Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-06 Info PacketCITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org November 6, 2014 IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule MISCELLANEOUS IP2 Article from City Manager: 10 Iowa City Stereotypes That Are Completely Accurate IP3 Copy of Press Release: Community Input on Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Report IP4 News Release from Iowa Finance Authority: Iowa Finance Authority Honored with National Housing Award for Annual Housinglowa Conference DRAFT MINUTES IP5 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee: October 22 IP6 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee: October 25 IP7 Charter Review Commission: October 28 IP8 Public Art Advisory Committee: July 17 XYZ ON Il Ak. CITY Of IOWA CITY Date Thursday, November 6, 2014 11-06-14 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule IN Subject to change November 6, 2014 Time Meeting Location 5:00 PM Spec. Work Session (Court/Linn RFP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Monday, November 17, 2014 5:00 PM Spec. Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (Court/Linn RFP Presentations) Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, December 2, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Thursday,December 11, 2014 7:30 AM Spec. Work Session w/ JC Supervisors Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, December 16, 2014 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, January 6, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 10, 2015 8AM-5PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (Department Presentations) Monday, January 12, 2015 1:00-7:OOPM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall (CIP Presentations) Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:00 PM Special Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 26, 2015 4:30 PM Joint Meeting/ Work Session TBA Tuesday, Feburary 3, 2015 5:00 PM City Conference Board Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session Meeting 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 17, 2015 5:00 PM Work Session Meeting Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting From the City Manager MIP2 1. They Can Prove Their College Is Better Than Yours If you ask Iowa City folks what the number one thing they're proud of is, the answer you would overwhelmingly get would be The University of Iowa. You won't have to look far to find someone wearing the insignia on their sweatshirt or sweatpants or on a vinyl sticker on their car. What's the reasons they will give you? Well, let's see. For starters, they were the first public university in the country to allow men and women to attend equally in the U.S. It's also the oldest university in the state of Iowa and has one of the top research programs in the country. Add to that all of the jobs that it creates along with a super -friendly college town atmosphere, and you have your obvious answer to why these people love this college. 2. People In Iowa City Bleed Black And Gold It's basically an unwritten law in Iowa City that if you're a resident, your favorite colors are now black and gold. In order to blend in, you're going to want to get a few t - shirts, maybe a hat, a flag or two, some beer koozies, and a bumper sticker. While you're at it, you might as well get a shirt for all of your kids, nieces, nephews, and one for the dog, too. It's not really surprising that the Hawkeyes are as popular as they are. This is the Midwest, and the town has their very own Big Ten team. They're popular all throughout the state of Iowa, but since they're Iowa City's very own, they get that much more love here. 3. Everyone In Iowa City Is A Pulitzer Prize -Winning Bookworm These people don't mess around when it comes to their love for books. The Iowa Writer's Workshop at the University of Iowa has been one of the leading creative writing programs in the world for 70 years and counting. No, really. Graduates of the workshop have gone on to win a total of 12 Pulitzer Prizes and four have been named U.S. Poet Laureate. Iowa City also became the third United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) City of Literature in the world, just falling in behind Edinburgh in Scotland and Melbourne, Australia. Starting to get the picture? 4. Iowa City Folks Are A Little Weird Just like Austin has a reputation for being the granola city of its state, so is Iowa City. Filled with earth -loving, artsy hippies who don't try to hide their weird side, but instead embrace it. To get a taste for this side of the city, just show up to the Iowa Arts Festival since 1983, which includes a Global Village, Children's Day, Culinary Row and hundreds of local and national artists. But you probably won't have to wait that long — just go meet your neighbors. If you need any more help with the weird, just as the girl who plays The Legend of Zelda on her violin for hours at a time at the Ped Mall. She'll probably be able to help you out. 5. They Know How To Strut Their Stuff Folks in Iowa City have boots made for walking. And that's exactly what they do. They walk everywhere, mainly because they can. Iowa City has the best place for walkability in all of Iowa and Downtown Iowa City has a damn -near perfect walkability score. You won't be shunned for driving, but this is just another thing that separates Iowa City from the rest of the state, where you'll find that you don't have the choice but to drive anywhere and everywhere. So when you go for a visit bring a good pair of shoes, because they will definitely come in handy. 6. Everybody Here Is Healthier Than You, Deal With It Maybe it has something to do with their ability to walk everywhere in the city. Or maybe it has something to do with all that farm -fresh food they can get their hands on so easily. Whatever it is, the people in Iowa City are as healthy as they come. And that's not hyperbole. Men's Journal named Iowa City the "Healthiest Town in the United States." The healthcare system in the city is one of the best, not only for the county, but from all around the area. Over 70 percent of the patients who are treated in Iowa City's three leading hospitals come from outside of Johnson County to receive the best treatment possible Those numbers might be skewed in favor of the locals, though, since they're already so healthy they don't have much need to be treated. 7. They're Friendlier Than Everyone You Know If you're looking for a place where people greet you on the sidewalk, drivers wave hello to each other on the back roads, and residents all chip in together as a community, then you've struck gold with Iowa City. The people here are some of the friendliest and most giving people you'll find across the country. Iowa City residents ranked number two out of a list of 75 cities' volunteer rates by the Corporation for National & Community Service. The people here are ready to help where it's needed without expecting to get anything back. You might get stuck in a much longer conversation with most of them than you anticipated when you ask them how they're doing at the grocery store. 8. They Know How To Laugh At Themselves The folks in Iowa City do a lot of things better than a lot of places. Another one of those things to add to the list is knowing how to mix it up with a little razzing on each other. The Roast of Iowa City is an annual event that's become pretty popular over the past few years, where residents get together to poke fun at the downsides to the city. And yes, despite all the positives, there are some less -than -positives. But the roast is a great way for everyone to come together and prove that they're still better than any of it. Just be prepared, all you vegans and bookworms—no one is safe at the podium. 9. Iowa City Folks Are Small But Mighty Iowa City isn't really as small as you might think. It's part of the Iowa City — Coralville — North Liberty tri -city metro area, making for one big melting pot. Each town plays off of each other, offering more ingredients to the pot to make a delicious Iowan stew. But it's still a growing city with a small town feel. And the people in Iowa City wouldn't have it any other way. Iowa City is frequently listed among the best small cities to live. And Yahoo! Finance listed Iowa City as the top "Cities To Start Over In." Everyone has a motivation to reach for more while still maintaining that close-knit sense of community that is so important. 10. But They Definitely Didn't Ask Your Opinion The folks in Iowa City might know how to get a good laugh at themselves. But that only applies for the locals. Don't start shooting your mouth off if you don't live here. The people in Iowa City know others think about them and their city. It's just another tumbleweed town in Iowa for dumb hicks, right? Please. No one needs you showing up here trying to find out just how wrong you are. So if you don't have anything nice to say, get back on I-80 and keep going. Community Input On Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Report A-2lndex Residents Business Government Visitors Page 1 of 1 IP3 ICgov.org Home » News Community Input On Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Report Posted on Friday, October 31, 2014 at 4:53 PM Contact Information The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee was established in February 2014 to Name: Marian Karr review the vision, mission, and programming of the city sponsored senior Business services in relation to the overall needs of seniors in the community. The Email: Send Mail resolution asked the Committee to submit a written report to the City Council Phone: (319) 356-5041 by December 1. Visitors The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee will be holding community input on their draft report on November 12. A copy of the report and attachments can Calendar be found at http://wwwJcaov.ora/?id=2417 or on the City website homepage under the "highlights" tab. Iowa City Wednesday, November 12, 2014 3:30 PM IA 52240 Phone (319)356-5000 Harvat Hall, City Hall 410 East Washington Street, IC The public is encouraged to attend the meeting and provide comments. All comments should be limited to 5 minutes. Written comments received by 9am Nov. 7, 2014 will be distributed to committee members prior to the meeting. Written comments may be sent to: Ad Hoc Senior Services % City Clerk City of Iowa City 410 E Washington St Iowa City, IA 52240 Please include full name and address. (All correspondence is public) Or e-mail to marian-karrQiowa-citv.ora A -Z Index Citizen Service Center Contact Information Residents Transit Routes Web Policies Business News City Employee Resources Government E -Subscriptions Visitors Jobs Calendar Copyright © 2006-2012 City of Store Iowa City 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 Phone (319)356-5000 http://www.icgov.org/apps/news/?newsID=10087 11/5/2014 Qb IP4 IOWA FINANCE AUTHORITY NEWS RELEASE For immediate release: Contact: October 20, 2014 Ashley Jared, 515.494.6213, ashlev.iaredCcciliowa.gov Iowa Finance Authority Honored with National Housing Award for Annual Housinglowa Conference 2014 Housinglowa Conference, Awesometown wins National Attention DES MOINES — The Iowa Finance Authority announced today that they were awarded a national award for its 2014 annual Housinglowa Conference, themed Awesometown by the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) at their annual conference in Boston. Awesometown was held Sept. 3-5 in Des Moines and was portrayed as a fictional town that clearly showed the many benefits affordable housing has on Iowa communities. The Iowa Finance Authority partnered with Des Moines -based advertising firm Saturday Mfg. to develop the award-winning concept and promotional materials. "Housinglowa Conference attendees not only benefited from nationally -renowned trainings, education sessions and networking opportunities, but also felt as if they were a part of a booming community that has benefited from the fruits of their labor in advancing affordable housing," said Iowa Finance Authority Executive Director Dave Jamison. "We look forward to working with our partners to create even more awesome towns throughout Iowa in the years to come." The 2014 Housinglowa Conference had a theme, look and feel that no Iowa housing professional would want to miss out on. The promotional materials led to a dramatic increase in conference attendance and sponsorships. The NCSHA awards program mission is to share information about the most successful housing programs, identify industry best practices, recognize exemplary Housing Finance Agency (HFA) efforts, and encourage HFA innovation. The winning programs were judged on originality, innovation, a proven track record in the marketplace, cost/benefit ratio and measurable benefits provided to targeted customers. The winning programs were chosen from entries from across the country, and programs will serve as models for other HFAs. The National Council of State Housing Agencies — known as NCSHA — is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan association that advocates on behalf of HFAs before Congress and the Administration for affordable housing resources. It represents the HFAs of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Membership also includes more than 300 affordable housing industry partners. The Iowa Legislature created the Iowa Finance Authority, the state's housing finance agency, in 1975 to undertake programs to assist in the attainment of housing for low -and moderate -income Iowans. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE OCTOBER 22, 2014 — 3:30 P.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Members Absent: Ellen Cannon, Rick Dobyns Staff Present: Alec Bramel, Michelle Buhman, Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr 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 10/15/14 Honohan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS: a. Acceptance of Report Template Including Approved Sections Younker noted that at the last meeting, the Initial Sections, and Charge 1 and Charge 2 (pages 25-32) were approved. He stated that he would not be looking to discuss these sections again. Instead, he asked Members if anyone felt that the items in agenda item 3(a) do not reflect what was approved at the last meeting. Bern -Klug noted that on page 29, the section regarding City financials. She had asked that it be clarified that the Senior Center receives 1 % of the General Fund, and this has not been included in the text. Younker agreed that this did pass as part of a motion and should be included. Honohan then asked if this had been approved completely. Karr responded that each element of it was approved, and Younker noted that the minutes reflect this on page 7. Honohan noted that he was under the impression that this information was `accepted,' not `approved.' Younker noted that what he is looking for is items that were voted in the affirmative at the last meeting that do not appear on pages 25 through 32 of the document, or are there issues that were not voted in the affirmative that do appear on these pages. Honohan stated that he would accept this. Younker asked that they look at the words first and then they can move on. 1) Initial Sections (pages 25-26) 2) Charge 1: Senior Center Evaluation (pages 27-28) 3) Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pages 29-32) • Understanding of City Financials • Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population Recommendations Regarding Financial Resources Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 2 • Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources b. Discussion of Charge 2: General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population Younker then moved on to Charge 2, noting that the template has three sections — Understanding City Financials, Overview of the Process to Determine the Needs of the Senior Population, and General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population. At the last meeting, he noted that Members approved Sections 1 and 2, but not Section 3. He then asked what the Committee would like to do with Section 3. He stated that he is under the assumption that the Committee wants to deal with this section through recommendations. Honohan stated that he is still under the impression that they did not approve Section 2, and that he believes Section 2 is unwieldy and needs to be better summarized. Continuing, Honohan noted that he has proposed on page 36 what he believes is an adequate explanation for this section. At this point, Younker stopped Honohan, stating that they are not talking about the same thing. He noted that they are discussing Charge 2, Section 3, and Honohan is referring to Section 2 under Charge 2. Honohan agreed. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification here, and Younker referred her to page 29 of the packet. Moving to page 30, Younker noted there is the second section under Charge 2, Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population. Continuing, Younker noted that what they are currently discussing is the third section under Charge 2, General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population (top of page 31). Younker then again asked the Committee Members how they want to handle this section. Honohan noted that it is his position that they 'accepted' it, that they did not 'approve' this as the final draft for their report to the City Council. He stated that he believes they should report to the Council, in effect, the number of agencies in the community, as per the Livable Communities report that serve seniors. He does not believe they should make any qualitative statement about this, but that they should report it. Younker noted that Honohan's draft that he submitted does appear under 3(c) of the agenda. He then again asked the Committee what they want to do with the third section of Charge 2. Honohan moved to replace what is in the current draft with what is in his draft on pages 37 and 38. He noted that his is a much shorter version and he believes it indicates everything they need here. Younker again noted that Honohan's recommendations do appear on page 31. Younker stated that he does not believe it would be helpful to go back and reassess what they have already approved. Honohan again stated that he believes they 'accepted' the information but did not 'approve' it. He added that had he known the motion was to approve the information, he would have voted against approving it. Younker stated that he doesn't believe they have accepted, approved, received, or made any determination about the final report. The final report will be subject to public comment, according to Younker. He stated that they need to have a document available for public comment, however, for that process to take place. Honohan again stated that he does not believe this to be accurate. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion for the Chair and Vice Chair to prepare proposed language to insert in section 3 of Charge 2, as that section appears (blank) on page 31 of the packet. Dohrmann moved to have the text be completed by the Chair and Vice -Chair for section 3 on page 31 as a part of the final report, which would then be available for discussion by the Committee. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Honohan stated that he has already let it be known what his feelings are. He believes the section is too long and that it repeats some of the things that the Committee has adopted in the evaluation for the Senior Center. Referring to #3 on page 31, Honohan stated that this is much too long. He agreed that the point here is important, but he believes they can say this more Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 3 clearly and without any hint of opinion, by using his draft on page 38. Dohrmann and others noted that the motion is just for section 3, not section 4, which Honohan is speaking to. Dohrmann stated that this section is important in terms of their charge, that they need text discussing their general findings of the needs of the senior population. Asst. City Manager Fruin noted that the motion on the table is just for section 3, page 31. This section currently has no content in it. The motion on the floor is to have the Chair and the Vice Chair draft language for the Committee's consideration. Younker added that there was something in this section at the last meeting but that it was not approved. They now either need to fill in this blank portion of the report or delete the heading altogether. The motion is to come up with proposed language for just this section. Bern -Klug stated that she wanted to discuss this a bit further and she referred to page 31, #3. She noted that whatever is underneath it should be related to the recommendations, as it will look like the recommendations came out of a consensus of the group's understanding of what the needs are for seniors. She asked the group what they think the needs are. Younker stated that this is what will go in this section. Bern -Klug agreed, adding that she had not gotten the sense that there was agreement on what the needs are. She asked if they have even discussed these needs specifically. Younker responded that they have received reports from Committee Members and community agencies, identifying needs. He believes they can pull the information from this. Webber stated that this true with the exception of input by the target population, which is where the survey proposal comes in. Younker agreed, stating that the survey will help to further define and identify the needs of seniors. Honohan stated that he agrees with Bern -Klug in that they have not done anything to make findings of the needs of the senior population. He stated that he has no idea what the needs of Elder Services is, for example. He also has no idea of the needs of Pathways and the people they serve. He added that he concurs with Webber in that this is what the survey is for — to find out the needs of the seniors. He stated that he just is not comfortable with something stating that they `know' something specific, when in fact they do not. Dohrmann stated that through this process there have been specific issues, such as with the projected growth of the senior population; needs identified in the Elder Services' report that were shared, such as case management, funding needs for specific programs, and expected increased demand as this demographic continues to grow. She also referred to Pathways, noting that their identified need is to help those that fall through the cracks, so to speak, and they don't have the necessary funding to provide these services. Younker then stated that perhaps they need to take a step back and look at section 2 — Overview of Process, Determine Needs of the Senior Population. Section 3 is then reporting to Council what was learned from the report. Younker added that what they learned was that further investigation is necessary, hence the recommendation that a special survey be conducted. Younker also noted that as Dohrmann stated, they did receive information from Elder Services regarding needs and also information from Pathways regarding needs. This section is where the Committee is simply telling Council what they found out. Continuing, Younker stated that he agrees with Honohan that they cannot say these are the needs of the senior population exclusively because they have not engaged in that type of analysis. Bern -Klug stated that she believes they could also include in section 3 of Charge 2 that there is some concern among the agencies that have been receiving funds through the Aid to Agencies program about a decrease in future funding. Younker stated that they could also add the impact that this would have on the needs of the senior population. Younker then restated the original motion, for the Chair and Vice -Chair to propose draft language for this section, consistent with the Committee's discussion. Bern -Klug added that part of it may be changing the label for part Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 4 3 to something like — General Findings From What the Agencies Reported. Younker stated that the opening clause of this section could state something to the effect that based on the information received from the Committee, these are the identified needs. Fruin stated that he believes there is a bit of a disclaimer like this in the preceding section. He added that the last paragraph refers to the fact that this was a very informal process, but that this was due to the time constraints and resources of the Committee. Continuing, Fruin noted that this section then ended with a prelude, so to speak, to the Committee's recommendation, which is that a professional survey is needed in order to garner more scientific results. The motion carried 4- 1; Honohan in the negative, Cannon and Dobyns absent. c. Discussion of Additional Proposed Charge 2 Recommendations Younker began the discussion on page 33 of the meeting packet. He noted that he and the Vice -Chair have proposed additional recommendations for discussion and to be included in the report. Beginning with recommendation #1 on page 33, Younker asked for a motion to approve. 1) Approximately 20% of the Center's members are non -Iowa City residents (Non -Iowa City, Johnson County residents: 18%; Non -Johnson County residents: 2%). Although Johnson County contributes to the Center, the County's contribution is less than 10% of the Center's budget. While non - Iowa City residents pay a slightly higher membership dues fee compared to Iowa City residents, the Center should consider further increasing the membership dues of non -Iowa City residents to coincide more closely with the actual cost of services and account for the funding disparity between the County and the City. Dohrmann moved to approve recommendation #1 on page 33. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan began the discussion, stating that he believes this is a well-intentioned paragraph but that it is introducing a quagmire. Honohan then read his proposal: "Different approaches have been made to the Board of Supervisors in attempt to get them to contribute more. In the past there has been problems regarding charging different fees for non -Iowa City residents in groups who in the Center have budgets of their own. A look at the fees generally is in the draft of the Center Evaluation on page 28, second bullet under B. I feel that we should just let it go at that and let the Commission, the Steering Council, and the staff work on this and perhaps hold hearings at the Center as we did in the beginning to get the sense of the participants." Continuing, Honohan stated that he does not think the Committee should make a recommendation that is this specific when he believes they don't have a lot of knowledge to do it. Honohan noted that back in 2003, the Center held four or five public hearings where they heard a lot of pros and cons regarding participant fees. He added that he believes this is the type of process that should be taken when they talk about increasing fees. For these stated reasons, Honohan added that he will not vote for this proposal. Younker responded to Honohan's comments, noting that the proposed recommendation is that the Center should consider further increasing membership dues for non -Iowa City residents. The intent is not to dictate to the Center whether or not they should increase these, simply that this be a consideration. Younker also noted that what Honohan points out on page 28 of the packet, this falls under Charge 1, the Evaluation of the Senior Center, and not a specific recommendation to the Council. This is a Charge 2 recommendation, according to Younker, something separate Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 5 from the Evaluation of the Center that appears in Charge 1. Dohrmann added that this is not for all programming but specifically membership dues. Bern -Klug stated that it seems odd that they would have two recommendations related to finances of the Senior Center in two different places. Younker responded, noting that first of all the bullet point that Honohan has referenced falls under the Opportunities for Improvement section, under Charge 1. He further explained that the proposed recommendation is in response to the second charge that the Committee has been given, which was to make recommendations on how current physical and financial resources should be used. He agreed that there is some overlap here, but that to be responsive to the charge; he believes they need to clarify their recommendations in the second charge. Bern -Klug noted that if this is the case, the issue of fees would actually be in three places. She noted that on page 28 of the report it is listed twice, under B(1) Opportunities for Improvement, and then down two paragraphs it says: The Senior Center should evaluate membership fees. Younker suggested they back up and look at page 27 first. He pointed out that this issue was identified under the Senior Center Evaluation. Moving on to page 29, Younker noted that this is where the discussion of Charge 2 begins. He added that though there is some overlap, these are separate charges. This proposed recommendation would be a Charge 2 recommendation, according to Younker, and not a part of the Senior Center Evaluation. Bern -Klug asked if Younker is opposed to making this recommendation more general. Younker explained his stance on this issue, that there is a disproportionate amount of funding with approximately 20% of the Center's members being non -Iowa City residents. The County's funding is less than 10% of the Center's budget. Younker stated that this recommendation is aimed at this disparity. Honohan stated that he does not see the charge they are currently discussing as being specific to the Senior Center, but that Younker is bringing this back as being very specific to the Senior Center. He also stated that there are members living in other cities — Coralville, North Liberty, Hills, Solon — and that this is not necessarily the obligation of the Board of Supervisors. Honohan continued, stating that the Board of Supervisors views this issue as being responsible only for those people living in rural Johnson County. He stated that he has argued this position with the Board of Supervisors on numerous occasions. Honohan reiterated that he will not agree with this recommendation. Bern -Klug asked if it would be agreeable to state this as recommending the Center consider a fee structure for non -Iowa City residents, rather than saying it has to come from the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. Younker stated that the recommendation does not say this, that it is saying that the Center should consider further increasing the membership dues of non -Iowa City residents to coincide more closely with the actual costs of services and to account for the funding disparity between the County and the City. He reiterated that this recommendation is not asking the Board of Supervisors to do anything. It is asking the Center to consider the dues that are paid by non -Iowa City residents. Honohan noted that the Center currently has a higher fee for non -Iowa City residents, and they also have a higher fee for those who live outside of Johnson County. He added that to him, this recommendation is meddling where they should not go. Dohrmann stated that the intent truly is to address the disparity in funding and to recognize the funding that is given to the Center from the City. Bern -Klug asked why they would not also ask the City of Coralville to increase their funding. Younker responded, noting that they could do this, but that this recommendation simply addresses the dues that are paid. He added that they could entertain a separate recommendation that the City and the Center have a dialogue with Solon, Coralville, and other cities involved in order to increase funding. Bern -Klug stated that to her this is insinuating that Johnson County is not paying enough, and that this is why non -Iowa Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 6 City residents need to pay more. She added that it costs non -Iowa City residents more to get to the Center, and therefore they are already incurring more costs to use the Center. Honohan stated that the current fees being charged were based on discussions between the Commission and the Steering Council, and the City Administration. Webber asked Honohan how long ago these fees were established. Honohan stated that it has been a few years, and Fruin noted that it indeed had been two years. Bern -Klug thanked the Chair and Vice -Chair for creating the suggested language in order to help the discussion. She asked if they would consider rather than a whole separate paragraph recommendation that at the end of the currently listed #1 recommendation that it would say, '... including fees to non -Iowa City residents.' Fruin pointed out that what Bern -Klug is referring to is the already accepted language that the Committee worked on at their last meeting -- #1 that gets at the financial structure. He asked Bern -Klug if he is correct in how he is viewing her recommendation — that at the end of the already accepted language, it would say: 'including the fee structure for non -Iowa City resident members.' He added that from a staff point of view, this captures what he believes the Committee is saying. Younker stated that he would be comfortable with this and he asked Bern -Klug to restate her recommendation. She stated that she would say, `including reconsideration of fees to non -Iowa City residents.' Dohrmann accepted a friendly amendment to her original motion (to include language to #1 instead of the entire paragraph). Webber noted that his second would stand. Motion carried 4-1; Honohan in the negative, and Cannon and Dobyns absent. The discussion then moved to recommendation #2 on page 33 2) The Committee received information from City Staff regarding the funding practices of other Iowa communities concerning nonprofit agencies, including those offering services to seniors. (See Ex. _, 9/29/14 Memorandum from Geoff Fruin.) The Committee recognizes that, due to time constraints, City Staff gathered the information in an informal manner. Consequently, the information provided may not provide a true "apples to apples" comparison. Regardless, the Council should be aware of the practices of other Iowa communities. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve this recommendation. Dohrmann moved to accept recommendation #2 on page 33. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with Bern -Klug asking Fruin to bring up the September 29 memo as she does not remember seeing how other cities fund their senior centers. Fruin noted that he can do this and further explained what they did. He noted that they contacted around a dozen cities in Iowa and asked them how they fund senior activities, whether it's non-profit or actual city -based programs, such as the Senior Center. He noted that this was a very informal phone survey and that he would not put a lot of weight on it. Dohrmann further clarified what the actual recommendation is. She noted that it is mainly to let the Council know that some work was done to compare different communities and how they fund their senior programming. Younker stated that the recommendation would be that this language be included in the report, under Charge 2, and that the action that would be expected of Council would be to basically be aware of the informal survey. Bern -Klug stated that in her opinion if they are going to share this information with Council, she would also like to share information on communities with centers that are in the same class, the top 2% in the nation, and see how they are funded. She wants to see Iowa City's Senior Center compared to others in the nation that are also accredited and compare their funding. Younker responded that first of all Fruin's memo was relating to the funding practices concerning non -profits in general, and then understanding that some of these Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 7 services would overlap with senior services. Younker agreed that this information is probably something the Council would benefit from. Fruin stated that he does not believe Council would benefit from the information phone survey he was referring to, but that he would rather work with the Senior Center staff to do some more in-depth analysis of how other cities fund their senior centers. He added that they can broaden this to centers outside of Iowa for this analysis. Younker stated that perhaps the recommendation should be that this type of report/analysis be created and then provided to Council at a later date. Bern -Klug then clarified #2 on page 33, stating that they need to be clear — if this is just looking at how other senior centers are funded or how non-profit agencies are funded. Fruin stated that this may be somewhat difficult to do, as in some cities a non-profit is their senior center. Bern -Klug asked if this recommendation is mainly about senior center funding, if the intent was to compare how other communities fund their senior centers. Younker responded that that was not necessarily what they were trying to say. He stated that the information they received was the Aid to Agency type funding, senior center funding — broader funding issues. Bern -Klug responded that the Aid to Agency funding is federal, that this would apply across the country. Fruin stated that in their brief survey, they found cities that do not fund any senior services. These communities have no senior center and they do not fund non- profits either. Their funds are used for other purposes. Continuing, Fruin noted that staff could look beyond just senior center operations and see how other cities fund senior programming in general. Rose Hanson, audience member, asked if other senior centers own their building or does the city they are located in own the building. Fruin replied that there does not appear to be any standard model, and that it varies from city to city. Younker then asked Fruin what type of report he believes would be useful to Council. Looking at the language presented, Fruin stated that he would keep the first sentence, and then remove the reference to his September memo, and basically say that the Committee sees value in expanding this type of analysis to include a more in-depth understanding of those communities that were contacted, as well as other communities outside of the state that are considered to be peer institutions by the Senior Center staff. Members discussed the wording for this recommendation, with Fruin suggesting: "The Committee recommends that City staff do more detailed analysis and include other comparable senior centers outside of the state of Iowa and report to Council on how those communities fund senior services. Bern -Klug stated that what she gets from this conversation is that if something is not broke, why fix it and why investigate it. She would rather the City not spend the time and funds investigating other models when their model is evidently working fine. Younker then reviewed what the exact recommendation would be and asked Dohrmann if she would entertain a friendly amendment to her original motion. Dohrmann accepted a friendly amendment to her original motion. Bern -Klug noted that her second would stand. Motion failed 1-4; Younker in the positive, and Cannon and Dobyns absent. Moving on to page 34 of the packet, Younker noted that Bern -Klug has proposed a recommendation under Charge 2, meaning that it would be added to the list of approved recommendations. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 8 "Given that the negative effects of social isolation are more lethal than cigarette smoking, and many older adults face significant barriers to participating in social networks in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, emotional challenges, language and/or poverty, we propose the City Council initiate a new program, "Full Participation Awards" and set aside $40,000 per year for the next three years (as a pilot project) to fund up to four projects ($10,000 each) for programs administered by not-for-profit agencies serving socially isolated older adults who reside in Iowa City. Appropriate programs would help to connect non -institutionalized older adults experiencing social isolation to others through enhanced access to transportation, meals, and social programming." He stated that he would entertain a motion to approve Bern-Klug's proposed recommendation on page 34. Honohan moved to accept the recommendation by Bern -Klug on page 34 of the packet. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that he believes this is an excellent idea. However, he added that he believes it is a bit too long, and he suggested a shorter version. Honohan's shorter version is on the late handout sheet, page 5 at the bottom of the page, continuing to the next. Honohan asked that they consider his proposed version in their recommendation list. Younker then asked Bern -Klug if she could share what she had in mind while writing this proposal. She stated that most of what they have been discussing is the Senior Center, and that most of the recommendations appear to have something to do with the Center, as well. She noted that what they keep hearing from those who come to the podium is how important the social contact and social networking is at the Center, and in some cases how it is actually life-saving in nature. Bern -Klug added that the City may want to consider issues related to social isolation or social networking, as how they look at senior services in general. This could lead to having programs for those who are challenged by social isolation. Dohrmann stated that she believes the concept is great, but that her concern is in light of the current climate and prioritizing limited funding, the timing does not seem right. Bern -Klug added that something that is this broad does not favor any one kind of agency, and therefore many types of agencies could justify some innovation in trying to connect isolated elders. Younker asked Fruin how a recommendation such as this would be handled, if it were to be a part of the Committee's report. Fruin responded that the first step would be whether or not the Council has the appetite to take on another program and additional expense. If they did, he noted that staff would then go to service providers to figure out what some parameters would be for this type of program. Then it would eventually be brought back to the Council for their approval. Bern -Klug stated that one thing to remember is between now and the time the Committee's report goes out, the vote will have taken place for the local option sales tax. She added that, if approved, the City would be getting money for low-income housing, which would then take some pressure off the General Fund. She stated that even with the loss of property tax revenue, money still has to be spent and if the City can fund programs to help people connect — especially those at high risk — that there could be savings attached to this that are hard to measure. Younker asked Karr to clarify where they currently stand with motions. She noted that there is a motion on the floor currently for the original proposal from Bern -Klug, and then there is language from Honohan that hasn't been moved or seconded to amend this. She added that given that the amendment is a total replacement, she asked if the Committee wants to withdraw the original motion or vote the motions up or down. Younker suggested they take up the original motion first, with the understanding that if it does not pass they would entertain a motion to Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 9 revise the language. The motion failed 3-2; Dohrmann and Honohan in the negative, and Cannon and Dobyns absent. Honohan moved to approve his amendment on the late handout, #5 at the bottom, as discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. 5. Many seniors face barriers to participating in social network in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, and poverty. To aid these senior, the Committee proposed that the City Council initiate a program "Full Participation Awards" for three years of four grants of $10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these seniors. The discussion began with Honohan stating that he believes this is a more concise version of what he believes Bern -Klug was alluding to. Younker asked if there was any further discussion on this amendment. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Honohan's wording. After some discussion, Honohan suggested changing the wording to say '...for the next three years...' (top of the second page of the late handout) Dohrmann stated that the concept is good, but her concern is around the prioritization of services. Honohan stated that his assumption would be that the money would come from the General Fund for this type of programming. Members briefly talked about the Aid to Agency funding, and Fruin clarified that those funds are a combination of federal and general funds. He stated that he would suggest this be a separate program outside of the Aid to Agencies process. Bern -Klug stated that some of the things that Elder Services and Pathways do is directly related to social isolation, and therefore she sees no reason why they wouldn't be for these funds. Dohrmann stated that this is part of her concern when it comes to prioritization. Bern -Klug stated that having 'emotional challenges and language,' as this gives them a way to outreach to non-English speaking people, which is part of the concern in reaching the senior population. Honohan stated that if Bern -Klug wants to add this language, he has no objection. This amendment would be to Honohan's proposal on the late handout, #5, to add after cognitive impairment, 'emotional challenges, language and/or,' poverty. 5. Many seniors face barriers to participating in social network in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, emotional challenges, language, and/or poverty. To aid these senior, the Committee proposed that the City Council initiate a program "Full Participation Awards" for the next three years of four grants of $10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these seniors. Honohan agreed to this amendment to his original motion. Bern -Klug agreed to her second. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Younker then stated that before they discuss Honohan's comments that begin on page 35 of the packet, he believes it is important for the Committee to keep in mind that currently they have four regular meetings left — October 24; and November 12, 14, and 24. A written report is due to Council by December 1. The Committee also needs to have time to receive public comment on what they have put together in their report. Younker stated that he believes it was the understanding of the Committee that what was affirmatively voted on at the last meeting was in fact to be included in the report. In order to continue with their charges and to complete their report in a timely manner, he believes they need to keep moving. He believes it is not productive to keep going back over each section. Though there may be some changes made Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 10 after public comment is received, Younker stated that at this point they need to continue to move forward. Moving to page 35 of the packet, Honohan noted that first of all he is still hung up on `acceptance' and `approval.' He noted that he took a lot of Younker and Dohrmann's proposal and put this in his proposal. He stated that he did make it more concise, however, which he believes was the goal of the Committee to begin with. He noted that where Younker and Dohrmann's proposal has three pages referring to financials, his entire proposal is only three and a quarter pages. Moving to page 36 of the packet, Honohan noted that one of the things that he believes is important is to indicate to the Council that there are 91 providers of services for seniors, with the City of Coralville having 18. Out of these, 23 are governmental, 30 are for- profit, and 56 are non-profit. In this list, 40 providers do not charge for their services, 36 have fees paid by Medicare and Medicaid, 75 are paid through private pay and private insurance. Financial aid is available with 20 of the agencies. Honohan reiterated how important he believes it is for the Council to get a scope of the governmental and other agencies that are serving in the community. Younker stated that before they go through a point -by -point review of Honohan's proposal, he believes they need to address a threshold issue. He noted that at the last meeting they had lengthy discussions, and votes were taken, and sections of the reports were adopted by the Committee. He stated that if there is additional information that is being proposed, that is one thing. It is another thing to keep going back and reformatting and rewriting what has already been adopted. Honohan again reiterated that he and Younker have a difference in opinion regarding `acceptance' and `approval' of the sections. He stated again that had he known they were adopting the sections when they voted, he would have voted in the negative. Honohan continued, stating that there is nothing inaccurate with the information, but that he feels it is too lengthy for the report. Bern -Klug interjected at this point, asking if once they get public input, will they be able to edit and fine-tune the document at that time. Younker responded that this is the hope, but that they need to remember the timeframe they have for completion. Younker stated that his goal is to have public comment at the November 12 meeting. For this to happen, the Committee will need to distribute a report beforehand. Bern -Klug then asked if it is okay with Honohan that they not edit at this stage, that they await the public input as Younker has outlined. Honohan stated that as long as the public can see his draft and discussion can be had on it. Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe that would be useful, that they need to have one draft document from the Committee. They can then get feedback from the public and make any additional changes at that time. She stated that having two different documents to review would be too confusing. Honohan then stated that with the option that after the public discussion he can make motions to delete, and motions to amend, then he will let it go forward at this point. Younker stated that the Committee will have to have a final vote on the final report, once the remaining sections are drafted and public comments are taken into consideration. Karr suggested that this information could be a header or a footer on the report itself, so that the public realizes that there may be amendments to it. She added that this might be helpful for the public to know this. Honohan then asked for clarification on what they are currently doing and Younker attempted to explain. At this point it was decided they should move forward in the process. Discussion turned to the public input portion and how this will be handled. Bern -Klug asked if they could give the public an idea of the report length, such as 5 or 6 pages total, so they know what is being planned for the final report document. Karr noted that they can certainly do a Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 11 cover memo to the report that would indicate some of these issues, and that the current goal of the Committee is "X" pages. This helps to set some parameters. She added that the Committee needs to decide also what message they want to send with their report. Karr also addressed `attachments,' noting that with some items they have referred to consistently as having attachments that she does not currently have. She noted all attachments should be attached to the draft final report. d. Discussion of Proposed Charge 3 Recommendations: Identify Obstacles — • Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann memo (page 33) • Ad Hoc Member Bern -Klug (page 34) • Ad Hoc Member Honohan (pages 35-39) Younker began the discussion by reviewing Charge 3, noting that on page 40 of their packets, he and Dohrmann have identified proposed obstacles and recommendations. He stated that he would like to review each one separately as they have been doing and then vote. Looking at items #1 and #2, Younker stated that the Committee approved language at their last meeting regarding transportation, specifically transportation -related issues. He then read the language that was discussed and approved at their last meeting. Younker did the same with #2, reviewing for Members the wording that was discussed and approved. He noted that both are less Charge 2 issues and more Charge 3 issues. Obstacle: Transportation. Recommendation: Transportation -related issues — especially in light of the reduced funding to SEATS — are problematic for certain segments of the senior population. The City should assess the transportation -related issues in more detail. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge 2 Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by the Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge 3 Recommendation.] Honohan moved to accept #1 on page 40, Obstacle: Transportation. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Moving to #2, 2. Obstacle: Lack of Diversity. Recommendation: The Committee recognizes that the Center has taken steps to address issues related to diversity (e.g., forming a working committee to focus attention on diversity issues exclusively). The Center Staff, Steering Council, and Commission, however, should adopt a more formal strategy to increase diversity. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge 2 Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by the Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge 3 Recommendation.] Honohan moved to accept #2 on page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Diversity. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming. Recommendation: Certain organizations approached by the Committee identified gaps in services available to seniors. For example, Elder Services identified an increased need for nutrition services (e.g., home delivered and congregate meals), care management, certain home assistance services, and the provision of emergency supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses). Pathways, an adult health center, identified the need to assist those who do not qualify Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 12 for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. City Staff and Center Staff should engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand the gaps in services. The dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Honohan moved to accept #3 on page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming for discussion. Bern -Klug seconded the motion for discussion. Honohan stated that he has some problems with #3. He does not believe the Committee has enough information to make any recommendation regarding gaps in services. He believes this should be addressed in the comprehensive survey, that the seniors in the community should say what the gaps are — not the agencies. He added that agencies tend to be somewhat biased in their approach. Younker asked if Honohan's concerns would be addressed by including results of the surrey and dialogue with constituent groups. Honohan stated that he is strictly taking the position that they need the survey before they can make any comment like this about gaps in services. He added that the Committee does not know what services seniors are lacking. For instance, he added, he has heard from seniors who are concerned about the SEATS issue. However, he does not know what concerns there are with Elder Services or with the VNA or with any of the other agencies. Honohan would like to have the surrey results first before they address anything to do with gaps in services. He added that the Senior Center made this proposal to the Council earlier, but it was turned down at that time. Dohrmann stated that she is hearing two different things here — asking seniors what they identify as gaps in services, and then satisfaction with services. She asked if she was correct in assuming this, adding that she thinks they are both important. Continuing, Dohrmann stated that perhaps this could be another recommendation that they develop. Bern -Klug asked if this would be introducing a new responsibility for the Senior Center staff to start getting involved with non-profit agencies serving older adults. She added that if so, she does not like the idea that this appears out of the scope of Center staff in her opinion. Younker responded that there are several reasons for including Center staff, one being that they are most likely familiar with these agencies that serve the senior population. Another reason is to hopefully spur some dialogue for collaboration between the Center and agencies, where possible. Dohrmann noted that an example of this is the Caregiving Support Group for caregivers affected by dementia. The Senior Center promotes this program and provides space for it. Discussion continued with Honohan stating that he still believes they do not have the necessary information about gaps in services, at least not enough to be able to,make this kind of recommendation. Younker stated that he would disagree as the recommendation does not identify gaps in services, but simply states that a dialogue should be started to better understand the gaps, whatever they might be. Bern -Klug stated that she believes there is a group that meets monthly of service providers of older adults. Dohrmann asked if this is the elderly consortium or something like that. Bern -Klug asked if that group could be part of the identification of gaps in services. Younker stated that he would leave that to the discretion of City staff and Center staff, that again the recommendation is to enter into a dialogue with the appropriate organizations. Bern -Klug stated that perhaps this should be `continue to,' as they are already collaborating in this manner. After some discussion, Members agreed to amend the next to last sentence by adding 'continue to' before 'engage in a dialogue.' 3. Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming. Recommendation: Certain organizations approached by the Committee identified gaps in services available to seniors. For example, Elder Services identified an increased need for nutrition services (e.g., home delivered and congregate meals), care management, certain home assistance services, Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 13 and the provision of emergency supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses). Pathways, an adult health center, identified the need to assist those who do not qualify for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. City Staff and Center Staff should continue to engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand the gaps in services. The dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Honohan refused to entertain this friendly amendment. Dohrmann moved to accept the amended #3, page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming, per discussion. Bern - Klug seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1; Honohan in the negative, Cannon and Dobyns absent. Bern -Klug moved that everything be removed on #3 except the last two sentences, starting with `City staff.' Honohan suggested that in the same sentence they replace `the' with 'any' before 'gaps in services.' Honohan seconded the amended motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. 3. •, hGFne deliveFed and GgRgFegate meals), Gare management, Gertain he -Me asg-istaRGe GeFVi and the provision of eFnergensysplies (e.g., shoes, ' r+ Life mn�iinn oxpeso , � Pathwayr,, an adult health Genter, identified the need to assist for Title 1 Waivw. City Staff and Center Staff should continue to engage in a dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Honohan then removed his original motion. Moving on to page 41, #4, Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve this recommendation. 4. Obstacle: Lack of accessibility to enter The Center. Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing the building (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter). Honohan moved to adopt recommendation #4, Obstacle: Lack of Accessibility to Enter, for discussion. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan stated that he likes the motion, but that he is unclear with the wording. Dohrmann stated that the intent behind this was it is not as easy to access the Center, especially in winter months, but also thinking of those with mobility issues, and how long it takes to cross the street at Linn and Washington — the example is the timing of the crosswalk. There is not enough time for those with mobility issues to cross. Dohrmann noted that when the ice is not cleaned in these areas and is let go, it can be days and weeks where people cannot access the Center due to safety issues. Basically the intent was to reduce probability of falls and see what else can be done to increase the probability of people being able to access the Center safely. Honohan stated that when they talk about the Center here, they are talking about the building. He questioned if this shouldn't be changed. He noted where it states 'The building,' and questioned if this should not be changed to `The Center,' as they are referring to the Senior Center itself. He also questioned if they should add something about bus stops, that at one point that was one of Dohrmann's concerns. He added Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 14 that the bus stop is on the wrong corner, in his opinion. Dorhmann agreed with this. Younker stated that they had language at one time but that it was cut from one of the recommendations. Bern -Klug then read from page 32, # 5, subpart 2, where it alludes to this issue. She suggested they add something here if necessary. Bern -Klug then asked if they could change the heading from 'Lack of to `Barriers to Access the Center.' Webber noted too that the white paint on the crosswalks is another barrier, as it gets slippery in wet weather. Dohrmann clarified the amendments: 'Barriers to access the Center;' on the second line change 'building' to 'Center;' and then add `slippery paint on the crosswalks and public bus stop be added in front of the ADA -accessible entrance on Washington Street.' 4. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center. Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing the Center (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter, slippery paint on the crosswalks, public bus stop be added in front of the ADA -accessible entrance on Washington Street). Honohan agreed to a friendly amendment to his original motion. Webber agreed to his second of the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. 5. Obstacle: Lack of awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs. Recommendations: Increase branding of the use of the words "The Center". Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors. Honohan moved to adopt #5 on page 41, Obstacle: Lack of Awareness of the Inclusivity of the Center Programs. Bern -Klug seconded the Motion. Honohan stated that he would like to delete the first sentence, "Increase branding of the use of the words "The Center." Dohrmann stated that the reason she put this in is because it is inclusive but not recognized just how much the Center is utilized by the community. She stated that there also is a stigma that concerns her where people in the community say, "I'm not a senior!" She stated that use of the Center may make people feel more comfortable. Honohan stated that they have been using the words 'the Center' for 10 to 14 years now. He added that some people do not like this, that they want it to be stated as the 'Senior Center.' Honohan stated that he does not care for the word branding in this instance. Dohrmann stated that it is a marketing term. She believes that the Center does not get the validation it deserves for its multi -generational programming. Bern -Klug suggested adding 'community,' so it would say 'Lack of Community Awareness.' Dohrmann agreed with this change. Honohan accepted a friendly amendment to his original motion. Bern -Klug questioned the word 'inclusivity' here, asking if there was another word they could use that would capture the point here. 5. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs. Recommendations: IRGrease brag iRg of the use of the words "The GeRt ". Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors. Bern -Klug agreed to her second on the friendly amendment. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. 6. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors. The committee was sent a letter requesting consideration of lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors. The committee received reports of affordable Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 15 housing for low-income seniors, and the city appears to be addressing this need. Higher -income housing is available and being further developed. Recommendation: The City explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for middle-income seniors. Dohrmann moved to adopt #6 on page 41, Obstacle: Lack of Downtown Affording Housing for Middle -Income Seniors. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with Dohrmann explaining why she added this, noting that they received a memo on this and that this appears to be an obstacle that affects seniors. Honohan stated that as he understands this paragraph, the lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors is the obstacle here. He stated that he would stop there, as far as the obstacle is concerned. He would delete everything from there down to the recommendation. Honohan also suggested adding 'low- income seniors' here as well. 6. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors. T -14e Higher ince me housing is available and being further deyelnnerl Recommendation: The City explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for low and middle-income seniors. Dohrmann agreed to a friendly amendment. Webber agreed to his second. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. e. Discussion of Remaining Report Sections — Younker then reviewed where they currently are with their report and what sections they will need to complete. An Executive Summary section will be needed; approval of Charge 1 has been made; Charge 2 is being completed; and Charge 3 has been started. The report will also need a Conclusion. Younker reiterated that his goal would be to hold public comment on the draft report on November 12. This would then give them the meeting on November 14 to discuss any necessary revisions. The next meeting would be November 24, where they could adopt the final report. He asked Karr what her recommendations are for posting the draft report for public comment. She noted that there is no rule of thumb here, but that the more time you give the public in which to review and comment, the better off you are. With a November 12 goal in mind, she suggested having the draft report done by November 1, giving the public a few weeks to review the report. She again noted that any attachments or exhibits be included in the draft report, as well, so as to give individuals a complete picture of the report, along with the intended duplication or the intended sections as a unit, as a full body, would be helpful as well. Bern -Klug asked if they need to have the Executive Summary done by November 1, as well. Younker stated that he believes they should have as many sections as possible completed in order to receive comments on them, but that they could review this at the November 12 meeting, as well, after receiving public comment. Younker stated that prior to the upcoming Saturday meeting they need to complete as much as possible. Younker then asked for clarification on the packet for the November 12 meeting. Honohan asked what they plan to do at the October 25 meeting. Younker stated that one thing is to identify all of the exhibits they have talked about so far so that they have this information ready. Also, another question, according to Younker, would be are there any further recommendations that Members want to propose. He asked if anyone had anything to add to Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 16 Charge 2. Members briefly discussed the upcoming Saturday meeting and agenda content and submission times. Karr noted that she will work with Members to meet the necessary timeframes for new agendas, etc. Younker then reviewed what he hopes to achieve at this upcoming meeting. First, identify and review the attachments and exhibits as a Committee. Two, are there other obstacles that Members wish to propose and discuss, and finally are there other recommendations that Members want to propose and discuss. Younker added that they then need to look at Charge #3. They have a template that is set out with some things already approved. Now they need to see how these fit into the template and what drafting is necessary. When the meeting ends on Saturday, Younker would like to have a clear plan on how to post the substantive portions of the report so there is adequate time for review before November 12. Bern -Klug asked how they can have enough time between the meeting on the 12 and the one on the 14th to review the public input and have drafts ready. Younker clarified that they would begin their discussion on the 14th, of what they heard on the 12th, and could move forward from there. Members briefly discussed what they can expect as far as an agenda and minutes when their meetings are so close together, and how they plan to complete the report by the intended time. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: October 25 (Saturday 8:00 A.M.) November 12 (Wednesday 3:30 P.M.) — Public comment meeting November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) Special meetings if needed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA): Mary Gravitt spoke first to the Committee. She asked Fruin if the original charge against the Center was that the frail, elderly weren't being taken care of, and a lack of diversity. He responded that he does not believe that is part of the resolution. She stated that she believes this was Dobyns' grudge against the Center, that it was not diverse and that the frail were not being taken care of. Fruin stated that Dobyns would have to address this, but that it certainly was not part of the Council resolution. Gravitt then spoke about the $10,000 grants that would let these other agencies study about the frail. She stated that to her the charges against the Center keep blowing up and up. Then going to the snow and ice removal on Linn Street, Gravitt noted that the City is using some type of chemical here so that the ice won't form in the first place. She stated that this solution has corn syrup in it, making things even more slippery. She noted that due to the weather in Iowa, temperatures can be such that some of these chemicals don't do any good. Speaking to gaps in services, Gravitt stated that too much time has been spent on this. She believes these agencies can defend themselves. Gravitt then asked what cities the staff compared the Senior Center with in their analysis. She stated that in Iowa there are very few to compare with. Continuing, Gravitt stated that this whole thing has just gotten out of hand and she again questioned what the charges are. She stated that diversity is not an issue with the Center. Younker interrupted Gravitt at this point, noting that her five minutes are about up. Rose Hanson asked Bern -Klug if Adult Daycare and Pathways are the same program. She responded that Pathways is an adult day center. Hanson asked if these are half-day sessions, and Bern -Klug stated that they offer both full and half days. Hanson stated that she has friends at Oaknoll who have sent their spouses for a half day just to get a break, and that they also Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 17 handle the mentally challenged. She then addressed gaps in services, stating that the Senior Center staff should not have to handle those. She stated that she believes they talk enough that they would share if they had a concern. Hanson stated that it sounds to her like they are saying those at the Center are there for their 'huge share of the pie,' when they know there are others they need to share it with. She added that she does not like this opinion. Kathy Mitchell spoke next, thanking Dohrmann and the rest of the Members for putting forward the idea of having a dedicated bus stop and timing the crosswalk for the more frail. Also the snow and ice removal and how to keep ahead of that problem. The idea of grants is another idea that she spoke highly of. Mitchell noted that in last year's budget process they did request an hourly employee who would be doing welfare checks, as well. Being able to go above and beyond just nutrition and exercise would be a wonderful program addition, according to Mitchell. Mary Gravitt returned to the podium, speaking about the fees that the Center charges. She noted that the scholarship fee is only $10 no matter who you are or where you live. She added that it appears to her that issues are going above and beyond what the Committee's charges are. ADJOURNMENT: Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:08 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 22, 2014 Page 18 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -& O j NAME EXP. O cn m O m N w O - N j W 0 00 O w N a O o N ^' N 0 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Honohan Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Richard Webber Ellen 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ O/ O/ Cannon E E E E Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X Dohrmann E Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ Dobyns E Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee IP6 October 25, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE OCTOBER 25, 2014 — 8:00 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug (arrived 8:10), Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair) Members Absent: Ellen Cannon, Rick Dobyns Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): None. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 8:08 A.M. DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS: a. Discussion of Remaining Report Sections Younker thanked Karr for putting the meeting packet together for today's meeting and including the sections that the Committee dealt with and approved at their last meeting. He asked if Members have anything they feel should be a part of this report or anything they would like to bring up for review. Honohan stated that he has a concern about an issue and that it was approved at the last meeting. He referred Members to page 9, under V. Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources. Honohan noted a reference to "a general ADA audit." He would like to remove this and further explained his rationale. He gave Members some history on six handicap parking spaces in the ramp that do not comply with ADA standards and why these spots do not currently conform. Honohan stated that his concern is that if they do an ADA audit, an inspector may come through and say those spaces have to be removed. He added that the Center is in compliance with ADA requirements throughout their building. Honohan moved to remove these words: `a general ADA audit' from the report. Younker stated that the purpose at this time was to look at what was accomplished at the last meeting, basically the highlighted areas. Honohan asked if they could take this issue up later then, if not now. Younker stated that they can footnote Honohan's point and come back to it later. For now he would like to deal with what was accomplished at the last meeting. (The item will be discussed later in the meeting) Bern -Klug then referred Members to page 9, item 8. She stated that she thought they were not going to put anything in the report about the comparison of Iowa City with other cities. Honofan stated that he thought the same, that they had not approved this. Younker stated that, again, they do not have minutes to compare this to. His recollection was that they had extensive discussion on this issue and in fact voted to include #8. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they had decided they would not ask the City to put resources into something they don't believe is broken. Honohan added that he remembers Fruin saying that it would be extremely difficult to do such an analysis, due to the differences in the communities and other senior centers. He Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 2 stated that in one of the conversations, Bern -Klug suggested that they consider an analysis between centers that are accredited. Younker suggested that these were related but slightly separate conversations. The conversation about funding was in response to including Fruin's memo from September where he talked about how Ames and other cities fund non -profits. Then another discussion was about focusing in on senior centers outside of Iowa. Younker continued, stating that #8 reflects what the Committee approved. He added that again they will need to have the minutes from the meeting to see what they show as having passed. Younker asked that they put a hold on this issue until later in the meeting as well. Honohan then moved to page 8, #1, where he thought they had agreed not to include reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents, and that instead they were going to end this sentence at `sources,' as there is already a paragraph in the Senior Center Evaluation about this issue. Younker stated that he recalls this as being Honohan's position, but that Bern -Klug had suggested adding this to #1 instead and that this is the motion that carried. Bern -Klug added that this was in order to delete the separate bullet point about fees. Younker reiterated where they currently are and what he hopes to accomplish today. Though they don't have the minutes from the last meeting, they do have the sections that were passed at the last meeting highlighted in the report. Everything on page 11, for example, was approved at the last meeting. He again reviewed the timeline they are following, noting that the primary goal of today's meeting is to talk about attachments and making sure everyone agrees, and then discussing some of the remaining sections. Attachments: Starting with the report itself, Younker stated that they have identified two attachments — the resolution stating the Committee's charges and the Senior Center Evaluation that the subcommittee prepared. He asked if Members had anything else to add here or if he had missed any attachments or exhibits. The discussion then moved to discussing the Senior Center Evaluation and what it references. Younker stated that the evaluation references the 2013 Annual Report, the accreditation report, the program guide, and the June 2013 survey and accompanying report. He asked that the subcommittee walk them through what these attachments are. Bern -Klug stated that these were reports given to everyone when they joined the committee and that the subcommittee referenced them in their report. Younker stated that he understands this, and that he wanted to be sure that the subcommittee had referenced this material in their report. Bern -Klug stated that she is not exactly clear what the final status of the Senior Center Evaluation is. Younker stated that it was at the October 1 meeting that the full Committee approved the report, subject to one minor amendment. Honohan stated that what they have approved is on pages 2 thru 5 of their current meeting packet. Younker noted that this is the summary of the report, that these are two separate documents. The full report done by the subcommittee will be an attachment to the report that goes to the Council. Bern -Klug stated that what she is actually referring to is not having seen the final outcome of what they have approved. She asked if there is a version of this document that reflects all of the changes that they voted on. Honohan responded that he is pretty sure there was, but that he did not bring all of his documentation today. Karr noted that on September 24 it was moved and seconded to delete one sentence and adopt the second draft as the final draft, and that it was a 5-0 vote. Younker noted that in the September 24 packet, this document begins on page 20, and the sentence that was deleted was on page 21 of that packet. Others agreed that this is where the final draft appears. The discussion continued, with Members noting how this report was thoroughly reviewed and ultimately finalized. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 3 Bern -Klug then spoke to an issue that she had included in one version of the report, where information from the City clearly shows in the Senior Center's membership survey that the minority population is very consistent to Iowa City's data. In other words, the Senior Center does not have a problem with diversity, in terms of being representative of the community. It is very representative — that it is the community that lacks diversity. She noted that in the final report it insinuates that the Senior Center is underrepresented with diversity and that this is not the case. She wants to make sure that the correct demographic information is in the report. The discussion continued, with Honohan and Bern -Klug talking about how they handled this information in the final draft. Honohan explained how he updated each version, using underlining to show the changes each time. Bern -Klug continued to question that the final report will have the information she is referring to in it. Continuing, Younker noted that they have the 2013 Annual Report, which was included in their initial packet. This will be an attachment to the report. Members discussed how they want to lay this out in the report, so that the Council Members can easily understand all of the documents. Honohan asked if they plan to include the summary report from the National Council on Aging, as it is referred to in the report. Members agreed that it would be included, and that this is another report they received in their initial packet. Also referenced is the Senior Center's program guide. Younker noted that what Members received was a Spring 2014 program guide. Karr stated that they could say `current' and that she can then obtain the most current program guide. Members agreed that they would prefer to have the most current one included. Younker noted that the reference is to the mission statement, so they would need to make sure that the page being referenced is the same. Honohan stated that although he prefers current, this makes sense to use the one that they originally referenced (Spring 2014). Members agreed to instead use the Spring 2014 guide that was included in their original packet. Also referenced was the June 2013 Senior Center survey report, which was also included in the original packet of information. Members agreed that this should remain in the attachments. Bern -Klug asked if the letter from the accreditation report is part of the actual report, and if they referred to it or not in the final version that was passed. Honohan agreed, stating that this would be a good idea. Younker reviewed what they had in terms of the accreditation report and a brief discussion ensued. After looking at the accreditation report and what was referenced in their own report, it was noted that the letter was not referenced. Younker stated that the Annual Report refers to the Center's 2010-2015 goals and objectives, and he asked if this is a stand-alone document that they should include. Honohan stated that he does not believe this is a stand -along document, but he deferred to Linda Kopping, staff member, on this item. She noted that it is indeed a stand -along document that is distributed separately. Members agreed that they should include this as an attachment to the Senior Center Evaluation. Discussion then turned to the approved template that begins on page 38 of the September 24 meeting. The initial section with the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee background information has been approved. The Executive Summary section remains to be completed. Charge 1 — the summary evaluation of the Senior Center — has been completed. Charge 2, with the exception of the general findings and conclusion section, which Younker and Dohrmann will prepare for the Committee to review, has otherwise been pretty much completed. Charge 3 — the Committee began to discuss this at the last meeting and there were several obstacles and recommendations that were approved. Conclusion — Younker noted that they still need to complete this section. He then noted that the Executive Summary section and the Conclusion Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 4 section do not necessarily need to be completed when they publish the substantive sections of the report for public comment. However, at the November 12 meeting, Younker stated that he believes they need separate agenda items to discuss the drafts of those sections. After public comment on the substantive sections of the report, the next agenda item would be discussion of the draft of the Executive Summary, for example. Then they could discuss the draft of the Conclusion section. This way the public sees what the Committee anticipates including in these sections. Honohan asked what they are going to put in each of these sections. He asked Younker what it is exactly that they will be reviewing/discussing at that time. Younker explained what would be part of the public discussion. Honohan suggested that it might be easier if they divide this into `Evaluation of the Senior Center' first and get public comment on this, and then the second part would be 'Charge 2,' and then followed by public comment on the third part. Younker agreed that they need to organize the public comment portion of the meeting. He reiterated that they are receiving public comment on is the report that is to be delivered to Council, including all of the attachments. Therefore section 3 would be the report to Council, with 3a being initial sections, 3b being Charge 1, and 3c could be Charge 2. For the Executive Summary, Younker suggested that City staff prepare this. This would include the Charge 1 and Charge 2 information. The Committee can then discuss this draft at the November 12 meeting. Karr noted that she and Fruin can work on this draft. Honohan then returned to how the agenda is going to be laid out for the November 12 meeting. He noted that he would like to see this with A being the Evaluation of the Senior Center, B being be Charge 2, and C would be Charge 3. He believes they need to do this for the public comment portion so that people are not going all over the place with their comments. He wants to keep comments to specifics. Karr agreed that the agenda will have the information laid out in this manner. Bern -Klug stated that she has a question about how the November 12 meeting will run. She asked if the floor will be open to any comment or just comments directed at the presented information. Younker stated that the discussion items will be the various sections of the report. He believes that the members can then comment on the draft they have before them, whether it's agreement of the language used or disagreement and subsequent proposed changes. Dohrmann clarified that public comment would be up to five minutes for each person speaking. Karr stated that when the report is released, staff can include information that makes these issues more clear and that they can even suggest that individuals submit written comments that can be included in the packet, as well. Bern -Klug asked if it is possible to number each line of the report that is released to the public, as this would help people refer more specifically, i.e., page 2, line 38. Members agreed that each page should be numbered. Younker then moved to Charge 2, noting that the remaining section is section 3, the general findings of the needs of the Senior Center. He and Dohrmann will work on draft language for the Committee to then discuss. Dohrmann stated that she has a few suggestions or themes that she believes have come out of the general findings. The first is, based upon the information collected, organizations are currently challenged to meet the needs of seniors with current limited financial resources. Elder Services was given as an example by Dohrmann, and she noted that they struggle to meet the demands for their services. Continuing, Dohrmann stated that another one would be organizations recognize that with the growing population of seniors in the area, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of seniors, especially those of limited financial resources. She noted that various groups mentioned this issue. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 5 Another issue, due to the rise of people diagnosed with different types of dementia and increased life spans, demands for support of services are likely to increase. Younker stated that he wanted to back up a minute — he thinks it's clear that they have not engaged in an exhaustive assessment of the needs of seniors. Therefore, the goal of this section is simply to say that they did receive information from these agencies and here are the broad themes that were heard. The Committee has recommended that the City conduct a more professional survey/assessment of these needs. Younker stated that if the Committee can agree on some of these broad concepts, they may be in a position to agree on some language today. This would then allow them to add this to the draft report that the public will be looking at. Honohan stated that one of the things he suggested on page 10, under Conclusion, is his idea that they point out to the Council what the Livable Communities' report indicated to them. He added that the fact that there are 22 governmental, 30 for-profit, and 56 non-profit agencies indicates that the community, in general, serves seniors well. Younker stated that it may be a good idea to include this idea in Section 3 of Charge 2, as it seems that the Livable Communities' information was part of what they received in their Charge 2 information. Honohan stated that he has no specific place in mind for where this information appears in the report, but that he does believe it is information important to the report. Younker asked Dohrmann what she would suggest adding to Section 3 of Charge 2, from Honohan's page 10 proposals. She responded that though she agrees with what he has stated there, it is also challenging to meet current needs with the limited financial resources. She added that all of these agencies have said they could do much more if there was more funding. She noted that even the Senior Center has voiced this concern. Another theme that she believes they have heard has to do with the continued growth of the senior population and the accompanying challenges to meet these needs. Bern -Klug stated that as she looks through the report, she sees that they have alluded to this issue but they have never presented any data. She believes it would strengthen the report to have some population projections, for example, that the Census Bureau has provided. This would show what is expected in Iowa City and would back up the comments being made here. Younker stated that they can attach a document to this section that identifies those types of statistics. Webber noted that the Top Ten List comes to mind immediately. He noted several different issues that would apply here. Dohrmann noted that in their initial packet they were given some of this data, and that it can be included in the final report. Dohrmann then returned to the issue of recognition of increased diagnosis of people affected by different types of dementia and increased life spans. The demand for supportive services is going to increase. She added that this fits with the same topic, albeit a bit different. Webber asked what source they have on the increased dementia topic. Dohrmann noted that there are several, but that she referenced the Alzheimer's Association as an example. Younker referred back to what Honohan had proposed on page 10 of their packet (under conclusion), stating that perhaps they can fit in the three concepts that Dohrmann identified, thus wrapping up Section 3 of Charge 2. (Honohan, page 10) The Iowa City community in general serves seniors well. In addition to the Senior Center there are ninety senior services providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen. Of these twenty two are governmental, thirty are for profit, and fifty six are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge, in thirty six the fees are paid by medicare and medicaid. Seventy five are paid through private pay and private insurance. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 6 Financial aid is available with twenty agencies.' The Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and implementation. There is high satisfaction with the Center by the participants. He suggested a new second paragraph here. Dohrmann stated that she would propose just slightly different language. Looking at page 10, after'Forty providers do not charge,' Dohrmann suggested '...thirty-six are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services.' Bern -Klug asked Honohan if he would clarify what he means by '90 senior services providers.' She asked if these are agencies that target older adults exclusively, or if they are agencies that provide service to all ages, including older adults. Honohan responded, noting that he has simply taken this information from the report of Johnson County Livable Community, that they do not indicate that the 90 providers are exclusive or inclusive. He noted that when he looked at the list that Cannon provided, much of the 90 senior services providers are live-in centers that charge money, such as Oaknoll, Regency, and Legacy Pointe, for example. He stated that 56 of these are non-profit, and the rest are for-profit. This includes nursing homes, as well. Bern -Klug stated that she is not sure that this information is very useful then, as this is not what their charge entails. She added that they either need to clarify this information for the public or not use it at all. Younker suggested they add a second sentence, after'The Iowa City community in general serves seniors well.' It would read as follows: 'According to the Johnson County Livable Community, there are 90 senior services providers.' He suggested they then add a footnote, indicating that this includes organizations that provide services exclusively to seniors, as well as those that provide services to seniors as part of a broader mission or something to that effect. Honohan suggested they delete the 'in addition' line. Bern -Klug stated that it sounds like the gist of what they want to convey is that 'There are many agencies in Iowa City that target older adults or include older adults in their service provision, and Johnson County Livable Community counts at least 90, including residential services.' By adding this, Bern -Klug stated that the Committee is then not assessing whether people are served well or not because they do not know this, but at least they are inferring that there are a lot of agencies that are aiming to address the needs of older adults, either in part or in full. Dohrmann stated that she agrees with Bern-Klug's suggestions. Others agreed, and asked Bern -Klug to state this again. 'There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults exclusively, or to include older adults in their target population, as enumerated by the Johnson County Livable Communities web site.' Dohrmann stated that from there they could go on to the wording 'Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit.' Members asked Karr if she would then clarify what they have so far for this section. She noted the following: 'There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults exclusively, or to include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson County Livable Community web site.' She stated that they need to have a segue of 90 before this breakdown of the 90 agencies. Bern -Klug continued, noting that with the 90, this includes agencies and residential options (assisted living, nursing homes). Younker tried to clarify this sentence, noting that this is where they need to segue into the 90. Bern -Klug stated that these 90 are not really senior services providers — they are 90 providers. However, she believes this is where they need to clarify including agencies and residential options, such as nursing homes and assisted living. 1 Source Johnson County Livable Community. I think it is important for the council and others who read the report to get and idea of the scope of the governmental and other agencies that serve seniors in the community. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 7 Younker went back to how the sentence is going to be structured. Following '... in the Johnson County Livable Communities' web site. The web site contains 90 agencies, including residential options..." and then continuing from here. Karr asked the Members to again review Honohan's proposed wording on page 10. (Honohan, page 10) The Iowa City community in general serves seniors well. According to the Johnson County Livable Community, there are 90 senior service providers. services providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen. Of these twenty two are governmental, thirty are for profit, and fifty six are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge, thirty six the fees are able to bill y medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy five are paid through private pay and private insurance. Financial aid is available with twenty agencies.2 The Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and implementation. There is high satisfaction with the Center by the participants. Younker asked how the Committee feels about the first sentence. Bern -Klug stated that she does not like the first sentence, as Johnson County Livable Communities did not assess how well seniors are being served. She stated that they are enumerating the availability of organizations. She thinks they need to stick with the main point, which is there are many agencies that can be part of the solution here. Karr then read aloud the first sentence: There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson County Livable Community web site.' Continuing from here, 'The web site includes 90 agencies and residential options (e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living).' She added that Members decided not to break down the 90 agencies as previously stated in the paragraph. Dohrmann stated that she would be okay with the wording, 'Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit.' She asked how others feel about this. Honohan asked about the wording of '40 providers do not charge.' This section would remain, as follows: 'Forty providers do not charge: however, 36 are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services.' The next sentence, 'Seventy-five are paid through private pay and private insurance,' appeared to be agreeable to the Committee. Dohrmann stated that she would propose an amendment to the next sentence. 'Twenty agencies offer financial assistance.' Honohan stated that he could agree with this change. Younker then asked Dohrmann what her suggestions are for the next paragraph. She noted that her idea is to use their general findings here. Her first suggestion would be: 'Non-profit organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with existing limited financial resources.' Continuing, Dohrmann added, 'Based upon the information collected through this process the following themes were identified. #1...' Younker agreed that this could be the start of their second paragraph, and others agreed. The second point would be, 'Organizations recognize that with the growinq population of seniors in the area, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of seniors especially those of limited financial resources,' and then this would need to be followed with an attachment or footnote for the reference to projected population projections that they were given. Bern -Klug stated that there are actually two important points here. It's the growing number of older adults and the growing diversity. She 2 Source Johnson County Livable Community. I think it is important for the council and others who read the report to get and idea of the scope of the governmental and other agencies that serve seniors in the community. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 8 added that people with disabilities will be getting older, and that this is something pretty new in aging. Also, there will be an increase in racial and ethnic diversity. Dohrmann suggested `the growing population of seniors and the diversity of seniors,' with Bern -Klug suggesting 'growing population and growing diversity within that population.' Others agreed with this last statement. Moving on to the third issue, Dohrmann stated, `Due to the rise of people being diagnosed with different types of dementia and increased life spans demands for supportive services are likely to increase.' Honohan stated that he wanted to return to the diversity point for a moment. He added that he believes they are trying to talk about diversity in a broad sense. He asked if they could change this so that the focus is not so narrowed. Bern -Klug suggested `growing diversity in terms of racial, ethnic abilities,' and Dohrmann suggested `physical and mental.' Discussion continued, with Members reviewing how they want to word this section. Karr asked if they want to say `racial, physical, and emotional,' and Dohrmann stated it should be `racial, physical, and mental.' Webber stated that he would want to add `cultural,' as well and Members briefly discussed this. Karr suggested adding a `including but not limited to' here. Karr then reiterated this final portion: `Including but not limited to physical, mental, cultural, and racial.' Younker stated that he would entertain a motion at this point to approve and insert the two paragraphs just discussed into Section 3 of Charge 2. There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson County Livable Community web site. The web site includes 90 agencies and residential options (e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living). Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge; however, 36 are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy-five are paid through private pay and private insurance. Non-profit organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with existing limited financial resources. Based upon the information collected through this process, the following themes were identified. 1. Organizations recognize that with the growing population and growing diversity (including but not limited to physical, mental, cultural, and racial) within that population of seniors in the area, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of seniors, especially those of limited financial resources. (Exhibit # Census) 2. Due to the rise of people diagnosed with different types of dementia and increased life spans, demands for support of services are likely to increase. Honohan moved to approve and insert the two paragraphs. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Honohan then asked about his other proposed amendment. Younker stated that he believes, one, that they have this in the Charge 1 summary, but that it also might be appropriate to include this in their overall conclusion. Younker suggested that if they are going to deal with the conclusion at the November 12 meeting that they table discussion of Honohan's paragraph. He added that he and Dohrmann will then have a draft Conclusion section for the Members to review at the November 12 meeting, and they can incorporate Honohan's information into this. Bern -Klug then brought up an issue with Charge 2. She stated that they have dealt with the first part of Charge 2, which was to make recommendations on the current use of financial and physical resources. The second part goes on to say that these recommendations should Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 9 consider the City's use of resources and the vision, mission, and programming required to more effectively serve the growing senior population. Bern -Klug asked if they want to make any statements regarding a vision or a mission for the City in this regard. Younker stated that first he is trying to get sections completed so they know what will be available for public comment on November 12, and currently they are talking about Charge 3. He suggested they get through this portion first and then they can return to Charge 2 if time allows. Younker then referred to the template for Charge 3, noting that it has three sections. `Population's not accessing City services, potential reasons for lack of access, and recommendations to minimize obstacles.' The recommendations for this section that they have been approving, such as on page 11 of the packet, have taken the format where the obstacle is identified and then the recommendation follows. He asked if they should perhaps collapse those three subsections of Charge 3 and simply say that 'Charge 3 tasks the Committee with,' and then set forth the language of the charge. 'The Committee has identified the following obstacles and recommendations,' and then list these as they have been doing, rather than have three separate sections. Honohan stated that it makes sense to him, and Dohrmann also signaled her approval. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this format for Charge 3. Honohan moved to accept the format as discussed for Charge 3. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Moving to Honohan's proposals on page 10, the Committee considered these two additional obstacles and accompanying recommendations. 1. The Senior Center building being a remodeled Post Office limits what programs and services can be offered. Recommendation: The Center staff and City staff should continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the Center. Honohan moved to adopt the first proposed obstacle and recommendation. Webber seconded the motion. The discussion began with Honohan noting that the building the Senior Center is in limits what programs and services can be offered. His recommendation is that the City staff and Center staff should continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the Center. Honohan added that staff are already doing this on an ongoing basis, as do the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council. Dohrmann stated that she would suggest making a change to the last word — changing 'Center' to 'building.' 1. The Senior Center building being a remodeled Post Office limits what programs and services can be offered. Recommendation: The Center staff and City staff should continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the building. Honohan and Webber agreed to a friendly amendment. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Bern -Klug then stated that she is trying to figure out if there are any unintended consequences of including this in the report. She questioned if this is sending the message that the building is not appropriate. She reminded Members that they have been saying all along that they want to keep the Senior Center in this building, and this might be interpreted to mean there are shortcomings with the building. Dohrmann stated that what crossed her mind is to take out the 'being a remodeled Post Office,' from this obstacle. Bern - Klug asked Honohan if he could explain why this should be included. Honohan responded that one Member of this Committee would like to do things outside of the Center, and that he does not approve of that position. This obstacle was in reference to them wanting to continue to use the Center, but that they want to look at ways to make it better. Younker stated that it appears to him the physical space is what it is and if there are ways to improve its use then that is Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 10 something the staff should consider. Webber stated that the sentence, as it reads, implies that there is something wrong with the building, that it limits what programs and services can be offered. Bern -Klug agreed, stating that she believes this will do exactly what they don't want it to do. Honohan withdrew his motion at this point. Audience member Mary Gutman asked to speak, stating that she believes this proposal would not do any good. She stated that there are no limitations and that it has nothing to do with the fact that the Center is a remodeled Post Office. She agreed that they should remove this paragraph. Younker then stated that he would entertain a motion to approve the second obstacle and recommendation from page 10. 2. Available funding from both Federal and City may decrease for both the Center and the non-profit agencies. Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors. Honohan moved to accept the second proposed obstacle and recommendation. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Younker noted that they now have substantive portions of the report ready for publication to the public and to receive comment at the November 12 meeting. Those sections that are ready are the initial sections, Charge 1, Charge 2, and Charge 3. He stated that they will ask staff to prepare draft language for discussion regarding the Executive Summary, and that they will plan to discuss this at the November 12 meeting. Younker and Dohrmann will prepare the draft language of the Conclusion portion so that this can also be discussed at that meeting. Reviewing the agenda for this meeting, Younker stated that Item 3 will be Public Discussion of the Report, broken down by section, and then Items 4 and 5 will be discussion of the proposed Executive Summary and the proposed Conclusion language. Younker then asked if there were any further recommendations to include in Charge 2. Honohan noted that on page 9 he has a comment regarding the second recommendation. He reiterated the issue of the six parking areas for the disabled that are next to the skywalk that are not ADA -compliant. He noted that at the time they put these in, he checked with Kansas City and they said that these additional spaces could be used as long as the other spaces are all in compliance. He added that this was a verbal agreement that was stated as, 'As long as nobody complains.' First of all, Honohan believes the building to be in complete compliance with ADA. Honohan's concern is that if they have an ADA audit, an inspector could come along and say that the six additional parking spaces are not in compliance and that they would have to be removed. He added that these spaces are heavily used by Center visitors. Bern -Klug noted that this proposal does not say anything about the parking, just the building. Honohan responded that he believes 'increase the accessibility of its building' could easily include the parking too. Discussion continued on this matter, with Members speaking to unintended consequences of an actual audit in this situation. Younker stated that what he was envisioning here is an informal type of review, at the internal level. Honohan stated that to him the language refers to an actual audit. Younker asked what the Committee would like to do, and Bern -Klug stated that she is fine with replacing it to be an informal assessment. 'A general informal assessment of ADA compliance,' was accepted by Members. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to accept this amendment. Honohan moved to accept the amendment to Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 11 #2 on page 9 as discussed. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. Looking at Charge 2 still, Younker asked Bern -Klug to go ahead with her comment on this. She noted that on page 2 when she looks at the charge from the City Council to the Committee, 'B' is the same thing they are calling '2,' and that 'B' includes 'Make recommendations on the financial and physical resources,' but that it also includes weighing in on a 'vision, mission, and programming for the City Council to more effectively serve the growing senior population.' She stated that it's written in such a way that perhaps the Council is not looking for feedback from the Committee. Bern -Klug stated that she would suggest that if they do decide to add some type of 'vision,' that it be about 'full participation of older adults in our community.' If this is seen as the vision, then obstacles and barriers to full participation would be the gauge by which the City decides whether or not to intervene, and then also it would be consistent with the mission of the Senior Center. She asked if others believe they are to be weighing in on some type of vision for the City. Dohrmann stated that throughout this process she has reread this sentence as it is a bit confusing to her, as well. She stated that through some discussion it is implied that this is the inclusion of older adults, as Bern -Klug was referring to. Bern -Klug asked if they should then propose a vision for the City to accept, or if this is not part of their charge. Younker responded that the link in this charge goes back to the City's strategic plan, and that there is language in that plan about increasing participation among different diverse groups among seniors, a full participation -type language. He added that he believes Bern -Klug is right, that they do need to consider this concept as they draft their recommendations. He stated that he believes they have done this in their document, and he asked if Bern -Klug is wanting to highlight this more expressly. She stated that she was. Dohrmann responded that the language Bern -Klug suggested today be used in the final report. Younker agreed, stating that they could do this is several ways, including it in either the Conclusion or the Executive Summary of the report. He asked if Bern -Klug wants to also insert something in Charge 2, and she stated that she does. Bern -Klug addressed this, stating that it really isn't an obstacle, but that it belongs under Charge 2 as it addresses what the Council asked them to address. She would recommend, 'The City discuss a vision of full participation by older adults to the extent that each older adult desires.' Younker asked Karr to clarify this addition, to which she responded. Karr stated that it appears they want this included as a recommendation in response to Charge 2, not in the Conclusion Charge 3. Bern -Klug suggested that Charge 3 be called Obstacles and Recommendations. Karr suggested putting this under the General Findings section that was discussed earlier — Charge 2, Section 3. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion for this addition. Webber moved to accept the addition to Charge 2, Section 3, as discussed. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent. TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: Younker asked Karr when they should post the draft report for the public to see. She responded that if it is okay with the Committee, she will complete the minutes so that they can match up and make sure everything is current with their draft. If all goes as planned, the goal could be November 1. She added that it will be a sizable document with the attachments and will take some time to download. Karr then spoke to the meeting packet for the 12th and when Members want to receive this. The goal would be to have the packet out November 7, giving everyone enough time to review it prior to the 12th. Honohan stated that he has some concerns about the schedule. He noted that they will not have reviewed the additional items before the public input. Younker asked which ones he is talking Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 12 about, and Honohan noted the Conclusion and Executive Summary sections. He asked how the public is going to comment on something that they haven't yet decided what it is as they haven't reviewed it prior to the public meeting. Another concern is that they are talking about having the public input on the draft report at 3:30 P.M. on a Wednesday, and then they are meeting two days later. Honohan stated that he believes they are going to have a lot of public input on the draft report. Due to this, he does not believe that in two days they will have the time to receive this information. Karr noted that it will be like today's meeting — there will be a separate agenda to just review comments received, that there will be no minutes available. Honohan stated that he has problems with the schedule for that reason. Younker stated that as they have discussed, the substantive portions of the report have been discussed by the Committee, have been approved, and will be available for public comment. The draft Executive Summary and the draft Conclusion sections will be available for public comment, as separate agenda items. Honohan stated that the Committee will not have approved them by that time. Younker stated that the goal would be to approve them at the meeting, after public comment on the draft report, and that there could be further public discussion at the November 14 meeting and the November 24 meeting. He noted that these two sections are not, in his opinion, substantive to the report. Honohan stated that he disagrees somewhat as he believes the Executive Summary is going to be very important and that the language in it is basically the sum total of the Committee's deliberations. Younker stated that this is why they will have separate agenda items to receive public comment on the proposed language. As for the timing, Younker agreed that it is a tight turnaround. Honohan stated that he understands the charge, but that he doubts the Council would 'fire' them if they do not meet the December 1 deadline. Younker stated that for now they have a schedule and that he believes they need to stick with it. They can see how the meeting goes on the 12th, and can then take up any issues at the meeting on the 14th. Bern -Klug asked if they might still be making changes at the November 24 meeting. She suggested that changes could always be emailed to everyone, and that way they would still make their deadline. Younker noted that the circulation by email becomes an issue with open meeting rules and regulations, for one. He added that he agrees with Honohan that they may receive quite a bit of comment at the meeting on the 12th. They can then review this on the 14th and have any discussions necessary. Karr spoke to this type of scheduling, noting that boards and commissions often run into this issue when meetings are so close together. She stated that perhaps she could give Members some tpe of summary of sections that were identified by the packet going out the next day, the 13t . She added that she really cannot commit to more than that not knowing the extent of the meeting on the 12th. Bern - Klug asked Honohan if he would like to meet again after the November 24 meeting. He responded that he thought this might be a good idea. He added that he spoke to Karr about scheduling and that it will be next to impossible to schedule anything around the Thanksgiving holiday. Honohan then asked if the drafts of the Executive Summary and the Conclusion could be sent to Karr, who would then send them out to Members. She asked what Honohan is looking for specifically, and he responded that he is looking for the draft language in advance so they have time to study it prior to the meeting. Younker and Karr both reiterated that this is what they are talking about for the November 7 packet — that the draft language for both the Executive Summary and the Conclusion sections will be available for review in that packet. Honohan then asked if the November 12 meeting could be moved to 3:00 P.M. He stated that his concern is the length of the meeting and the fact that some do not like to go home in the dark. Dohrmann stated that she has to work until 3:00 that day. Bern -Klug asked if they could cut the time people have to speak from five minutes to three minutes so that they can allow more people to speak. Members continued to discuss these issues, noting that most people do not use the entire five minutes anyway. Younker stated that they will get to the Public Comment Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 13 section fairly quickly at the November 12 meeting and can begin right away receiving comments. Honohan again asked if the public is going to be commenting on sections that they as a Committee have not approved. Younker responded that it is the same process as all of their other meetings, where they discuss proposed language and if the public wants to comment, they can. Bern -Klug asked if after two hours they could have an official ten-minute break. She stated that she does not want to have to miss what speakers are saying, but that after two hours a break is needed. Others agreed with this sentiment. Karr then reviewed some of the logistics of getting things ready for the meeting on the 12tH November 12 (Wednesday 3:30 P.M.) — Public comment meeting. November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.) Special meetings if needed. PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA): Marilyn Caulkins addressed the Committee, stating that she has a two-part question. First she spoke to the vision statement of the City, noting that Bern -Klug referred to 'older adults' here, and she asked what the definition is of 'older adults.' Secondly, Caulkins stated that throughout the entire report there are a variety of terms used, sometimes 'seniors' and other times `older adults.' She questioned if there doesn't need to be a consistent term throughout the report. Mary Gravitt appeared and referred to page 2,of Resolution 14-37. She noted that in Part A it says certain words and certain topics — The Senior Center and the 2013 Annual Report. She asked if anybody has read the Annual Report, adding that it is very particular. She also asked if Members had read the Senior Center survey results. In Part B, she referred to the City's strategic plan, stating that they change it at every City Council meeting. Referring to Part C, Gravitt spoke to obstacles. She believes they are doing something that is not the Senior Center's responsibility — a report on aging. She believes their concentration should be on the Center itself and what it offers. Gravitt also spoke to the need for a glossary of terms, just like the City Charter has. Continuing, Gravitt spoke to the Senior Center's building, noting that it is a historic building, centrally located, and easily accessed. The only thing missing, according to Gravitt, is a swimming pool and a sauna. As for being ADA complaint, Gravitt stated that the Senior Center building is more in compliance with the ADA than the Public Library is. She spoke to some issues with the Library, noting that it took a long time to get the second floor bathrooms under ADA compliance. Gravitt also spoke to the possible length of the November 12 meeting. Bern -Klug asked if she could comment at this point. She noted that Miss Gravitt brought up a point related to page 11, Obstacle C. She stated that she thought they had discussed this at the last meeting and that this was going to be taken out. She thought they had decided that it was not the Senior Center's responsibility to be identifying gaps in senior services. Younker stated that he remembers this motion carried, and that the idea was not that the Senior Center be responsible for identifying gaps in service, but that this is consistent with their mission to provide optimal aging, and that is why the second sentence was included. The idea is that if there are potential collaborations out there, the Center should look into those. Younker did note that not having the minutes at this particular time does make it difficult to see what the final outcome was. He added that they will need to wait to see what the approved language was. He suggested Bern -Klug save this comment until they have the minutes to check it against. Karr stated that for clarification purposes, this is a draft based on no minutes. When the minutes are Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 14 completed, the report will be changed to match the minutes. The draft that is then posted will match the minutes. Members continued to briefly discuss this issue. ADJOURNMENT: Dohrmann moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 A.M. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent. Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee October 25, 2014 Page 15 Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time TERM o cn 0 cn 0 os 0 M 0 -4 0 -4 0 •i 0 W 0 m 0 W o 0 0 0 NAME EXP. O O N O N W O N O s N N ah 46 40- a. 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Joe Younker Jay 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Honohan Mercedes 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Bern -Klug Hiram 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Richard Webber Ellen 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ O/ O/ O/ Cannon E E E E E Jane 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X O/ X X X X Dohrmann E Rick 12/1/14 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/ O/ Dobyns E E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time 11-06-14 Charter Review Commission IP7 October 28, 2014 Page 1 MINUTES DRAFT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 2014 — 7:45 A.M. HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw, Adam Sullivan (arrived 7:50), Dee Vanderhoef Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers -Stone Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council action): CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M. CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED: a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/14/14— Chappell began the discussion of the October 14 meeting minutes by stating that he noticed on page 2, at the top, second sentence from the end of the first partial paragraph, where Sullivan was speaking. It states `majority' instead of `minority.' Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Shaw seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0, Schantz, Sullivan, and Moyers -Stone absent. REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF: a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell noted that he was in contact with Linda Schreiber again, trying to get more specifics on what they are looking for at their forum. He noted that she thought the format would involve three or four Charter Review Members. He reported that Schreiber stated that in addition to individual introductions, they would like to see a summary of the Charter history and timeline. Chappell continued, noting that typically the League likes for their forum to be `their' forum, which is normal for these types of meetings. He stated that they do need to decide who is going to attend the forum. Members began a discussion on this issue, with Atkins noting that he is okay with the Chair speaking for the group. Chappell noted that whoever attends can speak for themselves as a Member of the Commission. Members weighed in on how they feel about several Members attending such a forum and how they would respond to questions, etc. Chappell noted that he believes the League is trying to get more people involved in the process, and by doing so, it could help this Commission get more public involvement at their next forum. Chappell stated that it is up to the Commission, that he could go as the Chair and speak for the group, or they can decide on several Members attending. Shaw stated that he is not comfortable with three or four Members attending, and he gave an example of someone asking a loaded question and how it would be addressed. Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 2 The discussion continued, with Kubby giving some examples of how having Members respond to questions at a forum such as this is not really much different from the meetings they are holding themselves. Vanderhoef noted that at a forum it is a sound bite — not the full conversation that Members have at their own meetings. Kubby asked if Members have a problem with attending the League's forum. Craig noted that she is not against it, but that she does not think they are far enough along to respond to questions, other than the process they are following. Chappell stated that he would have no hesitation with any of the Members speaking at the forum. He added that attending the League's forum will be good publicity for their own public forums. Chappell then asked Members if they want him, as Chair, to participate in the forum. Everyone agreed that he should. He asked if others are interested in attending, or if now there is a desire that only the Chair attends. Vanderhoef stated that she would be okay either way. Atkins spoke to some of the questions that may be asked at this forum, noting that they will probably be pretty specific. He stated that they need to use caution in responding to such questions. Having said this, he would be okay with three or four Members attending or just the Chair. Sullivan stated that he has every confidence in the Chair attending and responding to questions. Members continued to express their concerns with this type of forum, what type of questions might be asked, and how the questions are deflected by the Chair and/or Members in attendance. Kubby noted that it is not necessarily about deflecting, that it is more about not being definitive. She added that for her the whole purpose of the process is to have people understand all the different elements that come together. Shaw stated that whether or how Members respond at the forum will depend on the format and how the questions are directed. He noted that in a panel setting, it gives them a chance to say what it is they are doing and to note that they have not yet received a final decision, etc. Shaw stated he is okay with the Chair attending and that he would recommend as many Members going as possible. He added that if the format is a panel style, then Members may be a part of that panel and that this is where those comments come into play. Craig reiterated that they can only have 4 attend; otherwise it becomes a meeting. Kubby stated that if they are asking for three or four Members to attend, then it will most likely be a panel type format and the questions will be directed at the panel. Chappell stated that in his opinion, the League's forum is only a positive thing for them to participate in. Karr asked if the forum is expected to be televised. She noted that those Members who do not wish to attend could watch it, if it is indeed televised. That way it would allow everyone to see it and be able to hear the exchanges that take place. Craig again stated that she believes several of the Members should attend the League's forum. She believes it will be a great opportunity for them to get some publicity about the Charter and the process they are undertaking. Chappell asked who would be interested in attending. Vanderhoef stated that she does not have strong feelings either way. Craig noted that the minutes show Schantz, Atkins, and Kubby as having volunteered to attend. Shaw stated that he would be willing to go. Craig stated that she is not available on that day. Kubby stated that if Vanderhoef is going that perhaps they should check with Moyers -Stone, so Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 3 they don't have a former city manager and two former council members attending. Atkins agreed with this sentiment. Chappell suggested they solidify this at their next meeting. b. Compensation — Karr spoke to the requested comparison of salaries. She noted that this is Item 3(b) in the packets. C. Table of Income Guidelines and Definitions — Karr stated that she sent this information to Members earlier and that it is Item 3(c) in the packets. REVIEW CHARTER: a. Compensation of council members — Chappell stated that there appeared to be some consensus that the salaries are too low. He added that there is perhaps a slightly lesser consensus that something needs to be done about it in the Charter and no apparent consensus yet that if something does need to be done just what that would be. Chappell noted that Dilkes had suggested they take a look at how other cities handle this type of compensation, and that this is what Karr has provided for their review. Chappell continued, reviewing the information, stating that Iowa City is low on the compensation scale, but not as low as everyone may have thought. He noted that only one of the other communities addresses council compensation in their charter. Dulek noted that most cities do not have a Home Rule Charter, but instead a 'special charter.' She briefly described what a 'special charter' is, noting that in 1975 they froze their form of government 'as is,' and that there are only a handful of cities that have a Home Rule Charter, like Iowa City does. Kubby noted that as she continues to think about this, she is beginning to like the idea of having something about compensation in the Charter. She believes this removes the process from the people who will find it politically difficult to make this decision — the city council. Kubby stated that she does not want a set number in the Charter, but instead a community standard that changes over time. Sullivan stated that he agrees with Kubby on this issue, and that he would be interested in having some type of mechanism to ensure that the council takes some action item over a prescribed timeline. Members continued to discuss this issue, especially the idea of a formula that could be utilized. Craig noted that currently they are at 12.5% of median income. Chappell noted that the idea was to offset some level of income, for the time that council members are expected to put forth. Chappell stated that he is still not convinced that anything they do will really be enough to encourage underrepresented individuals to try and participate in the city council. Craig stated that she is a bit concerned about this amount, as the money has to come from somewhere every year. Members also discussed there being no monetary compensation, such as the School Board Members. Atkins stated that he is more inclined to say 'set it and forget it.' By this he means that they set in the Charter what the amount is, and that that is what it is. Vanderhoef stated that she thought the compensation was adjusted by CPI. Karr noted that it used to be this way, but that it was amended a few years back. She then gave some history, noting that Council passed an ordinance that tied the compensation to the CPI and had it automatically adjusted in accordance with this, via the budget. Then when the budget tightened some years back, the Council chose to amend this ordinance. She stated the CPI reference was not in Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 4 the Charter, but was a separate ordinance in the code. Karr will provide ordinance language history at the next meeting. Continuing the discussion, Chappell noted that it appears the City is approaching some tight times now, unless the legislature were to make some highly unlikely changes. He believes it would be an awkward and difficult time for the Council to come up with this money. Craig asked if others believe the Council would even accept a recommendation such as this, were the Commission to suggest it. She noted that this may put the current Council in an awkward position in April. Shaw stated that he is not sure that setting a floor for council salary would be a great idea in the Charter itself. He added that he believes individuals do not run for council positions for the salary but for other reasons. He stated that he is not persuaded an increase would encourage more individuals to run. Continuing, Shaw stated that having heard some of the comments about initiative and referendum, changing the mayor/council form of government, and the many strong opinions that people have shared, he questioned this Commission recommending a salary change with all of these other important issues being raised. He stated that something like that could leave a bad taste in people's mouths. Shaw asked how the salary would change for council, if they were to make it part of the Charter. Would it change again in 10 years? Chappell noted earlier discussion of making this a recommended change that they mention in their report to Council, recommending that Council discuss this issue and move forward with it. Chappell stated that it would be interesting to know the impediments to underrepresented persons from running for council seats. He questioned if it is the salary, or if it is due to council meeting every other Tuesday at 5:00. Kubby stated that she believes if they make a recommendation to Council about salary regarding their current ordinance that nothing will happen. She believes instead that the Commission's recommendation should state what they believe is best for the Charter, and then Council will accept or reject or put on the ballot what they want. Speaking to the other cities, Shaw questioned what they would be using as comparables in this situation. He believes they would need to set parameters. Sullivan spoke to this issue as well, stating that he believes using median income is a better way to go. Members continued to discuss this issue, looking especially at other cities within Iowa that they could compare Iowa City to in this regard. Craig stated she is not interested in doubling the Council's salary. She stated that there has to be a better way, especially when you look at how the School Board has such a diverse pool of candidates. Atkins noted that there also is an ebb and flow within the community in politics, and that 10 to 12 years ago, no one ran for School Board. Vanderhoef added that for the council elections, there used to always be a primary for the at -large seats, that they would have up to nine running for at -large. Both she and Atkins voiced that this is just part of that ebb and flow. Vanderhoef noted that when she joined the Council, they received $5,000 and the mayor was always given $1,000 more. When the CPI was added, she noted that it raised these amounts, since 2008, from the $5,000 she saw to the $7,000 they receive currently. Karr noted that during each budget cycle, the council does review each line item and that this would most likely be the time they would discuss the issue of council compensation. Chappell noted Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 5 that they don't appear to be anywhere near a consensus at this time regarding this issue, and that perhaps this will be one of the community discussion topics. Atkins added that he wants to believe that people run for city council because they believe they can make a difference, and that CPIs and items like this being incorporated into the Charter, would make him very uncomfortable. b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell moved on to the issue of the words `citizen' and "person.' He noted that they have another memo from Karr regarding this topic. The discussion began with `citizen,' most notably in Section 5, Citizens Police Review Board. Craig stated that something to talk with this board about would be if their view is that it is for 'citizens' only. Karr noted that the renaming of the Citizens Police Review Board was an ordinance change based upon a recommendation from the City's Diversity Committee. She explained that you do not have to be a citizen to file a complaint. Kubby stated that they could leave `citizen' in this section and still change `citizen' to `resident' in the other sections. Kubby stated that Dilkes really clarified for them that the legal definition of `citizen' does not mean you have to be a legal resident or a registered person, but that it's really about perception and being as welcoming as possible due to the connotation of this word. Craig noted that it is not in their Definitions section either and should be. Continuing the discussion, Vanderhoef noted that when the original Charter was written, Iowa City was not nearly as diverse as it is now, and there were very few non -U.S. citizens at that time. The ones that were here were primarily students at the University for just a few years. She believes that now they need the distinction of `resident' and `citizen' in that there are a number of individuals in the community that are not legal residents of the United States, and the City needs to be able to serve them, in the broader scope, if they have a problem within the community. Chappell stated that he is all for removing offense language to the extent that `citizen' is going to be interpreted by some as being underinclusive or offensive. He is agreeable to changing `citizen' to something else, but that once they start defining things, you have to be very careful. He added that every definition has any number of reactions to it. He stated that if they do change it from 'citizen,' his first reaction is to change it to `resident.' However, if they define `resident,' he believes it just gets more complicated. He asked how you would then define `resident,' and if this would include 'persons' as they have already discussed the fact that 'persons' includes corporations, which other people do not like. Chappell stated that sometimes you just have to be able to say that people know what something means. Kubby agreed, stating that it would not have to be defined, that it is not defined currently. The majority of Members agreed that `resident' is the preferable term here. Chappell asked if there was a consensus of Members wanting to change `citizen.' Vanderhoef stated that she does not understand the connotation of why `citizen' is not a good term. Kubby stated that it connotes citizenship, a legal status. Vanderhoef stated that if you have that status, then a resident is merely someone who physically resides in a city. She believes that this is the most appropriate term. She believes they should leave `citizen' and use 'resident' only where it is in the protection of all the residents, but not necessarily given the rights of a citizen. Kubby stated that in looking through the document and seeing where the word 'citizen' is, it seems to appear that changing it to `resident' does not cause any problems, except for the Citizens Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 6 Police Review Board, which they already talked about leaving as is in that section. C. Preamble and definitions — Sullivan noted that it appears in three places, one in the Preamble where it is talking about the CPRB and then again when it says 'citizens can apply for boards and commissions.' He noted that they had discussed adopting a different Preamble, that Schantz had come up with something they are going to discuss at a future meeting. He noted that due to the wording in this reworded Preamble, it may remove many of their questions. Shaw stated that he believes it was given to them in the last few weeks — Schantz's Preamble. He asked if they could look at it quickly to see if some of their issues were indeed addressed here. Members then looked at the August 26 packet and reviewed Schantz's rewritten Preamble. Chappell asked Craig to read this aloud for Members. Kubby stated that she made a note that regarding the addition of `...and local ordinances' in the second to last bullet. Chappell stated that they really have not had much discussion about Schantz's rewritten Preamble at this point. Craig stated that Schantz did remove all uses of the word `citizen' in the Preamble. It was noted that the use of `persons' was also removed. Vanderhoef noted that the use of `resident' here is how she would think of it being used. Kubby stated that she believes Schantz's version is missing a critical point, the benefits of Home Rule, and she believes this needs to be mentioned in the Preamble. She believes it to be such a fundamental piece of who Iowa City is and how the city government is structured. Vanderhoef agreed, noting that she also made notes to that effect. Chappell stated that it sounds to him like they are heading to some consensus on 'resident,' but that they still have the question of whether they make a change to the initial Preamble, or they look at a different Preamble. He stated that he would like to wait until the next meeting so Schantz could be a part of it. He asked that they turn to use of the word 'person' in the Charter. Kubby noted that there is some difference in how the word is used, such as in the Preamble. Vanderhoef stated that if they are looking at `person' versus `citizen,' they can look at Schantz's proposal and the first bullet states 'resident participation on inclusive basis and democratic self-government.' She added that this is one of the few place where she would use the word 'citizen.' Chappell stated that at this point, however, they are looking at 'person' and whether or not to change something about the definition of the word `person,' and whether it would cause any problems by doing so. Members continued their discussion, with Kubby speaking to corporations being `people' and how they can articulate their distaste within the community that corporations are defined as people by the Supreme Court. This would be a semantic way of doing so. Chappell asked if anyone believes they need to change the definition of `person.' Kubby stated that she does not like corporations being defined as `people' in the Charter. She added that she will not block consensus on this issue, nor will she support it. Chappell asked if she has a change to propose on this issue. Kubby noted that she believes they should take 'corporation' out of the definition, and then in the sections where they Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 7 want corporations to be restricted, then they add the word `corporation.' Sullivan asked how you would then deal with companies, associations, and political parties then. Kubby stated that the only place it really appears to be a problem is the section about Campaign Contributions. Craig stated that they would also want corporations, small businesses or whatever size businesses in their community to be protected. Kubby stated that they could do another search, looking for the word `person' to see how many might need to be replaced. Craig stated that she made notes on this very thing as she went through the Charter. Shaw stated that he is not suggesting they create a definition for 'corporations,' but that they could remove from the definition of `persons,' words such as corporations, partnerships, etc. and refer to Dilkes' comments about the Iowa Statute 490 or some other provision that defines it. Sullivan stated that he does not find the use of the word 'persons' to be an issue here. Chappell asked Kubby to propose some language for them to review and discuss at the next meeting, especially with the missing Members present to join in. Kubby then asked about who can sign a petition, she noted that it says 'each person signing shall provide certain information.' She gave the example of the president of an S Corporation, asking if a person could sign for the corporation and as an individual. Discussion ensued, with Chappell noting that a corporation cannot vote, that in those situations it is obvious. d. Primary vs. Run-off election — Chappell stated that after looking at all of the information they received, there appears to be no consensus to make a change from 'primary' to 'run-off.' He asked if Members agreed, and the majority did. e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — No discussion PUBLIC COMMENT: None. TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specif/ea): November 10 — Chappell reminded Members of their special Monday meeting. He stated that he would try to send a reminder over the weekend, and Karr added that the packet should be going out no later than Friday, November 7. At the next meeting, Chappell would like to finalize who is attending the League's forum. Chappell asked Members to email him any issues of high interest. Karr stated that as soon as they can pinpoint their next forum, it will help in ensuring they are able to reserve the proper room. Chappell asked that they add this topic to the next agenda. November 25 December 9 December 23 (Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015) ADJOURNMENT: Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion carried 7-0, Schantz and Moyers -Stone absent. Charter Review Commission October 28, 2014 Page 8 Charter Review Commission ATTENDANCE RECORD 2014 Key. 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 O j j -& CT1 fJf a) M V co W to CO co O O NAME EXP. O oo -�-� W N -4 O N -N N N N N a) O m N W W O as N oo s O P ah as � .p 4�- A. .p a. -N A .p p 4/1/15 X X O/ X X X X X X X X X X Steve E Atkins Andy 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Chappell Karrie 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Craig Karen 4/1/15 O X X X X X X X X X X X X Kubby Mark 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X O/ X O/ Schantz E E E Melvin 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Shaw Anna 4/1/15 X X X X X X O/ X X X X X O/ Moyers E E Stone Adam 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X X X Sullivan Dee 4/1/15 X X X X X X X X X X X O/ X Vanderhoef E Key. X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused NM = No meeting --- = Not a Member at this time MINUTES PRELIMINARY PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE THURSDAY, July 17, 2014 HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL Members present: John Engelbrecht, Mike Moran, Tam Bryk, Rick Fosse, and Brent Westphal Not present: Staff Present: Public Present: CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 3:33pm. Elizabeth Pusack, and Bill Nusser Marcia Bollinger None PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA No new business. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 1ST, 2014 MEETING MOTION: Moran moved to approve the June 5th, 2014 meeting. Westphal seconded. Motion passed 5:0. DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE ART PROJECT UPDATE Engelbrecht introduced Geoff Fruin to speak about the Downtown Streetscape Art Project. He discussed that the focus has recently been on the signature art piece that would go on the Pedestrian Mall. He explained that there has been conversation with the subcommittee consisting of John Engelbrecht, Brent Westphal, and Bill Nusser as to what route to take in selecting an artist for this location. Fruin stated that he would like to get feedback from the Public Art Advisory Commission as a whole on the process. He stated that there are currently two paths which have been identified: 1. essentially hand pick an artist that is nationally or internationally known or 2. release a traditional Call for Qualifications. Fruin then passed out packets which contained examples of what could be done in the downtown area with the streetscape plan. Fruin explained the multitude of Public Art opportunities that will hopefully be made available through this Master Plan. He stated that the first opportunity is the major piece intended for Black Hawk Mini Park. Selecting an artist now would be timely so they can then work closely with the design team to ensure that the art piece and the ped mail designs flow together. Fosse shared what the process had been for the Weatherdance Fountain piece when it was commissioned. Members then discussed the different aspects of each path. Moran asked if they knew of any artists who could handle a piece of the magnitude. Bryk stated that she thought the process should be focused on the state of Iowa. She stated that there would be push back if an internationally known artist was handpicked and Iowa artists were not looked at. Engelbrecht made that point that the conversation could change if a partnership with the University of Iowa Art Museum was established. The City could provide the space and the University could bring the artists. Fruin stated that a partnership has not been formalized as to the ownership structure. He stated that it had always been envisioned that the city would own the piece. Fruin then suggested that collaboration should occur and that Iowa artists should be identified. Fruin stated that he would like to see an artist on board by August so that they can start working with the design team for the ped mall. Engelbrecht then asked if the next step is for the commission to identify names of artists. Fruin agreed that that would be the next step and also that he would contact the University of Iowa Art Museum to solicit names as well. BENCHMARKS PROJECT UPDATE Engelbrecht stated that this project was mostly complete. He made the committee aware that the benches are now open for a public vote for their favorite ones. In addition, Engelbrecht stated that he was unsure of what the future of this program would be since the University of Iowa Credit Union will no longer be funding it. KIDZ TENT UPDATE Bollinger made the group aware that this year the Kidz Tent saw record breaking numbers with about $480 made. Bollinger then thanked the committee for all of their help and support. IOWA SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROJECT Bollinger introduced Nick Benson from the Sustainable Communities Project through the University of Iowa. Benson explained a little bit about the Iowa Sustainable Communities Project and that there are a number of projects happening in Iowa City this year. One is a public art project in which students will be working with faculty to complete a project in Iowa City. Last year, the public art portion of this project occurred in Washington, Iowa in which a mural was painted. Benson stated that they were at the very beginning phases of identifying a project for Iowa City, and he passed out a basic project concept. The project would entail students and faculty working in the neighborhoods of Iowa City and would learn about their history and any stories neighbors wanted to tell. This would be either recorded voices or videotaped, and would become smaller public art projects within the neighborhood. Then these smaller neighborhood projects would culminate into a larger piece for Downtown. MURAL PROJECT 2014- MERCER PARK LOCATION The Committee then moved to selecting an artist for the Mercer Park mural location. The original artists selected decided not to participate in the project. Bollinger and the committee then ran through all of the potential proposals for this location. After discussion the Committee decided on Jesa Townsend's second version as their first choice and Mike Stenerson as the second choice. Engelbrecht made a motion and Fosse seconded. MOTION: Engelbrecht moved that: 1) Jesa Townsend's second proposal be selected for the Mercer Park location and that 2) Mike Stenerson would be selected in the event that Jesa Townsend would be unable to do the Mercer Park location. Fosse seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0. FY15 PUBLIC ART FUNDING —PROCESS ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND THE YOTOPIA MURAL PROJECT Engelbrecht then welcomed and introduced Veronica and Megan to the committee meeting. Veronica, the owner of Yotopia, presented the proposed mural and what she would like to see for her business on the ped mall. She then introduced Megan who is the artist of the proposed mural. Fosse stated that something needs to happen with this location as it is commonly targeted for graffiti. The Committee stated that they liked the proposal for the wall. The Committee then expressed concerns about the two additional helpers that Megan would need to help her complete the mural on time. Megan stated that she did not have any specific artists to help her in mind. Engelbrecht stated that he knew of a couple artists that would be good helpers. Megan and the committee agreed that they would be ideal. The committee collectively agreed that there was a larger concern with funding overall. Westphal asked what the committee had for a budget for FY15. Bollinger stated that for FY15 the committee has been allocated $12,000. The committee agreed that they would be more comfortable with a price match as opposed to funding the whole project. Bryk stated that she was comfortable with funding $2,000 of the project. Fosse suggested that the funds could cover 30% of the costs not to exceed $2,000. The committee agreed that they all felt comfortable with that amount. The committee the suggested that Veronica starts fundraising in the store and on the ped mall to pay for the rest of the project. MOTION: Fosse moved that the committee commit to funding 30% of the project not to exceed $2,000 Bryk seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0. Engelbrecht then moved that the committee finish discussing allocation of FY15 funding at the next meeting. Bryk seconded the motion. OTHER ADJOURNMENT Fosse motioned and Westphal seconded a motion to adjourn at 5:02 PM. Minutes created by Ashley Zitzner. r O N M r 0 N .O N ` X E W N E N N -0-0 O aQaz r tixxx00xx r LOxxo0xxx �-0xxx0Wx 0 0 LO ooxxxxxx r 0oxx0xxx co 0 o xxo ° i xo LU N co Lo oxxo x N r N (0LOtitiLO c r r r r r L r 0 r Co r 0 r 0 r 0 X r r r r r W CD C) 0 C) C) E t +s+ d ci NCL 5 _ O IWO v O = L E 'p N Ga N N N O Z mW�Zali2 .O N ` X E W N E N N -0-0 O aQaz