Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
County aging staff propose two senior‑center funding models; commissioners ask for fiscal notes
Loading...
Summary
Sedgwick County Aging staff presented two budget‑neutral senior‑center funding models (75% base/25% competitive and a strict formula with performance metrics). Commissioners sought fiscal notes, protections for small/high‑need centers and clarity on where a recent $50,000 reallocation came from.
Steven Shaughnessy, director of Aging & Disabilities, told the commission that an advisory subcommittee and focus group work produced two refined options for distributing aging‑mill levy dollars to senior centers.
Option 1 is a hybrid model that allocates a 75% participation‑based baseline and holds 25% for a competitive request‑for‑awards (RFA) pool intended to incentivize innovation and let centers apply for expansion or pilot projects. Option 2 is a formula‑driven model that ties 75% of funding to tiered base allocations and the remainder to performance metrics (service diversity, growth/outreach and community partnerships).
Steven said the subcommittee endorsed Option 1 as the more predictable path and that the hybrid structure was meant to preserve multi‑year baseline funding for centers while still allowing targeted competitive awards. Commissioners raised concerns about the potential for significant reallocations under either model and asked for fiscal impact modeling that identifies "winners" and "losers" if the county moves funds between in‑home/community services and senior centers. Commissioners also pressed for safeguards for small centers that do not receive city support (Oak Lawn, La Familia) and noted a prior $50,000 reallocation came from in‑home and community‑based services.
What happens next: staff will take feedback back to the advisory subcommittee, finalize RFA details if Option 1 is pursued, and produce modeling in the budget decision‑package process so the commission can weigh tradeoffs during May hearings.
Why it matters: the aging mill levy was approved by voters as a county‑level levy and funds key services for older adults in the county. The commission must decide how to balance predictability for existing centers with incentives for service expansion while avoiding unintended closures of high‑need centers.
