HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-11-18 Bd Comm minutesAd Hoc Senior Services Committee MT -TF -TIM
October 22, 2014
Page 1 4
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 22, 2014 — 3:30 P.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug, Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram Rick
Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon, Rick Dobyns
Staff Present: Alec Bramel, Michelle Buhman, Geoff Fruin, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 3:35 P.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT_ CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meeting on 10/15/14
Honohan moved to adopt the Consent Calendar as presented. Dohrmann seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent.
DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS:
a. Acceptance of Report Template Including Approved Sections
Younker noted that at the last meeting, the Initial Sections, and Charge 1 and Charge 2 (pages
25-32) were approved. He stated that he would not be looking to discuss these sections again.
Instead, he asked Members if anyone felt that the items in agenda item 3(a) do not reflect what
was approved at the last meeting. Bern -Klug noted that on page 29, the section regarding City
financials. She had asked that it be clarified that the Senior Center receives 1 % of the General
Fund, and this has not been included in the text. Younker agreed that this did pass as part of a
motion and should be included. Honohan then asked if this had been approved completely.
Karr responded that each element of it was approved, and Younker noted that the minutes
reflect this on page 7. Honohan noted that he was under the impression that this information
was `accepted,' not `approved.' Younker noted that what he is looking for is items that were
voted in the affirmative at the last meeting that do not appear on pages 25 through 32 of the
document, or are there issues that were not voted in the affirmative that do appear on these
pages. Honohan stated that he would accept this. Younker asked that they look at the words
first and then they can move on.
1) Initial Sections (pages 25-26)
2) Charge 1: Senior Center Evaluation (pages 27-28)
3) Charge 2: Physical and Financial Resources (pages 29-32)
• Understanding of City Financials
• Overview of Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population
• Recommendations Regarding Financial Resources
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 2
• Recommendations Regarding Physical Resources
b. Discussion of Charge 2: General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population
Younker then moved on to Charge 2, noting that the template has three sections —
Understanding City Financials, Overview of the Process to Determine the Needs of the Senior
Population, and General Findings of Needs of the Senior Population. At the last meeting, he
noted that Members approved Sections 1 and 2, but not Section 3. He then asked what the
Committee would like to do with Section 3. He stated that he is under the assumption that the
Committee wants to deal with this section through recommendations. Honohan stated that he is
still under the impression that they did not approve Section 2, and that he believes Section 2 is
unwieldy and needs to be better summarized. Continuing, Honohan noted that he has
proposed on page 36 what he believes is an adequate explanation for this section. At this point,
Younker stopped Honohan, stating that they are not talking about the same thing. He noted that
they are discussing Charge 2, Section 3, and Honohan is referring to Section 2 under Charge 2.
Honohan agreed. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification here, and Younker referred her to
page 29 of the packet.
Moving to page 30, Younker noted there is the second section under Charge 2, Overview of
Process to Determine Needs of the Senior Population. Continuing, Younker noted that what
they are currently discussing is the third section under Charge 2, General Findings of Needs of
the Senior Population (top of page 31). Younker then again asked the Committee Members
how they want to handle this section. Honohan noted that it is his position that they 'accepted'
it, that they did not 'approve' this as the final draft for their report to the City Council. He stated
that he believes they should report to the Council, in effect, the number of agencies in the
community, as per the Livable Communities report that serve seniors. He does not believe they
should make any qualitative statement about this, but that they should report it. Younker noted
that Honohan's draft that he submitted does appear under 3(c) of the agenda. He then again
asked the Committee what they want to do with the third section of Charge 2.
Honohan moved to replace what is in the current draft with what is in his draft on pages
37 and 38. He noted that his is a much shorter version and he believes it indicates everything
they need here. Younker again noted that Honohan's recommendations do appear on page 31.
Younker stated that he does not believe it would be helpful to go back and reassess what they
have already approved. Honohan again stated that he believes they 'accepted' the information
but did not 'approve' it. He added that had he known the motion was to approve the
information, he would have voted against approving it. Younker stated that he doesn't believe
they have accepted, approved, received, or made any determination about the final report. The
final report will be subject to public comment, according to Younker. He stated that they need to
have a document available for public comment, however, for that process to take place.
Honohan again stated that he does not believe this to be accurate. Younker stated that he
would entertain a motion for the Chair and Vice Chair to prepare proposed language to insert in
section 3 of Charge 2, as that section appears (blank) on page 31 of the packet. Dohrmann
moved to have the text be completed by the Chair and Vice -Chair for section 3 on page
31 as a part of the final report, which would then be available for discussion by the
Committee. Bern -Klug seconded the motion.
Honohan stated that he has already let it be known what his feelings are. He believes the
section is too long and that it repeats some of the things that the Committee has adopted in the
evaluation for the Senior Center. Referring to #3 on page 31, Honohan stated that this is much
too long. He agreed that the point here is important, but he believes they can say this more
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 3
clearly and without any hint of opinion, by using his draft on page 38. Dohrmann and others
noted that the motion is just for section 3, not section 4, which Honohan is speaking to.
Dohrmann stated that this section is important in terms of their charge, that they need text
discussing their general findings of the needs of the senior population. Asst. City Manager Fruin
noted that the motion on the table is just for section 3, page 31. This section currently has no
content in it. The motion on the floor is to have the Chair and the Vice Chair draft language for
the Committee's consideration. Younker added that there was something in this section at the
last meeting but that it was not approved. They now either need to fill in this blank portion of the
report or delete the heading altogether. The motion is to come up with proposed language for
just this section. Bern -Klug stated that she wanted to discuss this a bit further and she referred
to page 31, #3. She noted that whatever is underneath it should be related to the
recommendations, as it will look like the recommendations came out of a consensus of the
group's understanding of what the needs are for seniors. She asked the group what they think
the needs are. Younker stated that this is what will go in this section. Bern -Klug agreed, adding
that she had not gotten the sense that there was agreement on what the needs are. She asked
if they have even discussed these needs specifically. Younker responded that they have
received reports from Committee Members and community agencies, identifying needs. He
believes they can pull the information from this. Webber stated that this true with the exception
of input by the target population, which is where the survey proposal comes in. Younker
agreed, stating that the survey will help to further define and identify the needs of seniors.
Honohan stated that he agrees with Bern -Klug in that they have not done anything to make
findings of the needs of the senior population. He stated that he has no idea what the needs of
Elder Services is, for example. He also has no idea of the needs of Pathways and the people
they serve. He added that he concurs with Webber in that this is what the survey is for — to find
out the needs of the seniors. He stated that he just is not comfortable with something stating
that they 'know' something specific, when in fact they do not. Dohrmann stated that through this
process there have been specific issues, such as with the projected growth of the senior
population; needs identified in the Elder Services' report that were shared, such as case
management, funding needs for specific programs, and expected increased demand as this
demographic continues to grow. She also referred to Pathways, noting that their identified need
is to help those that fall through the cracks, so to speak, and they don't have the necessary
funding to provide these services.
Younker then stated that perhaps they need to take a step back and look at section 2 —
Overview of Process, Determine Needs of the Senior Population. Section 3 is then reporting to
Council what was learned from the report. Younker added that what they learned was that
further investigation is necessary, hence the recommendation that a special survey be
conducted. Younker also noted that as Dohrmann stated, they did receive information from
Elder Services regarding needs and also information from Pathways regarding needs. This
section is where the Committee is simply telling Council what they found out. Continuing,
Younker stated that he agrees with Honohan that they cannot say these are the needs of the
senior population exclusively because they have not engaged in that type of analysis.
Bern -Klug stated that she believes they could also include in section 3 of Charge 2 that there is
some concern among the agencies that have been receiving funds through the Aid to Agencies
program about a decrease in future funding. Younker stated that they could also add the impact
that this would have on the needs of the senior population. Younker then restated the original
motion, for the Chair and Vice -Chair to propose draft language for this section, consistent with
the Committee's discussion. Bern -Klug added that part of it may be changing the label for part
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 4
3 to something like — General Findings From What the Agencies Reported. Younker stated that
the opening clause of this section could state something to the effect that based on the
information received from the Committee, these are the identified needs. Fruin stated that he
believes there is a bit of a disclaimer like this in the preceding section. He added that the last
paragraph refers to the fact that this was a very informal process, but that this was due to the
time constraints and resources of the Committee. Continuing, Fruin noted that this section then
ended with a prelude, so to speak, to the Committee's recommendation, which is that a
professional survey is needed in order to garner more scientific results. The motion carried 4-
1; Honohan in the negative, Cannon and Dobyns absent.
c. Discussion of Additional Proposed Charge 2 Recommendations
Younker began the discussion on page 33 of the meeting packet. He noted that he and the
Vice -Chair have proposed additional recommendations for discussion and to be included in the
report. Beginning with recommendation #1 on page 33, Younker asked for a motion to approve.
1) Approximately 20% of the Center's members are non -Iowa City residents
(Non -Iowa City, Johnson County residents: 18%; Non -Johnson County
residents: 2%). Although Johnson County contributes to the Center, the
County's contribution is less than 10% of the Center's budget. While non -
Iowa City residents pay a slightly higher membership dues fee compared to
Iowa City residents, the Center should consider further increasing the
membership dues of non -Iowa City residents to coincide more closely with
the actual cost of services and account for the funding disparity between the
County and the City.
Dohrmann moved to approve recommendation #1 on page 33. Webber seconded the
motion. Honohan began the discussion, stating that he believes this is a well-intentioned
paragraph but that it is introducing a quagmire. Honohan then read his proposal:
"Different approaches have been made to the Board of Supervisors in attempt to
get them to contribute more. In the past there has been problems regarding
charging different fees for non -Iowa City residents in groups who in the Center
have budgets of their own. A look at the fees generally is in the draft of the
Center Evaluation on page 28, second bullet under B. I feel that we should just
let it go at that and let the Commission, the Steering Council, and the staff work
on this and perhaps hold hearings at the Center as we did in the beginning to get
the sense of the participants."
Continuing, Honohan stated that he does not think the Committee should make a
recommendation that is this specific when he believes they don't have a lot of knowledge to do
it. Honohan noted that back in 2003, the Center held four or five public hearings where they
heard a lot of pros and cons regarding participant fees. He added that he believes this is the
type of process that should be taken when they talk about increasing fees. For these stated
reasons, Honohan added that he will not vote for this proposal. Younker responded to
Honohan's comments, noting that the proposed recommendation is that the Center should
consider further increasing membership dues for non -Iowa City residents. The intent is not to
dictate to the Center whether or not they should increase these, simply that this be a
consideration. Younker also noted that what Honohan points out on page 28 of the packet, this
falls under Charge 1, the Evaluation of the Senior Center, and not a specific recommendation to
the Council. This is a Charge 2 recommendation, according to Younker, something separate
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 5
from the Evaluation of the Center that appears in Charge 1. Dohrmann added that this is not for
all programming but specifically membership dues. Bern -Klug stated that it seems odd that they
would have two recommendations related to finances of the Senior Center in two different
places. Younker responded, noting that first of all the bullet point that Honohan has referenced
falls under the Opportunities for Improvement section, under Charge 1. He further explained
that the proposed recommendation is in response to the second charge that the Committee has
been given, which was to make recommendations on how current physical and financial
resources should be used. He agreed that there is some overlap here, but that to be responsive
to the charge; he believes they need to clarify their recommendations in the second charge.
Bern -Klug noted that if this is the case, the issue of fees would actually be in three places. She
noted that on page 28 of the report it is listed twice, under B(1) Opportunities for Improvement,
and then down two paragraphs it says: The Senior Center should evaluate membership fees.
Younker suggested they back up and look at page 27 first. He pointed out that this issue was
identified under the Senior Center Evaluation. Moving on to page 29, Younker noted that this is
where the discussion of Charge 2 begins. He added that though there is some overlap, these
are separate charges. This proposed recommendation would be a Charge 2 recommendation,
according to Younker, and not a part of the Senior Center Evaluation. Bern -Klug asked if
Younker is opposed to making this recommendation more general. Younker explained his
stance on this issue, that there is a disproportionate amount of funding with approximately 20%
of the Center's members being non -Iowa City residents. The County's funding is less than 10%
of the Center's budget. Younker stated that this recommendation is aimed at this disparity.
Honohan stated that he does not see the charge they are currently discussing as being specific
to the Senior Center, but that Younker is bringing this back as being very specific to the Senior
Center. He also stated that there are members living in other cities — Coralville, North Liberty,
Hills, Solon — and that this is not necessarily the obligation of the Board of Supervisors.
Honohan continued, stating that the Board of Supervisors views this issue as being responsible
only for those people living in rural Johnson County. He stated that he has argued this position
with the Board of Supervisors on numerous occasions. Honohan reiterated that he will not
agree with this recommendation.
Bern -Klug asked if it would be agreeable to state this as recommending the Center consider a
fee structure for non -Iowa City residents, rather than saying it has to come from the Johnson
County Board of Supervisors. Younker stated that the recommendation does not say this, that it
is saying that the Center should consider further increasing the membership dues of non -Iowa
City residents to coincide more closely with the actual costs of services and to account for the
funding disparity between the County and the City. He reiterated that this recommendation is
not asking the Board of Supervisors to do anything. It is asking the Center to consider the dues
that are paid by non -Iowa City residents. Honohan noted that the Center currently has a higher
fee for non -Iowa City residents, and they also have a higher fee for those who live outside of
Johnson County. He added that to him, this recommendation is meddling where they should
not go.
Dohrmann stated that the intent truly is to address the disparity in funding and to recognize the
funding that is given to the Center from the City. Bern -Klug asked why they would not also ask
the City of Coralville to increase their funding. Younker responded, noting that they could do
this, but that this recommendation simply addresses the dues that are paid. He added that they
could entertain a separate recommendation that the City and the Center have a dialogue with
Solon, Coralville, and other cities involved in order to increase funding. Bern -Klug stated that to
her this is insinuating that Johnson County is not paying enough, and that this is why non -Iowa
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 6
City residents need to pay more. She added that it costs non -Iowa City residents more to get to
the Center, and therefore they are already incurring more costs to use the Center. Honohan
stated that the current fees being charged were based on discussions between the Commission
and the Steering Council, and the City Administration. Webber asked Honohan how long ago
these fees were established. Honohan stated that it has been a few years, and Fruin noted that
it indeed had been two years.
Bern -Klug thanked the Chair and Vice -Chair for creating the suggested language in order to
help the discussion. She asked if they would consider rather than a whole separate paragraph
recommendation that at the end of the currently listed #1 recommendation that it would say,
'... including fees to non -Iowa City residents.' Fruin pointed out that what Bern -Klug is referring
to is the already accepted language that the Committee worked on at their last meeting -- #1
that gets at the financial structure. He asked Bern -Klug if he is correct in how he is viewing her
recommendation — that at the end of the already accepted language, it would say: 'including the
fee structure for non -Iowa City resident members.' He added that from a staff point of view, this
captures what he believes the Committee is saying. Younker stated that he would be
comfortable with this and he asked Bern -Klug to restate her recommendation. She stated that
she would say, 'including reconsideration of fees to non -Iowa City residents.' Dohrmann
accepted a friendly amendment to her original motion (to include language to #1 instead
of the entire paragraph). Webber noted that his second would stand. Motion carried 4-1;
Honohan in the negative, and Cannon and Dobyns absent.
The discussion then moved to recommendation #2 on page 33.
2) The Committee received information from City Staff regarding the funding practices of
other Iowa communities concerning nonprofit agencies, including those offering services
to seniors. (See Ex. _, 9/29/14 Memorandum from Geoff Fruin.) The Committee
recognizes that, due to time constraints, City Staff gathered the information in an
informal manner. Consequently, the information provided may not provide a true "apples
to apples" comparison. Regardless, the Council should be aware of the practices of
other Iowa communities.
Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve this recommendation. Dohrmann
moved to accept recommendation #2 on page 33. Bern -Klug seconded the motion.
Discussion began with Bern -Klug asking Fruin to bring up the September 29 memo as she does
not remember seeing how other cities fund their senior centers. Fruin noted that he can do this
and further explained what they did. He noted that they contacted around a dozen cities in Iowa
and asked them how they fund senior activities, whether it's non-profit or actual city -based
programs, such as the Senior Center. He noted that this was a very informal phone survey and
that he would not put a lot of weight on it. Dohrmann further clarified what the actual
recommendation is. She noted that it is mainly to let the Council know that some work was
done to compare different communities and how they fund their senior programming. Younker
stated that the recommendation would be that this language be included in the report, under
Charge 2, and that the action that would be expected of Council would be to basically be aware
of the informal survey. Bern -Klug stated that in her opinion if they are going to share this
information with Council, she would also like to share information on communities with centers
that are in the same class, the top 2% in the nation, and see how they are funded. She wants to
see Iowa City's Senior Center compared to others in the nation that are also accredited and
compare their funding. Younker responded that first of all Fruin's memo was relating to the
funding practices concerning non -profits in general, and then understanding that some of these
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 7
services would overlap with senior services. Younker agreed that this information is probably
something the Council would benefit from. Fruin stated that he does not believe Council would
benefit from the information phone survey he was referring to, but that he would rather work with
the Senior Center staff to do some more in-depth analysis of how other cities fund their senior
centers. He added that they can broaden this to centers outside of Iowa for this analysis.
Younker stated that perhaps the recommendation should be that this type of report/analysis be
created and then provided to Council at a later date. Bern -Klug then clarified #2 on page 33,
stating that they need to be clear — if this is just looking at how other senior centers are funded
or how non-profit agencies are funded.
Fruin stated that this may be somewhat difficult to do, as in some cities a non-profit is their
senior center. Bern -Klug asked if this recommendation is mainly about senior center funding, if
the intent was to compare how other communities fund their senior centers. Younker
responded that that was not necessarily what they were trying to say. He stated that the
information they received was the Aid to Agency type funding, senior center funding — broader
funding issues. Bern -Klug responded that the Aid to Agency funding is federal, that this would
apply across the country. Fruin stated that in their brief survey, they found cities that do not
fund any senior services. These communities have no senior center and they do not fund non-
profits either. Their funds are used for other purposes. Continuing, Fruin noted that staff could
look beyond just senior center operations and see how other cities fund senior programming in
general.
Rose Hanson, audience member, asked if other senior centers own their building or does the
city they are located in own the building. Fruin replied that there does not appear to be any
standard model, and that it varies from city to city. Younker then asked Fruin what type of
report he believes would be useful to Council. Looking at the language presented, Fruin stated
that he would keep the first sentence, and then remove the reference to his September memo,
and basically say that the Committee sees value in expanding this type of analysis to include a
more in-depth understanding of those communities that were contacted, as well as other
communities outside of the state that are considered to be peer institutions by the Senior Center
staff. Members discussed the wording for this recommendation, with Fruin suggesting:
"The Committee recommends that City staff do more detailed analysis and include other
comparable senior centers outside of the state of Iowa and report to Council on how
those communities fund senior services. Bern -Klug stated that what she gets from this
conversation is that if something is not broke, why fix it and why investigate it. She
would rather the City not spend the time and funds investigating other models when their
model is evidently working fine. Younker then reviewed what the exact recommendation
would be and asked Dohrmann if she would entertain a friendly amendment to her
original motion.
Dohrmann accepted a friendly amendment to her original motion. Bern -Klug noted that
her second would stand. Motion failed 1-4; Younker in the positive, and Cannon and
Dobyns absent.
Moving on to page 34 of the packet, Younker noted that Bern -Klug has proposed a
recommendation under Charge 2, meaning that it would be added to the list of approved
recommendations.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 8
"Given that the negative effects of social isolation are more lethal than cigarette
smoking, and many older adults face significant barriers to participating in social
networks in our community because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment,
emotional challenges, language and/or poverty, we propose the City Council initiate a
new program, "Full Participation Awards" and set aside $40,000 per year for the next
three years (as a pilot project) to fund up to four projects ($10,000 each) for programs
administered by not-for-profit agencies serving socially isolated older adults who reside
in Iowa City. Appropriate programs would help to connect non -institutionalized older
adults experiencing social isolation to others through enhanced access to transportation,
meals, and social programming."
He stated that he would entertain a motion to approve Bern-Klug's proposed recommendation
on page 34. Honohan moved to accept the recommendation by Bern -Klug on page 34 of
the packet. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with Honohan stating that he
believes this is an excellent idea. However, he added that he believes it is a bit too long, and he
suggested a shorter version. Honohan's shorter version is on the late handout sheet, page 5 at
the bottom of the page, continuing to the next. Honohan asked that they consider his
proposed version in their recommendation list. Younker then asked Bern -Klug if she could
share what she had in mind while writing this proposal. She stated that most of what they have
been discussing is the Senior Center, and that most of the recommendations appear to have
something to do with the Center, as well. She noted that what they keep hearing from those
who come to the podium is how important the social contact and social networking is at the
Center, and in some cases how it is actually life-saving in nature. Bern -Klug added that the City
may want to consider issues related to social isolation or social networking, as how they look at
senior services in general. This could lead to having programs for those who are challenged by
social isolation.
Dohrmann stated that she believes the concept is great, but that her concern is in light of the
current climate and prioritizing limited funding, the timing does not seem right. Bern -Klug added
that something that is this broad does not favor any one kind of agency, and therefore many
types of agencies could justify some innovation in trying to connect isolated elders. Younker
asked Fruin how a recommendation such as this would be handled, if it were to be a part of the
Committee's report. Fruin responded that the first step would be whether or not the Council has
the appetite to take on another program and additional expense. If they did, he noted that staff
would then go to service providers to figure out what some parameters would be for this type of
program. Then it would eventually be brought back to the Council for their approval. Bern -Klug
stated that one thing to remember is between now and the time the Committee's report goes
out, the vote will have taken place for the local option sales tax. She added that, if approved,
the City would be getting money for low-income housing, which would then take some pressure
off the General Fund. She stated that even with the loss of property tax revenue, money still
has to be spent and if the City can fund programs to help people connect — especially those at
high risk — that there could be savings attached to this that are hard to measure.
Younker asked Karr to clarify where they currently stand with motions. She noted that there is a
motion on the floor currently for the original proposal from Bern -Klug, and then there is language
from Honohan that hasn't been moved or seconded to amend this. She added that given that
the amendment is a total replacement, she asked if the Committee wants to withdraw the
original motion or vote the motions up or down. Younker suggested they take up the original
motion first, with the understanding that if it does not pass they would entertain a motion to
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 9
revise the language. The motion failed 3-2; Dohrmann and Honohan in the negative, and
Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Honohan moved to approve his amendment on the late handout, #5 at the bottom, as
discussed. Bern -Klug seconded the motion.
5. Many seniors face barriers to participating in social network in our community
because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, and poverty. To aid these senior,
the Committee proposed that the City Council initiate a program "Full Participation
Awards" for three years of four grants of $10,000 each to non -profits for programs to
enhance social programming for these seniors.
The discussion began with Honohan stating that he believes this is a more concise version of
what he believes Bern -Klug was alluding to. Younker asked if there was any further discussion
on this amendment. Bern -Klug asked for some clarification of Honohan's wording. After some
discussion, Honohan suggested changing the wording to say `...for the next three years...' (top
of the second page of the late handout) Dohrmann stated that the concept is good, but her
concern is around the prioritization of services. Honohan stated that his assumption would be
that the money would come from the General Fund for this type of programming. Members
briefly talked about the Aid to Agency funding, and Fruin clarified that those funds are a
combination of federal and general funds. He stated that he would suggest this be a separate
program outside of the Aid to Agencies process. Bern -Klug stated that some of the things that
Elder Services and Pathways do is directly related to social isolation, and therefore she sees no
reason why they wouldn't be for these funds. Dohrmann stated that this is part of her concern
when it comes to prioritization. Bern -Klug stated that having `emotional challenges and
language,' as this gives them a way to outreach to non-English speaking people, which is part of
the concern in reaching the senior population. Honohan stated that if Bern -Klug wants to add
this language, he has no objection. This amendment would be to Honohan's proposal on the
late handout, #5, to add after cognitive impairment, `emotional challenges, language and/or,'
poverty.
5. Many seniors face barriers to participating in social network in our community
because of physical conditions, cognitive impairment, emotional challenges, language,
and/or poverty. To aid these senior, the Committee proposed that the City Council
initiate a program "Full Participation Awards" for the next three years of four grants of
$10,000 each to non -profits for programs to enhance social programming for these
seniors.
Honohan agreed to this amendment to his original motion. Bern -Klug agreed to her
second. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Younker then stated that before they discuss Honohan's comments that begin on page 35 of the
packet, he believes it is important for the Committee to keep in mind that currently they have
four regular meetings left — October 24; and November 12, 14, and 24. A written report is due
to Council by December 1. The Committee also needs to have time to receive public comment
on what they have put together in their report. Younker stated that he believes it was the
understanding of the Committee that what was affirmatively voted on at the last meeting was in
fact to be included in the report. In order to continue with their charges and to complete their
report in a timely manner, he believes they need to keep moving. He believes it is not
productive to keep going back over each section. Though there may be some changes made
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 10
after public comment is received, Younker stated that at this point they need to continue to
move forward.
Moving to page 35 of the packet, Honohan noted that first of all he is still hung up on
'acceptance' and 'approval.' He noted that he took a lot of Younker and Dohrmann's proposal
and put this in his proposal. He stated that he did make it more concise, however, which he
believes was the goal of the Committee to begin with. He noted that where Younker and
Dohrmann's proposal has three pages referring to financials, his entire proposal is only three
and a quarter pages. Moving to page 36 of the packet, Honohan noted that one of the things
that he believes is important is to indicate to the Council that there are 91 providers of services
for seniors, with the City of Coralville having 18. Out of these, 23 are governmental, 30 are for-
profit, and 56 are non-profit. In this list, 40 providers do not charge for their services, 36 have
fees paid by Medicare and Medicaid, 75 are paid through private pay and private insurance.
Financial aid is available with 20 of the agencies. Honohan reiterated how important he
believes it is for the Council to get a scope of the governmental and other agencies that are
serving in the community.
Younker stated that before they go through a point -by -point review of Honohan's proposal, he
believes they need to address a threshold issue. He noted that at the last meeting they had
lengthy discussions, and votes were taken, and sections of the reports were adopted by the
Committee. He stated that if there is additional information that is being proposed, that is one
thing. It is another thing to keep going back and reformatting and rewriting what has already
been adopted. Honohan again reiterated that he and Younker have a difference in opinion
regarding 'acceptance' and 'approval' of the sections. He stated again that had he known they
were adopting the sections when they voted, he would have voted in the negative. Honohan
continued, stating that there is nothing inaccurate with the information, but that he feels it is too
lengthy for the report. Bern -Klug interjected at this point, asking if once they get public input,
will they be able to edit and fine-tune the document at that time. Younker responded that this is
the hope, but that they need to remember the timeframe they have for completion. Younker
stated that his goal is to have public comment at the November 12 meeting. For this to happen,
the Committee will need to distribute a report beforehand. Bern -Klug then asked if it is okay
with Honohan that they not edit at this stage, that they await the public input as Younker has
outlined. Honohan stated that as long as the public can see his draft and discussion can be had
on it. Bern -Klug stated that she does not believe that would be useful, that they need to have
one draft document from the Committee. They can then get feedback from the public and make
any additional changes at that time. She stated that having two different documents to review
would be too confusing.
Honohan then stated that with the option that after the public discussion he can make motions
to delete, and motions to amend, then he will let it go forward at this point. Younker stated that
the Committee will have to have a final vote on the final report, once the remaining sections are
drafted and public comments are taken into consideration. Karr suggested that this information
could be a header or a footer on the report itself, so that the public realizes that there may be
amendments to it. She added that this might be helpful for the public to know this. Honohan
then asked for clarification on what they are currently doing and Younker attempted to explain.
At this point it was decided they should move forward in the process.
Discussion turned to the public input portion and how this will be handled. Bern -Klug asked if
they could give the public an idea of the report length, such as 5 or 6 pages total, so they know
what is being planned for the final report document. Karr noted that they can certainly do a
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 11
cover memo to the report that would indicate some of these issues, and that the current goal of
the Committee is "X" pages. This helps to set some parameters. She added that the
Committee needs to decide also what message they want to send with their report. Karr also
addressed `attachments,' noting that with some items they have referred to consistently as
having attachments that she does not currently have. She noted all attachments should be
attached to the draft final report.
d. Discussion of Proposed Charge 3 Recommendations: Identify Obstacles —
• Chair Younker and Vice -Chair Dohrmann memo (page 33)
• Ad Hoc Member Bern -Klug (page 34)
• Ad Hoc Member Honohan (pages 35-39)
Younker began the discussion by reviewing Charge 3, noting that on page 40 of their packets,
he and Dohrmann have identified proposed obstacles and recommendations. He stated that he
would like to review each one separately as they have been doing and then vote. Looking at
items #1 and #2, Younker stated that the Committee approved language at their last meeting
regarding transportation, specifically transportation -related issues. He then read the language
that was discussed and approved at their last meeting. Younker did the same with #2,
reviewing for Members the wording that was discussed and approved. He noted that both are
less Charge 2 issues and more Charge 3 issues.
Obstacle: Transportation. Recommendation: Transportation -related issues — especially
in light of the reduced funding to SEATS — are problematic for certain segments of the
senior population. The City should assess the transportation -related issues in more
detail. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge 2
Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by the
Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge 3
Recommendation.]
Honohan moved to accept #1 on page 40, Obstacle: Transportation. Bern -Klug seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Moving to #2,
2. Obstacle: Lack of Diversity. Recommendation: The Committee recognizes that the
Center has taken steps to address issues related to diversity (e.g., forming a working
committee to focus attention on diversity issues exclusively). The Center Staff, Steering
Council, and Commission, however, should adopt a more formal strategy to increase
diversity. [Note to Committee: The Committee approved this as a Charge 2
Recommendation at the 10/15 meeting. In light of discussion and revisions made by the
Committee, however, it seems more appropriate to address this item as a Charge 3
Recommendation.]
Honohan moved to accept #2 on page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Diversity. Webber seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
3. Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming. Recommendation: Certain organizations
approached by the Committee identified gaps in services available to seniors. For
example, Elder Services identified an increased need for nutrition services (e.g., home
delivered and congregate meals), care management, certain home assistance services,
and the provision of emergency supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses).
Pathways, an adult health center, identified the need to assist those who do not qualify
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 12
for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. City Staff and Center Staff should engage in a dialogue
with appropriate organizations to better understand the gaps in services. The dialogue
should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration between the
Center and various agencies.
Honohan moved to accept #3 on page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming for
discussion. Bern -Klug seconded the motion for discussion. Honohan stated that he has
some problems with #3. He does not believe the Committee has enough information to make
any recommendation regarding gaps in services. He believes this should be addressed in the
comprehensive survey, that the seniors in the community should say what the gaps are — not
the agencies. He added that agencies tend to be somewhat biased in their approach. Younker
asked if Honohan's concerns would be addressed by including results of the survey and
dialogue with constituent groups. Honohan stated that he is strictly taking the position that they
need the survey before they can make any comment like this about gaps in services. He added
that the Committee does not know what services seniors are lacking. For instance, he added,
he has heard from seniors who are concerned about the SEATS issue. However, he does not
know what concerns there are with Elder Services or with the VNA or with any of the other
agencies. Honohan would like to have the survey results first before they address anything to
do with gaps in services. He added that the Senior Center made this proposal to the Council
earlier, but it was turned down at that time. Dohrmann stated that she is hearing two different
things here — asking seniors what they identify as gaps in services, and then satisfaction with
services. She asked if she was correct in assuming this, adding that she thinks they are both
important. Continuing, Dohrmann stated that perhaps this could be another recommendation
that they develop.
Bern -Klug asked if this would be introducing a new responsibility for the Senior Center staff to
start getting involved with non-profit agencies serving older adults. She added that if so, she
does not like the idea that this appears out of the scope of Center staff in her opinion. Younker
responded that there are several reasons for including Center staff, one being that they are
most likely familiar with these agencies that serve the senior population. Another reason is to
hopefully spur some dialogue for collaboration between the Center and agencies, where
possible. Dohrmann noted that an example of this is the Caregiving Support Group for
caregivers affected by dementia. The Senior Center promotes this program and provides space
for it. Discussion continued with Honohan stating that he still believes they do not have the
necessary information about gaps in services, at least not enough to be able to make this kind
of recommendation. Younker stated that he would disagree as the recommendation does not
identify gaps in services, but simply states that a dialogue should be started to better
understand the gaps, whatever they might be. Bern -Klug stated that she believes there is a
group that meets monthly of service providers of older adults. Dohrmann asked if this is the
elderly consortium or something like that. Bern -Klug asked if that group could be part of the
identification of gaps in services. Younker stated that he would leave that to the discretion of
City staff and Center staff, that again the recommendation is to enter into a dialogue with the
appropriate organizations. Bern -Klug stated that perhaps this should be 'continue to,' as they
are already collaborating in this manner. After some discussion, Members agreed to amend the
next to last sentence by adding 'continue to' before 'engage in a dialogue.'
3. Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming. Recommendation: Certain organizations
approached by the Committee identified gaps in services available to seniors. For
example, Elder Services identified an increased need for nutrition services (e.g., home
delivered and congregate meals), care management, certain home assistance services,
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 13
and the provision of emergency supplies (e.g., shoes, Life Line, moving expenses).
Pathways, an adult health center, identified the need to assist those who do not qualify
for Title 19/Medicaid Waiver. City Staff and Center Staff should continue to engage in a
dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand the gaps in services. The
dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration
between the Center and various agencies.
Honohan refused to entertain this friendly amendment. Dohrmann moved to accept the
amended #3, page 40, Obstacle: Lack of Available Programming, per discussion. Bern -
Klug seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-1; Honohan in the negative, Cannon and
Dobyns absent. Bern -Klug moved that everything be removed on #3 except the last two
sentences, starting with 'City staff.' Honohan suggested that in the same sentence they
replace 'the' with 'any' before 'gaps in services.' Honohan seconded the amended motion.
The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
3.
appreaGhed by the Committee identified gaps iR te seRiw-s. Fe
Pe l SeT:ioes�
�Qeied-an increased need-f9F Rutrition sewises
�;l(e.g-,home
and the pmvi6ien a eMergepsY supplies (e.g., shoe Life L,.,e .,,,,.,,.,,, eXpe„6es)
Pathways, aR adult health GeRteF, ideRtified the Reed te assist flk.Aesfem I.A.91�.n- d -n- net qualify
City Staff and Center Staff should continue to engage in a
dialogue with appropriate organizations to better understand any gaps in services. The
dialogue should include the identification of possible areas of further collaboration
between the Center and various agencies.
Honohan then removed his original motion.
Moving on to page 41, #4, Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to approve this
recommendation.
4. Obstacle: Lack of accessibility to enter The Center. Recommendation: Assess the
challenges with accessing the building (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of
Linn and Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter).
Honohan moved to adopt recommendation #4, Obstacle: Lack of Accessibility to Enter,
for discussion. Webber seconded the motion. Honohan stated that he likes the motion, but
that he is unclear with the wording. Dohrmann stated that the intent behind this was it is not as
easy to access the Center, especially in winter months, but also thinking of those with mobility
issues, and how long it takes to cross the street at Linn and Washington — the example is the
timing of the crosswalk. There is not enough time for those with mobility issues to cross.
Dohrmann noted that when the ice is not cleaned in these areas and is let go, it can be days
and weeks where people cannot access the Center due to safety issues. Basically the intent
was to reduce probability of falls and see what else can be done to increase the probability of
people being able to access the Center safely. Honohan stated that when they talk about the
Center here, they are talking about the building. He questioned if this shouldn't be changed.
He noted where it states 'The building,' and questioned if this should not be changed to 'The
Center,' as they are referring to the Senior Center itself. He also questioned if they should add
something about bus stops, that at one point that was one of Dohrmann's concerns. He added
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 14
that the bus stop is on the wrong corner, in his opinion. Dorhmann agreed with this. Younker
stated that they had language at one time but that it was cut from one of the recommendations.
Bern -Klug then read from page 32, # 5, subpart 2, where it alludes to this issue. She suggested
they add something here if necessary. Bern -Klug then asked if they could change the heading
from 'Lack of to 'Barriers to Access the Center.' Webber noted too that the white paint on the
crosswalks is another barrier, as it gets slippery in wet weather. Dohrmann clarified the
amendments: 'Barriers to access the Center;' on the second line change 'building' to 'Center;'
and then add 'slippery paint on the crosswalks and public bus stop be added in front of the
ADA -accessible entrance on Washington Street.'
4. Obstacle: Barriers to access The Center. Recommendation: Assess the challenges
with accessing the Center (e.g. time allotted to cross streets at the corner of Linn and
Washington; timely snow and ice removal in the winter, slippery paint on the crosswalks,
public bus stop be added in front of the ADA -accessible entrance on Washington Street).
Honohan agreed to a friendly amendment to his original motion. Webber agreed to his
second of the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
5. Obstacle: Lack of awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs.
Recommendations: Increase branding of the use of the words "The Center". Increase
emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in
the community, not just seniors.
Honohan moved to adopt #5 on page 41, Obstacle: Lack of Awareness of the Inclusivity
of the Center Programs. Bern -Klug seconded the Motion. Honohan stated that he would
like to delete the first sentence, "Increase branding of the use of the words "The Center."
Dohrmann stated that the reason she put this in is because it is inclusive but not recognized just
how much the Center is utilized by the community. She stated that there also is a stigma that
concerns her where people in the community say, "I'm not a senior!" She stated that use of the
Center may make people feel more comfortable. Honohan stated that they have been using the
words 'the Center' for 10 to 14 years now. He added that some people do not like this, that they
want it to be stated as the 'Senior Center.' Honohan stated that he does not care for the word
branding in this instance. Dohrmann stated that it is a marketing term. She believes that the
Center does not get the validation it deserves for its multi -generational programming. Bern -Klug
suggested adding 'community,' so it would say 'Lack of Community Awareness.' Dohrmann
agreed with this change. Honohan accepted a friendly amendment to his original motion.
Bern -Klug questioned the word 'inclusivity' here, asking if there was another word they could
use that would capture the point here.
5. Obstacle: Lack of community awareness of the inclusivity of The Center programs.
Innre se bFandinn of the use of the WGFds "The GenteF" Increase
Recommendations: T,-r�.w.....,. �.._...y ....• ._ ___ _...._ .. _. __ ..._ _ _ _
emphasis on the availability of multi -generational programming that benefits everyone in
the community, not just seniors.
Bern -Klug agreed to her second on the friendly amendment. The motion carried 5-0;
Cannon and Dobyns absent.
6. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors. The
committee was sent a letter requesting consideration of lack of downtown affordable
housing for middle-income seniors. The committee received reports of affordable
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 15
housing for low-income seniors, and the city appears to be addressing this need.
Higher -income housing is available and being further developed. Recommendation:
The City explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for
middle-income seniors.
Dohrmann moved to adopt #6 on page 41, Obstacle: Lack of Downtown Affording
Housing for Middle -Income Seniors. Webber seconded the motion. Discussion began with
Dohrmann explaining why she added this, noting that they received a memo on this and that
this appears to be an obstacle that affects seniors. Honohan stated that as he understands this
paragraph, the lack of downtown affordable housing for middle-income seniors is the obstacle
here. He stated that he would stop there, as far as the obstacle is concerned. He would delete
everything from there down to the recommendation. Honohan also suggested adding 'low-
income seniors' here as well.
6. Obstacle: Lack of downtown affordable housing for low and middle-income seniors. The
houslRg fGF.M.ffid_d_le_iAAC)me ceR'v"rs. T-ki ne n�vmmircce-fe6efVed_Tepnrtc of .+fFnrid.+hlc
seniers0
Higher_innnme he sing is available and being fu Fther develop Recommendation:
The City explore ways to increase downtown affordable housing and universal design for
low and middle-income seniors.
Dohrmann agreed to a friendly amendment. Webber agreed to his second. The motion
carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
e. Discussion of Remaining Report Sections —
Younker then reviewed where they currently are with their report and what sections they will
need to complete. An Executive Summary section will be needed; approval of Charge 1 has
been made; Charge 2 is being completed; and Charge 3 has been started. The report will also
need a Conclusion. Younker reiterated that his goal would be to hold public comment on the
draft report on November 12. This would then give them the meeting on November 14 to
discuss any necessary revisions. The next meeting would be November 24, where they could
adopt the final report. He asked Karr what her recommendations are for posting the draft report
for public comment. She noted that there is no rule of thumb here, but that the more time you
give the public in which to review and comment, the better off you are. With a November 12
goal in mind, she suggested having the draft report done by November 1, giving the public a few
weeks to review the report. She again noted that any attachments or exhibits be included in the
draft report, as well, so as to give individuals a complete picture of the report, along with the
intended duplication or the intended sections as a unit, as a full body, would be helpful as well.
Bern -Klug asked if they need to have the Executive Summary done by November 1, as well.
Younker stated that he believes they should have as many sections as possible completed in
order to receive comments on them, but that they could review this at the November 12
meeting, as well, after receiving public comment. Younker stated that prior to the upcoming
Saturday meeting they need to complete as much as possible. Younker then asked for
clarification on the packet for the November 12 meeting.
Honohan asked what they plan to do at the October 25 meeting. Younker stated that one thing
is to identify all of the exhibits they have talked about so far so that they have this information
ready. Also, another question, according to Younker, would be are there any further
recommendations that Members want to propose. He asked if anyone had anything to add to
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 16
Charge 2. Members briefly discussed the upcoming Saturday meeting and agenda content and
submission times. Karr noted that she will work with Members to meet the necessary
timeframes for new agendas, etc. Younker then reviewed what he hopes to achieve at this
upcoming meeting. First, identify and review the attachments and exhibits as a Committee.
Two, are there other obstacles that Members wish to propose and discuss, and finally are there
other recommendations that Members want to propose and discuss. Younker added that they
then need to look at Charge #3. They have a template that is set out with some things already
approved. Now they need to see how these fit into the template and what drafting is necessary.
When the meeting ends on Saturday, Younker would like to have a clear plan on how to post
the substantive portions of the report so there is adequate time for review before November 12.
Bern -Klug asked how they can have enough time between the meeting on the 12 and the one
on the 14th to review the public input and have drafts ready. Younker clarified that they would
begin their discussion on the 14th, of what they heard on the 12th, and could move forward from
there. Members briefly discussed what they can expect as far as an agenda and minutes when
their meetings are so close together, and how they plan to complete the report by the intended
time.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE:
October 25 (Saturday 8:00 A.M.)
November 12 (Wednesday 3:30 P.M.) — Public comment meeting
November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.)
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
Special meetings if needed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Mary Gravitt spoke first to the Committee. She asked Fruin if the original charge against the
Center was that the frail, elderly weren't being taken care of, and a lack of diversity. He
responded that he does not believe that is part of the resolution. She stated that she believes
this was Dobyns' grudge against the Center, that it was not diverse and that the frail were not
being taken care of. Fruin stated that Dobyns would have to address this, but that it certainly
was not part of the Council resolution. Gravitt then spoke about the $10,000 grants that would
let these other agencies study about the frail. She stated that to her the charges against the
Center keep blowing up and up. Then going to the snow and ice removal on Linn Street, Gravitt
noted that the City is using some type of chemical here so that the ice won't form in the first
place. She stated that this solution has corn syrup in it, making things even more slippery. She
noted that due to the weather in Iowa, temperatures can be such that some of these chemicals
don't do any good. Speaking to gaps in services, Gravitt stated that too much time has been
spent on this. She believes these agencies can defend themselves. Gravitt then asked what
cities the staff compared the Senior Center with in their analysis. She stated that in Iowa there
are very few to compare with. Continuing, Gravitt stated that this whole thing has just gotten out
of hand and she again questioned what the charges are. She stated that diversity is not an
issue with the Center. Younker interrupted Gravitt at this point, noting that her five minutes are
about up.
Rose Hanson asked Bern -Klug if Adult Daycare and Pathways are the same program. She
responded that Pathways is an adult day center. Hanson asked if these are half-day sessions,
and Bern -Klug stated that they offer both full and half days. Hanson stated that she has friends
at Oaknoll who have sent their spouses for a half day just to get a break, and that they also
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 17
handle the mentally challenged. She then addressed gaps in services, stating that the Senior
Center staff should not have to handle those. She stated that she believes they talk enough
that they would share if they had a concern. Hanson stated that it sounds to her like they are
saying those at the Center are there for their `huge share of the pie,' when they know there are
others they need to share it with. She added that she does not like this opinion.
Kathy Mitchell spoke next, thanking Dohrmann and the rest of the Members for putting forward
the idea of having a dedicated bus stop and timing the crosswalk for the more frail. Also the
snow and ice removal and how to keep ahead of that problem. The idea of grants is another
idea that she spoke highly of. Mitchell noted that in last year's budget process they did request
an hourly employee who would be doing welfare checks, as well. Being able to go above and
beyond just nutrition and exercise would be a wonderful program addition, according to Mitchell.
Mary Gravitt returned to the podium, speaking about the fees that the Center charges. She
noted that the scholarship fee is only $10 no matter who you are or where you live. She added
that it appears to her that issues are going above and beyond what the Committee's charges
are.
ADJOURNMENT:
Honohan moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:08 P.M. Dohrmann seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 22, 2014
Page 18
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
o
tl1
0
<71
0
07
0
G1
0
y
0
'1
0
V
0
c0
0
w
0
w
0
0
0
0
NAME
EXP.^'
O
�
w
O
m
N
w
O
�
N
W
o
opo
w
�
Cn
Cn
�
ah
46
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
Dobyns
E
Key.
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee Wiz'
October 25, 2014 4b(2)
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
AD HOC SENIOR SERVICES COMMITTEE
OCTOBER 25, 2014 — 8:00 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Mercedes Bern -Klug (arrived 8:10), Jane Dohrmann, Jay Honohan, Hiram
Rick Webber, Joe Younker (Chair)
Members Absent: Ellen Cannon, Rick Dobyns
Staff Present: Marian Karr, Linda Kopping
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Younker called the meeting to order at 8:08 A.M.
DISCUSSION OF FINAL REPORT STRUCTURE AND DRAFTING PROCESS:
a. Discussion of Remaining Report Sections
Younker thanked Karr for putting the meeting packet together for today's meeting and including
the sections that the Committee dealt with and approved at their last meeting. He asked if
Members have anything they feel should be a part of this report or anything they would like to
bring up for review. Honohan stated that he has a concern about an issue and that it was
approved at the last meeting. He referred Members to page 9, under V. Recommendations
Regarding Physical Resources. Honohan noted a reference to "a general ADA audit." He
would like to remove this and further explained his rationale. He gave Members some history
on six handicap parking spaces in the ramp that do not comply with ADA standards and why
these spots do not currently conform. Honohan stated that his concern is that if they do an ADA
audit, an inspector may come through and say those spaces have to be removed. He added
that the Center is in compliance with ADA requirements throughout their building. Honohan
moved to remove these words: `a general ADA audit' from the report. Younker stated that
the purpose at this time was to look at what was accomplished at the last meeting, basically the
highlighted areas. Honohan asked if they could take this issue up later then, if not now.
Younker stated that they can footnote Honohan's point and come back to it later. For now he
would like to deal with what was accomplished at the last meeting. (The item will be discussed
later in the meeting)
Bern -Klug then referred Members to page 9, item 8. She stated that she thought they were not
going to put anything in the report about the comparison of Iowa City with other cities. Honohan
stated that he thought the same, that they had not approved this. Younker stated that, again,
they do not have minutes to compare this to. His recollection was that they had extensive
discussion on this issue and in fact voted to include #8. Bern -Klug stated that she thought they
had decided they would not ask the City to put resources into something they don't believe is
broken. Honohan added that he remembers Fruin saying that it would be extremely difficult to
do such an analysis, due to the differences in the communities and other senior centers. He
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 2
stated that in one of the conversations, Bern -Klug suggested that they consider an analysis
between centers that are accredited. Younker suggested that these were related but slightly
separate conversations. The conversation about funding was in response to including Fruin's
memo from September where he talked about how Ames and other cities fund non -profits.
Then another discussion was about focusing in on senior centers outside of Iowa. Younker
continued, stating that #8 reflects what the Committee approved. He added that again they will
need to have the minutes from the meeting to see what they show as having passed. Younker
asked that they put a hold on this issue until later in the meeting as well.
Honohan then moved to page 8, #1, where he thought they had agreed not to include
reconsideration of the fees for non -Iowa City residents, and that instead they were going to end
this sentence at 'sources,' as there is already a paragraph in the Senior Center Evaluation about
this issue. Younker stated that he recalls this as being Honohan's position, but that Bern -Klug
had suggested adding this to #1 instead and that this is the motion that carried. Bern -Klug
added that this was in order to delete the separate bullet point about fees.
Younker reiterated where they currently are and what he hopes to accomplish today. Though
they don't have the minutes from the last meeting, they do have the sections that were passed
at the last meeting highlighted in the report. Everything on page 11, for example, was approved
at the last meeting. He again reviewed the timeline they are following, noting that the primary
goal of today's meeting is to talk about attachments and making sure everyone agrees, and
then discussing some of the remaining sections.
Attachments: Starting with the report itself, Younker stated that they have identified two
attachments — the resolution stating the Committee's charges and the Senior Center Evaluation
that the subcommittee prepared. He asked if Members had anything else to add here or if he
had missed any attachments or exhibits.
The discussion then moved to discussing the Senior Center Evaluation and what it references.
Younker stated that the evaluation references the 2013 Annual Report, the accreditation report,
the program guide, and the June 2013 survey and accompanying report. He asked that the
subcommittee walk them through what these attachments are. Bern -Klug stated that these
were reports given to everyone when they joined the committee and that the subcommittee
referenced them in their report. Younker stated that he understands this, and that he wanted to
be sure that the subcommittee had referenced this material in their report. Bern -Klug stated that
she is not exactly clear what the final status of the Senior Center Evaluation is. Younker stated
that it was at the October 1 meeting that the full Committee approved the report, subject to one
minor amendment. Honohan stated that what they have approved is on pages 2 thru 5 of their
current meeting packet. Younker noted that this is the summary of the report, that these are two
separate documents. The full report done by the subcommittee will be an attachment to the
report that goes to the Council. Bern -Klug stated that what she is actually referring to is not
having seen the final outcome of what they have approved. She asked if there is a version of
this document that reflects all of the changes that they voted on. Honohan responded that he is
pretty sure there was, but that he did not bring all of his documentation today. Karr noted that
on September 24 it was moved and seconded to delete one sentence and adopt the second
draft as the final draft, and that it was a 5-0 vote. Younker noted that in the September 24
packet, this document begins on page 20, and the sentence that was deleted was on page 21 of
that packet. Others agreed that this is where the final draft appears. The discussion continued,
with Members noting how this report was thoroughly reviewed and ultimately finalized.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 3
Bern -Klug then spoke to an issue that she had included in one version of the report, where
information from the City clearly shows in the Senior Center's membership survey that the
minority population is very consistent to Iowa City's data. In other words, the Senior Center
does not have a problem with diversity, in terms of being representative of the community. It is
very representative — that it is the community that lacks diversity. She noted that in the final
report it insinuates that the Senior Center is underrepresented with diversity and that this is not
the case. She wants to make sure that the correct demographic information is in the report.
The discussion continued, with Honohan and Bern -Klug talking about how they handled this
information in the final draft. Honohan explained how he updated each version, using
underlining to show the changes each time. Bern -Klug continued to question that the final
report will have the information she is referring to in it.
Continuing, Younker noted that they have the 2013 Annual Report, which was included in their
initial packet. This will be an attachment to the report. Members discussed how they want to
lay this out in the report, so that the Council Members can easily understand all of the
documents. Honohan asked if they plan to include the summary report from the National
Council on Aging, as it is referred to in the report. Members agreed that it would be included,
and that this is another report they received in their initial packet. Also referenced is the Senior
Center's program guide. Younker noted that what Members received was a Spring 2014
program guide. Karr stated that they could say `current' and that she can then obtain the most
current program guide. Members agreed that they would prefer to have the most current one
included. Younker noted that the reference is to the mission statement, so they would need to
make sure that the page being referenced is the same. Honohan stated that although he
prefers current, this makes sense to use the one that they originally referenced (Spring 2014).
Members agreed to instead use the Spring 2014 guide that was included in their original packet.
Also referenced was the June 2013 Senior Center survey report, which was also included in the
original packet of information. Members agreed that this should remain in the attachments.
Bern -Klug asked if the letter from the accreditation report is part of the actual report, and if they
referred to it or not in the final version that was passed. Honohan agreed, stating that this would
be a good idea. Younker reviewed what they had in terms of the accreditation report and a brief
discussion ensued. After looking at the accreditation report and what was referenced in their
own report, it was noted that the letter was not referenced.
Younker stated that the Annual Report refers to the Center's 2010-2015 goals and objectives,
and he asked if this is a stand-alone document that they should include. Honohan stated that
he does not believe this is a stand-alone document, but he deferred to Linda Kopping, staff
member, on this item. She noted that it is indeed a stand-alone document that is distributed
separately. Members agreed that they should include this as an attachment to the Senior
Center Evaluation.
Discussion then turned to the approved template that begins on page 38 of the September 24
meeting. The initial section with the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee background information
has been approved. The Executive Summary section remains to be completed. Charge 1 — the
summary evaluation of the Senior Center — has been completed. Charge 2, with the exception
of the general findings and conclusion section, which Younker and Dohrmann will prepare for
the Committee to review, has otherwise been pretty much completed. Charge 3 — the
Committee began to discuss this at the last meeting and there were several obstacles and
recommendations that were approved. Conclusion — Younker noted that they still need to
complete this section. He then noted that the Executive Summary section and the Conclusion
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 3
Bern -Klug then spoke to an issue that she had included in one version of the report, where
information from the City clearly shows in the Senior Center's membership survey that the
minority population is very consistent to Iowa City's data. In other words, the Senior Center
does not have a problem with diversity, in terms of being representative of the community. It is
very representative - that it is the community that lacks diversity. She noted that in the final
report it insinuates that the Senior Center is underrepresented with diversity and that this is not
the case. She wants to make sure that the correct demographic information is in the report.
The discussion continued, with Honohan and Bern -Klug talking about how they handled this
information in the final draft. Honohan explained how he updated each version, using
underlining to show the changes each time. Bern -Klug continued to question that the final
report will have the infgrmation she is referring to in it.
Continuing, Younker note that they have the 2013 Annual Report, which was included in their
initial packet. This will be a attachment to the report. Members discussed how they want to
lay this out in the report, sot t the Council Members can easily understand all of the
documents. Honohan asked if ey plan to include the summary report from the National
Council on Aging, as it is referre to in the report. Members agreed that it would be inclu d,
and that this is another report the eceived in their initial packet. Also referenced is t Senior
Center's program guide. Younker n ted that what Members received was a Sprin 014
program guide. Karr stated that they ould say `current' and that she can then ain the most
current program guide. Members agre d that they would prefer to have the st current one
included. Younker noted that the refere a is to the mission statement, s hey would need to
make sure that the page being reference is the same. Honohan stat that although he
prefers current, this makes sense to use th one that they original) ferenced (Spring 2014).
Members agreed to instead use the Spring 14 guide that was ccluded in their original packet.
Also referenced was the June 2013 Senior Cen`I
original packet of information. Members agreed
Bern -Klug asked if the letter from the accreditati
referred to it or not in the final version that was K
be a good idea. Younker reviewed what they h,
discussion ensued. After looking at the accre t
survey r ort, which was also included in the
<thi hould remain in the attachments.
is part of the actual report, and if they
Honohan agreed, stating that this would
s of the accreditation report and a brief
ort and what was referenced in their
own report, it was noted that the letter was of refere
Younker stated that the Annual Repo efers to the Center
and he asked if this is a stand-alone ent that they st
he does not believe this is a sta lora cument, but he
member, on this item. She note that it is indeed a stand`
separately. Members agreed at they should include thi6-
Center Evaluation.
2010-2015 goals and objectives,
ild include. Honohan stated that
%ferred to Linda Kopping, staff
that is distributed
aeocument
ttachment to the Senior
Discussion then turnedX the approved template that begins on pa a 38 of the September 24
meeting. The initial s tion with the Ad Hoc Senior Services Comm, ee background information
has been approved he Executive Summary section remains to be mpleted. Charge 1 -the
summary evaluati n of the Senior Center - has been completed. Cha a 2, with the exception
of the general fi dings and conclusion section, which Younker and Dohr ann will prepare for
the Committe to review, has otherwise been pretty much completed. C rge 3 - the
Committee
I/
Committee to discuss this at the last meeting and there were sever obstacles and
recomme dations that were approved. Conclusion - Younker noted that th still need to
complete this section. He then noted that the Executive Summary section an the Conclusion
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 4
section do not necessarily need to be completed when they publish the substantive sections of
the report for public comment. However, at the November 12 meeting, Younker stated that he
believes they need separate agenda items to discuss the drafts of those sections. After public
comment on the substantive sections of the report, the next agenda item would be discussion of
the draft of the Executive Summary, for example. Then they could discuss the draft of the
Conclusion section. This way the public sees what the Committee anticipates including in these
sections.
Honohan asked what they are going to put in each of these sections. He asked Younker what it
is exactly that they will be reviewing/discussing at that time. Younker explained what would be
part of the public discussion. Honohan suggested that it might be easier if they divide this into
`Evaluation of the Senior Center' first and get public comment on this, and then the second part
would be `Charge 2,' and then followed by public comment on the third part. Younker agreed
that they need to organize the public comment portion of the meeting. He reiterated that they
are receiving public comment on is the report that is to be delivered to Council, including all of
the attachments. Therefore section 3 would be the report to Council, with 3a being initial
sections, 3b being Charge 1, and 3c could be Charge 2.
For the Executive Summary, Younker suggested that City staff prepare this. This would include
the Charge 1 and Charge 2 information. The Committee can then discuss this draft at the
November 12 meeting. Karr noted that she and Fruin can work on this draft. Honohan then
returned to how the agenda is going to be laid out for the November 12 meeting. He noted that
he would like to see this with A being the Evaluation of the Senior Center, B being be Charge 2,
and C would be Charge 3. He believes they need to do this for the public comment portion so
that people are not going all over the place with their comments. He wants to keep comments
to specifics. Karr agreed that the agenda will have the information laid out in this manner.
Bern -Klug stated that she has a question about how the November 12 meeting will run. She
asked if the floor will be open to any comment or just comments directed at the presented
information. Younker stated that the discussion items will be the various sections of the report.
He believes that the members can then comment on the draft they have before them, whether
it's agreement of the language used or disagreement and subsequent proposed changes.
Dohrmann clarified that public comment would be up to five minutes for each person speaking.
Karr stated that when the report is released, staff can include information that makes these
issues more clear and that they can even suggest that individuals submit written comments that
can be included in the packet, as well. Bern -Klug asked if it is possible to number each line of
the report that is released to the public, as this would help people refer more specifically, i.e.,
page 2, line 38. Members agreed that each page should be numbered.
Younker then moved to Charge 2, noting that the remaining section is section 3, the general
findings of the needs of the Senior Center. He and Dohrmann will work on draft language for
the Committee to then discuss. Dohrmann stated that she has a few suggestions or themes
that she believes have come out of the general findings. The first is, based upon the
information collected, organizations are currently challenged to meet the needs of seniors with
current limited financial resources. Elder Services was given as an example by Dohrmann, and
she noted that they struggle to meet the demands for their services. Continuing, Dohrmann
stated that another one would be organizations recognize that with the growing population of
seniors in the area, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs of seniors, especially
those of limited financial resources. She noted that various groups mentioned this issue.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 5
Another issue, due to the rise of people diagnosed with different types of dementia and
increased life spans, demands for support of services are likely to increase.
Younker stated that he wanted to back up a minute — he thinks it's clear that they have not
engaged in an exhaustive assessment of the needs of seniors. Therefore, the goal of this
section is simply to say that they did receive information from these agencies and here are the
broad themes that were heard. The Committee has recommended that the City conduct a more
professional survey/assessment of these needs. Younker stated that if the Committee can
agree on some of these broad concepts, they may be in a position to agree on some language
today. This would then allow them to add this to the draft report that the public will be looking
at.
Honohan stated that one of the things he suggested on page 10, under Conclusion, is his idea
that they point out to the Council what the Livable Communities' report indicated to them. He
added that the fact that there are 22 governmental, 30 for-profit, and 56 non-profit agencies
indicates that the community, in general, serves seniors well. Younker stated that it may be a
good idea to include this idea in Section 3 of Charge 2, as it seems that the Livable
Communities' information was part of what they received in their Charge 2 information.
Honohan stated that he has no specific place in mind for where this information appears in the
report, but that he does believe it is information important to the report. Younker asked
Dohrmann what she would suggest adding to Section 3 of Charge 2, from Honohan's page 10
proposals. She responded that though she agrees with what he has stated there, it is also
challenging to meet current needs with the limited financial resources. She added that all of
these agencies have said they could do much more if there was more funding. She noted that
even the Senior Center has voiced this concern. Another theme that she believes they have
heard has to do with the continued growth of the senior population and the accompanying
challenges to meet these needs. Bern -Klug stated that as she looks through the report, she
sees that they have alluded to this issue but they have never presented any data. She believes
it would strengthen the report to have some population projections, for example, that the
Census Bureau has provided. This would show what is expected in Iowa City and would back
up the comments being made here. Younker stated that they can attach a document to this
section that identifies those types of statistics. Webber noted that the Top Ten List comes to
mind immediately. He noted several different issues that would apply here. Dohrmann noted
that in their initial packet they were given some of this data, and that it can be included in the
final report.
Dohrmann then returned to the issue of recognition of increased diagnosis of people affected by
different types of dementia and increased life spans. The demand for supportive services is
going to increase. She added that this fits with the same topic, albeit a bit different. Webber
asked what source they have on the increased dementia topic. Dohrmann noted that there are
several, but that she referenced the Alzheimer's Association as an example. Younker referred
back to what Honohan had proposed on page 10 of their packet (under conclusion), stating that
perhaps they can fit in the three concepts that Dohrmann identified, thus wrapping up Section 3
of Charge 2.
(Honohan, page 10) The Iowa City community in general serves seniors well. In addition
to the Senior Center there are ninety senior services providers. The City of Coralville
has eighteen. Of these twenty two are governmental, thirty are for profit, and fifty six
are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge, in thirty six the fees are paid by medicare
and medicaid. Seventy five are paid through private pay and private insurance.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 6
Financial aid is available with twenty agencies.'
The Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program
development and implementation. There is high satisfaction with the Center by the
participants.
He suggested a new second paragraph here. Dohrmann stated that she would propose just
slightly different language. Looking at page 10, after 'Forty providers do not charge,' Dohrmann
suggested '...thirty-six are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services.' Bern -Klug asked
Honohan if he would clarify what he means by '90 senior services providers.' She asked if
these are agencies that target older adults exclusively, or if they are agencies that provide
service to all ages, including older adults. Honohan responded, noting that he has simply taken
this information from the report of Johnson County Livable Community, that they do not indicate
that the 90 providers are exclusive or inclusive. He noted that when he looked at the list that
Cannon provided, much of the 90 senior services providers are live-in centers that charge
money, such as Oaknoll, Regency, and Legacy Pointe, for example. He stated that 56 of these
are non-profit, and the rest are for-profit. This includes nursing homes, as well. Bern -Klug
stated that she is not sure that this information is very useful then, as this is not what their
charge entails. She added that they either need to clarify this information for the public or not
use it at all. Younker suggested they add a second sentence, after `The Iowa City community in
general serves seniors well.' It would read as follows: 'According to the Johnson County Livable
Community, there are 90 senior services providers.' He suggested they then add a footnote,
indicating that this includes organizations that provide services exclusively to seniors, as well as
those that provide services to seniors as part of a broader mission or something to that effect.
Honohan suggested they delete the 'in addition' line. Bern -Klug stated that it sounds like the
gist of what they want to convey is that 'There are many agencies in Iowa City that target older
adults or include older adults in their service provision, and Johnson County Livable Community
counts at least 90, including residential services.' By adding this, Bern -Klug stated that the
Committee is then not assessing whether people are served well or not because they do not
know this, but at least they are inferring that there are a lot of agencies that are aiming to
address the needs of older adults, either in part or in full. Dohrmann stated that she agrees with
Bern-Klug's suggestions. Others agreed, and asked Bern -Klug to state this again. 'There are
many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older adults
exclusively, or to include older adults in their target population, as enumerated by the Johnson
County Livable Communities web site.' Dohrmann stated that from there they could go on to
the wording 'Of these, 22 are governmental, 30 are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit.' Members
asked Karr if she would then clarify what they have so far for this section. She noted the
following: 'There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to
serve older adults exclusively, or to include older adults in their target population, as listed in the
Johnson County Livable Community web site.' She stated that they need to have a segue of 90
before this breakdown of the 90 agencies. Bern -Klug continued, noting that with the 90, this
includes agencies and residential options (assisted living, nursing homes). Younker tried to
clarify this sentence, noting that this is where they need to segue into the 90. Bern -Klug stated
that these 90 are not really senior services providers — they are 90 providers. However, she
believes this is where they need to clarify including agencies and residential options, such as
nursing homes and assisted living.
` Source Johnson County Livable Community. I think it is important for
the council and others who read the report to get and idea of the scope of
the governmental and other agencies that serve seniors in the community.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 7
Younker went back to how the sentence is going to be structured. Following '... in the Johnson
County Livable Communities' web site. The web site contains 90 agencies, including residential
options..." and then continuing from here. Karr asked the Members to again review Honohan's
proposed wording on page 10.
(Honohan, page 10) The Iowa City community in general serves seniors well. According
to the Johnson County Livable Community, there are 90 senior service providers.
services providers. The City of Coralville has eighteen. Of these twenty two are
governmental, thirty are for profit, and fifty six are non-profit. Forty providers do not
charge, thirty six the fees are able to bill y medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy
five are paid through private pay and private insurance. Financial aid is available with
twenty agencies.2
The Senior Center meets all nine standards of national excellence, including program
development and implementation. There is high satisfaction with the Center by the
participants.
Younker asked how the Committee feels about the first sentence. Bern -Klug stated that she
does not like the first sentence, as Johnson County Livable Communities did not assess how
well seniors are being served. She stated that they are enumerating the availability of
organizations. She thinks they need to stick with the main point, which is there are many
agencies that can be part of the solution here. Karr then read aloud the first sentence: There
are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to serve older
adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed in the Johnson
County Livable Community web site.' Continuing from here, `The web site includes 90 agencies
and residential options (e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living).' She added that
Members decided not to break down the 90 agencies as previously stated in the paragraph.
Dohrmann stated that she would be okay with the wording, 'Of these, 22 are governmental, 30
are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit.' She asked how others feel about this. Honohan asked
about the wording of '40 providers do not charge.' This section would remain, as follows: 'Forty
providers do not charge however, 36 are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services.' The
next sentence, `Seventy-five are paid through private pay and private insurance,' appeared to
be agreeable to the Committee. Dohrmann stated that she would propose an amendment to
the next sentence. 'Twenty agencies offer financial assistance.' Honohan stated that he could
agree with this change.
Younker then asked Dohrmann what her suggestions are for the next paragraph. She noted
that her idea is to use their general findings here. Her first suggestion would be: 'Non-profit
organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with existing limited financial
resources.' Continuing, Dohrmann added, 'Based upon the information collected through this
process, the following themes were identified. #1...' Younker agreed that this could be the start
of their second paragraph, and others agreed. The second point would be, `Organizations
recognize that with the growinq population of seniors in the area, it will be increasingly
challenginq to meet the needs of seniors especially those of limited financial resources,' and
then this would need to be followed with an attachment or footnote for the reference to projected
population projections that they were given. Bern -Klug stated that there are actually two
important points here. It's the growing number of older adults and the growing diversity. She
Z Source Johnson County Livable Community. I think it is important for
the council and others who read the report to get and idea of the scope of
the governmental and other agencies that serve seniors in the community.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 8
added that people with disabilities will be getting older, and that this is something pretty new in
aging. Also, there will be an increase in racial and ethnic diversity. Dohrmann suggested `the
growing population of seniors and the diversity of seniors,' with Bern -Klug suggesting 'growing
population and growing diversity within that population.' Others agreed with this last statement.
Moving on to the third issue, Dohrmann stated, `Due to the rise of people being diagnosed with
different types of dementia and increased life spans demands for supportive services are likely
to increase.' Honohan stated that he wanted to return to the diversity point for a moment. He
added that he believes they are trying to talk about diversity in a broad sense. He asked if they
could change this so that the focus is not so narrowed. Bern -Klug suggested `growing diversity
in terms of racial, ethnic abilities,' and Dohrmann suggested `physical and mental.' Discussion
continued, with Members reviewing how they want to word this section. Karr asked if they want
to say `racial, physical, and emotional,' and Dohrmann stated it should be `racial, physical, and
mental.' Webber stated that he would want to add `cultural,' as well and Members briefly
discussed this. Karr suggested adding a `including but not limited to' here. Karr then reiterated
this final portion: `Including but not limited to physical, mental, cultural, and racial.'
Younker stated that he would entertain a motion at this point to approve and insert the two
paragraphs just discussed into Section 3 of Charge 2.
There are many agencies and organizations in the Johnson County area that seek to
serve older adults exclusively or include older adults in their target population, as listed
in the Johnson County Livable Community web site. The web site includes 90 agencies
and residential options (e.g., including nursing homes and assisted living). Of these, 22
are governmental, 30 are for-profit, and 56 are non-profit. Forty providers do not charge;
however, 36 are able to bill Medicare and Medicaid for services. Seventy-five are paid
through private pay and private insurance.
Non-profit organizations are challenged to meet the needs of seniors with existing limited
financial resources. Based upon the information collected through this process, the
following themes were identified.
1. Organizations recognize that with the growing population and growing diversity
(including but not limited to physical, mental, cultural, and racial) within that
population of seniors in the area, it will be increasingly challenging to meet the needs
of seniors, especially those of limited financial resources. (Exhibit # Census)
2. Due to the rise of people diagnosed with different types of dementia and increased
life spans, demands for support of services are likely to increase.
Honohan moved to approve and insert the two paragraphs. Bern -Klug seconded the
motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Honohan then asked about his other proposed amendment. Younker stated that he believes,
one, that they have this in the Charge 1 summary, but that it also might be appropriate to
include this in their overall conclusion. Younker suggested that if they are going to deal with the
conclusion at the November 12 meeting that they table discussion of Honohan's paragraph. He
added that he and Dohrmann will then have a draft Conclusion section for the Members to
review at the November 12 meeting, and they can incorporate Honohan's information into this.
Bern -Klug then brought up an issue with Charge 2. She stated that they have dealt with the first
part of Charge 2, which was to make recommendations on the current use of financial and
physical resources. The second part goes on to say that these recommendations should
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 9
consider the City's use of resources and the vision, mission, and programming required to more
effectively serve the growing senior population. Bern -Klug asked if they want to make any
statements regarding a vision or a mission for the City in this regard. Younker stated that first
he is trying to get sections completed so they know what will be available for public comment on
November 12, and currently they are talking about Charge 3. He suggested they get through
this portion first and then they can return to Charge 2 if time allows.
Younker then referred to the template for Charge 3, noting that it has three sections.
'Population's not accessing City services, potential reasons for lack of access, and
recommendations to minimize obstacles.' The recommendations for this section that they have
been approving, such as on page 11 of the packet, have taken the format where the obstacle is
identified and then the recommendation follows. He asked if they should perhaps collapse
those three subsections of Charge 3 and simply say that 'Charge 3 tasks the Committee with,'
and then set forth the language of the charge. 'The Committee has identified the following
obstacles and recommendations,' and then list these as they have been doing, rather than have
three separate sections. Honohan stated that it makes sense to him, and Dohrmann also
signaled her approval. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion to adopt this format for
Charge 3. Honohan moved to accept the format as discussed for Charge 3. Webber
seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Moving to Honohan's proposals on page 10, the Committee considered these two additional
obstacles and accompanying recommendations.
1. The Senior Center building being a remodeled Post Office limits what programs and
services can be offered. Recommendation: The Center staff and City staff should
continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the Center.
Honohan moved to adopt the first proposed obstacle and recommendation. Webber
seconded the motion. The discussion began with Honohan noting that the building the Senior
Center is in limits what programs and services can be offered. His recommendation is that the
City staff and Center staff should continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the Center.
Honohan added that staff are already doing this on an ongoing basis, as do the Senior Center
Commission and the Steering Council. Dohrmann stated that she would suggest making a
change to the last word — changing 'Center' to 'building.'
1. The Senior Center building being a remodeled Post Office limits what programs and
services can be offered. Recommendation: The Center staff and City staff should
continue to explore avenues to improve the use of the building.
Honohan and Webber agreed to a friendly amendment. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon
and Dobyns absent. Bern -Klug then stated that she is trying to figure out if there are any
unintended consequences of including this in the report. She questioned if this is sending the
message that the building is not appropriate. She reminded Members that they have been
saying all along that they want to keep the Senior Center in this building, and this might be
interpreted to mean there are shortcomings with the building. Dohrmann stated that what
crossed her mind is to take out the 'being a remodeled Post Office,' from this obstacle. Bern -
Klug asked Honohan if he could explain why this should be included. Honohan responded that
one Member of this Committee would like to do things outside of the Center, and that he does
not approve of that position. This obstacle was in reference to them wanting to continue to use
the Center, but that they want to look at ways to make it better. Younker stated that it appears
to him the physical space is what it is and if there are ways to improve its use then that is
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 10
something the staff should consider. Webber stated that the sentence, as it reads, implies that
there is something wrong with the building, that it limits what programs and services can be
offered. Bern -Klug agreed, stating that she believes this will do exactly what they don't want it
to do. Honohan withdrew his motion at this point.
Audience member Mary Gutman asked to speak, stating that she believes this proposal would
not do any good. She stated that there are no limitations and that it has nothing to do with the
fact that the Center is a remodeled Post Office. She agreed that they should remove this
paragraph.
Younker then stated that he would entertain a motion to approve the second obstacle and
recommendation from page 10.
2. Available funding from both Federal and City may decrease for both the Center and
the non-profit agencies. Recommendation: Avenues should be explored to increase
contributions from other cities in Johnson County and from the Board of Supervisors.
Honohan moved to accept the second proposed obstacle and recommendation.
Dohrmann seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Younker noted that they now have substantive portions of the report ready for publication to the
public and to receive comment at the November 12 meeting. Those sections that are ready are
the initial sections, Charge 1, Charge 2, and Charge 3. He stated that they will ask staff to
prepare draft language for discussion regarding the Executive Summary, and that they will plan
to discuss this at the November 12 meeting. Younker and Dohrmann will prepare the draft
language of the Conclusion portion so that this can also be discussed at that meeting.
Reviewing the agenda for this meeting, Younker stated that Item 3 will be Public Discussion of
the Report, broken down by section, and then Items 4 and 5 will be discussion of the proposed
Executive Summary and the proposed Conclusion language.
Younker then asked if there were any further recommendations to include in Charge 2.
Honohan noted that on page 9 he has a comment regarding the second recommendation. He
reiterated the issue of the six parking areas for the disabled that are next to the skywalk that are
not ADA -compliant. He noted that at the time they put these in, he checked with Kansas City
and they said that these additional spaces could be used as long as the other spaces are all in
compliance. He added that this was a verbal agreement that was stated as, 'As long as nobody
complains.' First of all, Honohan believes the building to be in complete compliance with ADA.
Honohan's concern is that if they have an ADA audit, an inspector could come along and say
that the six additional parking spaces are not in compliance and that they would have to be
removed. He added that these spaces are heavily used by Center visitors. Bern -Klug noted
that this proposal does not say anything about the parking, just the building. Honohan
responded that he believes 'increase the accessibility of its building' could easily include the
parking too. Discussion continued on this matter, with Members speaking to unintended
consequences of an actual audit in this situation. Younker stated that what he was envisioning
here is an informal type of review, at the internal level. Honohan stated that to him the language
refers to an actual audit. Younker asked what the Committee would like to do, and Bern -Klug
stated that she is fine with replacing it to be an informal assessment. 'A general informal
assessment of ADA compliance,' was accepted by Members. Younker stated that he would
entertain a motion to accept this amendment. Honohan moved to accept the amendment to
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 11
#2 on page 9 as discussed. Webber seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0;
Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Looking at Charge 2 still, Younker asked Bern -Klug to go ahead with her comment on this. She
noted that on page 2 when she looks at the charge from the City Council to the Committee, 'B'
is the same thing they are calling '2,' and that 'B' includes 'Make recommendations on the
financial and physical resources,' but that it also includes weighing in on a 'vision, mission, and
programming for the City Council to more effectively serve the growing senior population.' She
stated that it's written in such a way that perhaps the Council is not looking for feedback from
the Committee. Bern -Klug stated that she would suggest that if they do decide to add some
type of 'vision,' that it be about 'full participation of older adults in our community.' If this is seen
as the vision, then obstacles and barriers to full participation would be the gauge by which the
City decides whether or not to intervene, and then also it would be consistent with the mission of
the Senior Center. She asked if others believe they are to be weighing in on some type of
vision for the City. Dohrmann stated that throughout this process she has reread this sentence
as it is a bit confusing to her, as well. She stated that through some discussion it is implied that
this is the inclusion of older adults, as Bern -Klug was referring to.
Bern -Klug asked if they should then propose a vision for the City to accept, or if this is not part
of their charge. Younker responded that the link in this charge goes back to the City's strategic
plan, and that there is language in that plan about increasing participation among different
diverse groups among seniors, a full participation -type language. He added that he believes
Bern -Klug is right, that they do need to consider this concept as they draft their
recommendations. He stated that he believes they have done this in their document, and he
asked if Bern -Klug is wanting to highlight this more expressly. She stated that she was.
Dohrmann responded that the language Bern -Klug suggested today be used in the final report.
Younker agreed, stating that they could do this is several ways, including it in either the
Conclusion or the Executive Summary of the report. He asked if Bern -Klug wants to also insert
something in Charge 2, and she stated that she does. Bern -Klug addressed this, stating that it
really isn't an obstacle, but that it belongs under Charge 2 as it addresses what the Council
asked them to address. She would recommend, 'The City discuss a vision of full participation
by older adults to the extent that each older adult desires.'
Younker asked Karr to clarify this addition, to which she responded. Karr stated that it appears
they want this included as a recommendation in response to Charge 2, not in the Conclusion
Charge 3. Bern -Klug suggested that Charge 3 be called Obstacles and Recommendations.
Karr suggested putting this under the General Findings section that was discussed earlier —
Charge 2, Section 3. Younker stated that he would entertain a motion for this addition. Webber
moved to accept the addition to Charge 2, Section 3, as discussed. Honohan seconded
the motion. The motion carried 5-0; Cannon and Dobyns absent.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE: Younker asked Karr when they should post the draft
report for the public to see. She responded that if it is okay with the Committee, she will
complete the minutes so that they can match up and make sure everything is current with their
draft. If all goes as planned, the goal could be November 1. She added that it will be a sizable
document with the attachments and will take some time to download. Karr then spoke to the
meeting packet for the 12th and when Members want to receive this. The goal would be to have
the packet out November 7, giving everyone enough time to review it prior to the 12th. Honohan
stated that he has some concerns about the schedule. He noted that they will not have
reviewed the additional items before the public input. Younker asked which ones he is talking
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 12
about, and Honohan noted the Conclusion and Executive Summary sections. He asked how
the public is going to comment on something that they haven't yet decided what it is as they
haven't reviewed it prior to the public meeting. Another concern is that they are talking about
having the public input on the draft report at 3:30 P.M. on a Wednesday, and then they are
meeting two days later. Honohan stated that he believes they are going to have a lot of public
input on the draft report. Due to this, he does not believe that in two days they will have the
time to receive this information. Karr noted that it will be like today's meeting — there will be a
separate agenda to just review comments received, that there will be no minutes available.
Honohan stated that he has problems with the schedule for that reason. Younker stated that as
they have discussed, the substantive portions of the report have been discussed by the
Committee, have been approved, and will be available for public comment. The draft Executive
Summary and the draft Conclusion sections will be available for public comment, as separate
agenda items. Honohan stated that the Committee will not have approved them by that time.
Younker stated that the goal would be to approve them at the meeting, after public comment on
the draft report, and that there could be further public discussion at the November 14 meeting
and the November 24 meeting. He noted that these two sections are not, in his opinion,
substantive to the report. Honohan stated that he disagrees somewhat as he believes the
Executive Summary is going to be very important and that the language in it is basically the sum
total of the Committee's deliberations. Younker stated that this is why they will have separate
agenda items to receive public comment on the proposed language.
As for the timing, Younker agreed that it is a tight turnaround. Honohan stated that he
understands the charge, but that he doubts the Council would 'fire' them if they do not meet the
December 1 deadline. Younker stated that for now they have a schedule and that he believes
they need to stick with it. They can see how the meeting goes on the 12th, and can then take up
any issues at the meeting on the 14th. Bern -Klug asked if they might still be making changes at
the November 24 meeting. She suggested that changes could always be emailed to everyone,
and that way they would still make their deadline. Younker noted that the circulation by email
becomes an issue with open meeting rules and regulations, for one. He added that he agrees
with Honohan that they may receive quite a bit of comment at the meeting on the 12th. They
can then review this on the 14th and have any discussions necessary. Karr spoke to this type of
scheduling, noting that boards and commissions often run into this issue when meetings are so
close together. She stated that perhaps she could give Members some tpe of summary of
sections that were identified by the packet going out the next day, the 13t . She added that she
really cannot commit to more than that not knowing the extent of the meeting on the 12th. Bern -
Klug asked Honohan if he would like to meet again after the November 24 meeting. He
responded that he thought this might be a good idea. He added that he spoke to Karr about
scheduling and that it will be next to impossible to schedule anything around the Thanksgiving
holiday. Honohan then asked if the drafts of the Executive Summary and the Conclusion could
be sent to Karr, who would then send them out to Members. She asked what Honohan is
looking for specifically, and he responded that he is looking for the draft language in advance so
they have time to study it prior to the meeting. Younker and Karr both reiterated that this is what
they are talking about for the November 7 packet — that the draft language for both the
Executive Summary and the Conclusion sections will be available for review in that packet.
Honohan then asked if the November 12 meeting could be moved to 3:00 P.M. He stated that
his concern is the length of the meeting and the fact that some do not like to go home in the
dark. Dohrmann stated that she has to work until 3:00 that day. Bern -Klug asked if they could
cut the time people have to speak from five minutes to three minutes so that they can allow
more people to speak. Members continued to discuss these issues, noting that most people do
not use the entire five minutes anyway. Younker stated that they will get to the Public Comment
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 13
section fairly quickly at the November 12 meeting and can begin right away receiving
comments. Honohan again asked if the public is going to be commenting on sections that they
as a Committee have not approved. Younker responded that it is the same process as all of
their other meetings, where they discuss proposed language and if the public wants to
comment, they can. Bern -Klug asked if after two hours they could have an official ten-minute
break. She stated that she does not want to have to miss what speakers are saying, but that
after two hours a break is needed. Others agreed with this sentiment. Karr then reviewed some
of the logistics of getting things ready for the meeting on the 121H
November 12 (Wednesday 3:30 P.M.) — Public comment meeting.
November 14 (Friday 3:00 P.M.)
November 24 (Monday 3:30 P.M.)
Special meetings if needed.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION (ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Marilyn Caulkins addressed the Committee, stating that she has a two-part question. First she
spoke to the vision statement of the City, noting that Bern -Klug referred to 'older adults' here,
and she asked what the definition is of 'older adults.' Secondly, Caulkins stated that throughout
the entire report there are a variety of terms used, sometimes 'seniors' and other times `older
adults.' She questioned if there doesn't need to be a consistent term throughout the report.
Mary Gravitt appeared and referred to page 2,of Resolution 14-37. She noted that in Part A it
says certain words and certain topics — The Senior Center and the 2013 Annual Report. She
asked if anybody has read the Annual Report, adding that it is very particular. She also asked if
Members had read the Senior Center survey results. In Part B, she referred to the City's
strategic plan, stating that they change it at every City Council meeting. Referring to Part C,
Gravitt spoke to obstacles. She believes they are doing something that is not the Senior
Center's responsibility — a report on aging. She believes their concentration should be on the
Center itself and what it offers. Gravitt also spoke to the need for a glossary of terms, just like
the City Charter has. Continuing, Gravitt spoke to the Senior Center's building, noting that it is a
historic building, centrally located, and easily accessed. The only thing missing, according to
Gravitt, is a swimming pool and a sauna. As for being ADA complaint, Gravitt stated that the
Senior Center building is more in compliance with the ADA than the Public Library is. She
spoke to some issues with the Library, noting that it took a long time to get the second floor
bathrooms under ADA compliance. Gravitt also spoke to the possible length of the November
12 meeting.
Bern -Klug asked if she could comment at this point. She noted that Miss Gravitt brought up a
point related to page 11, Obstacle C. She stated that she thought they had discussed this at the
last meeting and that this was going to be taken out. She thought they had decided that it was
not the Senior Center's responsibility to be identifying gaps in senior services. Younker stated
that he remembers this motion carried, and that the idea was not that the Senior Center be
responsible for identifying gaps in service, but that this is consistent with their mission to provide
optimal aging, and that is why the second sentence was included. The idea is that if there are
potential collaborations out there, the Center should look into those. Younker did note that not
having the minutes at this particular time does make it difficult to see what the final outcome
was. He added that they will need to wait to see what the approved language was. He
suggested Bern -Klug save this comment until they have the minutes to check it against. Karr
stated that for clarification purposes, this is a draft based on no minutes. When the minutes are
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 14
completed, the report will be changed to match the minutes. The draft that is then posted will
match the minutes. Members continued to briefly discuss this issue.
ADJOURNMENT:
Dohrmann moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 A.M. Bern -Klug seconded the motion.
The motion carried 5-0, Cannon and Dobyns absent.
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
October 25, 2014
Page 15
Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
-i
cn
Cn
cn
Z
os
0)
0)
0)
v
.4
oo
cc
m
O
NAME
EXP.
O
j
m
O
m
N
w
O
-1
N
W
o
0o
O
w
cn
N
to
N
ah
ah
ab
ah
ah
06
ah
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Joe
Younker
Jay
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honohan
Mercedes
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bern -Klug
Hiram
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Richard
Webber
Ellen
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
O/
O/
O/
Cannon
E
E
E
E
E
Jane
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
Dohrmann
E
Rick
12/1/14
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
O/
Dobyns
E
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 1
MINUTES FINAL
CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION
OCTOBER 28, 2014 — 7:45 A.M.
HARVAT HALL, CITY HALL
Members Present: Steve Atkins, Andy Chappell, Karrie Craig, Karen Kubby, Melvin Shaw,
Adam Sullivan (arrived 7:50), Dee Vanderhoef
Members Absent: Mark Schantz, Anna Moyers -Stone
Staff Present: Sue Dulek, Marian Karr
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Chappell called the meeting to order at 7:45 A.M.
CONSIDER MOTION ADOPTING CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED OR AMENDED:
a. Minutes of the Meetings on 10/14/14— Chappell began the discussion of the
October 14 meeting minutes by stating that he noticed on page 2, at the top, second
sentence from the end of the first partial paragraph, where Sullivan was speaking. It
states 'majority' instead of 'minority.'
Kubby moved to accept the Consent Calendar as amended. Shaw seconded the motion.
Motion carried 6-0, Schantz, Sullivan, and Moyers -Stone absent.
REPORTS FROM MEMBERS AND STAFF:
a. League of Women Voters Forum — Chappell noted that he was in contact with
Linda Schreiber again, trying to get more specifics on what they are looking for at
their forum. He noted that she thought the format would involve three or four
Charter Review Members. He reported that Schreiber stated that in addition to
individual introductions, they would like to see a summary of the Charter history
and timeline. Chappell continued, noting that typically the League likes for their
forum to be 'their' forum, which is normal for these types of meetings. He stated
that they do need to decide who is going to attend the forum. Members began a
discussion on this issue, with Atkins noting that he is okay with the Chair
speaking for the group. Chappell noted that whoever attends can speak for
themselves as a Member of the Commission. Members weighed in on how they
feel about several Members attending such a forum and how they would respond
to questions, etc. Chappell noted that he believes the League is trying to get
more people involved in the process, and by doing so, it could help this
Commission get more public involvement at their next forum. Chappell stated
that it is up to the Commission, that he could go as the Chair and speak for the
group, or they can decide on several Members attending. Shaw stated that he is
not comfortable with three or four Members attending, and he gave an example
of someone asking a loaded question and how it would be addressed.
4b(3)
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 2
The discussion continued, with Kubby giving some examples of how having
Members respond to questions at a forum such as this is not really much
different from the meetings they are holding themselves. Vanderhoef noted that
at a forum it is a sound bite — not the full conversation that Members have at their
own meetings. Kubby asked if Members have a problem with attending the
League's forum. Craig noted that she is not against it, but that she does not think
they are far enough along to respond to questions, other than the process they
are following. Chappell stated that he would have no hesitation with any of the
Members speaking at the forum. He added that attending the League's forum
will be good publicity for their own public forums.
Chappell then asked Members if they want him, as Chair, to participate in the
forum. Everyone agreed that he should. He asked if others are interested in
attending, or if now there is a desire that only the Chair attends. Vanderhoef
stated that she would be okay either way. Atkins spoke to some of the questions
that may be asked at this forum, noting that they will probably be pretty specific.
He stated that they need to use caution in responding to such questions. Having
said this, he would be okay with three or four Members attending or just the
Chair. Sullivan stated that he has every confidence in the Chair attending and
responding to questions. Members continued to express their concerns with this
type of forum, what type of questions might be asked, and how the questions are
deflected by the Chair and/or Members in attendance. Kubby noted that it is not
necessarily about deflecting, that it is more about not being definitive. She added
that for her the whole purpose of the process is to have people understand all the
different elements that come together.
Shaw stated that whether or how Members respond at the forum will depend on
the format and how the questions are directed. He noted that in a panel setting,
it gives them a chance to say what it is they are doing and to note that they have
not yet received a final decision, etc. Shaw stated he is okay with the Chair
attending and that he would recommend as many Members going as possible.
He added that if the format is a panel style, then Members may be a part of that
panel and that this is where those comments come into play. Craig reiterated
that they can only have 4 attend; otherwise it becomes a meeting. Kubby stated
that if they are asking for three or four Members to attend, then it will most likely
be a panel type format and the questions will be directed at the panel. Chappell
stated that in his opinion, the League's forum is only a positive thing for them to
participate in. Karr asked if the forum is expected to be televised. She noted
that those Members who do not wish to attend could watch it, if it is indeed
televised. That way it would allow everyone to see it and be able to hear the
exchanges that take place.
Craig again stated that she believes several of the Members should attend the
League's forum. She believes it will be a great opportunity for them to get some
publicity about the Charter and the process they are undertaking. Chappell
asked who would be interested in attending. Vanderhoef stated that she does
not have strong feelings either way. Craig noted that the minutes show Schantz,
Atkins, and Kubby as having volunteered to attend. Shaw stated that he would
be willing to go. Craig stated that she is not available on that day. Kubby stated
that if Vanderhoef is going that perhaps they should check with Moyers -Stone, so
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 3
they don't have a former city manager and two former council members
attending. Atkins agreed with this sentiment. Chappell suggested they solidify
this at their next meeting.
b. Compensation — Karr spoke to the requested comparison of salaries. She
noted that this is Item 3(b) in the packets.
C. Table of Income Guidelines and Definitions — Karr stated that she sent this
information to Members earlier and that it is Item 3(c) in the packets.
REVIEW CHARTER:
a. Compensation of council members — Chappell stated that there appeared to
be some consensus that the salaries are too low. He added that there is perhaps
a slightly lesser consensus that something needs to be done about it in the
Charter and no apparent consensus yet that if something does need to be done
just what that would be. Chappell noted that Dilkes had suggested they take a
look at how other cities handle this type of compensation, and that this is what
Karr has provided for their review. Chappell continued, reviewing the
information, stating that Iowa City is low on the compensation scale, but not as
low as everyone may have thought. He noted that only one of the other
communities addresses council compensation in their charter. Dulek noted that
most cities do not have a Home Rule Charter, but instead a 'special charter.'
She briefly described what a 'special charter' is, noting that in 1975 they froze
their form of government 'as is,' and that there are only a handful of cities that
have a Home Rule Charter, like Iowa City does.
Kubby noted that as she continues to think about this, she is beginning to like the
idea of having something about compensation in the Charter. She believes this
removes the process from the people who will find it politically difficult to make
this decision — the city council. Kubby stated that she does not want a set
number in the Charter, but instead a community standard that changes over time.
Sullivan stated that he agrees with Kubby on this issue, and that he would be
interested in having some type of mechanism to ensure that the council takes
some action item over a prescribed timeline. Members continued to discuss this
issue, especially the idea of a formula that could be utilized. Craig noted that
currently they are at 12.5% of median income. Chappell noted that the idea was
to offset some level of income, for the time that council members are expected to
put forth.
Chappell stated that he is still not convinced that anything they do will really be
enough to encourage underrepresented individuals to try and participate in the
city council. Craig stated that she is a bit concerned about this amount, as the
money has to come from somewhere every year. Members also discussed there
being no monetary compensation, such as the School Board Members. Atkins
stated that he is more inclined to say 'set it and forget it.' By this he means that
they set in the Charter what the amount is, and that that is what it is. Vanderhoef
stated that she thought the compensation was adjusted by CPI. Karr noted that it
used to be this way, but that it was amended a few years back. She then gave
some history, noting that Council passed an ordinance that tied the
compensation to the CPI and had it automatically adjusted in accordance with
this, via the budget. Then when the budget tightened some years back, the
Council chose to amend this ordinance. She stated the CPI reference was not in
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 4
the Charter, but was a separate ordinance in the code. Karr will provide
ordinance language history at the next meeting.
Continuing the discussion, Chappell noted that it appears the City is approaching
some tight times now, unless the legislature were to make some highly unlikely
changes. He believes it would be an awkward and difficult time for the Council to
come up with this money. Craig asked if others believe the Council would even
accept a recommendation such as this, were the Commission to suggest it. She
noted that this may put the current Council in an awkward position in April. Shaw
stated that he is not sure that setting a floor for council salary would be a great
idea in the Charter itself. He added that he believes individuals do not run for
council positions for the salary but for other reasons. He stated that he is not
persuaded an increase would encourage more individuals to run. Continuing,
Shaw stated that having heard some of the comments about initiative and
referendum, changing the mayor/council form of government, and the many
strong opinions that people have shared, he questioned this Commission
recommending a salary change with all of these other important issues being
raised. He stated that something like that could leave a bad taste in people's
mouths. Shaw asked how the salary would change for council, if they were to
make it part of the Charter. Would it change again in 10 years?
Chappell noted earlier discussion of making this a recommended change that
they mention in their report to Council, recommending that Council discuss this
issue and move forward with it. Chappell stated that it would be interesting to
know the impediments to underrepresented persons from running for council
seats. He questioned if it is the salary, or if it is due to council meeting every
other Tuesday at 5:00. Kubby stated that she believes if they make a
recommendation to Council about salary regarding their current ordinance that
nothing will happen. She believes instead that the Commission's
recommendation should state what they believe is best for the Charter, and then
Council will accept or reject or put on the ballot what they want. Speaking to the
other cities, Shaw questioned what they would be using as comparables in this
situation. He believes they would need to set parameters. Sullivan spoke to this
issue as well, stating that he believes using median income is a better way to go.
Members continued to discuss this issue, looking especially at other cities within
Iowa that they could compare Iowa City to in this regard.
Craig stated she is not interested in doubling the Council's salary. She stated
that there has to be a better way, especially when you look at how the School
Board has such a diverse pool of candidates. Atkins noted that there also is an
ebb and flow within the community in politics, and that 10 to 12 years ago, no
one ran for School Board. Vanderhoef added that for the council elections, there
used to always be a primary for the at -large seats, that they would have up to
nine running for at -large. Both she and Atkins voiced that this is just part of that
ebb and flow. Vanderhoef noted that when she joined the Council, they received
$5,000 and the mayor was always given $1,000 more. When the CPI was
added, she noted that it raised these amounts, since 2008, from the $5,000 she
saw to the $7,000 they receive currently. Karr noted that during each budget
cycle, the council does review each line item and that this would most likely be
the time they would discuss the issue of council compensation. Chappell noted
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 5
that they don't appear to be anywhere near a consensus at this time regarding
this issue, and that perhaps this will be one of the community discussion topics.
Atkins added that he wants to believe that people run for city council because
they believe they can make a difference, and that CPIs and items like this being
incorporated into the Charter, would make him very uncomfortable.
b. Use of word "citizen" — Chappell moved on to the issue of the words 'citizen'
and "person.' He noted that they have another memo from Karr regarding this
topic. The discussion began with 'citizen,' most notably in Section 5, Citizens
Police Review Board. Craig stated that something to talk with this board about
would be if their view is that it is for 'citizens' only. Karr noted that the renaming
of the Citizens Police Review Board was an ordinance change based upon a
recommendation from the City's Diversity Committee. She explained that you do
not have to be a citizen to file a complaint. Kubby stated that they could leave
`citizen' in this section and still change 'citizen' to 'resident' in the other sections.
Kubby stated that Dilkes really clarified for them that the legal definition of
`citizen' does not mean you have to be a legal resident or a registered person,
but that it's really about perception and being as welcoming as possible due to
the connotation of this word. Craig noted that it is not in their Definitions section
either and should be.
Continuing the discussion, Vanderhoef noted that when the original Charter was
written, Iowa City was not nearly as diverse as it is now, and there were very few
non -U.S. citizens at that time. The ones that were here were primarily students
at the University for just a few years. She believes that now they need the
distinction of 'resident' and 'citizen' in that there are a number of individuals in the
community that are not legal residents of the United States, and the City needs to
be able to serve them, in the broader scope, if they have a problem within the
community. Chappell stated that he is all for removing offense language to the
extent that 'citizen' is going to be interpreted by some as being underinclusive or
offensive. He is agreeable to changing 'citizen' to something else, but that once
they start defining things, you have to be very careful. He added that every
definition has any number of reactions to it. He stated that if they do change it
from `citizen,' his first reaction is to change it to 'resident.' However, if they define
'resident,' he believes it just gets more complicated. He asked how you would
then define 'resident,' and if this would include 'persons' as they have already
discussed the fact that 'persons' includes corporations, which other people do not
like. Chappell stated that sometimes you just have to be able to say that people
know what something means. Kubby agreed, stating that it would not have to be
defined, that it is not defined currently. The majority of Members agreed that
'resident' is the preferable term here. Chappell asked if there was a consensus
of Members wanting to change 'citizen.' Vanderhoef stated that she does not
understand the connotation of why 'citizen' is not a good term. Kubby stated that
it connotes citizenship, a legal status. Vanderhoef stated that if you have that
status, then a resident is merely someone who physically resides in a city. She
believes that this is the most appropriate term. She believes they should leave
'citizen' and use 'resident' only where it is in the protection of all the residents,
but not necessarily given the rights of a citizen. Kubby stated that in looking
through the document and seeing where the word 'citizen' is, it seems to appear
that changing it to 'resident' does not cause any problems, except for the Citizens
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 6
Police Review Board, which they already talked about leaving as is in that
section.
C. Preamble and definitions — Sullivan noted that it appears in three
places, one in the Preamble where it is talking about the CPRB and then again
when it says 'citizens can apply for boards and commissions.' He noted that they
had discussed adopting a different Preamble, that Schantz had come up with
something they are going to discuss at a future meeting. He noted that due to
the wording in this reworded Preamble, it may remove many of their questions.
Shaw stated that he believes it was given to them in the last few weeks —
Schantz's Preamble. He asked if they could look at it quickly to see if some of
their issues were indeed addressed here. Members then looked at the August
26 packet and reviewed Schantz's rewritten Preamble. Chappell asked Craig to
read this aloud for Members.
Kubby stated that she made a note that regarding the addition of'... and local
ordinances' in the second to last bullet. Chappell stated that they really have not
had much discussion about Schantz's rewritten Preamble at this point. Craig
stated that Schantz did remove all uses of the word `citizen' in the Preamble. It
was noted that the use of `persons' was also removed. Vanderhoef noted that
the use of 'resident' here is how she would think of it being used. Kubby stated
that she believes Schantz's version is missing a critical point, the benefits of
Home Rule, and she believes this needs to be mentioned in the Preamble. She
believes it to be such a fundamental piece of who Iowa City is and how the city
government is structured. Vanderhoef agreed, noting that she also made notes
to that effect.
Chappell stated that it sounds to him like they are heading to some consensus on
`resident,' but that they still have the question of whether they make a change to
the initial Preamble, or they look at a different Preamble. He stated that he would
like to wait until the next meeting so Schantz could be a part of it. He asked that
they turn to use of the word `person' in the Charter. Kubby noted that there is
some difference in how the word is used, such as in the Preamble. Vanderhoef
stated that if they are looking at 'person' versus 'citizen,' they can look at
Schantz's proposal and the first bullet states 'resident participation on inclusive
basis and democratic self-government.' She added that this is one of the few
place where she would use the word 'citizen.' Chappell stated that at this point,
however, they are looking at 'person' and whether or not to change something
about the definition of the word 'person,' and whether it would cause any
problems by doing so.
Members continued their discussion, with Kubby speaking to corporations being
`people' and how they can articulate their distaste within the community that
corporations are defined as people by the Supreme Court. This would be a
semantic way of doing so. Chappell asked if anyone believes they need to
change the definition of 'person.' Kubby stated that she does not like
corporations being defined as 'people' in the Charter. She added that she will
not block consensus on this issue, nor will she support it. Chappell asked if she
has a change to propose on this issue. Kubby noted that she believes they
should take 'corporation' out of the definition, and then in the sections where they
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 7
want corporations to be restricted, then they add the word 'corporation.' Sullivan
asked how you would then deal with companies, associations, and political
parties then. Kubby stated that the only place it really appears to be a problem is
the section about Campaign Contributions. Craig stated that they would also
want corporations, small businesses or whatever size businesses in their
community to be protected. Kubby stated that they could do another search,
looking for the word 'person' to see how many might need to be replaced. Craig
stated that she made notes on this very thing as she went through the Charter.
Shaw stated that he is not suggesting they create a definition for 'corporations,'
but that they could remove from the definition of 'persons,' words such as
corporations, partnerships, etc. and refer to Dilkes' comments about the Iowa
Statute 490 or some other provision that defines it. Sullivan stated that he does
not find the use of the word 'persons' to be an issue here. Chappell asked Kubby
to propose some language for them to review and discuss at the next meeting,
especially with the missing Members present to join in.
Kubby then asked about who can sign a petition, she noted that it says 'each
person signing shall provide certain information.' She gave the example of the
president of an S Corporation, asking if a person could sign for the corporation
and as an individual. Discussion ensued, with Chappell noting that a corporation
cannot vote, that in those situations it is obvious.
d. Primary vs. Run-off election — Chappell stated that after looking at all of the
information they received, there appears to be no consensus to make a change
from 'primary' to 'run-off.' He asked if Members agreed, and the majority did.
e. Commission discussion of other sections (if time allows) — No discussion
PUBLIC COMMENT:
None.
TENTATIVE THREE-MONTH MEETING SCHEDULE (7:45 AM unless specified):
November 10 — Chappell reminded Members of their special Monday meeting. He
stated that he would try to send a reminder over the weekend, and Karr added that the
packet should be going out no later than Friday, November 7. At the next meeting,
Chappell would like to finalize who is attending the League's forum. Chappell asked
Members to email him any issues of high interest. Karr stated that as soon as they can
pinpoint their next forum, it will help in ensuring they are able to reserve the proper room.
Chappell asked that they add this topic to the next agenda.
November 25
December 9
December 23
(Commission work completed no later than April 1, 2015)
ADJOURNMENT:
Vanderhoef moved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 A.M., seconded by Sullivan. Motion
carried 7-0, Schantz and Moyers -Stone absent.
Charter Review Commission
October 28, 2014
Page 8
Charter Review Commission
ATTENDANCE RECORD
2014
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
TERM
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
M
W
-4
00
CO
W
m
m
O
O
-�
NAME
EXP.
W
-1
O
N
N
CD
W
W
O
oo
O
ab
Ob
�
ah
P.
P.
ah
4/1/15
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Steve
E
Atkins
Andy
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Chappell
Karrie
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Craig
Karen
4/1/15
O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kubby
Mark
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
O/
X
O/
Schantz
E
E
E
Melvin
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Shaw
Anna
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
X
X
X
X
O/
Moyers
E
E
Stone
Adam
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Sullivan
Dee
4/1/15
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
O/
X
Vanderhoef
E
Key:
X = Present
O = Absent
O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting
--- = Not a Member at this time
�*I-r® CITY OF IOWA CITY 4�q�j-
, MUZ
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 13, 2014
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Staff Member of Citizens Police Review Board
Re: Recommendation from Citizens Police Review Board
At their October 13, 2014 meeting the Citizens Police Review Board made the following
recommendation to the City Council:
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-03
Additional action (check one)
No further action needed
Board or Commission is requesting Council direction
Agenda item will be prepared by staff for Council action
S:RECform.doc
FINAL
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES — October 13, 2014
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Joseph Treloar called the meeting to order at 5:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Melissa Jensen, Royceann Porter (5:34P.M.), Mazahir Salih
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Staff Patrick Ford and Kellie Tuttle
STAFF ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Captain Doug Hart of the ICPD
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
(1) Accept CPRB Report on Complaint #14-03
REPORT FROM NOMINATING COMMITTEE
Jensen and Salih were appointed to the nominating committee at the September 15th meeting. Salih
reported that the committee met and the recommendation was for Jensen to serve as Chair and Treloar
as Vice -Chair.
NOMINATIONS FOR OFFICE OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON
Motion by Salih and seconded by Jensen to nominate Jensen for Chair and Treloar for Vice -Chair.
Motion carried, 3/0, Porter absent.
PRESENTATION ON LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX & THE CITY BUDGET
City Finance Director Bockenstedt gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Board regarding the Local
Option Sales Tax.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion by Treloar and seconded by Salih to adopt the consent calendar as presented or amended.
• Minutes of the meeting on 09/15/14
• ICPD Department Memo #14-20 (August 2014 Use of Force Review)
• ICPD Use of Force Report - August 2014
Motion carried, 4/0.
OLD BUSINESS
Charter Review Update — Tuttle referenced the current and proposed language from the September
15th meeting which was included in the meeting packet. Tuttle stated that she did not believe the
change reflected the concerns that past Board members had regarding questions being directed to the
Board regarding police procedures and not having police presence at the forums to answer those
questions. Treloar liked the proposed change to the language and made the motion to recommend
changes.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to recommend the proposed changes in language to the Charter
Review Commission.
Motion carried, 4/0.
CPRB
October 13, 2014
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
None.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None.
BOARD INFORMATION
None.
STAFF INFORMATION
Ford had some concerns regarding the 90 day deadline for the Board and thought they should be
prepared to move as quickly as possible at the first meeting after receiving the Chief's report. In order
to be able to set the level of review at that first meeting he had 3 suggestions that he wanted the Board
to consider regarding the complaint review process. First he thought that the Board should amend their
ordinance so that when the Chief compiles a report that it must have the audio/video included if there is
any. Captain Hart said that when the reports are being processed he does a memo stating to include
any audio/video with the report. Secondly Ford suggested that as soon as the Clerk's office receives
the Chief's report it should be sent to the Board as soon as possible, instead of in the next meeting
packet. Lastly he thought they should set a guideline as far as viewing/listening to the audio/video
ahead of time. By receiving it earlier and having already reviewed the audio/video, the Board could
then be prepared to set the level of review at the next meeting.
After discussion, the Board agreed to not make any changes to the ordinance at this point regarding
receiving audio/video with the Chief's report and that staff will mail out the Chief's report as soon as
they are received and inform the Board if there is audio/video and the length of time.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to review any audio/video less than 30 minutes at the next
meeting, and if the audio/video is over 30 minutes Board members will set up a time with staff to review
before the next meeting.
Motion carried, 4/0.
Tuttle stated that the deadline for applications for the vacancy on the Board was Wednesday, October
22nd
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to adjourn into Executive Session based on Section 21.5(1)(a) of
the Code of Iowa to review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law
to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that government body's possession
or continued receipt of federal funds, and 22.7(11) personal information in confidential personnel
records of public bodies including but not limited to cities, boards of supervisors and school districts,
and 22-7(5) police officer investigative reports, except where disclosure is authorized elsewhere in the
Code; and 22.7(18) Communications not required by law, rule or procedure that are made to a
government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent
that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government
could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that
government body if they were available for general public examination.
Motion carried, 4/0. Open session adjourned at 6:09 P.M.
CPRB
October 13, 2014
Page 3
REGULAR SESSION
Returned to open session at 7:35 P.M.
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to request a 60 -day extension for CPRB Complaint
#14-02, due to requesting that the Police Chief modify the findings in the Chief's investigative report,
pursuant to the authority of local ordinance 8-8-7(B)(2).
Motion carried, 4/0.
Motion by Salih, seconded by Treloar to to forward the Public Report as amended for CPRB Complaint
#14-03 to City Council.
Motion carried, 4/0.
TENTATIVE MEETING SCHEDULE and FUTURE AGENDAS (subject to change)
• November 10, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• November 11, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm (Moved to Monday, November 10th)
• December 9, 2014, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• January 13, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
• February 10, 2015, 5:30 PM, Helling Conference Rm
Motion by Treloar, seconded by Salih to move the November 11th meeting to Monday,
November 10th at 5:30 P.M. due to scheduling conflicts.
Motion carried, 4/0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion for adjournment by Treloar, seconded by Salih.
Motion carried, 4/0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:38 P.M.
1w
M
b
yC
x
X
O
>C
x
i
x
X
N
X
X
x
O
,
X
X
N
00
O
yC
O
X
>C
O
o
DC
>C
x
O
X
N
ti
x
X
�
�
00
00
�o
O
t—
k
W
.0
cu
`nen
4u y
.0
COC
R
C w+
G� C
ti
A
°H
C
as
C G
xaa
CNC od
'A
na CC
w
1w
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD
A Board of the City of Iowa City
410 East Washington Street
Iowa City, IA 52240-1826
(319) 356-5041
October 13, 2014
To: City Council
Complainant
`rte
City Manager
Sam Hargadine, Chief of Police
s
,wY.
Officer(s) involved in complaint
7
From: Citizen Police Review Board
Re: Investigation of CPRB Complaint #14-03
This is the Report of the Citizens Police Review Board's (the "Board") review of the investigation of
Complaint CPRB #14-03 (the "Complaint").
BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY
Under the City Code of the City of Iowa City, the Board's responsibilities are as follows:
1. The Board forwards all complaints to the Police Chief, who completes an investigation.
(Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(A).)
2. When the Board receives the Police Chiefs report, the Board must select one or more of the
following levels of review, in accordance with Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(1):
a. On the record with no additional investigation.
b. Interview /meet with complainant.
c. Interview /meet with named officer(s) and other officers.
d. Request additional investigation by the police chief, or request police assistance in the
board's own investigation.
e. Perform its own investigation with the authority to subpoena witnesses.
f. Hire independent investigators.
3. In reviewing the Police Chief's report, the Board must apply a "reasonable basis" standard of review.
This means that the Board must give deference to the Police Chiefs report, because of the Police
Chiefs professional expertise. (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(13)(2)).)
4. According to Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(2), the Board can recommend that the Police Chief
reverse or modify the Chiefs findings only if:
a. The findings are not supported by substantial evidence; or
b. The findings are unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious; or
c. The findings are contrary to a police department policy or practice, or any federal, state or
local law.
5. When the Board has completed its review of the Police Chiefs report, the Board issues a public
report to the city council. The public report must include: (1) detailed findings of fact; and (2) a
clearly articulated conclusion explaining why and the extent to which the complaint is either
"sustained" or "not sustained ". (Iowa City Code Section 8-8-7(B)(3)).)
6. Even if the Board finds that the complaint is sustained, the Board has no authority to discipline the
officer involved.
BOARD'S PROCEDURE
The Complaint was initiated by the Complainant on 07/15/2014. As required by Section
8-8-5(B) of the City Code, the Complaint was referred to the Chief of Police for investigation.
The Chief's Report was filed with the City Clerk on 08/26/2014.
na
C=11
The Board voted on September 15, 2014 to apply the following Level of Review to to,;Chiefs-Report:
4 y c:)
c�
On the record with no additional investigation, pursuant to Iowa City Code 816CUbn "8-7( (a).
The Board met to consider the Report on August 26, 2014, September 15, 2014 arOctober 1. ,' 014.
�...: 1 T
Board members reviewed audio and/or video recordings of the incident.
r�
FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 10, 2014, Iowa City police officers were conducting surveillance on a residence as part of an
ongoing narcotics investigation. During the surveillance, a vehicle pulled into an adjacent parking lot,
left the lot, and later returned with two individuals who entered the building under surveillance. The
individuals left a short time later. The vehicle was followed by officers, and eventually stopped by a
marked police unit for speeding.
The registered owner of the vehicle was identified as the driver, who is also the Complainant. The
Complainant was unable to provide valid proof of insurance for the vehicle. Officers requested the
assistance of the canine officer who was present as part of the surveillance investigation. The canine
positively alerted at the vehicle. Both the Complainant and the passenger were twice asked to exit the
vehicle before complying.
Officer A conducted a pat down search of the Complainant, nothing is found. The Complainant is
asked to sit on the curb. The passenger is also searched, and is found in possession of $5000 in cash.
Officers locate an empty bag smelling strongly of marijuana in the back seat of the vehicle. During the
pat downs and the search of the vehicle, the Complainant is very vocal about being harassed and the
legality of the search. Officer B shows the bag to the Complainant and says "take a whiff of this
hombre." The Complainant voices his displeasure with the comment and Officer B apologizes. The
Complainant continues to yell and curse.
After the search is completed, the Complainant is issued a citation for no insurance, and he and the
passenger are allowed to leave.
ALLEGATION 1 — Illegal Search of the Vehicle.
The Complainant alleges the statement the canine alerted on his vehicle is false because the dog never
approached his vehicle. The review of the video clearly shows the canine approaching and alerting at
the back area of the vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a positive alert by a trained
canine is probable cause to search a vehicle.
Allegation: Illegal Search of the Vehicle - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 2 — Harassment.
The Complainant says there is a pattern of his vehicle being stopped and searched by the Iowa City
Police Department because of the color of his skin. In checking electronic records, there is no record of
any contact between the Iowa City Police Department and the Complainant prior to the stop that
resulted in the complaint. A search of Iowa Courts Online shows the Complainant has received
speeding citations from other law enforcement agencies.
Allegation: Harassment - Not sustained
ALLEGATION 3 — Use of a Racial Epithet.
The Complainant alleges he was called "Hombre" in a racist manner by Officer B. Online research
shows no racist meaning for the word. Checks with three members of the Hispanic community confirm
there is no racial, offensive, or derogatory meaning to the word when used in the context it was used by
Officer B. When the Complainant stated he was offended by the term, Officer B apologized and
advised it was not his intent. After reviewing the video, the Board agrees Officer B's intent was not to
be offensive. Officer B was immediately counseled by his supervisor regarding the manner and tone in
which he speaks could be interpreted.
Allegation: Use of a Racial Epithet - Not sustained
COMMENTS
None.
4b(5)
v...■.,.■
MINUTES APPROVED
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 10, 2014
ROBERT A. LEE COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER — MEETING ROOM B
Members Present: Suzanne Bentler, David Bourgeois, Larry Brown, Clay Claussen,
Maggie Elliott, Cara Hamann, Katie Jones, Lucie Laurian, Joe Younker
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Mike Moran, Zac Hall, Chad Dyson
Others Present: Connie Peterson, Steve Schuette, Temple Hiatt, Rob Rindels, Del
Holland
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Claussen called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.
Lucie Laurian introduced Jan Crawford, Director of Planning Consultants Ltd., who is
visiting from Auckland, New Zealand. Commission welcomed her.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL: (to become effective only after separate Council
action):
None
OTHER FORMAL ACTION:
Moved by Bourgeois seconded by Brown to approve the August 13, 2014 minutes as
written. Motion passed 9-0.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
None.
FRIENDS OF HICKORY HILL PARK:
Moran is working to find a point of contact for the Friends of Hickory Hill to report to the
Commission. He noted that they have made their request to the City Council to move up
their funding for improvements to the park.
DogPAC:
Connie Peterson reported that DogPAC signs for the dog parks and been approved and
complete and are currently in production. These signs will allow for the removal of some
redundant signs throughout the parks. She also announced that DogPAC has passed two
resolutions over the past month. One resolution is a request to include a dog park in the
River Front Crossings Plan and the other is a request to allow 10 acres of the park land be
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 2 of 7
dedicated as a dog park. Peterson asked Commission where they are in terms of
conversations about the Riverfront Crossings plan. Moran stated that there has been very
little discussion to date but expects there to be a concept plan available for Commission
review in October. A public meeting will be scheduled in either late October or early
November. He further noted that the consultant has created two design plans, one of which
is a more passive park and the other includes a 19 -acre water park. Moran did state that he
does not believe that a 10 -acre dog park would be approved as this would incorporate over
half of the planned park space.
AFFILIATE GROUP DISCUSSION:
Claussen noted that the department and commission are working on a directive from the
City to get more funding from our affiliate groups while creating something that works for
both the department and the affiliate groups. Dyson said that as the department heads into
the budget planning process, they will revisit ways to maintain the 50% cost recovery goal
while keeping sustainable service. He met with the Iowa City Kickers Board as well as Iowa
City Girls Softball who will attend the November Commission meeting. Tonight Luke
Villhauer and Rob Rindels were present representing Iowa City Boys Baseball. Villhauer
noted that their biggest concern is that they price themselves out of the boundaries for
some families and may start to lose some participants. He stated that numbers have been
declining over the last few years noting many outside factors such as video games and
cable TV and many kids no longer grow up with baseball as an only option anymore. He
said there were fewer than 300 enrolled in the spring and has 185 for the fall. Fees are
currently $85 per participant per season. Claussen asked if Boy's Baseball offers a
scholarship program. Villhauer said that they do and that there are a few that take
advantage of that. He said that they are reliant on word of mouth, returning participants and
communication through the Virtual Backpack (online newsletter put out by the school
district). Many of the schools will not let them post flyers. There seems to be no one great
way to get information out there anymore. Getting in front of the parents is tough. Brown
asked what the rationale is of the school district for no allowing flyers etc. Dyson said that
he and Temple Hiatt met with Dr. Murley, Superintendent of Schools, a couple of years ago.
He said that it had become too much work for the schools to sort flyers and that they were
beginning the process of going paperless. Information is allowed to be in the Virtual
Backpack for one month only. Brown expressed his concern for those families who don't
have access to computers at home and said that as a community there needs to be a better
way to get the word out there. Younker suggested that it is not the Commission's place to
get involved in school policy but would be good to see the policy. Dyson noted that the
district does still allow for the Recreation Center to send out hard copies of the program
guide through the schools. The general contact information for the affiliate groups is
included within the guide. Moran noted that there have been discussions about making this
publication available online only as well. Laurian asked if more information regarding these
affiliate programs could be included in the guide. Dyson agreed that if dates and times are
available they could look at this as a possibility. Jones agreed that since these books go out
in hard copy that perhaps this idea would be the best way to get the information out.
Temple noted that timing is critical and that since these books go out three times a year,
one of those times being December, and with registration not starting until February for
baseball/softball, many forget about it. Brown stated that he would further investigate the
rationale of the School District when it comes to distributing information to families.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 3 of 7
Moran asked Villhauer how Boys Baseball is doing financially. He stated that it is financially
sound but would like to see more participation. The more we can keep the costs reasonable
for them the better. Claussen reiterated that the City has been told that they are going to
have less contribution towards programs so have to find a way to increase revenue or
decrease expenses. Claussen suggested that perhaps these groups look at hiring a
professional fundraiser, noting that of course this would be an additional cost for them but
may be a worthwhile potential. Claussen, on behalf of the commission and staff, expressed
his gratitude for all that these affiliate groups do for the community. Villhauer said that he
would provide the department with a financial report and Dyson can share this with the
Commission at the October meeting.
Dyson noted that after the November Commission Meeting, he will put together a
recommendation for the Commission to review.
NEIGHBORHOOD OPEN SPACE REVIEW:
Prairie Hill: As per the Staff Report prepared by Bob Miklo, this is a proposal to develop a
co -housing community. This property is adjacent to Benton Hill Park. City will transfer 1.97
acres of the 7.8 acre site along Miller Avenue to the City of Iowa City in exchange for 1.85
acres of the western part of Benton Hill Park for an access road to Benton Street. Of that,
1.12 acres to the west of the access road will be protected by a conservation easement and
continue to provide public access, but will be owned and maintained by the Iowa City
Cohousing community. The neighborhood open space requirements were satisfied with the
approval of Ruppert Hills final plat in 2003. That plat included the dedication of Outlot A
Ruppert Hills, which later became the eastern part of Benton Hill Park. Commission
reviewed and approved the proposed trade of land of the western portion of Benton Hill
Park for Outlot A. Staff has determined that Outlot A is more conducive to use as a
neighborhood park and supports the trade. This will go to Planning and Zoning
Commission on 9/18 and then to Council.
RECREATION DIVISION REPORT:
Dyson noted that staff is continuing plans for the Robert A. Lee Community Recreation
Centers 50th anniversary celebration scheduled for Saturday, October 4. He encouraged all
to attend.
PARKS DIVISION REPORT:
Hall reported that staff is wrapping up the rest of the flood work and met with FEMA today.
They are starting the process of project worksheets and passing those on to FEMA.
Hall continues to work with many volunteer organizations. The University of Iowa Law
School had 50 students who came out and assisted with the repurposing of 30 dump truck
loads of sand that was removed from City Park and used at the Terry Trueblood Recreation
Area (TTRA) to shore up the south boat launch. Hall reported a total of 400 volunteer
hours. At FEMA's rate of $17.55/hr. that totals approximately $7000 in work last month.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 4 of 7
Hall reported that the benches are in place at the dog parks. These benches are of a new
style and made of composite material. Six new benches and six new trash receptacles
were placed at the dog parks. Parks staff will be installing a dog statue at one of the parks
that was purchased years ago by Terry Trueblood.
Hall said that staff has placed Prairie in Progress signs at TTRA due to a number or calls
that have been coming in.
Hall said that they have a shelter in storage that was purchased a number of years ago.
They are in the process of installing this at Pheasant Hill. He said this shelter will tie in very
well with this park and its other unique features.
Hall stated that there have been no more Emerald Ash Borer reports of late. He had
received two reports after the first positively identified bug. However, these two reports
proved not to be Emerald Ash Borer. Moran and Hall will go to Council on October 7 to give
a preliminary assessment and plan.
Jones noted that she was happy to see the Prairie in Progress signs placed at TTRA. She
suggested that perhaps there be signs put in at Wetherby Park noting the edible forest.
DIRECTORS REPORT:
Ashton House: Moran stated that the handicap ramp is in. There is a temporary railing in
place at this time to be replaced with permanent railing soon. Project GREEN is continuing
their work on landscaping.
Tower Court: Moran met with the Tower Court Neighborhood. There is $72,000 in
Neighborhood Open Space funds available to enhance this park.
Willow Creek Neighborhood Meeting: Moran will be meeting with the Willow Creek
Neighborhood on September 18. The firm that was hired to redesign the park will be in
attendance. They will then come back to staff with a concept plan. This project will go to bid
this winter with construction beginning in the spring.
Parks Tour: Moran reminded Commission that they will go on their annual parks tour in
October. This meeting will start at 4 p.m. (rather than the usual 5 p.m. start time). The
Commission will have a short meeting and will then board the bus for the tour at 4:30 p.m.
Some of the sites on the list to visit include City Park Pool, Sand Prairie Park, South Hickory
Hill Park Bridge, Ashton House, Benton Hill and Wetherby parks and the Chadek Property.
A meal will be provided.
Snow Routes: With the ongoing budget cutbacks, staff will be reviewing their current snow
routes. One possibility is the decision to not do any snow removal on weekends unless it is
a very serious snow event. The department spends a lot of money in overtime wages during
these events. Staff will meet with the Streets Superintendent as well as the Public Works
Director to discuss. Elliott was concerned about liability and asked if there are more trails
that are more appropriate for cross-country trails. Moran noted that criteria for neighboring
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 5 of 7
cities are any trails that are connected to schools must be cleaned. Elliott suggested that
signs be put up letting people well in advance so that people are not surprised when the
trails are not cleaned. Bentler recalled that in looking at the snow routes last year there
were a number of places that shouldn't be Parks jurisdiction anyway. Moran stated that this
is an ongoing debate. He stated that there is an agreement with the DOT that Parks staff
clean some bridges and also an agreement to clean some Public Works Property. Staff has
already made some changes to mowing routes. Laurian asked if staff has considered a no -
mow approach. Hall said that they are looking at more prairies for less mowing. Elliott said
that in terms of public areas, not cleaning them is not a good idea on weekends. Hall said
he could get winter trail use numbers from MPO staff. Brown noted that he does a lot of
walking in the winter and prefers that the trails be snow covered rather than the ice that can
be created by cleaning, melting and refreezing.
Naming Policy: After receiving a proposal to name a street in City Park the Hughes
Memorial Drive, Moran revisited the city's Naming Policy. The policy states that a person
must be deceased for two years before such a request can be approved.
CHAIRS REPORT:
None
COMMISSION TIME/SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Brown asked when prairie burns are done how it affects the turtle population. Moran said
they would likely avoid that particular area. Laurian noted that they do prairie burns at Kent
Park in the areas where turtles live and it does not seem to affect them.
Hamann asked if there were any updates regarding the Chadek Property. Moran said that
the purchase agreement will go before Council on October 7. The environmental study has
been complete and Terracon said they look very clean. Moran should receive a final report
from Terracon on 9/15.
Younker reported that the Ad Hoc Senior Services Committee will be scheduling some
additional meetings so he may be absent from some future Commission meetings. He
further stated that the Committee is making progress and that he appreciates any input from
Commission and staff.
Bourgeois said that he approached both Iowa City Landscaping and Quality Care and both
have agreed to design and maintain the entrances to the dog parks.
Elliott noted that she appreciates the prairie signs at TTRA.
Jones asked how the joint agreements are going with the schools. Moran noted that staff
has not heard back from them in some time. He anticipates they will develop a 28E
agreement similar to what is currently in place between Grant Wood and Mercer. Jones
said that the Iowa Public Health and American Heart Association are very interested in joint
agreements so would like to see what the schools have. Moran said that he can give her a
copy of what has been proposed so far.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 6 of 7
Laurian asked if transportation can give Commission trail use reports that would include a
map of trails including intersections of major roads as well as any accident data. Moran
noted that Kris Ackerson with MPO was in attendance at a recent commission meeting.
Laurian said she does not recall that they looked at where the major concerns are. Moran
will talk to MPO for data and will revisit at the November Commission meeting.
ADJOURNMENT:
Moved by Bourgeois, seconded by Brown to adjourn the meeting at 6:23 p.m. Motion
passed 9-0.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
September 10, 2014
Page 7 of 7
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
ATTENDANCE RECORD
NAME
M
r
M
r
v
r
v
r
v
c
M
r
r
r
80N
r
m
r
r
r
O
TERM
°'
r
r
N
Cl)
U)
m
00
a�
EXPIRES
Suzanne
1/1/17
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bentler
David
1/1/15
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Bourgeois
Larry
1/1/18
*
*
*
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
X
X
Brown
Clay
1/1/14
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Claussen
Maggie
1/1/13
X
X
NM
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Elliott
Allison
1/1/14
O/E
X
NM
X
Gnade
Cara
1/1/16
X
X
NM
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hamann
Katie
1/1/18
*
*
*
*
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Jones
Lucie
1/1/15
X
X
NM
X
O/E
X
X
X
X
O/E
X
O/E
X
Laurian
John
1/1/14
X
X
NM
X
*
*
*
X
Westefeld
Joe
1/1/16
X
O/E
NM
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
O/E
X
X
X
Younker
KEY: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused
NM = No meeting LQ = No meeting due to lack of quorum
* = Not a member at this time
MINUTES
PUBLIC ART ADVISORY COMMITTEE
THURSDAY, July 17, 2014
HELLING CONFERENCE ROOM — CITY HALL
Members present:
Not present:
Staff Present:
Public Present:
CALL TO ORDER
Meeting called to order at 3:33pm.
anolinim
APPROVED
John Engelbrecht, Mike Moran, Tam Bryk, Rick Fosse, and
Brent Westphal
Elizabeth Pusack, and Bill Nusser
Marcia Bollinger
None
PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA
No new business.
CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 5TH, 2014 MEETING
MOTION: Moran moved to approve the June 5th, 2014 meeting. Westphal seconded. Motion
passed 5:0.
DOWNTOWN STREETSCAPE ART PROJECT UPDATE
Engelbrecht introduced Geoff Fruin to speak about the Downtown Streetscape Art Project. He
discussed that the focus has recently been on the signature art piece that would go on the
Pedestrian Mall. He explained that there has been conversation with the subcommittee
consisting of John Engelbrecht, Brent Westphal, and Bill Nusser as to what route to take in
selecting an artist for this location. Fruin stated that he would like to get feedback from the
Public Art Advisory Commission as a whole on the process. He stated that there are currently
two paths which have been identified: 1. essentially hand pick an artist that is nationally or
internationally known or 2. release a traditional Call for Qualifications.
Fruin then passed out packets which contained examples of what could be done in the
downtown area with the streetscape plan. Fruin explained the multitude of Public Art
opportunities that will hopefully be made available through this Master Plan. He stated that the
first opportunity is the major piece intended for Black Hawk Mini Park. Selecting an artist now
would be timely so they can then work closely with the design team to ensure that the art piece
and the ped mall designs flow together. Fosse shared what the process had been for the
Weatherdance Fountain piece when it was commissioned. Members then discussed the
different aspects of each path. Moran asked if they knew of any artists who could handle a piece
of the magnitude. Bryk stated that she thought the process should be focused on the state of
Iowa. She stated that there would be push back if an internationally known artist was
handpicked and Iowa artists were not looked at. Engelbrecht made that point that the
conversation could change if a partnership with the University of Iowa Art Museum was
established. The City could provide the space and the University could bring the artists. Fruin
stated that a partnership has not been formalized as to the ownership structure. He stated that it
had always been envisioned that the city would own the piece. Fruin then suggested that
collaboration should occur and that Iowa artists should be identified. Fruin stated that he would
like to see an artist on board by August so that they can start working with the design team for
the ped mall. Engelbrecht then asked if the next step is for the commission to identify names of
artists. Fruin agreed that that would be the next step and also that he would contact the
University of Iowa Art Museum to solicit names as well.
BENCHMARKS PROJECT UPDATE
Engelbrecht stated that this project was mostly complete. He made the committee aware that
the benches are now open for a public vote for their favorite ones. In addition, Engelbrecht
stated that he was unsure of what the future of this program would be since the University of
Iowa Credit Union will no longer be funding it.
KIDZ TENT UPDATE
Bollinger made the group aware that this year the Kidz Tent saw record breaking numbers with
about $480 made. Bollinger then thanked the committee for all of their help and support.
IOWA SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES PROJECT
Bollinger introduced Nick Benson from the Sustainable Communities Project through the
University of Iowa. Benson explained a little bit about the Iowa Sustainable Communities Project
and that there are a number of projects happening in Iowa City this year. One is a public art
project in which students will be working with faculty to complete a project in Iowa City. Last
year, the public art portion of this project occurred in Washington, Iowa in which a mural was
painted. Benson stated that they were at the very beginning phases of identifying a project for
Iowa City, and he passed out a basic project concept. The project would entail students and
faculty working in the neighborhoods of Iowa City and would learn about their history and any
stories neighbors wanted to tell. This would be either recorded voices or videotaped, and would
become smaller public art projects within the neighborhood. Then these smaller neighborhood
projects would culminate into a larger piece for Downtown.
MURAL PROJECT 2014- MERCER PARK LOCATION
The Committee then moved to selecting an artist for the Mercer Park mural location. The
original artists selected decided not to participate in the project. Bollinger and the committee
then ran through all of the potential proposals for this location. After discussion the Committee
decided on Jesa Townsend's second version as their first choice and Mike Stenerson as the
second choice. Engelbrecht made a motion and Fosse seconded.
MOTION: Engelbrecht moved that: 1) Jesa Townsend's second proposal be selected for the
Mercer Park location and that 2) Mike Stenerson would be selected in the event that Jesa
Townsend would be unable to do the Mercer Park location. Fosse seconded the motion. Motion
passed 4:0.
FY15 PUBLIC ART FUNDING —PROCESS ALLOCATION OF FUNDS AND THE YOTOPIA
MURAL PROJECT
Engelbrecht then welcomed and introduced Veronica and Megan to the committee meeting.
Veronica, the owner of Yotopia, presented the proposed mural and what she would like to see
for her business on the ped mall. She then introduced Megan who is the artist of the proposed
mural. Fosse stated that something needs to happen with this location as it is commonly
targeted for graffiti. The Committee stated that they liked the proposal for the wall. The
Committee then expressed concerns about the two additional helpers that Megan would need to
help her complete the mural on time. Megan stated that she did not have any specific artists to
help her in mind. Engelbrecht stated that he knew of a couple artists that would be good
helpers. Megan and the committee agreed that they would be ideal. The committee collectively
agreed that there was a larger concern with funding overall. Westphal asked what the
committee had for a budget for FY15. Bollinger stated that for FY15 the committee has been
allocated $12,000. The committee agreed that they would be more comfortable with a price
match as opposed to funding the whole project. Bryk stated that she was comfortable with
funding $2,000 of the project. Fosse suggested that the funds could cover 30% of the costs not
to exceed $2,000. The committee agreed that they all felt comfortable with that amount. The
committee the suggested that Veronica starts fundraising in the store and on the ped mall to pay
for the rest of the project.
MOTION: Fosse moved that the committee commit to funding 30% of the project not to exceed
$2,000 Bryk seconded the motion. Motion passed 4:0.
Engelbrecht then moved that the committee finish discussing allocation of FY15 funding at the
next meeting. Bryk seconded the motion.
OTHER
ADJOURNMENT
Fosse motioned and Westphal seconded a motion to adjourn at 5:02 PM.
Minutes created by Ashley Zitzner.
r
O
N
M
0
N
L
w a)
o c c E
aD�mcv
U N
,o m o
aQaz
i
XXXOOXX
LO
XXO0xxx
oxxxoox
LO
ooXxxxxx
�
UJ
xx0xXx
M
W
W,
W
oxxo
x0
N
co
L
oxxo
x
N
r
N
coLOtitiLO
L
N X
rr'
0
0
r
0
r
0
r
0
r -
w
O
O
O
O
O
E
NY
N
00
m
M
_
jj
O
v
O
C
N
E
Y
cu
0
C0d
O
L
w a)
o c c E
aD�mcv
U N
,o m o
aQaz