Commissioners, advisory council spar over proposed cuts to senior-center funding to expand home-care services

Trumbull County commissioners and the senior-services advisory council debated a proposal to reallocate levy money away from senior-center contracts toward in-home care and one-time home modification programs.

Director Diane (last name not provided) told commissioners she and the advisory council want to lower annual senior-center contract funding from $625,000 to $500,000 and redirect roughly $125,000 to expand homemaker/personal care and short-term programs such as home modifications and a pilot “doorbell” safety program. The advisory council said its priority is serving housebound seniors who are on lengthy waiting lists for in-home care.

Why it matters: Commissioners and many public commenters said senior centers are the key outreach and social hub for many older residents and that cutting center funding could reduce access to services, social contact and basic supports for thousands of county seniors.

Advisory-council case and staff budget context: The director presented the advisory council’s rationale: long homemaker and personal-care waiting lists (hundreds of clients) and rising demand for home-delivered services; council members argued that reallocating funds would allow the county to address the most urgent needs (bathing, in-home care, snow removal and grass cutting for homebound residents). The director said carryover and replacement-levy timing limit how much sustainable funding is immediately available and recommended one-time programs funded from carryover while using levy proceeds to fund longer-term services.

Public comment and center leaders push back: Senior-center leaders, vendors and the advisory council made extensive public remarks. Michael Wilson (SCOPE center treasurer) and the executive director of Access Family Services said the centers serve thousands of seniors and that some local centers rely on levy funds and local fundraising to operate. Several center directors and volunteer leaders described seniors who “would come to the door” for programming and said the centers provide social, nutritional and caregiving prevention services that delay institutionalization.

Commissioner reaction and process: Commissioners asked for more time and suggested the advisory council reconvene with commissioners before final action. Commissioners indicated they would not immediately cut funding without further review and recommended a collaborative process with the advisory council and senior-center operators to identify savings, grant opportunities and phased approaches. Several commissioners proposed extending current contracts to allow time for re-evaluation.

Results recorded in transcript: Commissioners agreed to extend current senior-center contracts through Oct. 31, 2025 to allow a new procurement cycle to be run at reduced funding levels unless the board decides otherwise; the board also asked staff to re-advertise senior-center funding at the lower $500,000 figure, pending further review, and to accelerate outreach for additional home-care vendors. The transcript records strong disagreement from senior-center leaders and vendors, and several commissioners urged more public meetings before final decisions.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to prepare revised budgets, to reconvene the advisory panel and to explore grant and partnership options (including consulting assistance) before the board takes any final funding action.