Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2014 Ad Hoc Senior Services CommitteeAD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Monday, November 24, 2014, 3:30 PM Harvat Hall / City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/12 AND11/14 3. ACTION ON REPORT TO COUNCIL 4. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 2 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 12, 2014-3:30 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Members Absent: Ellen Cannon Staff Present: Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman< Geoff Fruin RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action : None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M. a. Minutes of the meeting on 10/22/14 b. Minutes of the meeting on 10/25/14 Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Before moving to public comment, Karr stated that Cannon would be unable to attend this evening, and has notified her that she will be resigning from the Committee due to health reasons. Cannon did pass along that she has enjoyed working on the Committee with everyone and that she is sorry she is unable to continue. Younker stated that he understands her position and thanked Cannon for her input in the process. PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT REPORT: Younker then explained how the evening's agenda will proceed, noting that they have broken down the topics and have shown corresponding page numbers from the meeting packet. He asked that those wishing to speak limit their comments to the section they are talking about at that particular time. a. Initial Sections (pgs 36-37) — Younker began with the initial sections, asking if anyone wished to address these. He responded to general questions from the audience regarding page numbers. No one spoke regarding these sections. b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 38-40) — Younker noted that this section is on pages 3 — 5 of the draft report. Bob Welsh addressed Members, stating that the one question he has is in regards to the three models for senior centers that he presented on June 23, where he recommended one that he felt was the most practical. Looking over the minutes and draft report, he questioned if there was any discussion or PAGE 3 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 2 consideration of his suggestions. Younker stated that the Committee did receive Welsh's material and he noted that what they are currently addressing is Charge 1 — Evaluation of the Senior Center and that he would like to limit comments to the report. Younker asked if he is asking why his suggestions are not in Charge 1. Welsh responded, stating that he is questioning if any consideration was given to his suggestion. He noted that he did not see any discussion regarding it in the minutes, only acceptance of his report by the Committee. Younker reiterated that the Committee did receive these comments and did consider them as they put the report together. Kathy Mitchell, a Member of the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council, spoke next. Her first recommendation is on page 5 of the draft report and pages 112- 117 on the handout. She noted that under 'participant fees,' she is recommending that they add 'Senior Center staff, Commission, and Steering Council' to this. She added that these three groups can work together to address this issue. Continuing, Mitchell stated that another possibility is to take B with participant fees and combine it with C, pages 129 —131, regarding evaluating membership fees so that the two would be reviewed together. Younker asked for clarification of Mitchell's comments, noting that her first comment was in regards to page 40 of the packet, page 5 of the report, line 114. She responded that what she is suggesting is taking the C bullet point and combining it with B. In other words that they would evaluate membership fees and all participant fees thereof. Karr stated that for the Members knowledge, Mitchell did provide a late handout this evening regarding her comments. Honohan responded to Mitchell's suggestions, asking if they were to eliminate the one from line 114 to 117 and combine parts of it with the 129 — 131 if that would satisfy her concerns. Mitchell stated that this may be a possibility, that the difference is you would only have it focused on in one section. Younker then asked Mitchell to continue with her page 5 suggestions. She next reviewed pages 119 — 121 and 125 —127. Mitchell's suggestion is to remove any definition regarding diversity and replace it with 'current level of diversity.' She explained that the Senior Center already has diversity, and that they wish to expand what they have. She believes this should be consistent throughout the report. Next, Harry Olmstead commented that he noticed the report does not speak to persons with disabilities and that it should. C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 41-45) — Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee regarding Charge 2, page 7. She spoke to the services that are supposed to be serving senior citizens. She stated that they do not know exactly what services these agencies provide, that they only have their word on what it is they provide. She noted that they did not get client input on the services and whether they are sufficient. Gravitt noted that Elder Services, for example, is no longer serving Sunday meals at the Senior Center, and as of the 22nd they are also stopping Saturday meals. She stated that most of the agencies listed have nothing to do with the Senior Center itself. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Gravitt's comments, asking what she means when she says they are 'mixing them in with us.' Gravitt responded that the Ad Hoc Committee is supposed to be about the Senior Center and the senior citizens of the community. She explained that, for example, most seniors have Medicare and therefore cannot use the services of the Free Medical Clinic. The VNA, on the other hand, does serve the population at the Center and even has an office in the building. SEATS serves those seniors who can afford the services, according to Gravitt. Continuing, Gravitt noted that many of the agencies listed serve other populations, not PAGE 4 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 3 seniors. Bern -Klug stated that when Gravitt says 'we,' she could mean senior citizens or the Senior Center, and that while there may be an overlap, they are not the same thing. Gravitt agreed they are not the same thing, but that the Senior Center is basically there to serve seniors, not other populations. She reiterated what she had previously said, that she feels this report has gone too far. It is bloated and goes beyond what this Ad Hoc Committee was charged with, in her opinion. Bern -Klug stated that the charge to the Committee was beyond just the Senior Center and that the second charge was to look at the needs of the senior population, not just at the Center itself. Gravitt asked if the Committee is following the strategic plan as they have made their review. She stated that if they are not following the strategic plan, they are going to get lost. Younker asked that they try to stay on topic, suggesting that Gravitt make further comments later in the agenda. Larry Rogers, a resident of Ecumenical Towers, referred to page 6 of the draft report, line item 237. He stated that he is concerned that they are talking about different types of dementia, increased life spans, and demand for supportive services all together. Rogers spoke to some studies on aging, noting that many people are surprised at how long they live. When it comes to dementia issues, he believes the Senior Center should not handle these, that dementia should be handled by people who are trained in the mental field. He questioned why dementia has been put into consideration in this section. Harry Olmstead stated that he is concerned that the Committee overlooked the Johnson County Task Force on Aging, that it is not referenced in this section. He asked that the Committee attempt to get some information from them. Kathy Mitchell spoke to pages 6 and 9 on the draft report, pages 232 — 244. On #1, the suggestion is that everything up through the word 'area' be dropped. It would then read 'it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse senior population. This is especially true for those of limited financial resources.' On #2, the suggestion is to completely redo this. The suggested would read 'Demand for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence, and prevent or delay the onset of chronic diseases, are likely to increase.' #2 would then become #3. #3 would become #4. Mitchell then stated that #4 currently appears to be incomplete and she questioned if something needs to be added. If not, she asked that #4 be removed. Ed Flarrety spoke next to page 7, lines 176 —163. He questioned if the word 'will' on 176 and 162 shouldn't be changed to 'may.' He stated that he would refer to the consistency, skipping ahead to line 240 where it says 'may.' Flarrety added that they do not know what the State will do as far as its kickback to cities to even out the property tax decreases, and they also do not know what the political climate in Washington, D.C. will be. Ina Lowenberg addressed the Committee, beginning with Section IV, lines 251 — 253. 'The Committee is recommending the reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents.' She pointed out that non -Iowa City residents have paid higher fees previously, and that they will undoubtedly continue to do so. She added that the recommendation of reconsidering the fee structure is not only for non -Iowa City residents, but also for all members of the Senior Center. Moving to Section 2, lines 255 PAGE 5 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 4 — 256, 'Generating revenue through the rental of meeting and gathering space.' Lowenberg stated that this sounds very hopeful, but that it would require staff. She stated that there would not be an option to add staff time to make this possible, and that it may also require redoing these spaces to make them attractive for rent. Jumping to Section 4, lines 265 — 266, she noted that trying to increase the funding received from Johnson County is a noble goal, but that people have been trying to do this for some time. Lowenberg stated that by doing this it appears that they are taking the onus off the City, and the City is really the main supporter of the Center, as she believes it should be. Larry Rogers addressed Section IV, #8, lines 284 — 286, 'To aid these seniors...' He asked what seniors they are referring to. 'The Committee proposes that the City Council initiate a program... full participation awards for the next three years of four grants, of $10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these seniors.' He stated that he thought they did not have extra money to be using for things like this. He is instead proposing that the City give tax incentives to businesses serving the citizens of Iowa City, and tax incentives to developers who build low-income housing, senior housing, and medical facilities that provide care for senior citizens. Rogers stated that he believes these are the types of incentives the City needs to provide, not grants of the nature described. Kathy Mitchell returned to the podium to address page 9, Section IV, lines 268 — 271. She noted that the Center currently does what this charge says, with the SHIPP program, the VNA, income tax help, both personal and legal counseling, holistic health, and senior college. There are also programs done in partnership with the University of Iowa, Kirkwood Community College, and the area city business community. d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 45-47) — Ina Lowenberg began by addressing C, Lack of Available Programming, lines 318 — 322. She stated that she does not understand what the content is of this obstacle. She added that there is a 72 - page program guide currently available, that programs keep increasing every term, and she questioned which organizations would be involved in identifying gaps in service, that could without additional staff, be offered at the Senior Center. She added that she would like to have some information on this issue. Honohan then asked for a clarification of the line numbers being referred to. Kathy Mitchell spoke to B, page 312, and obstacle C, page 318 — 322, and obstacle E, pages 329 — 331. She stated that she is recommending that in all three of these the words 'lack of be removed. She added that the reasoning is that the wording gives the impression that the Center is not doing these things, when indeed they are doing them. Regarding obstacle C on page 318 — 322, Mitchell stated that they are questioning who 'City staff' is, since Senior Center staff is City staff. The question, again, is who is the City staff that would be part of this. Also, the Center already collaborates with the Johnson County Livable Community, and the Task Force on Aging; therefore, collaborations are already in place. On obstacle E, lack of community awareness, Mitchell stated that the Center has promoted multigenerational activities and programming through its program guide, through its commercials, and through its community outreach program — the Ambassador Program — as well as participation with students from the University of Iowa and Kirkwood Community College. PAGE 6 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 5 Harry Olmstead spoke to A, Transportation. He stated that they need to find out what the impact of doing away with reduced fares is going to have on seniors, and particularly on the Center, as many of the members take the SEATS bus to get there. He added that he is afraid there will be a reduction in attendance at the Center due to this increase. Larry Rogers spoke to lines 333 — 334, Affordable Housing, stating that he hates to be quoting a rumor since he does not have the facts to back it up, but he heard from a neighbor that a couple of the low-income senior citizen centers, handicap centers, in the downtown area are now being used by students of the University. Rogers stated that his question is, is the City currently monitoring what space is available, and who is using it. He recommended that the City check into this issue, if indeed there is truth to this rumor. e. Exhibits: A — Res. 14-37 (pgs 48-51) — Larry Rogers spoke to Members, stating that he is interested in the fourth 'whereas.' 'It's important for City services to recognize and adapt to the changing demographics and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City residents in order to ensure that municipal services are best meeting the needs of the population.' He spoke to the moving of the Post Office out of the downtown area. He noted that you want your services centered in the town and he gave several examples of why this should be, noting that the Senior Center is located in the center of town. Younker reiterated that this section is for the public to comment on whether they think these exhibits should be included in the final report. Otherwise if there are comments in general about documents in the report, he noted that during agenda Item 7, Public Discussion, would probably be the best time to discuss these. B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 52-68) — Mary Gravitt stated that to her it appears that things are designed to confuse them. She spoke to what the Committee has been charged with, asking about the strategic plan. Gravitt noted that most of the time she has no idea what the Committee is talking about. C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 69-74) — Honohan stated that this section is going to need some cleaning up, that it was basically his draft. Younker noted that as he previously noted, they will go through and make sure punctuation marks are correct and that formatting is consistent. Bob Welsh spoke to the statement 'is the central resource,' asking if this can be phrased to recognize the real contribution of the various agencies. Honohan responded that this is something that is in error. The last draft that was approved by the Committee was changed to read 'is the primary central resource.' He apologized for not catching this error. Welsh asked if 'primary' is the correct term here in relation to other agencies. He stated that he is thinking specifically of Elder Services and the wide range of services that they offer. Younker added that they did have extensive discussion about use of the word 'primary' and 'central resource,' and that they will be sure that the final report has the approved wording. Larry Rogers then spoke to the survey that the Center carried out, noting that it was sent out to all of the people who receive the monthly guide, removing those who were outside of Johnson County and those who were businesses. He added that he did not find any breakdown of those other people, within Johnson PAGE 7 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 6 County, indicating how many of them were from Iowa City, how many from Coralville, etc. Beth Clompton stated that the matter of 'central' and 'primary'came up several meetings ago, and that she believes the word 'unique' should be used here. She believes the Senior Center is a unique resource for quality programs and services and should be labeled as such. She added that this is what makes the Center so valuable. D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 75-81) — Mary Gravitt asked what is meant by the word 'physical.' Younker asked where she is exactly in Exhibit D. Gravitt responded that she is on 3, where it talks about Charge 2 — physical and financial resources. Karr attempted to clarify which document Gravitt was referring to. Gravitt stated that she is looking at the agenda. Younker noted that he thinks Gravitt is looking at the item they just finished. He asked if she could hold her comments until they reach the final public comment section. E - National Council on Aging (pgs 82-83) — No comments. F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 84-92) — No comments. G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 93-178) — An audience member stated that this is incorrect, that the program guide begins on page 95. Younker noted that this is correct, that the other pages are a Senior Center brochure that was not part of the program guide itself. Karr encouraged people to come to the microphone when making comments, as they are not heard otherwise. H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 179-184) — No comments. I — Census (pgs 185-187) — No comments. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items): At this point in the meeting, Younker asked Gravitt if she wanted to discuss Charge 2 again. Gravitt stated that what she wants to know is the legal definition of the word 'physical' in this instance. She noted that on page 10 it says they are recommending to maintain the current location for the Center. Younker responded that the Committee's understanding of the charge was that they were to provide recommendations regarding financial and physical resources. He added that they did not come up with a definition as a committee, but that the working definition was that 'physical resources' would include everything other than financial resources. Gravitt noted that she has read the Charter, and that the Charter works on specific words. She questioned if the strategic plan mentions physical or not, but that she really just wants to know the legal definition of 'physical.' Younker stated that for the purposes of the report, the Committee was considering physical resources to mean the building. Honohan responded that he is not concerned about a legal definition of 'physical' as this is not that type of situation. His personal opinion would be that 'physical' refers to concrete things, like the building. He added that he thought it was a very broad statement, not a limited one. Younker then asked for a motion to accept correspondence from Kathy Mitchell and Mary Guttmann. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Honohan commented that for everyone's information, Mary Wallis Gutmann gave the Committee several different comments regarding the draft report and they will be part of the record. The Committee will be discussing them in detail at the next meeting, according to Honohan. PAGE 8 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 7 Harry Olmstead asked if the position being vacated by Cannon will be filled. Younker stated that it will not be, that the Committee itself dissolves on December 1, per resolution. Ina Lowenberg asked if this will not cause a problem with there being an even number of members on the Committee, versus an uneven number as originally planned. She asked if any effort has been made by Member Cannon to participate in votes. Kathy Mitchell stated that she noticed the older Americans report being noted here but that the State of Iowa also puts out its own report on older Americans, specifically geared towards Iowa. She asked why this is not part of the report, adding that perhaps it has not been released yet for this year. Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee, stating that the City Council appointed a Member of the Council to the Ad Hoc Committee. She added that the Council also appointed the Chair and the Vice -Chair. She asked who is representing the members of the Senior Center, when the City is appointing all of these people. Younker reminded Gravitt that they are still speaking to the draft report at this point. DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT (pgs. 188-189): Younker noted that the Chair and Vice -Chair asked City staff to put together a draft Executive Summary for discussion. This is on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Dohrmann moved to accept the Executive Summary as it appears on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Younker seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Discussion on the Executive Summary began with Honohan reviewing his suggested changes. On the next to last line where it states 'Committee's draft report to the City Council,' he is asking that 'initial' be inserted here, as this is not the final draft that was presented. It is instead the initial draft report. Honohan moved to insert'initial' between 'Committee's'and'draft,' as discussed. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent. Honohan then moved to Charge 1, Evaluation of the Senior Center. In the second line, he stated that he does not like the word 'direct.' He believes this should be deleted. Down to the fifth line, Honohan questioned the use of 'further' before 'agreed.' He would like to delete this. In the next to last line, Honohan questioned 'various external agencies,' stating that it should be 'agencies that provide services to seniors' instead. Honohan moved to make the three recommended changes, as discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent. Moving to Charge 2, financial and physical, Honohan stated that he agrees with Ed Flarrety's suggestion to change 'will' to 'may' on line 3. In the same paragraph, he suggested on line 4 that 'several' be deleted before 'City staff.' Line 5, Honohan stated that after the word 'and' he would add '...Committee members investigated,' and then jump over to before'in the community,' and say 'agencies providing services to seniors in the community.' Honohan moved to accept the changes as discussed above. Webber seconded the motion. Bern - Klug stated that investigated seems more in-depth than what they actually did. Honohan suggested saying 'Committee Members reviewed' instead. Bern -Klug stated that this sounds better to her. Younker then stated that he does not have a problem with the last two suggested changes, but that he does believe the budget situation is severe and while not a certainty, it is a very strong possibility and pretty close to a certainty that things will play out this way. Bern -Klug PAGE 9 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 8 suggested using 'will likely' in this situation. Honohan moved a friendly amendment to add `will likely' to his original motion. Webber upheld his second. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Bern -Klug stated that she would like the last sentence changed, that what is shown there is not what their motion was. She moved that they change this to say'and the Committee suggests an official survey of the needs of seniors. Fruin stated that anything in italics and quotations was pulled from the draft report verbatim. Therefore, he thinks that this language may have been changed in the recommendations section and that somewhere in the body of Charge 2, this statement appears as is written here. He noted that if the Committee does make a change in the Executive Summary, they should go back to Charge 2 and consider a similar change to that wording. Younker stated that he would like to get to the point where they can vote on the Executive Summary, perhaps with the understanding that they will accurately quote their own report. He asked Karr if they could footnote this so they could discuss it at Friday's meeting, once they've had a chance to go back and look at the report. Bern -Klug agreed, as long as they discuss it on Friday and have the option to change where it is on page 8. Karr noted that for the agenda, she will note this and page 8. Bern -Klug agreed, adding that lines 215 through 217 are where the discussion takes place about a 'scientific survey.' Bern -Klug withdrew her motion. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2, as it appears in the Executive Summary. Honohan then spoke to the summarized recommendations. He read the second recommendation, noting that he does not believe this to be a viable recommendation. The Center already does rentals, but Honohan does not believe this avenue would generate much revenue. Honohan proposed that they delete this particular recommendation. Continuing, Honohan questioned whom they are talking about when they say'the City' will do something. He asked if this refers to staff at City Hall, staff at the Senior Center, or the Senior Center Commission. Honohan stated that if they are going to make strong recommendations, he believes they need to clarify who it is they are recommending should do these things. Younker stated that the intent was to summarize the recommendations in the Executive Summary and that they do identify in the actual recommendations the staff they are referring to. Honohan noted that they do, but that he is concerned that when they are sending this to the Council, that perhaps the Executive Summary is what is really read, considering the thickness of the overall report. He added that many only read the Executive Summary, and therefore, he believes it needs to be very clear. Honohan stated that on Friday he will speak to trying to delete some of the attachments to the report. Younker asked if Honohan had a proposed recommendation to share, and Honohan stated that he will have that at Friday's meeting. Honohan then moved to the fifth bullet, stating that he believes this is another one that should be removed. He noted that they already share space with SHIP, the VNA, the volunteer lawyers, and others. He added that there is no extra space available. Younker noted that they have an approved recommendation regarding this, 'That 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.' He asked Honohan if he wouldn't agree that this fifth bullet point summarizes what they have already approved. Honohan responded that they have not yet approved the final draft, and that he has several things on the final draft that he will be moving to delete. Younker asked if they could then limit the discussion to the Executive Summary itself then at this point, and that if Members think something has been misstated in the Summary, now is the time to bring that up. Bern -Klug spoke to the fourth bullet from the bottom, noting that 'any' should be removed here in her opinion. Younker stated that this comes from recommendation 6 on page 45 of the packet. Bern -Klug stated that she is speaking to the PAGE 10 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 9 phrase 'any available funds,' and she believes 'any' should be removed as it sounds like they are expecting these agencies to be writing grants right and left. Bern -Klug moved that they delete the word 'any' in this bullet. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5- 1, Younker in the negative. Moving on to Charge 3, Honohan spoke to the obstacles. He stated that in this text, perhaps it would be best to list the obstacles, similar to the format of the rest of the report. He would like to see the obstacle listed and then the recommended solution. Younker clarified this, noting that the first bullet would be 'transportation' and then the text of the bullet point. Honohan noted that the second one would be 'diversity.' He added that he does not like the third one and will have a suggestion for it later. The fourth one would be 'Center accessibility.' Younker suggested they use the same language that they used in the body of the report, and Honohan agreed. Younker clarified that the first one would be 'transportation,' with the second one being 'lack of diversity,' followed by'lack of available programming,' 'barriers to access the Center,' 'lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of the Center programs,' and the last one 'lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.' Karr noted that if the body of the report should change, these bullets would change as well. She added that there is another obstacle on page 12, as well. Younker then suggested that they need to capture obstacle G, page 47 of the packet, noting that it does not currently appear in the bullet point. Honohan then referred to the third bullet point, asking again who is supposed to carry this out. He stated that if it is the Center staff, they do not have the time to do this type of additional work. He questioned who would complete this task. Younker asked that they first entertain a motion to revise the bullet points so that they are including the obstacle to better track the report to the summary. Honohan moved to revise the bullet points to better track the report to the summary. Webber seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that one of the biggest obstacles they heard was that when the human services programs went to the priority system and older adults were not a priority, some local agencies lost money. She stated that she does not see that reflected here at all. Fruin interjected at this point, noting that where this is captured is the sentence where the Committee previously struck the word 'any.' He added that when he wrote this recommendation and was trying to track the report, this issue came up in Charge 2, under the recommendations for the physical and financial resources. He stated that this speaks to the financial resources of the external agencies, and that this bullet is where the Committee was trying to express to the Council that those agencies that serve seniors — regardless if that is their primary function or not — that they apply for funds to serve low-income seniors. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if the addition of obstacle G didn't address her concern. She replied that she finds that they have drifted away from a very important opportunity to clearly state that an obstacle to providing services for low-income seniors is the lack of funding to agencies that in the past received funding. She noted that this has been a thread through the last six months, yet she does not see it listed here as an obstacle. Bern -Klug stated that she does not want this issue to be diluted when she believes it to be a very important part of their charge. Younker responded that he thinks they are talking about several issues at once here. He reiterated that what they are talking about right now is the proposed Executive Summary. Honohan suggested that Bern -Klug come up with suggested language for them to discuss on Friday. She stated that she could work on this and welcomed other's input. Members continued to discuss this issue, referring to the addition of obstacle G and how this may address Bern-Klug's concerns. The motion carried 6-0. Younker then asked for a motion to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. Younker then asked Karr for a Point of Order on this issue. She suggested that staff give Members a revised Executive Summary, per tonight's discussion, for PAGE 11 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 10 them to review and discuss at Friday's meeting. They could then adopt it at that time. The Committee agreed. Honohan withdrew his motion. DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS DRAFT (pg 190): Moving on, Younker noted that he and the Vice -Chair prepared a draft Conclusion document for discussion. He stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this. Bern -Klug moved to adopt the Conclusions draft. Honohan seconded the motion for discussion. Discussion began with Honohan discussing his handout. His first concern is on line 1, 'fulfilled' is the term in question. Honohan stated that this seems more than they really did. He stated that he would like to use 'completed' here instead. On line 2, he stated that he does not believe they performed an 'assessment,' but did 'review.' He would like to add 'to meet the needs,' in the next paragraph. 'Should continue to support the Senior Center in its current location,' and he questioned the term 'by allowing it.' Honohan moved to make the proposed changes to the draft document. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug asked if this means that they are accepting what is on Honohan's handout, or just the two items he talked about. Younker stated that they are accepting the changes to the draft as it appears on page 190. The changes are exchanging 'completed' for 'fulfilled,' 'review' for'assess,' and then deleting 'by allowing it to remain.' Karr added that it is also adding 'to meet the needs.' Karr asked if this could be a friendly amendment to the original, that they currently have two motions on the floor — one to adopt it as presented and one to do it as amended. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) — Younker noted that the next meeting is Friday at 3:00 P.M. The packet will need to be released by 3:00 on Thursday. He added that on Friday they will discuss the public comment received and also what changes they want to make to the report, if any. Karr noted that noon on Thursday would be the deadline for anyone wishing to get something into the meeting packet. Discussion continued about the agenda for the final meeting and just what needs to occur then. Dobyns stated that he believes they should be done after Friday's meeting. Bern -Klug spoke briefly to the World Health Organization (WHO) and its program for'age friendly cities.' She asked if people would be willing to look over this information prior to Friday and consider recommending that the City pursue getting Iowa City named a WHO 'world friendly city.' Younker suggested that Bern -Klug put together a recommendation for Friday's packet so that it can be an agenda item. Dobyns stated that he would be a bit concerned, that the sense of the agenda is to comment on things that have already been brought up. He believes that to introduce something new at this point is not a good idea. Younker agreed that discussion of a new program at this stage might not be something they can accomplish, but he suggested Bern -Klug bring this to Friday's meeting for further discussion by the Committee. November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) Special meetings if needed. PUBLIC COMMENT (items not on the agenda): Bob Welsh addressed the Committee, noting that in relation to Bern-Klug's comment, Des Moines is the one city in Iowa that has done this. This effort was led by the Iowa AARP. Welsh also spoke to the Executive Summary, noting that in Charge 1 there are no summarized recommendations, but there are in Charges 2 and 3. Welsh also spoke to the statement, PAGE 12 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 11 '...with our own stuff.' He stated that there is a tendency to say 'ours' and 'theirs' when speaking about such programming. He believes they need comments that are about collaborating and sharing, more positive terms. Kathy Mitchell of the Senior Center Commission and Steering Council spoke next. She pointed out that the Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center is multigenerational. It is county wide. It is inclusional, and the programs are not elite programs just for the Center, but are programs provided at the Center for the members and the general public. Mary Gravitt stated that she wanted to point out something in lines 14-37, on page 2, section B. She pointed out 8B where it talks about current financial and physical resources, not future. Gravitt stated that she keeps hearing about the future, but that that is not the charge here. She reiterated that it is existing resources, not what might happen in the future. She also noted that things need to be in line with the Council's strategic plan. Gravitt suggested the Committee go back and read what they have been charged with. She also stated that there has to be a meeting on November 24, as the public has a right to comment on this final report. Shirley Lundell followed up with a comment regarding Mitchell's comment about the wording as far as 'lack of.' She stated that she hopes that when the Committee looks at their final report that they take out the 'lack of terminology. ADJOURNMENT: Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6.0. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 12, 2014 Page 12 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 PAGE 13 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a cn in as as v v v oo tD c® o 0 0 ® � NAME EXP. O 0 N 0 N W 0 0o ® w N 0 N N 12/1/14 X X X 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 X X X Honohan Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X 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 X X X Richard Webber Ellen 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ O/ O/ O/ O/ Cannon E E E E E E Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X X X Dohrmann E Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ X Dobyns E E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time PAGE 14 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 14, 2014 — 3:00 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping, Michelle Buhman None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. He noted that the purpose of today's meeting is to digest and consider the comments that they received from the public at Wednesday's meeting. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF REPORT: a. Initial Sections (pgs 2 -3) - Younker began with the Initial Sections review. Dobyns moved to accept the Initial Sections as typed. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 4-6, comments pgs 165-168) — Moving on to Charge 1, Honohan noted that everyone has a copy of his handout regarding this section. Honohan stated that he would propose to delete on page 5b, bullet 2, lines 119-121, and replace with: The current level of diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to increase the gender, age, ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of diversity of the participants, seeking to maintain or enlarge the level of diversity that reflects the community as a whole. Honohan added that these changes reflect the suggestions of Mary Gutmann and Kathy Mitchell. Honohan moved to make the above noted changes. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with Dohrmann speaking to the word 'diversity' in Honohan's proposal. She suggested dropping the specifics and instead saying: 'Efforts are being made to increase diversity of participants.' Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Bern - Klug asked if Mitchell didn't suggest this portion at the last meeting. Honohan stated that the first part is what Mitchell suggested. The second portion was left in from the original wording. Kathy Mitchell then spoke to this suggestion, stating that her request had to do with the differentials in diversity, and she asked that all of these lists be removed and replaced with 'current levels of diversity,' with the understanding that the Center already has diversity, but that they are working very hard to expand it, especially in certain areas. After further discussion, Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe they need the second sentence in Honohan's proposal. She would merely say, 'Efforts are being made to increase diversity,' and she asked to amend the original motion. PAGE 15 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 2 Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Webber stated that his second stands. The motion carries 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Dohrmann then moved to line 126, page 5. She made the motion to strike the words 'racial' and `ethnic' from this sentence. Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan stated that it appears that they are deleting the specifics. He added that if they are going to be consistent, this change is a good idea. The motion carried 6-0. Younker asked if there were any further comments regarding Charge 1. Bern -Klug asked if they have addressed all of the changes suggested at Wednesday's meeting. Younker referred to page 165 of the packet, noting that this is where the summary of Charge 1 comments appears. Honohan noted for the record that he did review Miss Gutmann's comments, as well as Kathy Mitchell's comments, in great detail. He stated that he did not agree with all of them, but that many of the suggested changes arose from their comments. Dohrmann agreed that she reviewed all of the comments and suggestions, as well. Webber moved to approve Charge 1 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 7-10, comments pgs 169- 171) — Honohan began on page 8, III, line 228, suggesting that the following be added at the end of the second paragraph: 'Both the City and non-profit agencies serving seniors will be challenged... (continue rest of paragraph.' Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Younker seconded the motion. Bern -Klug asked if there is a reason for changing to 'will be' from 'are' challenged in this sentence. Honohan stated that he took this to mean in the future. He added that what he is trying to show is that the City itself is going to also be challenged, not just the non- profit agencies. Dohrmann spoke to this, as well, noting that all of them are currently challenged to meet the needs of seniors, and that they heard this when they heard how stretched the Senior Center staff are right now, as well as other non-profit agencies. Honohan stated that the reason he is still leaning towards 'will' is shown on pages 232 to 239, where they are speaking to the future. Younker responded to this, noting that he would agree that it probably does make sense to add 'The City' here but that he thinks the present tense, using 'are,' makes more sense. Honohan agreed to this friendly amendment. Younker stated that his second stands. The motion carried 6-0. Moving to page 8, III, lines 232-236, Honohan stated that he would delete these lines entirely. He would change this to say: 'The Committee recognizes that with the growing senior population, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasing diverse senior population, especially for seniors with limited financial resources.' He added that this came from Mitchell's suggestions, with some editing on his part. Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Dobyns seconded the motion. Younker asked Honohan why the shift from organizations to the Committee. Honohan stated that he believes as a Committee they are supposed to be making positive statements about various issues. He thinks it makes this a stronger statement. Members briefly discussed their thoughts on the amendment. The motion carried 6-0. Honohan's next amendment, also page 8, III, lines 237-239 is as follows. He would delete lines 237-239 and replace with: 'The Committee recognizes that the demand for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence and prevent or PAGE 16 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 3 delay the onset of chronic diseases will increase.' Honohan moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 237-239, as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Moving to page 9, III, lines 244-245, Honohan suggested deleting these lines entirely. He added that his thought is that they are putting into this report a recommendation that the City conduct a professional survey of seniors in the community to determine needs, concerns, etc. He stated that he was uncomfortable with this sentence and that he feels they should not put anything in the report that detracts from the survey. Honohan moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 244-245. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, Dobyns in the negative. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2. Honohan moved to accept Charge 2 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 10-13, comments pgs 172-176) — Honohan began his suggestion proposal on page 10, line 300. This deals with Mary Gutmann's recommendation to change as the title of Charge 3: 'Obstacles and Recommendations.' Honohan moved to add `Obstacles' to the title line of Charge 3, as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Next under Charge 3, Honohan proposed a change on page 11, line 312, to delete 'Lack of Diversity,' and to replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Honohan moved to delete 'Lack of Diversity,' and replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that this really is not an obstacle. Honohan responded, noting that he believes it is, that they do have diversity, but the Center is wanting it to be greater. The problem then is how to expand this. Bern -Klug stated that this would then be the obstacle. Younker suggested 'difficulty with diversity expansion' instead. Honohan stated that he is concerned with how it currently reads, as it sounds like there is no diversity at the Center. Younker suggested they vote on what is written here first, and then discuss a way to rephrase it to capture what they are trying to express. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they were going to go through the public comments, piece by piece, and that she is somewhat confused by what they are doing at this point. Younker stated that he believes that was the intent of Honohan's motion, that it was made in response to comments received at Wednesday's meeting. Honohan stated that with this particular motion that is true. Younker suggested Bern -Klug look at page 172 of the packet where there is a summary of the comments received from the public. Bern -Klug stated that she is confused that only some of the comments were made into motions. Honohan responded that he ran out of time with the rest of them and that his motions were not meant to be all-inclusive. Younker tried to draw the discussion back to the point at hand. Honohan then withdraw his motion. Honohan stated that he believes Bern -Klug makes a good point here. He stated that perhaps they should change what they have been doing and go back to where they began, the comments on pages 165-168, and see what the Committee thinks should also be changed here and not just what Honohan has proposed. Younker stated that he believes they have pretty much done this so far, that there is nothing else he would suggest they change. Dohrmann stated that she would agree with this, that she went through everything too. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if this is what she is wanting to do PAGE 17 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 4 with the public comments, and she responded that it is, that she wanted to make sure they directly addressed what everyone said at the public forum, and that she wanted to clarify what Honohan had done in his handout. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she felt there was something that had not been addressed so far. She stated that she does, but that they are not at that point yet in the discussion. Younker restated what they have been through so far. The initial sections — they received no public comment here, thus there were no comments to review. In Charge 1, the comments begin at page 165 and go through page 168, according to Younker. Discussion was held regarding Honohan's motions about diversity, levels of diversity, and subsequent amendments were made. In Charge 2, the comments run from page 169 to 171. Younker asked Honohan if his proposals here were drafted in consideration of public comments. Honohan responded that they were. Larry Rogers, audience member, stated that his one comment under Charge 2 was skipped over completely. Rogers noted that on page 169, his name is mentioned twice. The first comment was covered by Honohan; however, the second comment regarding the proposed grants to be given to community agencies was skipped completely. Rogers again questioned where the City is going to get the $40,000 when they are talking about budget shortfalls. He read the section he is referring to, again asking how this is going to improve the Senior Center's financial status, or that of the City, to give out these grants. His proposal was to look into incentives to keep businesses that affect senior citizens in Iowa City. Younker again asked Bern -Klug if she had anything she wanted to address up to this point. Dobyns then made a Point of Order to the Chair, as several audience members continued to add to the discussion. He stated that public comment was this past Wednesday, and that he believes, for the purposes of the Committee's deliberations today, that they should withhold public comment. Younker responded that he would like the Committee to have an opportunity to discuss the public comments from Wednesday and that he would not entertain any further comments from the audience. Dohrmann then spoke to Honohan's motion about the difficulty with expansion of diversity. Younker moved that on line 312 delete 'lack of diversity' and replace it with 'difficulties with expansion of diversity.' Dohrmann suggested adding to this same section the alternative that Guttmann suggested. This can be found on page 174, under Charge 3, Obstacles and Recommendations. This proposal states: 'The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' She asked if they could combine those two. Younker then withdrew his original motion. He then moved to delete `lack of diversity' on line 312 and replace it with `difficulties with expansion of diversity,' delete the recommendation that begins at line 313 and replace it with'The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Moving to page 11, obstacle C, line 318, Bern -Klug noted that on Wednesday it was suggested they delete the language 'lack of available programming' by Ina Lowenberg. She asked if others are interested in doing this. Honohan moved to delete entirely lines 318-322 on page 11. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with PAGE 18 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 5 Honohan speaking to what the staff of the Senior Center is responsible for. He noted that it is not for them to coordinate and bring agencies in, and to help other agencies within the community. He does not believes this is the role of either the City or the Center staff. Honohan stated that he believes the requested survey will be important in solving the problem that appears to be addressed in this item. Younker stated that he would disagree somewhat with this. He believes their charge here is to make recommendations regarding how the City should use financial and physical resources. Through that discussion, the fact that there may be gaps in services was brought up. Continuing, Younker noted that in Charge 3 then, identifying the gaps and providing recommendations, they are not saying that the Center staff should be charged with coordinating services among agencies, but that there appear to be some gaps in services. The Center is in a position to have information, potentially, about that and would be in a position to collaborate with some of these other agencies. The recommendation, according to Younker, is that this issue be discussed. Dohrmann stated that to her this is really critical, especially in light of the City's strategic plan and goals. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this is beyond the scope of the responsibility of the Senior Center staff. Younker asked Bern -Klug what it is she believes the Center's staff will be doing here. She responded that she does not believe the staff should be responsible for better understanding any gaps in senior services in Iowa City, that they are responsible for the programming that the Senior Center provides. Younker stated that he would disagree with this. Honohan reiterated that he believes once the City performs the requested survey that this will identify the gaps in services. He asked how this would actually go, if a meeting would be held with Center staff and Elder Services and the VNA, for example, where everyone would be asked what the gaps are. Honohan spoke then to Elder Services, noting that they must be going through some changes as they have moved out of the Senior Center, but with no consultation given on this. He added that he has heard they are considering dropping their collaboration with the federal government so they do not have to set the lower price for meals and could therefore raise prices. Honohan continued, stating that he just does not see how this type of meeting would even be productive. Younker stated that this would be a good reason to highlight why it would be appropriate to categorize the lack of dialogue as an obstacle. Bern -Klug then suggested they delete this, as Honohan had suggested. She spoke to her suggested wording, and Younker noted that this is covered under item 2.f., page 154 of the packet. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding obstacle C. The motion failed 3-3; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber in the positive. Moving to line 319, page 11, obstacle C, Bern -Klug suggested they delete 'the Center staff' so that it would read 'City staff should continue to engage in dialogue.' She noted that as Honohan had previously mentioned, Center staff are City staff, and she questioned the distinction. Bern -Klug moved that she would change her suggestion to `Agencies involved with providing services to seniors should continue to engage in a dialogue ... (cont as stated).' Younker stated that he believes they do need to have the City involved in such dialogue, that this was the point of the recommendation. Honohan seconded the motion. Younker again stated that he believes the City needs to be involved in such dialogue, and Dohrmann agreed. Bern - Klug stated that she believes the City does not need to be involved in what happens at these agencies. She believes this is too broad of a statement. Discussion continued, with Members giving their thoughts on this statement and what it actually means. The motion failed 2-4, Webber and Bern -Klug in the positive. PAGE 19 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 6 Honohan then moved to title this obstacle as Gaps in Services for Seniors, and add 'The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand gaps in services,' and then delete the next sentence entirely. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that the reason he is against this paragraph is mainly due to the second sentence, that the dialogue should include Center staff. He stated that he would be agreeable to using the suggested wording he has given. Younker stated that he does not have a problem with the first sentence proposed; however, he does believe that a discussion of possible areas of collaboration will be very important. Dohrmann asked Honohan to clarify his proposal again, which he did. Dobyns stated that he would like to make a friendly amendment to retain the second sentence and to make the suggested changes to the first. Honohan stated that he would not be agreeable to this amendment, as he wants to get rid of the second sentence. Bern -Klug agreed that she too is not open to this amendment. She added that the last sentence insinuates that the Center has not been doing this for the last decade, and that the report shows example after example of collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Younker suggested the second sentence be modified to read, 'The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and various agencies.' He added that the intent was not to say that this is a new idea that the Center has not been doing. The intent was to say that if there is an opportunity out there, it should be discussed and identified and taken advantage of. Dohrmann stated that she supports this, but her big concern are the groups that come to mind — hidden groups — those consisting of people from other countries with different languages and cultures who are not as fully engaged in the community. She believes it is the responsibility of the City and the Senior Center to address this, and that this means attempting to foster relationships with these other groups. To her this second sentence speaks to the importance of doing this. Honohan then made the proposal to keep the first sentence as proposed, and change the second sentence to 'The dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of collaboration.' Younker proposed saying 'between the City and various agencies.' Honohan stated that he would be agreeable to this. Bern -Klug stated that she would hold her second and agreed, as well. Younker then reiterated how the proposal would read: 'The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and various agencies.' The first sentence is, 'The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services.' Honohan withdrew his pending motion and moved the motion as just read. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Moving to page 12, Honohan proposed reducing this obstacle to one line. Decrease in funding was suggested by Younker. Honohan moved to change the obstacle to a Decrease in Funding. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Younker then asked if there was any further comment regarding Charge 3. Honohan moved to approve Charge 3 as amended in the discussions. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. e. Exhibits (comments pg 176): PAGE 20 Ad Hoe Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 7 A — Res 14-37 (pgs 14-17) — Younker worked his way through the exhibit list, asking if there were any further comments regarding each exhibit. Discussion ensued about this list, with Members asking if they can delete some of these documents from the report. Younker stated that it makes sense to include the Resolution with the report so that it is clear what the Committee was charged with. B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 18-34) — Retain, no comments. C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 35-40, clean version pgs 156-160) — Retain, no comments. D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 41-47) — Retain, no comments. E — National Council on Aging (pgs 48-49) — Younker stated that this was the Fact Sheet. He questioned if they spoke directly to this or not. Karr stated that they did on page 3 and she cited the reference. Bern -Klug stated that this particular document is not part of the assessment, but rather a brochure about senior centers in general. She stated that she does not believe they need to include this. After a brief discussion, Younker noted that the Accreditation letter and report, pages 41-47, are the actual report and what is needed. Honohan moved to delete Exhibit E. Younker seconded the motion. Younker stated that he believes they included it because they stated that they agree with the nine standards of national excellence, and this fact sheet identifies those nine standards. However, he thinks the nine standards are also in the report, and Honohan stated that they indeed are. The motion carried 6-0. F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 50-60) — Karr noted that pages 58 and 59 do not belong here, that the report ends on page 57. Younker agreed with this, noting that those were a cover memo and a Senior Center flyer. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to delete these pages. Honohan moved to delete pages 58 through 60 per the discussion. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 61-144) — Honohan moved to delete the Program Guide of Spring 2014. Younker seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that he realizes they refer to the guide in the report and discuss the various programs, etc., however, he believes they do not need an 83 -page program guide to be a part of this report. He added that as he has previously suggested, less paper in the report is better. Younker stated that he would agree with this, especially since the guide is available online if anyone needs to refer to it. Bern -Klug suggested they embed the link to the program guide. Karr noted that they cannot archive a link, but that perhaps they could refer the Council to the program guide as it appears on the Senior Center's web site. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 145-150) — Bern -Klug stated that she believes this should say 'Senior Center Strategic Plan booklet.' Younker noted that what Council will receive is what is shown on the screen. I — Census (pgs 151-153) — Retain, no comments. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she wanted to return to exhibit F. She stated that she wondered if all 10 pages should be part of the report to Council or if they should refer them to the web site on this one, as well. Karr noted that it is now only seven pages, as they removed the three pages that were inadvertently attached. Also, Karr noted that when things are archived for Council, they are not responsible for archiving other sites and when those sites are updated. With PAGE 21 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 8 the program guide it makes sense; however, with the survey results, you don't know how long they will be kept on that site at that address. She suggested they keep these seven pages in the report. Younker agreed that this makes sense. Honohan moved to approve the Exhibits section as modified. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Age Friendly City (pgs 154-155) — Bern -Klug stated that she would like to propose a motion dealing with the lack of a vision for older adults in Iowa City. She stated that the World Health Organization has developed a vision that can be applied to cities around the world and then subsequently adapted by cities to fit their needs. Bern -Klug thought this would be a good idea to have a meeting of the key organizations to see if this would be something beneficial for Iowa City. Instead of the Council coming up with a vision for dealing with older adults and the aging population, the WHO's vision would be used as a starting point. Items like transportation, services for frail older adults, and social participation are all items that are part of the WHO's vision, many obstacles that the Committee has themselves identified. Dobyns stated that this sounds like a good document, but that he does not believe this is the time to introduce this into the report. He added that there were times back in August and September to add new information to the report. He would want more time to digest this information, something they do not have at this point. Honohan stated that he has a thought for a motion, he recommended that the City Council establish an exploratory committee comprised of representatives from community groups and the University, of seeking the WHO Age Friendly City designation. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting the Council adopt this, but that she is suggesting they use something like this to better understand the services in a big connected picture versus piece meal. She added that she wishes she had thought of this earlier, as she believes it would have been more effective. Bern -Klug reiterated that the WHO's vision would give the City a framework to work with on these issues. She stated that much of what the WHO's vision states, they have already touched upon. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. She then asked Honohan to reread the motion for clarification. 'Recommend that the City Council establish an exploratory committee,' and then continue with what Bern -Klug already suggested. Younker asked if the framework provided by the WHO would go to the discussion of gaps in services. He asked what connection she sees between the WHO's framework and the gaps in services obstacle discussed earlier in the meeting. Bern -Klug stated that since their charge was to look at how the City could provide better services for seniors, this framework lays out a way to assess the extent to which cities are providing better services for senior citizens. Therefore, she believes it is completely consistent with the charge. It does not go into as much depth as they had talked about for the survey for low-income seniors, but that this could be incorporated into this. Younker stated that speaking to Dobyns' point, the Committee has not had the time to vet the WHO's framework. He suggested that if they do believe it fits well with the recommendation they have, should they just make Council aware of this instead. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this item should be a separate obstacle, the lack of a stated vision for the City's role with senior services. Dohrmann stated that she wonders if a different avenue should be taken, with perhaps Bern -Klug submitting the report to the Council — separate from the report itself. She added that she believes the concept is good, but that they have not had the time to vet the report. Bern - Klug asked if they could revisit this at the meeting on November 24. She believes it ties in directly with what they have been discussing. Dobyns stated that he believes they need to move forward at this point. Bern -Klug responded that she believes the City PAGE 22 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 9 needs to see this type of framework, to help them move forward with their planning. Younker agreed that it is probably a bit late in the game to add this report at this point. He does believe they should make Council aware of it and suggested that individual Members could do so, or they could make it part of the obstacles. Bern -Klug stated that she could change the wording to say that 'dialogue be engaged with the City and agencies to consider this.' Honohan asked for some clarification on why Younker has made the statement he did. He suggested they make a recommendation through the Committee, agreeing that he himself has not had a chance to read through the WHO's documentation. However, he believes that suggesting to the Council to establish a committee is not a bad idea. Younker stated that he agrees they should make Council aware of this resource, but that he has not read this so he does not believe he should make a recommendation that Council do something with it. He stated that they could make a comment in the conclusion section. Bern -Klug stated that she would be prepared to propose an obstacle that there is a lack of an articulated City vision for how to make Iowa City a city for all ages, which is the goal of the WHO tool. She added that she would like to make this as an obstacle and then this tool is one approach that has been vetted at the national and international level as a solid approach for cities to use. She again stated that if today is not a good time to discuss this issue, she would like to revisit it at the November 24 meeting. Younker stated that today is the day to have that decision, that they need to be ready to vote on the report at the next meeting. Honohan withdrew his motion. Bern -Klug moved to add an obstacle to the report, the lack of an articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Her recommendation would be for the City Council to establish an exploratory committee to consider the WHO approach to age friendly cities. Honohan seconded the motion. Dobyns replied that he will be voting against this as that is the mission of this Committee, to establish a vision. Bern -Klug stated that they were never told to come up with a vision. Dobyns replied that that is how he interpreted it, as a Member of Council. She replied that this would have been helpful information to have back in June and again in August when she asked what the vision was. Dobyns stated that he did say this. She asked if he had proposed any visions for them to discuss. Dobyns replied that the majority of this Committee's vision is what is in their report. This is the vision that will be presented to Council. Bern -Klug stated that this is a reframing that she was not aware of and that nowhere in the document does it say what the vision is for the City. Younker stated that they are getting off track and he brought the group back to the motion on the floor. The motion carried 4-2, Dobyns and Younker in the negative. Younker noted that this will become obstacle H. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pgs 161-163)— Younker noted that what they have in front of them is a red -lined version, capturing the changes made at the last meeting. Dohrmann moved to adopt the Executive Summary as it appears in their packet. Dobyns seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan referring to Younker's comment earlier that what they do today to the report is basically the end. He added that he is not prepared to approve a final report to Council until he sees the actual report. He stated that he is reserving the right to move to amend things in the final report if he sees things that he is uncomfortable with. Younker stated that they have gone through each section and approved each section, that the final meeting will be that final approval. Members will have that final report in the meeting packet. Younker questioned if they have an obstacle on page 163. Honohan stated that he is assuming the last obstacle, which was changed, will need to be shown, as will the new obstacle (H) that they approved at this meeting. Karr noted that the PAGE 23 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 10 highlighted portion on page 163 was a staff question and that it can be changed in the summary and the report. Dohrmann stated that for clarity, they could drop 'the City' from this. Bern -Klug noted that on page 162, she mentioned that the wording should be taken out — the first sentence now on page 162 that is in quotations, 'If the Council wishes for a more scientific approach for determining the needs, it will likely need to utilize...'. They had talked about this being toned down. Karr stated that as she remembers, Fruin had brought up that this was text from another part of the report. She added that she is unsure if they resolved this matter any further. Younker noted that there was no motion to amend this sentence, as he recalls. Bern -Klug moved to amend the sentence by saying the needs of the senior populations could be better understood through an official survey. Younker asked what Bern-Klug's concern is with quoting text that is already in the report. She stated that they talked about changing this in the body of the report also. Her concern is that it sounds a little snooty to her. She stated that this was the previous concern as well. She believes it should be changed in the summary. Bern Klug reiterated her motion for clarification, stating that building off the sentence at the bottom of page 161, 'Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal approach to gauge the needs of the senior population, a professional survey should be considered by the City Council.' Honohan seconded the motion. Younker suggested they make two sentences out of this. He suggested putting a period after populations and then starting a new sentence. Bern -Klug agreed to a friendly amendment. Honohan kept his second and approved this, as well. The motion carried 6.0. Dohrmann moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF CONCLUSIONS (pn 164) — Moving on to the Conclusion, page 164, Younker asked for a motion to approve said document. Bern -Klug moved to approve the revised Conclusion. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Honohan asked where in the report this section will go, and Younker replied at the end. He asked where the Executive Summary is placed, and Younker stated that it will go at the beginning of the report. Dobyns spoke to Honohan's statement of having the right to make changes at the final meeting. He asked if they would then have another meeting to make those amendments. Younker stated that they need to wrap things up at the next meeting. They dissolve by resolution on December I". and the 24th is the Monday of Thanksgiving week. Therefore, the 24th has to be their last meeting. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Honohan and Bem-Klug stating that they need to see what the final document is going to look like. Bern -Klug stated that she agrees with the Chair, that now is not the time to bring up new topics. Members asked when to expect the packet for the last meeting, and Karr responded that it could be available on Thursday the 20th. Younker stated that if significant changes are submitted prior to the meeting on the 24`h, they do have that meeting to review them and make their final decisions. He stated that in his view, substantive discussion ends today. Karr stated that she would like to get Member concurrence to take down the web site of the draft because the draft has been changed significantly and substantively. She can then replace it with something else, such as a link to the upcoming packet. Bern -Klug asked if there is any way to put up just the report without the exhibits. Karr noted that this is how it currently is on the web site. Younker clarified the report contains the exhibits and should be approved as one item. After some discussion, Members agreed that the next packet will contain the final report in its entirety. PAGE 24 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 11 TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items): Kathy Mitchell thanked the Committee for their time and effort in this endeavor. She did note that the reason she wanted to clarify her remarks regarding 'lack of in the obstacle section, especially for sections B, C, and E, is because she felt that these are things the Center is already doing. Therefore, she does not believe them to be obstacles, but are continuing goals. She added that she would have liked to have not only a recommendations section, but also 'continuing goals.' Mitchell stated that she believes the Committee has now created obstacles that were not there, and now she feels this is somewhat troubling. She reiterated that she wishes they had removed these issues, and only put up those that would be perceived as goals. Mary Gravitt stated that she sees a problem already. They were interested in the current funding, not the projected funding. Section B speaks to current, not projected. On line 244, she noted that this is part of the strategic plan and needs to stay. Also the language about the programs, she questioned if they are referring to the written programs or something else. Dialogue is another part of the strategic plan, according to Gravitt. She stated that the Committee is going into areas that they are not charged with, such as on line 337, it should be deleted because this is not part of their charge. Gravitt stated that the Committee has to get the language straight in their report as they cannot go against the strategic plan of the Council. She stated that she plans to address Council on these issues. Larry Rogers stated that he would like to clarify something with line 276. 'Serving older adults that address a substance abuse emotional health services.' He asked if this shouldn't have a comma after substance abuse. Dohrmann responded that there is a comma missing here and that they would make that correction. ADJOURNMENT: Bern -Klug moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee November 14, 2014 Page 12 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 PAGE 25 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 -. fn N m M -4 V V CO W (D O O O O -* NAME EXP. O \ 0 \ N \ O \ N \ W 0 \ co \ O W N O —' -* cn N N N in N -* p 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay Honohan 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram Richard 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Webber Ellen Cannon 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/E O/ O/ O/ O/E N E E E E M Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X X X X Dohrmann E Rick Dobyns 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ X X E E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Marian Karr From: Sent: To: Subject: For immediate release November 18, 2014 PAGE 26 Bern -Klug, Mercedes E <mercedes-bern-klug@uiowa.edu> Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:09 PM Marian Karr Please include in packet FW: New Ranking: Milken Institute Best Cities for Successful Aging Where does your city rank? Milken Institute index analyses 352 metropolitan areas to identify "Best Cities for Successful Aging" In the top 20: Boston, New York and San Francisco. Madison is #1 LOS ANGELES — The Milken Institute released today the first -of -its -kind, data -driven index, Best Cities for Successful Aging, which measures and ranks the performance of 352 U.S. metropolitan areas in promoting and enabling successful aging. The Top 10 large and smaller metropolitan areas are: Ranking - largest metros: 1Madison, WI 2Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE -IA 3Provo-Orem, UT Boston-Cannbridge-Newton, MA- 4NH 5Salt Lake City, UT Wackson, MS 7Des Moines -West Des Moines, IA 8Toledo, OH 9Austin-Round Rock, TX 1OBridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT Ranking - smaller metros: IIowa City, IA 2Sioux Falls, SO 3Columbia, MO 413ismarck, ND 5Rapid City, SD 6Ames, IA 7Rocbester, MN 8Ann Arbor, MI 9Cheycnme, WY 1 OFargo, ND -MN Unlike many "best places to retire" lists, the Milken Institute starts from the insight that most Americans want to age at home and in place, and not uproot themselves from their communities. In effect, the Best Cities for Successful Aging Index is an x-ray that reveals how well U.S. cities are providing the infrastructure, amenities, and opportunities both to serve and benefit from the country's fastest-growing age segment, The Best Cities for Successful Aging index examines 84 separate factors that most affect the quality of life for older adults. These include not only health and wellness, crime rates and weather, but also economic and job conditions, housing, transportation, and social engagement factors that help create safe, affordable and connected communities. The index also recognizes the new economic and social reality that, especially for the 65-79 age group, many need and want to continue paid employment. PAGE 27 The index includes two sets of overall rankings: one for the 100 most populous metropolitan areas and another for the next 252 metros in size. The index also breaks down results for the 65-79 age group and for those 80 and older, recognizing that the needs and aspirations of adults change as they age. "Our research finds common themes among the top-ranked cities," said Anusuya Chatterjee, Milken Institute senior economist and one of the authors of the report. "These include economic strength, abundance of health resources, active lifestyles, opportunities for intellectual stimulation and access to amenities." As part of this initiative, the Institute reached out to U.S. mayors to ask them to sign the Best Cities for , tuccessfttl Aging Mayor's Pledge. To date, one -hundred thirty-seven mayors from across the political spectrum have committed to make their cities work better for older adults and to enable older adults to strengthen their cities and improve lives for all generations through purposeful work and volunteerism. The mayors and their cities are listed on a site devoted to the Mayor's Pledge: littp:Hsuccessfulagiiip,.tiiilkeninstitLite.org/iiiayors- pledge The Pledge comes from the Institute's Best Cities for Successful Aging Advisory Committee, an important group of thought leaders and experts who are advising the Institute in its work on healthy, productive and purposeful aging. "With the demographic shift proceeding across America, enabling successful aging could not be more important for our future," said Paul Irving, president of the Milken Institute. "Best Cities for Successful Aging is not just an index, it's a movement. We hope our findings spark national discussion and, at the local level, generate virtuous competition among cities to galvanize improvement in the social structures that serve and empower older adults." To read `Best Cities for Successful Aging" and explore the interactive data site, go to successfulagina.milkeninstitu te.ore. About the Milken Institute A nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the Milken Institute's mission is to improve lives around the world by advancing innovative economic and policy solutions that create jobs, widen access to capital and enhance health. www.milkeninstitute.m•� a milkeninstitute Contact Jeff Monford, Associate Director of Communications (310)570-4623 i nronford2nrilkeninstittite.org Conrad Kiechel, Director of Conmmnications (310) 570-4668 E-mail: ckiecliel@niilkeninstitute.org F`"7 l 11 Metros were ranked by population. The top 100 largest metros were placed in one subgroup and the remaining 252 in another. This allowed for appropriate data comparisons between metros with smaller populations, using a slightly different data set. PAGE 28 Disclaimer: If you do not wish to receive fiirther news/releases from Milken Institute, please click the following link: [Remove Me]. Requests will take a maximum of 2 business days to process. Contact information: Jeff Monford, Milken Institute, 1250 4th St FL 2, Santa Monica, CA 904011418. AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL Approved November --, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary...................................................................... Page 1 Initial Section........................................................................... Page 3 Charge1................................................................................. Page 4 Charge2................................................................................. Page 6 Charge3................................................................................. Page 9 Conclusion................................................................................. Page 11 Exhibit A —Res. 13-47................................................................... Page 12 Exhibit B — 2014 Annual Report ...................................................... Page 16 Exhibit C — Sub Committee Evaluation ................................................. Page 33 Exhibit D — Accreditation letter and report ............................................. Page 38 Exhibit E — Survey Report................................................................ Page 45 Exhibit F - Senior Center Strategic Plan Booklet .................................... Page 53 Exhibit G — Census......................................................................... Page 65 Executive Summary I. Committee's Approach The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee was established pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 14- 37 on February 18", 2014. The committee met regularly to accomplish the three tasks charged by the City Council. Public comment was received at all meetings and a special meeting was held on November 12, 2014 to hear public input specific to the committee's initial draft report to the City Council. This final report reflects all changes made subsequent to the November 12" public input meeting. 11. Charge 1: Evaluation of Senior Center The committee was directed to evaluate the current vision, mission and programming of the Senior Center. This task was accomplished with input from Senior Center staff and members of the public, as well through a review of existing reports and related documents concerning the Senior Center. The committee found that the Senior Center's programs "promote active aging at a consistently high level". The committee agreed with the National Council on Aging's assessment that the "Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and implementation." The committee recognized the Senior Center's collaboration with agencies that provide service to seniors. The committee evaluated opportunities for improvement, which included "a review offees and other ways to assist in the funding of the Center should be encouraged." Notably, the committee felt that scholarships for low-income participants should be continued and encouraged. Finally, the committee recognized that "efforts are being made to increase ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of diversity." The committee acknowledged the difficulty in measuring non-member use of the Senior Center. However, the committee encourages staff to "consider ways to collect data to demonstrate community -wide, multi -generational participation in activities and events." III. Charge 2: Financial & Physical Resources The committee spent considerable time attempting to understand the existing and expected future resources of the City. It is noted that property tax reform and a declining trend of federal assistance will likely result in increased financial pressures on the community. In order to better understand the needs of the senior population, the committee heard from City staff members from multiple departments and committee members reviewed agencies providing service to seniors in the community. Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal approach to gauge the needs of the senior population. A professional survey should be considered by the City Council. Summarized recommendations from the committee related to this charge are outlined below: • The City should continue to work on goals to identify and utilize revenue sources; • The City should assess opportunities to generate revenue through rentals; • The City should consider the needs of low-income seniors as a high priority when allocating federal, state and local funds to external agencies; • The City should seek additional funds from external municipalities whose residents utilize the Center; • The City should assess opportunities to share space, funding strategies and other resources with relevant community agencies; REPORT PAGE 1 • The City should encourage all agencies that serve seniors, irrespective of whether that is their primary mission, to apply for any available funds that serve low-income seniors; • The City should commission a professional survey to better understand the needs of seniors; • The City should maintain the Center in its current location; and • The City should take steps to enhance accessibility to and within the Center. 1V. Charge 3: Obstacles to Serving the Senior Population The final charge of the committee was to identify any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that would minimize or eliminate such obstacles. The committee's recommendations are summarized below: A. 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. B. Obstacle: Difficulties with expansion of diversity. Recommendation: The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add the current diversity of participants at the Center, and to make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large. C. Obstacle: Gaps in services for seniors. Recommendation: The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and various agencies. D. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center. Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing The Center (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter; slippery paint on crosswalks; public bus stop in front of ADA entrance on Washington St.). E. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs. Recommendations: Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors. F. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors. Recommendation: Explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for low and middle-income seniors. G. Obstacle: Decrease in funding. Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors. H. Obstacle: Lack of articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Recommendation: The City Council should establish an exploratory committee to consider the WHO (World Health Organization) approach to age friendly cities. REPORT PAGE 2 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. 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 Member Begins Joe Younker -Chair Mercedes Bern -Klug 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 12/1/2014 Ellen Cannon Jane Dohnnann 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 12/1/2014 Rick Dobyns -Council Member 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 Jay H. Honohan Hiram Richard Webber 5/1/2014 5/1/2014 12/1/2014 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 A, 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 (Exhibit B). 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 oflowa 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. REPORT PAGE 3 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. 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. 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. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center L Description of the Center 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. IL Key Considerations A copy of the full evaluation is attached to this report identified as Exhibit C. 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 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 "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." REPORT PAGE 4 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. The Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa (Exhibit D). 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 (Exhibit E) and the comments from members during the Committee meetings indicate high satisfaction with the center. The 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. In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center (Program Guide available on Center website). 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 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. The current level of diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to increase 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 diversity at the Center. Methods of supplementing and improving these efforts should be reviewed. REPORT PAGE 5 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. 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. (Exhibit F — Senior Center Strategic Plan Booklet) 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 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. Approximately 1% of the City's General Fund is allocated to the Center. 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. REPORT PAGE 6 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. 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 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. IL 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 JC 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. REPORT PAGE 7 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. Ill. General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson County Livable Community web site. The web site includes 90 agencies and residential options (e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living). Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for- profit, and 56 are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge; however, 36 are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy-five are paid through private pay and private insurance. Both the City and non-profit organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with existing limited financial resources. Based upon the information collected through this process, the following themes were identified. 1. The Committee recognize that with the growing senior population, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse senior population, especially for seniors with limited financial resources. (Exhibit G) 2. The Committee recognizes the demand for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence and prevent or delay the onset of chronic diseases will increase. 3. Available funding from both Federal and City may decrease for both the Center and the non-profit agencies. Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors. 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, including reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents. 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. REPORT PAGE 8 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. 6) 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 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. 8) Many seniors face barriers to participating in social networks in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, emotional challenges, language and/or poverty. To aid these seniors, the Committee proposes that the City Council initiate a program "Full Participation Awards" for the next three years of four grants of $10,000 each to non profits for programs to enhance social programing for these seniors. 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 informal assessment of ADA compliance; 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. Charge 3: Obstacles and Recommendations 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." The Committee has identified the following obstacles and recommendations. A. 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. B. Obstacle: Difficulties with expansion of diversity. Recommendation: The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add the current diversity of participants at the Center, and to make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large. C. Obstacle: Gaps in services for seniors. Recommendation: The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The dialogue should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and various agencies. REPORT PAGE 9 Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received. The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee at their meeting November 24th. D. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center. Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing The Center (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter; slippery paint on crosswalks; public bus stop in front of ADA entrance on Washington St.). E. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs. Recommendations: Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors. F. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors. Recommendation: Explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for low and middle-income seniors. G. Obstacle: Decrease in funding. Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors. H. Obstacle: Lack of articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Recommendation: The City Council should establish an exploratory committee to consider the WHO (World Health Organization) approach to age friendly cities. REPORT PAGE 10 Conclusion The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee completed its charge to: 1) evaluate the Senior Center 2) review current and projected financial and physical resources to meet the needs of seniors 3) identify obstacles and make recommendations to minimize or eliminate such obstacles The Committee concluded that to meet the needs of the current and growing senior population and to be in accordance with the inclusive values of the City of Iowa City, the City should continue to support the Senior Center in its current location and through on-going financial support. The City should continue to support other organizations that also meet the needs of seniors, especially through programs that meet basic needs and reduce isolation. Further study should be done to allow seniors to self -identify additional needs. Finally, various obstacles should be addressed to improve the quality of life of seniors. By supporting the needs of seniors, the City of Iowa City will continue to be a place where people want to live, retire, grow older, and contribute to the well-being of the community. REPORT PAGE 11 Exhibit A - Resolution Prepared by: Geoff Fruin, Asst. to the City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5010 RESOLUTION NO. 14-37 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE VISION, MISSION, AND PROGRAMMING OF CITY SPONSORED SENIOR SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL NEEDS OF SENIORS IN THE COMMUNITY WHEREAS, The vast majority of city sponsored senior services are provided through the Senior Center (aka The Center). The Vision of the Senior Center is that it "will be the communities' primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging". The Mission of the Senior Center is "to promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public through intergenerational programming and community outreach. and WHEREAS, According to the United States Census Bureau, the segments of the United States population that grew the fastest between 2000 and 2010 were persons ages 45 to 64 years and 65 years and older. Statistics on the State of Iowa and the City of Iowa City indicate that the senior population is growing in similar fashion; and WHEREAS, The City Council recently adopted its 2014-15 Strategic Plan, which includes a commitment to foster a more inclusive and sustainable Iowa City. The Strategic Plan also included a new initiative to examine alternative approaches to delivering services and programs for senior citizens; and WHEREAS, It is important for City services to recognize and adapt to the changing demographic and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City residents in order to ensure that municipal services are best meeting the needs of the population; and WHEREAS, The City Council has expressed a desire to evaluate the current services offered by the Senior Center in order to ensure that the City is effectively meeting the needs of the senior population within the community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY, IOWA, THAT: 1. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee is established. 2. The Senior Service Committee shall consist of seven (7) members to be appointed by the City Council. Members of other City boards and commissions may serve on the Senior Services Committee. Membership shall include at least one member of the City Council, Senior Center Commission and a non-member of the Senior Center. Up to two non-residents of the City of Iowa City shall be eligible to serve on the committee if they are residents of Johnson County and offer desirable expertise not available from applicants who reside in Iowa City. REPORT PAGE 12 Ehibif(A - F�esolution eso ution o. 14-37 Page 2 3. Applications for membership on the Senior Services Committee shall be announced, advertised, and available in the same manner as those for all City boards and commissions. The term of members shall commence immediately upon City Council appointment. 4. City Council shall select the Chair, who when present will preside over all meetings, and the Vice -Chair, who will serve as chair in absence of the Chair. 5. The City Manager and City Clerk, or their designees, shall staff the Senior Services Committee. 6. The Senior Services Committee shall determine the frequency and conduct of its meetings. The meetings will be open to the public in accordance with Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code. 7. The Senior Services Committee shall serve from May 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014 and shall have an organizational meeting no later than June 13, 2014. 8. The charges of the Senior Services Committee are as follows: A. To evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, 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 existing operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Center Survey of Members, Former Members and Non -Members, as well as other available data sources 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 related findings shall be included in the final written report submitted 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 are intended 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. 9. The Senior Services Committee shall submit a written report to the City Council by December 1, 2014, that responds to each of the charges listed above and that contains recommendations, if any, with respect to each of the charges. 10. Absent further action by the City Council, the Senior Services Committee will dissolve on December 1. 2014. REPORT PAGE 13 E�A,pAl tion�solu U37 Page 3 Passed and approved this 18th day of February , 2014. ATTEST: %� --/s/. CITY CLERK MAYOR REPORT PAGE 14 p rove City Attorney's Office Exhibit A - Resolution Resolution No. 14-37 Page 4 It was moved by Mims and seconded by Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were: AYES: X X X X X NAYS: REPORT PAGE 15 ABSENT: the Botchway Dickens Dobyns Hayek Mims Payne Throgmorton Exhibit B - Annual Report Handed out at 05/05/14 meeting REPORT PAGE 16 KEEPING ACTIVE PHY SICALLYAND MENTALLY ESTABLISHING SOCIAL CONNECTIONS, AND MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITY ARE CORNERSTONES OF OPTIMAL AGING, AND THEYARE WHAT WE DO BEST AT THE IOWA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER. A% I ul-3u -14 IP3 Exhibit B - Annual Report The FY13 Survey KEEPINGACTIVE PHYSICALLYAND MENTALLY To determine the effectiveness of current programs and policies in promoting optimal aging, a survey for members, non-members, and former members was developed and administered in FY13. Survey goals included identifying incentives, barriers, and benefits to participation in Center programs and program strengths and weaknesses. In June of 2013, over 3000 surveys were mailed to individuals on The Center's Program Guide mailing list who were residents of Johnson County and either a current member, former member, or non-member of The Center. In total 1092 (35%) surveys were returned. Results were analyzed using Excel and a content analysis for written responses. ACTION PLAN The results of the survey have been forwarded to the members of the Senior Center Commission and the participant based Membership, Program, Community Outreach, and Diversity Working Committees, and Steering Council. After review and discussion of the results of the survey, representatives from the Commission, Working Committees, Steering Council, and Center staff will collaborate to develop a plan of action that will maintain our areas of strength while addressing the issues identified. Our goal is to offer opportunities for CLASSES 'the Center o&red 360 unique classes in IN13 covering everything from literature and fitness to video production, music, and art education. Members and community members praised The Center for the quality of its programming and the many ways participation enriches their lives. The average satisfaction rating for programs and services was 97%! The personal benefits identified were all critical components of successful aging. People said they "met lots of new people;" "enjoyed and learned many new things;" felt a sense of belonging, changed their attitudes about aging; shared their knowledge; and added purpose, meaning, and structure to their lives. In the words of one person, participation "improved my self-esteem and in a wonderful way... connected me to the community... improved my mental health and relieved the sense of isolation I sometimes have." Most respondents view The Center as an asset to the community or themselves. They mentioned The Center's role in decisions about their retirement location and how it helped them become integrated into the community. Others noted such things as quality programming, a quality facility, and their good fortune to be here. For example: "I love the center and plan my week aro and it. The staff is great. The classes are great. The facility is attractive." Numerous working seniors mentioned their desire to enroll optimal aging to all adults over 50 in our community without compromising our in programs when they retired and current level of excellence. classes become available. REPORT PAGE 18 2 • The Center 2013 Annual Report Exhibit B - Annual Report VOLUNTEER SERVICE Six hundredand forty-five (645) volunteers donated 24,300 hours as teachers, leaders, project directors, building supervisors, or special project volunteers to support The Center in FY13. They play a critical role in the successful operation of the Senior Center. This type of service is known to provide purpose and meaning to life; a way to contribute to the community after leaving the workforce. The survey revealed a few operational areas that need to be addressed. For instance, many working seniors and seniors with daytime responsibilities would like to have access to The Center on weeknights and expanded weekend hours. Additionally, there is a need for more diversity in programming and membership. This includes intergenerational programming, as well as age, ethnic, and economic diversity among members. Expanding membership diversity is a primary goal in The Center's 2010- 2015 Goals. Therefore, for the past several years, the Steering Council and Membership, Program, and Community Outreach Working Committees have been collaborating with staff to address issues related to diversity and sponsoring programs to promote multiculturalism and bring new groups. into The Center. Recently a new working committee was formed that will focus its attention on diversity issues exclusively. Nonetheless, there is more work to be done. lar d complete description of the survey contem, findings andanalysis, see www.ICgouorg/senior EU "It has improved my self-esteem and in a wonderful way has connected me to the community (through classes and activities) so has improved my mental health and relieved the sense of isolation I sometimes have." REPORT PAGE 19 The Center 2013 Annual Report - 3 Exhibit B - Annual Report c;1 "I have met lots of cw pe��ple and enjoyed and learned ESTABLISHING SOCIAL many new things. I feel welcome whenever I come to CONNECTIONS the center." Aw.dlted by rK= National Inglinte of senior Centers Mission Statement The Mission of the Senior Center is to promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public through intergenerational programming and community outreach. THERE WERE 104, 970 total visits to Center sponsored programs in FY13 THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL 14,254 and 6940 on-site visits to the Senior Nutrition Program and other services and meetings respectively FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF 126 164 visits in FY13. IV THERE ARE 1,592 current members. National Accreditation November 2012-2017 In November of 2012, The Center received national accreditation for the second time. National accreditation is awarded by the National Council on Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers and signifies that The Center has met senior center standards of excellence in nine operational areas: purpose and planning; program development and implementation; governance; fiscal and asset responsibility; fatality and operations; evaluation; community connections; administration; and records and reports. Of nearly 11,000 senior centers across the United States, only 200 or sohave been accredited. The Iowa City facility is currently the only senior center in the state of Iowa to have this official national recognition. Having national accreditation indicates to the members of our community that The Center's services and overall operation meet or exceed the standards of excellence developed by senior center leaders from across the country. As an accredited senior center, we are among the very best in the United States. On site reviewers for the accreditation process were particularly impressed with some of our practices. Specifically: • Multiple collaborations with community parmers • Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization • Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors • Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an exceptional program guide • Important stewardship of a historic building in the community Becoming nationally accredited is a complicated, multi -step process involving staff and many volunteers. Without the support and participation of our volunteers, obtaining this highly regarded recognition would not have been possible. REPORT PAGE 20 4 • The Center 2013 Annual Report Exhibit B - Annual Report SOCIAL INTERACTION AND ENGAGEMENT Social interaction and engagement are essential components of all programming. In addition to our classes, The Center offered 50 special events, 7 performance- groups, 18 different volunteer activities, and 24 groups and clubs in PY13. All of these activities incorporated time for participants to interact with each other. Programming Principles and Values Vision Statement "I developed a happier attitude about aging." The primary principle underlying Senior Center programming The vision of the Senior Center is to be the communities' and services is that of optimal aging. primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging. Optimal aging is a broad concept involving more than physical health or the absence of disease. It is a comprehensive and individualized concept of wellness that encourages and extends an optimal balance of physical, intellectual, emotional, social, vocational, and spiritual health. The Senior Center's program components promote optimal aging by providing a variety of opportunities for education, social engagement, physical activity, and community involvement. Participation in these types of activities are known to reduce the risk of disease and disability, improve memory, enhance mobility, maintain independence, and provide a social network that is a key factor in longevity and the ability to participate in and contribute to the culture and community. Values represent the core priorities in an organization's culture and serve as the foundation for all that is done. The Center abides by the following values: 1. Intrinsic worth: Every individual has intrinsic worth- 2. orth2. Experience: Life experiences of adults are valued and shared. 3. Capacity for growth: Everyone has a life-long capacity for growth and improvement. 4. Respect: All people and ideas deserve respect. 5. Inclusiveness: Decision-making is inclusive of different viewpoints. 6. Excellence: All programs and services strive for excellence. 7. Collaboration: Engagement of and with the larger Johnson County community sustains the Senior Center. 8. Honesty- Communication is honest and based on mutual trust. REPORT PAGE 21 The Center 2013 Annual Report - 5 Exhibit B - Annual Report AW_NTAINING CONTACT W 7TH THE CO"UNITY COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFERED AT THE CENTER During FY13, 26 profmsional services were offered at "Ihe Center. Programs like the AARP `1' x Aide Program; University of Iowa Counseling Services; Volunteer Lawyers; Senior Health Insurance Information Program; Visiting Nurses Association; and Hunming Your Wishes, a community -wide advanced care Planning initiative, all ensure that the community comes into The Center. FY2013 Finances: Senior Center Operations Expenses Personnel $509,369 Services 214,878 Supplies 47,372 Capital Outlay 6,872 Total $778,491 New Horizons Band Expenses Personnel $6,244 Services 3,601 Supplies 1,890 Total $11,735 New Horizons Band Revenue Band Fees $9,395 Special Events 1,341 Contributions and Donations 3,157 Total $13,893 Revenue Johnson County $70,000 Class Fees 4,188 Fees: Voices of Experience 2,320 Membership Fees 46,751 Special Events 1,442 Independent Contractor Fees 14,459 Contributions and Donations 13,953 Senior Center Endowment 23,177 Miscellaneous Sales 7,736 Sponsored Program Support 5,853 Reimbursement of Damages 866 Room Rental 400 Locker Rental 1,224 Parking Permits 17,035 Vending Machine Commission 322 Total $209,726 REPORT PAGE 22 6 • The Center 2013 Annual Report Exhibit B - Annual Report THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM REACHING OUT TO THE COUNTY which supplied 84,237 units of service in 11'2013, is housed in this building and Performances by music, theatre, dance, provided with all essential maintenance and operational expenses free of charge. In and poetry groups are regularly scheduled addition to the 14,254 meals prepared and served on site, this location was used to throughout the community. Center make and prepare for delivery 58,092 home delivered meals, 11,891 meals for satellite volunteers share information about The locations, and 3,409 prepackaged meals for distribution in Johnson County. Senior Cemer and conduct fundraising activities in a variety of venues. In FY13 "Ihe Center recorded 9,298 visitsto outreach programs. FY2013 Donors: Operational Budget and New Horizons Band Supporting ($1000+) Community Foundation Friends of The Center Hills Bank and Trust Company Iowa City Masonic Foundation US Bank Platinum ($500-999) Susan and Sandy Boyd Helene Soper University of Iowa Community Credit Union University of Iowa, Department of Microbiology Gold ($250-499) Coralville Center for the Performing Arts Joan Jehle Todd Nash Michael and Patricia Pavelich Jo Ellen Sittlow Walden Place Working Group Theater Silver ($150-249) Frederick and Judith Amundson Jon and Judy Cryer Devotay Patricia and James Ephgrave Johnson County Retired School Personnel Susan Cox Conservatorship John and Kathleen Wachel Hamet and James Wrenn Bronze ($75-149) Michael Adams and Kristine Krenik Julia Anderson Jacqueline Bird Bill Blanchard Mary Brandes Lynne Cannon Richard and Ellen Caplan Connie Clark Terry Curtis Julia Davis and David Reynolds Thelma, Dora, Michael and Rita Davison Richard and Ann Feddersen Linda Fisher Anne and Joseph Frankel Peter and Katy Hansen Dale Helling Wendy Heffner and Diane Mothershead Jan and Kenn Hubel William and Marlene Hutt Kay Kendall Linda and Richard Kerber Diana Kruse Paula Laube Jean and Richard Lloyd -Jones Ina and Gerhard Loewenberg Nancy Lynch Joyce Merrier Meenal Menezes Gregg Oden and Lola Lopes Polly Pagliai Ed and Sara Ring Stephen and Deborah Rugg Mae Schatteman Ken and Mary Beth Slonneger Jack and Barbara Thorpe and Family Ann Wade Contributors ($1-74) Dean Abel Kent and Kay Ackerson Marsha Anderson Laretta Angerer Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Anonymous Dottie and Karl Armens Patricia Arnold Jenean Arnold Olivia Atcherson Alice and Kendall Atkinson Fran Austin Douglas Baynton Bonnie Bender Kevin Berbaum and Julia Lenel Glorine Berry Katherine Bjorndal Janice and Larry Blake John Brandon and Diana Harris Estyl and Richard Breazeale Connie and Edward Brinton Jim and Sandy Bucher Rosie Bullington Valerie Buns Joan Buxton Helen and Bill Byington Kathleen Cahill Carnation Rebekah Lodge 376 Jeanette Carter Jo Catalano Mr. and Mrs. Roger Cazin Jason Chen James Clayton and Christine Allen Nancy and Paul Collins Dennis Colman Jim and Syndy Conger Charles Cox Florence Cromer David Curry Ralph Delozier Jan Denehy Terry and Jo Dickens Robert Doyle Karen and David Drake Michelle Dralle Carolyn Dyer Lolly and Del Eggers Bob and Beth Engel Eleanor Engen Sonia and Ronald Ettinger Pamela Fitzgerald Douglas Flynn Robert Foster Raymond Funk Glen and Nancy Futterman George Gay Norma Gehring Inez Gehrke Mary Gilbert Patricia and James Glueck Efraim and Miriam Gluzer Gordon Goldsmith and Sara Henryson Jim and LeDonna Gommels HL and Elmeda Graves Beverly Graves Stuart and Carrie Greenburg Jean Hagan and John Sjoberg James Hamilton Pat Hanke Robert and Sue Hansen Rose Hanson Jan Hanson Joyce Harney William Heald and Mary Ann Letizio Julie Hegmann Mary Pat Heitman Douglas Hempel Judy Hendershot Kathleen Henderson Highland Ridge Laura and Gary Hill Karl Hillie Becky Hoffbauer Del Holland Leslie Holstad and Dave BoJack REPORT PAGE 23 The Center 2013 Annual Report • 7 Exhibit B - Annual Report Jay Honohan Charles Neuzil Margery Hoppin Amy Nicholson Veronica Hubbard Candace Noble International Women's Club Oaknoll Retirement Services Donna and John Isaacs Ardis O'Dell Sally Jablonski Old Settlers Association Diana and Carl Jens Yvonne Oliver Mary and David Jepsen Robert Otto Jacqueline Johnson Oxford Farmers Market Lorea and Ray Johnson Beverly Palmer Mr. and Mrs. Robert P Johnson Marsha Paulsen Peters Becky Johnson Mark and Bonnie Penno Keith and Connie Jones Suzanne and John Peters Linda and Herbert Jordon Mary Louise and Rand Petersen Jane Kelso Joanne Peterson Patricia Knox Rob Price Joost Korpel Marjorie Price Charles Kreeb Theola Rarick Barbara Kund Janet Rawley Ruth and Ken Kuntz Sharon and Charlie Rebouche Ed Laarman Margaret Richardson Marlene and Richard Lake Mary and Donald Richardson Phyllis Lance Linda Riggs Bill and Rose Landers Gayle Robertson Heidi Lauritzen Ed Redone Lois Lee Denise Series Steve and Jan Locher Bob and Deb Sass Vicki Lonngren Kay Schillig Bonnie Love and Edna Schindhelm Wayne Bowman Naomi Schleper Laura Lovell Deborah and James Martha Lubaroff Schoenfelder Larry Lynch Steve and Janie Schomberg Pat Machado Doralee Schroder Henry and Mary Anne Madden Judy and Larry Schroeder Joanne and Douglas Madsen Bette Sherrill Tom and Deb Markus Jan Smith Emil and Lucille Martin Terry and Ann Smothers Master Gardeners Dinny Stamp Kathleen Mathews Judy and Bill Stebral Donald and Jane Mathiasen Joy and Oliver Steele Pat Maxey Kim and Steve Stek Carol McCain Sheila Stevenson Mary and Jim McCue Larry Strabala Mary Mclnroy Sally and Roger Stutsman Nancy McKinstry Patricia and William Sueppel Gari and Laura McLaughlin Mary and Jerry Sullivan Paul and Valerie McNally Joan Summerwill Virginia and Duane Means Judith Sutherland Joe Michaud Betty Sykes Joan and Gerald Michel Doris Thompson Evalee Mickey Carol Tobias Bernice Morrison Robin Ungar Beverly Mueller MaryWall Bonnie and Michael Murphy Elizabeth Walz Lucy Murphy Nellie Weber Jerry and Judy Musser Robert and Eunice Welsh Sally Myers Nancy Westlake David and Ginny Naso Ellen Widiss Norma and Dale Wilhelm Marianne Wilkening Janice and Jim Williams Doris and Roger Williams Lois Wingate Mangy Winkler Betty Winokur Barb and Ron Witt Bev and Lee Witwer Nancy Wombacher Bob and Mary Ann Woodburn Deb, Rich, Lauren and Lucy Wretman Charlotte Wright Darrell and Shirley Wynck Doris Yoder Beth Ann and Kenneth Zamzow Jerry and Barbara Zinn Donations of Items Eye Physicians and Surgeons Barbara Haring Helen Nicklaus Jack and Wendy Sherry In Memory Of Bebe Ballentine Joan Jehle Rae Blanchard Bill Blanchard Michelle Dralle Rose Hanson Kathleen Henderson Sally Jablonski John Cazin Mr. and Mrs. Roger Cazin Carol McCain University of Iowa, Department of Microbiology Jean Costa Barbara Kuncl Kathleen Mathews Nellie Weber Nancy Wombacher Doris Yoder Veryl Detwiler Joan Jehle Roger Fisher Anonymous Jenean Arnold Alice and Kendall Atkinson Richard and Ellen Caplan Jeanette Carter Jon and Judy Cryer REPORT PAGE 24 8 - The Center 2073 Annual Report Bob and Beth Engel Patricia and James Ephgrave Ann Feddersen Linda Fisher HL and Elmeda Graves Robert and Sue Hansen Jan Hanson Joan Jehle Keith and Connie Jones Barbara Kuncl Heidi Lauritzen Paul and Valerie McNally Virginia and Duane Means Jerry Musser Mark and Bonnie Penno Janet Fawley Steve Schomberg Judy and Larry Schroeder Ken and Mary Beth Slonneger Dinny Stamp Sheila Stevenson Sally and Roger Stutsman Elizabeth Walz Janice and Jim Williams Lois Wingate Margy Winkler Nancy Wombacher Beth Ann and Kenneth Zamzow Jerry and Barbara Zinn Bernice Gantz Linda and Richard Kerber Joseph Giglierano Michael Adams and Kristine Krenik Anonymous Patricia Arnold Jacqueline Bird Thelma, Dora, Michael and Rita Davison George Gay Mary Pat Heitman Patricia Knox Joost Korpel Phyllis Lance Pat Maxey Nancy McKinstry Yvonne Oliver Robert and Eunice Welsh Ray Heffner Susan and Sandy Boyd Richard and Ellen Caplan Nancy and Paul Collins James and Patricia Ephgmve. Richard and Ann Feddersen Patricia and James Glueck Exhibit B - Annual Report Wendy Heffner and Diane Nancy Wombacher Mothershead Deb, Rich, Lauren and Lucy Mr. and Mrs. Robert P Johnson Wretman Ed Rolenc Judith Sutherland Milo "Bud" Palmer Kathleen and John Wachel Beverly Palmer Harriet and James Wrenn Dorothy Hess Carnation Rebekah Lodge 376 Glen and Nancy Futterman Efraim and Miriam Gluzer Stuart and Carrie Greenburg Laura and Gary Hill Donna and John Isaacs Mary and Donald Richardson Stephen and Deborah Rugg Jo Ellen Sittlow George Paterson Alice and Kendall Atkinson Jon and Judy Cryer Rose Hanson Judy and Larry Schroeder Dinny Stamp Laretta Angerer Glorine Berry Katherine Bjorndal Estyl and Richard Breazeale Joan Buxton Jeanette Carter Jan Denehy Bob and Beth Engel Linda Fisher Jim and LeDonna Gommels Jan Hanson Sally Jablonski Joan Jehle Diana and Carl Jens Lorea and Ray Johnson Chuck Kreeb Barbara Kuncl Donald and Jane Mathiasen Gari and Laura McLaughlin Duane and Virginia Means Joan and Gerald Michel Beverly Mueller Jerry and Judy Musser Mary Louise and Rand Petersen Janet Rawley Ed and Sara Ring Denise Sarles Bob and Deb Sass Terry and Ann Smothers Judy and Bill Stebral Kim and Steve Stek Sheila Stevenson Barb and Ron Witt Nadine Rudi Joan Jehle Dorothy Wright Jack and Barbara Thorpe and Family Janie Yates Rose Hanson In Honor Of AARP Tax Aide Preparers Dennis Colman Ralph Delozier Robert Doyle Linda Fisher Inez Gehrke Douglas Hempel Larry Lynch FY2013 Donors: Friends of The Center Friends of The Center ($50,000+) Clifford and Emily Iona Dodds Supporting ($1000+) David and Norma Carlson Ed Rolenc Platinum ($500-999) Shari Davis Jay and Nancy Honohan Linda Kopping Gold ($250-499) Robert F. and Claire B. Ashman Don R. Haines Barbara L. Haring Iowa Shares Silver ($150-249) Anonymous Anonymous Dianne Day Julie Hegmann Michael Lensing Helmut and Mara Schrott Ann Wade Bronze ($75-149) Sharon Barrett Joseph Frankel and Anne Koopmans Frankel Judy and Dick Hupfeld Kenneth E. Krizan Diana Kruse Polly and Armond Pagliai Helmut G. Schrott Faye and Gordon Strayer Kathie Belgum Pat and Jim Ephgrave Melanie and Bruce Haupert Carol Howard Jan and Kenn Hubel NHB Generations of Jazz Alexa Romans Vicki Solursh Contributors ($1-74) Michelle Buhman Lynne Cannon Barb and Bob Bradley Miriam and Arthur Canter Michael and Veronica Chan Judith K. Earley Ed and Mary Flaherty Ray and Shirley Hendrickson Claire E. Hockley Carolyn Kohler Ken and Ruth Kuntz Bor-Luh and Hsin Lee Lin Rachael Undhart Henry and Mary Anne Madden Sarah Maters Jo Ann Manderscheid Mary Grace Mayer Twyla A. Morlan Ruth Brook Muir Sally S. Myers Candace Noble Naomi J. Novick Jerilynn O'Conner Ardis J. O'Dell Duane E. Papke Margaret R. Polson Jonathan Poulton Jean Reese Elizabeth V. Pardee -Rose James Rosenkild Doralee K. Schroder Kathryn D. and Daniel W. Schweer Janet K. Smith Computer Mentoring Program Pamela Fitzerald Louie DeGrazia Amy Nicholson Senior Center Dance Team International Women's Club Gerald Solomons Carol L. Spaziani Oliver and Joy Steele Lawrence G. Strabala Sharon Stubbs Faye and Gordo Strayer Janice and Jim Williams Louis J. Williamson In Memory Of Dinny Stamp Sally S. Myers George Paterson Jan and Kenn Hubel Grover Rosenkild James Rosenkild Melvin Schweer Kathryn D. and Daniel W. Schweer Jay and Nancy Honohan Ray Heffner Faye and Gordon Strayer Ardis J. O'Dell Ken and Ruth Kuntz Janice and Jim Williams Lynne Cannon Henry and Mary Anne Madden Faye and Gordon Strayer Rachael Lindhart Margaret R. Polson Susan Rogusky Vicki Solursh In Honor Of Ina Loewenberg Anonymous Mary Dusterhoft Anonymous REPORT PAGE 25 The Center 2013 Annual Report • 9 Exhibit B - Annual Report M P Eil "Fitness classes i!ave been wportant "I think that you offer an AMAZING "The Center enabled me to to me. The Center provides a number of varied classes." immediately meet new men and structured way to keep physically women with whom I have common active at any level of ability." interests." MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO FRIENDS OF THE CENTER How YOU Can Support the Programs and Services Offered by The Center Friends of The Center; a nonprofit corporation, was formed in 2003 to generate revenue through donations and bequests to help support The Center's operational budget and enrich programming. Since its inception, Friends of The Center has become an important source of funding for The Center. The Friends manage The Center's Endowment and Charitable Giving account, which are both held in the Community Foundation of Johnson County. VAlile the endowment is a long-term investment, the Charitable Giving account is used to support programming. Both accounts were established for the exclusive benefit of the Senior Center. Through the Charitable Giving account, The Friends have provided approximately $130,000 for computers, SCTV equipment, tables, chairs, AV equipment, fimess equipment, dances and other special events, and the Linn Street sign. Future funding is likely to support outreach programming and classroom improvements. The annual distribution of earnings from the Senior Center Endowment is an important source of operational income for The Center. As the Endowment grows; so does the annual contribution. The initial distribution of earnings was just over $5,000. This year, because of your generous support and growth in the endowment; the distribution of earnings increased to $30,380. Gifts of all sizes are appreciated; no gift is too large or too small. They are all tax deductible and can be made in your name or to honor or memorialize someone. You have a few options when deciding how you want to make your donation. re Friends REPORT PAGE 26 10 • The Center 2013 Annual Report Of The Center _�.�- Crr ri _la..raor, Couwn Exhibit B - Annual Report ME "Services you offer are great" OPTION 1. MAKEA DONATION DIRECTLY TO FRIENDS OF THE CENTER • Complete the enclosed form. • Make your check payable to Friends of The Center. • Mail your check to: Friends of The Center Attn: Linda Kopping, Treasurer 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 P P Events I attended and services I've "The programming is varied and used have been well run; people are creative. Keep it up!" professional and friendly." OPTION 2. OPTIONS. MAKEA DONATION TO THE S UPPORT THE CENTER COMMUNITYFOUNDATION WITH DIRECT FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER CONTRIBUTION • Complete the enclosed form • Make your check payable to the Community Foundation of Johnson County. • Indicate that the donation is for Friends of The Center by writing FRIENDS OF THE CENTER on the memo line of the check. Your check will be deposited into The Center's endowment fund. • Mail your check to: Friends of The Center Attn: Linda Kopping, Treasurer 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 • Your donation will be delivered to the Community Foundation. Many people prefer this approach because donations to The Center's endowment that are given directly to the Community Foundation are eligible for an Endow Iowa 25% state tax credit. REPORT PAGE 27 A tax deductible donation can be made directly to The Center and be used immediately to support current operational expenses. Use the enclosed card to let us know if you want the gift made in honor or memory of someone. • Make your check payable to The Senior Center • Mail your check to: Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center Attn: Kristin Kromray, Operations Assistant 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 The Center 2013 Annual Report • 111 Exhibit B - Annual Report FY2O13 Community Partners 100Grannies.org for a Livable Future AARP Access 2Independence Alzheimer's Association American Academy of Dermatology American Red Cross Back 2 Act Chiropractic and Wellness Center Ben Franklin Crafts and Custom Framing Benson & Hepker Design Bill Sackter Centennial Care Improvement Plus Cedar Rapids Vision in Motion Cellular Recycler City Channel 4 Community Foundation of Johnson County Compeer Comlville Center for the Performing Arts CoralVision Crisis Center of Johnson County Delta Gamma Sorority Devotay Domestic Violence Intervention Program (DVIP) Elder Services, Inc. Englert Theatre Extend the Dream Foundation FilmScene Friendly Techie Friends of The Center Great Heron Healing Arts Hawkeye Area Community Action Program Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers, PLC Her Soup Kitchen Heritage Agency on Aging Hills Bank and Trust Company The Center's programming excellence is due in large part to its community partnerships. Community partnerships help avoid duplication of services and support innovation, provide oppornmities to combine resources in ways that will enrich programming, and ultimately, serve the older adults of this community more effectively. The Center enjoyed partnerships with 124 organizations in FY2013. Holly Kukkonen Piano Studio Honohan, Epley, Braddock & Brenneman Honoring Your Wishes Hoover Presidential Library Hy -Vee (First Avenue) Hy-Voe (Waterfront) Iowa Audiology & Hearing Aid Centers Iowa City Community Band Iowa City Genealogical Society Iowa City High School Jazz Ensemble Iowa City Hospice Iowa City Parks and Recreation Iowa City Public Library Iowa City Salsa Group Iowa City Tango Club Iowa City Telecommunications Commission (ICTC) Iowa City/Coralville Convention and Visitors Bureau Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance Iowa Department for the Blind Iowa Department of Human Services Iowa: Eye to I, LLC Iowa City Fire Department Iowa Insurance Division - Consumer Protection and Regulatory Agency Iowa Legal Aid Iowa City Police Department Iowa Radio Reading Information Service (IRIS) Iowa State University Extension and Outreach Iowa Troop Pantry Iowa United Nations Association Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity InnerSynergy Jensen Eyecare Center Joe Page Piano Studio Johnson County Board of Supervisors Johnson County Community Organizations Active in Disaster (COAD) Johnson County Department of Public Health Johnson County Historical Society Johnson County Livable Community Kai-Yun Acupuncture Leff Law Firm, LLP Legacy Senior Living Community Lensing Funeral & Cremation Service Linn -Mar High School Jazz Band Live Well, Step By Step, LLC. The Low Vision Store Magnification Resources Mercy Hospital Midwest One Bank Moline High School Jazz Band Musician's Pro Shop National Library Service New Pioneer Food Co-op NFB Newsline North Liberty Television (NLN Phelan, Tucker, Mullen, Walker, Tucker & Gelman, LLP Prairie Lights Public Access Television (PAN Pure Light Healing Center Senior Health Insurance Information Program (SHIP) Taoist Tai Chi Society of the USA The Cottage Bakery and Catering The Mac Doctor The Preemie Project United Way of Johnson County University of Iowa Aging Studies Program REPORT PAGE 28 12 • The Center 2013 Annual Report University of Iowa College of Nursing University of Iowa Community Credit Union University of Iowa Confucius Institute University of Iowa Counseling Psychology Program University of Iowa Division of the Performing Arts University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Department of Dermatology University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics Heart and Vascular Center University of Iowa International Programs University of Iowa International Writing Program University of Iowa Libraries University of Iowa Museum of Art University of Iowa School of Music University of Iowa School of Social Work University of Iowa Senior College University of Iowa Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Clinic US Bank Vision Helpers Visiting Nurse Association Walden Place West Branch High School Jazz Band West Liberty High School Jazz One Ensemble West Music/SoundReach Choir Wilderness Studio Working Group Theatre Works -in -Progress Festival Exhibit B - Annual Report FY2013 Volunteers Larry Akin Pete Abolins Lisa Acherkan Jason Aird Amber Alaniz Bill Albrecht Eddie Allen Judy Allen Sara Al len Martin Andrews Donna Angell Page Applebaum Valerie Appleton Mary Ruth Arensdorf Maureen Arensdorf Adam Asarch Becky Aspholm Charley Atkins AI ice Atkinson Dennis Aubrecht Ralph Aufdenkamp Jorey Bailey Gabe Baird Olivia Baird Claudia Barber Maria Barbosa Timothy Barker Nancy Barnes-Kohout Edith Banagan Bob Beall Erin Beatty Gwen Becker Kathie Belgum Barry Bender Beth Bender Jill Bentley Daniel Benton Kevin Berbaum Mercedes Bern -Klug Glonne Berry Mike Biderman Heather Binggeli "There were 645 volunteers who served The Center during FY13. They taught classes, planned programs, led activity groups, assisted with special projects, provided free professional services, assisted in the computer lab and fitness suites, and raised awareness of The Center through community outreach. Volunteers also produced programs for broadcast on cable television, participated in fundraising projects, and served on advisory committees to help determine The Center's path into the future. Simply put, everything important or noteworthy that happened in FY13 involved volunteers in some way. Volunteers are the key to the success of The Center's operation. They are The Center's most important asset. Karol Bird Pula Birla Kale Bongers Jodi Booth Peg Bouska Irene Bowers Lucy Bowers Norlin Boyd John Boyt Finn Bradley Bob Brady Rachel Brailov Mike Brau Sheri Breedlove Gail Brehio Jacki Brennan Leslie Brettell Jason Brodie Andy Brodie Jeri Brown Judy Brown Lauren Brown Nancy Brown Jason Brummel Amanda Bruns Kizzy Bryant Judy Buline Heide Bursch Jim Calkins Kristy Cameron Sue Campney Amida Canin Char Canney Dave Caplan Richard Caplan Jeff Capps David Carlson Judy Carpenter Emily Carson Marta Carson Jeanette Carter Karina Casarrubias Helen Chadima Michael Chan Chin -Wei Chang Jia Mei Chen Kai-Yun Cheng Peggy Chong David Christ Ruth Christ Kelsie Christian Cheryll Clamor Ashlynne Clark Aprille Clarke Beth Clopton Nic Coffman Mary Cohen AJ Collins Nancy Collins Paul Collins Jim Conger Syndy Conger Kristin Conrad Mary Anne Conrad Joanne Conroy Mary Pat Conway Rosanne Cook Debbie Cooney Laura Correa Ferrer Richard Couch Elizabeth Coulter Jared Countryman Tammy Coverdale -Bauer Miles Crall John Crane Nicholas Cranny Lyndon Crist Wanda Crombie Nicki Crozier Jon Cryer Teresa Cudworth Kathryn Cummings Jim Curry Angie Dacthler REPORT PAGE 29 Sue Dallam Mary Jo Daly Mark Danielson Connie Dautremont Barbara Davidson Julia Davis Dianne Day Bryson Dean Munni Deb Ellen Decicco Louie DeGrazia Jim Delaney Christine Denburg Janice Denehy Mia Deprenger Katie Devore Rob Dietrich Eliza Dixon Jennifer Doherty Jane Dohrmann Shawna Domeyer Gary Domstrand Maureen Donnelly Lorraine Dorfman Stephanie Dotzel Rick Dressler Erin Droll Armando Duarte Jim Duff Bonnie Duffy Bradley Diana Durham Fred Durian Mary Dustemoft Shirley Dvorak Betty Dye Jaclyn Dziepak Judi Earley Brad Easler Linda Eastman Erin Ebnet Janene Edwards Joyce Eland Gwen Elling Bob Elliot Jennifer Ellsworth Robert Engel James Ephgrave David Evans Kenny Evans Mary Frances Evans Nathalia Fahl Janet Fairley Ronda Farah Jennifer Fawcett Chuck Felling Margaret Felling Scott Finlayson Beth Fisher Linda Fisher Elsie Foerstner Joan Folkmann Jeneva Ford Leyla Ford Rhonda Fortmann Larry Fountain Karen Fox Dottie Frank Anne Frankel Joe Frankel Linda Frick Eliana Friedman Mary Fuhrmeister LeAnn Gamache Barbara Gamb Ken Gamb Dee Gansemer Nora Garda Gwen Garretson Jenny Gates William Gauger Katie Gavinski Ken Gavrell George Gay Kelsey Gehring The Center 2013 Annual Report • 13 Exhibit B - Annual Report SFN1OR CENTER LEADERSHLP 2013 FY2013 Volunteers (continued) Inez Gehrke Nick Giuliani Vicky Gluszak Ze Emilio Gobbo Micheli Gomes de Souza Joan Gonwa Doug Goodner Paula Grady Timothy Grady Sarah Graf Apple Graham Lidia Graham Maggie Graham Shiloh Graham Rich Green Donna Grundstad Jim Gul land Maria Guzman Maria Haberer Allanda Hageman Becky Hall James Hall Steve Hall David Hamilton Jacinta Hamilton Martha Hamilton Sue Hamre-Nietupski Pat Hanke Katy Hansen Mary Hansen Robert Hansen Barb Hanson Jan Hanson Rachel Hanson Rose Hanson Tish Harbach Bryan Hardin Michael Harris Chris HarrKuhn Jocelyn Harte Curtis Harting Commission Members Chuck Felling Rose Hanson Mark Holbrook, Secretary Jay Honohan, Chair Kathy Mitchell Margaret Reese Alicia Hatch Amelia Hatcher Angie Hayes Shelagh Hayreh Abby Haywood Julie Hegmann Morgan Henderson Howard Hensch Jo Hensch Nikki Herbst Chuck Hesse Jean Hill Martin Hill Karl Hillie Jack Hobbs Phil Hochwalt Alissa Hoehle D'Angelo Holbrook Mark Holbrook Liz Holcomb Leslie Hollis Ken Holmes Lindsey Hom Jay Honohan Loren Horton Ann Houlahan Carol Howard Julie Howard Bernita Howe Kenn Hubel Pat Huff Brad Humble Christine Humnchouse Lynne Hungerford Jim Hunter Tom Hurlbut Pete Husak Kayla Hyche Ruthann Hyduke Nancy Hyman Curt Igo Sally Jablonski Jane Jansen Trish Jensen Steering Council Barry Bender Lorraine Dorfman Jeneva Ford, Secretary Ina Loewenberg, Past Chair Kathy Mitchell, Chair Ed Rolenc, Vice Chair John Schmidt Mary Jepsen Abby Jessen Carol Johnk Bill Johnson Carolyn Johnson Judy Johnson Kris Johnson Trina Johnson Ed Junkins Kate Kasten Ed Kean Judy Keefer Leslie Kennebeck Helen Kent Tanner King Gail Kirchner Carol Kirkpatrick Mike Klug Mary Knight Larry Knipfer Zach Knosp Elizabeth Koffron-Eisen Jason Kooi Lauren Kostoglannis Greg Kovaciny Matthew Kral Anne Marie Kraus Chuck Kreeb Sara Krieger Dick Kubit Holly Kukkonen Uday Kumar Amanda Kurtenbach Chuck Lacina Feather Lacy Kelly Lahr Charity Lassiter William Laubengayer Karla Laubenthal Joanna Lawson Charles Lee Vickie LeGare Alison Lemke Julia Lenel REPORT PAGE 30 14 • The Center 2013 Annual Report Community Outreach Committee Barry Bender, Chair Bryson Dean Lynne Hungerford Kris Johnson Ina Loewenberg Kathy Mitchell Larry Rogers Sheila Vedder Michael Lensing Mary Ann Letizio Andrew Lettow Wendy Levy Adam Lewis Ben Lewis B ott Lewis Michael Lewis Thisbe Lewis Shaju Lin Yu-Hsin Lin Shirley Lindell Jeanne Liston Jean Littlejohn Jean Lloyd Jones Ina Loewenberg Jerry Loewenberg Delbert Long Robert Lower Martha Lubaroff Madeline. Luxem Nancy Lynch Andrea Mack Rich MacNeil Gertrude MacQueen Marty Maiers Sarah Maiers Can Malone Jenny Mandell Bill Mann Joyce Marner John Marshall Judy Marshall Loretta Martenson Diane Martin James Martins Karen Mason Tom Maxwell Mary Grace Mayer David McCartney Micki McCue Elyas McElligott Leila McElligott Sarah McElligott Membership Committee Mary Cannon Dianne Day Mary Dusterhoft Barbara Gamb Kenneth Gamb Jack Hobbs John Schmidt, Chair Mara Schrott Dale McFarland Jane McGlumphrey Rebecca McGlumphry- Teslik Tara McGovern Nateasa McGuire Erin McKay Joe McKenna Reed McManigal Valerie McNally Duane Means Virginia Means Christopher Merkle Joe Michaud Gay Mikelson Amanda Miller Bryan Miller Chuck Miller Gerry Miller Henrietta Miller Nancy Miller Kathy Mitchell Richard Mitchell Ken Mobily Audrey Moeller Chris Moen Javier Monarrez John Monick Robert Moninger Erin Moore Jeanne Morris Keith Morris Rosemary Morris Tom Morris Talbot Morns -Downing Lily Morrissey Patti Mott Molly Moye Beverly Mueller Jeremy Mullen Joyce Murphy Lucy Murphy Mike Murphy Muarita Murphy Mead Exhibit B - Annual Report Program Committee Louie DeGrazia Judy Marshall Lorraine Dorfman, Chair Tom Pickering Diana Durham Ed Rolenc Beth Fisher Hal Schrott Anne Frankel Gal Stika Loren Horton Susan Murty Jerry Musser Pam Myers Shirley Myers Douglas Narveson Marilyn Neely Patrick Nefzger Janet Nelson Josh Nelson Scott Nelson Mark Neumeier Terrence Neuzil Helen Nicklaus Megan Noe Betty Norbeck Janet Norbeck Gerald Nordquist Jim Ochs Pat O'Connell Cindy O'Leary Jim Olson Nancy Olthoff Ryan O'Malley Rachel Osmond Maria Oyorem Marie Papineschi Klocke Pappy Lia Parillo Warren Paris Sarah Parks Pauline Pate Nick Patten Wayne Patton Richard Paulus Gerald Pearson Florencia Pecile Sarah Pederson Beth Pennell Bonnie Penno Anne Perkins Edward Perkins Joy Perrin Linnea Peterson Rosemarie Petzold Irvin Pfab Tom Pietras Bernard Pint Larry Pleim Jeff Plume Jam Ponce Roscoe Porch Jaclyn Porter Jean Post Jacob Potash Lindy Presson Rachel Pudlik Buffy Quintero Ellen Racheter Kate Raley Judy Rarick Dolores Ratcliff Louise Rauh Janet Rawley Lean Redeker Emily Redlinger Becci Reedus Michelle Reif Roger Reilly Margaret Richardson Jim Ridenour Sarah Riesz Sara Riggs Doris Rittenmeyer Ralph Roberge Kelsey Roberts Cheryl Robinson Simone Robinson Gerry Roe Larry Rogers Ed Rolenc Alexa Romans Steve Ropp Becky Ross Ben Russell Libby Ruth Samantha Sammons Paula Sanchini Lydia Satterlee New Horizons Band Steering Committee Jean Hill, Chair Jon Cryer Jan Hanson Jerry Musser, Secretary Steve Schomberg, Treasurer Ken Slonneger Ben Sauder Claire Sauder Madeline Scarborough Christine Scheetz Jim Scheib Babara Schlachter John Schmidt Mike Schmidt Gretchen Schmuch Andreya Schneider Kay Schneider Monique Schnoebelen Steve Schomberg Doralee Schroder AI Schroeder Judy Schroeder Shirley Schroeder Hal Schrott Mara Schrott Tom Schulein Tim Schulte Deb Schultz Marian Schwabbauer Gary Schwartz John Selby Jackie Seyring Joann Shackelford Stephanie Shan Cathmar Shaw Prange Janet Shephard Jamie Sherr Mary Siems Gerald Sim Deb Singer Richard Sjolund Kenneth Slonneger Beth Smith Carmen Smith Jeremy Smith Suzanne Smith Vicki Solursh Takako Soma ScottSpak Lex Sparks REPORT PAGE 31 Gene Spaziani Dinny Stamp Elizabeth Stang] Caleigh Stanier Greta Stanier Jill Stephenson Faye Stevens Shari Stevens Tessa Stevens Sheila Stevenson Gail Stika Liz Stimmel Jeff Stohler Anna Stone Sabrina Strel]a Molly Stroh Ann Stromquist Janet Suchomel Karna Szczech Jullie Tallman Ella Tamlyn Nicole Thomas William Thorne Ray Thorpe Glenda Thys Alicia Tieskoetter Usett Tito Charlotte Tobiason William Toomey AI ice Townsend Charles Traw Richard Trealoff Lauren Trolley Amanda Tschetter Beverly Tyree Caro] Tyx Robin Ungar Mickey Van Doren Dwight Van Horn Elizabeth Vanderah Yashar Vasef Sheila Vedder Elsie Vega Clancy Vinchattle "At The Center, I regained skills set aside many years ago." Brandon Vogelsburg Ashley Vreugdenhil Janelle Wagner Sue Wakefield Mary Wall Lisa Walz Thomas Walz Xinyu Wang Erin Wehr Barb Weigel Kay Weiler Barbara Wells Joel Wells Donna Wandler Ruth Whalen Holly Whitehead Lauren Whitehead Robin Whitehead Heather Widmayer Bob Wiley Jody Wiley Amber Wilfong Lauralee Wilkins Kristine Williams Michael Williams Louis Williamson Randy Willman Margaret Winkler Betty Winokur Paul Wise Nancy Wombacher Bob Woodburn Pope Yamada Debbie Yarrow Lavon Yeggy Hsiao Chia Yen Lawrence Yerkes Pam Yoder Louise Young Barbara Zilles Hanah Zimmerman Kaylea Zimmerman Jerry Zinn The Center 2013 Annual Report • 15 Exhibit B - Annual Report The ' Center IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 319-356-5220 www.icgov.org/senior CITY OP IOWA CRY Exhibit C - Subcommittee Evaluation Senior Center Subcommittee Report To the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee 8A) Part 1: Evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, and recent accomplishments of the Senior Center as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report. The Senior Center is the central resource for quality programs and services that promote optimal aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's programs promote active aging in seniors at a consistently high level. As noted in the Accreditation Report of the National Council of the Aging National Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its vision and mission statements and serves as a model for senior centers. Vision Statement: "To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging." (p. 5 Annual Report) Mission Statement: "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth." (p. 5, Program Guide) Center Staff: Six full time, 2 part time. All covered by union contract except coordinator. Center volunteers donated 24,300 hours towards the operation of the Center in 2013. Current members: 1592 persons. The Center's participants are primarily older adults who are physically and mentally able. The small staff is not trained or large enough to provide personal services for individuals who need assistance. Many of the Center's participants disabilities use walkers, scooters, canes, and other durable medical equipment while at the Center. Typically these individuals participate in passive classes and use exercise equipment that are designed for them. Other activities that they engage in include cards, music performances, reading newspapers, socializing, many classes, going to support groups, and seeking counseling. The Alzheimer's Association Caregiver's Support Group does meet monthly at the Center. Additionally, the Visiting Nurses offices at the Center provides health screenings regularly. There are many programs recommended to assist frail, elderly and homebound individuals that the Center could adopt but these programs would require additional staff. This additional staff would require additional funding that is not expected to be available in the future. Membership Dues Annually: Iowa City $33, second household member $20, Johnson County including cities $60, $33, non -Johnson County $96. The scholarships for low income $10 upon request. {01788973.DOC%} REPORT PAGE 33 Number of members: Current members: 1592 persons. It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the number of people who attend the Center who are not members. Antidotally reviews of attendance at special events by non-members is often large. Many activities and programs at the Center are available for and are attend by non-members. In the Fall Program Guide for the Center there are one hundred twenty seven (127) different classes, programs, activities, and special events listed. Of these sixty-four (64) are open to the public and membership is not required. 126, 126 visits to the Center occurred in fiscal year 2013. Most of the non-members are not included in this figure. Additionally, the Center participates in many city wide events in the downtown area Based upon findings from the June 2013 senior center survey, between 94% and 96% of current senior center members indicated that they are well satisfied with the program options they choose. hi written comments people praised the fitness facilities, parking, library, and wireless access. One person cited "a nice variety of classes, programs", and another said, "Events I attended and services I've used have been well run, people professional, and friendly" (page 24 of Survey Report). Many persons reported high satisfaction with the senior center staff and programming during the public comment periods of the Ad Hoc Committee. Many of the comments spoke to the opportunities the senior center presents for older adults to social and become better connected to the community. The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center is the ONLY nationally accredited senior center I the state of Iowa. According to the National Council on Aging, the Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center is among the top senior centers in the country. In November 2012, the Center received national accreditation for the second time. The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center is the only senior center in the state of Iowa to earn national accreditation by the National Council of Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers; and one of only 200 accredited senior centers in the USA (out of 31,000 senior centers). The Senior Center is in the top two percent of senior centers nationally. The Center was assessed as having met national standards of excellence in all 9 areas: Programming and planning Program development and implementation Governance Fiscal and asset responsibility Evaluation of center operations Community connections Records and reports The national review committee considers The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center a model for the country. Their evaluation highlighted areas in which the committee was particularly impressed including: 101788973.DOC%] REPORT PAGE 34 • Multiple collaborations with community partners • Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization • Excellent volunteer handbook • Excellent expansion of building hours through volunteer • Exceptional program guide featuring a remarkable collection of interesting and diverse activities • Impressive stewardship of a historic building The national review committee members' accreditation letter contains the following suggestions. The senior center's response to the suggestion is included in parentheses: • Development of long term outcome measures: (Note: The 2013 senior center survey included questions about outcomes of participating in center activities) • Pay staff to keep the facility open week -ends and evenings: (Note: the senior center director has requested additional staffing) • Develop a new paid volunteer coordinator position to administer and focus on this important human asset: (Note: the senior center director has requested additional staffing) • Investigate liability insurance for directors: (Note: The Friends of the Center discussed this and decided that insurance was not necessary because the funds run through the Community Foundation, which greatly lowers the risk of financial misdeeds) • Investigate an updated electronic system for participant and program records: (Note: a new system has been implemented) • Discuss with City Attorney re: release of participant information Review and monitor and revise lease agreements for the kitchen area use. (This is under review. Elder Services Agency has moved their meal preparation to North Liberty is no longer using the kitchen in the senior center on a daily basis.) The subcommittee agrees with the assessment of the Senior Center delivered by the National Accreditation Committee: The Senior Center is providing excellent programming to the area and is using resources effectively. The small number of highly motivated and qualified staff members are able to recruit, retain, and engage a large number of members, volunteers, and general community members. The subcommittee evaluation of the Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center = A + 101788973.DOC%] REPORT PAGE 35 8A. PART 2: To review the current demographics of participants served by existing operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Survey of Members, Former Members, and Non -Members, as well as other available data sources from the Senior Center and determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing available services. In June of 2013, 3000 surveys were mailed to current members, former members, friends of the center, and other individuals with a Johnson County address who were on eh Senior Center's Program Guide mailing list. (The Program Guide is a promotional and informational document that includes descriptions of classes, groups, Volunteer opportunities, performance groups, special events, free professional services, leadership opportunities, and membership benefits.) Of the 3,000 mailed surveys, 1,092 were completed and returned, for a response rate of 35%. The 56 -page report (which includes the survey instrument) can be found at: htty://www.icgov.org/site/CMsv2/file/seniorCenter/Survev-Report.pdf Respondents: Most of the respondents reported living in Iowa City: 76% live in Iowa City, 10% in Coralville, 9% in unincorporated Johnson County and 2% (each) in: North Liberty, University Heights, and "other." Most respondents were women, white, and between the ages of 60-79. Half the respondents had earned a graduate or professional degree and half lived in a household with an annual income of at least $50,000. Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of the senior center survey respondents to the Iowa City population. Table 1. Comparison of Senior Center Survey Respondents and Iowa City {01788973.DOC%} REPORT PAGE 36 Survey Respondents Iowa City (Census Bureau*) Age Group Age 50+ 1,092 Age 55+ 14,138 50-59 8% 55-59 2,966 21% of 55+ 60-79 68% 60-74 5,484 39% 80-89 21% 75-84 4,695 33% 90+ 3% 85+ 993 7% Race White 97% 84% (all ages -includes university students Black African American < 1% 5% (all ages) Asian < 1% 7% (all ages) American Indian 1% < 1% (all ages) Hispanic Origin 1% 5% all ages) Education level High school or some college 27% 41% (of person ages 25+) {01788973.DOC%} REPORT PAGE 36 Bachelor's degree 27% 28% Graduate/Professional degree 47% 30% Annual Income "household income" "Family Income" (all ages) $20,000 16% $25,000 16% $20-49,000 35% $25-49,000 17% $50,000+ 49% $50,000+ 67% * = American Community Survey, 2008-2012 5 -year estimates for Iowa City (includes UI students). Accessed from the U.S. Census Bureau htty://factfinder2census. gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/yroductview. xhtml?src=bkmk The Senior Center does not record or identify the race or ethnic information of members or non- member seniors who attend classes or activities at the Center. Many participants at the Center are black, Hispanic, and Asian yet the numbers are small. The pool of available black, Hispanic, and Asian seniors in the Iowa City area is small. Also, although the number of older adult minorities in Iowa City is small, there is room for greater racial and ethnic diversity among Senior Center Members (there are no data on the number of persons from minority groups who use the senior center, but who are not members who responded to the survey). The Senior Center is aware of this and has taken action. The following is an excerpt from the Senior Center's Survey report: Expanding the diversity of the members was included as a primary goal in The Center's 2010- 2015 Mission Statement and Goals. The Steering Council and Membership, Program, and Community Outreach Working Committees have been working with staff to address issues related to diversity and sponsoring programs to promote multiculturalism and bring new groups Into The Center. Recently a new working committee was formed that will focus Its attention on diversity Issues exclusively (page 23). It should be noted that the senior center has been a community leader in terms of building awareness of unique challenges faced by older adult members of the LGBT community (Lesbian, Gay, Bi -sexual and Transgendered), through programming including classes, afilm series, and a senior TV program hosted by an older adult. Being located next door to Ecumenical Towers (HUD apartment building) makes the senior center extremely convenient to the low income older adults and persons with disabilities that live there. The inside doorway that connects the Ecumenical Towers to the senior center allows tenants to avoid having to go outside in bad weather. Another HUD development, Capital Heights, is five blocks from the senior center. The extent to which residents at Capital Heights are using the senior center is unknown. -- the end 101788973.DOC%] REPORT PAGE 37 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report kcmd1ted by noo Nationai Institute of enlor enters Director, Linda Kopping Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center 28 South Linn Street, Iowa City Iowa 52240 Dear Linda I am pleased to officially inform you that the Accreditation Board met on November 8, 2012 and unanimously approved the recommendation for accreditation of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center. Successfully achieving accreditation status takes the work of many people both in the senior center and in the community. When these two groups work together the rewards will be felt for many years to come. Your organization demonstrates outstanding leadership and commitment to quality programs and services. This letter is your official notification that Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center has been accredited by NCOA/NISC for a period of five years (November 8, 2012 through November 8, 2017). Your Peer Reviewer observed many strengths of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center. These included: • An excellent process to prepare for accreditation, including an operational assessment, development of Goals and Objectives, and a Strategic Plan, • Multiple collaborations with community partners, • Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization, • Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors, • Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an exceptional program guide, • Important stewardship of a historic building in the community. Suggestions for the future included: • Develop long term outcome measures to include with other trend and benchmark reports, • Review staffing pattern vis-a-vis using volunteers as sole support to facility open times (usually on evening or weekends), National Council on Aging 1901 L Street NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 . Fax 202-479-0735 • http✓livwjv.ncoa.org REPORT PAGE 38 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report • Consider the development of a Volunteer Coordinator position to administer and focus on this important human asset, • Investigate Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for 501(c)(3) Friends Group, if warranted, • Investigate an updated electronic system to keep and gather participant and program records, • Discuss with City Attorney's Office their position and case law regarding the release of personal participant information, • Review, monitor, and revise old lease arrangements for the kitchen areas to meet current Center needs. We are pleased to have the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center on the list of more than 130 senior centers who meet the standards as developed by NISC. These are centers that are held up as models for others to follow. We know that you and your staff will continue to improve and adapt to meet the changing needs of the older population. We congratulate you and your staff in striving to meet the needs of the older population in your community. Sincerely, Maureen Arsenault NISC Program Manager National Council on Aging 1901 L Street NW 41h Floor Washington, DC 20036 Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 • Fax 202-479-0735 • littpJ/wivw.ticoa.org REPORT PAGE 39 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Senior Center Name: - IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENOR CENTER. Address: 28South Lin Street, Iowa City Iowa 52240 Phone Number: 319-356-5220 Director: Linda Kopping SECTION I --SUMMARY Of PEER REVIEW INSTRUMENT PURPOSE and PLANNING xYES rNO The senior center has a mission statement consistent with the NCOA/NISC senior center definition and philosophy xYES rNO The senior center uses a written planning document that consists of goals, objectives and action plans. xYES rNO The senior center produces an annual report for the senior center. Comments: Good and thorough assessment process. Goals and Objectives are utilized by Board and committees and are referenced in multiple print venues_ COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS xYES rNO The senior center collaborates with at least five (5) community partners to offer services at the senior center. xYES rNO Information and referral services are provided to seniors and he community, xYES rNO The senior center uses at least three (3) marketing techniques. Comments: Many collaborators and co -locations for programs and services. Branding is excellent and creates an appealing and unified image. GOVERNANCE xYES rNO The senior center has documents that define and establish nine of the items as required. xYES rNO The senior center has a code of ethics. xYES rNO The senior center has a conflict of interest statement xYES rNO The senior center has required certificates properly displayed. Comments: Combines the best of municipal and not-for-profit governance. ADMINISTRATION and HUMAN RESOURCES SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 1 REPORT PAGE 40 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report xYES rNO The senior center has an administrator with experience and education to accomplish duties as outlined in the job description. xYES rNO The senior center has personnel policies that have been distributed or are available electronically to employees and are followed as written. xYES rNO The senior center has a volunteer handbook written for unpaid staff that includes the policies. Comments: Excellent Volunteer Handbook and extensive usage of volunteers, both students, community members, and participants. Noted expansion efforts with Building Supervisor Program and good training program associated with it, but cautioned about replacing paid positions with volunteers. Current staffing pattern is minimal for the operation of this organization. Concern expressed about multiple supervision of volunteers, with no unique focus upon volunteers coordination and/or administration within organization. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT and IMPLEMENTATION xYES r-NOProgram delivery is of a diverse nature meeting the standard requirement. xYES rNO The senior center's program/service activities promote personal growth by providing opportunities to develop in twelve (12) of the listed areas. xYES rNO The senior center makes programs/services available for a minimum of 30 hours per week. Comments: Excellent program guide. Interesting, diverse, and great variety of scheduled and unscheduled programs and activities. Use the Building Supervisior Program to expand open hours at the Center to 45+ hours weekly on a regular basis, including regular Saturday and Sunday hours. EVALUATION xYES rNO The senior center has developed and implemented an evaluation plan. xYES rNO Evaluations are completed and the results are used in planning xYES r-NOOutcome-based evaluation is used in at least two program/service areas to document their impact. Comments: Comprehensive evaluation plan with many benchmarks. Trend document, highlighting years of experience, is excellent. Good use of students to determine outcome measures for specific programs. Next step to develop long term outcome measures that can be included in trend document with other benchmarks. FISCAL and ASSET RESPONSIBILITY xYES F'NOThe senior center prepares and publishes an annual budget document. SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 2 REPORT PAGE 41 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report xYES rNO The senior center gives budget reports on a regular basis to the appropriate governing board. xYES rNO The senior center's budget, accounting and financial reporting practices conform to appropriate and accepted accounting standards. VES rNO The senior center has insurance coverage that protects assets paid and unpaid staff, participants and governing structure. VES r-NOThe senior center has made provisions to continue critical functions after a disruption. Comments: Recommend Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for 501(c)(3) Friends Group, if risk and state regulations warrant this protection. Noted changing levels of financial support, e.g, county support from 20% to 9% and good efforts to increase participant support of organization. RECORDS AND REPORTS xYES rNO The senior center completes a statistical report for a specific time period for all activities and services. VES t-NOThe senior center has a general participant information form completed by all participants. xYES rNO The senior center has a confidentiality policy that all paid and unpaid staff are expected to follow. VES rNO The senior center has a Policy and Procedures manual that contains information on administrative functions. Comments: Records are stored appropriately. Manual record keeping and gathering does not allow for the efficient and effective use of aggregated information for planning and analyzing. Confidential information policy appropriately directs volunteers and staff to the Records Custodian (Senior Center Coordinator). Recommend discussion with City Attorney regarding the City's position on the release of personal participant information like name, address, phone number, etc. under the statues. FACILITY and OPERATIONS xYES rNO The senior center provides barrier -free access to the facility VES rNO The senior center's safety and maintenance procedures are in place. Comments: It is no cup of tea to maintain a building that is over 100 years old, but this is a bright, inviting place to be. Storage for equipment, supplies, and furniture is difficult, and extensive set ups and tear downs are a way of life for this staff. A major asset of this facility, the kitchen and nearby areas, is leased by another entity whose maintenance and use has become problematic for senior SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 3 REPORT PAGE 42 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report center use of the space. Recommend a review, monitoring, and possible revision of a 2003 lease agreement which may no longer serve the senior center or the other entity. SECTION II -- NARRATIVE INTRODUCTION The Center in Iowa City, Iowa, is a municipal senior center in a 100 year old historical US Post Office, located in the center of the City. This granite building with mosaic floors, carved wooden doors, and large, fan -shaped windows provides a beautiful environment with 25,000 square feet on 4 floors. Serving approximately 285 visitors daily, this senior center opened in 1981. Its participants are mostly (94%) Caucasian, but include all nationality groups. The serve ages from 59 to older than 85, but mostly (63%) those from 65 years to 84 years. The reviewer arrived at 11:30 am on Thursday, September 13, toured the building, talked with staff and class leaders, interacted with staff and participants at the county lunch program, viewed the kitchen and equipment. She spoke with Bridge players and the librarian and peeked into a yoga class. A one hour meeting with staff, accreditation committee members and volunteer leaders was held that afternoon. The reviewer attended a Membership Appreciation Dinner that evening and made a brief presentation about senior centers and their importance. She had contacted the off-site reviewer (Jill Kranz of Middleton, WI) prior to the visit and again during the morning on Friday, September 14. The reviewer then visited with the Director and staff, both alone and together, and spent time reviewing and seeking required information. An exit interview was scheduled at 10:30 am on Friday, September 14, and the reviewer left after lunch. DOCUMENTATION/EVIDENCE Both reviewers were impressed with the comprehensive Accreditation Notebook; it allowed for a thorough review of operations. The on-site reviewer examined participant files, other locked and stored files, and asked for full information, when indexes were provided in the Accreditation Notebook, and other materials including Board minutes. She observed classes, the nutrition site luncheon, and a special evening event. She toured all areas of the facility, including the boiler rooms and the skyway bridge to the parking lot, and she saw the community around the facility, walking several blocks to and from the hotel and lunch sites. She spoke with random participants, class leaders, staff people, HACAP employees, partners, and volunteers. INTERVIEW SUMMARY A stakeholders meeting of twelve individuals was held which included Accreditation Committee members, representatives from the public library, the City HR and park/recreation departments, and United Way. The group discussed the process, including difficulties they faced, talked about the different areas that they worked on, and how the effort continues forward in the utilization of the action plan. The Chairperson of the Senior Center Commission commented that he was skeptical of the effort to be accredited, but he noted the organization's expanded presence in the newspaper and how many goals have become reality. Other topics broached at the meeting included: joint poetry project SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 4 REPORT PAGE 43 Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report with the library, enjoyment of the accreditation work in the intense, small groups, the diversity of the members, ways they serve frail elders as well as active seniors, acknowledgement of the many partnerships, and the value of intergenerational activities. A meeting with the staff and Director allowed staff members to discuss their roles in the accreditation process; each served on one or more of the committees, They thought it provided a good review of their hard work, and they noted that they could work well independently as individuals and equally well together as a team. They spoke proudly of the growth of the senior center; it has nearly doubled membership in 5 years. They identified their role as facilitators of the needs and wishes of volunteers and participants. They are concerned about the decreasing support of past major funders, and that they need more staff people to continue their efforts or to expand. BRIEF SUMMARY OF EXIT INTERVIEW Twenty-five members of the Senior Center Steering Council and the Senior Center Commission, staff members, City administrators, and community members attended the exit interview. The peer reviewer commented on the nature of the accreditation process, identified best practices and suggestions for improvement in each of the nine areas of operation, and answered questions from participants. Best practices include; 1. An excellent process to prepare for accreditation, including an operational assessment, development of Goals and Objectives, and a Strategic Plan, 2. Multiple collaborations with community partners, 3. Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization, 4. Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors, 5. Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an exceptional program guide, 6. Important stewardship of a historic building in the community. SECTION III -- RECOMMENDATION XX Accreditation r No Accreditation r Provisional Accreditation PEER REVIEWER: DATE 9/27/12 SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 5 REPORT PAGE 44 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report 2013 Survey of Members, Former Members, and Non -Members of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center By Linda Kopping, Ph.D. and Clancy Vinchattle BSW The survey was developed and analyzed with the assistance of Dr. Mercedes Bern Klug, Associate Professor; Director, Aging Studies Program; Hartford Faculty Scholar at the University of Iowa's School of Social Work. In addition, Center participants Jim Curry, Ina Loewenberg, and Kathy Mitchell assisted with the preparation and testing of the survey; Tom Pickering assisted with the analysis and presentation. 1 REPORT PAGE 45 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report The Survey The Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center strives to contribute to the optimal aging of older adults in Iowa City and Johnson County. The Center provides individuals 50 years of age and older opportunities to live as fully as possible in all spheres of wellness: emotional, vocational, physical, spiritual, intellectual, environmental, and social. In order to determine the effectiveness of the Senior Center's current programs and policies in promoting optimal aging, a survey was developed for members, non-members, and former members. The goals of the survey were to identify: 1) Participation and demographic information 2) Incentives to participation 3) Barriers to participation 4) Benefits of participation 5) Program satisfaction and recommendations 6) Promotional techniques recommended by respondents In June of 2013, over 3000 surveys were mailed to individuals on the Senior Center's Program Guide mailing list. The Program Guide is a promotional and informational document that includes descriptions of classes, groups, volunteer opportunities, performance groups, special events, free professional services, leadership opportunities, and membership benefits. The Guide is mailed out quarterly and placed in distribution sites throughout Johnson County. The mailing list includes members, former members, friends of The Center, and businesses that have indicated an interest in Senior Center offerings. Prior to mailing the surveys, the business addresses and addresses outside of Johnson County were removed from the list. The survey package included a cover letter from The Center's Steering Council Chair Ina Loewenberg and Vice Chair Kathy Mitchell, the anonymous survey, a postage paid return envelope, and a certificate the respondent could redeem at The Center for a free gift anytime between June 15 and July 13, 2013. The free gift was a Staying Sharp puzzle packet from the Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives and a Senior Center pen. On the back cover of the puzzle packet photos and information about the Senior Center were included. Nearly 400 coupons were returned to the center. When data analysis began, 1092 (35%) surveys had been returned. Each survey was assigned a unique number. Quantitative data from each survey was coded and entered into an Excel database for analysis. The qualitative information was also entered into the Excel database. All information from each survey was entered under the survey's unique number. Excel was used to conduct the quantitative analysis and the qualitative analysis was completed using a content analysis. In the following pages the Executive Summary of this survey is presented REPORT PAGE 46 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report Executive Summary Results: Data Question 1 Are you a member of the Senior Center? 88% were either members or former members Question 2 How long have you been, or were you, a member of the Senior Center? 63% have been a member for 5 years or less Question 3 What made you decide to come to the Senior Center the first time? Check all that apply 76% of respondents came to The Center the first time because they were interested in a class, program, or special event Question 4 On Average, how often do you come to the Senior Center? Check only one. 46% of respondents come to The Center between 1 and 7 times each week Question 5 Complete the following sentence: I would come to the Senior Center more often if ... Check all that apply. The top five (5) barriers to participation that were identified are: e Conflicting time commitments (38%) • Parking problems (24%) • Lack of interest in current program offerings (18%) • Employment (14%) • Inconvenient hours of operation (11%) Question 6 Please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following remarks by circling the corresponding number: Since 1 began participating at the Senior Center 1 have... The top five beneficial outcomes to participation in Center programming identified by respondents were: • Learned new things • Kept my mind active • Obtained information I needed • Made a new friend • Gained a sense of belonging An average of 88% of the respondents felt that they experienced these benefits. Question 7 The following table includes a list of programs, classes, and activities offered by The Center. Please circle the appropriate number to indicate your level of satisfaction with each senior Center program, class or activity... The average satisfaction rating for classes, special events or programs, information/resources, special membership programs, performance groups, groups or clubs, volunteer activity, and participant leadership was 97%. Based upon the number of rankings given to each of the eight categories of programming, it appears that classes and special events or programs are among the most popular Center offerings. REPORT PAGE 47 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report Question 8 What programs and services would you like the Senior Center to offer? Collectively, respondents' most frequent programming recommendation was for classes in the liberal arts (36%). This was followed by recommendations for programming focused on fitness (19%), computers and technology (14%), wellness (5%), and handcrafts and groups and clubs each with 4%. Question 9 In your opinion, what would be the most effective way to promote the Senior Center? All Respondents The top two promotional methods endorsed by respondents were newspaper articles about programs (59%) and the quarterly Program Guide (41%). E-mail newsletters came in third with 29%. Question 10 Do you own or have access to a computer for your personal use? A majority (87%) of respondents have access to a computer for personal use. Question 11 The Senior Center plans to update the computer lab. Please indicate which type of computer you would prefer to have in the lab. ❑ Windows PC ❑ Apple/Mac ❑ No Opinion 41% indicated a preference for Windows PC and 24% for Apple/Mac. There were suggestions that the computer lab offer both formats. Question 12 Have you ever visited any of the Senior Center websites? Please check Yes or No. Awareness of The Center's online resources is quite limited. Only 37% of respondents had ever visited the Center's main website. Fewer than 5% had visited either the Facebook page or Youtube Channel. Question 13 The highest level of education completed 27% of respondents have less than a college degree and 74% have a college or graduate degree. Question 14 What is your gender? Gender Percent of Respondents Percentage Male 28% Female 72% Transgender < 1% Question 15 Which of the following categories fit your household's annual income level? 28% of the respondents have an annual household income of 5 $30,000/year. 72% have an annual household income > $30,000/year. Question 16 Where do you live? Location Percentage Iowa City 76% Coralville 10% Unincorporated Johnson County 9% Other 2% North Liberty 2% University Heights 2% REPORT PAGE 48 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report Question 17 What is your age? Age Percentage Less than 50 < 1% 50-59 years 7% 60-69 years 34% 70-79 years 34% 80-89 years 21% 90+ 3% Question 18 What is your race? Please check all that apply. 97% of the respondents indicated that they were white. Question 19 Who lives with you in your household? Check all that apply. 53% of respondents live with a spouse or significant other; 41% live alone. Question 20 Comments Strengths and Weaknesses There were approximately three and a half times more strengths (N=137) than weaknesses (N=38) identified by respondents. Strengths were presented from two perspectives. Some focused on how The Center supported the community and others on personal benefits. The most frequently identified weakness was parking noting that it was inconvenient or expensive or inconvenient and expensive. A few facility design features were mentioned, as well as participation fees, the lack of minority participants and an unwelcoming atmosphere. A number of program suggestions were offered. REPORT PAGE 49 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report Results: Summary The "typical" respondent was a white female between 60 and 79 years of age. She typically lived with a spouse or partner and had an annual household income of $50,000+/year. This "typical" woman held a graduate or professional degree and was a member of The Center who visited anywhere from three times a week to less than monthly. The overwhelming reason people come to The Center for the first time is to attend programming that is of interest to them. This is followed by a desire to keep active and maintain social connections. The primary barrier to participation identified was competing time demands, including employment. People are involved with their families, hobbies, church, employment, and other activities of personal interest. Other barriers identified were parking and not being able to identify programs of personal interest. When the reasons for first visits and barriers to participation are considered together, the importance of being aware of the needs and interests of older adults within the community becomes obvious. A person or group is far more likely to find time to attend a program or event that is of personal interest and value. Another barrier mentioned by respondents was the lack access to the facility during the hours they are available, specifically evenings and weekends. People would like to have their work and other activities accommodated so they can enjoy programs, services, and opportunities to establish new social connections. People want what they are interested in offered at a time that is convenient for them. The most highly rated participant outcomes were cognitive, social, and emotional. The top five were 1) learned new things, 2) kept my mind active, 3) obtained needed information, 4) made friends, and 5) gained a sense of belonging. In addition, a majority of respondents felt that their physical status had improved as a result of participating in Center programming. Notably, all of these outcomes are important contributors to positive aging, which is the focus of The Center's mission. Participant satisfaction with current programming is high. When asked to rank eight areas of programming, satisfaction levels ranged between 94% and 98%. Since respondents were asked to rank only the areas they participated in, the response rate for each area is indicative of the participation level in each area. The program areas receiving the most responses were: 1) classes, 2) special events, 3) information/resources, 4) special membership programs, and 5) performance groups. Traditional liberal arts classes were the most frequently requested programs. This included everything from art history and writing to foreign language and math. Fitness programming was the second most frequently requested area of programming with requests for such things as line dancing, pilates, free yoga, tai chi, and expanded weight training equipment. The third most requested area of programming was in the area of computers and technology. Respondents are interested in everything from the most basic instruction to advance instruction on things like web design, social media, smart phones, photo editing, and computer and phone apps. Program recommendations were analyzed according to respondent groups. Preference breakdowns were as follow: REPORT PAGE 50 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESPONDENTS Subdivision First Choice Second Choice Third Choice Forth Choice Former Members liberal Arts Computers Fitness Non -Members Liberal Arts Fitness Computers Women <69 Liberal Arts Fitness Groups/Clubs Computers/liandicrafts/Wellness Women>69 Liberal Arts Fitness Computers Wellness Men <69 Liberal Arts Groups/Clubs Computers Men>69 Liberal Arts Fitness Computers Miscellaneous Liberal Arts Computers Fitness/Handicrafts Groups/clubs When discussing program requests, the need for expanded operational hours was mentioned again. Several respondents expressed a desire for increased diversity, including age diversity. Respondents endorsed current methods of program promotion including newspaper articles about programs and the Program Guide. They also supported the effectiveness of e-mail communication and television commercials. While a majority of respondents own or have access to a computer for personal use, the ability to use their computer varies from little or no ability to very skilled. Regardless their ability to use the computer, very few have ever visited any of The Center's websites. When asked to identify a preference for type of computer to have in the computer lab, a majority of respondents expressed a preference for Windows PCs. Respondents conveyed positive feelings about The Center in their written comments. It was described as an asset to the community, attractive to retirees, and a resource that helps new community members integrate into the community. Programs and services were cited for their exceptional quality and variety. Far fewer weaknesses were identified by respondents. Nonetheless, these weaknesses touch on important issues that merit consideration. Fees (e.g. class, membership, and parking) were identified as being problematic, especially for non -Iowa City residents and low-income persons. In the case of the latter, the respondents noted that fees can be expensive and having to ask for a low-income discount might be embarrassing enough to keep people away. A particularly concerning comment had to do with the unwelcoming atmosphere experienced by a self -identified low-income member. Several diversity issues were mentioned by respondents. Specifically this included a lack of diversity in the areas of ethnicity, education, income, and age (within the 50+ population). Comments from respondents also highlighted problems with agism that result in negative attitudes toward aging and the Senior Center. Other problems included a general unwelcoming atmosphere, lack of accessible hours (mentioned again), lack of staff support when the facility is open, and a need for more programs with a social component. REPORT PAGE 51 Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report] Senior Center Survey Data: 2013 Survey and 2014 Demographic Survey Gender 2013 Survey 2014 Demographic Survey Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Yeats Male 28%M ale 31% Male 45% Female 72% Female 68% Percale 55% Transgender <1% Transgender I <1% N/A M 2013 Survey 2014 Demographic Survey Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years Less than 50 <1% Less than 50 2% N/A 50-59 years 7% 50-64 years 22% N/A 60-69 years 34% 65-74 years 43% N/A 70-79 years 1 34% 75-84 years 24% N/A 80-89 years 21% 85+ years 9% A/A 90+ years 3% 2% Black or African American N/A Race 2013 Survey 2014 Demographic Survey Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years White, Caucasian 97% White 95% White 97% Hispanic or Latino 1% Hispanic or Latino <l% Hispanic or Latino 1% Native American, Alaska Native l% Native American, Alaska Native <1% Native American, Alaska Native <1% Asian American, Pacific Islander <1% Asian 1% Asian 1% Black or African American <1% Black or African American 2% Black or African American 1% Other l% Other <1% Other <1% Two or more Races 1% Two or more Races <1% Education 2013 Survey 2014 Demographic Survey Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years 12 years or less 8% High school graduate, GED, or less 10% High school graduate, GED, or less 53% Some college 19% Some college, or associates degree 17% Some college, or associates degree 26% Bachelor's degree 27% Bachelor's degree 26% Bachelor's degree or higher 21% Graduate or Professional degree 47% Graduate or professional degree 46% 10% Annual Household Income 2013 Survey 2014 Demographic Survey Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years $10,000 or less 4% Less than $10,000 4% N/A $10,001 to $20,000 12% $10,000-$14,999 8% N/A $20,001 to $30,000 12% $15,000-$24,999 9% N/A $30,001 to $50,000 23% $25,000-$34,999 10% N/A $50,001 or more 49% $35,000-$49,999 16% N/A $50,000 ornrore 49% N/A Note: Census data retrieved from the 2012 American Community Survey, 1 -yr estimates (http://factfitider2.censtis.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/prodtictview.xlitml?pid=ACS_ 12_] YR_SO 102&prodTyl)e—table#) REPORT PAGE 52 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IOWA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS 2010-2015 REPORT PAGE 53 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet PAGE 2 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS The Center's operational self-assessment began in October of 2009. At the time, a group of participants, volunteers, community members, aging service providers, staff, and experts in the field of aging, met for a full day to review and improve the Center's mission statement, vision statement, and values, and establish goals for 20-10-2015. The following people took part in the process: Merce Bern— Janice Frey Jean Martin Klug Jay Honohan Mike Moran Michelle Buhman Tiffiny Johnston- Jean Reese Marcia. Bollinger . Hines Susan Rogusky Ed Carpenter Linda Kopping Christine Scheetz Dianne Day Ina Loewenberg Linda Severson Louis De Grazia Kara Logsden Kristin Watson - Karin Franklin Sarah Maiers Charlotte Walker (facilitator) Cari Malone REPORT PAGE 54 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER PAGE 3 Mission Statement The mission of the Senior Center is to promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public through intergenerational programming and community. outreach. Vision Statement The Vision of the Senior Center is to be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging. REPORT PAGE 55 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet PAGE 4 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Principles The primary principle underlying Senior Center programming and services is that of optimal aging. Optimal aging is abroad concept that involves more than physical health or the absence of disease. It is a comprehensive concept of wellness that encourages and extends an optimal balance of physical, intellectual, emotional, social, vocational, and spiritual health for each individual. The Senior Center's program components promote optimal aging by providing a variety of opportunities for education, social engagement, physical activity, and community involvement. . Participation in these types of activities is known to reduce the risk of disease and disability, improve memory, enhance mobility, and provide.a social network that is a key factor in longevity and the ability to participate in and contribute to the culture and community. REPORT PAGE 56 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IOWA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER PAGE 5 Values Values represent the core priorities in an organization's culture and serve as the foundation for all that is done. The Center abides by the following values: Intrinsic Worth: Every individual will be valued for their intrinsic worth Experience: Life experiences of older adults are to be valued and shared Capacity for Growth: Everyone has a life-long capacity to grow and improve Respect: All people and ideas will be treated with respect Inclusiveness: Decision-making will be inclusive of different view points Excellence: All programs and services will strive for excellence Collaboration: Engagement of and with the larger Johnson County community will facilitate the success of the Senior Center Honesty: All communication will be honest and based on mutual trust. REPORT PAGE 57 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet PAGL 6 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Goal #1 To provide opportunities and advocacy to empower seniors in order to combat ageism, create a positive image of aging, and a positive image of the Senior Center. ♦ Continually review all -Center publications, advertisements, and community interactions to ensure that a positive image of aging and the Center is conveyed, ♦ Establish a variety of marketing techniques to promote the Center and educate the community about the positive aspects of aging on an ongoing basis. ♦ Maintain positive relationships with volunteers, members, staff, and community members to promote a positive image of aging and the Center. Expand community and participant knowledge of, and involvement in, the governance of the Center on an ongoing basis. REPORT PAGE 58 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IOWA CITY/ JOHNSOi�' COUNTY SENIOR CENTER PAGE 7 Goal # 2 To improve stability and diversity of financing. 0 Update resolutions and policies related to management of the Gift Fund to reflect current practices in FYI 0. ® Evaluate current lease agreements with in-house agencies and make changes as needed in FYI 2. ® Intensify pursuit of external grant support, fundraising, and corporate sponsorships in order to maintain a 5% increase in revenue sources annually. ® Investigate the feasibihty of generating additional revenue by selling advertisements in the Program Guide and other promotional materials during or before FYI 3. - ® Develop financial policies and procedures to be used daily and under extraordinary circumstances by 2015. ® Determine the success of all fundraising events organized and implemented by volunteers and staff within 30 clays of each event as events occur. 4. Monitor budget and revenue activity throughout the year and take action as necessary. ® Maintain a positive working relationship with Friends of the Center. ® Determine the level of participant satisfaction with participant cost-sharing methods and modify as necessary. REPORT PAGE 59 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet PAGE 8 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS Goal #3 To increase cultural diversity among participants. ♦ Promote an accurate understanding of the Center and its offerings on an ongoing basis. ♦ Review and improve promotional methods, currently used to increase participation and diversity among volunteers on an ongoing basis. ♦ Encourage participant diversity among Scholarship program participants. Increase Scholarship use 10% by 2015. ♦ hnprove the, use of neighborhood newsletters and. church bulletins, especially in rural areas, to promote programs, activities; and services on an ongoing basis. ♦ Support ongoing staff training. ♦ Continue to offer and promote a minimum of 12 outreach pro- grams a year in Johnson County. ♦ Improve access to programming for individuals who are unable to drive or do not have access to public transportation. ♦ Identify ways to improve services for all members of the community. ♦ Increase opportunities to reach a diverse audience by offering a miniruiuni of 6 programs about various cultures and ethnicities. annually. ♦ Continue to reach at risk individuals with programs and services designed to improve health, and wellbeing. ♦ Develop surveys and focus groups to identify minority groups' heeds and interests and determine if they are being met by current program offerings in conjunction with 5 year community survey and on an as needed basis. ♦ Continue to diversify programs through new partnerships. ♦ Compare diversity among Center participants to documented diversity within the community annually. ♦ Increase etlunic and financial diversity among Center participants by 15% by 2015. Continue to improve accessibility of facility. REPORT PAGE 60 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER PAGE 9 Goal #4 To promote an environment of inclusion. ® Continue the practice of distributing media releases through the City of Iowa City's press release network and staff generated e -mail press release lists. ® Continue with the preparation and widespread distribution of the quarterly Program Guide. e Strengthen web -based promotion of the Center on an ongoing basis. ® Increase the production and distribution of promotional posters on an ongoing basis. ® Identify job descriptions for all volunteerpositionsby 2012.. ® Create a volunteer liand'000k by 2012. ® Recognize the contributions of volunteers to the operation of the Center on an ongoing basis. ® Continue to provide confidentiality insofar as legally possible. ® Continue to use Center space effectively and make appropriate changes as needed. ® Improve availability and use facility directories for visitors to the Center by 2042. REPORT PAGE 61 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet PAGE 10 MISSION. STATENUNT AND GOALS Goal #5 To be synonymous with the highest duality programs that promote optimal aging. 0 Maximize the effectiveness of all marketing tools and resources on an ongoing basis. 0 Continue to secure high duality, professional staff, volunteers and instructors. e Continue to ensure that all programs and special events are monitored for effectiveness. 0 Evaluate community needs and interests on a regular basis. e Continue to monitor participation in A Center sponsored programs. e On a scheduled and as needed basis, measure community and participant opinions of Center programs and service to ensure that their needs and interests are being met successfully. e Maintain a pleasant and comfortable environment at the Center. REPORT PAGE 62 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER PAGE 11 Goal #6 To involve the Senior Center in the community and the community in the Center. ® Continue to improve the currency, relevance, and appeal of the Center's internet presence. ® Monitor the frequency and success of community partnerships and outreach programming on an ongoing basis. Goal #7 To improve accountability and transparency. ® Continue to encourage participant feedback on personal levels of satisfaction with current opportunities for meaningful involvement in the operation of the Center. ® Maintain efforts to keep the public.and participants informed about the operation of the Center. A Improve the relevance and clarity of member registration materials by 2012. ® Improve methods used for determining participation counts in all Center sponsored programs by 2012. ® Inform the public of results of all fundraising activities and programs as events occur on an annual basis. REPORT PAGE 63 Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet Center IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER Downtown Iowa City Iowa City/ Johnson County Senior Center 28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Phone: 319.356.5220 www.icgov.org/senior REPORT PAGE 64 Exhibit G - Census Marian Karr From; U.S. Census Field Division <tieid.divisionr7subscriptions.census.90v> Sent; Monday, April 21, 2014 12:47 PM To: Marian Karr Subject: Facts for Features Older Americans Month ®llder 'Alrl< e rileting Month-. May 201,4111 Older A>rl erricam Month A meeting with the National Council of Senior Citizens resulted in President John F. Kennedy designating May 1963 as Senior Citizens Month, encouraging the nation to pay tribute to older people across the country. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter's proclamation changed the name to Older Americans Month, a time to celebrate those 65 and older through ceremonies, events and public recognition. 43.1 million The number of people who were 65 and older in the United States on July 1, 2012. This group accounted for 13.7 percent of the total population. 92.0 million Projected population of people 65 and older in 2060. People In this age group would comprisejust over one in five U,S. residents al that time. Of this number, 18.2 million would be 85 or older. 2.4 million Projected number of baby boomers in 2060. At that time, the youngest baby boomers would be 96 years old. 2056 The year in which, for the first tune, the population 65 and older would oulmuubcr people younger than 18 in the U.S. REPORT PAGE 65 Exhibit G - Census Income and Poverty $33,040 The 2012 median income of households with householders 65 and older, not significantly different tinm tine previous year. 9% The percent of people 65 and older (3.9 million) who were ht poverty in 2012. $170,516 Median net worth for householders 65 and older in 2011, down from $203,015 (in 2011 dollars) in 2005. 14.0% Percent supplemental poverty rate for those 65 ail(] older, equating to 6.4 million people. Excluding Social Security would leave the majority of this population (54.7 percent or 23.7 million) in poverty. Seirvi ng ®u)r Nation ion 9.6 million Estimated number of people 65 and older who were veterans of the armed forces 1112012. 21.3% Labor force participation rate for men 65 and older 1112012, up from 17.6 percent is 1990 and significantly higher than the rate for REPORT PAGE 66 Exhibit G - Census '1.3 million Number of full-time, year-round workers 65 and older with earnings in 2012, tip from 1.3 million in 1992. 02.6% Proportion ofpeople 65 and older in 2013 who had completed high school or higher education. 25.3% Percentage of the population 65 and older }» 2013 who had earned n bachelor's degree or higher, 00.7% Percentage of householders 65 and older Who owned f icir homes as of fourth quarter 2013. United Statos" Questions? Census - - 'auronu Contact Us SUBSCRIBER SERVICES; Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help This message has been sent by the U.S. Census Bureau • Washington, DC 20233 3 REPORT PAGE 67 I MAN 0 a /� /W", da, 2L 4o0o4allr MILKEN REPORT I propose that we add the following to our report Excutive Summary 1)Page 2 new bullet at the end of the bullets The City should continue its strong support for the Center and the agencies who serve seniors for their role in Iowa City receiving the number 1 ranking in the Mulken Institute's "Best Cities for Successful Aging". 2)Add to the conclusion at the end of the last sentence and continue to be recognized as a "Best City for Successful Aging.