Chairperson Thompson called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:02 a.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.

Thompson explained that the City and the County have had a 28E agreement for the Senior Center for approximately 20 years. A couple of years ago there was a decision to reconsider the 28E agreement, but the City and County didn’t come to a conclusion, so they retained the original agreement. Last year the Senior Center conducted, in the course of its accreditation, conducted a peer review. As a consequence of that review it was pointed out that the agreement was still ambiguous. They started another committee to look into the 28E Agreement. Thompson said the committee met several times, but did not come to a conclusion and Senior Center Commission Member Jay Honohan volunteered to draft another version that would be a partnership between the City and County.

Honohan explained that the proposed draft was meant to amend the agreement and establish the membership, duties and responsibilities of the Senior Center Commission and the duties and responsibilities of both the City of Iowa City and the Board of Supervisors; it addresses the fact that there should be a partnership and the obligations of the partners. He said the City should provide the Senior Center with space, adopt a budget for the operation and maintenance, fund 80% of the annual budget, provide the staff, and appoint 6 members to the Commission. The County should make such recommendations to the City Council regarding such operations and funding, fund 20%, and appoint 3 members to the Commission. He said the City and County, as partners would share in the management operation of the Center through their membership in the Senior Center Commission. Honohan said the Commission shall have the power to set all policy for the Senior Center and negotiate leases for the space they have. All programs, activities, and services of the Senior Center will be available to all residents of Iowa City and Johnson County. He said the City Council will approve a budget for the operation of the Senior Center and the staff. The Commission will submit the budget to the City Manager and Board of Supervisors prior to October 31st of each year. On or before December 1st the Board of Supervisors may submit to the City Council recommendations regarding the Senior Center budget. The City Council shall consider any input from the Board of Supervisors, but the City Council will have final decision on the budget of the Senior Center. On or before January 15th of each year, the City Council shall submit to the Board of Supervisors the proposed budget for the Fiscal Year. On or before February 15th, the Board of Supervisors should submit to the City Council a resolution and commitment to fund 20%. Then on the 15th of March the City Council shall adopt the final budget for the ensuing year. Johnson County should not be obligated to exceed 20% of the adopted budget if it is increased at a later date, or if it’s decreased they will pay 20% of the smaller amount. Iowa City agrees to maintain records of all operational expenses and make these available during business hours. Honohan said the contract would begin July 1, 2002 for a period of one year renewed automatically unless written notice to the contrary is given, no later then 365 days prior to the renewal date. This would be filed as a 28E agreement according to the State law.

Lehman said they have received the budget from the City. He said one of the reasons this discussion came up was the notification by Heritage that Johnson County wouldn’t be the provider for Senior Dining. Lehman said the Board would like to continue some type of arrangement with the Senior Center but the current arrangement is not satisfactory or equitable. Honohan said this arrangement is not a new fund request, it is a continuation of funding that’s been done for the past 20 years. He said one of the problems he has with the current agreement is the timing; the lack of time to adjust to whatever the City and the County can agree on. Unfortunately, Honohan said, the preliminary budgets of communities in the County have already been submitted, so it would be difficult to go to the communities to try to solicit money from them for the Senior Center. He suggested instead of terminating the contract, the Board continue to fund the Senior Center for a year or two, then form a Committee to work with the other communities to come up with a solution.

Honohan said he’s concerned with the Senior Dining Program not being funded by the County, because then they have to decide what to do with Heritage. He commented that they might need to charge Heritage rent, because the utilities for the Dining Program might run as high as $25,000 per year. He said the program is serving the entire County. He said that Heritage is a player in this too. He further included the VNA and Elder Services who use the building currently. He said that all of this was free and he liked it that way. He believes the Commission, the County and the City all prefer it that way. He said that it’s a question of dollars and how the Senior Center can come up with it, but that other people are players in the matter. He suggested that a Senior Center Commission representative make a presentation to the communities and at the Joint Meeting. Honohan thought the process will take time, and there isn't enough time to complete it for during this budget cycle. Honohan said he was dealing with what ifs. What if the Senior Center charges rent to Heritage and they say they won’t pay. What happens to the Dining Program in Johnson County if that happens? What happens to VNA? Do they leave the center? He asked if the County is going to hurt a center that in its accreditation got 180 points out of 187. Honohan said the Johnson County/Iowa City Senior Center is a great center and one of its greatest assets is its openness. Anybody can come in at any time to participate in the center. Honohan said he knows the County supports the Senior Center, but they have funding problems. With good intentions and time, Honohan said, they could come up with something that will satisfy everybody. He asked for the Board’s support for another year or two. He said he would like two years, because it would give them more time to resolve the issue. He said he and Senior Center Director Linda Kopping were present to answer any questions.

Neuzil said he sees several different options: the Board could do nothing, they could drop everything, they could freeze, they could phase out, they could do the reimbursement for a fee for service by formula, they could set an amount as a cash contribution, or they could set an amount by percentage. Neuzil said the simple fact is the County doesn’t have as much money as it used to have. With the loss of the Senior Dining Program, he continued, this is the time to discuss these things. He agreed with Honohan that the Board shouldn’t do anything too drastic and additional time is needed. Neuzil said he is leaning towards putting a freeze on this to allow them time to study the potential of getting the Senior Center in line with putting up a formula so the County could reimburse the Senior Center for the services provided for those individuals who live in the unincorporated areas. Neuzil said he hopes the Senior Center would communicate with other communities to also make a contribution.

Lehman said he didn’t think anybody was to the point where the Board wants to force an impact where the Center would have to restrict hours or reduce programs. The Board just wants to be fiscally responsible to constituents. He said he didn’t feel that the Board was going to do any knee jerk reaction to make a large quick impact. He understands the request to study the problem. Stutsman said she doesn’t agree that the problem has come up all of a sudden. They have discussed revisions or changes to the Senior Center 28E Agreement for a number of years Stutsman said. She said she thinks it’s good that they’ve made as much progress as they have. Stutsman said it was good to look at the Agreement, but the Board is looking at changes to be made or different ways of funding things. Stutsman said there are a lot of demands on the budget this year. She said she thinks it’s time to terminate the 28E, because it no longer reflects where both entities are at as far as the operation of the Senior Center. Where they go from here is what they’re trying to decide today, she said. Stutsman likes Honohan’s idea of getting everybody to the table because there are a number of people that do have a stake in what goes on at the Senior Center.

Harney said that he supports the Senior Center, but really questions what the dollar amount of support should be, understanding that everyone is a resident of Johnson County, but what the County itself should be giving towards the Senior Center for that purpose. He continued saying that there are many other entities out there that could be providing support for the Senior Center. He said he think they really need to look at that to come to an agreement and that it’s going to take time to get that together for everyone. He said the big question for him is what the County should be paying and if they’re getting their dollars back. Honohan said he obviously thinks the County is. He said it’s hard to measure what benefit the County would get. He said that he feels that they are all Johnson County residents, so there is a benefit to all of them, but if they want to figure out the benefit it will take time. Honohan is concerned about not only the agencies, but the Senior Center itself.

Kopping said time is an important factor. They keep a record of those that use the Senior Center, which is pretty accurate, but not as refined at it needs to be. She said to develop a system and then implement it and then be able to get a database that will handle it, will not happen in a month or two. Neuzil asked what the anticipated amount of money that will be needed for the ’03 budget, the 20%? He asked if they anticipate a moderate increase. Kopping said they anticipate about the same amount for next year. Neuzil said the average increase in their budget was 7% per year and do they expect that this year. Kopping said no. Lehman said the budget that the Board was sent was only a $1,000 increase. Lehman said everyone appreciates the fact that Iowa City hosts the site, but the County isn’t ready to take it on and be the host and take care of the whole operation. Lehman said he appreciates what the Senior Center has done by opening to all the residents of Johnson County and maybe beyond. Harney said he wished they could measure the number of people from the unincorporated areas that use the Senior Center. Honohan said if given time they can figure out what communities the Senior Center participants come from.

Thompson said so far the discussions have featured either a participation or partnership agreement, but so far this morning she was hearing a different plan. For years the County felt that they had a partnership, evident by paying for the Senior Center out of the General Fund thereby taxing all the residents of Johnson County for it, and that the Board had some say in the administration because they had seats on the Senior Center Commission. She said that when the Accreditation Committee looked at it, they favored a participation agreement. In Johnson County that traditionally means the Board wouldn’t have any say in the Commission, they would just pay an agreed upon fee. Thompson continued that it would be paid out of the rural levy, so only the people allowed to participate in the Senior Center would be taxed for it. She said now it sounds like perhaps they could have a partnership agreement, but include the small cities as partners and ask them to contribute for the contribution of their residents. She asked if they were thinking that the formation of the Commission would be enlarged to include representatives from other participating cities. Honohan said he hadn’t thought about it. Honohan said worrying about whether it’s a participation or a partnership agreement gets them away from what they really should be looking at. Honohan said that Commission is the mechanism that the entities would participate in the operation of the Senior Center. The Commission in his draft sets the policy, negotiates the leases, and submits the preliminary budget of the Senior Center. They would have membership on the Commission, in what proportion, he doesn’t know. Honohan said another thing they could look at would be the Commission structure itself. Thompson said she thinks the role of the Commission is the biggest change between the proposed agreement and the original 28E agreement. Honohan agreed. Thompson said she thinks the new agreement more accurately reflects how the practice has been.

Iowa City City Manager Steve Atkins said he’s been trying to follow this debate over the last couple of years and they’re at the point where something must be decided. Atkins said he tried to reflect on what the word partnership meant, but he didn’t know what that meant to the Board. He said he didn’t know what the Board would like to accomplish. Atkins said he went through the other relationships between the City and the County to try to see if there was any commonality. He said the City has a relationship with the County for SEATS. The City is probably the largest customer, but they don’t vote on things that the County does. They City pays, the Board decides. He said they have a land fill, the Board pays, the City decides. Atkins said the City has a housing authority that they run, but the citizens from the County are entitled to benefit from those services. He said they have an animal shelter. If an animal comes in from the County, the County gets a bill. Atkins repeated that he would ultimately like to understand what the Board policy is on the Senior Center; is it broad or narrow. Atkins said he thought that when Senior Dining changed hands that it was only one of a number of components provided to seniors regardless of what their residence is. He said he agreed with Honohan that if there is to be a change they need time to make it. He said the City currently shares billing with the County on the building. Atkins went on to say that the City and County do have a number of relationships that are quite successful. Stutsman said the library is another one. Atkins said its a very formal relationship, but it works fine.

Stutsman said she didn’t think anybody on the Board is interested in starting another Senior Center. She said it’s very successful and it does well. She said they’re here today to decide how they want to participate. Stutsman said she doesn’t want the Board to run the Center, because the City does a great job. For the same reason the City made a conscious decision not to run SEATS. Atkins agreed. Stutsman said the big change has come because they are no longer involved in Senior Dining. She said she wants to find an equitable participation that’s fair and reasonable for everybody. Stutsman said if the Board would assume a user fee that the County would pay for unincorporated people, then they wouldn’t have any say in how the Center is run. Atkins said what is important to him is an understanding of what that partnerships is. He said he’s not ready to propose user fees or checking in and out until they understand ultimately what the Board’s policy position is. What sort of Senior Services does the Board want to be available to its citizens, he asked? In the Board’s case they’re dealing with the rural levy issues for the unincorporated areas. Atkins said he’s never understood why the other cities in the County don’t pay. He said that he assumed that for 20 years, the County has chosen to provide that service on their behalf. Then he would pose the same question to those cities. He said that he didn’t think any cities would argue with the County.

Harney said the partnership went back to when the Senior Center first began, when the County ran 3 or 4 different services out of the Senior Center in conjunction to the City. He doesn’t see the partnership any more because those other programs have dissolved. The other agencies have left and somebody else has taken over Senior Dining. He said he wants to continue some type of programming out of the Senior Center that all seniors can go to. Atkins said that part of the policy discussion must be the change in Senior Services. As it is many people in the room are eligible for Senior Services, but haven’t used them yet. He said there are going to be people of his generation that are going to be using them for a long time. Stutsman said she was interested in providing the same services to people in the rural areas as those in the cities receive, and maybe they should start thinking about satellite services. Atkins said he didn’t think they could afford that. Stutsman agreed. Atkins said that the meals are important, because it’s a gathering point; everyone understands the social interaction that occurs from having a meal with somebody. Lehman asked County Attorney J. Patrick White that if the Board doesn’t terminate the agreement as is, then the Board is obligated to the 20%. White said yes. Lehman said the Board has a timetable and if the Board isn’t comfortable continuing the agreement for another year, then the Board needs to serve notice. Lehman pointed out what legal options are. There is a date that if the County doesn’t notify the City by, the County is obligated to pay 20%.

Senior Center Commission Member Laurie Benz said she was hired by the Senior Center in 1979 to develop the programmatic and operational infrastructure of the current Senior Center. She said she wanted to give a historical perspective that’s relevant today. At the time senior services and activities were fragmented. There were agencies in place to serve seniors, but the accessibility was not easy. There was an opportunity at that time to come together to develop a centralized senior focus through the Senior Center to deliver services and activities in an accessible and comfortable fashion for older adults. She said one of the biggest debates at that time was whether or not the Senior Center should be membership based. She said the overriding philosophy was the Senior Center should be a multi-purpose one stop facility that would support older adults in multiple ways, be it in services, activities or just a meeting place that will be open to everyone. She said as the Board knows, friendships and interactions don’t stop at the city limit, and that philosophy has served the Senior Center well. It has been one the basic tenants and strengths of the Senior Center. Benz continued by saying senior services have changed over time. Older people are not necessarily as frail or as in need of certain types of services that back in 1979 were very important. She said not only does the Board have in the population the need to serve older people, but the families of older people too. She wanted to remind the Board that the Center provides a great deal of information and support through both its program and its facilities to the young adult population that is trying to support older adults in this community. She said in 1979 there was a great opportunity to set aside territories, differences, and the notion of accessibility being limited to certain people. Benz said that is what has been such a vital and important part of the Senior Center. She said she would like the Board to consider that again as an important philosophy. Benz said the Center has worked very hard to make people feel welcome. If the Board begins to limit access to certain people and not others, she continued, it will effect that sense of openness and welcome. She said it will diminish the Senior Center. She said she could fully appreciate the Board’s financial concerns.

Senior Center Commission Member Charity Rowley agreed with Benz. Rowley said the Senior Center enhances and enriches her life and the lives of those people that she meets there. When she looks at the population that produces the SRO theater productions, there are people in subsidized housing, there are people that live in the City and there are people that live outside the City. She said she keeps the roster for the Voices of Experience. She said the postal system no longer has RFD, so she can’t really tell who is inside the city limits and who is outside. She said she is guessing that at least 20% of the people are outside the City on that roster. At least 10% on that roster are living in subsidized housing inside the City. She said she didn’t know how many people were living in rural poverty. She said the Voices of Experience brings together people who read music, people who do not read music, people who are very agile physically and psychologically and people who are not. She said it’s a wonder place to participate in something that makes her world richer and hopefully when they perform, it makes other people’s worlds richer.

Ken Fearing said most scholars say that the quality of a society is judged by how they treat their weakest members, meaning children, adults and the infermed. Also, this has been rated as one of the top senior centers in the country and he has in his neighborhood a lot of professional people who have come to retire in Iowa City. The reason they selected Iowa City are the medical facilities and the Senior Center. He said the second thought he had was about accountability. When people register at the Senior Center, they get either C for in the City or R for rural. He said the Board was having trouble deciding how many people are seniors from outside the City proper. He suggested giving one more digit on the Senior Center number to indicate their residence. That could be from 0-9. That could give the Center a handle on the number of people outside the City and how many are not, since they’re going to wait a little bit to talk about this. They could sign in with this number when they first enter and then most special groups also have a list where they sign in by their number. He said this would give them a good accountability for the discussion. Thompson thanked Fearing for his comments.

Elder Services Director Connie Benton-Wolf said they were one of the agencies that has been the beneficiary of the generosity of both the City and the County related to the Senior Center space. She said that obviously they have a stake in the decision, because they are going to be assuming the responsibility for the Senior Dining Program on the 14th of January. Benton-Wolfe thinks it’s important to note that in Johnson County they’re trying hard to put together a continuum of care for elderly residents. Over the years the needs of seniors have changed and demands for services have continued to increase. She said her agency has experience a lot of growth because there is a significant need. They are also trying to prepare for what they know from the demographics is going to be an even more increasing need for the years to come. She said the partnership her agency has been able to have over the years has been critical to the existence of her agency and continues to be critical. She said they’re trying to raise additional resources from where ever they can find possible pots of money they can apply for to bring them into Johnson County. But if for some reason they were in the position where they had to immediately pay rent for RSVP, Chore, or for the Senior Dining program, they would be in a very difficult situation looking at FY 03. She said Heritage proposals were due at noon today. She said the proposal for United Way for FY03 and for the other County and City services under the Human Services presentation has already occurred as well for FY 03. Benton-Wolfe said they are also taking over the Nutrition Program without a track record in terms of what it costs to run it. She said she knows some of the things the County provided in kind, the agency will have to find a way to provide, so they don’t have the data that they need to be able to assume any additional financial responsibility for that, nor is Elder Services in a position to do that. Benton-Wolfe thanked the Board, because she knows the Board continues to value the Nutrition Services and the Board considers it extremely important for County residents. She said her agency’s commitment was to do everything they could to continue the quality of service and have no disruption in service as the Board has done for 20 years. She said she considers this in many ways a partnership as well even though that is still being defined. She said she is hoping the County still remains committed and their involvement with Senior Dining will not go away, simply because the County is no longer the provider, because the Board is committed to the service, as evident by leaving the kitchen equipment in the kitchen. She said that any time the Board could give before any major changes are made is important to everyone.

Senior Center Commission Member JoAnne Hora said this is a huge concern for a lot of the seniors in the County. Some are wondering if they’re going to have to pay to use the Senior Center. Hora said the senior citizen age group is growing in Johnson County as well as the Country and they need to continue to provide services for them. Hora agreed that they have been talking about the 28E agreement for many years. She said she had been on the Commission for 6 years and they were talking about it when she came on. She said timing is key. Hora said she appreciates the Board hosting the meeting and letting everyone come to voice their opinions. She said she knows the Board wants to work together with the Senior Center.

Eve Casserly said she has lived most of her adult life in Iowa City, but she currently resides in Coralville, so she is one of the people whose municipality currently does not pay for the Center. Casserly said that Senior Dining program participation is going down nationwide but locally it increased 7.65%. She said that means a lot of extra meals served, a lot of volunteers doing dishes, a lot of volunteers wiping up tables, and a lot of social human involvement. She said she thinks it’s important to recognize the work that has gone into that increase in numbers.

Wade Bobbingeyer said he makes use of the Senior Center and hopes that it remains possible for everyone to use it as it has been in the past. His particular interest is in the bands that operate out of there. He said about 2/5 of all band members are from outside Iowa City. They also perform in the area at least once a month. This is something that brings something both to the band participants and a great number residents of the County. He said he hopes the Board would think of the band as one of the things offered by the Center that has a chance of either reducing itself dramatically or disappearing if the Center must cut back its operations.

Louise Young said she first participated in the Senior Center from North Liberty. She said the first thing that her late husband and her participated in was Senior Dining. She also served on the task force for 6 years. She has served as a volunteer driver for meals on wheels program, which started when she broke her leg and she found out there was no Meals on Wheels to North Liberty, because of a lack of drivers. So, she began delivering the first Meals on Wheels to North Liberty. Now that she is in Iowa City, she eats at the Senior Center on a regular basis. She has gotten involved in Senior Center TV, where they produce shows of some of the events that go on at the Senior Center. They also learn how to prepare programs themselves that can be aired on PATV or in programs like Mature Focus that they produce. She said eventually she will be involved with things like SSRO, Voices of Experience or the Band. Young recommended against making a cut in funding of the Senior Center. She suggested that the other communities in Johnson County do need to make a contribution.

Gertrude McQueen, said she’d been involved in the politics of the County ever since she’s been here. She’s a member of the League of Women Voters where they evaluate the performance of the Board of Supervisors and make suggestions. She said they were long on suggestions. She said she’s now a member of the Task Force. She said she wanted the Board to know that the wonderful system that has worked here should never cease to be a cooperative effort between all the elements that go into Johnson County. She said it’s terribly important that they don’t segment themselves into them and us. She said she has been urging participation and cooperation throughout the years. She complimented the Board and said they love the Senior Center and said she knows the Board wouldn’t let them down.

Stan Aldinger said everyone else who has said anything has discussed the benefits of the Center, which is great, but he thinks all of the Board members realize the value of the Center. The disagreement is over who is going to fund what proportion of the cost of the Center. Aldinger said they’ve talked about funding from other Communities in the County, but he thinks that’s probably wishful thinking. He said he can’t imagine large dollars coming from Lone Tree, etc. He said he thought they might get a few hundred dollars out of some of those towns, but it’s probably wishful thinking. He thought that the Board would have to decide what proportion of the Senior Center the County is going to fund. He said it’s not an issue of whether or not the Senior Center is providing great services to the people of Johnson County, but what proportion you’re going to fund of the expense of operating the Center.

Mary Catherine Wallace said she is a participant at the Senior Center, a volunteer at the Senior Center, and a past Commission member appointed by Johnson County. She said she enjoyed her services representing the Board and the Senior Center. She said she has lived in many parts of the United States, but when she and her husband decided to retire, they actively chose to retire in Iowa City. Not the most important reason, but a strong reason was the quality of life for older citizens here. She said her graduate work was in Gerontology; she deals with successful aging, so this appealed to her. She said everyone throughout their lives needs activity, diversity, and connection with others. As an older person coming to a new community, that could be difficult to find, but the Senior Center helps. She said its called the Senior Center, but the point that was made that they do service the larger community. She said something she finds very appealing at the Senior Center are intergenerational activities.

Pat Effgrave said she came to Iowa from California 4 years ago. She was attracted by the advantages of the area, the hospital and the Senior Center. Effgrave values the Senior Center and knows the Board does too. But as the gentleman spoke about the need for funding, she was wondering about the tax levels. She said if the Board is considering raising taxes for a new TIF to help corporate interests, they could also raise taxes to support the Senior Center. Effgrave said if the Board is going to raise taxes, she would rather they be raised to help citizens or land for parks. She realizes they need more businesses, but she isn’t sure that they need to pay more to get them if they can’t pay to take care of the people.

Linda Fisher said there are so many things that are essential to life at the Senior Center. She said she feels good of what she hears as a commitment to continuing of funding and to working out the changes that are going to have to be made. Fisher asked the Board keeps to keep in mind the problems the Senior Center would encounter continuing to offer a magnificent array of programs if they had to check ID’s or to guard entrances.

Bob Welsh said he’s sorry Atkins isn’t present because he raised the question about the meaning of partnership. He said White's meaning of partnership is to his satisfaction: that the County sponsored programs would be on an equal basis with City sponsored programs, which has never really been the case. White said he thinks that was the concept of partnership from the beginning and now the County has no programs that it’s administering. White said another point to consider is the philosophy of Senior Services. White said 20 years ago there were 2 basic models for Senior Centers, they were an umbrella for all Senior Services or they were a facility that housed Senior Services. The present Senior Center is a mixture of those, which has caused problems in the past. Welsh indicated that he has problems with the proposed 28E agreement, which is the role of the Senior Center Commission in terms of practice and intent. He said he’s a strong believer that the elected officials are the ones that need to make policy and the committees and commissions make recommendations. In his memorandum of January 4th, he would suggest funding of the Senior Center this coming year with the understanding that it is not a long term commitment and that in the coming year the City needs to determine how it wishes to administer the Senior Center. Welsh also suggested a lower amount then the 20%, based on discussions 2 years ago by the Senior Center Commission. Welsh said the idea that if the County changes its funding means that there is going to be guards at the Senior Center is unrealistic. Welsh said he hopes the Board considers a participation agreement. Welsh said that Honohan makes a valid point about the timing of that, so he hopes the Board would make a one year extension. From his perspective, Welsh said, the Board is not in favor of having a situation where the people who live in rural areas of Johnson County are going to be charged a fee to come to the Senior Center, the Board is willing to recognize that as their responsibility. He said he thinks people need to realize that the Board is seeking to be cooperative.

Young said she has with the Senior Dining program not being run by the County anymore. She is concerned that it continues to be a good program, along with Meals on Wheels. Young requested that they also look into improving the diabetic dinner. She said budget constraints seem to prevent an alternative vegetable that has less carbohydrates, when a high carbohydrate vegetable is used as the vegetable of the day.

White said he would start by confessing a bias in favor of the existing agreement. He said he won an award, in part, for this agreement in 1983. White said the existing 28E Agreement was and still is a remarkable document furthering intergovernmental cooperation. He said part of its beauty, in his opinion, was its brevity. And it has worked for 20 years without a great deal of discussion. Nearly from the beginning of the adoption of the agreement, regardless of how the agreement worked, some of the implementation was different then anticipated. How well it worked probably depended on ones perspective. When the County needed more room for the Adult Day program, the Senior Center Commission didn’t view that as high a priority as the County did, which was a disappointment. When the County needed more room for SEATS, the Senior Center Commission didn’t view that as a high priority. Both of those programs left the Senior Center with some ill will between the City and the County. White said the City, in the County’s judgement, never understood, the importance of Senior Dining to the County. White said that for Atkins to say that the shift from the County to Elder Services was ho-hum, demonstrates the gulf that has existed all these years. It was a landmark shift from the County’s perspective, and the City clearly does not understand the significance. White thought Atkins accurately reflected the City’s view of that. In one sense the County has grumbled for years that the City has not fully understood the importance of Senior Dining to the County, White said. He continued that one of the things the County needs to assess is if it meant too much. He asked if it was important to the County that they administer it or if it was important that the program exists at that location.

White said the County historically had a philosophical disagreement with the roles of the City Council and the Senior Center Commission. He said if you look at the literal language of the ‘81 agreement, it shows it envisioned the City Council and the Board of Supervisors being the decision makers and the Senior Center Commission being an advisory body. The Senior Center Commission in reality has become the decision maker, but for the budget, which the City Council passes on, White said. The County has had a hard time getting used to that, partly because the County structured differently. The Supervisors are much more hands on than the City Council is. He said he didn’t want to get into a discussion of both of those approaches, because there is merit in both of them. White said one of the ironies is that for better or worse the two sides were getting pretty close to an agreement. The last draft that Honohan produced did recognize what had become the role of the Senior Center Commission. It also recognized what had been a sore point for the County: in an attempt to try to make the relationship better, the Board appointed one of its own members to the Senior Center Commission, the City trashed her. He said he meant literally, trashed her, by accusing her of having a conflict of interest. He said they’ve talked through that and worked through it. The City has indicated by the last draft, that they’re willing to accept that the Board can send one of its own members to the Senior Center Commission. He said he suspects that is a somewhat grudging change on the City’s part.

White said there is one part of the agreement that has never been understood. Legal options aren’t just whether to continue or to terminate which is built into the budget procedure. White read from the current 28E Agreement: On or before February 15th of each year Johnson County shall transmit to Iowa City a resolution of commitment to fund 20% or in an amount otherwise determined by the County. White said as a practical matter that has been ignored, the County hasn’t been doing the resolutions. White said it is covered in that last phrase that there might be a year where the Supervisors didn’t want to terminate the agreement, but wanted to fund something less then 20%, so they transmit this resolution by February 15th of their willingness to fund X instead of 20%. The effect of that is to say to the City Council, the County wants to participate this next year, but not at 20%, this is the amount the County wants to participate at. Then the City is left with the decision whether to accept that amount or terminate the agreement. White said it’s not coincidental that the February 15 date falls ahead of the 120 day termination, which this year would be March 2nd. The purpose of that was to give the City a couple of weeks to react to a Board decision to fund less then 20% and to decide if it was willing to do that for the succeeding year. White said that he was not advocating that they do that, he only wanted to make clear that the author of the agreement at least views there to be a middle ground within the existing agreement.

White said the reason that this agreement was part of a national organizations decision to give him an award was precisely because it is a unique method of delivering a service inter-governmentally. He said the people that read the agreement said "my goodness, Iowa City and Johnson County have created a model approach for more than one governmental entity funding a service location." What they understood was there was a facility being opened with in a City and the County had decided as a matter of its policy that it wanted to fund 20% of its operating cost. White said that his feeling is that the County may now be putting more importance on the change in administering Senior Dining then the County should. He said the program is important, but the program is still there. White said as a veteran of a variety of inter-governmental efforts, it’s frankly going to be wishful thinking to go to all of the Cities of Johnson County to say they want to change the agreement. White said his bottom line, historically and current perspective is that the agreement is OK. White said the real decision the Board now faces is, was the administration of Senior Dining the primary and only reason that they had an agreement with the Senior Center. He suggested it may well have been the primary reason when the County entered into the agreement in 1981, but it doesn’t necessarily have to mean the end of the agreement or the philosophy that is embodied in the agreement. If the Board wishes to continue for year at a 20% funding, the Board needs to do nothing other then include the 20% in the County’s budget. If the Board wishes to do something for the next fiscal year other than the 20%, then they need to pass a resolution by February 15th so the City has time to decide whether or not it is acceptable.

Harney asked if the Board had to pass a resolution to continue the current contract as is for one year. White said no. Harney asked if they would have to put something in to review if they could gather the statistics that the Board is looking for. White said if the Board’s goal is to gather more data to engage in an analysis, all the Board would have to do is ask the Senior Center Commission to do that. White said in his perspective, through Thompson’s participation in the Senior Center Commissions, the Board does have more impact on their decision making than the County had before she joined. He said his sense is that they are listening, partly driven by financial need at this point, more than just inherent interest in listening. He doesn’t think the Board needed to do anything other than decide what type of information they would like to have gathered. Harney said his concern is that if the Board decides they want to review the agreement and do something next year, the City needs notice. White said the way the agreement works, is it goes on automatically until either side terminates it with a 120 day notice, which is March 2nd. Honohan said he thought they had the notice. He said he thinks they’re on notice and what they’re asking for is that they have 12 months from now, before the next time budgets are submitted, so they can be working on it during that time period. He said then they can get all the players involved. White said as a personal philosophy, County government needs to be open to the role of being a Countywide service delivery mechanism. He said they ought to look at all sort of options that are not currently looked at for service delivery packaging, Swisher, Shueyville, Lone Tree, Oxford and even University Heights who alone have difficulty delivering service. The County is a vehicle that has the mechanism to collect taxes Countywide for Countywide services. White said he thinks that the County still isn’t doing enough inter-governmental service delivery.

Lehman followed up with the comment that society is judged by how it treats its weakest members. The Board is judged on how fair they are to all residents of Johnson County. He said that is their job as elected officials, unfortunately sometimes it comes down to putting a dollar value to the quality of life. He said they have to prioritize their budget. Lehman said the discussion came up with the change in the contract of Senior Dining. He said he’s confident that Elderly Services are going to continue on, he doesn’t think that people are going to see a change. Even though Johnson County isn’t a provider of those meals, he thinks that Johnson County residents are still participants at the Senior Center. He said because of this time table and in fairness to other communities, their budgets allow adequate time to adjust, he said he was in favor of looking at some type of continuation of what they have for short term.

Stutsman said she wasn’t ready to say today that the Board can continue to fund the Senior Center at 20%, until the Board gets further into the budget process. She said she thinks everyone has a commitment to continue the services. She said she’s been on the Board for 6 years and she feels that this is going to be the worst budget year that she’s ever been through. For that reason, she said, everything is on the table and she isn’t ready to commit today to the 20%. She said she will do her best to see that the County can honor that, but she thinks they need to approach it cautiously. Neuzil agreed with Stutsman. He said as they go into their second round of budgeting, they will recognize how much money they have to work with. He said they have to spend within their limits. He thought the entire Board was not looking at making any drastic changes. He said right now they were looking at a go slow approach. He said the Board has to be realistic, because they don’t have the money they had in the past. He said the Board needs to get a good understanding of where they are and there’s no doubt that a message has been sent. He said he had no doubt that there would be a change in the types of formulas that they have in the future when it comes to this agreement. He said he didn’t see that happening this year.

Harney said for himself, he wanted to state that the Board is going to try to live by its commitments, but they’re also going to have to make some adjustments. Harney said the Board needs to look at all the places where they put their money: in Human Services, in Senior Dining and in any of the programs that the County supports as well as United Way. He said they have a budget they’re going to have to meet, but those dollars are not there. He said the Board is not trying to pick on one, they’re trying to look at their priorities and set their budget accordingly. Stutsman said today they have basically committed to continuing the 28E at least for another year and entering into a process of working together so it more accurately effects where everyone was at today. Stutsman said she wanted to make sure they were not at this point a year from now. That they’ve committed to something and that they’ve made progress in working towards that. Honohan said that is the feeling of the Commission too. Thompson said she felt a strong commitment to the partnership or she wouldn’t have served 2 terms the Senior Center Commission. Thompson said she thought White made a good point when he says it’s a unique method of delivering services and they should feel good about it. She said what she hears today is that they’re committing to discussion later. Honohan said on behalf of the Commission, he would like to thank the Board for letting them to meet this morning. He said he thinks good things are going to come out of it. Thompson thanked him and told him the Board appreciates his work on the last draft. She said they’ve come along way with that.

Adjourned at 11:00 a.m.

Attest: Tom Slockett, Auditor

By Mark Kistler, Recording Secretary