HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-22-2014 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committeea r L
C1ty Df
IAN c
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, October 22, 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 10/15/14 (pages 2-24)
3. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS
a. Acceptance of Report Template Including Approved Sections
1) Initial Sections (pages 25-26)
2) Charge 1: Senior Center Evaluation (pages 27-28)
3) Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pages 29-32)
• Understanding of City Financials
• Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
• Recommendations Regarding Financial Resources
• Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources
b. Discussion of Charge 2: General Finds of Needs of the Senior Population
c. Discussion of Additional Proposed Charge 2 Recommendations
• Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann memo (page 33)
• Ad Hoc Member Bern -Klug (page 34)
• Ad Hoc Member Honohan (pages 35-39)
d. Discussion of Proposed Charge 3 Recommendations: Identify Obstacles
• Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann memo (pages 40-41)
e. Discussion of Remaining Report Sections
4. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
October 25, 8:00 AM (Saturday)
November 12, 3:30 PM (Wednesday)
November 14, 3:00 PM (Friday)
November 24. 3:30 PM (Monday)
Special meetings if needed
5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
6. 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 2
MINUTES DRAFT
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 15, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug (3:37 P.M.), Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay
Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon
Staff Present: Michelle Buhman, Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: Ito 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 10/01/14
b. Memo to Asst. City Mgr.: Follow-up from the October 1, 2014, Meeting
Dobyns moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Honohan seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Bern -Klug absent.
DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS:
Younker stated that his goal at today's meeting was to finalize their discussion on a. and b.
below and to then finalize the summary of the Senior Center Evaluation that will appear in their
written report to Council.
a. Initial Sections (pgs 19-21)
Beginning on page 19, Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt
the reformatted version of the initial sections as it appears. Dohrmann moved
to adopt the reformatted version of the initial section as it appears on page
19. Dobyns seconded the motion. The discussion began with Honohan noting
that he is opposed to this, and stated that he would like to make some motions
regarding this section. Honohan moved that `as summarized below' be
deleted and that they restore the entire two charges from the resolution, as
in the subcommittee's draft of 9/28/14. Webber seconded the motion.
Younker noted that the reason behind summarizing the charges was for brevity.
He added that the entire resolution can be included as an appendix to the report.
Honohan stated that the reason he is proposing they put them back in is that
there are some items they discussed, particularly in regards to diversity, which
are eliminated if this summary is used. Younker reminded Members that this is
the initial section they are discussing right now, part of the introduction. He
PAGE 3
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 2
added that he would not have an issue with making this change. The motion to
amend carried 6-0, Cannon absent.
Continuing on page 19, Honohan spoke to the paragraph beginning with 'Public
comment.' Honohan moved that they delete 'non-profit' from this section.
Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan noted that they have looked at profit
and non-profit earlier and clarified that this should read as 'local agencies
providing services to seniors.' Karr asked for clarification on which handout is
being referred to. Younker noted that to be consistent in their discussions they
would use Honohan's late handout entitled "Motions for meeting October 15...."
The motion to amend carried 6-0, Cannon absent.
Returning to the initial motion under this section, Members agreed that they
would adopt the initial sections as amended by Honohan's motions. The
original motion as amended carried 6-0, Cannon absent.
b. Acceptance of reformatted Charge 1: Senior Center Evaluation (pgs 22-26)
Younker then moved to the proposed changes beginning on page 22. He stated
that he would entertain a motion to accept the reformatted Charge 1 summary,
which begins on page 22 of the Committee packet. Dohrmann moved to
accept the reformatted Charge 1 summary, beginning on page 22 of the
Committee packet. Dobyns seconded the motion.
Bern -Klug began the discussion, asking if the changes were mostly editing or if
the substance of the material was changed. Younker stated that the intent was
to reformat what had already been prepared to make it fit into the template better.
He stated that he did edit the summary to some degree for brevity, noting that the
entire evaluation and resolution will be part of the appendix that will accompany
the report. Honohan stated that he has some proposed changes and stated his
memo referred to the page numbers of the crossed out / redlined version and
would be referring to them for the remaining amendments. On page 24 —
beginning with the sentence that says 'A copy of the full evaluation is attached to
this report.' Honohan moved that they delete the word 'issues' and replace
it with 'items.' He stated he does this because the term 'issues' is a combative
term, and 'items' is a better alternative here.
Continuing on page 24, Honohan stated that he would move to bring back
the word 'primary,' before 'central' on the first bullet under 'Areas of
Excellence.' He believes the Senior Center is the primary central resource for
quality programs and services that promote optimal aging. Younker stated that
he believes they had this discussion previously, and that this change was made
to track the language that comes out of the written evaluation. Honohan stated
that they deleted primary and left only central, and that he is saying both need to
be included. Younker stated that what they are discussing is what was already
approved by the Committee in the original written report.
Continuing with his proposed amendments, Honohan noted that on the first
bullet point on page 24, where it says 'accordingly,' he would move to put
in the words 'The Committee agrees with the accreditation report of the
National Institute on Aging that the Center accomplishes its Vision
PAGE 4
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 3
Mission.' Moving to the second bullet, Honohan stated that he would move to
restore the deleted lines, and would add 'The Committee agrees with the...,'
delete 'accordingly' and 'the' and replace it with 'that.' Bern -Klug asked if
there is any way they could not focus on this right now, as she has not had time
to read the late handout. Younker stated that no one has had the time as they
just received it. He added that what he would like to do is to get through Charge
1 today. Honohan apologized for not getting the handout to Members sooner.
Bern -Klug stated that she thought that perhaps they could focus on what was in
the packet and give everyone a chance to read this late handout before they
continue with the discussion. Younker stated that he believes they can get
through Honohan's proposals fairly quickly.
Moving on to page 25, Honohan stated that he would move to restore the
charge as written in the subcommittee's draft of September 28, 2014. Under
the third bullet, Honohan moved to add'SHIPP, and Honoring Your Wishes,'
as well as 'The Center staff is responsible for coordinating these programs,
organizing registration, appointments, in addition to organizing
volunteers.' Continuing on page 25, Honohan moved to restore the charge
as set out in the subcommittee's report of September 28, 2014. Honohan
moved to restore the bullet points regarding members and staff as set out
in the subcommittee's report of September 28, 2014. Honohan moved to
add to the bullet on 'staff' the following: However the Center does serve
seniors who have disabilities and limited cognitive impairment.' Honohan
moved to delete the last two bullet points on page 25. Honohan would add
to the bullet beginning with 'Ethnic' the following: The pool of seniors who
are black, Hispanic, and Asian is small.' Honohan noted that on this one he
simply got confused and thus deleted it. Honohan moved that also on C he
would delete 'issues' and replace it with 'matters.' On page 26, Honohan
moved to delete the word 'should,' and replace it with 'is,' on the first bullet
point, as he believes the staff is already doing this. Bern -Klug stated that
perhaps they should take 'should' out and say that the staff 'is continuing.'
Honohan agreed with this change.
Younker reiterated that the changes that were made were basically in the name
of brevity for the introduction portion of the report, and that the entire evaluation
will be passed on to Council for their review. He added that he does not have
any particular resistance to any of Honohan's motions regarding page 24. He
stated he would entertain a motion to amend the pending motion to include Jay's
suggested revisions under his heading 'page 24.' Honohan moved to amend
the pending motion with his suggested revisions under the heading 'page
24.' Dobyns seconded the motion. Members then began to discuss
Honohan's proposals, with Dobyns stating that he thinks some of this is word
play and that he would not vote to use the word 'primary' here for all the same
reasons he initially deliberated. Honohan further clarified his motion to delete the
word 'accordingly' and add his proposed sentence here. Some confusion was
noted over the word being 'according' on the other version. The motion for
adopting amendments on page 24 carried 5-1; Dobyns in the negative and
Cannon absent.
PAGE 5
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 4
Younker asked for a friendly amendment to the pending motion to include
Honohan's page 25 suggested revisions. After some discussion and clarification,
it was decided that the next motion would be for Honohan's amendments to
pages 25 and 26. Honohan moved to adopt said amendments for pages 25
and 26. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan reiterated the changes he is
proposing here and why, giving Members further background on his reasoning.
Dobyns asked the Chair if they could vote on these one by one, as it is getting
confusing. Dohrmann agreed that it probably would be easier on this page to do
them one by one.
Younker stated that they would then move to the first motion on page 25. Karr
reminded Members that what they have on the floor is pages 25 and 26.
Honohan agreed to withdraw his motion, and Shaw agreed to withdraw his
second. Moving forward to 4a, Honohan moved that the third bullet, top of
page 4, to add 'SHIPP, Honoring Your Wishes,' and his proposed sentence
as stated. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0,
Cannon absent.
Honohan next moved to restore the charge as set out in the
subcommittee's report of September 28, 2014. Webber seconded the
motion. Younker briefly explained, again, why he deleted the full text of the
charge in this section. Honohan stated that he believes they need to keep
reminding the Council of what the Committee was told to do. The motion failed
3-3; Dobyns, Dohrmann, and Younker in the negative and Cannon absent.
Honohan moved to restore the bullets on'staff' and 'membership' that have
been proposed to be deleted. Continuing, Honohan noted that he believes it is
important that the Council be reminded of the size of the membership at the
Center and also the staff. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion
carried 4-2; Dobyns and Younker in the negative and Cannon absent.
Honohan moved to add to the bullet on 'staff' the language, 'However the
Center does serve seniors who have disabilities and limited cognitive
impairment.' Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan further explained why
he believes this needs to be in here. The motion carried 5-1; Dobyns in the
negative and Cannon absent.
Honohan moved to add to the bullet beginning with 'Ethnic,' the words,
'The pool of seniors who are black, Hispanic, and Asian is small.' Younker
stated that by calling out these three ethnicities they seem to be limiting the
discussion of diversity to particular groups. Shaw stated that they could say all
diverse groups outside of what is the base population of the Midwest is small in
Iowa City and Chicago and elsewhere. Dohrmann stated that they need to be
very careful with this. Several members agreed that use of the word 'small'
suggests inconsequential. Bern -Klug and Honohan withdrew the motion.
Honohan moved to delete the last two bullet points on page 25. He briefly
explained why he now believes this is no longer necessary. Bern -Klug
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
PAGE 6
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 5
On page 25, Honohan moved to delete the word 'issues' and replace with
'matters' on Item C. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0;
Cannon absent.
Moving to page 26, Honohan moved to amend the first bullet by deleting the
word 'should' and replace with the word 'is.' He noted that the Center is
currently doing this so the 'should' is really incorrect. Dohrmann suggested 'is
being' and others suggested 'is continuing.' Members agreed that 'is
continuing' works, and Honohan agreed to this amendment to his motion.
Dobyns seconded the motion. After a brief discussion, Members realized that
the 'should' being replaced with 'is' was correct to begin with and Honohan
original motion stands. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
Going back to the original motion to adopt the reformatted Charge 1 as
amended, Younker took a roll call. The motion as amended carried 5-1;
Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent.
Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources
Younker noted that part of their charge here is to assess and make
recommendations on how Council should use current financial and physical
resources. As part of this, the Committee gathered information from various
agencies, both profit and non-profit, to assess the services being offered in the
community. Younker noted that they have approved in the template the first
three sections, beginning on page 27, dealing with understanding City financials.
This was done through things like the presentation from the City Finance
Director. In their review, Younker noted that they have attempted to determine
the needs of the senior population in Iowa City. Discussions were then held by
the Committee to review their findings.
1) Understanding of City Financials (pg 27) — Dobyns moved to adopt
the Charge 2 background information as it begins on page 27 of the packet,
through page 29. Honohan seconded the motion. Discussion began with
Honohan stating that he believes this section is too long and too much
information is included. He stated that he believes they should continue the
bullet style format through this part of the report, as well. Honohan spoke to what
he believes needs to be in this portion of the report. He added that he believes
the Committee needs to review this section and come up with a much shorter
version. Bern -Klug stated that she is not sure that they have enough information
to say what the needs of the senior population really are. She believes the
Council needs to do an official survey to determine this information. She
believes the Committee needs to discuss this further, first of all, but that the
Council really needs to do a professional survey to ascertain this information.
Younker stated that he agrees that the information they have received is really
not enough to make this analysis, but that their recommendation could be that a
more formal analysis is needed. Younker added that he does believe Council
needs to know what information the Committee received from various agencies,
as well as public comment, regarding this issue.
Bern -Klug continued to share her concerns with this section, noting that the
vision is optimal aging, and the way this is written makes it sound like the Center
doesn't welcome or serve people that aren't healthy and active, and then
PAGE 7
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 6
therefore the other agencies help those who aren't healthy and active. She
stated that this is not how she understands things to be. Referring to the first
sentence on page 29, "The target population of the Center is active, healthy
seniors, to those who need help to maintain or improve function in their day-to-
day lives." Bern -Klug stated that this is not true. Dohrmann asked if they
shouldn't go through this page by page, as she has concerns about the length of
this section, as well as specific parts. Younker stated that he was hopeful to
avoid a line -by-line edit here. He stated that he would like to get a sense from
the Committee as a whole as to where they are with the document.
Younker noted that Honchan believes it to be too long. Bern -Klug stated she has
concerns about the general findings and needs section and added that she
believes they need a separate section that gives their recommendations, instead
of mixing the two in this section. Younker asked Bern -Klug if they should remove
the third section — general findings and needs of the senior population, and deal
with instead as recommendations. He asked if Bern -Klug would then be
comfortable with the first two sections. Bern -Klug stated that yes she would, but
that she is uncomfortable with the last paragraph on page 27 as well. She
pointed out the specific part dealing with property tax reform putting significant
pressures on the General Fund. She stated that this paragraph, while it may be
true, is not what she believes the Council asked them to focus on. She pointed
out that the charge talks about 'current resources.' This paragraph is speaking to
potential future cutbacks. Dobyns noted that this report from this Commission is
going to assist future Councils in developing future budgets. Therefore, the
future is what needs to be discussed, according to Dobyns. Bern -Klug
responded that she believes they need to be clear on their charge, and that the
charge is 'what is the current situation,' that it would make sense to pay some
attention to this paragraph. However, she believes the Committee has
dominated their meetings with the framing that the charge of this Committee is to
figure out how the City should deal with the upcoming cutbacks. She believes
that this is not their charge, and she asked for a clarification of their charge.
Younker read from the resolution establishing the Commission Charge B " ... that
the Committee is 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." He stated that the charge goes on to provide that "...these
recommendations should consider the City's use of existing resources, 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 strategic plan." Bern -Klug pointed out again that it states
'current' here. Discussion continued, with Younker providing more clarification of
what Charge B entails. Bern -Klug asked again what the City's budget is, the
amount, and that she asked this at a previous meeting as well. She stated that if
you look at the overall budget amount, the Senior Center portion is less than I%
of the overall budget. Karr and Fruin provided some background information on
the budget amounts. Fruin stated that the General Fund has total revenues of
$48 million.
Younker brought the discussion back to what they need to look at first. He stated
that if by agreeing to take up section 3 and the recommendation section, he
PAGE 8
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1S, 2014
Page 7
asked if there was consensus to at least agree on the background section as set
forth in sections 1 and 2. Dobyns called the question at this point. Honohan
noted that you have to have a vote on the call of the question when the Chair
does not declare it. Younker deferred to Karr at this point, and she noted that
this is not typically how they handle it. If a Member calls a question it ends it.
Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe they are done discussing this issue.
Dobyns suggested a second on the question. Dohrmann asked for some
clarification on what it is they are voting on, and it was noted that the call is to
end the discussion at this point and vote on the discussion. Dobyns stated that
he believes they should try to move this along. No second was given.
Honohan stated that with the concerns they have heard this evening, he believes
pages 27, 28, and 29 needs to be rethought. He volunteered to work on this,
stating that he would make sure that the Chair and Vice -Chair received his work
prior to Committee distribution. He wants to try to address his and Bern-Klug's
concerns, yet still capture what he believes this section is calling for. Younker
stated that he appreciates this, but he first wanted to review with Bern -Klug her
concerns. He suggested they deal with section 3 through recommendations, and
asked Bern -Klug if sections 1 and 2 are okay as written. She responded that in
#1 she wants to see the total General Funds budget listed so that it shows what
the Senior Center's portion of this is, which is 1 % of the General Fund. Bern -
Klug added that she wants to go back through this and make sure it is dealing
with what their process was. She stated that also okay on section 2 is where
they talk about which agencies they collected the most information from.
However, she does not believe they have come to an understanding of what the
needs of the senior population are. Younker then stated that he would entertain
a motion to accept sections 1 and 2. Karr stated that there is already a motion
on the floor to accept pages 27 through 29. Dobyns withdrew this original
motion. Honohan withdrew his second.
2) Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
(pg 28) — Dohrmann moved to accept sections 1 and 2, with the amendment
to add General Fund information and Senior Center information, per Bern-
Klug's recommendations. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan stated
that he believes they need to see these changes in writing before they vote them
in. The discussion turned to the last paragraph in section 1 and it being retained
in the report. Bern -Klug reiterated her concern with this paragraph, stating that
she believes it is not about the process of what the Committee did to arrive at
their recommendations. The motion carried 4-2; Bern -Klug and Honohan in
the negative and Cannon absent.
3) General Finds of Needs of the Senior Population (pgs 28-29) —
Younker then moved to discussion on part 3. He stated that he would entertain a
motion to approve this section. Dobyns moved to approve section 3 as
written. Dohrmann seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that she thought
they already discussed this section. Dohrmann stated that she agrees with Bern -
Klug, that they need to rework this section. Younker stated that he understands
Bern-Klug's point and that some of these issues can be addressed through
recommendations. However, he believes they need to have some conclusion
that tells Council what they learned from the investigation they did conduct.
PAGE 9
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 8
Bern -Klug asked if they can wait until they finish their process to see what it is
they do come up with. Younker suggested that he and Dohrmann prepare some
draft language for discussion at the next meeting. Honohan stated that they
need something to look at, that he agrees with Bern -Klug on this issue.
Dohrmann addressed the first sentence in this section, noting that the intent is
that it is a continuum. Dobyns withdrew his motion at this point.
4) Discussion of Proposed Charge 2 recommendations
*Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann (pgs 30-31)
Younker noted that he and Dohrmann worked on this portion of the draft, coming
up with 11 proposed recommendations for discussion. Bern -Klug then has a
proposal of five or six additional ones. Younker stated that he would like to
discuss each of these recommendations at this point, have a motion and a
second, and then a vote on each. He noted that seconding the motion does not
mean you agree or disagree with the recommendation, but that it allows the
Committee to discuss the issue at hand. They need to do this in order to move
forward with completing their report to Council.
# 1 - The City's General Fund funds the majority (approximately 70-75%)
of the Center's budget. City Staff expects that property tax reform will put
significant pressure on the General Fund in the coming years. In light of
this expectation, the Center should take steps to become more self-
sufficient. Specifically, the Center should engage in a dialogue with City
Staff to identify revenue sources to replace the expected decrease in
funds available from the General Fund. The dialogue should include a
discussion of reasonable and appropriate goals for identifying and
utilizing revenue sources.
Honohan moved to recommend this to Council. Dohrmann seconded the
motion. Discussion began with Honohan noting that the Center is an entity and
cannot speak for itself. Looking at the wording where it says the City staff shall
engage in a dialogue with the Center staff, Honohan stated that they always do
this. Fruin agreed that this does happen during the budget process. Bern -Klug
asked if they didn't vote this down at the last meeting. Younker stated that his
understanding around the discussion regarding the term 'cost recovery' was that
Dohrmann had talked about reframing the issue in terms of identifying revenue
sources. Dohrmann stated that she thought there were several concerns about
the term 'cost recovery' in their past discussions and that yes, she had suggested
reframing it in a different way.
Honohan stated that he does not like the word 'self-sufficient.' He added that the
Senior Center will never be self-sufficient, that it is like other departments within
the City that will never become self-sufficient. Honohan stated that what he
would support on #1 are the first two sentences, along with the last sentence.
Bern -Klug asked if they are suggesting the Senior Center engage in a budget
process that would be different from the other City departments. Fruin stated
that if their financial projections come true, every department will be going
through a similar process. Bern -Klug reiterated that she wants to make sure the
process isn't one that singles out the Senior Center. Dohrmann stated that the
PAGE 10
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 9
intent behind this is to be proactive and look at other revenue sources for the
Center. Younker stated that a concern he has is if this Committee's
recommendations don't address budget concerns, and don't address and identify
additional revenue sources, that down the road the Center could be at a
disadvantage in future budget cycles. He added that departments that do have
these discussions upfront and make plans will be in a better position having
already planned for such cutbacks. Honohan stated that he agrees with Younker
in the context that they need to explore ways for the Center to increase their
revenue in order to make up for any upcoming shortfalls; however, he does not
like the language in this paragraph. He added that every draft that he has
submitted has had language like this, as did the subcommittee's report. Younker
noted that those were in response to Charge 1, and that now they are talking
about Charge 2, Recommendations for the Allocation and Use of Resources. He
then reviewed the two sentences that Honohan is taking issue with.
Fruin asked if he could make a suggestion at this point. He stated that in his
memo to the Committee, he noted that in the existing budget document that
Council has approved, there are performance measures. One of these for the
Center is a cost -recovery goal, which is stated as 25%, and to increase this
percent. Continuing, Fruin noted that what has not been done to date is to
articulate what this increase should be. He suggested that the recommendation
may be for staff to continue to look at the cost -recovery goal that they have set
and to more clearly articulate what that end goal is, as well as the road map on
how to reach this goal. Bern -Klug spoke to the last sentence, where it addresses
'appropriate goals,' adding that to her it insinuates that the current goal is
inappropriate. Fruin clarified what this statement might be alluding to, adding
that in three years they would like to see 30%, in five years this might change,
and that once the goals are articulated, there needs to be a plan on how the
Center would meet those goals. For example, increase fundraising, increase
membership fees, or increase rental opportunities, etc. Younker spoke to this, as
well, noting that the goal was to create a more formal approach to addressing the
issue. Bern -Klug added that another thing they do not know about this supposed
cutback is how the City plans to handle it. She stated that it is not a given that
the Center would be touched at all at this point. Younker stated that what this
recommendation would do, basically, is recommend that the staff and the Center
engage in a dialogue to deal with the expected decrease in revenue and to come
up with reasonable and appropriate goals. He added that he would leave it to the
discretion of the Center staff and City staff to determine what those reasonable
and appropriate goals would be. Fruin stated that one thing the Committee could
consider is to direct the process to take place, and also stipulate that such effort
should not result in a reduction of services offered by the Senior Center. If this is
a major concern for Members, Fruin stated that adding this wording should
alleviate their concerns. Discussion continued with Members voicing their
concerns over this section. Bern -Klug noted that even if they do not put this in
their recommendations, the City staff is still going to meet with Center staff to
review their budget and make whatever goals they see fit. Fruin added that to
have this process formalized it helps to set the wheels in motion in a very public
way to plan accordingly and to be prepared for those unplanned cuts down the
road. Younker stated that he has a concern with not including this as it may look
to Council like the Committee never even considered it. Bern -Klug stated that
PAGE 11
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 10
they could also recommend that the Council find other ways to make up any
funding shortfalls, instead of asking the Senior Center to take a cut.
Honohan stated that he would like to suggest that after the portion `after the
coming years,' to add 'The Committee recommends that the Senior Center
Commission and staff, and the City staff, continue to work on goals to identify
and utilize revenue sources,' and to then delete the rest of this paragraph. Karr
read the now amended recommendation. Honohan moved to make a friendly
amendment to his original motion, as discussed. Dohrmann agreed that
her second would stand on this motion. The motion carried as amended 5-
1; Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent.
Younker stated that he is overly optimistic that they can take the next three items
in one chunk.
# 2 - In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center
should consider implementing a sliding, income -based scale
regarding membership dues and activity fees.
# 3 - In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center
should consider formalizing its scholarship program.
# 4 - In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center
should assess opportunities to generate revenue through the
rental of meeting/gathering space.
He explained that the idea is to give three recommendations that might help the
Center achieve the goal in the first recommendation. These three
recommendations deal with implementing a sliding, income -based scale
regarding membership dues and activity fees; to consider formalizing the
Center's scholarship program; and to assess opportunities to generate revenue
through the rental of meeting and/or gathering space at the Center. Younker
noted that these are not specific in any nature, but merely recommendations to
consider as part of the process that the Committee is recommending in #1.
Honohan noted that he does not want to vote on these as one item. Honohan
moved #2 in order to begin discussion. Webber seconded the motion.
Honohan stated that he is opposed to implementing a sliding, income -based
scale regarding membership dues and activity fees, and believes this would be
very complicated. He also is against compelling people to report how much they
earn or do not earn. He stated that they have many people at the Center with
low incomes who do not like to be classified as such, and therefore he is against
#2 as it is written. Younker stated that he is aware of the Recreation Department
having such a sliding scale, income -based system, but that he doesn't have the
specifics on it. Fruin stated that there are discounts for programs, more so than
a scholarship, based on income levels. Dobyns asked Fruin if there are any
enterprise programs within the City that use cost -recovery methods and utilize a
sliding scale feature. Fruit stated that there are none he is aware of, but that they
do have scholarship programs. Bern -Klug stated that she believes the way the
amended motion that just passed was reworded puts the responsibility on
PAGE 12
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 11
generating ideas to the people who understand the options the best, that being
the Steering Committee, the Center staff, and the City. She thinks that this
Committee does not need to offer examples of this. Therefore, Bern -Klug does
not believe they need # 2, # 3, or # 4. Dohrmann asked for some clarification of
someone needing help covering an activity fee, for example. She asked if they
would have to have a personal discussion, versus just going online like they
would for a regular registration.
Younker asked Honohan at this point if the evaluation of the Center doesn't
mention adjusting membership dues, and Honohan stated that it does. Honohan
noted that at least one Commissioner has discussed with him about having
meetings with not only the Commission but also Center participants as a whole.
Honohan noted that they did this previously, the first time they initiated a
participant fee. They held public meetings at that time, where participants were
given the opportunity to voice their opinions. The vast majority did approve
enacting fees, and at one time there was even an offer that those over 85 years
of age did not have to pay a fee. Honohan shared that three participants stood
up and said they could pay the fee just like everyone else. Dohrmann stated that
she is fine with taking out # 3 and # 4 based upon what Bern -Klug stated.
Considering #2, Younker stated that he would like to go ahead and take a vote.
Motion failed 1-5; Younker in the positive and Cannon absent.
Younker then stated that he would entertain a motion for #3. Honohan moved
to recommend #3, recommending a formalization of the Center's
scholarship program. Dohrmann seconded the motion. Discussion began
with Honohan stating that they already have a formal policy for scholarships. He
added that he sees no need for this recommendation. Younker asked Senior
Center staff member Buhman to give them some information on the current
program. Buhman stated that in the program guide there are basic guidelines,
income -based. For instance, if someone is on the City discount for water, they
are automatically put on the Center's scholarship fund. This reduces the
membership to $10 regardless of the residential area that the person lives in.
Buhman noted that participants also get a 25% discount on programs that are
paid to independent contractors. This 25% is the amount the Senior Center
would normally take in, leaving the contractor their normal 75%. Also, any fees
that are paid to the Center for materials, Buhman noted these would be waived if
someone is on the scholarship program. She added that the person would need
to come to the Senior Center initially to let staff know they are on this program.
They are not asked for formal documentation, according to Buhman, that the
participant is taken at their word. Bern -Klug stated that to her it sounds like there
is a formal process in place already. She asked how they would word this
recommendation to reflect what the intention is of having the process of getting a
scholarship revisited. She asked what is really behind this recommendation.
Dohrmann stated that it would be to expand on the formal program, such as if
someone wanted to be able to register online. Buhman stated that if someone
asks to be put on the scholarship fund, they are. They have formal guidelines
that they follow, but participants are not forced to provide any documentation.
Staff considers it hard enough for a person to come and ask for this help, so they
don't force the person to prove their need. Bern -Klug asked if a recommendation
for the Steering Committee to reconsider how people apply for the scholarship
PAGE 13
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 12
program isn't needed, one that would minimize stigma or something to that
effect. Younker asked how the scholarship program at the Center differs from
other City programs that offer discounts. Fruin responded that there is a utility
bill discount program, a Transit discount program, a SEATS discount, and then a
Parks and Rec discount program. He stated that all of these require some sort of
documentation. Parks and Rec uses the school free and reduced lunch
guidelines, for example; whereas Transit and Water both use federal guidelines.
He added that the Senior Center's process is more informal than what the other
departments use.
Ina Lowenberg from the audience asked what the concern here is, if they are
worried about fraud. She asked if it isn't enough of a shame for many people just
the act of having to come and request the scholarship. She believes they should
not require documentation on top of that. Kathy Mitchell from the audience also
weighed in. She stated that some of the individuals who come in for scholarships
are homeless, and they come in to the Center to stay safe. She reiterated that
this is why many of these individuals are coming in for scholarships, that it is not
just individuals having some financial difficulties. Mitchell stated that she wants
the Committee to understand that these individuals have nothing, yet they can
come to the Center and be treated just like everyone else is. She added that this
is a very unique situation.
Younker asked Buhman if scholarship recipients have ever expressed concern
about the process used at the Center. Buhman responded that there has been a
concern with the conversation being done at the front desk as this is an open
space. The information being discussed is private and should not have to be
spoken of in this atmosphere. She noted that the receptionist and front desk staff
has been given permission to allow the scholarship process take place if Linda,
the Director, is not available. Once someone is put into the scholarship fund,
according to Buhman, there is a code in the database that automatically flags this
person as being on scholarship, thus eliminating that conversation again.
Honohan asked Buhman if she knows how many people, approximately, are on
the scholarship program. Buhman stated that it used to be at 10% some years
back. Honohan stated that the last time he checked it was at 11 %. Younker
then suggested that they go ahead and vote on the pending motion for #3. The
motion to adopt # 3 failed 0-6; Cannon absent.
Younker stated that he would now entertain a motion to approve
recommendation # 4. Honohan moved to approved recommendation # 4 in
order to begin discussion. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The discussion
began with Honohan stating that since he has been on the Senior Center
Commission, they have always had the opportunity to rent space at the Center.
He added that rentals are negligible in his opinion. He asked Fruin and Buhman
if they agreed. Younker asked Honohan how the Center has explored generating
revenue through rentals, and Honohan stated that they have submitted to the
Legal department a proposal to allow alcohol, limited, in the assembly room and
other meeting rooms. He added that he has not heard back from Legal on this.
Honohan stated that he does not anticipate that this would raise a lot of revenue.
Their proposal is to limit it to 501(c)3 corporations so that they can get an idea of
PAGE 14
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 13
how it would operate. Younker asked if allowing rentals to other entities has
been explored, and Honohan replied that they want to start out slowly to see how
things work out. Younker then called a vote on approving recommendation #4.
The motion carried 4-1; Honohan in the negative, and Bern -Klug and
Cannon absent.
Younker then called for a motion to approve recommendation #5.
# 5 - The Committee understands that the City is in the process of
assessing how it prioritizes the distribution of certain federal, state, and
local funds among various social service agencies. Through that the
process, the City should identify the needs of seniors — especially needs
relating to issues concerning food and supportive services that allow
people to remain safely in their homes for as long as possible (e.g.,
Pathways Adult Day Health Center & Elder Services) — as being in the
highest prioritization category.
Honohan moved to approved recommendation #5. Webber seconded the
motion. Bern -Klug stated that she believes they should be talking specifically
about the needs of older adults without the means to pay for these services. She
added that she is assuming that that is where the money goes. The Aid to
Agency money, for example, Bern -Klug asked if this is justified based on
covering the expenses for those who cannot afford the services, or if it has
nothing to do with the low-income population that these agencies serve. Fruin
responded that it is indeed targeted to low-income. Bern -Klug stated that that
should be in this recommendation then. Dohrmann noted that the City uses the
United Way application process for those funds. She also stated that the intent
behind this recommendation was to address the hierarchy of needs, food and
shelter, while allowing people to stay in their homes for as long as possible, with
supportive services, and that this be placed in a high prioritization category rather
than a medium, where it stands currently. Honohan asked if they shouldn't add
'low-income seniors' to this paragraph. In line 3, Honohan suggested it read
'...the needs of low income seniors — especially...' and others agreed. Honohan
moved to make a friendly amendment to add `low income' prior to seniors
on line 3. Webber agreed to amend this with his original second. Bern -Klug
stated that her concern with this is if they are saying they want seniors in the
highest priority level, it is going to knock somebody else off the higher priority.
She stated that some of the highest priority level are based on age, but some are
based on need, so older adults fit into this as well. She thinks they need to be
reminded of who is already in the priority, and is there a limited number of groups
that can be in the higher priority. Fruin stated that the new process will not look
like the process they are currently using. He further explained where HUD, the
federal agency that governs these dollars, is moving with their philosophy. They
believe if you don't spread it out so thin, you can have a larger impact in
whatever the top need or needs are. Fruin stated that of the half dozen or so
high priorities currently existing, he would expect this to drop down, and he
agreed that if seniors were given a higher priority, something else would have to
be bumped down. Bern -Klug continued the conversation, noting that one of the
high priorities is housing, which would mean regardless of age. Fruin noted that
2014 was the end for their five-year plan, and they are currently working on the
PAGE 15
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 14
new five-year plan for 2015 and beyond. He added that this has not been
presented yet to the Council for their review. Younker gave some clarity to this
issue, noting that it is referring to low-income seniors. He then called for a vote.
The motion to adopt # 5 as amended carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
Younker then called for a motion to approve recommendation #6.
# 6 - Maintain the current location of the Center.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #6. Bern -Klug seconded the
motion. Discussion began with Dobyns stating that he will be voting no on this
as he believes the rule of unintended consequences plays out. He believes the
programs of the Senior Center are excellent, as are the professional staff there.
He believes these need to be the primary goals going forward. He does not
believe they should wed the Senior Center staff and Commission to this decision.
Bern -Klug stated that she believes they can recommend the Center stay in its
current location, that this does not mean the Council has to accept it. Younker
then called for a vote. The motion carried 5-1; Dobyns in the negative and
Cannon absent.
Moving to recommendation # 7.
# 7 - The Senior Center Commission and Center Staff, in coordination
with the City, should seek increased funding from Johnson County. This
process should include seeking opportunities to share programs for
seniors in other nearby communities as justification for increased funding
at the County level.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #7. Webber seconded the
motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that he likes the motion, but
that he does not think they will get the Board of Supervisors to raise their
contribution to the Center. He added that they are now down to $59,000.
Dobyns asked Honohan if he thinks the Center should not seek changes to work
with other jurisdictions within the County on this issue. Honohan responded that
he has attended meetings, both with the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors, and also to North Liberty's Council, trying to secure more funding, to
no avail.
Dobyns suggested the possibility for a lack of collaboration is why these
jurisdictions don't work with the Senior Center currently. Honohan stated that he
disagrees with this. He reiterated that they do this every year at budget time,
waiting to see what type of a grant the County is going to give them. Bern -Klug
stated that she believes recommendation # 7 already fits under the revised
recommendation # 1, that the Steering Committee is already looking at revenue
sources, of which this would be a part of. Younker stated that it seems to him
they are related, but also separate issues. What # 7 is meant to address is a
perceived lack of contributions from other jurisdictions who have residents who
take advantage of the Senior Center. Younker stated that they could always use
recommendation # 1 along, but that he believes they fulfill their charge in a better
way if they go beyond this and identify other issues that they would like Council
PAGE 16
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 15
to consider. Bern -Klug stated that she would prefer the second sentence be
deleted on this recommendation. Honohan stated that he would accept this
amendment to his motion. Webber agreed to his second. The motion to
accept # 7 carried as amended 5-1; Dobyns in the negative and Cannon
absent.
# 8 - City Staff and Center Staff should assess opportunities to share
space, funding strategies, and other resources with relevant community
social service agencies to increase efficiencies and leverage various
funding opportunities. Council should consider commissioning a
feasibility study to assist with this process.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #8 in order to begin the
discussion. Younker seconded the motion. Discussion began with Bern -Klug
stating that this is already happening and has been for a long time. Honohan
stated that currently the Center provides space for several entities, such as the
VNA, SHIPP, Elder Services' dining program, at no charge. He continued, noting
that there really is not a lot of space in the Center that is available. He
questioned if a feasibility study would be worth doing. He stated that he does not
like the last sentence in this recommendation, because of that. Dohrmann spoke
briefly to in some way validating that these things are already being done.
Honohan stated that he would accept a friendly amendment to this original
motion, to delete the last sentence. Younker agreed to his second. Bern -
Klug asked to hear how # 8 would now read, and Younker read the text aloud.
Dohrmann explained the idea of leveraging funding opportunities and how they
would acknowledge these in-kind acts. Bern -Klug suggested they add 'continue
to' in the first line between should and assess. Honohan stated that he would
accept this as a friendly amendment as well. Younker reiterated his
second. The motion to accept # 8 carried as amended 5-1; Dobyns in the
negative and Cannon absent.
Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve recommendation #9.
# 9 The Center should take steps to increase the accessibility of its
building. Steps to consider include, but are not limited to: a) a general
ADA audit; b) requesting a public bus stop be added in front the ADA
accessible entrance on Washington Street; c) and increase signage in the
Tower Place parking ramp to assist visitors in locating the Center's
skyway.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #9. Webber seconded the
motion. Discussion began with Younker noting that they did receive comments
about accessibility issues concerning the Center, as well as signage issues in the
ramp. Dohrmann noted that they received many requests for a bus stop in front
of the ADA -accessible entrance of the Center. Honohan stated that they need to
recognize with this building that they are limited as to what they can do. He gave
Members some history on how they have gotten to where they are with the ADA
accessibility and the hurdles they have faced. Dobyns added that these are
several reasons why vacating this building should remain an option. Bern -Klug
PAGE 17
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1S, 2014
Page 16
called the question at this point. The motion to accept # 9 carried 6-0;
Cannon absent.
# 10 - The Committee recognizes that the Center has taken steps to
address issues related to diversity (e.g., forming a working committee to
focus attention on diversity issues exclusively). The Center Staff,
however, should adopt a more formal strategy to increase diversity,
especially with regard to race, ethnicity, and income.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #10. Dohrmann seconded
the motion. The discussion began with Younker stating that the survey the
Center performed did show some room for improvement regarding diversity of
the Center. He noted that Honohan had stated earlier that the staff and the
Commission have been working on these issues. The point of this
recommendation is to formalize that process and that strategy, according to
Younker. Honohan suggested an amendment to this recommendation, to include
the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Committee, in front of 'The
Center staff.' Bern -Klug stated that another things she wants to clarify is when
you compare the demographic characteristics of those who completed the
membership survey to the demographic characteristics of Iowa City, they are
similar in every respect, including ethnicity and race, and income. They differ in
education level. Bern -Klug stated that the people who filled out the survey
appear to have a higher education level than the surrounding Iowa City older
adults, but that in terms of racial and ethnic diversity and income, they are right in
step. She thinks there is an underrepresentation in Iowa City of these ethnic
groups. Honohan accepted a friendly amendment to add `the Senior Center
Commission and the Steering Committee. Bern -Klug asked if they wanted to
include sexual orientation in the list after ethnicity and income. Dohrmann
suggested using 'other types of diversity' as the wording, adding that she's fine
with the 'sexual orientation,' but was trying to find something more inclusive.
Bern -Klug suggested they then end the sentence after'increase diversity.'
Honohan accepted a friendly amendment here. Dohrmann reiterated her
second. The motion to accept # 10 as amended carried 6-0; Cannon
absent.
# 11 - Transportation -related issues — especially in light of the reduced
funding to SEATS — are problematic for certain segments of the senior
population. The City should assess the transportation -related issues in
more detail. Council should consider — as replacement revenues are
identified pursuant to Recommendation No. 1 — transitioning some
amount of funding from the Center to better meet transportation needs of
this population.
Honohan moved to approve recommendation #11 so as to open it for
discussion. Younker seconded the motion. Honohan began the discussion
by stating that he has a question regarding this recommendation and whether it
is under their province to assess these transportation issues. He added that
because of the County's drop in contributions, SEATS has been reduced for Iowa
City. He stated that he is all for supporting the SEATS program and wants
Council to do everything they can to support it. Honohan stated that he would
PAGE 18
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 17
stop this recommendation after'... in more detail.' Bern -Klug stated that this
appears to say the Senior Center funding is going to be moved to a different
group. She does not see why SEATS and the Center need to be joined.
Honohan noted that he is not supporting that portion, that he wants to end the
recommendation at the word `detail.' Honohan accepted a friendly
amendment to his original motion. Younker reiterated his second. The
motion to accept # 11 as amended carried 4-1; Dobyns in the negative, and
Dohrmann and Cannon absent.
[Moving to Ad Hoc Member Bern -Klug (pgs 32-33)]
Younker then moved to page 32 of the packet, where Bern-Klug's suggested
recommendations begin.
# 1 — The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that the City
Council issue a public "Vote of Strong Confidence" about the important
and excellent role the Senior Center staff, volunteers, members, and
participants have been and continue to play in promoting optimal aging in
the Iowa City community.
Honohan moved to accept recommendation # 1. Bern -Klug seconded the
motion. Discussion began by Honohan stating that he likes the idea behind this
recommendation, but that he is unsure if they should be telling the City Council
what to do. He suggested a general show of support, something stating that the
Senior Services Committee makes a strong recommendation that the Senior
Center be supported, or something along those lines. Younker stated that it
seems to him the evaluation already reflects the Committee's position that the
Center staff, its volunteers, and its members are all doing a good job with optimal
aging in Iowa City. Bern -Klug asked if the Council ever issues such declarations
of support and that that was her point in this recommendation. The motion
failed 0-6; Cannon absent.
# 2 — The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommend that agencies
and organizations that serve older adults should be encouraged to apply
for AID TO AGENCY funds for their specific programs that address
current areas of high priority as decided by the City Council, including in
particular programs serving older adults that address: substance abuse
emotional health services, employment training, housing services for
persons experiencing homelessness, and transportation.
Honohan then moved to accept recommendation # 2. Webber seconded
the motion. Discussion began with Bern -Klug stating that the last sentence
does show the high priority issues currently. She added that she is thinking they
could be doing more to tell agencies that serve older adults that they can apply
for these high priorities, even if the agency serves other populations. Honohan
stated that he does not have any problems with # 2 as written. The motion
carried 4-2; Dobyns and Younker in the negative, and Cannon absent.
Honohan asked Younker at this point how they are going to format the two sets
of recommendations that they have been reviewing today. Younker stated that
section # 4 is for Recommendations and he hopes to put all of the
PAGE 19
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 18
recommendations approved tonight together on one page, and then they can
further discuss issues of each one.
Younker then asked for a motion to approve recommendation # 3.
# 3 — The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee wishes to communicate to
the City Council that a highly disproportionate amount of meeting time
and attention has been devoted to discussions about what has been
frames for the committee as "the impending cost cuts to be experienced
by agencies serving older adults," (which is not listed as part of the
charge for this committee) rather than a discussion about how the City
could be improving services to older adults, as stated in the rationale for
the desire for an Ad Hoc committee.
Honohan moved to accept recommendation # 3 so that discussion could
begin. Webber seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that she believes the
process has been dominated by the impending cost cuts, and that when she
reads the charges given to them by the Council, it was not to talk about how to
deal with impending cost cuts. To include part of this in their call, she can
understand, but to make it such a focus, Bern -Klug does not agree. Younker
gave his opinion, stating that he believes Charge # 2 requires them to review the
financial resources, and that this includes the condition of the budget. Younker
added that it is important to keep in mind that their report can include
recommendations that were discussed but not passed. The motion failed 0-5;
Bern -Klug abstaining and Cannon absent.
# 4 — The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that if the City
is interested in the quality of services provided to older adults funded, in
part, by the city, that a professional survey be undertaken to find out from
the people receiving the services, the extent to which the agency is
providing satisfactory services
Honohan then moved recommendation # 4, noting that he wants to amend
it. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Honohan stated that he would like to
amend this recommendation by removing '...if the City is interested...' through to
'older adults,' and then instead of 'the people' he would replace this with
'seniors.' Bern -Klug asked if they are interested in all agencies or just those
receiving City funding, and is it all older adult or just low-income older adults.
Karr noted that they removed 'older adults' and added 'seniors.' Dobyns asked if
a professional survey was done previously, and Fruin responded that the Center
did indeed request an outside agency perform a more comprehensive survey.
Bern -Klug stated that she is going back to what she understood the Council
wanted them to do, which is recommend how to improve services to seniors.
One way is # 4 and the other is # 5, according to Bern -Klug, where # 5 talks
about what the gaps are in service and # 4 talks about how do older adults who
are receiving funds from the agencies, other than the Senior Center, how are
they rating those services that the City is paying for. Dohrmann asked if there is
a compliance factor to the Aid to Agency funding, and Fruin responded that he
does not believe there is a satisfaction component to this, that often times as the
grantor of these funds, the City does not know who is served by those funds.
PAGE 20
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 19
Dobyns stated that he would be supportive if he could recommend an
amendment to the amendment already offered, that a professional survey be
undertaken to find out from elders or people needing the services. He thinks
limiting it to those currently receiving service is a biased sample. Bern -Klug
noted that this is why recommendations 4 and 5 are separate, because 4 is to
get a sense of the funds that the City is already paying to agencies for seniors,
and then 5 is to find out what would older adults in the community like to see that
is currently not available. Dobyns stated that he would then withdraw his
amendment. He stated that he would, however, be voting 'no' on # 4 as surveys
are expensive and he believes that one survey needs to be done, and # 5, he
believes, should have primacy here. Bern -Klug stated that she would be okay
with this. Honohan then withdrew his original motion for recommendation
of # 4.
# 5 — The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that if the City
is interested in learning about gaps in services in the Iowa City area for
low-income older adults, that the City commission a professional survey
to collect unbiased, representative information, on which to base
subsequent recommendations.
Dobyns moved to accept recommendation # 5. Webber seconded the
motion. Discussion began with Honohan noting that he is for this motion, but
that he dislikes the phrase 'if the City is interested.' Bern -Klug and Dobyns
agreed to this friendly amendment. Bern -Klug and Honohan continued to
discuss where they are on this recommendation, with Bern -Klug stating that she
believes a better use of the study finances would be on low-income people to find
out what services they are having trouble accessing. Honohan noted that he
believes all seniors are an important part of this. Fruin added that it would be
difficult to target a survey for just low-income respondents. Bern -Klug noted that
she is not concerned with needs that the market will handle. She believes they
need to focus on those having access problems because they cannot afford the
market rate. Dobyns asked Fruin if there were some federal language that they
could follow in this, something that could encourage inclusion of groups not
typically participating. Dohrmann stated that what she is hearing is the
Committee is recommending that the City commission a professional survey to
collect unbiased representative information to learn more about gaps in services
for elders or seniors, on which to base subsequent recommendations. Dobyns
stated that unbiased definitely catches his concern. Dohrmann stated that she
believes the 'gaps in services' to be very important here. Younker then read the
amended recommendation to make sure they have everything covered. Bern -
Klug stated that by saying 'unbiased,' this covers representative and then they
could ask to oversample low-income. It was noted that a professional survey
would undoubtedly handle these concerns. Younker asked Karr to read back the
motion at this point: "The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that
the City commission a professional survey to collect unbiased, representative
information regarding gaps in services and barriers to access for seniors on
which to base subsequent recommendations. " Bern -Klug stated she wanted to
clarify one issue first — is the Council's main intent to help older adults stay in
their homes — as this would affect how the sample is done. Fruin stated that the
Council has not discussed this distinction. Younker explained how these types of
PAGE 21
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 20
surveys are typically handled, trying to help Bern -Klug understand what can be
expected. Younker suggested they move forward at this point and vote on
recommendation # 5 as amended. Once they look at all of their
recommendations as a whole, they can further clarify or focus on a particular
group they can address it at that time. Dobyns and Webber both agreed to the
friendly amendments here. The motion to accept # 5 as amended carried 6-
0; Cannon absent.
Moving to page 33 of the packet, recommendation # 4 was addressed.
# 4 — The Ad Hoc committee recommends that the City Council refrain
from appointment of City Council members to Ad Hoc committees in the
future. It is difficult for non -City -council Ad Hoc committee members to
assess the extent to which a member of the city council is speaking on
behalf of the city council and when speaking on behalf of her or himself
during the Ad Hoc committee meetings. This confusion can have the
effect of making one committee member's voice more important than the
other members.
Bern -Klug moved to accept recommendation # 4 on page 33. Webber
seconded the motion. Discussion began with Younker stating that he believes
this recommendation is outside the scope of their charge. He stated his opinion
on this, noting that Council made the decision to appoint a Council Member to
this ad hoc committee. Honohan stated that he cannot support this
recommendation either. He noted that the Council is the governing body and
they make the decisions. Bern -Klug noted that this is not personal, but that she
has found it confusing to know when some comments are the Councilor's
personal opinions and when they represent the Council. She stated that she
believes this is an important issue, one that will come up with other ad hoc
committees. She believes that it is not clear what hat the Councilor is wearing
when comments are made, and thus she finds this very confusing. Dobyns
stated that as was discussed in Council, there are many times that Councilors
have been members of other ad hoc groups. The motion failed 1-5; Bern -Klug
in the positive and Cannon absent.
d. Charge 3: Identify Obstacles
Moving on to the third charge, Younker noted that to some extent this is the other
side of the recommendation coin. He stated that he believes there is some
overlap in things they would like to see either the Council or the Senior Center
engage in, and obstacles to services. He suggested that he and the Vice -Chair
work on the wording for this section, similar to what has already been done and
approved, so that they have something to look at. He encouraged Members to
also identify proposed obstacles for discussion at the October 22 meeting. Bern -
Klug asked for a clarification of obstacles to what. Younker read Charge 3 for the
Members' review.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
Younker noted that they only have three regular meetings left at this point to complete their
report to Council prior to December 1. In preparation for the October 22 meeting, Younker
stated he would pull together what was approved at this meeting so that everything can be
PAGE 22
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 21
viewed together. He encouraged Members to submit written recommendations that they would
like to offer for discussion at the next meeting. Karr outlined possible deadlines for packet
materials, and Members agreed noon Monday for submittal, with the packet going out Monday
evening. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification on what they will be discussing at the October
22°d meeting. Younker stated that additional recommendations regarding Charge # 2, followed
by obstacles to be included in their discussion of Charge # 3, with the idea being that by the end
of the meeting they will have a report all put together, and ready to receive public comments on
November 12. Younker stated that if everyone feels this is too tight of a timeframe they can add
additional meetings. He gave Members several options, noting that they could do several things
in order to meet their deadline. Dobyns stated that he will be unable to make most of the
October 22 meeting and recommended that the Committee proceed without him. Younker
stated that he will be in trial beginning November 4 so that will create conflicts for him. Karr
asked if they would like to add a few tentative dates, just in case. Younker suggested they
pencil in a morning meeting Saturday, October 25. Dobyns noted that he would have hospital
rounds but that should not delay the Committee from meeting. Honohan suggested
Wednesday, October 29, and Younker stated that he is not available the 29th. After some
discussion, a tentative meeting was scheduled for 8:00 A.M. on Saturday, October 25, and 3:00
P.M. on Friday, November 14 in Harvat Hall.
October 22
October 25, 8:00 AM (Saturday)
November 12, 3:30 PM (Wednesday)
November 14, 3:00 PM (Friday)
November 24. 3:30 PM (Monday)
Special meetings if needed
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Kathy Mitchell stated that she just had a few comments in conjunction with the formal
recommendations from Younker and Dohrmann. On # 9, she stated that there are two other
accessible entrances — one on the far north side where there is a ramp coming in off the alley.
Another one is the bridge from the parking which is fully accessible and has an elevator.
Regarding # 10, she stated that this one came about because they thought there was a gap in
the Senior Center regarding low-income individuals and persons of color. She stated that at the
time they presented the importance of doing a survey, and they would have had an outside
person conduct this survey, which would have looked at those gaps, and even extended it
further to see where the gaps are in senior services. She added that it was denied on February
18th. She told the Ad Hoc Committee that they are doing a commendable job, that it isn't easy
to do this.
Mary Gravitt shared an audio of the October 7 City Council's formal meeting, highlighting Anna
Buss speaking to the Council regarding City owned housing. Gravitt stated that her question is
where is the rent money going on that City -owned property (noted in Anna Buss' presentation) if
not being used to keep the property up. Gravitt then spoke to the handout she distributed
regarding retiring to a college town. She stated that what is so important about the Senior
Center is that it is a magnet, that people are coming to Iowa City to retire. She pointed out the
highlights of college towns and how Iowa City measures up in an array of categories. Gravitt
spoke to the 'battle' for the senior population's dollar. Younker then stopped Gravitt due to the
five-minute timeframe. With nobody else wishing to speak, he allowed her to continue. Gravitt
then addressed `class war,' noting that most old people are poor because of the circumstance
they live in, and most old people are female. She stated that the Senior Center will never be
self-sufficient because it provides a service. The Senior Center building is a magnet that is
PAGE 23
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 22
centrally located, so that when the upper -crust move in to Moen's tower they don't feel below
themselves because they are going into a fine-looking building — an antique. Gravitt stated that
the Rec Center is for young people and families, and that it has nothing to do with what goes on
at the Senior Center. Gravitt then noted that sexual diversity is something that also needs to be
discussed here. She reiterated that the Senior Center is unique, the building is unique, and that
the charge was that the Center wasn't diverse enough. Gravitt ended by saying that this has
nothing to do with the budget — it's the building. Karr asked for a motion to accept
correspondence. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Dobyns seconded the
motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:15 P.M., seconded by Dohrmann. The
motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 15, 2014
Page 23
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
PAGE 24
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
(!f
fJr
W
W
V
V
V
00
fO
(O
O
O
O
NAME
EXP,
W
f0
(O
W
V
�
O
W
W
A
a
N
Q
N
N
A
.A
A
A
?
A
A
A
A
A
.?
A
A
12/1114
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X,
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
)
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dobyns
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
PAGE 25
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
I. Establishment of the Committee
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ("Committee") was established by the Iowa City City
Council ("Council") on the 18`" day of February, 2014.
II. Committee Members
Joe Younker -Chair
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Mercedes Bern -Klug
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Ellen Cannon
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Jane Dohrmann
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Rick Dobyns-Council Member
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Jay H. Honohan
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Hiram Richard Webber
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
III. Enabling Resolution and Committee Charge
Pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 14-37 ("Resolution"), a copy of which is attached to this
Report as Exhibit _, Council has charged the Committee with three tasks:
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.
IV. Meetings Conducted
The Ad Hoc Committee Chair Joseph Younker, vice chair Jane Dohrmann, members Mercedes
Bern -Klug, Ellen Cannon, Richard Dobyns, Jay Honohan, and Rick Webber, staff Marian Karr
and Geoff Fruin, convened on May 5, 2014.
t01777e81.Docx?
PAGE 26
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 was extensive relating to the Committee's responsibilities, the
Center, and other local agencies providing services to seniors.
(01777681.DOCx)_
Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center
Description of the Center
PAGE 27
In 1981, the City completed the rehabilitation of the old Post Office building at 28 S. Linn, Iowa
City, Iowa. The original mail workroom is now the assembly room that hosts a variety of
informative and entertaining programs as well as the site for the senior dining program. A
mezzanine floor was added to make more efficient use of the vertical space above the assembly
room. The building has a variety of offices, meeting and exercise rooms.
11. Key Considerations
A copy of the full evaluation is attached to this report identified as Exhibit B. The following,
however, provides an overview of the Center's areas of excellence, opportunities for
improvement, and items for further review.
A. Areas of excellence
-o The Center is the primary, central resource for quality programs and services that
promote optimal aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's
programs promote active aging at a consistently high level. The Committee
agrees with the report completed by the National Council of the Aging National
Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its Vision' and Mission .2
The 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 Ad Hoc Senior Service committee
meetings indicate high satisfaction with the center. The Senior Center is a strong
community asset supporting thousands of persons a year to learn new skills,
make friends, share interests, and engage more fully in the community. The
Committee recognizes the Center leadership for using financial and other
resources well as it works toward fulfilling its mission of promoting optimal aging
in our community.
-o In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center. Volunteers donated
24,400 hours towards the operation. Persons benefited from services offered by
other agencies at the Center, including Visiting Nurses Association, AARP Tax
Aid, Elder Services Agency, volunteer lawyers, counseling, SHIPP, Honoring
Your Wishes, and English language learners' (ELL) classes. The Center Staff is
responsible for coordinating these programs, organizing registration and
appointments, in addition to organizing volunteers.
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
' "To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities
that promote optimal aging."
z "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness,
social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth."
(01777682.DOCX)
PAGE 28
low-income seniors. In addition to the members, many older adults and younger
people benefit from programs.
The Center staff consists of the, coordinator, program and community outreach
specialists, an operations assistant, two maintenance workers and three part
time staff assisted by the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Committee,
and senior volunteers. The current level of staffing does not permit providing
activities and services for people experiencing advanced dementia or other
cognitive impairments requiring supervision and assistance. However, the
Center does serve seniors who have disabilities and limited cognitive impairment.
B. Opportunities for improvement.
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. Scholarships for low-income participants should
be continued and encouraged.
Ethnic and racial diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a
concern of the Senior Center Commission, Steering Council, and the staff.
Efforts are being made to increase ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of
diversity.
C. Data gaps and identification of matters for further review/study
The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and
staff are continuing their efforts to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at the
Center. Methods of supplementing and improving these efforts should be
reviewed.
The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and
staff should evaluate membership fees and other ways to assist in funding the
operational budget.
The Committee considered asking the staff to collect demographic characteristics
and usage information of nonmembers who participate in activities at the Center,
but decided against doing so because of the burden on the staff and the
discomfort that some participants may feel in disclosing personal information.
Center staff should consider ways to collect data to demonstrate community-
wide, multi -generational participation on activities and events.
{01777682.DOCX)
PAGE 29
Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources
I. Understanding of City Financials
In order to better understand the City's financial position, the Committee sought
information on existing resources as well as expected financial trends in the coming
years. Specifically, the Committee reviewed information on how the City funds the
Senior Center and supports non-profit agencies through the Aid to Agencies and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs. The Committee also reviewed
previous correspondence from staff to the Council concerning the projected impacts of
the 2013 property tax reform legislation and heard directly on that issue from Finance
Director, Dennis Bockenstedt. Finally, the Committee reviewed funding trends in the
CDBG and HOME federal grant programs.
The Committee reviewed the FY 13, FY 14 and FY 15 Center budgets. At the time of
review, only the FY 13 budget reflected actual revenues and expenditures. The Center
operates with expenditures of $778,491 (FY 13) and revenues of $209,724 (FY 13). This
means the General Fund contributed $568,766 in FY 13. While FY 14 and FY 15 budgets
were not closed out, it appears from the Committee's review and staff comments that
the General Fund contribution tends to be in the 70-75% of expenditures range. Similar
to other City operations, the vast majority of expenditures are personnel related.
The Committee also reviewed the FY 13-15 allocations for the City's Aid to Agencies and
CDBG programs. As the Council understands, there is a prioritization process that guides
the allocation of these funds. Over the last three years the City's contributions have
ranged from approximately $375,000 to $400,000. Of those funds the FY 15 allocation
included $35,000 to two senior service providers, although the committee recognizes
that other agencies that received funds likely serve some seniors, albeit not exclusively.
CDBG funds are regularly used to support housing projects. While some types of senior
housing are eligible for CDBG funds, the Committee noted that the last senior housing
projects to receive funds were in 1999, 2000 and 2001.
Looking ahead, the Committee recognizes that property tax reform will put significant
pressure on the General Fund, which contributes both to the Center and the Aid to
Agencies program. Similarly, a ten year review of CDBG and HOME grants to the City
clearly show a downward trend of those funding sources. Both federal grant programs
have been reduced by several hundred thousand dollars over the last ten years. The
political climate in Washington D.C. does not give City staff any reason to believe this
(01777667.DOCXI
PAGE 30
trend will reverse in the coming years. These financial pressures will impact the City's
ability to fund all programs, not just ones that serve seniors.
II. Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
Determining the needs of the City's senior population is a very difficult task to
accomplish in a short period of time. The Committee approached this task in two ways.
First, the Committee heard from City staff with the Senior Center, as well as with the
Library, Parks and Recreation and Transportation Services departments. - Secondly, the
committee attempted to identify several of the largest non-profit service providers in
the area to gain a better understanding of their operations, finances and general
challenges. Individually, Committee members met with the following agencies and then
shared their findings with the Committee as a whole:
o Elder Services
o HAAA
o Johnson County Livable Communities
o Shelter House
o Pathways
o Consultation of Religious Communities
o Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
o MECCA
o 1C Mental Health
o VNA
o Compeer
o Iowa City Hospice
o SEATS
o Hispanic Community
Given the time constraints on the Committee, we feel this approach was the best
method for determining the needs of the senior population. However, we recognize this
was an informal approach and thus any conclusions should be treated as such.
Additionally, although the agencies surveyed by the Committee all provide services to
seniors in a general sense, the agencies are designed to serve various target
populations. For example, some agencies (e.g., Elder Services) are designed to target
certain segments of the senior population. Other agencies (e.g., Iowa City Free Medical
Clinic) provide services to seniors as part of servicing a larger target population. If the
Council wishes for a more scientific approach to determining the needs of seniors, it will
likely need to utilize professional assistance with a survey methodology.
(01777667,DOCX]
PAGE 31
III. General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population
IV. Recommendations Regarding Financial Resources
1) The City's General Fund funds the majority (approximately 70-75%) of the
Center's budget. City Staff expects that property tax reform will put significant
pressure on the General Fund in the coming years. The Committee recommends
that the Center Commission and Staff, and the City Staff, continue to work on
goals to identify and utilize revenue sources.
2) In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center should assess
opportunities to generate revenue through the rental of meeting/gathering
space.
3) The Committee understands that the City is in the process of assessing how it
prioritizes the distribution of certain federal, state, and local funds among
various social service agencies. Through that the process, the City should
identify the needs of low-income seniors — especially needs relating to issues
concerning food and supportive services that allow people to remain safely in
their homes for as long as possible (e.g., Pathways Adult Day Health Center &
Elder Services) — as being in the highest prioritization category.
4) The Senior Center Commission and Center Staff, in coordination with the City,
should seek increased funding from Johnson County.
5) City Staff and Center Staff should continue to assess opportunities to share
space, funding strategies, and other resources with relevant community social
service agencies to increase efficiencies and leverage various funding
opportunities.
6) The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that agencies and
organizations that serve older adults should be encouraged to apply for AID TO
AGENCY funds for their specific programs that address current areas of high
priority as decided by the City Council, including in particular programs serving
older adults that address: substance abuse emotional health services,
employment training, housing services for persons experiencing homelessness,
and transportation.
7) The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that the City commission a
professional survey to collect unbiased, representative information regarding
gaps in services and barriers to access for seniors on which to base subsequent
recommendations.
(01777667.DOCX)
PAGE 32
V. Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources
1) Maintain the current location of the Center.
2) The Center should take steps to increase the accessibility of its building. Steps to
consider include, but are not limited to: a) a general ADA audit; b) requesting a
public bus stop be added in front the ADA accessible entrance on Washington
Street; c) and increase signage in the Tower Place parking ramp to assist visitors
in locating the Center's skyway.
(01777667.DOC%)
PAGE 33
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
FROM: Joe Younker, Chair; Jane Dohrmann, Vice -Chair
RE: Charge 2 Recommendations for Discussion (Second Memorandum)
DATE: October 20, 2014
The Chair and the Vice -Chair propose the following additional recommendations to further the
Committee's discussion.
1) Approximately 20% of the Center's members are non -Iowa City residents (Non -Iowa
City, Johnson County residents: 18%; Non -Johnson County residents: 2%). Although
Johnson County contributes to the Center, the County's contribution is less than 10% of
the Center's budget. While non -Iowa City residents pay a slightly higher membership
dues fee compared to Iowa City residents, the Center should consider further increasing
the membership dues of non -Iowa City residents to coincide more closely with the
actual cost of services and account for the funding disparity between the County and
the City.
2) The Committee received information from City Staff regarding the funding practices of
other Iowa communities concerning nonprofit agencies, including those offering
services to seniors. (See Ex. 9/29/14 Memorandum from Geoff Fruin.) The
Committee recognizes that, due to time constraints, City Staff gathered the information
in an informal manner. Consequently, the information provided may not provide a true
"apples to apples" comparison. Regardless, the Council should be aware of the
practices of other Iowa communities.
{01777679.DOCX}
PAGE 34
Dear Marian,
Please include the following recommendation for discussion by the full Ad Hoc Senior Services
committee on Wed.
Thanks,
Mercedes
Proposed recommendation: Given that the negative effects of social isolation are more lethal
than cigarette smoking, and many older adults face significant barriers to participating in
social networks in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment,
emotional challenges, language and/or poverty, we propose the City Council initiate a new
program, "Full Participation Awards" and set aside $40,000 per year for the next three years
(as a pilot project) to fund up to fou' projects ($10,000 each) for programs administered by
not-for-profit agencies serving socially isolated older adults who reside in Iowa City.
Appropriate programs would help to connect non -institutionalized older adults experiencing
social isolation to others through enhanced access to transportation, meals, and social
programming.
PAGE 35
Memorandum
To: Ad Hoc Committee
From: Jay
Subject: Charge 2 suggestions
Date: October 18, 2019
In looking at several of our proposals, I have found the
deletions and additions the way we have done them confusing or
at least hard to follow. I must be getting old. So on this
draft of suggestions, I am simply putting together a proposal
for the committee's review and comments. I have incorporated
several things out of Joe and Jane's draft paragraphs. I hope
that what I have drafted is not too confusing. I will start the
draft on the second page of this memo for clarity.
1. I am concerned with what the second and third charges are
asking us to do and how we can respond to them. I am also
concerned about any language that we have explored the needs of
seniors or any language that would indicate we are giving an
opinion on the quality of the work done by any non-profit
agency. My concern is based upon the fact that other the Senior
Center, we have not been able to really look into these items.
2. Comments on Joe and Jane's draft. I will refer to the pages
of the last packet.
Page 27: As I indicated at the meeting, I find this much
too long and after further looking at it, I think that much of
it may not be necessary. I agree that a summary of our
deliberations is a good idea. In the report it should be more
concise. I have included some of Joe and Jane's language in my
draft.
Page 28: I think that the first paragraph of Joe and Jane's
draft again is too long and actually duplicates some of what was
proposed on page 27. I have incorporated much of the language
on this page in my draft. I am concerned about the bottom
paragraph and what it leads to on page 29.
Page 29: I have incorporated some of the language from this
page into my draft.
I have attempted to partially explain the draft with
footnotes.
1
PAGE 36
Charge 2: 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. 1
1. Overview of the process
• Determining the needs of the senior population is a very difficult task
to accomplish. The Committee approached this task in two ways. First
the Committee heard from the staff at the Senior Center, as well as the
Library, Parks and Recreation, and Transportation Services Department.
Secondly, the Committee attempted to identify several of the largest
non-profit service providers in the area to gain a better understanding
of the their operations and finances .2
• In the Iowa City Community there are ninety one senior services
providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen. Of these twenty three
are governmental, thirty are for profit, and fifty six are non profit.
Forty providers do not charge, thirty six, fees are paid by medicare
and medicaid. Seventy five are paid through private pay and private
insurance. Financial aid is available with twenty agencies.3
• The committee reviewed the following agencies that serve seniors in the
Iowa City Community:
• Elder Services
• Heritage Agency
• Johnson County Livable Communities
• Shelter House
• Pathways
• Consultation of Religious Communities
• Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
• MECCA
• Johnson County Mental Health
• Visiting Nurses Association
• Compeer
• Iowa City Hospice
• Seats
• Hispanic Community
This is the first line of the second charge.
2This is basically the draft language top of 28.
3 Source Johnson County Livable Community. I think it is important for
the council and others who read the report to get and idea of the scope of
the governmental and other agencies that serve seniors in the community.
VA
PAGE 37
Accompanying this report in the appendix are the individual reports on the
above agencies.
• In order to better understand the Cities financial position, the
Committee sought information on existing resources as well as expected
financial trends in the coming years. Specifically the Committee
reviewed information on how the City funds the Senior Center and
supports non-profit agencies through the Aid to Agencies and Community
Development Block Grants (CDBG) programs.'
• The Committee reviewed the FY13, FY14, and Fy15 Senior Center budgets.
The Center operates with expenditures of $778,491 (FY13) and revenues
of $209,724 (FY13). The Cities general fund contributes in the 70-75
percent range. Similar to other City operations, the vast majority of
expenditures are personnel related.5
• Given the time constraints on the Committee, we felt that this was the
best method to respond to our charge. We recognize that this was a
informal approach and thus any conclusions should be treated as such.
Additionally, although the agencies reported on by the Committee all
provide services to seniors, different agencies serve different target
populations.'
• Looking ahead the Committee recognizes that property tax reform will
put significant pressure on the General Fund, which contributes both to
the Senior Center and the Aid to Agencies program. Similarly there is
a downward trend in the CDBG and Home grants to the City. These
financial pressures will impact the City's ability to fund all
programs, not just the ones that serve seniors.
II. General Findings8
• The target population of the Senior Center is primarily active seniors
and seniors who have mild cognitive impairment and disabilities. The
accreditation report indicates that the Senior Center is meeting its
goals for the target population. Comments from participants at
committee meetings indicate high satisfaction with the Center. Work
remains to increase diversity at the Center.9
4This is my version of the paragraph at the top of page 28.
5 My version of paragraph 2 on page 27.
6 I have incorporated some language from the large paragraph on page 28
near the bottom of the page. I point out that I do not think the committee
really looked at any of the needs of the community except the Senior Center.
I believe that we spent our time looking primarily at budgets etc.
7 I have made some changes to the paragraph at the bottom of page 27 to
insert here.
8 I am not comfortable with a statement that we made findings of the
needs of the senior population. I do not think that we made any real
investigation of the needs of seniors except for possibly the Senior Center.
These next paragraphs are my editing of the paragraphs on page 29.
3
PAGE 38
• Two agencies reported concerns in their service to their constituency
Elder Services identified concerns relating to serving home bound
seniors. Specifically an increased need for nutrition services and
emergency supplies. Pathways, an adult care center, identified a the
need to assist those who do not qualify for Title 19/Medicaid waivers.
• Various problems relating to transportation were identified as
problematic for certain segments of the senior population. Reduced
funding of Seats has made it more difficult for seniors to access many
of the agencies which provide services to seniors.
• Overall the programs and services offered by the Senior Center and the
non-profit agencies in the community offer a large number of programs
and services for seniors in the community. 10
III. Recommendations 11
• The Senior Center staff and the City staff continue to work on goals to
identify creative revenue sources. 12
• The Senior Center remain in its present location.
• In the process of assessing how the Council priorities the distribution
of federal, state, and local funds among social service agencies, the
Council should identify the needs of seniors particularly as to food
and supportive services as being in the highest prioritization
category.
• That a professional survey of seniors in the community be undertaken to
determine from seniors receiving services the extent to which the
agency is providing satisfactory services.
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 Senior Center building being a remodeled Post Office has been
utilized well but at the same time limits what programs and services
can be offered. Despite this, the Center has served its participants
well and can do so in the future. The Center staff and City staff
should continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the Center.
10 This seems to me about all that we really can report because we have
not really evaluated any agency except the Center and have not heard from any
large number of seniors who use agency services.
11 These are the recommendations that I am comfortable with at this time
from Joe, Jane's, and Mercedes's lists.
12 I think we approved this language last meeting.
0
PAGE 39
® Continued funding of the Center and the non-profit agencies in the
community should be a concern for the City and the agencies. Since
Iowa City provides the major share of funding for the Center and the
agencies, avenues should be explored to increase contributions from
other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors.
Further the Senior Center Commission, Steering Council, and staff of
the Center need to explore ways to increase the share of the non
general fund budget.
® The decision of the Board of Supervisors to reduce the Counties
contribution to SEATS has caused a reduction in service. A service
which is very important for seniors who are unable to drive and for
individuals who are disabled. The Board of Supervisors should be urged
to increase the County's contribution to SEATS.
5
PAGE 40
= n de77eT i! I Z! I-kyj l
TO: Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
FROM: Joe Younker, Chair; Jane Dohrmann, Vice -Chair
RE: Charge 3: Identification of Obstacles for Discussion
DATE: October 20, 2014
Charge 3 tasks the Committee with "identify[ing) 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." To further the
Committee's discussion, the Chair and the Vice -Chair propose that the Committee consider
identifying the following obstacles and corresponding recommendations.
1. Obstacle: Transportation. Recommendation: Transportation -related issues—
especially in light of the reduced funding to SEATS — are problematic for certain
segments of the senior population. The City should assess the transportation -related
issues in more detail. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge
2 Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by
the Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge
3 Recommendation.]
2. Obstacle: Lack of Diversity. Recommendation: The Committee recognizes that the
Center has taken steps to address issues related to diversity (e.g., forming a working
committee to focus attention on diversity issues exclusively). The Center Staff, Steering
Council, and Commission, however, should adopt a more formal strategy to increase
diversity. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge 2
Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by
the Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge
3 Recommendation.]
3. Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming. Recommendation: Certain organizations
approached by the Committee identified gaps in services available to seniors. For
example, Elder Services identified an increased need for nutrition services (e.g., home
delivered and congregate meals), care management, certain home assistance services,
and the provision of emergency supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses).
Pathways, an adult health center, identified the need to assist those who do not qualify
for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. City Staff and Center Staff should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand the gaps in services. The dialogue
should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the
Center and various agencies.
(01777680.DOCXI
PAGE 41
4. Obstacle: Lack of accessibility to enter The Center. Recommendation: Assess the
challenges with accessing the building (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of
Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter).
S. Obstacle: Lack of awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs.
Recommendations: Increase branding of the use of the words "The Center". Increase
emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone
in the community, not just seniors.
6. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors. The
committee was sent a letter requesting consideration of lack of downtown affordable
housing for middle-income seniors. The committee received reports of affordable
housing for low-income seniors, and the city appears to be addressing this need.
Higher -income housing is available and being further developed. Recommendation:
The City explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for
middle-income seniors.
)01777680.DOCx)
Afold ILV41 10 m m I
� ��'i qpIll 111,11111
f ,q'
Items for Discussion
on October 22, 2014
1. Page 27. The following charge was omitted after the
paragraph indicating the number of classes. I thought we adopted
this one.
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.
2. Pages 29-32 I have problems with the length of this as I
indicated last meeting. My draft on pages 35-39 incorporates a great
deal of this but less language. Short letters are read first.
3. Page 33. I have a lot of sympathy with paragraph 1.
However this is a touchy area. Different approaches have been made
to the Board of Supervisors in an attempt to get them to contribute
more. In the past there has been problems regarding charging
different fees for non Iowa City residents in groups in the center
who have their own budgets. A look at fees generally is in the draft
of the Center evaluation on page 28, second bullet under B. I feel
that we should just let it go at that and let the Commission, Steering
Council, and staff work on this and perhaps hold hearings at the
Center as we did in the beginning to get the sense of the participants.
4. Page 33. The idea is okay. I am having trouble with the
wording. Could I suggest the following:
The Committee received information from staff regarding funding
practices of other Iowa Communities concerning non-profit agencies,
including those serving seniors. (See Ex. ) These examples are
not necessarily comparable to Iowa City. Council may consider this
information in its review.
I would suggest including this in my draft on page 38 after
the paragraph Overall the programs and services offered etc.
5. Page 34 Mercedes idea is a good one for a proposal. I am
consistent in saying as drafted by Mercedes it is too long. Can
I suggest the following:
Many seniors face barriers to participating in social networks
in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive
impairment, and poverty. To aid these seniors, the Committee proposes
that the City Council initiate a program "Full Participation Awards"
for three years of four grants of $10,000 each to non profits for
programs to enhance social programing for these seniors.
Page 40. No 3. I have problems with this item. I do not think
that the Committee has enough information to make any recommendation
regarding gaps in services. I think that this needs to be addressed
in the comprehensive survey. I believe that it is the seniors who
should tell us what the gaps in services are. Agencies tend to be
somewhat biased in their approach. The survey should come first.
Page 41, No 4. While I agree with the position. I am not
clear what the wording is.
Page 41. No. 5. I would delete the branding sentence. And
recommend "Increase emphasis etc.
Page 41. No. 6. If the recommendation starts with the wording
Recommendation at the bottom of the paragraph. I would support it.