HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-24-2014 Ad Hoc Senior Services CommitteeAD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA
Monday, November 24, 2014, 3:30 PM
Harvat Hall / City Hall
410 East Washington Street
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. APPROVE MINUTES OF 11/12 AND11/14
3. ACTION ON REPORT TO COUNCIL
4. ADJOURNMENT
PAGE 2
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 12, 2014-3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Michelle Buhman< Geoff Fruin
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action :
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:30 P.M.
a. Minutes of the meeting on 10/22/14
b. Minutes of the meeting on 10/25/14
Honohan moved to accept the Consent Calendar as presented. Dobyns seconded the
motion. The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent.
Before moving to public comment, Karr stated that Cannon would be unable to attend this
evening, and has notified her that she will be resigning from the Committee due to health
reasons. Cannon did pass along that she has enjoyed working on the Committee with everyone
and that she is sorry she is unable to continue. Younker stated that he understands her position
and thanked Cannon for her input in the process.
PUBLIC INPUT ON DRAFT REPORT:
Younker then explained how the evening's agenda will proceed, noting that they have broken
down the topics and have shown corresponding page numbers from the meeting packet. He
asked that those wishing to speak limit their comments to the section they are talking about at
that particular time.
a. Initial Sections (pgs 36-37) — Younker began with the initial sections, asking if
anyone wished to address these. He responded to general questions from the audience
regarding page numbers. No one spoke regarding these sections.
b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 38-40) — Younker noted that this
section is on pages 3 — 5 of the draft report. Bob Welsh addressed Members, stating
that the one question he has is in regards to the three models for senior centers that he
presented on June 23, where he recommended one that he felt was the most practical.
Looking over the minutes and draft report, he questioned if there was any discussion or
PAGE 3
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 2
consideration of his suggestions. Younker stated that the Committee did receive
Welsh's material and he noted that what they are currently addressing is Charge 1 —
Evaluation of the Senior Center and that he would like to limit comments to the report.
Younker asked if he is asking why his suggestions are not in Charge 1. Welsh
responded, stating that he is questioning if any consideration was given to his
suggestion. He noted that he did not see any discussion regarding it in the minutes, only
acceptance of his report by the Committee. Younker reiterated that the Committee did
receive these comments and did consider them as they put the report together.
Kathy Mitchell, a Member of the Senior Center Commission and the Steering Council,
spoke next. Her first recommendation is on page 5 of the draft report and pages 112-
117 on the handout. She noted that under 'participant fees,' she is recommending that
they add 'Senior Center staff, Commission, and Steering Council' to this. She added
that these three groups can work together to address this issue. Continuing, Mitchell
stated that another possibility is to take B with participant fees and combine it with C,
pages 129 —131, regarding evaluating membership fees so that the two would be
reviewed together. Younker asked for clarification of Mitchell's comments, noting that
her first comment was in regards to page 40 of the packet, page 5 of the report, line 114.
She responded that what she is suggesting is taking the C bullet point and combining it
with B. In other words that they would evaluate membership fees and all participant fees
thereof. Karr stated that for the Members knowledge, Mitchell did provide a late handout
this evening regarding her comments. Honohan responded to Mitchell's suggestions,
asking if they were to eliminate the one from line 114 to 117 and combine parts of it with
the 129 — 131 if that would satisfy her concerns. Mitchell stated that this may be a
possibility, that the difference is you would only have it focused on in one section.
Younker then asked Mitchell to continue with her page 5 suggestions. She next
reviewed pages 119 — 121 and 125 —127. Mitchell's suggestion is to remove any
definition regarding diversity and replace it with 'current level of diversity.' She explained
that the Senior Center already has diversity, and that they wish to expand what they
have. She believes this should be consistent throughout the report.
Next, Harry Olmstead commented that he noticed the report does not speak to persons
with disabilities and that it should.
C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 41-45) — Mary Gravitt
addressed the Committee regarding Charge 2, page 7. She spoke to the services that
are supposed to be serving senior citizens. She stated that they do not know exactly
what services these agencies provide, that they only have their word on what it is they
provide. She noted that they did not get client input on the services and whether they
are sufficient. Gravitt noted that Elder Services, for example, is no longer serving
Sunday meals at the Senior Center, and as of the 22nd they are also stopping Saturday
meals. She stated that most of the agencies listed have nothing to do with the Senior
Center itself. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Gravitt's comments, asking what
she means when she says they are 'mixing them in with us.' Gravitt responded that the
Ad Hoc Committee is supposed to be about the Senior Center and the senior citizens of
the community. She explained that, for example, most seniors have Medicare and
therefore cannot use the services of the Free Medical Clinic. The VNA, on the other
hand, does serve the population at the Center and even has an office in the building.
SEATS serves those seniors who can afford the services, according to Gravitt.
Continuing, Gravitt noted that many of the agencies listed serve other populations, not
PAGE 4
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 3
seniors. Bern -Klug stated that when Gravitt says 'we,' she could mean senior citizens or
the Senior Center, and that while there may be an overlap, they are not the same thing.
Gravitt agreed they are not the same thing, but that the Senior Center is basically there
to serve seniors, not other populations. She reiterated what she had previously said,
that she feels this report has gone too far. It is bloated and goes beyond what this Ad
Hoc Committee was charged with, in her opinion. Bern -Klug stated that the charge to
the Committee was beyond just the Senior Center and that the second charge was to
look at the needs of the senior population, not just at the Center itself. Gravitt asked if
the Committee is following the strategic plan as they have made their review. She
stated that if they are not following the strategic plan, they are going to get lost. Younker
asked that they try to stay on topic, suggesting that Gravitt make further comments later
in the agenda.
Larry Rogers, a resident of Ecumenical Towers, referred to page 6 of the draft report,
line item 237. He stated that he is concerned that they are talking about different types
of dementia, increased life spans, and demand for supportive services all together.
Rogers spoke to some studies on aging, noting that many people are surprised at how
long they live. When it comes to dementia issues, he believes the Senior Center should
not handle these, that dementia should be handled by people who are trained in the
mental field. He questioned why dementia has been put into consideration in this
section.
Harry Olmstead stated that he is concerned that the Committee overlooked the Johnson
County Task Force on Aging, that it is not referenced in this section. He asked that the
Committee attempt to get some information from them.
Kathy Mitchell spoke to pages 6 and 9 on the draft report, pages 232 — 244. On #1, the
suggestion is that everything up through the word 'area' be dropped. It would then read
'it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly
diverse senior population. This is especially true for those of limited financial resources.'
On #2, the suggestion is to completely redo this. The suggested would read 'Demand
for programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence, and prevent
or delay the onset of chronic diseases, are likely to increase.' #2 would then become #3.
#3 would become #4. Mitchell then stated that #4 currently appears to be incomplete
and she questioned if something needs to be added. If not, she asked that #4 be
removed.
Ed Flarrety spoke next to page 7, lines 176 —163. He questioned if the word 'will' on
176 and 162 shouldn't be changed to 'may.' He stated that he would refer to the
consistency, skipping ahead to line 240 where it says 'may.' Flarrety added that they do
not know what the State will do as far as its kickback to cities to even out the property
tax decreases, and they also do not know what the political climate in Washington, D.C.
will be.
Ina Lowenberg addressed the Committee, beginning with Section IV, lines 251 — 253.
'The Committee is recommending the reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City
residents.' She pointed out that non -Iowa City residents have paid higher fees
previously, and that they will undoubtedly continue to do so. She added that the
recommendation of reconsidering the fee structure is not only for non -Iowa City
residents, but also for all members of the Senior Center. Moving to Section 2, lines 255
PAGE 5
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 4
— 256, 'Generating revenue through the rental of meeting and gathering space.'
Lowenberg stated that this sounds very hopeful, but that it would require staff. She
stated that there would not be an option to add staff time to make this possible, and that
it may also require redoing these spaces to make them attractive for rent. Jumping to
Section 4, lines 265 — 266, she noted that trying to increase the funding received from
Johnson County is a noble goal, but that people have been trying to do this for some
time. Lowenberg stated that by doing this it appears that they are taking the onus off the
City, and the City is really the main supporter of the Center, as she believes it should be.
Larry Rogers addressed Section IV, #8, lines 284 — 286, 'To aid these seniors...' He
asked what seniors they are referring to. 'The Committee proposes that the City Council
initiate a program... full participation awards for the next three years of four grants, of
$10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these
seniors.' He stated that he thought they did not have extra money to be using for things
like this. He is instead proposing that the City give tax incentives to businesses serving
the citizens of Iowa City, and tax incentives to developers who build low-income housing,
senior housing, and medical facilities that provide care for senior citizens. Rogers stated
that he believes these are the types of incentives the City needs to provide, not grants of
the nature described.
Kathy Mitchell returned to the podium to address page 9, Section IV, lines 268 — 271.
She noted that the Center currently does what this charge says, with the SHIPP
program, the VNA, income tax help, both personal and legal counseling, holistic health,
and senior college. There are also programs done in partnership with the University of
Iowa, Kirkwood Community College, and the area city business community.
d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 45-47) — Ina Lowenberg began by
addressing C, Lack of Available Programming, lines 318 — 322. She stated that she
does not understand what the content is of this obstacle. She added that there is a 72 -
page program guide currently available, that programs keep increasing every term, and
she questioned which organizations would be involved in identifying gaps in service, that
could without additional staff, be offered at the Senior Center. She added that she would
like to have some information on this issue. Honohan then asked for a clarification of the
line numbers being referred to.
Kathy Mitchell spoke to B, page 312, and obstacle C, page 318 — 322, and obstacle E,
pages 329 — 331. She stated that she is recommending that in all three of these the
words 'lack of be removed. She added that the reasoning is that the wording gives the
impression that the Center is not doing these things, when indeed they are doing them.
Regarding obstacle C on page 318 — 322, Mitchell stated that they are questioning who
'City staff' is, since Senior Center staff is City staff. The question, again, is who is the
City staff that would be part of this. Also, the Center already collaborates with the
Johnson County Livable Community, and the Task Force on Aging; therefore,
collaborations are already in place. On obstacle E, lack of community awareness,
Mitchell stated that the Center has promoted multigenerational activities and
programming through its program guide, through its commercials, and through its
community outreach program — the Ambassador Program — as well as participation with
students from the University of Iowa and Kirkwood Community College.
PAGE 6
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 5
Harry Olmstead spoke to A, Transportation. He stated that they need to find out what
the impact of doing away with reduced fares is going to have on seniors, and particularly
on the Center, as many of the members take the SEATS bus to get there. He added
that he is afraid there will be a reduction in attendance at the Center due to this increase.
Larry Rogers spoke to lines 333 — 334, Affordable Housing, stating that he hates to be
quoting a rumor since he does not have the facts to back it up, but he heard from a
neighbor that a couple of the low-income senior citizen centers, handicap centers, in the
downtown area are now being used by students of the University. Rogers stated that his
question is, is the City currently monitoring what space is available, and who is using it.
He recommended that the City check into this issue, if indeed there is truth to this rumor.
e. Exhibits:
A — Res. 14-37 (pgs 48-51) — Larry Rogers spoke to Members, stating that he is
interested in the fourth 'whereas.' 'It's important for City services to recognize
and adapt to the changing demographics and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City
residents in order to ensure that municipal services are best meeting the needs
of the population.' He spoke to the moving of the Post Office out of the
downtown area. He noted that you want your services centered in the town and
he gave several examples of why this should be, noting that the Senior Center is
located in the center of town.
Younker reiterated that this section is for the public to comment on whether they
think these exhibits should be included in the final report. Otherwise if there are
comments in general about documents in the report, he noted that during agenda
Item 7, Public Discussion, would probably be the best time to discuss these.
B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 52-68) — Mary Gravitt stated that to her it
appears that things are designed to confuse them. She spoke to what the
Committee has been charged with, asking about the strategic plan. Gravitt noted
that most of the time she has no idea what the Committee is talking about.
C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 69-74) — Honohan stated that this section
is going to need some cleaning up, that it was basically his draft. Younker noted
that as he previously noted, they will go through and make sure punctuation
marks are correct and that formatting is consistent.
Bob Welsh spoke to the statement 'is the central resource,' asking if this can be
phrased to recognize the real contribution of the various agencies. Honohan
responded that this is something that is in error. The last draft that was approved
by the Committee was changed to read 'is the primary central resource.' He
apologized for not catching this error. Welsh asked if 'primary' is the correct term
here in relation to other agencies. He stated that he is thinking specifically of
Elder Services and the wide range of services that they offer. Younker added
that they did have extensive discussion about use of the word 'primary' and
'central resource,' and that they will be sure that the final report has the approved
wording.
Larry Rogers then spoke to the survey that the Center carried out, noting that it
was sent out to all of the people who receive the monthly guide, removing those
who were outside of Johnson County and those who were businesses. He
added that he did not find any breakdown of those other people, within Johnson
PAGE 7
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 6
County, indicating how many of them were from Iowa City, how many from
Coralville, etc.
Beth Clompton stated that the matter of 'central' and 'primary'came up several
meetings ago, and that she believes the word 'unique' should be used here. She
believes the Senior Center is a unique resource for quality programs and
services and should be labeled as such. She added that this is what makes the
Center so valuable.
D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 75-81) — Mary Gravitt asked what is
meant by the word 'physical.' Younker asked where she is exactly in Exhibit D.
Gravitt responded that she is on 3, where it talks about Charge 2 — physical and
financial resources. Karr attempted to clarify which document Gravitt was
referring to. Gravitt stated that she is looking at the agenda. Younker noted that
he thinks Gravitt is looking at the item they just finished. He asked if she could
hold her comments until they reach the final public comment section.
E - National Council on Aging (pgs 82-83) — No comments.
F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 84-92) — No comments.
G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 93-178) — An audience member stated
that this is incorrect, that the program guide begins on page 95. Younker noted
that this is correct, that the other pages are a Senior Center brochure that was
not part of the program guide itself. Karr encouraged people to come to the
microphone when making comments, as they are not heard otherwise.
H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 179-184) — No comments.
I — Census (pgs 185-187) — No comments.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items):
At this point in the meeting, Younker asked Gravitt if she wanted to discuss Charge 2 again.
Gravitt stated that what she wants to know is the legal definition of the word 'physical' in this
instance. She noted that on page 10 it says they are recommending to maintain the current
location for the Center. Younker responded that the Committee's understanding of the charge
was that they were to provide recommendations regarding financial and physical resources. He
added that they did not come up with a definition as a committee, but that the working definition
was that 'physical resources' would include everything other than financial resources. Gravitt
noted that she has read the Charter, and that the Charter works on specific words. She
questioned if the strategic plan mentions physical or not, but that she really just wants to know
the legal definition of 'physical.' Younker stated that for the purposes of the report, the
Committee was considering physical resources to mean the building. Honohan responded that
he is not concerned about a legal definition of 'physical' as this is not that type of situation. His
personal opinion would be that 'physical' refers to concrete things, like the building. He added
that he thought it was a very broad statement, not a limited one.
Younker then asked for a motion to accept correspondence from Kathy Mitchell and Mary
Guttmann. Honohan moved to accept correspondence. Webber seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0; Cannon absent. Honohan commented that for everyone's
information, Mary Wallis Gutmann gave the Committee several different comments regarding
the draft report and they will be part of the record. The Committee will be discussing them in
detail at the next meeting, according to Honohan.
PAGE 8
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 7
Harry Olmstead asked if the position being vacated by Cannon will be filled. Younker stated
that it will not be, that the Committee itself dissolves on December 1, per resolution.
Ina Lowenberg asked if this will not cause a problem with there being an even number of
members on the Committee, versus an uneven number as originally planned. She asked if any
effort has been made by Member Cannon to participate in votes.
Kathy Mitchell stated that she noticed the older Americans report being noted here but that the
State of Iowa also puts out its own report on older Americans, specifically geared towards Iowa.
She asked why this is not part of the report, adding that perhaps it has not been released yet for
this year.
Mary Gravitt addressed the Committee, stating that the City Council appointed a Member of the
Council to the Ad Hoc Committee. She added that the Council also appointed the Chair and the
Vice -Chair. She asked who is representing the members of the Senior Center, when the City is
appointing all of these people. Younker reminded Gravitt that they are still speaking to the draft
report at this point.
DISCUSSION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT (pgs. 188-189):
Younker noted that the Chair and Vice -Chair asked City staff to put together a draft Executive
Summary for discussion. This is on pages 188 and 189 of the packet. Dohrmann moved to
accept the Executive Summary as it appears on pages 188 and 189 of the packet.
Younker seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0, Cannon absent. Discussion on the
Executive Summary began with Honohan reviewing his suggested changes. On the next to last
line where it states 'Committee's draft report to the City Council,' he is asking that 'initial' be
inserted here, as this is not the final draft that was presented. It is instead the initial draft report.
Honohan moved to insert'initial' between 'Committee's'and'draft,' as discussed.
Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and
Cannon absent.
Honohan then moved to Charge 1, Evaluation of the Senior Center. In the second line, he
stated that he does not like the word 'direct.' He believes this should be deleted. Down to the
fifth line, Honohan questioned the use of 'further' before 'agreed.' He would like to delete this.
In the next to last line, Honohan questioned 'various external agencies,' stating that it should be
'agencies that provide services to seniors' instead. Honohan moved to make the three
recommended changes, as discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative and Cannon absent.
Moving to Charge 2, financial and physical, Honohan stated that he agrees with Ed Flarrety's
suggestion to change 'will' to 'may' on line 3. In the same paragraph, he suggested on line 4
that 'several' be deleted before 'City staff.' Line 5, Honohan stated that after the word 'and' he
would add '...Committee members investigated,' and then jump over to before'in the
community,' and say 'agencies providing services to seniors in the community.' Honohan
moved to accept the changes as discussed above. Webber seconded the motion. Bern -
Klug stated that investigated seems more in-depth than what they actually did. Honohan
suggested saying 'Committee Members reviewed' instead. Bern -Klug stated that this sounds
better to her. Younker then stated that he does not have a problem with the last two suggested
changes, but that he does believe the budget situation is severe and while not a certainty, it is a
very strong possibility and pretty close to a certainty that things will play out this way. Bern -Klug
PAGE 9
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 8
suggested using 'will likely' in this situation. Honohan moved a friendly amendment to add
`will likely' to his original motion. Webber upheld his second. The motion carried 6-0,
Cannon absent.
Bern -Klug stated that she would like the last sentence changed, that what is shown there is not
what their motion was. She moved that they change this to say'and the Committee suggests
an official survey of the needs of seniors. Fruin stated that anything in italics and quotations
was pulled from the draft report verbatim. Therefore, he thinks that this language may have
been changed in the recommendations section and that somewhere in the body of Charge 2,
this statement appears as is written here. He noted that if the Committee does make a change
in the Executive Summary, they should go back to Charge 2 and consider a similar change to
that wording. Younker stated that he would like to get to the point where they can vote on the
Executive Summary, perhaps with the understanding that they will accurately quote their own
report. He asked Karr if they could footnote this so they could discuss it at Friday's meeting,
once they've had a chance to go back and look at the report. Bern -Klug agreed, as long as they
discuss it on Friday and have the option to change where it is on page 8. Karr noted that for the
agenda, she will note this and page 8. Bern -Klug agreed, adding that lines 215 through 217 are
where the discussion takes place about a 'scientific survey.' Bern -Klug withdrew her motion.
Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2, as it appears in the
Executive Summary. Honohan then spoke to the summarized recommendations. He read the
second recommendation, noting that he does not believe this to be a viable recommendation.
The Center already does rentals, but Honohan does not believe this avenue would generate
much revenue. Honohan proposed that they delete this particular recommendation.
Continuing, Honohan questioned whom they are talking about when they say'the City' will do
something. He asked if this refers to staff at City Hall, staff at the Senior Center, or the Senior
Center Commission. Honohan stated that if they are going to make strong recommendations,
he believes they need to clarify who it is they are recommending should do these things.
Younker stated that the intent was to summarize the recommendations in the Executive
Summary and that they do identify in the actual recommendations the staff they are referring to.
Honohan noted that they do, but that he is concerned that when they are sending this to the
Council, that perhaps the Executive Summary is what is really read, considering the thickness of
the overall report. He added that many only read the Executive Summary, and therefore, he
believes it needs to be very clear. Honohan stated that on Friday he will speak to trying to
delete some of the attachments to the report. Younker asked if Honohan had a proposed
recommendation to share, and Honohan stated that he will have that at Friday's meeting.
Honohan then moved to the fifth bullet, stating that he believes this is another one that should
be removed. He noted that they already share space with SHIP, the VNA, the volunteer
lawyers, and others. He added that there is no extra space available. Younker noted that they
have an approved recommendation regarding this, 'That City staff and Center staff should
continue to assess opportunities to share space, funding strategies, and other resources with
relevant community social service agencies to increase efficiencies and leverage various
funding opportunities.' He asked Honohan if he wouldn't agree that this fifth bullet point
summarizes what they have already approved. Honohan responded that they have not yet
approved the final draft, and that he has several things on the final draft that he will be moving
to delete. Younker asked if they could then limit the discussion to the Executive Summary itself
then at this point, and that if Members think something has been misstated in the Summary,
now is the time to bring that up. Bern -Klug spoke to the fourth bullet from the bottom, noting
that 'any' should be removed here in her opinion. Younker stated that this comes from
recommendation 6 on page 45 of the packet. Bern -Klug stated that she is speaking to the
PAGE 10
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 9
phrase 'any available funds,' and she believes 'any' should be removed as it sounds like they
are expecting these agencies to be writing grants right and left. Bern -Klug moved that they
delete the word 'any' in this bullet. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-
1, Younker in the negative.
Moving on to Charge 3, Honohan spoke to the obstacles. He stated that in this text, perhaps it
would be best to list the obstacles, similar to the format of the rest of the report. He would like
to see the obstacle listed and then the recommended solution. Younker clarified this, noting
that the first bullet would be 'transportation' and then the text of the bullet point. Honohan noted
that the second one would be 'diversity.' He added that he does not like the third one and will
have a suggestion for it later. The fourth one would be 'Center accessibility.' Younker
suggested they use the same language that they used in the body of the report, and Honohan
agreed. Younker clarified that the first one would be 'transportation,' with the second one being
'lack of diversity,' followed by'lack of available programming,' 'barriers to access the Center,'
'lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of the Center programs,' and the last one 'lack of
downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.' Karr noted that if the body of
the report should change, these bullets would change as well. She added that there is another
obstacle on page 12, as well. Younker then suggested that they need to capture obstacle G,
page 47 of the packet, noting that it does not currently appear in the bullet point. Honohan then
referred to the third bullet point, asking again who is supposed to carry this out. He stated that if
it is the Center staff, they do not have the time to do this type of additional work. He questioned
who would complete this task. Younker asked that they first entertain a motion to revise the
bullet points so that they are including the obstacle to better track the report to the summary.
Honohan moved to revise the bullet points to better track the report to the summary.
Webber seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that one of the biggest obstacles they heard
was that when the human services programs went to the priority system and older adults were
not a priority, some local agencies lost money. She stated that she does not see that reflected
here at all. Fruin interjected at this point, noting that where this is captured is the sentence
where the Committee previously struck the word 'any.' He added that when he wrote this
recommendation and was trying to track the report, this issue came up in Charge 2, under the
recommendations for the physical and financial resources. He stated that this speaks to the
financial resources of the external agencies, and that this bullet is where the Committee was
trying to express to the Council that those agencies that serve seniors — regardless if that is
their primary function or not — that they apply for funds to serve low-income seniors. Honohan
asked Bern -Klug if the addition of obstacle G didn't address her concern. She replied that she
finds that they have drifted away from a very important opportunity to clearly state that an
obstacle to providing services for low-income seniors is the lack of funding to agencies that in
the past received funding. She noted that this has been a thread through the last six months,
yet she does not see it listed here as an obstacle. Bern -Klug stated that she does not want this
issue to be diluted when she believes it to be a very important part of their charge. Younker
responded that he thinks they are talking about several issues at once here. He reiterated that
what they are talking about right now is the proposed Executive Summary. Honohan suggested
that Bern -Klug come up with suggested language for them to discuss on Friday. She stated that
she could work on this and welcomed other's input. Members continued to discuss this issue,
referring to the addition of obstacle G and how this may address Bern-Klug's concerns. The
motion carried 6-0. Younker then asked for a motion to approve the Executive Summary as
amended. Honohan moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. Younker then asked Karr for a Point of Order on this issue. She
suggested that staff give Members a revised Executive Summary, per tonight's discussion, for
PAGE 11
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 10
them to review and discuss at Friday's meeting. They could then adopt it at that time. The
Committee agreed. Honohan withdrew his motion.
DISCUSSION OF CONCLUSIONS DRAFT (pg 190):
Moving on, Younker noted that he and the Vice -Chair prepared a draft Conclusion document for
discussion. He stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this. Bern -Klug moved to
adopt the Conclusions draft. Honohan seconded the motion for discussion. Discussion
began with Honohan discussing his handout. His first concern is on line 1, 'fulfilled' is the term
in question. Honohan stated that this seems more than they really did. He stated that he would
like to use 'completed' here instead. On line 2, he stated that he does not believe they
performed an 'assessment,' but did 'review.' He would like to add 'to meet the needs,' in the
next paragraph. 'Should continue to support the Senior Center in its current location,' and he
questioned the term 'by allowing it.' Honohan moved to make the proposed changes to the
draft document. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug asked if this means that they
are accepting what is on Honohan's handout, or just the two items he talked about. Younker
stated that they are accepting the changes to the draft as it appears on page 190. The changes
are exchanging 'completed' for 'fulfilled,' 'review' for'assess,' and then deleting 'by allowing it to
remain.' Karr added that it is also adding 'to meet the needs.' Karr asked if this could be a
friendly amendment to the original, that they currently have two motions on the floor — one to
adopt it as presented and one to do it as amended. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the
negative.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.) — Younker noted that the next meeting is Friday at
3:00 P.M. The packet will need to be released by 3:00 on Thursday. He added that on
Friday they will discuss the public comment received and also what changes they want
to make to the report, if any. Karr noted that noon on Thursday would be the deadline
for anyone wishing to get something into the meeting packet. Discussion continued
about the agenda for the final meeting and just what needs to occur then. Dobyns
stated that he believes they should be done after Friday's meeting. Bern -Klug spoke
briefly to the World Health Organization (WHO) and its program for'age friendly cities.'
She asked if people would be willing to look over this information prior to Friday and
consider recommending that the City pursue getting Iowa City named a WHO 'world
friendly city.' Younker suggested that Bern -Klug put together a recommendation for
Friday's packet so that it can be an agenda item. Dobyns stated that he would be a bit
concerned, that the sense of the agenda is to comment on things that have already been
brought up. He believes that to introduce something new at this point is not a good idea.
Younker agreed that discussion of a new program at this stage might not be something
they can accomplish, but he suggested Bern -Klug bring this to Friday's meeting for
further discussion by the Committee.
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
Special meetings if needed.
PUBLIC COMMENT (items not on the agenda):
Bob Welsh addressed the Committee, noting that in relation to Bern-Klug's comment, Des
Moines is the one city in Iowa that has done this. This effort was led by the Iowa AARP. Welsh
also spoke to the Executive Summary, noting that in Charge 1 there are no summarized
recommendations, but there are in Charges 2 and 3. Welsh also spoke to the statement,
PAGE 12
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 11
'...with our own stuff.' He stated that there is a tendency to say 'ours' and 'theirs' when
speaking about such programming. He believes they need comments that are about
collaborating and sharing, more positive terms.
Kathy Mitchell of the Senior Center Commission and Steering Council spoke next. She pointed
out that the Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center is multigenerational. It is county wide. It
is inclusional, and the programs are not elite programs just for the Center, but are programs
provided at the Center for the members and the general public.
Mary Gravitt stated that she wanted to point out something in lines 14-37, on page 2, section B.
She pointed out 8B where it talks about current financial and physical resources, not future.
Gravitt stated that she keeps hearing about the future, but that that is not the charge here. She
reiterated that it is existing resources, not what might happen in the future. She also noted that
things need to be in line with the Council's strategic plan. Gravitt suggested the Committee go
back and read what they have been charged with. She also stated that there has to be a
meeting on November 24, as the public has a right to comment on this final report.
Shirley Lundell followed up with a comment regarding Mitchell's comment about the wording as
far as 'lack of.' She stated that she hopes that when the Committee looks at their final report
that they take out the 'lack of terminology.
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6.0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 12, 2014
Page 12
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
PAGE 13
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
cn
in
as
as
v
v
v
oo
tD
c®
o
0
0
®
�
NAME
EXP.
O
0
N
0
N
W
0
0o
®
w
N
0
N
N
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
O/
O/
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
E
E
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
Dobyns
E
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
PAGE 14
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES DRAFT
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
NOVEMBER 14, 2014 — 3:00 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Rick Dobyns, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping, Michelle Buhman
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M. He noted that the purpose of
today's meeting is to digest and consider the comments that they received from the public at
Wednesday's meeting.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF REPORT:
a. Initial Sections (pgs 2 -3) -
Younker began with the Initial Sections review. Dobyns moved to accept the Initial
Sections as typed. Honohan seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
b. Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center (pgs 4-6, comments pgs 165-168) —
Moving on to Charge 1, Honohan noted that everyone has a copy of his handout
regarding this section. Honohan stated that he would propose to delete on page 5b,
bullet 2, lines 119-121, and replace with: The current level of diversity in the participants
at the Center continues to be a concern of the Senior Center Commission, the Steering
Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to increase the gender, age, ethnic, racial,
economic, and other types of diversity of the participants, seeking to maintain or enlarge
the level of diversity that reflects the community as a whole. Honohan added that these
changes reflect the suggestions of Mary Gutmann and Kathy Mitchell. Honohan moved
to make the above noted changes. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began
with Dohrmann speaking to the word 'diversity' in Honohan's proposal. She suggested
dropping the specifics and instead saying: 'Efforts are being made to increase diversity
of participants.' Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Bern -
Klug asked if Mitchell didn't suggest this portion at the last meeting. Honohan stated
that the first part is what Mitchell suggested. The second portion was left in from the
original wording. Kathy Mitchell then spoke to this suggestion, stating that her request
had to do with the differentials in diversity, and she asked that all of these lists be
removed and replaced with 'current levels of diversity,' with the understanding that the
Center already has diversity, but that they are working very hard to expand it, especially
in certain areas. After further discussion, Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe
they need the second sentence in Honohan's proposal. She would merely say, 'Efforts
are being made to increase diversity,' and she asked to amend the original motion.
PAGE 15
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 2
Honohan stated that he is agreeable to this friendly amendment. Webber stated
that his second stands. The motion carries 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Dohrmann then moved to line 126, page 5. She made the motion to strike the words
'racial' and `ethnic' from this sentence. Dobyns seconded the motion. Honohan
stated that it appears that they are deleting the specifics. He added that if they are going
to be consistent, this change is a good idea. The motion carried 6-0.
Younker asked if there were any further comments regarding Charge 1. Bern -Klug
asked if they have addressed all of the changes suggested at Wednesday's meeting.
Younker referred to page 165 of the packet, noting that this is where the summary of
Charge 1 comments appears. Honohan noted for the record that he did review Miss
Gutmann's comments, as well as Kathy Mitchell's comments, in great detail. He stated
that he did not agree with all of them, but that many of the suggested changes arose
from their comments. Dohrmann agreed that she reviewed all of the comments and
suggestions, as well. Webber moved to approve Charge 1 as amended. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
C. Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pgs 7-10, comments pgs 169-
171) — Honohan began on page 8, III, line 228, suggesting that the following be added at
the end of the second paragraph: 'Both the City and non-profit agencies serving seniors
will be challenged... (continue rest of paragraph.' Honohan moved the above
proposed change on Charge 2, per his handout. Younker seconded the motion.
Bern -Klug asked if there is a reason for changing to 'will be' from 'are' challenged in this
sentence. Honohan stated that he took this to mean in the future. He added that what
he is trying to show is that the City itself is going to also be challenged, not just the non-
profit agencies. Dohrmann spoke to this, as well, noting that all of them are currently
challenged to meet the needs of seniors, and that they heard this when they heard how
stretched the Senior Center staff are right now, as well as other non-profit agencies.
Honohan stated that the reason he is still leaning towards 'will' is shown on pages 232 to
239, where they are speaking to the future. Younker responded to this, noting that he
would agree that it probably does make sense to add 'The City' here but that he thinks
the present tense, using 'are,' makes more sense. Honohan agreed to this friendly
amendment. Younker stated that his second stands. The motion carried 6-0.
Moving to page 8, III, lines 232-236, Honohan stated that he would delete these lines
entirely. He would change this to say: 'The Committee recognizes that with the growing
senior population, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of a growing and
increasing diverse senior population, especially for seniors with limited financial
resources.' He added that this came from Mitchell's suggestions, with some editing on
his part. Honohan moved the above proposed change on Charge 2, per his
handout. Dobyns seconded the motion. Younker asked Honohan why the shift from
organizations to the Committee. Honohan stated that he believes as a Committee they
are supposed to be making positive statements about various issues. He thinks it
makes this a stronger statement. Members briefly discussed their thoughts on the
amendment. The motion carried 6-0.
Honohan's next amendment, also page 8, III, lines 237-239 is as follows. He would
delete lines 237-239 and replace with: 'The Committee recognizes that the demand for
programs and services that promote overall wellness and independence and prevent or
PAGE 16
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 3
delay the onset of chronic diseases will increase.' Honohan moved the above
proposed change under Charge 2, lines 237-239, as discussed. Dobyns seconded
the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Moving to page 9, III, lines 244-245, Honohan suggested deleting these lines entirely.
He added that his thought is that they are putting into this report a recommendation that
the City conduct a professional survey of seniors in the community to determine needs,
concerns, etc. He stated that he was uncomfortable with this sentence and that he feels
they should not put anything in the report that detracts from the survey. Honohan
moved the above proposed change under Charge 2, lines 244-245. Bern -Klug
seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding Charge 2. Honohan
moved to accept Charge 2 as amended. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
d. Charge 3: Recommendations (pgs 10-13, comments pgs 172-176) —
Honohan began his suggestion proposal on page 10, line 300. This deals with Mary
Gutmann's recommendation to change as the title of Charge 3: 'Obstacles and
Recommendations.' Honohan moved to add `Obstacles' to the title line of Charge 3,
as discussed. Dobyns seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
Next under Charge 3, Honohan proposed a change on page 11, line 312, to delete 'Lack
of Diversity,' and to replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.' Honohan moved
to delete 'Lack of Diversity,' and replace it with 'Expand Current Level of Diversity.'
Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Bern -Klug stated that this really is not an obstacle.
Honohan responded, noting that he believes it is, that they do have diversity, but the
Center is wanting it to be greater. The problem then is how to expand this. Bern -Klug
stated that this would then be the obstacle. Younker suggested 'difficulty with diversity
expansion' instead. Honohan stated that he is concerned with how it currently reads, as
it sounds like there is no diversity at the Center. Younker suggested they vote on what
is written here first, and then discuss a way to rephrase it to capture what they are trying
to express. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they were going to go through the public
comments, piece by piece, and that she is somewhat confused by what they are doing at
this point. Younker stated that he believes that was the intent of Honohan's motion, that
it was made in response to comments received at Wednesday's meeting. Honohan
stated that with this particular motion that is true. Younker suggested Bern -Klug look at
page 172 of the packet where there is a summary of the comments received from the
public. Bern -Klug stated that she is confused that only some of the comments were
made into motions. Honohan responded that he ran out of time with the rest of them
and that his motions were not meant to be all-inclusive. Younker tried to draw the
discussion back to the point at hand. Honohan then withdraw his motion.
Honohan stated that he believes Bern -Klug makes a good point here. He stated that
perhaps they should change what they have been doing and go back to where they
began, the comments on pages 165-168, and see what the Committee thinks should
also be changed here and not just what Honohan has proposed. Younker stated that he
believes they have pretty much done this so far, that there is nothing else he would
suggest they change. Dohrmann stated that she would agree with this, that she went
through everything too. Honohan asked Bern -Klug if this is what she is wanting to do
PAGE 17
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 4
with the public comments, and she responded that it is, that she wanted to make sure
they directly addressed what everyone said at the public forum, and that she wanted to
clarify what Honohan had done in his handout. Younker asked Bern -Klug if she felt
there was something that had not been addressed so far. She stated that she does, but
that they are not at that point yet in the discussion.
Younker restated what they have been through so far. The initial sections — they
received no public comment here, thus there were no comments to review. In Charge 1,
the comments begin at page 165 and go through page 168, according to Younker.
Discussion was held regarding Honohan's motions about diversity, levels of diversity,
and subsequent amendments were made. In Charge 2, the comments run from page
169 to 171. Younker asked Honohan if his proposals here were drafted in consideration
of public comments. Honohan responded that they were. Larry Rogers, audience
member, stated that his one comment under Charge 2 was skipped over completely.
Rogers noted that on page 169, his name is mentioned twice. The first comment was
covered by Honohan; however, the second comment regarding the proposed grants to
be given to community agencies was skipped completely. Rogers again questioned
where the City is going to get the $40,000 when they are talking about budget shortfalls.
He read the section he is referring to, again asking how this is going to improve the
Senior Center's financial status, or that of the City, to give out these grants. His
proposal was to look into incentives to keep businesses that affect senior citizens in
Iowa City. Younker again asked Bern -Klug if she had anything she wanted to address
up to this point. Dobyns then made a Point of Order to the Chair, as several audience
members continued to add to the discussion. He stated that public comment was this
past Wednesday, and that he believes, for the purposes of the Committee's
deliberations today, that they should withhold public comment. Younker responded that
he would like the Committee to have an opportunity to discuss the public comments from
Wednesday and that he would not entertain any further comments from the audience.
Dohrmann then spoke to Honohan's motion about the difficulty with expansion of
diversity. Younker moved that on line 312 delete 'lack of diversity' and replace it with
'difficulties with expansion of diversity.' Dohrmann suggested adding to this same
section the alternative that Guttmann suggested. This can be found on page 174, under
Charge 3, Obstacles and Recommendations. This proposal states: 'The Senior Center
Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff should continue the working
committee to explore ways to add to the current diversity of participants at the Center
and make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.' She asked if they
could combine those two. Younker then withdrew his original motion. He then moved
to delete `lack of diversity' on line 312 and replace it with `difficulties with
expansion of diversity,' delete the recommendation that begins at line 313 and
replace it with'The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the
Center staff should continue the working committee to explore ways to add to the
current diversity of participants at the Center and make sure the diversity reflects
that of the community at large.' Honohan seconded the motion. The motion
carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Moving to page 11, obstacle C, line 318, Bern -Klug noted that on Wednesday it was
suggested they delete the language 'lack of available programming' by Ina Lowenberg.
She asked if others are interested in doing this. Honohan moved to delete entirely
lines 318-322 on page 11. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion began with
PAGE 18
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 5
Honohan speaking to what the staff of the Senior Center is responsible for. He noted
that it is not for them to coordinate and bring agencies in, and to help other agencies
within the community. He does not believes this is the role of either the City or the
Center staff. Honohan stated that he believes the requested survey will be important in
solving the problem that appears to be addressed in this item. Younker stated that he
would disagree somewhat with this. He believes their charge here is to make
recommendations regarding how the City should use financial and physical resources.
Through that discussion, the fact that there may be gaps in services was brought up.
Continuing, Younker noted that in Charge 3 then, identifying the gaps and providing
recommendations, they are not saying that the Center staff should be charged with
coordinating services among agencies, but that there appear to be some gaps in
services. The Center is in a position to have information, potentially, about that and
would be in a position to collaborate with some of these other agencies. The
recommendation, according to Younker, is that this issue be discussed. Dohrmann
stated that to her this is really critical, especially in light of the City's strategic plan and
goals. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this is beyond the scope of the responsibility
of the Senior Center staff. Younker asked Bern -Klug what it is she believes the Center's
staff will be doing here. She responded that she does not believe the staff should be
responsible for better understanding any gaps in senior services in Iowa City, that they
are responsible for the programming that the Senior Center provides. Younker stated
that he would disagree with this. Honohan reiterated that he believes once the City
performs the requested survey that this will identify the gaps in services. He asked how
this would actually go, if a meeting would be held with Center staff and Elder Services
and the VNA, for example, where everyone would be asked what the gaps are.
Honohan spoke then to Elder Services, noting that they must be going through some
changes as they have moved out of the Senior Center, but with no consultation given on
this. He added that he has heard they are considering dropping their collaboration with
the federal government so they do not have to set the lower price for meals and could
therefore raise prices. Honohan continued, stating that he just does not see how this
type of meeting would even be productive. Younker stated that this would be a good
reason to highlight why it would be appropriate to categorize the lack of dialogue as an
obstacle. Bern -Klug then suggested they delete this, as Honohan had suggested. She
spoke to her suggested wording, and Younker noted that this is covered under item 2.f.,
page 154 of the packet. Younker asked if there was any further discussion regarding
obstacle C. The motion failed 3-3; Honohan, Bern -Klug, and Webber in the
positive.
Moving to line 319, page 11, obstacle C, Bern -Klug suggested they delete 'the Center
staff' so that it would read 'City staff should continue to engage in dialogue.' She noted
that as Honohan had previously mentioned, Center staff are City staff, and she
questioned the distinction. Bern -Klug moved that she would change her suggestion
to `Agencies involved with providing services to seniors should continue to
engage in a dialogue ... (cont as stated).' Younker stated that he believes they do
need to have the City involved in such dialogue, that this was the point of the
recommendation. Honohan seconded the motion. Younker again stated that he
believes the City needs to be involved in such dialogue, and Dohrmann agreed. Bern -
Klug stated that she believes the City does not need to be involved in what happens at
these agencies. She believes this is too broad of a statement. Discussion continued,
with Members giving their thoughts on this statement and what it actually means. The
motion failed 2-4, Webber and Bern -Klug in the positive.
PAGE 19
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 6
Honohan then moved to title this obstacle as Gaps in Services for Seniors, and
add 'The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand gaps in services,' and then
delete the next sentence entirely. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. Discussion
began with Honohan stating that the reason he is against this paragraph is mainly due to
the second sentence, that the dialogue should include Center staff. He stated that he
would be agreeable to using the suggested wording he has given. Younker stated that
he does not have a problem with the first sentence proposed; however, he does believe
that a discussion of possible areas of collaboration will be very important. Dohrmann
asked Honohan to clarify his proposal again, which he did. Dobyns stated that he would
like to make a friendly amendment to retain the second sentence and to make the
suggested changes to the first. Honohan stated that he would not be agreeable to this
amendment, as he wants to get rid of the second sentence. Bern -Klug agreed that she
too is not open to this amendment. She added that the last sentence insinuates that the
Center has not been doing this for the last decade, and that the report shows example
after example of collaboration between the Center and various agencies. Younker
suggested the second sentence be modified to read, 'The dialogue should include the
continued identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the Center and
various agencies.' He added that the intent was not to say that this is a new idea that
the Center has not been doing. The intent was to say that if there is an opportunity out
there, it should be discussed and identified and taken advantage of. Dohrmann stated
that she supports this, but her big concern are the groups that come to mind — hidden
groups — those consisting of people from other countries with different languages and
cultures who are not as fully engaged in the community. She believes it is the
responsibility of the City and the Senior Center to address this, and that this means
attempting to foster relationships with these other groups. To her this second sentence
speaks to the importance of doing this. Honohan then made the proposal to keep the
first sentence as proposed, and change the second sentence to 'The dialogue
should include the identification of possible areas of collaboration.' Younker
proposed saying 'between the City and various agencies.' Honohan stated that he
would be agreeable to this. Bern -Klug stated that she would hold her second and
agreed, as well. Younker then reiterated how the proposal would read: 'The dialogue
should include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration
between the City and various agencies.' The first sentence is, 'The City and
agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue with appropriate
organizations to better understand any gaps in services.' Honohan withdrew his
pending motion and moved the motion as just read. Webber seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Moving to page 12, Honohan proposed reducing this obstacle to one line. Decrease in
funding was suggested by Younker. Honohan moved to change the obstacle to a
Decrease in Funding. Bern -Klug seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1,
Dobyns in the negative. Younker then asked if there was any further comment
regarding Charge 3. Honohan moved to approve Charge 3 as amended in the
discussions. Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in
the negative.
e. Exhibits (comments pg 176):
PAGE 20
Ad Hoe Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 7
A — Res 14-37 (pgs 14-17) — Younker worked his way through the exhibit list,
asking if there were any further comments regarding each exhibit. Discussion
ensued about this list, with Members asking if they can delete some of these
documents from the report. Younker stated that it makes sense to include the
Resolution with the report so that it is clear what the Committee was charged
with.
B — FY2013 Annual Report (pgs 18-34) — Retain, no comments.
C — Subcommittee Evaluation (pgs 35-40, clean version pgs 156-160) —
Retain, no comments.
D — Accreditation letter and report (pgs 41-47) — Retain, no comments.
E — National Council on Aging (pgs 48-49) — Younker stated that this was the
Fact Sheet. He questioned if they spoke directly to this or not. Karr stated that
they did on page 3 and she cited the reference. Bern -Klug stated that this
particular document is not part of the assessment, but rather a brochure about
senior centers in general. She stated that she does not believe they need to
include this. After a brief discussion, Younker noted that the Accreditation letter
and report, pages 41-47, are the actual report and what is needed. Honohan
moved to delete Exhibit E. Younker seconded the motion. Younker stated
that he believes they included it because they stated that they agree with the
nine standards of national excellence, and this fact sheet identifies those nine
standards. However, he thinks the nine standards are also in the report, and
Honohan stated that they indeed are. The motion carried 6-0.
F — 2013 Survey Report (pgs 50-60) — Karr noted that pages 58 and 59 do not
belong here, that the report ends on page 57. Younker agreed with this, noting
that those were a cover memo and a Senior Center flyer. Younker stated that he
would entertain a motion to delete these pages. Honohan moved to delete
pages 58 through 60 per the discussion. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
G — Program Guide Spring 2014 (pgs 61-144) — Honohan moved to delete
the Program Guide of Spring 2014. Younker seconded the motion.
Discussion began with Honohan stating that he realizes they refer to the guide in
the report and discuss the various programs, etc., however, he believes they do
not need an 83 -page program guide to be a part of this report. He added that as
he has previously suggested, less paper in the report is better. Younker stated
that he would agree with this, especially since the guide is available online if
anyone needs to refer to it. Bern -Klug suggested they embed the link to the
program guide. Karr noted that they cannot archive a link, but that perhaps they
could refer the Council to the program guide as it appears on the Senior Center's
web site. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
H — Strategic Plan Booklet (2010-2015) (pgs 145-150) — Bern -Klug stated that
she believes this should say 'Senior Center Strategic Plan booklet.' Younker
noted that what Council will receive is what is shown on the screen.
I — Census (pgs 151-153) — Retain, no comments.
Younker asked Bern -Klug if she wanted to return to exhibit F. She stated that
she wondered if all 10 pages should be part of the report to Council or if they
should refer them to the web site on this one, as well. Karr noted that it is now
only seven pages, as they removed the three pages that were inadvertently
attached. Also, Karr noted that when things are archived for Council, they are
not responsible for archiving other sites and when those sites are updated. With
PAGE 21
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 8
the program guide it makes sense; however, with the survey results, you don't
know how long they will be kept on that site at that address. She suggested they
keep these seven pages in the report. Younker agreed that this makes sense.
Honohan moved to approve the Exhibits section as modified. Dohrmann
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative.
Age Friendly City (pgs 154-155) — Bern -Klug stated that she would like to propose a
motion dealing with the lack of a vision for older adults in Iowa City. She stated that the
World Health Organization has developed a vision that can be applied to cities around
the world and then subsequently adapted by cities to fit their needs. Bern -Klug thought
this would be a good idea to have a meeting of the key organizations to see if this would
be something beneficial for Iowa City. Instead of the Council coming up with a vision for
dealing with older adults and the aging population, the WHO's vision would be used as a
starting point. Items like transportation, services for frail older adults, and social
participation are all items that are part of the WHO's vision, many obstacles that the
Committee has themselves identified. Dobyns stated that this sounds like a good
document, but that he does not believe this is the time to introduce this into the report.
He added that there were times back in August and September to add new information
to the report. He would want more time to digest this information, something they do not
have at this point. Honohan stated that he has a thought for a motion, he recommended
that the City Council establish an exploratory committee comprised of representatives
from community groups and the University, of seeking the WHO Age Friendly City
designation. Bern -Klug stated that she is not suggesting the Council adopt this, but that
she is suggesting they use something like this to better understand the services in a big
connected picture versus piece meal. She added that she wishes she had thought of
this earlier, as she believes it would have been more effective. Bern -Klug reiterated that
the WHO's vision would give the City a framework to work with on these issues. She
stated that much of what the WHO's vision states, they have already touched upon.
Bern -Klug seconded the motion. She then asked Honohan to reread the motion for
clarification. 'Recommend that the City Council establish an exploratory committee,' and
then continue with what Bern -Klug already suggested. Younker asked if the framework
provided by the WHO would go to the discussion of gaps in services. He asked what
connection she sees between the WHO's framework and the gaps in services obstacle
discussed earlier in the meeting. Bern -Klug stated that since their charge was to look at
how the City could provide better services for seniors, this framework lays out a way to
assess the extent to which cities are providing better services for senior citizens.
Therefore, she believes it is completely consistent with the charge. It does not go into as
much depth as they had talked about for the survey for low-income seniors, but that this
could be incorporated into this. Younker stated that speaking to Dobyns' point, the
Committee has not had the time to vet the WHO's framework. He suggested that if they
do believe it fits well with the recommendation they have, should they just make Council
aware of this instead. Bern -Klug stated that she believes this item should be a separate
obstacle, the lack of a stated vision for the City's role with senior services. Dohrmann
stated that she wonders if a different avenue should be taken, with perhaps Bern -Klug
submitting the report to the Council — separate from the report itself. She added that she
believes the concept is good, but that they have not had the time to vet the report. Bern -
Klug asked if they could revisit this at the meeting on November 24. She believes it ties
in directly with what they have been discussing. Dobyns stated that he believes they
need to move forward at this point. Bern -Klug responded that she believes the City
PAGE 22
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 9
needs to see this type of framework, to help them move forward with their planning.
Younker agreed that it is probably a bit late in the game to add this report at this point.
He does believe they should make Council aware of it and suggested that individual
Members could do so, or they could make it part of the obstacles. Bern -Klug stated that
she could change the wording to say that 'dialogue be engaged with the City and
agencies to consider this.' Honohan asked for some clarification on why Younker has
made the statement he did. He suggested they make a recommendation through the
Committee, agreeing that he himself has not had a chance to read through the WHO's
documentation. However, he believes that suggesting to the Council to establish a
committee is not a bad idea. Younker stated that he agrees they should make Council
aware of this resource, but that he has not read this so he does not believe he should
make a recommendation that Council do something with it. He stated that they could
make a comment in the conclusion section. Bern -Klug stated that she would be
prepared to propose an obstacle that there is a lack of an articulated City vision for how
to make Iowa City a city for all ages, which is the goal of the WHO tool. She added that
she would like to make this as an obstacle and then this tool is one approach that has
been vetted at the national and international level as a solid approach for cities to use.
She again stated that if today is not a good time to discuss this issue, she would like to
revisit it at the November 24 meeting. Younker stated that today is the day to have that
decision, that they need to be ready to vote on the report at the next meeting. Honohan
withdrew his motion. Bern -Klug moved to add an obstacle to the report, the lack of
an articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly. Her recommendation
would be for the City Council to establish an exploratory committee to consider
the WHO approach to age friendly cities. Honohan seconded the motion. Dobyns
replied that he will be voting against this as that is the mission of this Committee, to
establish a vision. Bern -Klug stated that they were never told to come up with a vision.
Dobyns replied that that is how he interpreted it, as a Member of Council. She replied
that this would have been helpful information to have back in June and again in August
when she asked what the vision was. Dobyns stated that he did say this. She asked if
he had proposed any visions for them to discuss. Dobyns replied that the majority of this
Committee's vision is what is in their report. This is the vision that will be presented to
Council. Bern -Klug stated that this is a reframing that she was not aware of and that
nowhere in the document does it say what the vision is for the City. Younker stated that
they are getting off track and he brought the group back to the motion on the floor. The
motion carried 4-2, Dobyns and Younker in the negative. Younker noted that this
will become obstacle H.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pgs 161-163)—
Younker noted that what they have in front of them is a red -lined version, capturing the changes
made at the last meeting. Dohrmann moved to adopt the Executive Summary as it appears
in their packet. Dobyns seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan referring to
Younker's comment earlier that what they do today to the report is basically the end. He added
that he is not prepared to approve a final report to Council until he sees the actual report. He
stated that he is reserving the right to move to amend things in the final report if he sees things
that he is uncomfortable with. Younker stated that they have gone through each section and
approved each section, that the final meeting will be that final approval. Members will have that
final report in the meeting packet. Younker questioned if they have an obstacle on page 163.
Honohan stated that he is assuming the last obstacle, which was changed, will need to be
shown, as will the new obstacle (H) that they approved at this meeting. Karr noted that the
PAGE 23
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 10
highlighted portion on page 163 was a staff question and that it can be changed in the summary
and the report. Dohrmann stated that for clarity, they could drop 'the City' from this. Bern -Klug
noted that on page 162, she mentioned that the wording should be taken out — the first sentence
now on page 162 that is in quotations, 'If the Council wishes for a more scientific approach for
determining the needs, it will likely need to utilize...'. They had talked about this being toned
down. Karr stated that as she remembers, Fruin had brought up that this was text from another
part of the report. She added that she is unsure if they resolved this matter any further.
Younker noted that there was no motion to amend this sentence, as he recalls. Bern -Klug
moved to amend the sentence by saying the needs of the senior populations could be
better understood through an official survey. Younker asked what Bern-Klug's concern is
with quoting text that is already in the report. She stated that they talked about changing this in
the body of the report also. Her concern is that it sounds a little snooty to her. She stated that
this was the previous concern as well. She believes it should be changed in the summary.
Bern Klug reiterated her motion for clarification, stating that building off the sentence at the
bottom of page 161, 'Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal
approach to gauge the needs of the senior population, a professional survey should be
considered by the City Council.' Honohan seconded the motion. Younker suggested they
make two sentences out of this. He suggested putting a period after populations and then
starting a new sentence. Bern -Klug agreed to a friendly amendment. Honohan kept his
second and approved this, as well. The motion carried 6.0.
Dohrmann moved to approve the Executive Summary as amended. Honohan seconded
the motion. The motion carried 6-0.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION OF CONCLUSIONS (pn 164) —
Moving on to the Conclusion, page 164, Younker asked for a motion to approve said document.
Bern -Klug moved to approve the revised Conclusion. Webber seconded the motion. The
motion carried 5-1, Dobyns in the negative. Honohan asked where in the report this section
will go, and Younker replied at the end. He asked where the Executive Summary is placed, and
Younker stated that it will go at the beginning of the report.
Dobyns spoke to Honohan's statement of having the right to make changes at the final meeting.
He asked if they would then have another meeting to make those amendments. Younker stated
that they need to wrap things up at the next meeting. They dissolve by resolution on December
I". and the 24th is the Monday of Thanksgiving week. Therefore, the 24th has to be their last
meeting. Members continued to discuss this issue, with Honohan and Bem-Klug stating that
they need to see what the final document is going to look like. Bern -Klug stated that she agrees
with the Chair, that now is not the time to bring up new topics. Members asked when to expect
the packet for the last meeting, and Karr responded that it could be available on Thursday the
20th. Younker stated that if significant changes are submitted prior to the meeting on the 24`h,
they do have that meeting to review them and make their final decisions. He stated that in his
view, substantive discussion ends today. Karr stated that she would like to get Member
concurrence to take down the web site of the draft because the draft has been changed
significantly and substantively. She can then replace it with something else, such as a link to
the upcoming packet. Bern -Klug asked if there is any way to put up just the report without the
exhibits. Karr noted that this is how it currently is on the web site. Younker clarified the report
contains the exhibits and should be approved as one item. After some discussion, Members
agreed that the next packet will contain the final report in its entirety.
PAGE 24
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 11
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (draft report items):
Kathy Mitchell thanked the Committee for their time and effort in this endeavor. She did note
that the reason she wanted to clarify her remarks regarding 'lack of in the obstacle section,
especially for sections B, C, and E, is because she felt that these are things the Center is
already doing. Therefore, she does not believe them to be obstacles, but are continuing goals.
She added that she would have liked to have not only a recommendations section, but also
'continuing goals.' Mitchell stated that she believes the Committee has now created obstacles
that were not there, and now she feels this is somewhat troubling. She reiterated that she
wishes they had removed these issues, and only put up those that would be perceived as goals.
Mary Gravitt stated that she sees a problem already. They were interested in the current
funding, not the projected funding. Section B speaks to current, not projected. On line 244, she
noted that this is part of the strategic plan and needs to stay. Also the language about the
programs, she questioned if they are referring to the written programs or something else.
Dialogue is another part of the strategic plan, according to Gravitt. She stated that the
Committee is going into areas that they are not charged with, such as on line 337, it should be
deleted because this is not part of their charge. Gravitt stated that the Committee has to get the
language straight in their report as they cannot go against the strategic plan of the Council. She
stated that she plans to address Council on these issues.
Larry Rogers stated that he would like to clarify something with line 276. 'Serving older adults
that address a substance abuse emotional health services.' He asked if this shouldn't have a
comma after substance abuse. Dohrmann responded that there is a comma missing here and
that they would make that correction.
ADJOURNMENT:
Bern -Klug moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:35 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 6-0.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
November 14, 2014
Page 12
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
PAGE 25
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
0
0
0
0
o
O
0
0
0
0
-.
fn
N
m
M
-4
V
V
CO
W
(D
O
O
O
O
-*
NAME
EXP.
O
\
0
\
N
\
O
\
N
\
W
0
\
co
\
O
W
N
O
—'
-*
cn
N
N
N
in
N
-*
p
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe Younker
Jay Honohan
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram Richard
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Webber
Ellen Cannon
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/E
O/
O/
O/
O/E
N
E
E
E
E
M
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick Dobyns
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
X
X
E
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Marian Karr
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
For immediate release
November 18, 2014
PAGE 26
Bern -Klug, Mercedes E <mercedes-bern-klug@uiowa.edu>
Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:09 PM
Marian Karr
Please include in packet FW: New Ranking: Milken Institute Best Cities for Successful Aging
Where does your city rank? Milken Institute index analyses 352 metropolitan areas to identify
"Best Cities for Successful Aging"
In the top 20: Boston, New York and San Francisco. Madison is #1
LOS ANGELES — The Milken Institute released today the first -of -its -kind, data -driven index, Best Cities for
Successful Aging, which measures and ranks the performance of 352 U.S. metropolitan areas in promoting and
enabling successful aging.
The Top 10 large and smaller metropolitan areas are:
Ranking - largest metros:
1Madison, WI
2Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE -IA
3Provo-Orem, UT
Boston-Cannbridge-Newton, MA-
4NH
5Salt Lake City, UT
Wackson, MS
7Des Moines -West Des Moines, IA
8Toledo, OH
9Austin-Round Rock, TX
1OBridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT
Ranking - smaller metros:
IIowa City, IA
2Sioux Falls, SO
3Columbia, MO
413ismarck, ND
5Rapid City, SD
6Ames, IA
7Rocbester, MN
8Ann Arbor, MI
9Cheycnme, WY
1 OFargo, ND -MN
Unlike many "best places to retire" lists, the Milken Institute starts from the insight that most Americans want
to age at home and in place, and not uproot themselves from their communities. In effect, the Best Cities for
Successful Aging Index is an x-ray that reveals how well U.S. cities are providing the infrastructure, amenities,
and opportunities both to serve and benefit from the country's fastest-growing age segment,
The Best Cities for Successful Aging index examines 84 separate factors that most affect the quality of life for
older adults. These include not only health and wellness, crime rates and weather, but also economic and job
conditions, housing, transportation, and social engagement factors that help create safe, affordable and
connected communities. The index also recognizes the new economic and social reality that, especially for the
65-79 age group, many need and want to continue paid employment.
PAGE 27
The index includes two sets of overall rankings: one for the 100 most populous metropolitan areas and another
for the next 252 metros in size. The index also breaks down results for the 65-79 age group and for those 80 and
older, recognizing that the needs and aspirations of adults change as they age.
"Our research finds common themes among the top-ranked cities," said Anusuya Chatterjee, Milken Institute
senior economist and one of the authors of the report. "These include economic strength, abundance of health
resources, active lifestyles, opportunities for intellectual stimulation and access to amenities."
As part of this initiative, the Institute reached out to U.S. mayors to ask them to sign the Best Cities for
, tuccessfttl Aging Mayor's Pledge. To date, one -hundred thirty-seven mayors from across the political spectrum
have committed to make their cities work better for older adults and to enable older adults to strengthen their
cities and improve lives for all generations through purposeful work and volunteerism. The mayors and their
cities are listed on a site devoted to the Mayor's Pledge: littp:Hsuccessfulagiiip,.tiiilkeninstitLite.org/iiiayors-
pledge
The Pledge comes from the Institute's Best Cities for Successful Aging Advisory Committee, an important
group of thought leaders and experts who are advising the Institute in its work on healthy, productive and
purposeful aging.
"With the demographic shift proceeding across America, enabling successful aging could not be more important
for our future," said Paul Irving, president of the Milken Institute. "Best Cities for Successful Aging is not just
an index, it's a movement. We hope our findings spark national discussion and, at the local level, generate
virtuous competition among cities to galvanize improvement in the social structures that serve and empower
older adults."
To read `Best Cities for Successful Aging" and explore the interactive data site, go to
successfulagina.milkeninstitu te.ore.
About the Milken Institute
A nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank, the Milken Institute's mission is to improve lives around the world by
advancing innovative economic and policy solutions that create jobs, widen access to capital and enhance
health.
www.milkeninstitute.m•�
a milkeninstitute
Contact
Jeff Monford, Associate Director of
Communications
(310)570-4623
i nronford2nrilkeninstittite.org
Conrad Kiechel, Director of Conmmnications
(310) 570-4668
E-mail: ckiecliel@niilkeninstitute.org
F`"7
l 11 Metros were ranked by population. The top 100 largest metros were placed in one subgroup and the
remaining 252 in another. This allowed for appropriate data comparisons between metros with smaller
populations, using a slightly different data set.
PAGE 28
Disclaimer: If you do not wish to receive fiirther news/releases from Milken Institute, please click the
following link: [Remove Me]. Requests will take a maximum of 2 business days to process.
Contact information: Jeff Monford, Milken Institute, 1250 4th St FL 2, Santa Monica, CA 904011418.
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES
COMMITTEE REPORT
TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Approved November --, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary......................................................................
Page 1
Initial Section...........................................................................
Page 3
Charge1.................................................................................
Page 4
Charge2.................................................................................
Page 6
Charge3.................................................................................
Page 9
Conclusion.................................................................................
Page 11
Exhibit A —Res. 13-47...................................................................
Page 12
Exhibit B — 2014 Annual Report ......................................................
Page 16
Exhibit C — Sub Committee Evaluation .................................................
Page 33
Exhibit D — Accreditation letter and report .............................................
Page 38
Exhibit E — Survey Report................................................................
Page 45
Exhibit F - Senior Center Strategic Plan Booklet ....................................
Page 53
Exhibit G — Census.........................................................................
Page 65
Executive Summary
I. Committee's Approach
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee was established pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 14-
37 on February 18", 2014. The committee met regularly to accomplish the three tasks charged by the
City Council. Public comment was received at all meetings and a special meeting was held on
November 12, 2014 to hear public input specific to the committee's initial draft report to the City
Council. This final report reflects all changes made subsequent to the November 12" public input
meeting.
11. Charge 1: Evaluation of Senior Center
The committee was directed to evaluate the current vision, mission and programming of the Senior
Center. This task was accomplished with input from Senior Center staff and members of the public,
as well through a review of existing reports and related documents concerning the Senior Center. The
committee found that the Senior Center's programs "promote active aging at a consistently high
level". The committee agreed with the National Council on Aging's assessment that the "Senior
Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development and
implementation." The committee recognized the Senior Center's collaboration with agencies that
provide service to seniors.
The committee evaluated opportunities for improvement, which included "a review offees and other
ways to assist in the funding of the Center should be encouraged." Notably, the committee felt that
scholarships for low-income participants should be continued and encouraged. Finally, the committee
recognized that "efforts are being made to increase ethnic, racial, economic, and other types of
diversity."
The committee acknowledged the difficulty in measuring non-member use of the Senior Center.
However, the committee encourages staff to "consider ways to collect data to demonstrate
community -wide, multi -generational participation in activities and events."
III. Charge 2: Financial & Physical Resources
The committee spent considerable time attempting to understand the existing and expected future
resources of the City. It is noted that property tax reform and a declining trend of federal assistance
will likely result in increased financial pressures on the community. In order to better understand the
needs of the senior population, the committee heard from City staff members from multiple
departments and committee members reviewed agencies providing service to seniors in the
community. Time and resource constraints did not allow for a more formal approach to gauge the
needs of the senior population. A professional survey should be considered by the City Council.
Summarized recommendations from the committee related to this charge are outlined below:
• The City should continue to work on goals to identify and utilize revenue sources;
• The City should assess opportunities to generate revenue through rentals;
• The City should consider the needs of low-income seniors as a high priority when allocating
federal, state and local funds to external agencies;
• The City should seek additional funds from external municipalities whose residents utilize the
Center;
• The City should assess opportunities to share space, funding strategies and other resources
with relevant community agencies;
REPORT PAGE 1
• The City should encourage all agencies that serve seniors, irrespective of whether that is their
primary mission, to apply for any available funds that serve low-income seniors;
• The City should commission a professional survey to better understand the needs of seniors;
• The City should maintain the Center in its current location; and
• The City should take steps to enhance accessibility to and within the Center.
1V. Charge 3: Obstacles to Serving the Senior Population
The final charge of the committee was to identify any obstacles, including facility considerations,
which may be hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make
recommendations that would minimize or eliminate such obstacles. The committee's
recommendations are summarized below:
A. Obstacle: Transportation.
Recommendation: Transportation -related issues — especially in light of the reduced funding to
SEATS — are problematic for certain segments of the senior population. The City should assess
the transportation -related issues in more detail.
B. Obstacle: Difficulties with expansion of diversity.
Recommendation: The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff
should continue the working committee to explore ways to add the current diversity of
participants at the Center, and to make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.
C. Obstacle: Gaps in services for seniors.
Recommendation: The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The dialogue should
include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and
various agencies.
D. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center.
Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing The Center (e.g. time allotted to cross
streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter; slippery
paint on crosswalks; public bus stop in front of ADA entrance on Washington St.).
E. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs.
Recommendations: Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming
that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors.
F. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.
Recommendation: Explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design
for low and middle-income seniors.
G. Obstacle: Decrease in funding.
Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in
Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors.
H. Obstacle: Lack of articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly.
Recommendation: The City Council should establish an exploratory committee to consider the
WHO (World Health Organization) approach to age friendly cities.
REPORT PAGE 2
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
I. Establishment of the Committee
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee ("Committee") was established by the Iowa City City Council
("Council') on the 18" day of February, 2014.
II. Committee Members
Member
Begins
Joe Younker -Chair
Mercedes Bern -Klug
5/1/2014
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
12/1/2014
Ellen Cannon
Jane Dohnnann
5/1/2014
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
12/1/2014
Rick Dobyns -Council Member
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
Jay H. Honohan
Hiram Richard Webber
5/1/2014
5/1/2014
12/1/2014
12/1/2014
III. Enabling Resolution and Committee Charge
Pursuant to the terms of Resolution No. 14-37 ("Resolution'), a copy of which is attached to this Report
as Exhibit A, Council has charged the Committee with three tasks:
A. To evaluate the current vision, mission, and programing, and recent accomplishments of the
Senior Center, as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report (Exhibit B). Further, and to review the
current demographics of the participants served by the Senior Center Survey of Members,
Former Members, as well as other available data resources from the Senior Center, and
determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing available services. A
summary of this committee evaluation and its final related findings shall be included in the final
written report to the City Council.
B. To make recommendations to the City Council on how Iowa City should use current financial and
physical resources to meet the needs oflowa City seniors. These recommendations should
consider the City's use of existing resources and the vision, mission, and programming required
to more effectively serve the growing senior population in the community in accordance with the
inclusive and sustainable values expressed in the City's Strategic Plan. Such recommendations
shall include commentary regarding the specific segments of the senior population that they
intend to serve.
C. To identify any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be hindering the City's
ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that would minimize or
eliminate such obstacles.
REPORT PAGE 3
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
IV. Meetings Conducted
The Ad Hoc Committee Chair Joseph Younker, vice chair Jane Dohrmann, members Mercedes Bern -
Klug, Ellen Cannon, Richard Dobyns, Jay Honohan, and Rick Webber, staff Marian Karr and Geoff
Fruin, convened on May 5, 2014.
The committee adopted a meeting format as follows:
1. Call to order
2. Consider motion to adopt consent calendar as presented or amended.
a) minutes
b) correspondence
3. Discussion by the committee on selected items
4. Reports from contact members re local agencies
5. Public discussion (items not on the agenda)
Public comment at the meetings was extensive relating to the Committee's responsibilities, the Center,
and other local agencies providing services to seniors.
Charge 1: Evaluation of the Center
L Description of the Center
In 1981, the City completed the rehabilitation of the old Post Office building at 28 S. Linn, Iowa City,
Iowa. The original mail workroom is now the assembly room that hosts a variety of informative and
entertaining programs as well as the site for the senior dining program. A mezzanine floor was added to
make more efficient use of the vertical space above the assembly room. The building has a variety of
offices, meeting and exercise rooms.
IL Key Considerations
A copy of the full evaluation is attached to this report identified as Exhibit C. The following, however,
provides an overview of the Center's areas of excellence, opportunities for improvement, and items for
further review.
A. Areas of excellence
The Center is the primary, central resource for quality programs and services that
promote optimal aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's programs
promote active aging at a consistently high level. The Committee agrees with the report
completed by the National Council of the Aging National Institute of Senior Centers, the
Center accomplishes its Vision` and Mission .2
"To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities
that promote optimal aging."
z "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness,
social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual growth."
REPORT PAGE 4
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
The Center is the only nationally accredited senior center in the state of Iowa (Exhibit D).
The Committee agrees with the National Council on Aging's assessment that the Senior
Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program development
and implementation. In addition, results from the 2013 survey (Exhibit E) and the
comments from members during the Committee meetings indicate high satisfaction with
the center. The Center is a strong community asset supporting thousands of persons a
year to learn new skills, make friends, share interests, and engage more fully in the
community. The Committee recognizes the Center leadership for using financial and
other resources well as it works toward fulfilling its mission of promoting optimal aging
in our community.
In 2013, 360 unique classes were offered at the Center (Program Guide available on
Center website). Volunteers donated 24,400 hours towards the operation. Persons
benefited from services offered by other agencies at the Center, including Visiting Nurses
Association, AARP Tax Aid, Elder Services Agency, volunteer lawyers, counseling,
SHIPP, Honoring Your Wishes, and English language learners' (ELL) classes. The
Center Staff is responsible for coordinating these programs, organizing registration and
appointments, in addition to organizing volunteers.
Currently the Center has 1592 members. Membership dues are $33 for a single Iowa City
resident. Non -Iowa City fees are higher. Scholarship fees are $10 for low-income
seniors. In addition to the members, many older adults and younger people benefit from
programs.
The Center staff consists of the, coordinator, program and community outreach
specialists, an operations assistant, two maintenance workers and three part time staff
assisted by the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Committee, and senior
volunteers. The current level of staffing does not permit providing activities and services
for people experiencing advanced dementia or other cognitive impairments requiring
supervision and assistance. However, the Center does serve seniors who have disabilities
and limited cognitive impairment.
B. Opportunities for improvement
The fees for participants in the Center are reasonable, but considering future budget
constraints, a review of fees and other ways to assist in the funding of the Center should
be considered. Scholarships for low-income participants should be continued and
encouraged.
The current level of diversity in the participants at the Center continues to be a concern of
the Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and staff. Efforts are being made to
increase diversity.
C. Data gaps and identification of matters for further review/study
The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and staff are
continuing their efforts to increase diversity at the Center. Methods of supplementing
and improving these efforts should be reviewed.
REPORT PAGE 5
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
The Senior Center Commission, Steering Council (composed of volunteers), and staff
should evaluate membership fees and other ways to assist in funding the operational
budget
The Committee considered asking the staff to collect demographic characteristics and
usage information of nonmembers who participate in activities at the Center, but decided
against doing so because of the burden on the staff and the discomfort that some
participants may feel in disclosing personal information. Center staff should consider
ways to collect data to demonstrate community -wide, multi -generational participation on
activities and events.
(Exhibit F — Senior Center Strategic Plan Booklet)
Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources
I. Understanding of City Financials
In order to better understand the City's financial position, the Committee sought information on
existing resources as well as expected financial trends in the coming years. Specifically, the
Committee reviewed information on how the City funds the Center and supports non-profit
agencies through the Aid to Agencies and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
programs. The Committee also reviewed previous correspondence from staff to the Council
concerning the projected impacts of the 2013 property tax reform legislation and heard directly on
that issue from Finance Director, Dennis Bockenstedt. Finally, the Committee reviewed funding
trends in the CDBG and HOME federal grant programs.
The Committee reviewed the FY 13, FY 14 and FY 15 Center budgets. At the time of review,
only the FY 13 budget reflected actual revenues and expenditures. The Center operates with
expenditures of $778,491 (FY 13) and revenues of $209,724 (FY 13). This means the General
Fund contributed $568,766 in FY 13. While FY 14 and FY 15 budgets were not closed out, it
appears from the Committee's review and staff comments that the General Fund contribution
tends to be in the 70-75% of expenditures range. Similar to other City operations, the vast
majority of expenditures are personnel related. Approximately 1% of the City's General Fund is
allocated to the Center.
The Committee also reviewed the FY 13-15 allocations for the City's Aid to Agencies and CDBG
programs. As the Council understands, there is a prioritization process that guides the allocation
of these funds. Over the last three years the City's contributions have ranged from approximately
$375,000 to $400,000. Of those funds the FY 15 allocation included $35,000 to two senior
service providers, although the committee recognizes that other agencies that received funds
likely serve some seniors, albeit not exclusively. CDBG funds are regularly used to support
housing projects. While some types of senior housing are eligible for CDBG funds, the
Committee noted that the last senior housing projects to receive funds were in 1999, 2000 and
2001.
REPORT PAGE 6
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
Looking ahead, the Committee recognizes that property tax reform will put significant pressure
on the General Fund, which contributes both to the Center and the Aid to Agencies program.
Similarly, a ten year review of CDBG and HOME grants to the City clearly show a downward
trend of those funding sources. Both federal grant programs have been reduced by several
hundred thousand dollars over the last ten years. The political climate in Washington D.C. does
not give City staff any reason to believe this trend will reverse in the coming years. These
financial pressures will impact the City's ability to fund all programs, not just ones that serve
seniors.
IL Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
Determining the needs of the City's senior population is a very difficult task to accomplish in a
short period of time. The Committee approached this task in two ways. First, the Committee
heard from City staff with the Senior Center, as well as with the Library, Parks and Recreation
and Transportation Services departments. - Secondly, the committee attempted to identify several
of the largest non-profit service providers in the area to gain a better understanding of their
operations, finances and general challenges. Individually, Committee members met with the
following agencies and then shared their findings with the Committee as a whole:
o Elder Services
o HAAA
o Johnson County Livable Communities
o Shelter House
o Pathways
o Consultation of Religious Communities
o Iowa City Free Medical Clinic
o MECCA
o JC Mental Health
o VNA
o Compeer
o Iowa City Hospice
o SEATS
o Hispanic Community
Given the time constraints on the Committee, we feel this approach was the best method for
determining the needs of the senior population. However, we recognize this was an informal
approach and thus any conclusions should be treated as such. Additionally, although the agencies
surveyed by the Committee all provide services to seniors in a general sense, the agencies are
designed to serve various target populations. For example, some agencies (e.g., Elder Services)
are designed to target certain segments of the senior population. Other agencies (e.g., Iowa City
Free Medical Clinic) provide services to seniors as part of servicing a larger target population. If
the Council wishes for a more scientific approach to determining the needs of seniors, it will
likely need to utilize professional assistance with a survey methodology.
REPORT PAGE 7
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
Ill. General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population
There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older
adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson
County Livable Community web site. The web site includes 90 agencies and residential options
(e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living). Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for-
profit, and 56 are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge; however, 36 are able to bill
Medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy-five are paid through private pay and private
insurance.
Both the City and non-profit organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with
existing limited financial resources. Based upon the information collected through this process,
the following themes were identified.
1. The Committee recognize that with the growing senior population, it will be increasingly
challenging to meet the needs of a growing and increasingly diverse senior population,
especially for seniors with limited financial resources. (Exhibit G)
2. The Committee recognizes the demand for programs and services that promote overall
wellness and independence and prevent or delay the onset of chronic diseases will
increase.
3. Available funding from both Federal and City may decrease for both the Center
and the non-profit agencies. Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from
other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors.
IV. Recommendations Regarding Financial Resources
1) The City's General Fund funds the majority (approximately 70-75%) of the Center's
budget City Staff expects that property tax reform will put significant pressure on the
General Fund in the coming years. The Committee recommends that the Center
Commission and Staff, and the City Staff, continue to work on goals to identify and
utilize revenue sources, including reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents.
2) In connection with Recommendation No. 1, the Center should assess opportunities to
generate revenue through the rental of meeting/gathering space.
3) The Committee understands that the City is in the process of assessing how it prioritizes
the distribution of certain federal, state, and local funds among various social service
agencies. Through that the process, the City should identify the needs of low-income
seniors — especially needs relating to issues concerning food and supportive services that
allow people to remain safely in their homes for as long as possible (e.g., Pathways Adult
Day Health Center & Elder Services) — as being in the highest prioritization category.
4) The Senior Center Commission and Center Staff, in coordination with the City, should
seek increased funding from Johnson County.
5) City Staff and Center Staff should continue to assess opportunities to share space,
funding strategies, and other resources with relevant community social service agencies
to increase efficiencies and leverage various funding opportunities.
REPORT PAGE 8
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
6) Agencies and organizations that serve older adults should be encouraged to apply for
AID TO AGENCY funds for their specific programs that address current areas of high
priority as decided by the City Council, including in particular programs serving older
adults that address: substance abuse, emotional health services, employment training,
housing services for persons experiencing homelessness, and transportation.
7) The City commission a professional survey to collect unbiased, representative
information regarding gaps in services and barriers to access for seniors on which to base
subsequent recommendations.
8) Many seniors face barriers to participating in social networks in our community because
of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, emotional challenges, language and/or
poverty. To aid these seniors, the Committee proposes that the City Council initiate a
program "Full Participation Awards" for the next three years of four grants of $10,000
each to non profits for programs to enhance social programing for these seniors.
V. Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources
1) Maintain the current location of the Center.
2) The Center should take steps to increase the accessibility of its building. Steps to
consider include, but are not limited to: a) a general informal assessment of ADA
compliance; b) requesting a public bus stop be added in front the ADA accessible
entrance on Washington Street; c) and increase signage in the Tower Place parking ramp
to assist visitors in locating the Center's skyway.
Charge 3: Obstacles and Recommendations
Charge 3 tasks the Committee with "identify[ing] any obstacles, including facility considerations, which
may be hindering the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that
would minimize or eliminate such obstacles." The Committee has identified the following obstacles and
recommendations.
A. Obstacle: Transportation.
Recommendation: Transportation -related issues — especially in light of the reduced funding to
SEATS — are problematic for certain segments of the senior population. The City should assess
the transportation -related issues in more detail.
B. Obstacle: Difficulties with expansion of diversity.
Recommendation: The Senior Center Commission, the Steering Council, and the Center staff
should continue the working committee to explore ways to add the current diversity of
participants at the Center, and to make sure the diversity reflects that of the community at large.
C. Obstacle: Gaps in services for seniors.
Recommendation: The City and agencies that serve older adults should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The dialogue should
include the continued identification of possible areas of collaboration between the City and
various agencies.
REPORT PAGE 9
Report reflects language approved by the Committee and public input received.
The draft report is subject to further review and final approval by the Committee
at their meeting November 24th.
D. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center.
Recommendation: Assess the challenges with accessing The Center (e.g. time allotted to cross
streets at the corner of Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter; slippery
paint on crosswalks; public bus stop in front of ADA entrance on Washington St.).
E. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs.
Recommendations: Increase emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming
that benefits everyone in the community, not just seniors.
F. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors.
Recommendation: Explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design
for low and middle-income seniors.
G. Obstacle: Decrease in funding.
Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase contributions from other cities in
Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors.
H. Obstacle: Lack of articulated vision for how to make Iowa City age friendly.
Recommendation: The City Council should establish an exploratory committee to consider the
WHO (World Health Organization) approach to age friendly cities.
REPORT PAGE 10
Conclusion
The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee completed its charge to:
1) evaluate the Senior Center
2) review current and projected financial and physical resources to meet the needs of seniors
3) identify obstacles and make recommendations to minimize or eliminate such obstacles
The Committee concluded that to meet the needs of the current and growing senior population
and to be in accordance with the inclusive values of the City of Iowa City, the City should
continue to support the Senior Center in its current location and through on-going financial
support. The City should continue to support other organizations that also meet the needs of
seniors, especially through programs that meet basic needs and reduce isolation. Further study
should be done to allow seniors to self -identify additional needs. Finally, various obstacles should
be addressed to improve the quality of life of seniors. By supporting the needs of seniors, the
City of Iowa City will continue to be a place where people want to live, retire, grow older, and
contribute to the well-being of the community.
REPORT PAGE 11
Exhibit A - Resolution
Prepared by: Geoff Fruin, Asst. to the City Manager, 410 E. Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240 (319) 356-5010
RESOLUTION NO. 14-37
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING AN AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW THE VISION, MISSION, AND PROGRAMMING OF CITY
SPONSORED SENIOR SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL NEEDS
OF SENIORS IN THE COMMUNITY
WHEREAS, The vast majority of city sponsored senior services are provided through the Senior
Center (aka The Center). The Vision of the Senior Center is that it "will be the communities'
primary resource for the highest quality programs, services, and opportunities that promote
optimal aging". The Mission of the Senior Center is "to promote optimal aging among older
adults by offering programs and services that promote wellness, social interaction, community
engagement, and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public through intergenerational
programming and community outreach. and
WHEREAS, According to the United States Census Bureau, the segments of the United States
population that grew the fastest between 2000 and 2010 were persons ages 45 to 64 years and
65 years and older. Statistics on the State of Iowa and the City of Iowa City indicate that the senior
population is growing in similar fashion; and
WHEREAS, The City Council recently adopted its 2014-15 Strategic Plan, which includes a
commitment to foster a more inclusive and sustainable Iowa City. The Strategic Plan also included
a new initiative to examine alternative approaches to delivering services and programs for senior
citizens; and
WHEREAS, It is important for City services to recognize and adapt to the changing demographic
and socioeconomic profile of Iowa City residents in order to ensure that municipal services are
best meeting the needs of the population; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has expressed a desire to evaluate the current services offered
by the Senior Center in order to ensure that the City is effectively meeting the needs of the
senior population within the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA
CITY, IOWA, THAT:
1. The Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee is established.
2. The Senior Service Committee shall consist of seven (7) members to be appointed by the
City Council. Members of other City boards and commissions may serve on the Senior Services
Committee. Membership shall include at least one member of the City Council, Senior Center
Commission and a non-member of the Senior Center. Up to two non-residents of the City of Iowa
City shall be eligible to serve on the committee if they are residents of Johnson County and offer
desirable expertise not available from applicants who reside in Iowa City.
REPORT PAGE 12
Ehibif(A - F�esolution
eso ution o. 14-37
Page 2
3. Applications for membership on the Senior Services Committee shall be announced,
advertised, and available in the same manner as those for all City boards and commissions. The
term of members shall commence immediately upon City Council appointment.
4. City Council shall select the Chair, who when present will preside over all meetings, and
the Vice -Chair, who will serve as chair in absence of the Chair.
5. The City Manager and City Clerk, or their designees, shall staff the Senior Services
Committee.
6. The Senior Services Committee shall determine the frequency and conduct of its
meetings. The meetings will be open to the public in accordance with Chapter 21 of the Iowa
Code.
7. The Senior Services Committee shall serve from May 1, 2014 to December 1, 2014 and
shall have an organizational meeting no later than June 13, 2014.
8. The charges of the Senior Services Committee are as follows:
A. To evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, and recent
accomplishments of the Senior Center, as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report.
Further, and to review the current demographics of the participants served by
existing operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Center
Survey of Members, Former Members and Non -Members, as well as other
available data sources from the Senior Center, and determine whether segments
of the senior population are not accessing available services. A summary of this
committee evaluation and its related findings shall be included in the final written
report submitted to the City Council.
B. To make recommendations to the City Council on how Iowa City should use
current financial and physical resources to meet the needs of Iowa City seniors.
These recommendations should consider the City's use of existing resources and
the vision, mission and programming required to more effectively serve the
growing senior population in the community in accordance with the inclusive and
sustainable values expressed in the City's Strategic Plan. Such recommendations
shall include commentary regarding the specific segments of the senior population
that they are intended to serve.
C. To identify any obstacles, including facility considerations, which may be hindering
the City's ability to serve the senior population and to make recommendations that
would minimize or eliminate such obstacles.
9. The Senior Services Committee shall submit a written report to the City Council by
December 1, 2014, that responds to each of the charges listed above and that contains
recommendations, if any, with respect to each of the charges.
10. Absent further action by the City Council, the Senior Services Committee will dissolve on
December 1. 2014.
REPORT PAGE 13
E�A,pAl tion�solu U37
Page 3
Passed and approved this 18th day of February , 2014.
ATTEST: %� --/s/.
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
REPORT PAGE 14
p rove
City Attorney's Office
Exhibit A - Resolution
Resolution No. 14-37
Page 4
It was moved by Mims and seconded by
Resolution be adopted, and upon roll call there were:
AYES:
X
X
X
X
X
NAYS:
REPORT PAGE 15
ABSENT:
the
Botchway
Dickens
Dobyns
Hayek
Mims
Payne
Throgmorton
Exhibit B - Annual Report
Handed out at 05/05/14 meeting
REPORT PAGE 16
KEEPING ACTIVE PHY SICALLYAND MENTALLY
ESTABLISHING SOCIAL CONNECTIONS, AND
MAINTAINING CONTACT WITH THE COMMUNITY
ARE CORNERSTONES OF OPTIMAL AGING, AND
THEYARE WHAT WE DO BEST AT THE IOWA CITY/
JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER.
A%
I
ul-3u -14
IP3
Exhibit B - Annual Report
The FY13
Survey
KEEPINGACTIVE
PHYSICALLYAND MENTALLY
To determine the effectiveness of current
programs and policies in promoting
optimal aging, a survey for members,
non-members, and former members
was developed and administered in
FY13. Survey goals included identifying
incentives, barriers, and benefits to
participation in Center programs and
program strengths and weaknesses.
In June of 2013, over 3000 surveys were
mailed to individuals on The Center's
Program Guide mailing list who were
residents of Johnson County and either
a current member, former member, or
non-member of The Center. In total
1092 (35%) surveys were returned.
Results were analyzed using Excel and a
content analysis for written responses.
ACTION PLAN
The results of the survey have been forwarded to the members of the Senior
Center Commission and the participant based Membership, Program,
Community Outreach, and Diversity Working Committees, and Steering Council.
After review and discussion of the results of the survey, representatives from
the Commission, Working Committees, Steering Council, and Center staff will
collaborate to develop a plan of action that will maintain our areas of strength
while addressing the issues identified. Our goal is to offer opportunities for
CLASSES
'the Center o&red 360 unique classes in
IN13 covering everything from literature
and fitness to video production, music,
and art education.
Members and community members
praised The Center for the quality of
its programming and the many ways
participation enriches their lives. The
average satisfaction rating for programs
and services was 97%! The personal
benefits identified were all critical
components of successful aging. People
said they "met lots of new people;"
"enjoyed and learned many new things;"
felt a sense of belonging, changed
their attitudes about aging; shared
their knowledge; and added purpose,
meaning, and structure to their lives. In
the words of one person, participation
"improved my self-esteem and in a
wonderful way... connected me to the
community... improved my mental
health and relieved the sense of isolation
I sometimes have."
Most respondents view The Center
as an asset to the community or
themselves. They mentioned The
Center's role in decisions about their
retirement location and how it helped
them become integrated into the
community. Others noted such things
as quality programming, a quality
facility, and their good fortune to be
here. For example: "I love the center
and plan my week aro and it. The
staff is great. The classes are great. The
facility is attractive." Numerous working
seniors mentioned their desire to enroll
optimal aging to all adults over 50 in our community without compromising our in programs when they retired and
current level of excellence. classes become available.
REPORT PAGE 18
2 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
Exhibit B - Annual Report
VOLUNTEER SERVICE
Six hundredand forty-five (645) volunteers donated 24,300
hours as teachers, leaders, project directors, building supervisors,
or special project volunteers to support The Center in FY13.
They play a critical role in the successful operation of the Senior
Center. This type of service is known to provide purpose and
meaning to life; a way to contribute to the community after
leaving the workforce.
The survey revealed a few operational
areas that need to be addressed. For
instance, many working seniors and
seniors with daytime responsibilities
would like to have access to The Center
on weeknights and expanded weekend
hours. Additionally, there is a need
for more diversity in programming
and membership. This includes
intergenerational programming, as well
as age, ethnic, and economic diversity
among members.
Expanding membership diversity is
a primary goal in The Center's 2010-
2015 Goals. Therefore, for the past
several years, the Steering Council
and Membership, Program, and
Community Outreach Working
Committees have been collaborating
with staff to address issues related to
diversity and sponsoring programs to
promote multiculturalism and bring
new groups. into The Center. Recently
a new working committee was formed
that will focus its attention on diversity
issues exclusively. Nonetheless, there is
more work to be done.
lar d complete description of the survey
contem, findings andanalysis, see
www.ICgouorg/senior
EU
"It has improved my self-esteem and
in a wonderful way has connected
me to the community (through
classes and activities) so has
improved my mental health and
relieved the sense of isolation I
sometimes have."
REPORT PAGE 19
The Center 2013 Annual Report - 3
Exhibit B - Annual Report
c;1
"I have met lots of cw pe��ple and enjoyed and learned ESTABLISHING SOCIAL
many new things. I feel welcome whenever I come to CONNECTIONS
the center."
Aw.dlted by rK=
National Inglinte of
senior Centers
Mission Statement
The Mission of the Senior Center is to promote optimal aging
among older adults by offering programs and services that
promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement,
and intellectual growth. The Center serves the public through
intergenerational programming and community outreach.
THERE WERE
104, 970
total visits to Center sponsored programs in FY13
THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL
14,254 and 6940
on-site visits to the Senior Nutrition Program and
other services and meetings respectively
FOR A GRAND TOTAL OF
126
164
visits in FY13.
IV
THERE ARE
1,592
current members.
National Accreditation
November 2012-2017
In November of 2012, The Center received national
accreditation for the second time. National accreditation
is awarded by the National Council on Aging's National
Institute of Senior Centers and signifies that The Center has
met senior center standards of excellence in nine operational
areas: purpose and planning; program development and
implementation; governance; fiscal and asset responsibility;
fatality and operations; evaluation; community connections;
administration; and records and reports.
Of nearly 11,000 senior centers across the United States,
only 200 or sohave been accredited. The Iowa City facility is
currently the only senior center in the state of Iowa to have
this official national recognition.
Having national accreditation indicates to the members
of our community that The Center's services and overall
operation meet or exceed the standards of excellence
developed by senior center leaders from across the country.
As an accredited senior center, we are among the very best in
the United States.
On site reviewers for the accreditation process were
particularly impressed with some of our practices. Specifically:
• Multiple collaborations with community parmers
• Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to
brand the organization
• Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours
with volunteer building supervisors
• Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs
and activities, showcased in an exceptional program guide
• Important stewardship of a historic building in the
community
Becoming nationally accredited is a complicated, multi -step
process involving staff and many volunteers. Without the
support and participation of our volunteers, obtaining this
highly regarded recognition would not have been possible.
REPORT PAGE 20
4 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
Exhibit B - Annual Report
SOCIAL INTERACTION AND ENGAGEMENT
Social interaction and engagement are essential components of all programming. In
addition to our classes, The Center offered 50 special events, 7 performance- groups, 18
different volunteer activities, and 24 groups and clubs in PY13. All of these activities
incorporated time for participants to interact with each other.
Programming Principles and Values Vision Statement
"I developed a
happier attitude
about aging."
The primary principle underlying Senior Center programming The vision of the Senior Center is to be the communities'
and services is that of optimal aging. primary resource for the highest quality programs, services,
and opportunities that promote optimal aging.
Optimal aging is a broad concept involving more than
physical health or the absence of disease. It is a comprehensive
and individualized concept of wellness that encourages
and extends an optimal balance of physical, intellectual,
emotional, social, vocational, and spiritual health.
The Senior Center's program components promote optimal
aging by providing a variety of opportunities for education, social
engagement, physical activity, and community involvement.
Participation in these types of activities are known to reduce
the risk of disease and disability, improve memory, enhance
mobility, maintain independence, and provide a social
network that is a key factor in longevity and the ability to
participate in and contribute to the culture and community.
Values represent the core priorities in an organization's culture
and serve as the foundation for all that is done. The Center
abides by the following values:
1. Intrinsic worth: Every individual has intrinsic worth-
2.
orth2. Experience: Life experiences of adults are valued and
shared.
3. Capacity for growth: Everyone has a life-long capacity
for growth and improvement.
4. Respect: All people and ideas deserve respect.
5. Inclusiveness: Decision-making is inclusive of different
viewpoints.
6. Excellence: All programs and services strive for excellence.
7. Collaboration: Engagement of and with the larger
Johnson County community sustains the Senior Center.
8. Honesty- Communication is honest and based on
mutual trust.
REPORT PAGE 21
The Center 2013 Annual Report - 5
Exhibit B - Annual Report
AW_NTAINING CONTACT W 7TH
THE CO"UNITY
COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFERED AT THE CENTER
During FY13, 26 profmsional services were offered at "Ihe
Center. Programs like the AARP `1' x Aide Program; University
of Iowa Counseling Services; Volunteer Lawyers; Senior Health
Insurance Information Program; Visiting Nurses Association;
and Hunming Your Wishes, a community -wide advanced care
Planning initiative, all ensure that the community comes into
The Center.
FY2013 Finances: Senior Center Operations
Expenses
Personnel
$509,369
Services
214,878
Supplies
47,372
Capital Outlay
6,872
Total $778,491
New Horizons Band Expenses
Personnel
$6,244
Services
3,601
Supplies
1,890
Total $11,735
New Horizons Band Revenue
Band Fees $9,395
Special Events 1,341
Contributions and Donations 3,157
Total $13,893
Revenue
Johnson County
$70,000
Class Fees
4,188
Fees: Voices of Experience
2,320
Membership Fees
46,751
Special Events
1,442
Independent Contractor Fees
14,459
Contributions and Donations
13,953
Senior Center Endowment
23,177
Miscellaneous Sales
7,736
Sponsored Program Support
5,853
Reimbursement of Damages
866
Room Rental
400
Locker Rental
1,224
Parking Permits
17,035
Vending Machine Commission
322
Total $209,726
REPORT PAGE 22
6 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
Exhibit B - Annual Report
THE SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM
REACHING OUT TO THE COUNTY
which supplied 84,237 units of service in 11'2013, is housed in this building and
Performances by music, theatre, dance,
provided with all essential maintenance and operational expenses free of charge. In
and poetry groups are regularly scheduled
addition to the 14,254 meals prepared and served on site, this location was used to
throughout the community. Center
make and prepare for delivery 58,092 home delivered meals, 11,891 meals for satellite
volunteers share information about The
locations, and 3,409 prepackaged meals for distribution in Johnson County.
Senior Cemer and conduct fundraising
activities in a variety of venues. In FY13
"Ihe Center recorded 9,298 visitsto
outreach programs.
FY2013 Donors: Operational Budget and New Horizons
Band
Supporting ($1000+)
Community Foundation
Friends of The Center
Hills Bank and Trust Company
Iowa City Masonic Foundation
US Bank
Platinum ($500-999)
Susan and Sandy Boyd
Helene Soper
University of Iowa Community
Credit Union
University of Iowa, Department
of Microbiology
Gold ($250-499)
Coralville Center for the
Performing Arts
Joan Jehle
Todd Nash
Michael and Patricia Pavelich
Jo Ellen Sittlow
Walden Place
Working Group Theater
Silver ($150-249)
Frederick and Judith Amundson
Jon and Judy Cryer
Devotay
Patricia and James Ephgrave
Johnson County Retired School
Personnel
Susan Cox Conservatorship
John and Kathleen Wachel
Hamet and James Wrenn
Bronze ($75-149)
Michael Adams and Kristine
Krenik
Julia Anderson
Jacqueline Bird
Bill Blanchard
Mary Brandes
Lynne Cannon
Richard and Ellen Caplan
Connie Clark
Terry Curtis
Julia Davis and David Reynolds
Thelma, Dora, Michael and Rita
Davison
Richard and Ann Feddersen
Linda Fisher
Anne and Joseph Frankel
Peter and Katy Hansen
Dale Helling
Wendy Heffner and
Diane Mothershead
Jan and Kenn Hubel
William and Marlene Hutt
Kay Kendall
Linda and Richard Kerber
Diana Kruse
Paula Laube
Jean and Richard Lloyd -Jones
Ina and Gerhard Loewenberg
Nancy Lynch
Joyce Merrier
Meenal Menezes
Gregg Oden and Lola Lopes
Polly Pagliai
Ed and Sara Ring
Stephen and Deborah Rugg
Mae Schatteman
Ken and Mary Beth Slonneger
Jack and Barbara Thorpe and
Family
Ann Wade
Contributors ($1-74)
Dean Abel
Kent and Kay Ackerson
Marsha Anderson
Laretta Angerer
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
Dottie and Karl Armens
Patricia Arnold
Jenean Arnold
Olivia Atcherson
Alice and Kendall Atkinson
Fran Austin
Douglas Baynton
Bonnie Bender
Kevin Berbaum and Julia Lenel
Glorine Berry
Katherine Bjorndal
Janice and Larry Blake
John Brandon and Diana Harris
Estyl and Richard Breazeale
Connie and Edward Brinton
Jim and Sandy Bucher
Rosie Bullington
Valerie Buns
Joan Buxton
Helen and Bill Byington
Kathleen Cahill
Carnation Rebekah Lodge 376
Jeanette Carter
Jo Catalano
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Cazin
Jason Chen
James Clayton and
Christine Allen
Nancy and Paul Collins
Dennis Colman
Jim and Syndy Conger
Charles Cox
Florence Cromer
David Curry
Ralph Delozier
Jan Denehy
Terry and Jo Dickens
Robert Doyle
Karen and David Drake
Michelle Dralle
Carolyn Dyer
Lolly and Del Eggers
Bob and Beth Engel
Eleanor Engen
Sonia and Ronald Ettinger
Pamela Fitzgerald
Douglas Flynn
Robert Foster
Raymond Funk
Glen and Nancy Futterman
George Gay
Norma Gehring
Inez Gehrke
Mary Gilbert
Patricia and James Glueck
Efraim and Miriam Gluzer
Gordon Goldsmith and
Sara Henryson
Jim and LeDonna Gommels
HL and Elmeda Graves
Beverly Graves
Stuart and Carrie Greenburg
Jean Hagan and John Sjoberg
James Hamilton
Pat Hanke
Robert and Sue Hansen
Rose Hanson
Jan Hanson
Joyce Harney
William Heald and
Mary Ann Letizio
Julie Hegmann
Mary Pat Heitman
Douglas Hempel
Judy Hendershot
Kathleen Henderson
Highland Ridge
Laura and Gary Hill
Karl Hillie
Becky Hoffbauer
Del Holland
Leslie Holstad and Dave BoJack
REPORT PAGE 23
The Center 2013 Annual Report • 7
Exhibit B - Annual Report
Jay Honohan
Charles Neuzil
Margery Hoppin
Amy Nicholson
Veronica Hubbard
Candace Noble
International Women's Club
Oaknoll Retirement Services
Donna and John Isaacs
Ardis O'Dell
Sally Jablonski
Old Settlers Association
Diana and Carl Jens
Yvonne Oliver
Mary and David Jepsen
Robert Otto
Jacqueline Johnson
Oxford Farmers Market
Lorea and Ray Johnson
Beverly Palmer
Mr. and Mrs. Robert P Johnson
Marsha Paulsen Peters
Becky Johnson
Mark and Bonnie Penno
Keith and Connie Jones
Suzanne and John Peters
Linda and Herbert Jordon
Mary Louise and Rand Petersen
Jane Kelso
Joanne Peterson
Patricia Knox
Rob Price
Joost Korpel
Marjorie Price
Charles Kreeb
Theola Rarick
Barbara Kund
Janet Rawley
Ruth and Ken Kuntz
Sharon and Charlie Rebouche
Ed Laarman
Margaret Richardson
Marlene and Richard Lake
Mary and Donald Richardson
Phyllis Lance
Linda Riggs
Bill and Rose Landers
Gayle Robertson
Heidi Lauritzen
Ed Redone
Lois Lee
Denise Series
Steve and Jan Locher
Bob and Deb Sass
Vicki Lonngren
Kay Schillig
Bonnie Love and
Edna Schindhelm
Wayne Bowman
Naomi Schleper
Laura Lovell
Deborah and James
Martha Lubaroff
Schoenfelder
Larry Lynch
Steve and Janie Schomberg
Pat Machado
Doralee Schroder
Henry and Mary Anne Madden
Judy and Larry Schroeder
Joanne and Douglas Madsen
Bette Sherrill
Tom and Deb Markus
Jan Smith
Emil and Lucille Martin
Terry and Ann Smothers
Master Gardeners
Dinny Stamp
Kathleen Mathews
Judy and Bill Stebral
Donald and Jane Mathiasen
Joy and Oliver Steele
Pat Maxey
Kim and Steve Stek
Carol McCain
Sheila Stevenson
Mary and Jim McCue
Larry Strabala
Mary Mclnroy
Sally and Roger Stutsman
Nancy McKinstry
Patricia and William Sueppel
Gari and Laura McLaughlin
Mary and Jerry Sullivan
Paul and Valerie McNally
Joan Summerwill
Virginia and Duane Means
Judith Sutherland
Joe Michaud
Betty Sykes
Joan and Gerald Michel
Doris Thompson
Evalee Mickey
Carol Tobias
Bernice Morrison
Robin Ungar
Beverly Mueller
MaryWall
Bonnie and Michael Murphy
Elizabeth Walz
Lucy Murphy
Nellie Weber
Jerry and Judy Musser
Robert and Eunice Welsh
Sally Myers
Nancy Westlake
David and Ginny Naso
Ellen Widiss
Norma and Dale Wilhelm
Marianne Wilkening
Janice and Jim Williams
Doris and Roger Williams
Lois Wingate
Mangy Winkler
Betty Winokur
Barb and Ron Witt
Bev and Lee Witwer
Nancy Wombacher
Bob and Mary Ann Woodburn
Deb, Rich, Lauren and
Lucy Wretman
Charlotte Wright
Darrell and Shirley Wynck
Doris Yoder
Beth Ann and Kenneth Zamzow
Jerry and Barbara Zinn
Donations of Items
Eye Physicians and Surgeons
Barbara Haring
Helen Nicklaus
Jack and Wendy Sherry
In Memory Of
Bebe Ballentine
Joan Jehle
Rae Blanchard
Bill Blanchard
Michelle Dralle
Rose Hanson
Kathleen Henderson
Sally Jablonski
John Cazin
Mr. and Mrs. Roger Cazin
Carol McCain
University of Iowa, Department
of Microbiology
Jean Costa
Barbara Kuncl
Kathleen Mathews
Nellie Weber
Nancy Wombacher
Doris Yoder
Veryl Detwiler
Joan Jehle
Roger Fisher
Anonymous
Jenean Arnold
Alice and Kendall Atkinson
Richard and Ellen Caplan
Jeanette Carter
Jon and Judy Cryer
REPORT PAGE 24
8 - The Center 2073 Annual Report
Bob and Beth Engel
Patricia and James Ephgrave
Ann Feddersen
Linda Fisher
HL and Elmeda Graves
Robert and Sue Hansen
Jan Hanson
Joan Jehle
Keith and Connie Jones
Barbara Kuncl
Heidi Lauritzen
Paul and Valerie McNally
Virginia and Duane Means
Jerry Musser
Mark and Bonnie Penno
Janet Fawley
Steve Schomberg
Judy and Larry Schroeder
Ken and Mary Beth Slonneger
Dinny Stamp
Sheila Stevenson
Sally and Roger Stutsman
Elizabeth Walz
Janice and Jim Williams
Lois Wingate
Margy Winkler
Nancy Wombacher
Beth Ann and Kenneth Zamzow
Jerry and Barbara Zinn
Bernice Gantz
Linda and Richard Kerber
Joseph Giglierano
Michael Adams and Kristine
Krenik
Anonymous
Patricia Arnold
Jacqueline Bird
Thelma, Dora, Michael and Rita
Davison
George Gay
Mary Pat Heitman
Patricia Knox
Joost Korpel
Phyllis Lance
Pat Maxey
Nancy McKinstry
Yvonne Oliver
Robert and Eunice Welsh
Ray Heffner
Susan and Sandy Boyd
Richard and Ellen Caplan
Nancy and Paul Collins
James and Patricia Ephgmve.
Richard and Ann Feddersen
Patricia and James Glueck
Exhibit B - Annual Report
Wendy Heffner and Diane
Nancy Wombacher
Mothershead
Deb, Rich, Lauren and Lucy
Mr. and Mrs. Robert P Johnson
Wretman
Ed Rolenc
Judith Sutherland
Milo "Bud" Palmer
Kathleen and John Wachel
Beverly Palmer
Harriet and James Wrenn
Dorothy Hess
Carnation Rebekah Lodge 376
Glen and Nancy Futterman
Efraim and Miriam Gluzer
Stuart and Carrie Greenburg
Laura and Gary Hill
Donna and John Isaacs
Mary and Donald Richardson
Stephen and Deborah Rugg
Jo Ellen Sittlow
George Paterson
Alice and Kendall Atkinson
Jon and Judy Cryer
Rose Hanson
Judy and Larry Schroeder
Dinny Stamp
Laretta Angerer
Glorine Berry
Katherine Bjorndal
Estyl and Richard Breazeale
Joan Buxton
Jeanette Carter
Jan Denehy
Bob and Beth Engel
Linda Fisher
Jim and LeDonna Gommels
Jan Hanson
Sally Jablonski
Joan Jehle
Diana and Carl Jens
Lorea and Ray Johnson
Chuck Kreeb
Barbara Kuncl
Donald and Jane Mathiasen
Gari and Laura McLaughlin
Duane and Virginia Means
Joan and Gerald Michel
Beverly Mueller
Jerry and Judy Musser
Mary Louise and Rand Petersen
Janet Rawley
Ed and Sara Ring
Denise Sarles
Bob and Deb Sass
Terry and Ann Smothers
Judy and Bill Stebral
Kim and Steve Stek
Sheila Stevenson
Barb and Ron Witt
Nadine Rudi
Joan Jehle
Dorothy Wright
Jack and Barbara Thorpe and
Family
Janie Yates
Rose Hanson
In Honor Of
AARP Tax Aide Preparers
Dennis Colman
Ralph Delozier
Robert Doyle
Linda Fisher
Inez Gehrke
Douglas Hempel
Larry Lynch
FY2013 Donors: Friends of The Center
Friends of The Center
($50,000+)
Clifford and Emily Iona Dodds
Supporting ($1000+)
David and Norma Carlson
Ed Rolenc
Platinum ($500-999)
Shari Davis
Jay and Nancy Honohan
Linda Kopping
Gold ($250-499)
Robert F. and Claire B. Ashman
Don R. Haines
Barbara L. Haring
Iowa Shares
Silver ($150-249)
Anonymous
Anonymous
Dianne Day
Julie Hegmann
Michael Lensing
Helmut and Mara Schrott
Ann Wade
Bronze ($75-149)
Sharon Barrett
Joseph Frankel and Anne
Koopmans Frankel
Judy and Dick Hupfeld
Kenneth E. Krizan
Diana Kruse
Polly and Armond Pagliai
Helmut G. Schrott
Faye and Gordon Strayer
Kathie Belgum
Pat and Jim Ephgrave
Melanie and Bruce Haupert
Carol Howard
Jan and Kenn Hubel
NHB Generations of Jazz
Alexa Romans
Vicki Solursh
Contributors ($1-74)
Michelle Buhman
Lynne Cannon
Barb and Bob Bradley
Miriam and Arthur Canter
Michael and Veronica Chan
Judith K. Earley
Ed and Mary Flaherty
Ray and Shirley Hendrickson
Claire E. Hockley
Carolyn Kohler
Ken and Ruth Kuntz
Bor-Luh and Hsin Lee Lin
Rachael Undhart
Henry and Mary Anne Madden
Sarah Maters
Jo Ann Manderscheid
Mary Grace Mayer
Twyla A. Morlan
Ruth Brook Muir
Sally S. Myers
Candace Noble
Naomi J. Novick
Jerilynn O'Conner
Ardis J. O'Dell
Duane E. Papke
Margaret R. Polson
Jonathan Poulton
Jean Reese
Elizabeth V. Pardee -Rose
James Rosenkild
Doralee K. Schroder
Kathryn D. and Daniel W. Schweer
Janet K. Smith
Computer Mentoring Program
Pamela Fitzerald
Louie DeGrazia
Amy Nicholson
Senior Center Dance Team
International Women's Club
Gerald Solomons
Carol L. Spaziani
Oliver and Joy Steele
Lawrence G. Strabala
Sharon Stubbs
Faye and Gordo Strayer
Janice and Jim Williams
Louis J. Williamson
In Memory Of
Dinny Stamp
Sally S. Myers
George Paterson
Jan and Kenn Hubel
Grover Rosenkild
James Rosenkild
Melvin Schweer
Kathryn D. and Daniel W. Schweer
Jay and Nancy Honohan
Ray Heffner
Faye and Gordon Strayer
Ardis J. O'Dell
Ken and Ruth Kuntz
Janice and Jim Williams
Lynne Cannon
Henry and Mary Anne Madden
Faye and Gordon Strayer
Rachael Lindhart
Margaret R. Polson
Susan Rogusky
Vicki Solursh
In Honor Of
Ina Loewenberg
Anonymous
Mary Dusterhoft
Anonymous
REPORT PAGE 25
The Center 2013 Annual Report • 9
Exhibit B - Annual Report
M
P
Eil
"Fitness classes i!ave been wportant "I think that you offer an AMAZING "The Center enabled me to
to me. The Center provides a number of varied classes." immediately meet new men and
structured way to keep physically women with whom I have common
active at any level of ability." interests."
MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO FRIENDS OF THE CENTER
How YOU Can Support the Programs and Services
Offered by The Center
Friends of The Center; a nonprofit corporation, was formed in 2003 to generate
revenue through donations and bequests to help support The Center's operational
budget and enrich programming. Since its inception, Friends of The Center has
become an important source of funding for The Center.
The Friends manage The Center's Endowment and Charitable Giving account,
which are both held in the Community Foundation of Johnson County. VAlile the
endowment is a long-term investment, the Charitable Giving account is used to
support programming. Both accounts were established for the exclusive benefit of
the Senior Center.
Through the Charitable Giving account, The Friends have provided approximately
$130,000 for computers, SCTV equipment, tables, chairs, AV equipment, fimess
equipment, dances and other special events, and the Linn Street sign. Future
funding is likely to support outreach programming and classroom improvements.
The annual distribution of earnings from the Senior Center Endowment is an
important source of operational income for The Center. As the Endowment grows;
so does the annual contribution. The initial distribution of earnings was just over
$5,000. This year, because of your generous support and growth in the endowment;
the distribution of earnings increased to $30,380.
Gifts of all sizes are appreciated; no gift is too large or too small. They are all tax
deductible and can be made in your name or to honor or memorialize someone.
You have a few options when deciding how you want to make your donation.
re Friends
REPORT PAGE 26
10 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
Of The Center
_�.�- Crr ri _la..raor, Couwn
Exhibit B - Annual Report
ME
"Services you offer are great"
OPTION 1.
MAKEA DONATION
DIRECTLY TO FRIENDS OF
THE CENTER
• Complete the enclosed form.
• Make your check payable to
Friends of The Center.
• Mail your check to:
Friends of The Center
Attn: Linda Kopping, Treasurer
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
P
P
Events I attended and services I've "The programming is varied and
used have been well run; people are creative. Keep it up!"
professional and friendly."
OPTION 2. OPTIONS.
MAKEA DONATION TO THE S UPPORT THE CENTER
COMMUNITYFOUNDATION WITH DIRECT
FOR FRIENDS OF THE CENTER CONTRIBUTION
• Complete the enclosed form
• Make your check payable to
the Community Foundation of
Johnson County.
• Indicate that the donation is for
Friends of The Center by writing
FRIENDS OF THE CENTER on
the memo line of the check. Your
check will be deposited into The
Center's endowment fund.
• Mail your check to:
Friends of The Center
Attn: Linda Kopping, Treasurer
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
• Your donation will be delivered to
the Community Foundation.
Many people prefer this approach
because donations to The Center's
endowment that are given directly
to the Community Foundation are
eligible for an Endow Iowa 25% state
tax credit.
REPORT PAGE 27
A tax deductible donation can be
made directly to The Center and
be used immediately to support
current operational expenses. Use
the enclosed card to let us know if
you want the gift made in honor or
memory of someone.
• Make your check payable to
The Senior Center
• Mail your check to:
Iowa City/Johnson County
Senior Center
Attn: Kristin Kromray,
Operations Assistant
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
The Center 2013 Annual Report • 111
Exhibit B - Annual Report
FY2O13 Community Partners
100Grannies.org for a Livable
Future
AARP
Access 2Independence
Alzheimer's Association
American Academy of
Dermatology
American Red Cross
Back 2 Act Chiropractic and
Wellness Center
Ben Franklin Crafts and Custom
Framing
Benson & Hepker Design
Bill Sackter Centennial
Care Improvement Plus
Cedar Rapids Vision in Motion
Cellular Recycler
City Channel 4
Community Foundation of
Johnson County
Compeer
Comlville Center for the
Performing Arts
CoralVision
Crisis Center of Johnson County
Delta Gamma Sorority
Devotay
Domestic Violence Intervention
Program (DVIP)
Elder Services, Inc.
Englert Theatre
Extend the Dream Foundation
FilmScene
Friendly Techie
Friends of The Center
Great Heron Healing Arts
Hawkeye Area Community
Action Program
Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers, PLC
Her Soup Kitchen
Heritage Agency on Aging
Hills Bank and Trust Company
The Center's programming excellence is due in large part to its community partnerships.
Community partnerships help avoid duplication of services and support innovation, provide
oppornmities to combine resources in ways that will enrich programming, and ultimately,
serve the older adults of this community more effectively. The Center enjoyed partnerships
with 124 organizations in FY2013.
Holly Kukkonen Piano Studio
Honohan, Epley, Braddock &
Brenneman
Honoring Your Wishes
Hoover Presidential Library
Hy -Vee (First Avenue)
Hy-Voe (Waterfront)
Iowa Audiology & Hearing Aid
Centers
Iowa City Community Band
Iowa City Genealogical Society
Iowa City High School Jazz
Ensemble
Iowa City Hospice
Iowa City Parks and Recreation
Iowa City Public Library
Iowa City Salsa Group
Iowa City Tango Club
Iowa City Telecommunications
Commission (ICTC)
Iowa City/Coralville Convention
and Visitors Bureau
Iowa Cultural Corridor Alliance
Iowa Department for the Blind
Iowa Department of Human
Services
Iowa: Eye to I, LLC
Iowa City Fire Department
Iowa Insurance Division -
Consumer Protection and
Regulatory Agency
Iowa Legal Aid
Iowa City Police Department
Iowa Radio Reading Information
Service (IRIS)
Iowa State University Extension
and Outreach
Iowa Troop Pantry
Iowa United Nations Association
Iowa Valley Habitat for Humanity
InnerSynergy
Jensen Eyecare Center
Joe Page Piano Studio
Johnson County Board of
Supervisors
Johnson County Community
Organizations Active in
Disaster (COAD)
Johnson County Department of
Public Health
Johnson County Historical
Society
Johnson County Livable
Community
Kai-Yun Acupuncture
Leff Law Firm, LLP
Legacy Senior Living Community
Lensing Funeral & Cremation
Service
Linn -Mar High School Jazz Band
Live Well, Step By Step, LLC.
The Low Vision Store
Magnification Resources
Mercy Hospital
Midwest One Bank
Moline High School Jazz Band
Musician's Pro Shop
National Library Service
New Pioneer Food Co-op
NFB Newsline
North Liberty Television (NLN
Phelan, Tucker, Mullen, Walker,
Tucker & Gelman, LLP
Prairie Lights
Public Access Television (PAN
Pure Light Healing Center
Senior Health Insurance
Information Program (SHIP)
Taoist Tai Chi Society of the USA
The Cottage Bakery and
Catering
The Mac Doctor
The Preemie Project
United Way of Johnson County
University of Iowa Aging Studies
Program
REPORT PAGE 28
12 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
University of Iowa College of
Nursing
University of Iowa Community
Credit Union
University of Iowa Confucius
Institute
University of Iowa Counseling
Psychology Program
University of Iowa Division of the
Performing Arts
University of Iowa Hospitals
and Clinics Department of
Dermatology
University of Iowa Hospitals and
Clinics Heart and Vascular
Center
University of Iowa International
Programs
University of Iowa International
Writing Program
University of Iowa Libraries
University of Iowa Museum of
Art
University of Iowa School of
Music
University of Iowa School of
Social Work
University of Iowa Senior
College
University of Iowa Wendell
Johnson Speech and Hearing
Clinic
US Bank
Vision Helpers
Visiting Nurse Association
Walden Place
West Branch High School Jazz
Band
West Liberty High School Jazz
One Ensemble
West Music/SoundReach Choir
Wilderness Studio
Working Group Theatre
Works -in -Progress Festival
Exhibit B - Annual Report
FY2013 Volunteers
Larry Akin
Pete Abolins
Lisa Acherkan
Jason Aird
Amber Alaniz
Bill Albrecht
Eddie Allen
Judy Allen
Sara Al len
Martin Andrews
Donna Angell
Page Applebaum
Valerie Appleton
Mary Ruth Arensdorf
Maureen Arensdorf
Adam Asarch
Becky Aspholm
Charley Atkins
AI ice Atkinson
Dennis Aubrecht
Ralph Aufdenkamp
Jorey Bailey
Gabe Baird
Olivia Baird
Claudia Barber
Maria Barbosa
Timothy Barker
Nancy Barnes-Kohout
Edith Banagan
Bob Beall
Erin Beatty
Gwen Becker
Kathie Belgum
Barry Bender
Beth Bender
Jill Bentley
Daniel Benton
Kevin Berbaum
Mercedes Bern -Klug
Glonne Berry
Mike Biderman
Heather Binggeli
"There were 645 volunteers who served The Center during FY13. They taught classes, planned
programs, led activity groups, assisted with special projects, provided free professional services,
assisted in the computer lab and fitness suites, and raised awareness of The Center through
community outreach. Volunteers also produced programs for broadcast on cable television,
participated in fundraising projects, and served on advisory committees to help determine The
Center's path into the future. Simply put, everything important or noteworthy that happened in
FY13 involved volunteers in some way.
Volunteers are the key to the success of The Center's operation. They are The Center's most
important asset.
Karol Bird
Pula Birla
Kale Bongers
Jodi Booth
Peg Bouska
Irene Bowers
Lucy Bowers
Norlin Boyd
John Boyt
Finn Bradley
Bob Brady
Rachel Brailov
Mike Brau
Sheri Breedlove
Gail Brehio
Jacki Brennan
Leslie Brettell
Jason Brodie
Andy Brodie
Jeri Brown
Judy Brown
Lauren Brown
Nancy Brown
Jason Brummel
Amanda Bruns
Kizzy Bryant
Judy Buline
Heide Bursch
Jim Calkins
Kristy Cameron
Sue Campney
Amida Canin
Char Canney
Dave Caplan
Richard Caplan
Jeff Capps
David Carlson
Judy Carpenter
Emily Carson
Marta Carson
Jeanette Carter
Karina Casarrubias
Helen Chadima
Michael Chan
Chin -Wei Chang
Jia Mei Chen
Kai-Yun Cheng
Peggy Chong
David Christ
Ruth Christ
Kelsie Christian
Cheryll Clamor
Ashlynne Clark
Aprille Clarke
Beth Clopton
Nic Coffman
Mary Cohen
AJ Collins
Nancy Collins
Paul Collins
Jim Conger
Syndy Conger
Kristin Conrad
Mary Anne Conrad
Joanne Conroy
Mary Pat Conway
Rosanne Cook
Debbie Cooney
Laura Correa Ferrer
Richard Couch
Elizabeth Coulter
Jared Countryman
Tammy Coverdale -Bauer
Miles Crall
John Crane
Nicholas Cranny
Lyndon Crist
Wanda Crombie
Nicki Crozier
Jon Cryer
Teresa Cudworth
Kathryn Cummings
Jim Curry
Angie Dacthler
REPORT PAGE 29
Sue Dallam
Mary Jo Daly
Mark Danielson
Connie Dautremont
Barbara Davidson
Julia Davis
Dianne Day
Bryson Dean
Munni Deb
Ellen Decicco
Louie DeGrazia
Jim Delaney
Christine Denburg
Janice Denehy
Mia Deprenger
Katie Devore
Rob Dietrich
Eliza Dixon
Jennifer Doherty
Jane Dohrmann
Shawna Domeyer
Gary Domstrand
Maureen Donnelly
Lorraine Dorfman
Stephanie Dotzel
Rick Dressler
Erin Droll
Armando Duarte
Jim Duff
Bonnie Duffy Bradley
Diana Durham
Fred Durian
Mary Dustemoft
Shirley Dvorak
Betty Dye
Jaclyn Dziepak
Judi Earley
Brad Easler
Linda Eastman
Erin Ebnet
Janene Edwards
Joyce Eland
Gwen Elling
Bob Elliot
Jennifer Ellsworth
Robert Engel
James Ephgrave
David Evans
Kenny Evans
Mary Frances Evans
Nathalia Fahl
Janet Fairley
Ronda Farah
Jennifer Fawcett
Chuck Felling
Margaret Felling
Scott Finlayson
Beth Fisher
Linda Fisher
Elsie Foerstner
Joan Folkmann
Jeneva Ford
Leyla Ford
Rhonda Fortmann
Larry Fountain
Karen Fox
Dottie Frank
Anne Frankel
Joe Frankel
Linda Frick
Eliana Friedman
Mary Fuhrmeister
LeAnn Gamache
Barbara Gamb
Ken Gamb
Dee Gansemer
Nora Garda
Gwen Garretson
Jenny Gates
William Gauger
Katie Gavinski
Ken Gavrell
George Gay
Kelsey Gehring
The Center 2013 Annual Report • 13
Exhibit B - Annual Report
SFN1OR CENTER
LEADERSHLP 2013
FY2013 Volunteers
(continued)
Inez Gehrke
Nick Giuliani
Vicky Gluszak
Ze Emilio Gobbo
Micheli Gomes de Souza
Joan Gonwa
Doug Goodner
Paula Grady
Timothy Grady
Sarah Graf
Apple Graham
Lidia Graham
Maggie Graham
Shiloh Graham
Rich Green
Donna Grundstad
Jim Gul land
Maria Guzman
Maria Haberer
Allanda Hageman
Becky Hall
James Hall
Steve Hall
David Hamilton
Jacinta Hamilton
Martha Hamilton
Sue Hamre-Nietupski
Pat Hanke
Katy Hansen
Mary Hansen
Robert Hansen
Barb Hanson
Jan Hanson
Rachel Hanson
Rose Hanson
Tish Harbach
Bryan Hardin
Michael Harris
Chris HarrKuhn
Jocelyn Harte
Curtis Harting
Commission Members
Chuck Felling
Rose Hanson
Mark Holbrook, Secretary
Jay Honohan, Chair
Kathy Mitchell
Margaret Reese
Alicia Hatch
Amelia Hatcher
Angie Hayes
Shelagh Hayreh
Abby Haywood
Julie Hegmann
Morgan Henderson
Howard Hensch
Jo Hensch
Nikki Herbst
Chuck Hesse
Jean Hill
Martin Hill
Karl Hillie
Jack Hobbs
Phil Hochwalt
Alissa Hoehle
D'Angelo Holbrook
Mark Holbrook
Liz Holcomb
Leslie Hollis
Ken Holmes
Lindsey Hom
Jay Honohan
Loren Horton
Ann Houlahan
Carol Howard
Julie Howard
Bernita Howe
Kenn Hubel
Pat Huff
Brad Humble
Christine Humnchouse
Lynne Hungerford
Jim Hunter
Tom Hurlbut
Pete Husak
Kayla Hyche
Ruthann Hyduke
Nancy Hyman
Curt Igo
Sally Jablonski
Jane Jansen
Trish Jensen
Steering Council
Barry Bender
Lorraine Dorfman
Jeneva Ford, Secretary
Ina Loewenberg,
Past Chair
Kathy Mitchell, Chair
Ed Rolenc, Vice Chair
John Schmidt
Mary Jepsen
Abby Jessen
Carol Johnk
Bill Johnson
Carolyn Johnson
Judy Johnson
Kris Johnson
Trina Johnson
Ed Junkins
Kate Kasten
Ed Kean
Judy Keefer
Leslie Kennebeck
Helen Kent
Tanner King
Gail Kirchner
Carol Kirkpatrick
Mike Klug
Mary Knight
Larry Knipfer
Zach Knosp
Elizabeth Koffron-Eisen
Jason Kooi
Lauren Kostoglannis
Greg Kovaciny
Matthew Kral
Anne Marie Kraus
Chuck Kreeb
Sara Krieger
Dick Kubit
Holly Kukkonen
Uday Kumar
Amanda Kurtenbach
Chuck Lacina
Feather Lacy
Kelly Lahr
Charity Lassiter
William Laubengayer
Karla Laubenthal
Joanna Lawson
Charles Lee
Vickie LeGare
Alison Lemke
Julia Lenel
REPORT PAGE 30
14 • The Center 2013 Annual Report
Community Outreach
Committee
Barry Bender, Chair
Bryson Dean
Lynne Hungerford
Kris Johnson
Ina Loewenberg
Kathy Mitchell
Larry Rogers
Sheila Vedder
Michael Lensing
Mary Ann Letizio
Andrew Lettow
Wendy Levy
Adam Lewis
Ben Lewis
B ott Lewis
Michael Lewis
Thisbe Lewis
Shaju Lin
Yu-Hsin Lin
Shirley Lindell
Jeanne Liston
Jean Littlejohn
Jean Lloyd Jones
Ina Loewenberg
Jerry Loewenberg
Delbert Long
Robert Lower
Martha Lubaroff
Madeline. Luxem
Nancy Lynch
Andrea Mack
Rich MacNeil
Gertrude MacQueen
Marty Maiers
Sarah Maiers
Can Malone
Jenny Mandell
Bill Mann
Joyce Marner
John Marshall
Judy Marshall
Loretta Martenson
Diane Martin
James Martins
Karen Mason
Tom Maxwell
Mary Grace Mayer
David McCartney
Micki McCue
Elyas McElligott
Leila McElligott
Sarah McElligott
Membership
Committee
Mary Cannon
Dianne Day
Mary Dusterhoft
Barbara Gamb
Kenneth Gamb
Jack Hobbs
John Schmidt, Chair
Mara Schrott
Dale McFarland
Jane McGlumphrey
Rebecca McGlumphry-
Teslik
Tara McGovern
Nateasa McGuire
Erin McKay
Joe McKenna
Reed McManigal
Valerie McNally
Duane Means
Virginia Means
Christopher Merkle
Joe Michaud
Gay Mikelson
Amanda Miller
Bryan Miller
Chuck Miller
Gerry Miller
Henrietta Miller
Nancy Miller
Kathy Mitchell
Richard Mitchell
Ken Mobily
Audrey Moeller
Chris Moen
Javier Monarrez
John Monick
Robert Moninger
Erin Moore
Jeanne Morris
Keith Morris
Rosemary Morris
Tom Morris
Talbot Morns -Downing
Lily Morrissey
Patti Mott
Molly Moye
Beverly Mueller
Jeremy Mullen
Joyce Murphy
Lucy Murphy
Mike Murphy
Muarita Murphy Mead
Exhibit B - Annual Report
Program Committee
Louie DeGrazia
Judy Marshall
Lorraine Dorfman, Chair
Tom Pickering
Diana Durham
Ed Rolenc
Beth Fisher
Hal Schrott
Anne Frankel
Gal Stika
Loren Horton
Susan Murty
Jerry Musser
Pam Myers
Shirley Myers
Douglas Narveson
Marilyn Neely
Patrick Nefzger
Janet Nelson
Josh Nelson
Scott Nelson
Mark Neumeier
Terrence Neuzil
Helen Nicklaus
Megan Noe
Betty Norbeck
Janet Norbeck
Gerald Nordquist
Jim Ochs
Pat O'Connell
Cindy O'Leary
Jim Olson
Nancy Olthoff
Ryan O'Malley
Rachel Osmond
Maria Oyorem
Marie Papineschi
Klocke Pappy
Lia Parillo
Warren Paris
Sarah Parks
Pauline Pate
Nick Patten
Wayne Patton
Richard Paulus
Gerald Pearson
Florencia Pecile
Sarah Pederson
Beth Pennell
Bonnie Penno
Anne Perkins
Edward Perkins
Joy Perrin
Linnea Peterson
Rosemarie Petzold
Irvin Pfab
Tom Pietras
Bernard Pint
Larry Pleim
Jeff Plume
Jam Ponce
Roscoe Porch
Jaclyn Porter
Jean Post
Jacob Potash
Lindy Presson
Rachel Pudlik
Buffy Quintero
Ellen Racheter
Kate Raley
Judy Rarick
Dolores Ratcliff
Louise Rauh
Janet Rawley
Lean Redeker
Emily Redlinger
Becci Reedus
Michelle Reif
Roger Reilly
Margaret Richardson
Jim Ridenour
Sarah Riesz
Sara Riggs
Doris Rittenmeyer
Ralph Roberge
Kelsey Roberts
Cheryl Robinson
Simone Robinson
Gerry Roe
Larry Rogers
Ed Rolenc
Alexa Romans
Steve Ropp
Becky Ross
Ben Russell
Libby Ruth
Samantha Sammons
Paula Sanchini
Lydia Satterlee
New Horizons Band
Steering Committee
Jean Hill, Chair
Jon Cryer
Jan Hanson
Jerry Musser, Secretary
Steve Schomberg,
Treasurer
Ken Slonneger
Ben Sauder
Claire Sauder
Madeline Scarborough
Christine Scheetz
Jim Scheib
Babara Schlachter
John Schmidt
Mike Schmidt
Gretchen Schmuch
Andreya Schneider
Kay Schneider
Monique Schnoebelen
Steve Schomberg
Doralee Schroder
AI Schroeder
Judy Schroeder
Shirley Schroeder
Hal Schrott
Mara Schrott
Tom Schulein
Tim Schulte
Deb Schultz
Marian Schwabbauer
Gary Schwartz
John Selby
Jackie Seyring
Joann Shackelford
Stephanie Shan
Cathmar Shaw Prange
Janet Shephard
Jamie Sherr
Mary Siems
Gerald Sim
Deb Singer
Richard Sjolund
Kenneth Slonneger
Beth Smith
Carmen Smith
Jeremy Smith
Suzanne Smith
Vicki Solursh
Takako Soma
ScottSpak
Lex Sparks
REPORT PAGE 31
Gene Spaziani
Dinny Stamp
Elizabeth Stang]
Caleigh Stanier
Greta Stanier
Jill Stephenson
Faye Stevens
Shari Stevens
Tessa Stevens
Sheila Stevenson
Gail Stika
Liz Stimmel
Jeff Stohler
Anna Stone
Sabrina Strel]a
Molly Stroh
Ann Stromquist
Janet Suchomel
Karna Szczech
Jullie Tallman
Ella Tamlyn
Nicole Thomas
William Thorne
Ray Thorpe
Glenda Thys
Alicia Tieskoetter
Usett Tito
Charlotte Tobiason
William Toomey
AI ice Townsend
Charles Traw
Richard Trealoff
Lauren Trolley
Amanda Tschetter
Beverly Tyree
Caro] Tyx
Robin Ungar
Mickey Van Doren
Dwight Van Horn
Elizabeth Vanderah
Yashar Vasef
Sheila Vedder
Elsie Vega
Clancy Vinchattle
"At The Center,
I regained skills
set aside many
years ago."
Brandon Vogelsburg
Ashley Vreugdenhil
Janelle Wagner
Sue Wakefield
Mary Wall
Lisa Walz
Thomas Walz
Xinyu Wang
Erin Wehr
Barb Weigel
Kay Weiler
Barbara Wells
Joel Wells
Donna Wandler
Ruth Whalen
Holly Whitehead
Lauren Whitehead
Robin Whitehead
Heather Widmayer
Bob Wiley
Jody Wiley
Amber Wilfong
Lauralee Wilkins
Kristine Williams
Michael Williams
Louis Williamson
Randy Willman
Margaret Winkler
Betty Winokur
Paul Wise
Nancy Wombacher
Bob Woodburn
Pope Yamada
Debbie Yarrow
Lavon Yeggy
Hsiao Chia Yen
Lawrence Yerkes
Pam Yoder
Louise Young
Barbara Zilles
Hanah Zimmerman
Kaylea Zimmerman
Jerry Zinn
The Center 2013 Annual Report • 15
Exhibit B - Annual Report
The '
Center
IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
28 South Linn Street
Iowa City, Iowa 52240
319-356-5220
www.icgov.org/senior
CITY OP IOWA CRY
Exhibit C - Subcommittee Evaluation
Senior Center Subcommittee Report
To the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
8A) Part 1: Evaluate the current vision, mission, programming, and recent
accomplishments of the Senior Center as detailed in the 2013 Annual Report.
The Senior Center is the central resource for quality programs and services that promote optimal
aging for seniors in the Iowa City community. The Center's programs promote active aging in
seniors at a consistently high level. As noted in the Accreditation Report of the National Council
of the Aging National Institute of Senior Centers, the Center accomplishes its vision and mission
statements and serves as a model for senior centers.
Vision Statement: "To be the community's primary resource for the highest quality programs,
services, and opportunities that promote optimal aging." (p. 5 Annual Report)
Mission Statement: "To promote optimal aging among older adults by offering programs and
services that promote wellness, social interaction, community engagement, and intellectual
growth." (p. 5, Program Guide)
Center Staff: Six full time, 2 part time. All covered by union contract except coordinator.
Center volunteers donated 24,300 hours towards the operation of the Center in 2013.
Current members: 1592 persons.
The Center's participants are primarily older adults who are physically and mentally able. The
small staff is not trained or large enough to provide personal services for individuals who need
assistance.
Many of the Center's participants disabilities use walkers, scooters, canes, and other durable
medical equipment while at the Center. Typically these individuals participate in passive classes
and use exercise equipment that are designed for them. Other activities that they engage in
include cards, music performances, reading newspapers, socializing, many classes, going to
support groups, and seeking counseling. The Alzheimer's Association Caregiver's Support
Group does meet monthly at the Center. Additionally, the Visiting Nurses offices at the Center
provides health screenings regularly.
There are many programs recommended to assist frail, elderly and homebound individuals that
the Center could adopt but these programs would require additional staff. This additional staff
would require additional funding that is not expected to be available in the future.
Membership Dues Annually: Iowa City $33, second household member $20, Johnson County
including cities $60, $33, non -Johnson County $96. The scholarships for low income $10 upon
request.
{01788973.DOC%}
REPORT PAGE 33
Number of members: Current members: 1592 persons.
It is difficult if not impossible to quantify the number of people who attend the Center who are
not members. Antidotally reviews of attendance at special events by non-members is often large.
Many activities and programs at the Center are available for and are attend by non-members. In
the Fall Program Guide for the Center there are one hundred twenty seven (127) different
classes, programs, activities, and special events listed. Of these sixty-four (64) are open to the
public and membership is not required. 126, 126 visits to the Center occurred in fiscal year
2013. Most of the non-members are not included in this figure. Additionally, the Center
participates in many city wide events in the downtown area
Based upon findings from the June 2013 senior center survey, between 94% and 96% of current
senior center members indicated that they are well satisfied with the program options they
choose. hi written comments people praised the fitness facilities, parking, library, and wireless
access. One person cited "a nice variety of classes, programs", and another said, "Events I
attended and services I've used have been well run, people professional, and friendly" (page 24
of Survey Report).
Many persons reported high satisfaction with the senior center staff and programming during the
public comment periods of the Ad Hoc Committee. Many of the comments spoke to the
opportunities the senior center presents for older adults to social and become better connected to
the community.
The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center is the ONLY nationally accredited senior center I
the state of Iowa. According to the National Council on Aging, the Iowa City / Johnson County
Senior Center is among the top senior centers in the country. In November 2012, the Center
received national accreditation for the second time. The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior
Center is the only senior center in the state of Iowa to earn national accreditation by the National
Council of Aging's National Institute of Senior Centers; and one of only 200 accredited senior
centers in the USA (out of 31,000 senior centers). The Senior Center is in the top two percent of
senior centers nationally.
The Center was assessed as having met national standards of excellence in all 9 areas:
Programming and planning
Program development and implementation
Governance
Fiscal and asset responsibility
Evaluation of center operations
Community connections
Records and reports
The national review committee considers The Iowa City / Johnson County Senior Center a model
for the country. Their evaluation highlighted areas in which the committee was particularly
impressed including:
101788973.DOC%]
REPORT PAGE 34
• Multiple collaborations with community partners
• Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization
• Excellent volunteer handbook
• Excellent expansion of building hours through volunteer
• Exceptional program guide featuring a remarkable collection of interesting and diverse
activities
• Impressive stewardship of a historic building
The national review committee members' accreditation letter contains the following suggestions.
The senior center's response to the suggestion is included in parentheses:
• Development of long term outcome measures: (Note: The 2013 senior center survey
included questions about outcomes of participating in center activities)
• Pay staff to keep the facility open week -ends and evenings: (Note: the senior center
director has requested additional staffing)
• Develop a new paid volunteer coordinator position to administer and focus on this
important human asset: (Note: the senior center director has requested additional staffing)
• Investigate liability insurance for directors: (Note: The Friends of the Center discussed
this and decided that insurance was not necessary because the funds run through the
Community Foundation, which greatly lowers the risk of financial misdeeds)
• Investigate an updated electronic system for participant and program records: (Note: a
new system has been implemented)
• Discuss with City Attorney re: release of participant information
Review and monitor and revise lease agreements for the kitchen area use. (This is under review.
Elder Services Agency has moved their meal preparation to North Liberty is no longer using the
kitchen in the senior center on a daily basis.)
The subcommittee agrees with the assessment of the Senior Center delivered by the National
Accreditation Committee: The Senior Center is providing excellent programming to the area and
is using resources effectively. The small number of highly motivated and qualified staff
members are able to recruit, retain, and engage a large number of members, volunteers, and
general community members. The subcommittee evaluation of the Iowa City / Johnson County
Senior Center = A +
101788973.DOC%]
REPORT PAGE 35
8A. PART 2: To review the current demographics of participants served by existing
operations. Such evaluation should consider the 2013 Senior Survey of Members, Former
Members, and Non -Members, as well as other available data sources from the Senior
Center and determine whether segments of the senior population are not accessing
available services.
In June of 2013, 3000 surveys were mailed to current members, former members, friends of the
center, and other individuals with a Johnson County address who were on eh Senior Center's
Program Guide mailing list. (The Program Guide is a promotional and informational document
that includes descriptions of classes, groups, Volunteer opportunities, performance groups,
special events, free professional services, leadership opportunities, and membership benefits.)
Of the 3,000 mailed surveys, 1,092 were completed and returned, for a response rate of 35%.
The 56 -page report (which includes the survey instrument) can be found at:
htty://www.icgov.org/site/CMsv2/file/seniorCenter/Survev-Report.pdf
Respondents: Most of the respondents reported living in Iowa City: 76% live in Iowa City, 10%
in Coralville, 9% in unincorporated Johnson County and 2% (each) in: North Liberty, University
Heights, and "other." Most respondents were women, white, and between the ages of 60-79.
Half the respondents had earned a graduate or professional degree and half lived in a household
with an annual income of at least $50,000. Table 1 compares demographic characteristics of the
senior center survey respondents to the Iowa City population.
Table 1. Comparison of Senior Center Survey Respondents and Iowa City
{01788973.DOC%}
REPORT PAGE 36
Survey Respondents
Iowa City (Census Bureau*)
Age Group
Age 50+ 1,092
Age 55+ 14,138
50-59 8%
55-59 2,966 21% of
55+
60-79 68%
60-74 5,484 39%
80-89 21%
75-84 4,695 33%
90+ 3%
85+ 993 7%
Race
White
97%
84% (all ages -includes
university students
Black African American
< 1%
5% (all ages)
Asian
< 1%
7% (all ages)
American Indian
1%
< 1% (all ages)
Hispanic Origin
1%
5% all ages)
Education level
High school or some college
27%
41% (of person ages 25+)
{01788973.DOC%}
REPORT PAGE 36
Bachelor's degree
27%
28%
Graduate/Professional
degree
47%
30%
Annual Income
"household income"
"Family Income" (all ages)
$20,000 16%
$25,000 16%
$20-49,000 35%
$25-49,000 17%
$50,000+ 49%
$50,000+ 67%
* = American Community Survey, 2008-2012 5 -year estimates for Iowa City (includes UI
students). Accessed from the U.S. Census Bureau
htty://factfinder2census. gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/yroductview. xhtml?src=bkmk
The Senior Center does not record or identify the race or ethnic information of members or non-
member seniors who attend classes or activities at the Center. Many participants at the Center
are black, Hispanic, and Asian yet the numbers are small. The pool of available black, Hispanic,
and Asian seniors in the Iowa City area is small.
Also, although the number of older adult minorities in Iowa City is small, there is room for
greater racial and ethnic diversity among Senior Center Members (there are no data on the
number of persons from minority groups who use the senior center, but who are not members
who responded to the survey). The Senior Center is aware of this and has taken action. The
following is an excerpt from the Senior Center's Survey report:
Expanding the diversity of the members was included as a primary goal in The Center's 2010-
2015 Mission Statement and Goals. The Steering Council and Membership, Program, and
Community Outreach Working Committees have been working with staff to address issues
related to diversity and sponsoring programs to promote multiculturalism and bring new groups
Into The Center. Recently a new working committee was formed that will focus Its attention on
diversity Issues exclusively (page 23).
It should be noted that the senior center has been a community leader in terms of building
awareness of unique challenges faced by older adult members of the LGBT community (Lesbian,
Gay, Bi -sexual and Transgendered), through programming including classes, afilm series, and a
senior TV program hosted by an older adult.
Being located next door to Ecumenical Towers (HUD apartment building) makes the senior
center extremely convenient to the low income older adults and persons with disabilities that live
there. The inside doorway that connects the Ecumenical Towers to the senior center allows
tenants to avoid having to go outside in bad weather. Another HUD development, Capital
Heights, is five blocks from the senior center. The extent to which residents at Capital Heights
are using the senior center is unknown.
-- the end
101788973.DOC%]
REPORT PAGE 37
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
kcmd1ted by noo
Nationai Institute of
enlor enters
Director, Linda Kopping
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
28 South Linn Street,
Iowa City Iowa 52240
Dear Linda
I am pleased to officially inform you that the Accreditation Board met on November 8, 2012 and
unanimously approved the recommendation for accreditation of the Iowa City/Johnson County
Senior Center. Successfully achieving accreditation status takes the work of many people both in the
senior center and in the community. When these two groups work together the rewards will be felt
for many years to come. Your organization demonstrates outstanding leadership and commitment to
quality programs and services. This letter is your official notification that Iowa City/Johnson County
Senior Center has been accredited by NCOA/NISC for a period of five years (November 8, 2012
through November 8, 2017).
Your Peer Reviewer observed many strengths of the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center. These
included:
• An excellent process to prepare for accreditation, including an operational assessment,
development of Goals and Objectives, and a Strategic Plan,
• Multiple collaborations with community partners,
• Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization,
• Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors,
• Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an
exceptional program guide,
• Important stewardship of a historic building in the community.
Suggestions for the future included:
• Develop long term outcome measures to include with other trend and benchmark reports,
• Review staffing pattern vis-a-vis using volunteers as sole support to facility open times (usually on
evening or weekends),
National Council on Aging
1901 L Street NW 4th Floor Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 . Fax 202-479-0735 • http✓livwjv.ncoa.org
REPORT PAGE 38
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
• Consider the development of a Volunteer Coordinator position to administer and focus on this
important human asset,
• Investigate Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for 501(c)(3) Friends Group, if warranted,
• Investigate an updated electronic system to keep and gather participant and program records,
• Discuss with City Attorney's Office their position and case law regarding the release of personal
participant information,
• Review, monitor, and revise old lease arrangements for the kitchen areas to meet current Center
needs.
We are pleased to have the Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center on the list of more than 130
senior centers who meet the standards as developed by NISC. These are centers that are held up as
models for others to follow. We know that you and your staff will continue to improve and adapt to
meet the changing needs of the older population. We congratulate you and your staff in striving to
meet the needs of the older population in your community.
Sincerely,
Maureen Arsenault
NISC Program Manager
National Council on Aging
1901 L Street NW 41h Floor Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202-479-1200 • TDD 202-479-6674 • Fax 202-479-0735 • littpJ/wivw.ticoa.org
REPORT PAGE 39
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT
Senior Center Name: - IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENOR CENTER.
Address: 28South Lin Street, Iowa City Iowa 52240
Phone Number: 319-356-5220
Director: Linda Kopping
SECTION I --SUMMARY Of PEER REVIEW INSTRUMENT
PURPOSE and PLANNING
xYES rNO The senior center has a mission statement consistent with the NCOA/NISC senior center
definition and philosophy
xYES rNO The senior center uses a written planning document that consists of goals, objectives
and action plans.
xYES rNO The senior center produces an annual report for the senior center.
Comments: Good and thorough assessment process. Goals and Objectives are utilized by Board and
committees and are referenced in multiple print venues_
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS
xYES rNO The senior center collaborates with at least five (5) community partners to offer services
at the senior center.
xYES rNO Information and referral services are provided to seniors and he community,
xYES rNO The senior center uses at least three (3) marketing techniques.
Comments: Many collaborators and co -locations for programs and services. Branding is excellent
and creates an appealing and unified image.
GOVERNANCE
xYES rNO The senior center has documents that define and establish nine of the items as required.
xYES rNO The senior center has a code of ethics.
xYES rNO The senior center has a conflict of interest statement
xYES rNO The senior center has required certificates properly displayed.
Comments: Combines the best of municipal and not-for-profit governance.
ADMINISTRATION and HUMAN RESOURCES
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 1
REPORT PAGE 40
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
xYES rNO The senior center has an administrator with experience and education to accomplish
duties as outlined in the job description.
xYES rNO The senior center has personnel policies that have been distributed or are available
electronically to employees and are followed as written.
xYES rNO The senior center has a volunteer handbook written for unpaid staff that includes the
policies.
Comments: Excellent Volunteer Handbook and extensive usage of volunteers, both students,
community members, and participants. Noted expansion efforts with Building Supervisor Program
and good training program associated with it, but cautioned about replacing paid positions with
volunteers. Current staffing pattern is minimal for the operation of this organization. Concern
expressed about multiple supervision of volunteers, with no unique focus upon volunteers
coordination and/or administration within organization.
PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT and IMPLEMENTATION
xYES r-NOProgram delivery is of a diverse nature meeting the standard requirement.
xYES rNO The senior center's program/service activities promote personal growth by providing
opportunities to develop in twelve (12) of the listed areas.
xYES rNO The senior center makes programs/services available for a minimum of 30 hours per
week.
Comments: Excellent program guide. Interesting, diverse, and great variety of scheduled and
unscheduled programs and activities. Use the Building Supervisior Program to expand open hours
at the Center to 45+ hours weekly on a regular basis, including regular Saturday and Sunday hours.
EVALUATION
xYES rNO The senior center has developed and implemented an evaluation plan.
xYES rNO Evaluations are completed and the results are used in planning
xYES r-NOOutcome-based evaluation is used in at least two program/service areas to document
their impact.
Comments: Comprehensive evaluation plan with many benchmarks. Trend document, highlighting
years of experience, is excellent. Good use of students to determine outcome measures for specific
programs. Next step to develop long term outcome measures that can be included in trend
document with other benchmarks.
FISCAL and ASSET RESPONSIBILITY
xYES F'NOThe senior center prepares and publishes an annual budget document.
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 2
REPORT PAGE 41
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
xYES rNO The senior center gives budget reports on a regular basis to the appropriate governing
board.
xYES rNO The senior center's budget, accounting and financial reporting practices conform to
appropriate and accepted accounting standards.
VES rNO The senior center has insurance coverage that protects assets paid and unpaid staff,
participants and governing structure.
VES r-NOThe senior center has made provisions to continue critical functions after a disruption.
Comments: Recommend Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for 501(c)(3) Friends Group, if risk
and state regulations warrant this protection. Noted changing levels of financial support, e.g, county
support from 20% to 9% and good efforts to increase participant support of organization.
RECORDS AND REPORTS
xYES rNO The senior center completes a statistical report for a specific time period for all activities
and services.
VES t-NOThe senior center has a general participant information form completed by all
participants.
xYES rNO The senior center has a confidentiality policy that all paid and unpaid staff are expected
to follow.
VES rNO The senior center has a Policy and Procedures manual that contains information on
administrative functions.
Comments: Records are stored appropriately. Manual record keeping and gathering does not allow
for the efficient and effective use of aggregated information for planning and analyzing. Confidential
information policy appropriately directs volunteers and staff to the Records Custodian (Senior Center
Coordinator). Recommend discussion with City Attorney regarding the City's position on the release
of personal participant information like name, address, phone number, etc. under the statues.
FACILITY and OPERATIONS
xYES rNO The senior center provides barrier -free access to the facility
VES rNO The senior center's safety and maintenance procedures are in place.
Comments: It is no cup of tea to maintain a building that is over 100 years old, but this is a bright,
inviting place to be. Storage for equipment, supplies, and furniture is difficult, and extensive set ups
and tear downs are a way of life for this staff. A major asset of this facility, the kitchen and nearby
areas, is leased by another entity whose maintenance and use has become problematic for senior
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 3
REPORT PAGE 42
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
center use of the space. Recommend a review, monitoring, and possible revision of a 2003 lease
agreement which may no longer serve the senior center or the other entity.
SECTION II -- NARRATIVE
INTRODUCTION
The Center in Iowa City, Iowa, is a municipal senior center in a 100 year old historical US Post Office,
located in the center of the City. This granite building with mosaic floors, carved wooden doors, and
large, fan -shaped windows provides a beautiful environment with 25,000 square feet on 4 floors.
Serving approximately 285 visitors daily, this senior center opened in 1981. Its participants are mostly
(94%) Caucasian, but include all nationality groups. The serve ages from 59 to older than 85, but
mostly (63%) those from 65 years to 84 years.
The reviewer arrived at 11:30 am on Thursday, September 13, toured the building, talked with staff and
class leaders, interacted with staff and participants at the county lunch program, viewed the kitchen
and equipment. She spoke with Bridge players and the librarian and peeked into a yoga class. A one
hour meeting with staff, accreditation committee members and volunteer leaders was held that
afternoon. The reviewer attended a Membership Appreciation Dinner that evening and made a brief
presentation about senior centers and their importance.
She had contacted the off-site reviewer (Jill Kranz of Middleton, WI) prior to the visit and again during
the morning on Friday, September 14. The reviewer then visited with the Director and staff, both alone
and together, and spent time reviewing and seeking required information. An exit interview was
scheduled at 10:30 am on Friday, September 14, and the reviewer left after lunch.
DOCUMENTATION/EVIDENCE
Both reviewers were impressed with the comprehensive Accreditation Notebook; it allowed for a
thorough review of operations. The on-site reviewer examined participant files, other locked and stored
files, and asked for full information, when indexes were provided in the Accreditation Notebook, and
other materials including Board minutes. She observed classes, the nutrition site luncheon, and a
special evening event. She toured all areas of the facility, including the boiler rooms and the skyway
bridge to the parking lot, and she saw the community around the facility, walking several blocks to and
from the hotel and lunch sites. She spoke with random participants, class leaders, staff people, HACAP
employees, partners, and volunteers.
INTERVIEW SUMMARY
A stakeholders meeting of twelve individuals was held which included Accreditation Committee
members, representatives from the public library, the City HR and park/recreation departments, and
United Way. The group discussed the process, including difficulties they faced, talked about the
different areas that they worked on, and how the effort continues forward in the utilization of the
action plan. The Chairperson of the Senior Center Commission commented that he was skeptical of the
effort to be accredited, but he noted the organization's expanded presence in the newspaper and how
many goals have become reality. Other topics broached at the meeting included: joint poetry project
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 4
REPORT PAGE 43
Exhibit D - Accreditation letter and report
with the library, enjoyment of the accreditation work in the intense, small groups, the diversity of the
members, ways they serve frail elders as well as active seniors, acknowledgement of the many
partnerships, and the value of intergenerational activities.
A meeting with the staff and Director allowed staff members to discuss their roles in the accreditation
process; each served on one or more of the committees, They thought it provided a good review of
their hard work, and they noted that they could work well independently as individuals and equally well
together as a team. They spoke proudly of the growth of the senior center; it has nearly doubled
membership in 5 years. They identified their role as facilitators of the needs and wishes of volunteers
and participants. They are concerned about the decreasing support of past major funders, and that
they need more staff people to continue their efforts or to expand.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF EXIT INTERVIEW
Twenty-five members of the Senior Center Steering Council and the Senior Center Commission, staff
members, City administrators, and community members attended the exit interview. The peer reviewer
commented on the nature of the accreditation process, identified best practices and suggestions for
improvement in each of the nine areas of operation, and answered questions from participants.
Best practices include;
1. An excellent process to prepare for accreditation, including an operational assessment,
development of Goals and Objectives, and a Strategic Plan,
2. Multiple collaborations with community partners,
3. Great utilization of new marketing materials and efforts to brand the organization,
4. Excellent Volunteer Handbook and expansion of hours with volunteer building supervisors,
5. Interesting, diverse, and remarkable quantity of programs and activities, showcased in an
exceptional program guide,
6. Important stewardship of a historic building in the community.
SECTION III -- RECOMMENDATION
XX Accreditation r No Accreditation r Provisional Accreditation
PEER REVIEWER: DATE 9/27/12
SENIOR CENTER ACCREDITATION REPORT Page 5
REPORT PAGE 44
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
2013 Survey of Members, Former Members, and Non -Members
of the
Iowa City/Johnson County Senior Center
By Linda Kopping, Ph.D. and Clancy Vinchattle BSW
The survey was developed and analyzed with the assistance of Dr. Mercedes Bern Klug,
Associate Professor; Director, Aging Studies Program; Hartford Faculty Scholar at the
University of Iowa's School of Social Work. In addition, Center participants Jim Curry,
Ina Loewenberg, and Kathy Mitchell assisted with the preparation and testing of the
survey; Tom Pickering assisted with the analysis and presentation.
1
REPORT PAGE 45
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
The Survey
The Iowa City Johnson County Senior Center strives to contribute to the optimal aging of older
adults in Iowa City and Johnson County. The Center provides individuals 50 years of age and
older opportunities to live as fully as possible in all spheres of wellness: emotional, vocational,
physical, spiritual, intellectual, environmental, and social.
In order to determine the effectiveness of the Senior Center's current programs and policies in
promoting optimal aging, a survey was developed for members, non-members, and former
members. The goals of the survey were to identify:
1) Participation and demographic information
2) Incentives to participation
3) Barriers to participation
4) Benefits of participation
5) Program satisfaction and recommendations
6) Promotional techniques recommended by respondents
In June of 2013, over 3000 surveys were mailed to individuals on the Senior Center's Program
Guide mailing list. The Program Guide is a promotional and informational document that
includes descriptions of classes, groups, volunteer opportunities, performance groups, special
events, free professional services, leadership opportunities, and membership benefits. The
Guide is mailed out quarterly and placed in distribution sites throughout Johnson County. The
mailing list includes members, former members, friends of The Center, and businesses that have
indicated an interest in Senior Center offerings. Prior to mailing the surveys, the business
addresses and addresses outside of Johnson County were removed from the list.
The survey package included a cover letter from The Center's Steering Council Chair Ina
Loewenberg and Vice Chair Kathy Mitchell, the anonymous survey, a postage paid return
envelope, and a certificate the respondent could redeem at The Center for a free gift anytime
between June 15 and July 13, 2013. The free gift was a Staying Sharp puzzle packet from the
Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives and a Senior Center pen. On the back cover of the puzzle
packet photos and information about the Senior Center were included. Nearly 400 coupons
were returned to the center.
When data analysis began, 1092 (35%) surveys had been returned. Each survey was assigned a
unique number. Quantitative data from each survey was coded and entered into an Excel
database for analysis. The qualitative information was also entered into the Excel database. All
information from each survey was entered under the survey's unique number. Excel was used
to conduct the quantitative analysis and the qualitative analysis was completed using a content
analysis.
In the following pages the Executive Summary of this survey is presented
REPORT PAGE 46
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
Executive Summary
Results: Data
Question 1
Are you a member of the Senior Center?
88% were either members or former
members
Question 2
How long have you been, or were you, a
member of the Senior Center?
63% have been a member for 5 years or less
Question 3
What made you decide to come to the
Senior Center the first time? Check all that
apply
76% of respondents came to The Center the
first time because they were interested in a
class, program, or special event
Question 4
On Average, how often do you come to the
Senior Center? Check only one.
46% of respondents come to The Center
between 1 and 7 times each week
Question 5
Complete the following sentence: I would
come to the Senior Center more often
if ... Check all that apply.
The top five (5) barriers to participation that
were identified are:
e Conflicting time commitments
(38%)
• Parking problems (24%)
• Lack of interest in current program
offerings (18%)
• Employment (14%)
• Inconvenient hours of operation
(11%)
Question 6
Please indicate the extent to which you
agree with each of the following remarks
by circling the corresponding number:
Since 1 began participating at the Senior
Center 1 have...
The top five beneficial outcomes to
participation in Center programming
identified by respondents were:
• Learned new things
• Kept my mind active
• Obtained information I needed
• Made a new friend
• Gained a sense of belonging
An average of 88% of the respondents felt
that they experienced these benefits.
Question 7
The following table includes a list of
programs, classes, and activities offered by
The Center. Please circle the appropriate
number to indicate your level of
satisfaction with each senior Center
program, class or activity...
The average satisfaction rating for classes,
special events or programs,
information/resources, special membership
programs, performance groups, groups or
clubs, volunteer activity, and participant
leadership was 97%.
Based upon the number of rankings given to
each of the eight categories of
programming, it appears that classes and
special events or programs are among the
most popular Center offerings.
REPORT PAGE 47
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
Question 8
What programs and services would you
like the Senior Center to offer?
Collectively, respondents' most frequent
programming recommendation was for
classes in the liberal arts (36%). This was
followed by recommendations for
programming focused on fitness (19%),
computers and technology (14%), wellness
(5%), and handcrafts and groups and clubs
each with 4%.
Question 9
In your opinion, what would be the most
effective way to promote the Senior
Center?
All Respondents
The top two promotional methods
endorsed by respondents were newspaper
articles about programs (59%) and the
quarterly Program Guide (41%). E-mail
newsletters came in third with 29%.
Question 10
Do you own or have access to a computer
for your personal use?
A majority (87%) of respondents have
access to a computer for personal use.
Question 11
The Senior Center plans to update the
computer lab. Please indicate which type
of computer you would prefer to have in
the lab.
❑ Windows PC
❑ Apple/Mac
❑ No Opinion
41% indicated a preference for Windows PC
and 24% for Apple/Mac. There were
suggestions that the computer lab offer
both formats.
Question 12
Have you ever visited any of the Senior
Center websites? Please check Yes or No.
Awareness of The Center's online resources
is quite limited. Only 37% of respondents
had ever visited the Center's main website.
Fewer than 5% had visited either the
Facebook page or Youtube Channel.
Question 13
The highest level of education completed
27% of respondents have less than a college
degree and 74% have a college or graduate
degree.
Question 14
What is your gender?
Gender Percent of
Respondents
Percentage
Male 28%
Female 72%
Transgender < 1%
Question 15
Which of the following categories fit your
household's annual income level?
28% of the respondents have an annual
household income of 5 $30,000/year. 72%
have an annual household income >
$30,000/year.
Question 16
Where do you live?
Location
Percentage
Iowa City
76%
Coralville
10%
Unincorporated Johnson County
9%
Other
2%
North Liberty
2%
University Heights
2%
REPORT PAGE 48
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
Question 17
What is your age?
Age
Percentage
Less than 50
< 1%
50-59 years
7%
60-69 years
34%
70-79 years
34%
80-89 years
21%
90+
3%
Question 18
What is your race? Please check all that
apply.
97% of the respondents indicated that they
were white.
Question 19
Who lives with you in your household?
Check all that apply.
53% of respondents live with a spouse or
significant other; 41% live alone.
Question 20
Comments
Strengths and Weaknesses
There were approximately three and a half
times more strengths (N=137) than
weaknesses (N=38) identified by
respondents. Strengths were presented
from two perspectives. Some focused on
how The Center supported the community
and others on personal benefits. The most
frequently identified weakness was parking
noting that it was inconvenient or
expensive or inconvenient and expensive. A
few facility design features were
mentioned, as well as participation fees, the
lack of minority participants and an
unwelcoming atmosphere. A number of
program suggestions were offered.
REPORT PAGE 49
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
Results: Summary
The "typical" respondent was a white female between 60 and 79 years of age. She typically lived with a
spouse or partner and had an annual household income of $50,000+/year. This "typical" woman held a
graduate or professional degree and was a member of The Center who visited anywhere from three
times a week to less than monthly.
The overwhelming reason people come to The Center for the first time is to attend programming that is
of interest to them. This is followed by a desire to keep active and maintain social connections.
The primary barrier to participation identified was competing time demands, including employment.
People are involved with their families, hobbies, church, employment, and other activities of personal
interest. Other barriers identified were parking and not being able to identify programs of personal
interest.
When the reasons for first visits and barriers to participation are considered together, the importance of
being aware of the needs and interests of older adults within the community becomes obvious. A
person or group is far more likely to find time to attend a program or event that is of personal interest
and value.
Another barrier mentioned by respondents was the lack access to the facility during the hours they are
available, specifically evenings and weekends. People would like to have their work and other activities
accommodated so they can enjoy programs, services, and opportunities to establish new social
connections.
People want what they are interested in offered at a time that is convenient for them.
The most highly rated participant outcomes were cognitive, social, and emotional. The top five were 1)
learned new things, 2) kept my mind active, 3) obtained needed information, 4) made friends, and 5)
gained a sense of belonging. In addition, a majority of respondents felt that their physical status had
improved as a result of participating in Center programming. Notably, all of these outcomes are
important contributors to positive aging, which is the focus of The Center's mission.
Participant satisfaction with current programming is high. When asked to rank eight areas of
programming, satisfaction levels ranged between 94% and 98%. Since respondents were asked to rank
only the areas they participated in, the response rate for each area is indicative of the participation level
in each area. The program areas receiving the most responses were: 1) classes, 2) special events, 3)
information/resources, 4) special membership programs, and 5) performance groups.
Traditional liberal arts classes were the most frequently requested programs. This included everything
from art history and writing to foreign language and math. Fitness programming was the second most
frequently requested area of programming with requests for such things as line dancing, pilates, free
yoga, tai chi, and expanded weight training equipment. The third most requested area of programming
was in the area of computers and technology. Respondents are interested in everything from the most
basic instruction to advance instruction on things like web design, social media, smart phones, photo
editing, and computer and phone apps.
Program recommendations were analyzed according to respondent groups. Preference breakdowns
were as follow:
REPORT PAGE 50
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report
PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS OF RESPONDENTS
Subdivision
First Choice
Second Choice
Third Choice
Forth Choice
Former Members
liberal Arts
Computers
Fitness
Non -Members
Liberal Arts
Fitness
Computers
Women <69
Liberal Arts
Fitness
Groups/Clubs
Computers/liandicrafts/Wellness
Women>69
Liberal Arts
Fitness
Computers
Wellness
Men <69
Liberal Arts
Groups/Clubs
Computers
Men>69
Liberal Arts
Fitness
Computers
Miscellaneous
Liberal Arts
Computers
Fitness/Handicrafts
Groups/clubs
When discussing program requests, the need for expanded operational hours was mentioned again.
Several respondents expressed a desire for increased diversity, including age diversity.
Respondents endorsed current methods of program promotion including newspaper articles about
programs and the Program Guide. They also supported the effectiveness of e-mail communication and
television commercials.
While a majority of respondents own or have access to a computer for personal use, the ability to use
their computer varies from little or no ability to very skilled. Regardless their ability to use the
computer, very few have ever visited any of The Center's websites. When asked to identify a preference
for type of computer to have in the computer lab, a majority of respondents expressed a preference for
Windows PCs.
Respondents conveyed positive feelings about The Center in their written comments. It was described
as an asset to the community, attractive to retirees, and a resource that helps new community members
integrate into the community. Programs and services were cited for their exceptional quality and
variety.
Far fewer weaknesses were identified by respondents. Nonetheless, these weaknesses touch on
important issues that merit consideration.
Fees (e.g. class, membership, and parking) were identified as being problematic, especially for non -Iowa
City residents and low-income persons. In the case of the latter, the respondents noted that fees can be
expensive and having to ask for a low-income discount might be embarrassing enough to keep people
away. A particularly concerning comment had to do with the unwelcoming atmosphere experienced by
a self -identified low-income member.
Several diversity issues were mentioned by respondents. Specifically this included a lack of diversity in
the areas of ethnicity, education, income, and age (within the 50+ population). Comments from
respondents also highlighted problems with agism that result in negative attitudes toward aging and the
Senior Center.
Other problems included a general unwelcoming atmosphere, lack of accessible hours (mentioned
again), lack of staff support when the facility is open, and a need for more programs with a social
component.
REPORT PAGE 51
Exhibit E - 2013 Survey Report]
Senior Center Survey Data: 2013 Survey and 2014 Demographic Survey
Gender
2013 Survey
2014 Demographic Survey
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Yeats
Male
28%M
ale 31%
Male 45%
Female
72%
Female 68%
Percale 55%
Transgender
<1%
Transgender I <1%
N/A
M
2013 Survey
2014 Demographic Survey
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
Less than 50
<1%
Less than 50
2%
N/A
50-59 years
7%
50-64 years
22%
N/A
60-69 years
34%
65-74 years
43%
N/A
70-79 years
1
34%
75-84 years
24%
N/A
80-89 years
21%
85+ years
9%
A/A
90+ years
3%
2%
Black or African American
N/A
Race
2013 Survey
2014 Demographic Survey
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
White, Caucasian
97%
White
95%
White
97%
Hispanic or Latino
1%
Hispanic or Latino
<l%
Hispanic or Latino
1%
Native American, Alaska Native
l%
Native American, Alaska Native
<1%
Native American, Alaska Native
<1%
Asian American, Pacific Islander
<1%
Asian
1%
Asian
1%
Black or African American
<1%
Black or African American
2%
Black or African American
1%
Other
l%
Other
<1%
Other
<1%
Two or more Races
1%
Two or more Races
<1%
Education
2013 Survey
2014 Demographic Survey
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
12 years or less
8%
High school graduate, GED, or less
10%
High school graduate, GED, or less 53%
Some college
19%
Some college, or associates degree
17%
Some college, or associates degree 26%
Bachelor's degree
27%
Bachelor's degree
26%
Bachelor's degree or higher 21%
Graduate or Professional degree
47%
Graduate or professional degree
46%
10%
Annual Household Income
2013 Survey
2014 Demographic Survey
Iowa Census, Persons Over 60 Years
$10,000 or less
4%
Less than $10,000
4%
N/A
$10,001 to $20,000
12%
$10,000-$14,999
8%
N/A
$20,001 to $30,000
12%
$15,000-$24,999
9%
N/A
$30,001 to $50,000
23%
$25,000-$34,999
10%
N/A
$50,001 or more
49%
$35,000-$49,999
16%
N/A
$50,000 ornrore
49%
N/A
Note: Census data retrieved from the 2012 American Community Survey, 1 -yr estimates
(http://factfitider2.censtis.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/prodtictview.xlitml?pid=ACS_ 12_] YR_SO 102&prodTyl)e—table#)
REPORT PAGE 52
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IOWA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER
MISSION STATEMENT AND
GOALS
2010-2015
REPORT PAGE 53
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
PAGE 2 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS
The Center's operational self-assessment began in
October of 2009. At the time, a group of participants,
volunteers, community members, aging service
providers, staff, and experts in the field of aging, met
for a full day to review and improve the Center's
mission statement, vision statement, and values, and
establish goals for 20-10-2015. The following people
took part in the process:
Merce Bern—
Janice Frey
Jean Martin
Klug
Jay Honohan
Mike Moran
Michelle Buhman
Tiffiny Johnston-
Jean Reese
Marcia. Bollinger .
Hines
Susan Rogusky
Ed Carpenter
Linda Kopping
Christine Scheetz
Dianne Day
Ina Loewenberg
Linda Severson
Louis De Grazia
Kara Logsden
Kristin Watson -
Karin Franklin
Sarah Maiers
Charlotte Walker
(facilitator)
Cari Malone
REPORT PAGE 54
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER PAGE 3
Mission Statement
The mission of the Senior Center is to promote
optimal aging among older adults by offering
programs and services that promote wellness, social
interaction, community engagement, and intellectual
growth. The Center serves the public through
intergenerational programming and community.
outreach.
Vision Statement
The Vision of the Senior Center is to be the
community's primary resource for the highest quality
programs, services, and opportunities that promote
optimal aging.
REPORT PAGE 55
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
PAGE 4 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS
Principles
The primary principle underlying Senior Center
programming and services is that of optimal aging.
Optimal aging is abroad concept that involves more than
physical health or the absence of disease. It is a
comprehensive concept of wellness that encourages and
extends an optimal balance of physical, intellectual,
emotional, social, vocational, and spiritual health for each
individual.
The Senior Center's program components promote
optimal aging by providing a variety of opportunities for
education, social engagement, physical activity, and
community involvement. .
Participation in these types of activities is known to reduce
the risk of disease and disability, improve memory, enhance
mobility, and provide.a social network that is a key factor in
longevity and the ability to participate in and contribute to
the culture and community.
REPORT PAGE 56
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IOWA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER PAGE 5
Values
Values represent the core priorities in an organization's
culture and serve as the foundation for all that is done. The
Center abides by the following values:
Intrinsic Worth: Every individual will be valued for their
intrinsic worth
Experience: Life experiences of older adults are to be
valued and shared
Capacity for Growth: Everyone has a life-long capacity to
grow and improve
Respect: All people and ideas will be treated with respect
Inclusiveness: Decision-making will be inclusive of
different view points
Excellence: All programs and services will strive for
excellence
Collaboration: Engagement of and with the larger
Johnson County community will facilitate the success of
the Senior Center
Honesty: All communication will be honest and based on
mutual trust.
REPORT PAGE 57
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
PAGL 6 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS
Goal #1
To provide opportunities and advocacy to
empower seniors in order to combat ageism,
create a positive image of aging, and a positive
image of the Senior Center.
♦ Continually review all -Center publications, advertisements, and
community interactions to ensure that a positive image of aging
and the Center is conveyed,
♦ Establish a variety of marketing techniques to promote the
Center and educate the community about the positive aspects of
aging on an ongoing basis.
♦ Maintain positive relationships with volunteers, members, staff,
and community members to promote a positive image of aging
and the Center.
Expand community and participant knowledge of, and
involvement in, the governance of the Center on an ongoing
basis.
REPORT PAGE 58
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IOWA CITY/ JOHNSOi�' COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER PAGE 7
Goal # 2
To improve stability and diversity of financing.
0 Update resolutions and policies related to management of the
Gift Fund to reflect current practices in FYI 0.
® Evaluate current lease agreements with in-house agencies and
make changes as needed in FYI 2.
® Intensify pursuit of external grant support, fundraising, and
corporate sponsorships in order to maintain a 5% increase in
revenue sources annually.
® Investigate the feasibihty of generating additional revenue by
selling advertisements in the Program Guide and other promotional
materials during or before FYI 3. -
® Develop financial policies and procedures to be used daily and
under extraordinary circumstances by 2015.
® Determine the success of all fundraising events organized and
implemented by volunteers and staff within 30 clays of each event
as events occur.
4.
Monitor budget and revenue activity throughout the year and
take action as necessary.
® Maintain a positive working relationship with Friends of the
Center.
® Determine the level of participant satisfaction with participant
cost-sharing methods and modify as necessary.
REPORT PAGE 59
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
PAGE 8 MISSION STATEMENT AND GOALS
Goal #3
To increase cultural diversity among participants.
♦ Promote an accurate understanding of the Center and its offerings
on an ongoing basis.
♦ Review and improve promotional methods, currently used to
increase participation and diversity among volunteers on an
ongoing basis.
♦ Encourage participant diversity among Scholarship program
participants. Increase Scholarship use 10% by 2015.
♦ hnprove the, use of neighborhood newsletters and. church
bulletins, especially in rural areas, to promote programs,
activities; and services on an ongoing basis.
♦ Support ongoing staff training.
♦ Continue to offer and promote a minimum of 12 outreach pro-
grams a year in Johnson County.
♦ Improve access to programming for individuals who are unable to
drive or do not have access to public transportation.
♦ Identify ways to improve services for all members of the
community.
♦ Increase opportunities to reach a diverse audience by offering a
miniruiuni of 6 programs about various cultures and ethnicities.
annually.
♦ Continue to reach at risk individuals with programs and services
designed to improve health, and wellbeing.
♦ Develop surveys and focus groups to identify minority groups'
heeds and interests and determine if they are being met by current
program offerings in conjunction with 5 year community survey
and on an as needed basis.
♦ Continue to diversify programs through new partnerships.
♦ Compare diversity among Center participants to documented
diversity within the community annually.
♦ Increase etlunic and financial diversity among Center participants
by 15% by 2015.
Continue to improve accessibility of facility.
REPORT PAGE 60
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER PAGE 9
Goal #4
To promote an environment of inclusion.
® Continue the practice of distributing media releases through the
City of Iowa City's press release network and staff generated e
-mail press release lists.
® Continue with the preparation and widespread distribution of the
quarterly Program Guide.
e Strengthen web -based promotion of the Center on an ongoing
basis.
® Increase the production and distribution of promotional posters
on an ongoing basis.
® Identify job descriptions for all volunteerpositionsby 2012..
® Create a volunteer liand'000k by 2012.
® Recognize the contributions of volunteers to the operation of the
Center on an ongoing basis.
® Continue to provide confidentiality insofar as legally possible.
® Continue to use Center space effectively and make appropriate
changes as needed.
® Improve availability and use facility directories for visitors to the
Center by 2042.
REPORT PAGE 61
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
PAGE 10 MISSION. STATENUNT AND GOALS
Goal #5
To be synonymous with the highest duality
programs that promote optimal aging.
0 Maximize the effectiveness of all marketing tools and resources
on an ongoing basis.
0 Continue to secure high duality, professional staff, volunteers and
instructors.
e Continue to ensure that all programs and special events are
monitored for effectiveness.
0 Evaluate community needs and interests on a regular basis.
e Continue to monitor participation in A Center sponsored
programs.
e On a scheduled and as needed basis, measure community and
participant opinions of Center programs and service to ensure
that their needs and interests are being met successfully.
e Maintain a pleasant and comfortable environment at the Center.
REPORT PAGE 62
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
IO\VA CITY/ JOHNSON COUNTY
SENIOR CENTER PAGE 11
Goal #6
To involve the Senior Center in the community
and the community in the Center.
® Continue to improve the currency, relevance, and appeal of the
Center's internet presence.
® Monitor the frequency and success of community partnerships
and outreach programming on an ongoing basis.
Goal #7
To improve accountability and transparency.
® Continue to encourage participant feedback on personal levels of
satisfaction with current opportunities for meaningful
involvement in the operation of the Center.
® Maintain efforts to keep the public.and participants informed
about the operation of the Center.
A Improve the relevance and clarity of member registration
materials by 2012.
® Improve methods used for determining participation counts in all
Center sponsored programs by 2012.
® Inform the public of results of all fundraising activities and
programs as events occur on an annual basis.
REPORT PAGE 63
Exhibit F - Strategic Plan Booklet
Center
IOWA CITY/JOHNSON COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Downtown Iowa City
Iowa City/ Johnson County Senior Center
28 South Linn Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240
Phone: 319.356.5220 www.icgov.org/senior
REPORT PAGE 64
Exhibit G - Census
Marian Karr
From; U.S. Census Field Division <tieid.divisionr7subscriptions.census.90v>
Sent; Monday, April 21, 2014 12:47 PM
To: Marian Karr
Subject: Facts for Features Older Americans Month
®llder 'Alrl< e rileting Month-. May 201,4111
Older A>rl erricam Month
A meeting with the National Council of Senior Citizens
resulted in President John F. Kennedy designating May
1963 as Senior Citizens Month, encouraging the nation to
pay tribute to older people across the country. In 1980,
President Jimmy Carter's proclamation changed the name
to Older Americans Month, a time to celebrate those 65
and older through ceremonies, events and public
recognition.
43.1 million
The number of people who were 65 and older in the United States on July 1, 2012. This
group accounted for 13.7 percent of the total population.
92.0 million
Projected population of people 65 and older in 2060. People In this age group would
comprisejust over one in five U,S. residents al that time. Of this number, 18.2 million would
be 85 or older.
2.4 million
Projected number of baby boomers in 2060. At that time, the youngest baby boomers would
be 96 years old.
2056
The year in which, for the first tune, the population 65 and older would oulmuubcr people
younger than 18 in the U.S.
REPORT PAGE 65
Exhibit G - Census
Income and Poverty
$33,040
The 2012 median income of households with householders 65 and older, not significantly
different tinm tine previous year.
9%
The percent of people 65 and older (3.9 million) who were ht poverty in 2012.
$170,516
Median net worth for householders 65 and older in 2011, down from $203,015 (in 2011
dollars) in 2005.
14.0%
Percent supplemental poverty rate for those 65 ail(] older, equating to 6.4 million people.
Excluding Social Security would leave the majority of this population (54.7 percent or 23.7
million) in poverty.
Seirvi ng ®u)r Nation
ion
9.6 million
Estimated number of people 65 and older who were veterans of the armed forces 1112012.
21.3%
Labor force participation rate for men 65 and older 1112012, up from 17.6 percent is 1990
and significantly higher than the rate for
REPORT PAGE 66
Exhibit G - Census
'1.3 million
Number of full-time, year-round workers 65 and older with earnings in 2012, tip from 1.3
million in 1992.
02.6%
Proportion ofpeople 65 and older in 2013 who had completed high school or higher
education.
25.3%
Percentage of the population 65 and older }» 2013 who had earned n bachelor's degree or
higher,
00.7%
Percentage of householders 65 and older Who owned f icir homes as of fourth quarter 2013.
United Statos" Questions?
Census
- - 'auronu Contact Us
SUBSCRIBER SERVICES;
Manage Preferences I Unsubscribe I Help
This message has been sent by the U.S. Census Bureau • Washington, DC 20233
3
REPORT PAGE 67
I MAN 0 a
/� /W", da, 2L
4o0o4allr
MILKEN REPORT
I propose that we add the following to our report
Excutive Summary
1)Page 2 new bullet at the end of the bullets
The City should continue its strong support for the
Center and the agencies who serve seniors for their role in Iowa
City receiving the number 1 ranking in the Mulken Institute's
"Best Cities for Successful Aging".
2)Add to the conclusion at the end of the last sentence
and continue to be recognized as a "Best City for
Successful Aging.