. Gravitt stated again that what is being talked about should be posted on the screen so all of them can see. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Younker seconded the motion. Motion carried, 7-0. Kathy Mitchell with the Senior Commission and the Steering Council asked if she could make some brief comments regarding Honohan's draft. Younker told her to proceed. She stated that she is somewhat disappointed that they decided to remove the word 'primary' and replace it with 'central.' She believes that primary means they are in the forefront for senior services and that their accreditation report proved that. She added that she feels that if Dr. Dobyns had trouble with it being 'the primary,' they could have said 'one of the primary,' without changing this to 'central.' Secondly, she noted that she does walk with a cane, but that she is not considered PAGE 15 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 13 either disabled or frail. She stated that although the Center is not like Pathways, they do provide services and activities that individuals who may be cognitively or physically frail can come to and mix with the general population. She believes it wasn't necessary to give this litany of equipment because then it says that they are all fragile and disabled, which she believes is not the case. Third, Mitchell noted that she has attended many events where there have been hundreds of thousands of individuals and they have always had to make a questimate. She therefore does not have problems with the word 'many' when they are talking about quantification. Larry Rogers spoke to the 'durable equipment' phrase. He stated that they have people attend the Center who have service dogs and that this wasn't called out. There are people with many different issues who attend the Center. Mary Mehrl stated that anecdotally she can confirm the service dog thing. She stated that she is taking four classes at the Center currently and if these were spread out over several locations, she would be unable to attend them. She shared that she is taking a Spanish class as she would like to be able to speak to the Hispanic members in the community, and she is also taking a writing class. She thanked the Committee for their good work, and Dohrmann for her suggestion of a bus stop at the Center. She asked that this not get lost in the Committee's work, adding that she believes they should make specific recommendations as the Council does not have time to go through all of this information. She then added that obtaining a clear number of participants at the Center can be difficult, and she named the various entrances and exits that can be used, thus allowing for large numbers of individuals to come and go. She ended her comments saying that spreading the programming out all over Iowa City really won't do any good. Mary Gravitt asked to make another point. She stated that it seems like they are supposed to get thrown onto the other agencies in town. Gravitt stated that these other agencies are suffering worse than the Senior Center. She stated that the Center is helping itself by staying healthy. She stated that the only reason there is this Ad Hoc Committee is because of SEATS. The SEATS people didn't fight back. Thus the Center as a group decided they would fight back, and the Ad Hoc Committee was then formed. PENDING ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS: None. October 1 October 15 October 22 November 12 November 24 ADJOURNMENT: Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 P.M., seconded by Dohrmann. Motion carried 7-0. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee September 3, 2014 Page 14 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 PAGE 16 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 N- NAME EXP, 0 0 N O N W 0 ^' A ? A .P -N A A A A A 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X Honohan Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X —X --R— X Bern -Klug Hiram 12/1/14 X X —X —X X X X X X Richard Webber Ellen 12/1/14 X X —X —X X --X--X X —X ------ Cannon Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X Dohrmann Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X —)(--X X X Dobyns Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time PAGE 17 Marian Karr From: Nancy Olthoff <olthoff@mchsi.com> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 10:44 AM To: Council Subject: Senior Center This correspondence will become a public record. Dear Council Members, Having recently retired, I was delighted to find The Center in downtown Iowa City. It provides so many resources for seniors for 1) fitness, 2) social engagement, 3) opportunities for community service through the band, choir and volunteer information, 4) access to routine medical needs, 5) a convenient setting by parking, 6) daily meals, and 7) positive, helpful staff. It is my understanding that the Council is considering decentralizing these components and eliminating this community gathering location. I strongly voice opposition to this approach as it would decimate this strong community, strand many downtown seniors without access to low cost meals, and undermine the health and vitality of the Iowa City and Johnson County senior citizens. I am disappointed that even with strong expressions of concerns from senior community members this proposal is still being considered. Please clearly speak to the angst of our members and friends that the Center is a valuable site with abundant services that need to be retained and the dismantling the Center is not an option for consideration. Thank you for reflecting on this matter of great importance. Sincerely, Nancy Olthoff, Ph.D. P PAGE 18 CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMUKANUUM Date: September 22, 2014 To: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager From: Chris O'Brien, Director of Transportation Services Re: Report on SEATS from Ad-Hoc Senior Committee I have reviewed the report on SEATS that was submitted to the Ad-Hoc Senior Committee and wanted to expand upon a few of the points listed in that document. The document covers eight topics and is listed in a 1 — 8 format. I will refer to the section as I make any additions or clarifications to points in that section. Let me know if you need any additional clarifications or would like me to attend one of the Ad-hoc meetings to answer questions. On July 1, 2013 Iowa City began a new contract for paratransit services. This contract resulted in a substantial shift in the funding mechanisms to provide the services. This resulting increase to the City of Iowa City transit operations budget necessitated changes to try and balance this increase. The changes that were adopted by City Council included bringing maintenance operations of the paratransit fleet in-house, eliminating Sunday service on December 31, 2013 and phasing out reduced fares with an increase from 50% to 75% on July 1, 2014 and from 75% to 100% on January 1, 2015. 1. Time of Service: Sunday service was provided by Iowa City until December 31, 2013. Prior to that change, services were provided from 8am — 2pm. Coralville terminated Sunday paratransit service on September 30, 2013. The average cost per ride on Sunday was roughly $37.00, $21.00 higher than the overall average cost per ride. 2. There is a reference to the fixed route discounted fare for seniors of $.50 per trip. This is offered during off-peak as required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for fixed route services. In addition, we offer free trips to disabled and senior riders that are low income. The fare for paratransit services provided by Johnson County SEATS is $2.00. FTA requires that paratransit fares not exceed 2X the fare for fixed route trips and does not require any discounted fares. This is due in large part to the difference in cost per trip. For Iowa City Transit, the average fixed route cost per trip is $2.76 while the cost per trip for Iowa City paratransit rides are roughly $16.00. Iowa City gave 12 months notice prior to phasing out the reduced fares. On July 1, 2014 reduced fares increased from 50% to 75% and will be completely phased out on December 31, 2014. Of the entities that contract with Johnson County SEATS, Iowa City was the only entity to offer a reduced fare. The estimated costs associated with providing the 50% discounted fare using FY14 ridership data are $90,000 per year while providing the 75% fare are estimated at $45,000. As the phasing for this did not begin until July 1, 2014, we cannot give actual numbers at this time. 3. The ridership data is for all of the service provided by Johnson County SEATS. 6. The cost to provide Iowa City service was $1.625 million in FY14. After subtracting out fares of $113,300, waiver payments of $91,100 and Johnson County contribution of $154,000, Iowa City paid $1.25 million for service in FY14. This represents an increase of nearly 28% ($272,000) from FY13. This does not included maintenance costs incurred by bringing the maintenance in house for the paratransit fleet. 7. Johnson County SEATS has a fleet of 24 vehicles. Previously distributed GE 19 Memorandum To: Ad Hoc Committee From: Jay Subject: Senior Center Draft Changes Date: September , 2014 I hope that I have faithfully written this out as it was approved at the meeting on September 3, 2014. Please keep in mind if there are mistakes that the old Irishman sometimes doesn't take as good of notes as he should. :C have done my best. Finally, I have double spaced the items in the draft that were changed in order that if anyone Hants additional changes you have space to write it in. Also, in my haste to present the suggestions in bold at the last meeting, I forgot to include the information that I would delete to shorten the draft review. I have not included my ideas on deletions in this draft and simply have copies what was in the original. The proposed draft starts on the next page accompanying this memo. I have underlined what I believe we agreed are the changes. Because my computer skills are limited and the time constraints, I have simply copied some of the draft on the zerox and pasted them in this memo. I Prev L stributed SECOND ®RAFT Senior Center Subcommittee Report To t{ie Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee BA) Part 1: Evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, and recent accomplishments of the Senior Center as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report. The Senior Center is the central resource for ouality programs and services that promote optimal aging for seniors in the Ionia City community. The Center's programs promote active aging in seniors at a consistently high level As noted in the Accreditation Report of the National Council of the Aging National Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its vision and mission statements and serves as a model for senior centers. Vision Statement: "To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging." (p. 5 Annual Report) Mission Statement: "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth. (p. 5, Program Guide) People: Center Staff: Six full time, 2 part time. All covered by union contract except coordinator. Center volunteers donated 29,300 hours towards the operation of the Center in 2013, Number of members: Current members: 1592 persons. The Center's participants are primarily older adults who are physically and mentally'able The small staff is not trained or large enough to provide ersonal services for individuals who need assistance. Many of the Center's participants disabilities use walkers scooters canes, and other durable medical equipment while at the Center. Typicall these individuals participate in passive classes and use exercise equipment that are designed for them. Other activities that they engage in include cards music performances readina newspapers social.izi.nct_many classes, aoing to support groups, and seeking counseling The Alzheimer's Association Caregiver's Support Group does meet monthly at the Center. Additionally, the Visiting Nurses offices at the Center provides health screenings regularly. 2 PAGE 21 There are many Programs recommended to assist frail elderly and homebound individuals that the Center could adopt but these programs would require additional staff. And further the additional staff would need to be professionally trained individuals. This additional staff would require additional funding that is not expected to be available in the future. Membership Dues Annually : Iowa City $33, second household member $20. Johnson County including cities $60., $33, non -Johnson County $96. The scholarships for low income $10 upon request. Number of members: Current members: 1592 persons It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the number of people who attend the Center who are not members. Antidotally reviews of attendance at special events by non-members is often large. Many activities and programs at the Center are available for and are attended by non-members. In the Fall Program Guide for the Center there are one hundred twenty seven (127) different classes programs activities and special events listed Of these sixty four (64) are open to the public and membership is not required 126,126 visits to the Center occurred in fiscal year 2013. Most of the non-members are not included in this figure. Additionally the Center participates in many city wide events in the downtown area. -Based upon findings from the June 2013 senior center survey, between 94% and 96% of current senior center members indicated that they are well satisfied with the program options they choose. In written comments people praised the fitness facilities, parking, library, and wireless access. One person cited "a nice variety of classes, programs", and another said, "Events I attended and services I've used have been well run, people professional, and friendly" (page 24 of Survey Report) Many persons reported high satisfaction with the senior center staff and programming during the public comment periods of the Ad Hoc Committee. Many of the comments spoke to the opportunities the senior center presents for older adults to socialize and become better connected to the community. The Xowa City/Johnson County Senior_. Center is the ONLY nationally accredited senior center in the state of Xova. According to the National Council on Aging, the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center is among the top senior centers in the country. In November. 2012, the Center received national accreditation for the second time. The Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center is the only senior center in the state PAGE 22 of Iowa to earn national accreditation by the National Council of Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers; and one of only 200 accredited senior centers in the USA (out of 31,000 senior centers). The Senior Center is in the top two percent of senior centers nationally. The Center was assessed as having met national standards of excellence in all 9 areas: Programming and planning Program development and implementation Governance Fiscal and asset responsibility Evaluation of center operations Community connections Records and reports The national review committee considers the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center a model for the country. Their evaluation highlighted areas in which the committee was particularly impressed including: ® Multiple collaborations with community partners ® Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization 6 Excellent volunteer handbook ® Excellent expansion of building hours through volunteer ® Exceptional program guide featuring a remarkable collection of interesting and diverse activities ® Impressive stewardship of a historic building The national review committee members' accreditation letter contains the following suggestions. The senior center's response to the suggestion is included in parentheses: ,6 Development of long term outcome measures: (Note; The 2013 senior center survey included questions about outcomes of participating in center activities) ® Pay staff to keep the facility open week -ends and evenings: (Note the senior center director has requested additional staffing) B Develop a new paid volunteer coordinator position to administer and focus on this important human asset: (Note: The senior center coordinator has requested additional staffing) ® Investigate liability insurance for directors: (Note. The Friends of the Center discussed this and decided that insurance was not necessary because the funds run through the Community Foundation, which greatly lowers the risk of.financial misdeeds) ® Investigate an updated electronic system for participant and program records: (Note: a new system has been implemented) e Discuss with City Attorney re: release of participant information El K%k"13 Review and monitor and revise lease agreements for the kitchen area use. (This is under review. Elder Services Agency has moved their meal preparation to North Liberty is no longer using the kitchen In the senior center on a daily basis.) The subcommittee agrees with the assessment of the Senior Center delivered by the National Accreditation Committee: The Senior Center is providing excellent programming to the area and is using resources effectively. The small number of highly motivated and qualified staff members are able to recruit, retain, and engage a large number of member's, volunteet's;;ai d general community members. 'file subcommittee evaluation of the Iowa City/Johnson County Set'ilorCenter = A+. 8A. PART 2; To review the current dem' ''aphic� oi' participant`s:.served by existing operations. Such 6`Oluation shoulr 'i:d6" sider the 2013 Senlor Survey of Members, [:owner Member's nil;NonMemb.er , as well as other available 0. data sources from the Senior C.", arid;;determl ... ether segments of the senior populatiowdi`;e;not accessjng avai(ab_le.sery c"es . In lune of 2013, 30006 ways were fi (Hed to ctirkonk iYi'embers,`f -.6yer members, friends of the center, and other Individuals AA.Johnson Go:imty addrass:;who were on the Senior Center's Program Guide mailing list. (The Program G'iiitfe,is aajolti9tional and:!fformational document that includes descriptions of classes, ;gro.Upsjyolunteer opjortjSjeiformance roups, special events, free professional services,.ii'aiiersfiip`opjortun(tie's'aiid, mombe'r'slii}i,>,eti fits•) Of the 3,000 mailed surveys, 1,092 were co rij feted and re It 6 for a'teSponse rate of 35%. The 56-pa0`6e),ort (which Ill (ii de suirve'y;fnstrument) can be found at: Respondents: Most off)e,resltorf;lents reported living in Iowa City: 76% live in Iowa City, 10% in Coralville, 9Y6 on unhicorporate;i Johnson County and 2 percent (each) In: North Liberty, University Heights, and "other." Most respondents were women, white, and between the ages of 60-79. Half the respondents had earned a graduate or professional degree and half lived in a household with an annual income of at least $50,000. Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of the senior center survey respondents to the Iowa City population. r "fable I. Comparison of Senior Center Survey Respondents and Iowa City , = American Commti Accessed from the U.S. for'lowa City (includes UI students). 1�1�,.a �.rr❑e iovra �itv area is sma11 Also, although ttie iumber of,614r adult minorities In Iowa City is small, there is room for greater racial and ethnic (OV69fty adiblig Senior Center members (there are no data on the number of persons from minority gr6'0*Wvaho use the senior center, but who are not members who responded to the survey). The Senior Center is aware of this and has taken action, The following is an excerpt from the Senior Center's Survey report: Expanding the diversity of the membership was Included as a primary goal In The Center's 2010- 2015 Mission Statement and Goals, The Steering Council mut Membership, Program, and Community Outreach Working Committees have been working with staff to address Issues related to diversity anti sponsoring programs to promote multiculturalism and bring new groups Into The Center. Recently a new working committee was formed that will focus Its attention on diversityissues exclusively (page 23). Survey Respondents Iowa City (Census Bureau *) Age Group Age 50+ 1,092 Age 55t 14,138 50-59 By. 55-59 2,966 21% of ss+ 60-79 68% 60-74 5,484 39% 80-89 21% 75-84 4,695 33% 90+ 3% 85a 993 7% Race White 97% Sd%;(all ages -includes university students} Black African American <1% :;56ages) Asian <1% "7% (afl`ges) American Indian 1% < 1% (all Hispanic Origin 19/ T5% (ail Educational level High school or some college 27% 41% -:,;:(of persons age25 t) Bachelor's degree27% 28%':. Graduate/Professional degree Annual Income"fa.. cotie" 11y Income" (all ages) 16%_ ;;.$25,000:::::.. 16% F::�-.":$20-49;000, 35°(0;3:?$25;-89,060`' 17% 2S5Q000+'°(0'" 1 $5000q.+ 67% , = American Commti Accessed from the U.S. for'lowa City (includes UI students). 1�1�,.a �.rr❑e iovra �itv area is sma11 Also, although ttie iumber of,614r adult minorities In Iowa City is small, there is room for greater racial and ethnic (OV69fty adiblig Senior Center members (there are no data on the number of persons from minority gr6'0*Wvaho use the senior center, but who are not members who responded to the survey). The Senior Center is aware of this and has taken action, The following is an excerpt from the Senior Center's Survey report: Expanding the diversity of the membership was Included as a primary goal In The Center's 2010- 2015 Mission Statement and Goals, The Steering Council mut Membership, Program, and Community Outreach Working Committees have been working with staff to address Issues related to diversity anti sponsoring programs to promote multiculturalism and bring new groups Into The Center. Recently a new working committee was formed that will focus Its attention on diversityissues exclusively (page 23). It should be noted that the senior center has been a community leader in terms of building awareness of unique challenges faced by older adult members of the l.Gt3T Community (Lesbian, Gay, 131 -sexual and Transgendered), through programming including classes, a film series, and a senior TV program hosted by an older adult. Being located next door to Ecumenical Towers (HUD apartment building) makes the senior center extremely convenient to the low Income older adults and petsons with disabilities who live there. The inside doorway that connects the Ecumenical Towers to the senior center allows tenants to avoid having to go outside In bad weather. Another I -IUD development, Capital Heights, is five blocks from the senior center. The extent to which residents ,qt">.apital Heights are using the senior center is not known, " --the end a Mercedes Bern—Klug, PhD, MSffG&26 Version 9-18-2014 Summary to be included in the report. (Full report in appendix) 8 A) PART 1: Evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, and recent accomplishments of the senior center as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report The Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa. The senior center's vision statement is: "To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging." Its mission statement is: "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth." We agree with the National Council on Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers' assessment that the senior center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and implementation. In addition, based on results from the 2013 current and former member survey (which also included nonmembers receiving mailings from the senior center) 95% of the 1,092 survey respondents indicated high satisfaction with the senior center. In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered, over 24,000 volunteer hours donated, and many persons also benefited from services delivered by other agencies, who are being provided space at the senior center, for example: Visiting Nurses Association, AARP Tax Aid, Elder Services Agency (nutrition site), volunteer lawyers organization, and English language learners. 8A. PART 2: To review the current demographics of participants served by existing operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Survey of Members, Former Members, and NonMembers, as well as other available data sources from the Senior Center and determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing available services. The senior center has 1,592 current members. Annual membership dues are $33 for a single person living in Iowa City. Reduced -cost memberships are available for older adults with low incomes. In addition to members, there are many other older adults and younger persons who benefit from the programming available through the senior center. People who participate in senior center activities are not required to disclose personal information. Participants are not asked to reveal their race, ethnicity, age, or gender, etc. Some demographic data are collected on occasion through membership surveys. The most recent membership survey was mailed to over 3,000 people in 2013 (current and former members as well as to people who have requested to be on the mailing list). Based on comparing the information from the 1,092 respondents with census data, the demographic profile of survey respondents was quite similar to the general population of elders, in terms of race, ethnicity, and income. The general elder population is somewhat older than the survey respondents, and were less likely to have earned a four year college degree. PAGE 27 The Center staff consists of a Coordinator, program specialist, community outreach specialist, operations assistant, two maintenance workers, two part time receptionists, and one part time temp video specialist. Staff is assisted by the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Committee composed of seniors who volunteer to work on various committees. The staff of the Center performs well but is not capable of serving seniors with moderate cognitive impairment or who are in need of other forms of personal assistance. To do so would require additional staff. Senior center staff and volunteers continue to actively seek greater participation from ethnically and racially diverse older adults. They should a,lsoConsidering developing efforts to reach out to older adults with less than a college degree The fees for participants in the Center are reasonable but consid6 11ng future budget constraints a review of fees should be considered. Scholarships for persons wiffilow incomes should be continued. The committee concludes that the senior, center is using its resources'well as it work's=toward fulfilling its mission. --end Memorandum To: Ad Hoc Committee From: Jay Subject: Target Population Date: September 16, 2014 PAGE 28 A thought. Should we be thinking in terms of the target population of the Center and the agencies in our report. In general the target population is seniors, but looking at some of the agencies, I think their target population is not that broad. I note that Section "B" of the charge to the committee, contains wording "regarding the specific segments of the senior population that they are intended to serve." With this in mind some thoughts. 1. Hospice: target population is primarily seniors who are not well and need in home care, many in the final months of their lives. Hospice definitely serves a different group of seniors then the other agencies and the Center. Based upon reports and experiences with individual who have had Hospice care, I believe Hospice accomplishes its goal of serving its target population. I am not informed as to how the budget of Hospice is funded but I believe that a great deal of its budget is donations from the community. I believe that within budget constraints of Iowa City, funds should be granted to Hospice if requested. 2. Seats: target population seniors, disabled, and elderly that need transportation for various trips in the Iowa City community. Although, Seats does not keep numbers of seniors or disabled that use the program, I believe looking at the number of daily trips and the comments that I have heard from individuals, Seats serves its target population well. Seats budget is funded primarily by tax dollars supplemented by fares. This is an important service and should continue to be funded at least on the present level. 3. Shelter House: its target population is primarily for individuals who need temporary shelter. My report shows that Shelter House does not serve a large number of seniors. When seniors do need temporary shelter, Shelter House does perform well. Its budget is large and primarily funded by federal dollars. I believe it does serve its target population well. 4. Visiting Nurses Association: its target population includes both seniors and non -seniors. My review and personal experience indicates to me that it serves seniors and the rest of its target population well. Its hours and programs at the Senior Center make much needed services available to seniors. Most of the budget of the Visiting Nurses Association comes from charges to Medicare and Medicaid and fee charges for services. PAGE 29 Because of Medicare and Medicaid the VNA may not need financial support from Iowa City. 5. Elder Services: Its target population is primarily seniors. I assume they also serve disabled seniors. Those programs that I am familiar with are well run. Although I do have a minor concern regarding the dining program. It is my understanding that they serve other counties other than Johnson County. As to their budget while quite large, I am not clear the extent of Heritage's financial contribution and the only report I have does not identify the sources of their funding although some must come from the charges for meals. I think this program should be supported but I would like to know the sources of the funding listed in their budget. 6. Free Medical Clinic: its target population is individuals who cannot afford medical expenses. Although I would expect that some seniors use this service, I do not think that seniors are the primary target population of this program. It is my understanding that the individuals who use this program find it noteworthy but I do not believe it is a program that we should report on. I have no idea of its budget or its funding. 7. MECCA: its target population is individuals who have problems with alcohol or substance abuse. Again I would expect that some seniors use this service, but I do not think that seniors are the primary target population of this program. I have no personal knowledge of its success rate or its budget or its funding. I do not believe that this is a program that we should report on. 8. Johnson County Livable Communities: target population is clearly seniors in the community. As I understand it their primary function it is to inform seniors of the various opportunities for seniors in the community and to hold forums for input to assist seniors etc.. I cannot judge the effectiveness of this program. I understand that the funding comes from Johnson County. I do not recall their budget but I believe it is relatively small. 9. Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center: target population primarily active seniors some of whom have disabilities which still allow them to benefit at the Center. It does not include individuals with advanced dementia or cognitive impairment. The National Council on Senior Centers Accreditation Report states that the Center is meeting its goals for its target population. Further we have heard at our meeting members of this target population expressing their support for the Center. The Center has work to do to increase the diversity of its participants at the Center. The cost to run the Center is a concern but it is difficult to put a cost benefit on human PAGE 30 services. Additional funding from sources other than the City should be sought but the City, in my opinion, should continue to support the Center financially. PAGE 31 Memo To: Ad Hoc Committee From: Jay Subject: Preliminary Draft of Final Report Date: September 21, 2014 As I promised Joe, I have started on a preliminary draft of the final report so we can have something to work from. I have tried to put the draft in a form that Joe and Jane have suggested. I have had a lot of problems figuring out just how to handle the second part of our charge regarding the service other than the Senior Center. I submit this draft as a starting point particularly on the agencies part. I am not sure we want to put in short notes about the agencies but I put some in for the committee's thoughts and suggestions. Also, as set out in one of the footnotes, I have to make some more calls to get more information about the total funding of the agencies that we may want to include. I do think the size of the funding is interesting. 1 PAGE 32 REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and City of Iowa City, Iowa. From: Ad Hoc Committee on Senior Services. Subject: Report of the Committee. Date: November , 2014. The Ad Hoc Committee Chair Joseph Younker, vice chair Jane Dohrman, members Mercedes Bern -Klug, Ellen Cannon, Richard Dobyns, Jay Honohan, and Rick Weber, staff Marian Karr and Geof Fruhn, convened on May 5, 2014. The Committee's charge was as follows: A. To evaluate the current vision, mission, and programing, and recent accomplishments of the Senior Center, as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report. Further, and to review the current demographics of the participants served by the Senior Center Survey of Members, Former Members, as well as other available data resources from the Senior Center, and determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing available services. A summary of this committee evaluation and its final related findings shall be included in the final written report to the City Council. B. To make recommendations to the City Council on how Iowa City should use current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of Iowa City seniors. These recommendations should consider the City's use of existing resources and the vision, mission, and programming required to more effectively serve the growing senior population in the community in accordance with the inclusive and sustainable values expressed in the City's Strategic Plan. Such recommendations shall include commentary regarding the specific segments of the senior population that they intend to serve. C. To identify any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that would minimize or eliminate such obstacles. The committee adopted a meeting format as follows: 1. CALL TO ORDER 2, CONSIDER MOTION TO ADOPT CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED. a) Minutes b) Correspondence 3. DISCUSSION BY THE COMMITTEE ON SELECTED ITEMS 4, REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE LOCAL AGENCIES 5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA) Public comment at the meetings of the Committee was extensive relating to the Committee's responsibilities, the Senior Center, and other agencies serving seniors. 2 PAGE 33 In addressing its charge regarding the Senior Center, the committee as a whole held a meeting at the Senior Center for staff presentations on the operation of the Center. Committee members also toured the Center. As part of the review of existing resources, committee members individually chose agencies to report on to the full committee. The committee appointed Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rich Weber, and Jay Honohan as a subcommittee to draft a report on the Center. The subcommittee submitted a draft report on August 18, 2014 which draft was reviewed by the committee. A copy of the full report as revised and approved is attached to this report identified as exhibit "A". In both the full report and this report we have broken down the charge to specific points. Evaluate the current vision, mission, and programing, and recent accomplishments of the Senior Center, as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report. i The Senior Center is the primary resource for quality programs and services that promote optimal aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's programs promote active aging in seniors at a consistently high level. The Center achieves its vision, "to be the communities primary resource for the highest quality, programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging." i The Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa. The Committee agrees with the National Council on Aging's assessment that the Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and implementation. In addition, results from the 2013 survey and the comments from members during the committee meetings indicate high satisfaction with the center. i In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center and . Volunteers donated 24,400 hours towards the operation. Person benefited from services offered by other agencies at the Center, including Visiting Nurses Association, AARP Tax Aid, Elder Services Agency, volunteer lawyers, counseling, and English language learners. To review the current demographics of the participants served by the Senior Center Survey of members, former members, as well as other available data resources from the Senior Center, and determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing available services. i Currently the Center has 1592 members. Membership dues are $33 for a single Iowa City resident. Non Iowa City fees are higher. Scholarship fees are $10 for low income seniors. In addition to the members many older adults and younger benefit from programs. i The Center staff consists of the Coordinator, program and community outreach specialists, operations assistant, two 3 PAGE 34 maintenance workers and three part time staff assisted by the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Committee, and senior volunteers. The staff does not serve seniors with advanced dementia and cognitive impairment which would require additional trained staff and funding is not expected to be available. i The fees for participants in the Center are reasonable but considering future budget constraints a review of fees and other ways to assist in the funding of the Center should be considered by the Senior Center Commission and Steering Committee. Scholarships for low income should be continued and encouraged. i Diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, Steering Council, and the staff and efforts are being made to increase diversity. The pool of seniors who black, Hispanic, and Asian is small. To make recommendations to the City Council on how Iowa City should use current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of lova City seniors. i In the Iowa City Community there are ninety one (91) senior services providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen (18). Of these twenty three (23) are governmental, thirty (30) are for profit, and fifty six (56) are non profit. Forty (40) providers do not charge, thirty six (36) fees are paid by medicare and medicaid. Seventy five (75) are paid through private pay and private insurance. Financial aid is available with twenty (20) providers.' i The committee reviewed the following agencies that serve seniors in the Iowa City Community: a) Elder Services b) Heritage Agency c) Johnson County Livable Communities d) Shelter House e) Pathways f) Consultation of Religious Communities g) Free Medical Clinic h) Johnson County Mental Health i) Visiting Nurses Association j) Compeer h) Hospice i) Seats j) Hispanic Community i Not including the funding of the Senior Center during the fiscal year 2014 in excess of 6 million dollars was expended for senior services in the Iowa City. Approximately 3.5 million comes from Federal, State, and City funding. Fees for services are over 1.5 million. Grants .75 million, and donations over 600 thousand dollars .2 i Iowa City funds senior services including the Senior Center at i Many agencies served seniors exclusively. Other agencies include seniors but not primarily. Overall the services provided seniors in the Iowa City community is quite good. Source: Johnson County Livable Community and HAAA Report. 2 These figures are approximate. Actually it is higher. I am working on getting more funding information and budgets of some agencies. Same for the city. .'7 PAGE 35 i The Committee concluded that some of the agencies listed above were not appropriate for this review and they have been omitted. we report on the following: i Elder Services: Serves seniors and the disabled. Its programs generally are well run. one of the major programs is the dining program. The dining program serves other counties other than Johnson County. Elder Services budget is substantial funded in part by the Heritage Agency on Aging, fees, and donations. i 1. Hospice: Serves seniors who are not well and need in home care, most in the final months of their lives. Based upon reports and experiences with individual who have had Hospice care, Hospice does serve seniors well and is an asset to the community. i Seats: Although, Seats does not tabulate the number of seniors or disabled that use the program, Seats serves the senior population well. Seats budget is funded primarily by tax dollars supplemented by fares. This is an important service and should continue to be funded at least on the present level. i 4. Visiting Nurses Association: The VNA serves seniors and non seniors with a valuable service. Its hours and programs at the Senior Center make much needed services available to seniors. Most of the budget of the Visiting Nurses Association comes from charges to Medicare and Medicaid and fee charges for services. Because of Medicare and Medicaid the VNA probably does not need financial support from Iowa City. i 8. Johnson County Livable Communities: The primary service is to inform seniors of the various opportunities for seniors in the community and to hold forums for input to assist seniors. Their funding comes from Johnson County and small donations. r PAGE 36 CITY OF IOWA CITY ' ,IN04 � MEMUK Date: September 22, 2014 To: Ad-Hoc Senior Services Committee From: Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager Re: Final Report Template At your last meeting, there was considerable discussion about the format and structure of the final report. Some questions were raised regarding City Council expectations for the report. In an effort to help guide your discussions in the coming meetings, I have drafted the attached final report template for your consideration. The template contains headings that I feel are appropriate given the City Council's charge to the committee. Please feel free to utilize this template, make edits, or disregard it and develop another approach. I am willing to help modify it and fill in text should that type of assistance be desired by the committee. Final Report to the City Council Submitted: 9/18/2014 ' r 1 CITY OF IOWA CITY PAGE 38 Table of Contents Ad-hoc Senior Services Committee........................................................................ 2 ExecutiveSummary................................................................................................ 3 Charge 1: Evaluation of the Senior Center.............................................................4 Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources.... ....................................................... 5 Charge 3: Obstacles to Serving the Senior Population ........................................... 6 Conclusion.............................................................................................................. 7 Appendices Page 1 PAGE 39 Ad-hoc Senior Services Committee Establishment of the Committee U. Committee Members Member Name Term Begins Tenn Ends Joe Younker -Chair 5/1/2014 121112014 Jay Honohan 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Mercedes Bern -Klug 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Hiram Richard Webber 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Ellen Cannon 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Jane Dohrmann 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Rick Dobyns 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 III. Enabling Resolution and Committee Charges IV, Meetings Conducted V. Conveyance of Report Page 2 PAGE 40 Executive Summary Committee's Approach II. Charge 1: Evaluation of Senior Center III. Charge 2: Financial & Physical Resources IV. Charge 3: Obstacles to Serving the Senior Population Page 3 PAGE 41 Charge 1: Evaluation of the Senior Center Description of the Senior Center (Any notable points of description for Council awareness) Key Conclusions o Areas of Excellence o Opportunities for Improvement o Data Gaps and Identification of Issues for Further Review / Study Page 4 PAGE 42 Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources I. Understanding of City Financials II. Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population III. General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population IV. Recommendations on Future use of City Tax Revenue o Distribution of Local Funding o Distribution of Federal Funding V. City Buildings o Senior Center Use by Members o Senior Center Use by Non -Members o Senior Center Use by Outside Agencies o Other City Buildings o Considerations for the Future Page 5 PAGE 43 Charge 3: Obstacles to Serving the Senior Population Populations not Accessing City Services II. Potential Reasons for Lack of Access (Cost, Transportation, Programming, etc.) III. Recommendations to Minimize Obstacles -- Page 6 PAGE 44 Conclusion Overview of Recommendations Presented in the Report -- Page 7 C9�I0i9CN�G9 I WIN w a Me I September 23, 2014 To the Ad Hoc Committee: ;?��:2b 62) You have heard from very many seniors their expressions of distress, worry and suspicion about the aims of the Committee, particularly of its outspoken member Dr. Dobyns. I believe I speak for more than myself to say we are deeply puzzled why an institution that enjoys such support and enthusiasm, locally, and nationally through accreditation, would be challenged with respect to its very existence. Iowa City is becoming a destination for retirees, and this is likely to increase as the boomers retire. Why is Iowa City so attractive? We must credit the University for making culture accessible. There is also excellent health care provided by the University, Mercy Hospital, town physicians, Iowa City Hospice and other agencies. And there is the Senior Center. Those of us who travel know that senior centers like this hardly exist, even in towns with large numbers of old and elderly. A new resident in Iowa City can be shown the 75 -page Program Guide and can be told that all the activities described therein can be found downtown in the beautiful historical Beaux Arts building that was formerly the Post Office. No, you don't have to go here, there, and somewhere else ... everything is there, and you can socialize as you learn or exercise or play an instrument or paint. Who are the "frail elderly" whom Dr. Dobyns regards as "neglected"? We can all identify the homebound, the bedridden and those who suffer dementia as "frail." I would like to suggest that frailty is a continuum on which all of us elderly have a place. I am 83 years old and probably count as an active person but there are many activities I cannot do as well, as fast or as skillfully as I once could. I see members in wheelchairs and with progressive Parkinson's as classmates, and among my closest associates at the Center I am aware of serious chronic illnesses and psychological challenges. We all share in some degree of frailty. What is important is that the cognitive stimulation, the physical exercise, the pleasure in art, music and poetry, and the human connections at the Senior Center are fortifying us against our limitations. The Iowa City Senior Center uniquely serves a broad elderly population, enabling it to be active and engaged, and contributes distinctively to making Iowa City an attractive community for people of all ages. As the song says, please cion'/ take my sunshine cmwy!" N 0 Respectfully, L -I Ina Loewenberg C=> 221 East College Street tt' T. 7 iV -, HAYEK, BROWN, MORELAND & SMITH, L.L.P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW WILL J. HAYEK (inn-im) 120 EAST WASHINGTON STREET JOHN W. HAYEK (1941.2014) IOWA CITY, IOWA 52240-3924 JOSEPH T. MORELAND TELEPHONE (3 38 337.9808 MATTHEW J. HAYEK FAX ALISON WERNER SMITH vAvv.Fahbv.hhb 336-7378 mlaw.com September 17, 2014 Ms. Mary Gravitt 2714 Wayne Avenue 46 Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Re: City Council Dear Ms. Gravitt: LAURA E. BERGUS DAVID N. SELMER OF COUNSEL: MARY KATE PILCHER HAYEK DAVID E. BROWN I am writing about the September 16 city council meeting. You are without a doubt the most regular speaker at our meetings, and in fact I worry when you are not in attendance. You comment on numerous topics. Sometimes I agree with you and sometimes I do not, but I always listen attentively to your comments. However, I was saddened by your attack on councilmember Rick Dobyns. It is one thing to criticize a city official. It is another to attack him personally, and that is what you did to Dr. Dobyns. He is a decent man who gives of his time to serve our community. He has a legitimate concern (frankly one that I share) about how we budget for senior -related services. Ms. Gravitt, I have considerable respect for you, something I cannot say about all community members who'speak at council meetings. But your comments on September 16 were unfair and crossed the line of basic decency. Sincerely, Ar Matthew J. Hayek MJH:ms ff n so ,Y aO bw i i I i v �- d atio1�0 v Y ; u ao AA vo oA'$q' o� ° roo ovv Nav p' O O O p 'd O g om a.0 ni C Vpp r��" 'C❑ v y .'rl V[ v g h yv v .i•i > V O "[ Ci v uvi N `++ id vii v bb O N Q y lV r H vN N Y V Ny C A ti •L+ roN f! Y If.V� YY fE tidi 3 �+ A 3° ��^ O 'N }may++ A HO ° p V m 0 , a+ 0 m H 'd C N V o W N a 'ao N 'S y V M a •'' b O O vi R. b'O AO A br. �j�'w u pa•cd p,p °U v •ate � .w , v' C) 9 H a x 3� o o wp 5 a�A vxa'row 5 Y O O LL ^� ,... C v .:? h •°: v p p 'd L7`d' rop w� u�b o° d v a a ap °rl a o N v > �td vi ••quCi� �,' .py YC. bo " gyp" 'b?� > �d �°qy� 'C' +�-1 q •� •'q N Y a+ w n 'v O v A O N W b M � N W M a�J ❑y f� v n 4 y M• w0C A O ao q N O N .Z v OG y ro v G � �� a� 0 � F ,�, •�, a .p v CL V ��q ❑NN o q�� � Q ' � n'a .� $ a� O 73" 3 u •iy y o 4 v o v i•� vn•+ .��. 0,0 y�++ ❑ v C vui CO w C �" ' U F v 'CJ v N iri W O �1 LL ad. %" y ry A v H H° F-, H G R, `J Fi iy • "" •3 ~ V N y ,. y y ; O N v v C. N Q W OIV ti v Ly bA bA fC.' v y A U W V U z.. O H P' O .y �y�+ ❑+ ,� .-� % v W 'D i; p 0 0� p v v '� pp b �� v 5 A N \O .moi O� ,--i L y p V vNi N y. ��!! z ...... _......... E SEPTEMBER 24, 2014 TO: AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE FROM: SHIRLEY LINDELL SUBJECT: SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT My name is Shirley Lindell. I am a proud member of the Senior Center and have been for about three years. Tai Chi got me in the door and since then I have participated in many of the activities and classes offered. At the present time, I am involved in Tai Chi, Zumba Gold, Mahjong, and Voices of Experience — twice a week for each. For me, these activities provide preventative medicine for the mind, body and spirit. The reason I'm speaking today is because when I came to the last meeting, I was first confused because I couldn't follow what was being considered as amendments to a draft that were being proposed by Jay because the documents weren't being shown for comparison. Then I became angry at the argumentative, condescending, arrogant, and dismissive behavior of Rick Dobyons towards Jay as he made his draft suggestions. It made me question the credibility of a doctor who presumably specializes in geriatric patients, with such an attitude towards seniors. So instead of making my voice known at the time, I decided to become more informed about what was going on. I went back to the Senior Center and asked one of the staff to show me how to navigate through the IC web site to find the Resolution that started this whole thing and then read through what had transpired at previous meetings. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to become abundantly clear that the Senior Center could not have attained the accreditation it has and be in the top 2% of senior centers in the nation without meeting their vision and mission statements. So it begged the question why was the SC being targeted when it is so well recognized and it is obvious that the money that the city provides is being put to extraordinary use by the excellent staff and voluminous volunteers, Is there a "hidden agenda" that may follow the golden rule — those who have the gold make the rules? I guess that is yet to be determined. One of the arguments during the last meeting had to do with the wording "primary source" in regard to the programs and services offered by the SC. It was voted to change the wording to "central source". In my opinion, that flies in the face of the Vision Statement of the SC which states, "it is to be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging". Even though the committee voted to change the wording, I don't think it should have been changed. Another argument at last meeting had to do with "quantifying" statements like "many" or "a lot" when talking about the number of non-members attending an event at the Center. As stated by one of the SC staff at the last meeting, usually a head count is made of those attending, but trying to make a count of members and non-members at these events would not be an appropriate use of time by either a volunteer or staff because it would mean having attendees sign in, signify whether or not they are members and then have that person take the time to verify that the person was or was not a member, so that the tabulation could be validated. "Bean counting" without a purpose except to satisfy some bureaucrats would certainly not be an effective use of time and personnel. When the band or chorus gives a concert in the assembly room and most of the seats are taken by members and non-members, I think it can be appropriately stated that "a lot" of people were in attendance. When members of the Voices of Experience collaborate with the community Family Folk Machine to present a free concert for the public, the Englert was full, so I think it's safe to say that "many "attended. This brings up another point that I don't think has here -to -for been raised and that is that "many" members of the SC "pay -it - forward "by going out in the community such as Care Facilities to provide concerts and visitations to the residents. In November members will be giving a program at the City Library to commemorate Veterans Day. This past Sunday, a Senior Center member formed a team to "Walk for Alzhimers" to raise money for that organization. The point is, yes, we use the many and diverse services offered at the SC, but we also volunteer our services in our areas of expertise, and many of us give back in a variety of ways to members and non- members of the Center as well as the IC community. If there is anything good that has come from this committee, it's that you have "rattled the cage" of those of us who have been more complacent about our highly valued Senior Center. Many have spoken eloquently about how the SC has affected their lives in a positive way. We may be older than most of you, but we have a lot of fight left in us and we are not going to stand still or be silent when it comes to the future of our Center. Thank you for listening.