HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-2014 Ad Hoc Senior Services CommitteeTHE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS AND COMMENT
ON AGENDA ITEMS OR DURING PUBLIC DISCUSSION *
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Wednesday, October 15, 2014, 3:30 PM
Harvat Hall / City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED
a. Minutes of the meeting on 10/01/14 (pages 2-14)
b. Memo from Asst. City Mgr.: Follow-up from the October 1, 2014 Meeting (pages 15-18)
3. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS
a. Initial Sections (pages 19-21)
b. Acceptance of reformatted Charge 1: Senior Center Evaluation (pages 22-26)
c. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources
1) Understanding of City Financials (page 27)
2) Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population (page 28)
3) General Finds of Needs of the Senior Population (pages 28-29)
4) Discussion of proposed Charge 2 recommendations
• Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann (pages 30-31)
• Ad Hoc Member Bern -Klug (pages 32-33)
d. Charge 3: Identify Obstacles
4. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
October 15
October 22
November 12
November 24
Special meetings (Please bring calendars)
5. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA)
6. ADJOURNMENT
* Speakers are asked to limit remarks to five minutes and wait until
after everyone has had the opportunity to speak once before
approaching the podium again on the same topic
PAGE 2
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 1, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Joe Younker (Chair), Jay Honohan, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann
(arrived 4:00 P.M.), Mercedes Bern -Klug, Hiram Rick Webber
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon
Staff Present: Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action :
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 09/24/14 —
b. Memo to Asst. City Mgr. — Funding information from other Iowa communities.
Honohan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Webber seconded the
motion. Motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dohrmann absent.
RECEIVE REFORMATTED SENIOR CENTER EVALUATION SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT:
Younker noted that everyone received a reformatted evaluation from Honohan. As he was
asked to do at the last meeting, Honohan provided some background information and
reformatted a summary of the Senior Center Evaluation, which will also be part of the final
report to Council. Younker stated that he believes they should accept the report at this time, as
they need to move forward in discussing some of the more substantive portions of their charge.
Dobyns moved to receive the reformatted Senior Center Evaluation Subcommittee
Report as presented. Honohan seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-0, Cannon and
Dohrmann absent. Honohan stated that Members may want to study this before they take any
further action on it or make any changes. Younker agreed.
REPORTS FROM CONTACT MEMBERS RE: LOCAL AGENCIES / CONSORTIA:
Elder Services — None.
HAAA — None.
JC Livable Communities — None.
PAGE 3
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 2
Shelter House — None.
Pathways — None.
Consultation of Religious Communities — None.
Free Medical Clinic — None.
MECCA — None.
JC Mental Health — None.
VNA — None.
Compeer — None.
Hospice — None.
SEATS — None.
Hispanic Community follow-up — None
DISCUSSION OF CHARGE TWO — RECOMMENDATIONS ON CURRENT FINANCIAL AND
PHYSICAL RESOURCES:
Younker began by stating that he proposes they start with a discussion of the future use of City
tax revenue. He noted that one thing that has struck him during their Committee discussions is
that the Senior Center is a tremendous resource. The programming appears to be exceptional,
with many people from the community sharing their experiences. He added that the staff of the
Center should be commended on the level of services they provide and the excellence that they
have helped achieve for the Senior Center. Younker stated that one of the questions should be
how can the Center maintain its level of excellence during, and in the midst of, some of the
looming budget issues. He suggested they begin their discussion with the future use of City tax
revenue.
Dobyns asked Younker to explain how this might be applied to some of the programs in Parks
and Rec, as Younker used this as an example of City tax revenue and what departments are
doing to meet the challenge of lower budgets. Younker noted that a goal for Parks and
Recreation is that 50% of the budget be recovered through revenue. So on the recreation side
of this department, that would be accomplished through fees associated with participating in the
various programs. The goal does not relate to the Parks portion of the budget. Fruin noted that
every City department is unique in their ability to raise funds in this manner. Some departments
may use fundraising, others may apply for grants, but there is no blanket cost -recovery model
that is applied throughout City departments. Fruin shared what some of the other departments
have been able to do as far as cost recovery, noting that Transit is able to do a 30 to 35%
recovery from the fares that they take in. In Housing Inspections, there is 100% cost recovery
through their fees.
Younker stated that a discussion about cost recovery will be important for several reasons. One
is that it is known that through property tax legislation, the City will be seeing much lower
PAGE 4
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 3
revenues from property taxes, putting further strain on the budget. He believes they need to
look at ways to help the Senior Center maintain the excellence it has achieved, and yet recover
some of the costs associated with running the Center. Younker stated that if they do not
discuss some of these issues, and if their recommendation is to maintain the status quo, he is
concerned about what might happen a few years down the road, after everyone else has been
employing cost -recovery models and the Center has not.
Honohan noted that when he first joined the Commission in 1998, Johnson County funded 20%
of the Center's budget. In 2003, the County decided to no longer fund the Senior Center,
instead putting them on 'grant status.' This means that every year the Center has to approach
Johnson County about funding. As a result of this drop in funding, the Commission initiated
participant fees. Honohan noted that one of the recommendations in his draft report is for the
Senior Center Commission to review fees and other ways to increase revenue. He added that
the current grant from the County is around $59,000. The Community Foundation has an
endowment fund that the Center is part of, garnering them around 20% of the budget when you
add in participant fees. Fruin noted that it is actually a bit more than that, that the Center
probably brings in about 27% of the budget through this. Honohan noted that he would not like
to put the Senior Center on a cost benefit idea. Not only for the Center, but he would not want
this for SEATS or Transit either. Honohan added that a lot hinges on the sales tax issue that
will be decided on the November ballot.
Younker noted that there are definitely details of cost recovery that would be better left to City
staff and Council to deal with. Webber stated that what stands out for him is what would
happen if the Senior Center were to stop serving the needs of the citizens of Iowa City. He
asked if they are going to count the amount of money recovered from charging for services, or
are they going to count the population addition from other parts of the world and the nation. He
stated that he says this because they have heard about people moving from both the west coast
and the east coast to Iowa City, just because there is a Senior Center of this quality. Webber
added that he is all for keeping the Center the way it is, but with an eye on the future to make
sure they can expand and continue to provide the necessary services and programs for larger
populations of people. Webber shared something he recently witnessed at the Center — a group
of young women in their 20s entering the Center together for an event. He added that to him
this is proof that more and more people of differing demographics are coming together at the
Center.
Bern -Klug asked for some clarification on the issue of 'cost recovery.' She asked if this means
that the Center would find other ways to raise revenue to pay for part of its operating costs.
Younker responded that it does, and clarified that it would need to be something that is phased
in over time. Bern -Klug asked if the Center isn't already doing this, with something like
$200,000 a year being offset. Fruin noted that about 25% of the Center's expenditures are
recovered from non -tax revenue — membership fees, grants, etc. Younker replied that the idea
would be that there is a goal, for example Parks and Rec is around 50% and Transportation is
around 30%, that would be set, and that City staff would work with the Senior Center to find out
when it would be realistic to achieve that goal. The idea would be that funding that no longer
comes from the City comes from another revenue source. Fruin added that Center staff
undoubtedly already has some of these cost recovery goals in place, as they have had to do
this when working through the budget process.
Bern -Klug spoke to the issue of whether the Senior Center charges other groups to use space
there, such as Elder Services. She stated that she believes they need to be very careful about
PAGE 5
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 4
asking for recovery in a quick way, as there could be unintended consequences for other
agencies in the area. She reiterated that the Center is already recovering 25% of their costs,
and that part of that cost is upkeep of an old building. Bern -Klug stated that cost recovery
sounds like a good idea in general; however, the Center is already doing this. She questioned if
Younker is suggesting the Center pay a higher percentage of its operating costs. He replied
that a recommendation that he would suggest to Council is that a dialogue be started with the
Senior Center to talk about a reasonable cost recovery goal, a percentage, that can be
implemented over a reasonable period of time. He agreed that implementing this goal too fast
could definitely have unintended consequences on other agencies. He added that he does not
believe that this Committee is in a position to come up with a timeline or a percent, but more a
recommendation that the City look into the issue further.
Honohan stated that he could answer some of the questions posed on this issue. The VNA and
the Elder Services dining program do not pay for the use of the Center's space, as well as some
other groups such as SHIP. He stated that a previous Councilor was always upset that the
Center did not charge Elder Services or Heritage for the use of the assembly room and kitchen,
especially due to the fact that maintenance and upkeep have been expensive. Honohan added
that at the time, though, Heritage had stated that if the Center were to charge them a fee, they
would just leave the Center. Due to this, the Center has not charged for the use of their space.
Honohan stated that he believes this would be a bad policy to start charging groups such as the
VNA. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting this, merely noting that they need to tread
lightly in this process. (Dohrmann arrived at the meeting.)
Bern -Klug asked Fruin if there is any information regarding the cost recovery percentage for the
Library. He replied that he does not recall if they have a set goal or not. Fruin noted that the
Library's financial oversight includes the Library Board, which has more explicit powers than the
Senior Center Commission, for example. He added that he would look into this. Honohan
stated that the Library Board comes under a special statute, which allows them a lot of authority.
Bern -Klug stated that she really just doesn't like the idea of 'cost recovery,' especially in this
type of situation. Dohrmann noted that another way to look at this is 'in kind' or an
acknowledgement of collaboration. Basically how much does the space cost per foot, and then
recognize that this is a contribution as a collaboration. She believes this may be more beneficial
in terms of a different framework, rather than 'cost recovery.' Bern -Klug agreed, stating that the
budget includes money that changes hands, but if they also included other things, such as 'in-
kind,' then the actual cost is higher but is not being charged to the City.
Fruin stated how staff would approach this issue if Council gave the directive to come up with a
percentage. Staff would look at it from what the consequences could be if membership fees
were increased, for example. What impact would this have on total membership would have to
be analyzed. What impact would this have on other agencies who use space at the Center
would also have to be analyzed. Another thing to look at is what parts of the budget make
sense to recognize as expenses. For example, building improvements would not be included in
a cost -recovery sort of analysis. Younker asked what resources would be tapped in order for
staff to perform this analysis. Fruin stated that in this case the Senior Center staff would most
likely put together a proposal for a specific goal and then discuss it with the Senior Center
Commission and the City Manager's office. These three groups could then come together to
present a proposal to the Council.
Bern -Klug stated that to her it appears the Center already has a goal of 25%, which they are
meeting, and until there is an actual budget cut, she wonders what the purpose is of cutting
PAGE 6
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 5
them before that. She added that if the Council decides not to fund the Center at the current
rate, the Senior Center is just going to have to adapt to this new level of funding. She asked if
others agree that the current 25% is fine as it is. Younker replied that a concern he has is that
compared to other departments, this 25% is rather low. He asked if they shouldn't have a
discussion with the Senior Center now and see what an appropriate cost recovery goal is for
them. He fears that if this Committee suggests to stay with the status quo, that if there is a
problem, the Senior Center won't be in as good of a position to make the necessary changes.
Younker reiterated that his personal recommendation at this point would not be to dictate any
specific percent, but rather a recommendation that City staff work with Senior Center staff to
begin discussions on what an appropriate cost recovery percent would be, and over what period
of time it should be implemented. Bern -Klug asked if they could get the information of what the
percentage of total costs is paid by other groups. Fruin stated that there would be parts of City
operations that pay 0%, as they don't have the ability to recover funds, but he will put together
some sort of list for the Committee to review.
Dobyns noted that the next part of the conversation will be federal funding. These funds are
those used in City STEPS, for example, and have been used to fund programs that provide
needed services to Iowa City seniors. Dobyns stated these funds are expected to drop
markedly over the next few years. He added that he hopes this Committee would be
enthusiastic about raising the preference towards senior services that is used for its City STEPS
rating. Dobyns stated that he believes the 25% is, therefore, quite generous. He added that
having to increase fees to other services could be an unintended consequence. Younker
agreed that a lot of analysis would need to be done first before a percentage is agreed on, as
well as what the appropriate timeframe would be. Bern -Klug stated that she rejects the
assumption that because the federal government is going to reduce its funds to other senior
agencies that it automatically means the money comes from the Senior Center. She believes
these things are completely separate, and she for one will not agree to this kind of justification.
Continuing, she stated that they are two different pots of money, and that to assume the Senior
Center is only serving seniors, and that other groups using the Center are only serving seniors,
is wrong. Bern -Klug stated that she believes the Council needs to look very broadly at how to
make up this amount of money, and not just pick from the 'senior' pot of money. She added that
this is just too simplistic. Bern -Klug stated that basically the Council needs to decide if they
want an excellent Senior Center or not. If they want to do it a lot cheaper, they can, at a cost.
Younker stated that he agrees with Bern -Klug to a degree, that money that comes through the
CDBG money or Aid to Agencies is separate; however, the other part of this is the property tax
component. This issue has the biggest impact on the budget and is really what is driving the
cost recovery discussion. Fruin responded to questions regarding the State's change to
property taxes, noting that the loss of revenue could be upwards of $50 million over 10 years.
He further explained how the phase-in of this plan is supposed to work, noting that the State is
to backfill some of these lost funds but that their track record in doing so is not too good.
Growth and the addition of taxable value is the only way to make up for the lost property tax
revenue, according to Fruin. Webber spoke to the articles he has read in the papers, where it
states people want to live in Iowa City and are moving here to retire, for example. He noted that
this is growth, which brings an increase in the tax base. He asked if there are any projections
as to how many more people might move here in the next 10 years. Fruin responded, noting
that the City is typically growing at a percent or two per year, and he doubts that this would
change, unless the University would aggressively pursue an enrollment boost. He added that
they have discussed doing this, but that he really doesn't see the growth rate changing much
from where it has been. Bern -Klug asked for some specifics on just how much of the City's
PAGE 7
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 6
budget the decrease in multi -family would bring in lost revenue. Fruin stated that he would have
to look into this further, but that multi -family is nearly half of the housing stock in Iowa City. He
will put some numbers together and try to answer Bern-Klug's questions on this issue. It was
noted that this information was in Bockenstedt's memo from the July 30, 2014, meeting.
Discussion continued, with Bern -Klug asking what their motivation is — that they think it's unfair
how much the Senior Center is getting compared to other groups, or is the Committee helping to
prepare for a $50 million shortfall. She added that these are two completely different drivers.
Dobyns responded that he believes they are the same, that these are the realities — the City is
losing funds and decisions need to be made on how they should respond to it over the next few
years in a more controlled way. Continuing, Dobyns asked how the City can react equitably
when it comes to senior services and overall resource reduction. Dobyns used the example of
Elder Services, and how the preference of senior services was moved down in rank, resulting in
them receiving less money. He reiterated that he hopes this Committee will recommend to the
Council that senior services be moved up in rank, in order to keep it at a higher level of funding.
Fruin stated that he wanted to clarify that when they talk about the Senior Center funding, they
are supported with City general funds. The 75% of their operating budget comes from property
tax dollars. The Aid to Agency program is funded through a combination of those same
property tax dollars, and the federal CDBG dollars. Fruin continued, noting that when you
combine the local funds with the federal funds, the whole pot of money comes under the federal
rules. He added that right now they have around $275,000 for the Aid to Agencies program.
These are distributed based on the federal City STEPS plan. The bulk of the CDBG funds are
used to support capital -type projects, such as purchasing homes for affordable housing, building
a playground at a neighborhood center, or doing building renovations for Hospice or some other
such entity.
Younker stated that he sees their charge as an instruction to provide some guidance to Council,
and to frame the conversation. His concern is that if they don't address issues, such as cost
recovery, that places like the Senior Center could be in trouble. He believes these issues need
to be addressed, and he would like to see the Committee draft recommendations that provide
some guidance, and include the Senior Center in these discussions now. On the other hand
they could say to maintain the 'status quo' the Center, but then they are not giving any guidance
to a problem that is real and needs to be addressed, sooner rather than later. Honohan spoke
up at this point, stating that he believes they are doing two things here. The Senior Center is
entirely separate, in his opinion, as to what they have to recommend, as opposed to the other
agencies. He stated that he looks at Elder Services' information, for example, and their revenue
is approximately 75 to 80% of their budget. Fruin then further clarified the Aid to Agency funds
and where the majority of these come from.
Bern -Klug stated that she wanted to take the discussion a different direction at this point, stating
that perhaps they need to think outside the box somewhat. Rather than moving the money
around, she suggested they recommend that the Council fund some kind of a major event to
help the Senior Center, and these non -profits, learn how to fundraise or how to develop more of
their own self-sufficiency. By investing in the overall senior services, the City could help them
help themselves so that everyone can learn how to achieve the funding they need. Younker
responded that the idea is to find ways to replace money that may no longer be available. He
stated that there will be a significant drop in funds coming from the general fund and from the
federal government, this is a known fact. Basically the City needs to communicate this to
agencies who in the past received money from the City and may no longer receive them. Bern -
Klug reiterated that she believes they should recommend that the Council put some funds into
PAGE 8
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 7
spurring fundraising among the non -profits and the Senior Center so that they can increase their
ability to raise money.
Going back to the $50 million loss over 10 years, Bern -Klug stated that she still needs to
understand this more clearly. She asked if this means the City will be receiving 10% less in
revenues from property taxes per year, or 80% less. She stated that the money is important
and the percent is important, and that until they have both of these figures, she believes they're
just grasping at coming up with a goal for what the loss might be. Until she knows these
numbers, Bern -Klug stated that it would be very difficult for her to agree to any cutbacks for any
of the senior services. Dohrmann stated that perhaps in terms of moving forward they need to
acknowledge to all of the groups involved that there is going to be a decrease in funds, and that
a recommendation needs to be made that they look at alternative resources for funding, in order
to be prepared for these upcoming cuts. Speaking to Bern-Klug's concern with needing to know
more specific information, she agreed that being able to let these entities know what types of
cuts they are talking about would be very helpful and would give them a better understanding of
what the City faces. Dohrmann also spoke to the issue of moving senior services up in
preference when it comes to the City STEPS funding. Dobyns agreed that there needs to be
some type of 'alert' to all services within the City, whether they get funding from property tax
revenues or routed through the City from federal, that reductions are going to be occurring over
the next few years. He also agreed that senior services needs to be restored in preference
when the City is administering federal funds.
Bern -Klug added that although she would like to see the senior services preference higher, she
questioned who would be moved down in preference to make up for this change. Younker
added that they can certainly recommend that senior services receive a certain priority level, but
he questioned if they can know what impact this might have on other categories. Dobyns asked
Fruin how the City staff committee that reviews City STEPS recommendations to Council views
the Alzheimer's Association — if it is mental health or senior in nature. Fruin stated that it is
basically subjective, based on what the agency is applying for. He explained that some
organizations may have specific programs that fit in a category. He used MECCA for an
example, stating that a program targeting specifically seniors would be under senior services
instead of substance abuse programming.
Honohan stated he thinks they need to look at the target population of these agencies when it
comes time to make their final recommendations. Shelter House, for example, is probably one
program that he believes they don't need to address. He stated that he estimates 80 to 90% of
the participants are non -seniors. MECCA is the same way, for the most part, according to
Honohan. Hospice is another population that Honohan believes they should not add to their list,
as they can charge for a lot of their services. The VNA is another program that receives a lot of
funding, mostly through Medicare and Medicaid. Honohan added that this may help reduce
their concerns about how much money they have to go around.
Younker stated that at this point he would entertain a motion that a recommendation be made
that the Committee believes it is important to communicate in some way to agencies who
provide senior services that the funding will decrease over the next few years. Bern -Klug stated
that she would move that they say that the tax dollars coming into the City is estimated to be
decreased. She believes the fair thing to say is that because of the state law, there is going to
be less tax revenue coming to the City starting on such -and -such date, for up to 10 years, and
that they don't know yet how this is going to shake out. Younker suggested that if the
Committee can agree on the issue of communicating the budget issue to the agencies, he and
PAGE 9
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page S
Dohrmann can work with City staff to draft an appropriate recommendation that the Committee
could review at the next meeting. Honohan stated that he does not believe they are ready to do
this yet. He believes this is interwoven with whatever they talk about with the agencies.
Honohan is still perplexed as to what they are to really do with their second charge. He added
that he does not believe he is in a position to say that senior services deserves more funds and
someone else deserves less. Dobyns noted that Younkers' suggestion is that they don't over-
emphasize any agency. All agencies are just alerted to this issue. Dohrmann stated that she
believes they have a responsibility to the other organizations in light of their long-term planning.
Dohrmann moved that they should alert organizations that receive current funding that
their funding may be decreased due to decreased property tax revenues, local, state, and
federal funding. Dobyns seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1, Honohan in the
negative and Cannon absent. Younker stated that he and Dohrmann will work with City staff
on the proposed recommendation and will bring this to the next meeting.
Younker stated that he thinks they are trying to talk about two separate issues here — the
agencies that they have been discussing, and then issues specific to the Senior Center. He
added that he would like to talk about the Senior Center first, even though some of the issues
may overlap. He spoke to the issue of a proposal that the Senior Center take steps to recover
more costs or pay a higher share of its costs. Younker believes this is a recommendation they
need to include in their report. Honohan stated that in the draft that they tabled, on page 3 of
his notes, 'Opportunities for Improvement,' it states, "The fees for participants in the Center are
reasonable, but considering future budget constraints, a review of fees and other ways to assist
in the funding of the Center should be considered by the Senior Center Commission and
Steering Committee. Scholarships for low incomes should be continued and encouraged."
Younker stated that this is part of what they are talking about, but that paying more of their
share may go beyond just this. Bern -Klug stated that she is uncomfortable with this, that other
departments don't do this at all. She believes that saying the Senior Center isn't paying enough
is not right. Younker stated that City staff would work with the Senior Center staff to see what
would be appropriate for this department, confirming that each department is different. He is
just concerned that if they have a report without this recommendation, it fails to acknowledge
something that definitely needs to be discussed and that it would be a disservice to the Senior
Center.
Fruin responded to Bern-Klug's concerns about the Senior Center's budget and why up until this
point their budget was acceptable. She reiterated that she believes their goal is already there —
that they are recovering 25% of their costs. Fruin explained how such a recommendation would
be handled by City staff, noting that he would be working with the Center's staff, asking them if
they believe the recommendation is feasible and possible, and what the impacts would be if
implemented. He added that in this case there is an extra layer as it would also go to the Senior
Center Commission for review. At some point the City staff and the Senior Center Commission
would need to respond to Council and explain whatever it is they have come up with — whether
it's 50% over 10 years or whether it's to stay at the 25%. Younker asked Fruin if this process is
a bit different from the annual budget process. Fruin responded that on an annual basis each
department prepares their budget, putting in their requests, etc. They then come to the City
Manager's office for review, and ultimately the City Manager and Finance Director's offices
decide what the final recommendation to Council will be.
Dobyns stated that he would make a motion that City staff, prior to the next meeting, draft
language consistent with what Fruin said — making the Senior Center responsible for a higher
percentage of its total costs. He noted that he is not saying they are voting on this. He is just
PAGE 10
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 9
making the motion that staff draft the language for this motion should they really vote on it.
Younker asked Fruin if this is something that staff could put together. Fruin responded that he
could put some language, but that this is not enough time to actually develop a goal in terms of
what this percentage may be. Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe they should come up
with any specific percentages, as they have no basis by which to do this. Fruin agreed, stating
that he would not be able to just give them a percentage, and that staff would need time to
develop it. Dobyns explained that he is just trying to get something in front of them to work with,
that they can then wordsmith it as they continue to discuss this. Bern -Klug reiterated that she
will not agree to anything that says it's a given that there will be a cut to the Senior Center
funding. She has not been convinced that this is the way to go; and wants to see what the
amount of money is that the City is not going to be getting, not just in terms of dollars but also in
terms of percentages. Also, she wants to have an understanding of whether everything that is
funded by the City is also going to lose money or just the non -profits.
Fruin pulled up Bockenstedt's memo to the Committee from their July meeting, noting that they
can repost this to the next packet for the Members' review. Looking at FY16, he noted that the
estimated loss in property tax dollars is $2 million, out of roughly $50 million, so about 4%.
Every year this will ratchet up, according to Fruin. Jumping to fiscal year 2024, Fruin noted that
the total loss of property tax is over $9 million. He continued to further explain the expected
outcomes from this, noting that there is the possibility of 15% of the City's budget being lost in
that 10 -year period. As to how these cuts will be distributed, Fruin noted that it really isn't
prudent to say there will be an across-the-board cut of a certain percent. Typically the values of
the community sort of dictate where the cuts will take place. Fruin reminded the Committee that
roughly 80% of the budget is for personnel expenses. Bern -Klug asked Fruin if the amount that
goes to the Senior Center, for example, increases gradually over the years or if it is stagnant.
Fruin replied that typically they have seen a 3 to 5% growth in most departments, that the City
has been fairly strict about this in recent years. Bern -Klug suggested that their recommendation
be on the dollar amount given to the Senior Center, that they say it would be unlikely that there
will be an increase to this amount. Younker stated that they need to back up a bit here, that
they really should watch recommending any dollar amounts or percentages at this point. He
then asked Karr to restate the motion as he got a bit distracted. She read the motion again:
Dobyns moved that City staff develop language re: making the Senior Center responsible for
higher percentage of costs.
Members continued to discuss said motion, with Fruin stating that what staff would do is put
together language describing a process that the Committee would recommend to the Council.
This process would basically say that City staff would work with Senior Center staff to develop
or determine what the appropriate cost recovery is for the future of the Senior Center. This
recommendation would then be vetted with the Senior Center Commission and then presented
to the Council at a subsequent date for their consideration. Younker asked for a second to
Dobyns' motion at this point, but none was heard. Dohrmann stated that she would like to make
a comment. She believes they need to consider the growth of the senior population in Iowa
City, and how this group is going to continue to grow. She added that this is a real challenge for
them in terms of prioritization. Dohrmann stated that she believes they need to acknowledge in
their report the increased need for senior services as this population continues to increase.
Webber stated that those who come to Iowa City will be bringing their dollars with them, that this
is an older population who has saved their money and have chosen to move here. This adds to
the Iowa City tax base. Dobyns agreed that in the final document to Council, this information
should definitely be included. He reiterated what his motion is getting at — that they get
something on paper from City staff, and the language that they can then react to at the next
PAGE 11
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 10
meeting. He added that they may not even support it as a majority, but that at least it will get
the conversation moving. Bern -Klug disagreed, stating that this is done every year in the
budget process and that she does not see a need to second this motion. Younker then
seconded Dobyns' motion.
At this point Honohan stated that he will never support any document that talks about cost
recovery, as he does not think this is appropriate. He believes this gets into cost benefit, which
he believes they cannot judge in this situation. He also believes you cannot judge this in the
case of the Police or Fire departments, or even the Library. Honohan added that he will not
support this particular motion, nor will he ever support anything that mentions cost recovery in
their final recommendation. He believes they can encourage change, as he pointed out earlier
on page 3 of his notes, but that he guarantees the Senior Center Commission and the Steering
Council have been concerned with this issue for some time now. Dobyns tried to explain that
this motion is not 'voting' on anything, that it is voting to have staff put some language together
and that the Committee can then react to at the next meeting. Bern -Klug stated that she
believes there are other ways to move the work of this Committee forward, and she called for a
vote. Dohrmann asked if Karr could repeat the motion being voted on. Karr read the motion
again: Dobyns moved that City staff develop language re: making the Senior Center
responsible for higher percentage of costs. Younker seconded the motion. Fruin stated
that it would be to outline a process to the Commission on how the City would establish a cost
recovery goal with the Senior Center staff. Motion failed 2-3; Younker and Dobyns in the
positive; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber voting in the negative, and Dohrmann
abstaining. Cannon absent.
Bern -Klug then moved that the Senior Center staff meet with City staff to develop a
contingency plan in the event that the City revenues decrease as expected, and show
what this would mean if the same percent decrease was assumed by the Senior Center.
She added that she is not comfortable saying there is a percentage that should be coming back.
It was suggested that instead of 'cost recovery' they use 'revenue sources.' Dohrmann noted
that the idea of fundraising, the idea of utilizing space more efficiently and renting out space are
things that would be revenue sources. Increasing fees based on a sliding scale is another
source of revenue. Honohan again reiterated that this is what his draft report says — other ways
to assist in the funding of the Center should be considered by the Senior Center Commission
and Steering Committee. He asked if this isn't what they are saying here. Members continued
to discuss this issue, with Honohan noting that the Center's staff would indeed be involved in
this process. Younker stated that he believes that in addition to the recommendation for the
Center, there are the overall recommendations regarding financial resources. Bern -Klug stated
that she would like to work on her previous motion. Dohrmann stated that she would be
comfortable in changing the previous motion from "cost recovery" to "revenue streams."
Younker suggested that he work to prepare a recommendation that he believes covers this
evening's discussion, and then the Committee can vote it up or down at the next meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Kathy Mitchell stated that she has a question regarding revenue streams. She asked how
successful the alcohol policy has been. She noted that the Library has an alcohol policy, as
does the Recreation Department. She stated that the Senior Center Commission has set forth a
policy for the Senior Center that is currently in the Legal Department for review. Mitchell's
question is in regard to how well the policy is doing financially in terms of revenue streams.
PAGE 12
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 11
Fruin stated that regardless of which operation you look at, it's negligible at this point. He added
that they are not going out trying to make big money off of this.
Mary Gravitt stated that she would like to make people aware of Proposition 13 and what it did
to California. She referred to an article entitled "Chose a College Town for Your Retirement," by
author Joseph W. Lubow. Continuing, Gravitt read from the article, sharing some of the author's
words about college towns and noting how Iowa City stacks up against other communities.
Gravitt then played the video of the February 18, 2014, Council meeting where the Mayor read
the State of the City address. She highlighted his comments about safety and quality of life in
Iowa City.
Larry Rogers stated that he lives in Ecumenical Towers. He added that he gave the Members a
packet of information that include some articles from the internet, the Gazette, and from the 25th
Anniversary of the Senior Center. Rogers then spoke to the information in his packet regarding
Elder Services, noting that they describe themselves as 'the premiere regional resource
specializing in services for elders and their caregivers.' He stated that one thing he doesn't
understand with them regarding meals is when you go to pay for the meal ticket, it says
'Heritage Agency' on it. He asked who is actually preparing the meals and delivering them —
Elder Services or Heritage Agency, which is an eight -county agency that covers a huge array of
services. He stated that this committee should find out who Elder Services actually is and who
is being funded when they give them money. Secondly, Rogers spoke to an article about Cedar
Rapids needing a quality Senior Center. The article is written by a retired Rockwell Collins'
engineer who has visited senior centers in several other locations. In the article, it states that
Iowa City's Senior Center is one of the best in the country. Rogers then spoke about the 25th
anniversary of the Senior Center and how the City purchased the old Post Office — now a
premiere Senior Center in Iowa City. Rogers then asked what it is exactly that this Committee is
talking about. He asked how much money they are actually talking about —just here in Iowa
City or eight counties that are covered by Elder Services.
Shirley Lindell stated that she has a question regarding Fruin's comment that 80% of the money
being spent is for staff. Fruin stated that this is more or less correct. She asked how much
value is being put on the 25% that the Senior Center provides for its budget — such as the
volunteers at the Center. How much value do the volunteer contributions get?
Jeneva Ford stated that she finds it really interesting to see all of the interaction and
considerations being given to the concerns here. She stated that she grew up a long time ago
in another state, in a farming area, at a one -room schoolhouse, and at that time it was unusual
for anyone to have a college education. She added that this has changed over the years
though. Ford continued, stating that some things in life do not have a monetary value, or should
not be considered only with a monetary value attached. She believes the Senior Center falls
under this idea — there should be no monetary value attached here. She believes it's an
intangible value, and that it is very important in many people's lives. Ford stated that she read
in the Center's annual report that there are 600 -plus volunteers involved there, and how
valuable this is to the Center.
Feather Lacy spoke to the Committee asking where on the web page she can find the wording
for the second charge. Younker responded that there is a resolution that the City Council
passed that includes the charge, and that it is on the web site. Karr added that there are
several ways to find it — under "Boards and Commissions" select the Ad Hoc Senior Services
PAGE 13
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 12
and the establishment of the resolution is there. It is also contained in the meeting folder
documents.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE:
Younker stated that he wanted to get a sense of where they are on the timeline and with their
schedule so they can see what they need to get done before December 1s`. After reviewing the
meeting schedule, Younker stated that he would like to have a draft report ready by either the
October 22 or November 12 meeting that would then be ready for public comment. This would
then leave them two meetings in which to revise the report and get it ready for the final form.
Honohan stated that based upon today's discussions, he believes October 22 might be too
ambitious. He then volunteered to work on the draft for the second part of the report, adding
that he has already done some of this, and that he could then present this at the next meeting.
Younker stated that he doesn't know that they're ready to put a draft together on part two quite
yet, that they still have some significant parts to discuss yet. Honohan reiterated that he would
be glad to work on a rough draft of part two, that having something in front of them might help to
spur the discussions. Younker thanked Honohan for his offer, but stated that he and Dohrmann
would work together to put a draft together for part two, specifically the part dealing with the
agency reports. He believes they need to have further discussions before they complete this
draft. After a brief discussion of timelines for packets, Honohan asked if they could have the
packet on the Friday before the October 15 meeting. He added that this would give them all
more time to digest what is going to be discussed at the next week's meeting. Karr stated that if
Members would like to have the packet on Friday, October 10, she needs to have all packet
materials by noon on that Friday.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE
October 15
October 22
November 12
November 24
Special meetings if needed
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:45 P.M., seconded by Dohrmann. Motion
carried 5-0, Cannon absent and Bern -Klug left meeting at 5:43 P.M.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 1, 2014
Page 13
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
PAGE 14
Kev;
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
o
o
w
w
w
O
V
4
V
00
w
w
O
O
NAME
EXP.
O
w
"
co
O
co
N
w
O
-4
N
w
O
-a
Oo
O
w
N
A
O
—
w
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
12/1/14
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
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
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
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dobyns
Kev;
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
PAGE 15
I�rlllr®, CITY OF IOWA CITY
Ott
MEMUKANDUM
Date:
October 10, 2014
To:
Ad -Hoc Senior Services Committee
From:
Geoff Fruin, Assistant City Manager
Re:
Follow-up from the October 1, 2014 Meeting
At your October 1, 2014 meeting, committee member Bern -Klug requested additional
information related to the City's financial projections and budgeting process. This memo
attempts to provide the information that was requested.
Attached to this correspondence is the previously provided memorandum from City Finance
Director Dennis Bockenstedt regarding the projected impact of the 2013 property tax reform.
Exhibit A of that memo illustrates the annual property tax loss that is forecasted. You will note
the impact compounds each year and that by 2024 the projected loss of property tax revenue is
between $7.7 and $9.2 million. To put that number in perspective, the City's 2015 estimate for
total property tax receipts is $29.5 million. This $29.5 million in property tax receipts is the
largest revenue source for the City's General Fund, which has total revenues of $48 million
(excluding transfers).
The term 'cost recovery' was discussed at length during your October 1, 2015 meeting. This
term is used to measure the amount of non -tax revenue that a department or division raises to
offset the costs of a particular operation. For example, if a department spends $100,000
annually and brings in $10,000 in fees and fundraising, then said department would have a 10%
cost recovery factor ($10,000 / $100,000). Several city operations have cost recovery goals.
Some are formally tracked and reported on in the City's budget document while others may be
less formally tracked by staff.
The City has a number of operations that have a 100% cost recovery goal. The majority of these
are referred to as enterprise funds, which essentially have fees that cover all of their expenses.
Examples of such operations include water, sewer, cable television, parking, and the landfill.
Other non -enterprise operations have varying cost recovery goals. Examples include building
inspection (100%), recreation (50%) and transit (33%). Many public operations do not have the
ability to charge fees or fundraise and thus have a very low or no cost recovery goal. Examples
of those operations include the Fire Department and the City Manager's Office. In the FY 2015
adopted budget the Senior Center staff defined their cost recovery goal as "25% and Increase
W. No specific target for an increase was set but it is clear the hope of the Senior Center staff is
to continue to raise the cost recovery goal.
As I mentioned during the October 1 meeting, setting cost recovery goals can be a complicated
task with varying intended and unintended consequences. If the committee believes that a more
defined goal is appropriate for the Senior Center, then I would suggest that your
recommendation be for the staff, in conjunction with the Senior Center Commission to develop
such a goal for City Council consideration during the upcoming FY 2016 budget process this
winter. Staff and the Commission can take the time to analyze the impacts and appropriate
phase in period.
PAGE 16
r
tr.^h® CITY OF IOWA CITY
;ak
ahMEMU
Date: May 29, 2013
To: Tom Markus, City Manager
From: Dennis Bockenstedt, Director of Finance
Re: State Property Tax Reform
On May 22, 2013, the State of Iowa legislature passed a property tax reform bill (SF295) that will have a
significant impact on the City's ability to finance services in the future. The property tax reform bill has
multiple components;.the specific provisions of bill SF295 that affect the City's ability to finance services
are briefly explained below along with an estimate of the future financial impact to the City's
operations. Exhibit 'A' is attached to provide a summary of the financial impact of the provisions of
SF295 over the next ten years.
Residential Assessment Limitation
Summary: For each assessment year beginning January 2013 and thereafter, SF295 reduces the limit of
taxable valuation growth from 4 percent to 3 percent or whichever is lowest of the agricultural and
residential classes. The City will not receive any money from the State due to lost revenue from this
provision.
Financial Impact: The overall financial impact of this change will be significant over time, however, less
noticeable initially. The effect will be that the taxable percentage of residential property will increase at
a slower pace. Without the change, the estimated taxable percentage of residential property would be
60.85% in assessment year 2022. With the provision in place, the estimated taxable percentage in year
2022 will be 55.11%, a reduction of 5.74%. With approximately $3.4 billion of assessed residential
property, the impact on the City in fiscal year 2015 will be $306,121 in lost revenue which will grow to
$4,177,423 in fiscal year 2024. The cumulative loss will be $20,772,185 over the next ten years.
Commercial & Industrial Rollback
Summary: For valuations at January 1, 2013, commercial and industrial property will be rolled back to 95
percent. For valuations at January 1, 2014, commercial and industrial property will be rolled back to 90
percent. Thereafter, the two classes will be taxed at 90 percent of their assessed value. The bill
establishes a standing appropriation for the State to backfill losses to the City due to the commercial and
industrial rollback beginning in Fiscal Year 2015 and then caps the amount at Fiscal Year 2017 levels..
Financial Impact: The initial year's impact to the City will be negligible due the State's backfill of lost
revenue. In 2003, however, the State of Iowa eliminated reimbursements to cities for backfills of
personal property tax and industrial machinery and equipment property tax after similar promises. If
the State was to do the same, the loss in property tax revenue is estimated to be $1,460,203 in fiscal
year 2017. The cumulative reduction In commercial and industrial property taxes due to the percentage
rollback is estimated to be $15,417,536 over the next ten years. The maximum reimbursement from the
State would be $14,732,059.
Multi -residential Property
Summary: This provision establishes a multi -residential property classification that includes mobile
home parks, manufactured home communities, land -leased communities, assisted living facilities and
property primarily intended for human habitation containing three or more separate living quarters.
Additionally, for buildings that are not otherwise classified as residential property, that portion of a
building that is intended for human habitation can be classified as a multi -residential property, even if
PAGE 17
May 29, 2013
Page 2
human habitation is not the primary use of the building and regardless of the number of dwelling units.
The following rollback percentages will be phased in over eight years, beginning in assessment year
2015 (fiscal year 2017). The projected loss will not be backfilled:
C January 1, 2015 — 86.25%
6 January 1,2016-82.50%
January 1,2017-78.75%
9 January 1,2018-75.00%
e January 1,2019-71.25%
f January 1, 2020-67.50% _
Y January 1,2021-63.75%
January 1, 2022 and thereafter—same as residential property -
Financial Impact: The loss to the City in fiscal year 2017 is estimated to be $851,745. This will grow until
reaching an estimated annual loss of $3,428,308 in fiscal year 2024. The total estimated cumulative loss
will be $15,504,902 over the next ten years. None of this loss will be reimbursed by the State of Iowa.
Telecommunications Property Taxation
Summary: This provision provides partial exemption of property used by companies in the transaction of
telegraph and telephone business that Is on a graduated percentage scale based upon the value of the
property. This is phased in, with half in assessment year 2013 (Fiscal Year 2015) and the remainder being
added in assessment year 2014 (Fiscal Year 2016). The projected loss will not be backfilled.
40 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $0 but does not exceed $20 million.
35 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $20 million but does not exceed $55
million.
25 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $55 million but does not exceed
$500 million.
20 percent of the actual value of the property that exceeds $500 million.
Financial Impact: There are not any good estimates on the financial impact of this provision due to the
lack of information of the valuation being affected. In fiscal year 2013, the City's apportioned share of
the telecommunication property taxes was $187,463. Due to the lack of a good estimate, this provision
was not included in the attached exhibit.
Summary
The property tax reform bill, SF295, has been passed by the State legislature and will be applied to
valuations as of January 1, 2013. The first budget year impacted will be fiscal year 2015. Property tax
revenue will be reduced by an estimated $1,321,240 in fiscal year 2015 and by $2,662,737 in fiscal year
2016. The State of Iowa will back fill $1,015,119 in fiscal year 2015 and $2,035,314 in fiscal year 2016,
however, the City should consider future contingency plans in the event the State discontinues funding
for this backfill. Preparations for the fiscal year 2015 budget process will begin this summer.
May 29, 2013
Page 3
Exhibit A
(1) 3% annual value growth
(2) At current propertytax rate
Sublect to State Backfill
Com/Ind
Not Subject to State Sackiil I
Rollback - Year 1
Multi -Residential
3% Growth
Com/Ind
$ -
$ 1,015,119
Properties (1)
limit
Rollback
Total
FY15
$, -
$ 306,121
$ -
$ 306,121
FY16
-
627,423
-
627,423
FY17
851,745
982,915
-
1,834,660
FYI8
1,116,560
1,350,772
3,651
2,470,982.
FY19
1,396,497
1,757,911
50,443
3,204,852
FY20
1,692,226
2,177,375
54,219
3,923,821
FY21
2,004,442
2,698,952
109,644
4,753,038
FY22
2,333,868
3,115,578
113,569
5,563,014
FY23
2,681,255
3,637,715
174,931
6,493,902
FY24
3,428,303
4,177,423
179,019
7,784,750
Total
$ 15,504,902
$20,772,185
$685,477.
$36,962,564
(1) 3% annual value growth
(2) At current propertytax rate
Sublect to State Backfill
Com/Ind
Com/Ind
Rollback - Year 1
Rollback - Year 2
Total
$ 1,015,119
$ -
$ 1,015,119
1,017,657
1,017,657
2,035,314
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
730,102
730,102
1,460,203
PAGE 18
Total Property
Tax Reduction
$ 1,321,240
2,662,737
3,294,863
3,931,186
4,665,055
5,384,024
6,213,242
7,023,218
7,954,105
9,244,954
$ 7,873,589 $ 6,858,470 $ 14,732,059 $ 51,694,623
PAGE 19
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
I. Establishment of the Committee
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ("Committee") [The Committee will need to review
the Report for consistent use of defined terms] was established by the Iowa City City
Council ("Council") on the 18'h day of February, 2014.
II. Committee Members
[Insert the chart set forth on page 39 of the Committee's 9124/14 packet]
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 [the Committee will need to determine how it wants to identify
attachments], Council has charged the Committee with three tasks, as summarized below:
A. Evaluating the current vision, mission, programming, and recent
accomplishments of the Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center (the "Center");
B. Making recommendations to the Council on how Iowa City (the "City") should use
current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of City seniors; and
C. Identifying any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be
hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make
recommendations to minimize or eliminate such obstacles.
IV. Meetings Conducted
The Ad Hoc Committee Chair Joseph Younker, vice chair Jane Dohrmann, members Mercedes
Bern -Klug, Ellen Cannon, Richard Dobyns, Jay Honohan, and Rick Webber, staff Marian Karr
and Geoff Fruin, convened on May 5, 2014.
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 non-profit agencies providing services to seniors.
(01773415.Docx)
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
41. Establishment of the Committee
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
established by the
Council "Council" on the 18U day of February, 2014.
It. Committee Members
PAGE 20
City
(HeFe for the Insert the chart that -Geoff -set out in his4ernplateforth on page 39 of the
Committee's 9/24/14 packet)]
III. Enabling Resolution and Committee Charge4
AA T^�4�����o�••b'..h.
A. Evaluating the current vision, mission, and-, eregramingprogramming, and recent
accomplishments of the Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Centeras deta4ed in
,(the paFtiGipants seAted by the Senior_'Center
WOO
—R. fie make
B. Making recommendations to the C*Council on how Iowa City (the "City") should
use current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of lewa City
seniors.
C. Te idenC. Identifying any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be
hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make
recommendations that weWdRo minimize or eliminate such obstacles.
IV. Meetings Conducted
l01773415DOCX}
PAGE 21
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 Senior Center, and other local non-profit agencies Providing services to
seniors.
101773415 DOCXI
Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center
Description of the Center
PAGE 22
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 the use of the vertical space above the
assembly room. The building has a variety of offices, meeting and exercise rooms.
II. Key Considerations
A copy of the full evaluation is attached to this report identified as Exhibit B. The following,
however, provides an overview of the Center's areas of excellence, opportunities for
improvement, and issues for further review.
A. Areas of excellence
The 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 at a consistently high level. According to the
accreditation report completed by the National Council of the Aging National
Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its Vision' and Mission 2.
d• The Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa.
According to the accreditation review completed by the National Council on
Aging, the Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including
program development and implementation. In addition, results from the 2013
survey and comments from members during Committee meetings indicate high
satisfaction with the Center. In fact, comments and correspondence from Center
members indicate that 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.
to In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center. Volunteers donated
24,400 hours towards the operation. Persons benefited from services offered by
other agencies at the Center, including Visiting Nurses Association, AARP Tax
Aid, Elder Services Agency, volunteer lawyers, counseling, and English language
learners' (ELL) classes.
' "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."
f 01773415.DOCX)
PAGE 23
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 should be continued
and encouraged.
4• Ethnic and racial diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a
concern of the Senior Center Commission, Steering Council, and the staff.
Efforts are being made to increase ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of
diversity among participants.
The staff of the Center performs well, but the positions are not designed to serve
seniors with moderate cognitive impairment or who are in need of other forms of
personal assistance. To provide such services would require additional staff.
C. Data gaps and identification of issues for further review/study
The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and
staff should continue their efforts to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at the
Center. Methods to supplement and improve these efforts should be reviewed.
4• 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.
The Center staff should consider ways to collect data to demonstrate community-
wide, multi -generational participation in activities and events.
t01973415.Docxl
PAGE 24
�nfV i
Charge 1; Evaluation of the Saner Center
VI. Description of the Spnier-Center
In 1981, the City of Iowa 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 the use of the vertical space
above the assembly room. The building has a variety of offices, meeting and exercise rooms.
%4—il_Key Considerations
A copy of the full evaluation is attached to this report identified ase •�'�'x m—tn ;o'.",
.. - - ---- '-- -_ ..i+6- O.M.r'c arc
i spenifie points. -issues for further review.
A. Areas of excellence
The Senier Center is the primagfcentral 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. Th, ente,
❖ The Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa.
the National Council onAging's assessment that the A.Ic ina, the Center
meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development
and implementation. In addition, results from the 2013 survey and the -comments
from members during theAd HanSPROAF SepficeGGmrnitteeCommittee meetings
indicate high satisfaction with the Center. In fact comments
and correspondence from Center members indicate that 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
wr^;r^''`.teeCommittee recognizes the Senior Center leadership for using financial
f01773415pocxj
PAGE 25
and other resources well as it works toward fulfilling its mission of promoting
optimal aging in our community.
4• In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center. Volunteers donated
24,400 hours towards the operation. Persons benefited from services offered by
other agencies at the Center, including Visiting Nurses Association, AARP Tax
Aid, Elder Services Agency, volunteer lawyers, counseling, and English language
leamerslearners' (ELL) classes.
A -._*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
Soman#tee. Scholarships for low income should be continued and encouraged.
Ethnic and racial diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a
diversity among participants.
The staff of the SenieFCenter Gemmission, SteeFi 9 COURGil, andperforms well, but the
s`af-andffiaAs ositions are not
designed to serve seniors with moderate cognitive impairment or who black,
HispaniG, and Asian is small.
INN
rtarrarrs
additional
e(a1�3&Si�
B.C_s}Data gaps and identification of issues for further review/study
(01773415 DOCX)
I WIN
----------------
M
- -t
A -._*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
Soman#tee. Scholarships for low income should be continued and encouraged.
Ethnic and racial diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a
diversity among participants.
The staff of the SenieFCenter Gemmission, SteeFi 9 COURGil, andperforms well, but the
s`af-andffiaAs ositions are not
designed to serve seniors with moderate cognitive impairment or who black,
HispaniG, and Asian is small.
INN
rtarrarrs
additional
e(a1�3&Si�
B.C_s}Data gaps and identification of issues for further review/study
(01773415 DOCX)
PAGE 26
Honehen 9/28
:• The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and
staff should continue their efforts to increase the racial and ethnic diversity at the
Center. Methods to supplement and improve these efforts should be reviewed.
•: The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and
staff should evaluate membership fees and other ways to assist in funding the
operational budget.
❖ The GOmmitteeCommittee considered asking the staff to collect demographic
characteristics and usage information of nonmembers who participate in activities
at the Senior Center, but decided against doing so because of the burden on the
staff and the discomfort that some participants may feel in disclosing personal
events.
M1773415DOM
PAGE 27
Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources
I. understanding of City Financials
In order to better understand the City's financial position, the Committee sought Information on
existing resources as well as expected financial trends in the coming years. Specifically, the
Committee reviewed information on how the City funds the Senior Center and supports non-
profit agencies through the Aid to Agencies and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
programs. The Committee also reviewed previous correspondence from staff to the Council
concerning the projected Impacts of the 2013 property tax reform legislation and heard directly
on that issue from Finance Director, Dennis Bockenstedt. Finally, the Committee reviewed
funding trends in the CDBG and HOME federal grant programs.
The Committee reviewed the FY 13, FY 14 and FY 15 Center budgets. At the time of review, only
the FY 13 budget reflected actual revenues and expenditures. The Center operates with
expenditures of $778,491 (FY 13) and revenues of $209,724 (FY 13). This means the General
Fund contributed $568,766 in FY 13. While FY 14 and FY 15 budgets were not closed out, it
appears from the Committee's review and staff comments that the General Fund contribution
tends to be In the 70-75% of expenditures range. Similar to other City operations, the vast
majority of expenditures are personnel related.
The Committee also reviewed the FY 13-15 allocations for the City's Aid to Agencies and CDBG
programs. As the Council understands, there is a prioritization process that guides the allocation
of these funds. Over the last three years the City's contributions have ranged from
approximately $375,000 to $400,000. Of those funds the FY 15 allocation included $35,000 to
two senior service providers, although the committee recognizes that other agencies that
received funds likely serve some seniors, albeit not exclusively. CDBG funds are regularly used to
support housing projects. While some types of senior housing are eligible for CDBG funds, the
Committee noted that the last senior housing projects to receive funds were in 1999, 2000 and
2001.
Looking ahead, the Committee recognizes that property tax reform will put significant pressure
on the General Fund, which contributes both to the Center and the Aid to Agencies program.
Similarly, a ten year review of CDBG and HOME grants to the City clearly show a downward
trend of those funding sources. Both federal grant programs have been reduced by several
hundred thousand dollars over the last ten years. The political climate in Washington D.C. does
not give City staff any reason to believe this 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.
{01774206.DOCXF
PAGE 28
II. Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
Determining the needs of the City's senior population is a very difficult task to accomplish in a
short period of time. The Committee approached this task in two ways. First, the Committee
heard from City staff with the Senior Center, as well as with the Library, Parks and Recreation
and Transportation Services departments. - Secondly, the committee attempted to identify
several of the largest non-profit service providers in the area to gain a better understanding of
their operations, finances and general challenges. Individually, Committee members met with
the following agencies and then shared their findings with the Committee as a whole:
o Elder Services
o HAAA
o Johnson County Livable Communities
o Shelter House
o Pathways
o Consultation of Religious Communities
o Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
o MECCA
o JC Mental Health
o VNA
o Compeer
o Iowa City Hospice
o SEATS
o Hispanic Community
[NOTE: We can identify meetings/reports discussing these agencies as an exhibit In an
appendix.]
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.
III. General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population
Based on the information obtained through the above-described process the Committee is
comfortable making the following statements about the needs of the City's senior population.
t01774206.D0CX}
PAGE 29
The target population of the Center is active, healthy seniors, to those who need help to
maintain or improve function in their day-to-day lives. With acknowledgment that work
remains to increase the diversity of the participants, the accreditation report indicates that the
Center is meeting its goals for the target population. Discussions with other agencies, however,
identified gaps in services available to City Seniors. For example, Elder Services identified issues
relating to Its constituency, ninety percent of whom are home bound. More specifically, Elder
Services noted an increased need for nutrition services (e.g. home delivered and congregate
meals), care management, certain home assistance services, and the provision of emergency
supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses). Pathways, an adult health center, identified
the need to assist those who do not qualify for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. Current City funding
provides a small safety net to participants and allows them to continue living independently.
Additionally, various issues relating to transportation were identified as problematic for certain
segments of the senior population. Reduced funding of SEATS has made it more difficult for
people to access services (i.e. Pathways, the Senior Center, medical appointments on certain
days). The Consultation of Religious Communities expressed concern that it is a barrier for
people to attend worship services on the weekend.
Non-profit organizations have seen increased needs of seniors, especially low-income seniors.
This trend will only continue as this segment of the population grows.
(01774206.DOCXI
PAGE 30
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
FROM:
Joe Younker, Chair; Jane Dohrmann, Vice -Chair
RE:
Charge 2 Recommendations for Discussion
DATE:
October 9, 2014
The Chair and the Vice -Chair propose the following recommendations to further the
Committee's discussion. The recommendations express concepts designed to address specific
issues that have been identified through the Committee's process.
1) The City's General Fund funds the majority (approximately 70-75%) of the Center's
budget. City Staff expects that property tax reform will put significant pressure on the
General Fund in the coming years. In light of this expectation, the Center should take
steps to become more self-sufficient. Specifically, the Center should engage in a
dialogue with City Staff to identify revenue sources to replace the expected decrease in
funds available from the General Fund. The dialogue should include a discussion of
reasonable and appropriate goals for identifying and utilizing revenue sources.
2) In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center should consider implementing a
sliding, income -based scale regarding membership dues and activity fees.
3) In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center should consider formalizing its
scholarship program.
4) In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center should assess opportunities to
generate revenue through the rental of meeting/gathering space.
5) The Committee understands that the City is in the process of assessing how it prioritizes
the distribution of certain federal, state, and local funds among various social service
agencies. Through that the process, the City should identify the needs of seniors —
especially needs relating to issues concerning food and supportive services that allow
people to remain safely in their homes for as long as possible (e.g., Pathways Adult Day
Health Center & Elder Services) — as being in the highest prioritization category.
6) Maintain the current location of the Center.
7) The Senior Center Commission and Center Staff, in coordination with the City, should
seek increased funding from Johnson County. This process should include seeking
opportunities to share programs for seniors in other nearby communities as justification
for increased funding at the County level.
(01773442.DOCX)
PAGE 31
8) City Staff and Center Staff should assess opportunities to share space, funding
strategies, and other resources with relevant community social service agencies to
increase efficiencies and leverage various funding opportunities. Council should
consider commissioning a feasibility study to assist with this process.
9) The Center should take steps to increase the accessibility of its building. Steps to
consider include, but are not limited to: a) a general ADA audit; b) requesting a public
bus stop be added in front the ADA accessible entrance on Washington Street; c) and
increase signage in the Tower Place parking ramp to assist visitors in locating the
Center's skyway.
10) The Committee recognizes that the Center has taken steps to address issues related to
diversity (e.g., forming a working committee to focus attention on diversity issues
exclusively). The Center Staff, however, should adopt a more formal strategy to
increase diversity, especially with regard to race, ethnicity, and income.
11) Transportation -related issues — especially in light of the reduced funding to SEATS — are
problematic for certain segments of the senior population. The City should assess the
transportation -related issues in more detail. Council should consider — as replacement
revenues are identified pursuant to Recommendation No. 1—transitioning some
amount of funding from the Center to better meet transportation needs of this
population.
i01773442.DOCXJ
PAGE 32
October 10, 2014
TO: Ad Hoc Committee on Senior Services
FR: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Ad Hoc member
RE: Proposed recommendations for Ad Hoc committee to consider and/or discuss
At our last meeting, the chair asked committee members to suggest recommendations for the whole
committee to consider for our report to the City Council.
1. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that the City Council issue a public "Vote of
Strong Confidence" about the important and excellent role the Senior Center staff, volunteers,
members, and participants have been and continue to play in promoting optimal aging in the Iowa City
community.
2. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that agencies and organizations that serve older
adults should be encouraged to apply for AID TO AGENCY funds for their specific programs that address
current areas of high priority as decided by the City Council, including in particular programs serving
older adults that address: substance abuse, emotional health services, employment training, housing
services for persons experiencing homelessness, and transportation.
3. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee wishes to communicate to the City Council that a highly
disproportionate amount of meeting time and attention has been devoted to discussions about what
has been framed for the committee as "the impending cost cuts to be experienced by agencies serving
older adults," (which is not listed as part of the charge for this committee) rather than a discussion
about how the City could be improving services to older adults, as stated in the rationale for the desire
for an Ad Hoc committee.
4. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that if the City is interested in the quality of
services provided to older adults funded, in part, by the city, that a professional survey be undertaken to
find out from the people receiving the services, the extent to which the agency is providing satisfactory
services.
5. The AD Hoc Senior Services Committee recommends that if the City is interested in learning about
gaps in services in the Iowa City area for low-income older adults, that the City commission a
professional survey to collect unbiased, representative information, on which to base subsequent
recommendations.
Also- not directly related to our charge, but related to the process of undertaking the charge:
PAGE 33
4. The Ad Hoc committee recommends that the City Council refrain from appointment of City Council
members to Ad Hoc committees in the future. It is difficult for non city -council Ad Hoc committee
members to assess the extent to which a member of the city council is speaking on behalf of the city
council and when speaking on behalf of her or himself during Ad Hoc committee meetings. This
confusion can have the effect of making one committee member's voice more important than the other
members.
►9
I WMAIV N a me I
Memorandum
To: Ad Hoc Committee
From: Jay
Subject: Comments on Joe & Jane's Senior Center Draft
Date: October 14, 2014
After a quick review, I would like to suggest the following
changes to the proposed draft. I refer by page number in the
packet. Also when I refer to my draft it is the draft of 9/28
Page 20. Instead of Evaluating, Making, and Identifying, I
would put back in To Evaluate, To Make, and To Identify.
Stronger.
Page 24. A I propose the complete paragraph with the addition
of the last sentence that is proposed.
B.I propose the following:
The Center is the only nationally accredited Senior
Center in the State of Iowa. The Committee agrees with the
accreditation review completed by the Council on Aging's
assessment that the Center meets all nine standards of
excellence including program development and implementation. In
addition, results from the 2013 survey and comments and
correspondence from members during the Committee meetings
indicate high satisfaction
with the Center. Comments and correspondence from Center
members indicate that the Center is a strong community asset
supporting thousands of persons 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 towards
fulling its mission of promoting optimal aging in our community.
Page 25 First put back in the charge re demographics.
Put back in the paragraph of the membership
Put back in the paragraph re staff.
Memorandum
To: Ad Hoc Committee
From: Jay
Subject: Thoughts on part 2
Date: October 14, 2014
Sorry that I am so late with this. Had a busy last week. I am not sure from
the packet exactly what Joe and Jane have in mind with the pages 27 through
29. I am forwarding to you what I had suggested some time ago as the intro
to part 2. I am submitting it again for your consideration. I will explain
my thinking at the meeting.
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.
i In the Iowa City Community there are ninety one (91) senior services
providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen (18). Of these twenty
three (23) are governmental, thirty (30) are for profit, and fifty six
(56) are non profit. Forty (40) providers do not charge, thirty six
(36) fees are paid by medicare and medicaid. Seventy five (75) are
paid through private pay and private insurance. Financial aid is
available with twenty (20) providers.l
i The committee reviewed the following agencies that serve seniors in the
Iowa City Community:
a) Elder Services b) Heritage Agency c) Johnson County Livable
Communities
d) Shelter House e) Pathways f) Consultation of Religious
Communities
g) Free Medical Clinic h) Johnson County Mental Health
i) Visiting Nurses Association j) Compeer h) Hospice
i) Seats j) Hispanic Community
i Not including the funding of the Senior Center during the fiscal year
2014 in excess of 6 million dollars was expended for senior services in
the Iowa City. Approximately 3.5 million comes from Federal, State,
and City funding. Fees for services are over 1.5 million. Grants .75
million, and donations over 600 thousand dollars.2
i Iowa City funds senior services including the Senior Center at
i Many agencies served seniors exclusively. Other agencies include
seniors but not primarily. Overall the services provided seniors in
the Iowa City community is quite good.
i The Committee concluded that some of the agencies listed above were not
appropriate for this review and they have been omitted. we report on
the following:
Source: Johnson County Livable Community and HAAA Report.
2 These figures are approximate. Actually it is higher. I am working on
getting more funding information and budgets of some agencies. Same for the
city.
i Elder Services: Serves seniors and the disabled. Its programs generally
are well run. One of the major programs is the dining program. The
dining program serves other counties other than Johnson County. Elder
Services budget is substantial funded in part by the Heritage Agency on
Aging, fees, and donations.
i 1. Hospice: Serves seniors who are not well and need in home care, most
in the final months of their lives. Based upon reports and experiences
with individual who have had Hospice care, Hospice does serve seniors
well and is an asset to the community.
i Seats: Although, Seats does not tabulate the number of seniors or
disabled that use the program, Seats serves the senior population well.
Seats budget is funded primarily by tax dollars supplemented by fares.
This is an important service and should continue to be funded at least
on the present level.
i 4. Visiting Nurses Association: The VNA serves seniors and non seniors
with a valuable service. Its hours and programs at the Senior Center
make much needed services available to seniors. Most of the budget of
the Visiting Nurses Association comes from charges to Medicare and
Medicaid and fee charges for services. Because of Medicare and
Medicaid the VNA probably does not need financial support from Iowa
City.
i 8. Johnson County Livable Communities: The primary service is to
inform seniors of the various opportunities for seniors in the
community and to hold forums for input to assist seniors. Their
funding comes from Johnson County and small donations.
MOTIONS FOR MEETING OCTOBER 15, 1014
These Motions are addressed to the draft prepared by Joe and Jan
on pages 20 through 26.
Motions will be designated by page, paragraphs, and bullets.
Page 20
Paragraph beginning with Pursuant. Motion that we delete
"as summarized below."
Motion that we restore the entire two charges from the
resolution as in the subcommittee's draft on 9/28.
Page 21
Paragraph beginning with Public Comment. Motion to delete
"local non-profit".
Page 24
Paragraph beginning with A copy Motion to delete the word
"issues" and replace with "items".
First bullet. Motion to add the word "primary" before
central.
First bullet. Motion to restore the deleted lines out in
blue.
First bullet. Motion to delete the word "Accordingly" and
the balance of the bullet and replace it with "The Committee
agrees with the accreditation report of the National Institute on
Aging that the Center accomplishes its Vision Mission".
Second bullet. Motion to restore the deleted lines "The
Committee agrees with the" Delete the word "Accordingly" and
delete the "the" and replace it with the word "that" before the
Center in line 3 of the bullet.
Page 25
Motion to restore the charge as written in the in the
subcommittee's draft of 9/28.
Bullet 3, top of page 4. Motion to add the following at the
end of the last sentence. "SHIPP, and Honoring Your Wishes. The
Center Staff is responsible for coordinating these programs,
organizing registration, appointments, in addition to organizing
volunteers."
Page 25
Motion to restore the charge as set out in the
subcommittee's report of 9/28
Motion to restore bullets re members and staff as set out in
the subcommittee's report of 9/28
Motion to add to the bullet on staff the following "However
the Center does serve seniors who have disabilities and limited
cognitive impairment."
Motion to add to the bullet beginning with Ethnic the
following " The pool of seniors who are black, Hispanic, and
Asian is small.
Motion to delete the last two bullets on page 25.
Motion on C delete "issues" replace with "matters"
Page 26
"is„
Motion to amend first bullet, delete "should" replace with
E
i
kligpias'%ysi"++K r
w
-1
Y
w
176 CHOOSE A COLLEGE TONN FOR RETIREMENT
Important Addresses and Connections
Chamber of Conunerce: Ames Chamber and Development
Commission, 213 Duff Avenue, Ames, IA 50010
Senior Center: Heartland Senior Services, 205 South Walnut Avenue,
Ames, IA 50010
Newspapers: (Monday to Saturday) The Daily Tribune, 317 Fifth
Street, Ames, IA 50010; (daily) Des Moines Register, 703 East Lincoln
Way, Ames, IA 50010; (student) Iowa State Daily, 108 Hamilton Hall,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Airport: Des Moines International Airport (35 miles away)
Trains/Buses: Amtrak; Greyhound; Cy -Ride is the local Ames transit
system
Internet Web Sites
Town or City: wwwames.ia.us; wwwhometownamerica.com/
IA/IASTO/IASTO_AM_H
College or University: www.iastate.edu
Ames Climate
In degrees Fahrenheit
January .April : July October Rainfall Snowfall
HIGH 28 62 85 64 33'°' 31"
LOW 9 38 63 41
Iowa City, Iowa
The roads to Iowa City are filled with the history of the religious
movements of America. Eighteen miles to the west are the Amana
Colonies, a group of seven villages begun in 1855 as a Utopian society.
In Coralville many Mormons, with handcarts in tow, camped on their
way to the Great Salt Lake and their call to paradise 1,400 miles to the
west. Ten miles to the east of Iowa City is the Herbert Hoover National
Historic Site and Presidential Library -Museum, which includes a Quaker
Meeting House on its grounds. One of the largest Amish populations in
the United States resides in Iowa.
But Iowa City itself is an important part of the secular history of Iowa.
Johnson County—the home of Iowa City, Coralville, and North Liberty—
a
THE GREAT PLAINS STATES 177
x;r
was created by the Wisconsin Territorial Legislature in 1837. When the
Iowa Territory was established the following year, Iowa City was laid out
and built to become the territorial capital and the county seat.
Iowa came into the Union in 1846 as a free state, and Iowa City
became the state's first capital. In 1857 the capital was moved to the cen- {
ter of the state, Des Moines, but rather than disappear into the back-
ground of key places in the state, Iowa City moved forward as the
University of Iowa (UI), established in 1847 on the bluffs above the Iowa
River, developed. Today Iowa City, with 60,000 residents, remains a cen-
tral focus of the state.
The University In this town UI, with its 27,500 students and 22,000
s,
employees, generates not only economic stability but also the intellectu- fj
al life, the technological spark, and the cultural heartbeat of both the F
area and the state._
The university is a regular stop on the Elderhostel program trail.
However, it does not offer a lifelong learners program. Kirkwood
Community College in Cedar Rapids offers basic adult education cours-
es, as well as self-enrichment courses at the Kirkwood Learning Center 1
in Iowa City.
The libraries of UI are open for in-house use by the public, but only
people affiliated with the university can borrow materials. Nonaffiliated
users of the library are granted borrower's privileges only under special
circumstances.
Recreation and Culture Though the city is always in motion, the
quantity of activities available soars when UI is in session. Iowa is a
member of the Big 10 Conference of the NCAA. Mens and women's
teams compete in eleven sports, so there is never a lack of sporting
events. The university allows public use of the Recreation Building and
the Field House (facilities with a variety of fitness training equipment
and sports courts), lighted tennis courts, and the Finkbine Golf Course.
The Division of Recreational Services at the university is responsible for
the MacBride Nature Recreation Area, 15 miles north of Iowa City
Alongside Lake MacBride and Coralville Reservoir, the site has trails for
nature walks and cross-country skiing, a nature center, and camping areas.
Inexpensive sailing on the Iowa River is possible because the UI
Sailing Club is open to public membership. This student organization
178 CHOOSE A COLLEGE TOWN FOR RETIREMENT
charges a quarterly membership fee; from then on there are no other
t
expenses, including boat use and lessons.
The museums of the university cover a variety of interests, from art
}-
and history to culture and medicine. Health history and current medical
issues, for instance, are explained and exhibited at the UI Hospitals and
Clinics Medical Museum.
The Museum of Art at the Iowa Center for the Arts has thousands of
art and sculpture works in an assortment of media. Works by famous
artists such as Picasso and Matisse complement those of the less well-
known artists and cultures throughout the world.
More than a million fossil specimens are housed at the Museum of
'j'
Natural History, which also features dioramas on birds and mammals.
li
The Iowa Hall displays geographic, geologic, and archaeological exhibits
r :
on the state's land, including Native American culture.
jThe
students' presence has given rise to an active club scene in town.
But the university's Iowa Center for the Arts is the focal point for live per-
t.,
formances in Iowa City It offers:
2",i Y;
�',
• Hancher Auditorium—a 2,600 -seat concert hall used primarily for
music and dance performances, including those by nationally
known artists and orchestras
• The Music Building—five recital halls and the Clapp Recital Hall,
which seats 720 people
• University Theatres—with four performance stages, many produc-
tions throughout the year, and repertory in summer
The community also offers diverse cultural activities. The Iowa City
Community Theatre performs at the Johnson County Fairgrounds,
Both Iowa City and Coralville have outdoor concert series. Festivals
occur all year, including bluegrass, jazz, and art gatherings. The
Heritage Museum of Johnson County in Coralville tells the story of the
area's last 200 years.
Iowa City has nine parks, and Coralville has three. Tennis courts
are at a number of them, as are hiking trails. City Park and Hickory
Hill Park in Iowa City have cross-country skiing, as do other area
parks not under the city's domain. S. T. Morrison Park in Coralville
and City Park in Iowa City have outdoor swimming pools. An indoor
swimming center is at Mercer Park.
THE GREAT PLAINS STATES 179
As mentioned above, the Amana Colonies and the Hoover National
Historic Site are worth visits. The Mississippi River lies about 60 miles
to the east.
HOUSing Costs Though the campus sits on a bluff, most of Iowa City
and Coralville is flat, with plenty of trees and grassy areas. The median
value of a home in Iowa City is $79,000; in Coralville, $73,200.
However, when I looked through the listings on-line and in the newspa-
per, I found that relatively few were priced that low. The bulk of the
housing seemed to be between $100,000 and $150,000, with a bulge
right around the $125,000 mark. The median apartment rent in Iowa
City is $368; in Coralville, $361.
Medical Care The University of Iowa Health Science Center is a
teaching and research hospital system with a total of 891 beds. Mercy
Iowa City Hospital has 234 beds. The Veterans Affairs Medical Center
has 107 beds.
When Grandkids Visit The Iowa Children's Museum has moved
into its new home in the Coral Ridge Mall in Coralville.The museum has
interactive exhibits on media, construction, and water use.
In Dyersville, about 75 miles northeast of Iowa City, is the site for the
movie Field of Dreams. Admission is free.
Important Addresses and Connections
Chambers of Commerce: Iowa City/Coralville Convention and
Visitors Bureau, 408 First Avenue, Coralville, IA 52241; Iowa City Area
Chamber of Commerce, P.O. Box 2358, Iowa City, IA 52244
Senior Center: Johnson County Senior Center, 28 South Linn, Iowa
City, IA 52240
Newspapers: The Gazette, 301 East Market, Iowa City, IA 52245; The
Press -Citizen, 1725 North Dodge, Iowa City, IA 52245; (student) The
Daily Iowan, 111 Communication Building, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, IA 52242
Airport: East Iowa Airport in Cedar Rapids (25 miles away)
TrainslBuses: Amtrak in Mt. Vernon; Greyhound; Iowa City Transit
System and Coralville Transit System serve the two towns
180 CHOOSE A COLLEGE TOWN FOR RETIRMEHT
Internet Web Sites
Town or City: www.icarea.com; vnvwiccvb.org
College or University: www.uiowa.edu
Iowa City/Coralville Climate
'- In degrees Fahrenheit
January April July October Rainfall snowfall
HIGH 30 63 88 66 37' 26"
LOW 12 40 65 43
Kansas is filled with the history of our country's expansion west.
Emigrants first traversed the area on their treks westward via the
Oregon, Chisholm and Santa Fe Trails. Kansas was also one of the major
battlegrounds in the years prior to the Civil War. The fight over whether
the state would be free of slavery was so fierce that it was called Bleeding
Kansas,
Carrie Nation, the leader of the temperance movement, helped
Kansas embrace Prohibition, which began in the 1880s in this state. But
Kansas is also the state that pioneered ideas such as the recall and the
referendum, and gave women rights well before the progressive North or
West did.
Kansas begins at the Missouri border and ends at Colorado, a width
of about 450 miles. The low plains and rolling hills on the east side that
were once filled with tall grass eventually give way to the high plains, as
the land rises in preparation for the Rockies of Colorado. The state is for-
tunate to have several rivers; the Kansas and Arkansas Rivers nm
through the state, while the Missouri River divides the northeast part of
the state from its eastern neighbor.
Kansas is famous for its wheat, and on the plains of western Kansas,
storage buildings stand out like rural skyscrapers. Other crops, such as
corn and alfalfa, make Kansas a major player in crop agriculture. The
cattle industry is still strong here. Manufacturing centers on processing
the crops and animals the state raises, while heavy industries include air-
craft manufacture and oil production.
Manhattan and Lawrence are both in the eastern area of the state. Both
A