(PLEASE NOTE: MEETING LOCATION and TIME)
Committee Members Present: Margot Antonetty (co-chair);
Others Present: Raymond Banks, Ivan E. Pratt, Laura Thomas, Dana VanGorder,
Pam Sims, Elizabeth Colomello, Brian Basinger. Chris Callandrillo, Sherilyn
Adams,
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Skot Jonz, Hyla Breidenbaugh, Joe Lynn
1. Introductions
CM Antonetty called the meeting to order and everyone present introduced themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Group reviewed the agenda. CM Thomas moved to approve the agenda. CM Banks
seconded. There were no changes recommended and the agenda was approved by
consensus.
3. Review and Approval of Minutes-May 11, 2005
The group reviewed the minutes from the May 11, 2005 Housing Work Group meeting.
CM Thomas moved to approve the minutes. CM Banks seconded. There were no
changes and the minutes were approved by consensus.
4. Announcements
Jack announced that one of the focus groups with the needs assessment working
group is for the homeless population. This needs to be defined and will help
inform this group as well as the needs assessment.
CM Thomas followed up that this working group could add questions to the homeless
focus group and mentioned that no date has been set.
CM Antonetty mentioned that she could also help in putting a group together.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Review and Discussion of Consultant Visit
Group will review and discuss recent visit by HRSA Consultant, Harold Phillips.
Margot mentioned that the minutes from the previous meeting on May 11 were
very thorough and covered most of what took place.
Group discussed conversations with Lorenzo Taylor (Project Manager for SF EMA)
following up on the consultant visit.
CM Antonetty mentioned that Harold Phillips called and wanted to know about
the status of the proposal regarding the housing case management budget item.
She reviewed how Mr. Phillips was working on his proposal and gathering information.
Jack reviewed comments made at the last Steering Committee meeting. Group agreed
that the proposal was withdrawn, and Michelle and Brenda of the AIDS Office
received the proposal. After they have an opportunity to respond, then it can
go back to Steering.
CM Thomas discussed that it should go to Steering soon and get on the Planning
Council meeting.
Jack stated that it was necessary to alleviate concern from the AIDS Office
about receiving directives from a subcommittee rather than the Planning Council.
Dana asked when the group would hear back from Mr. Phillips.
CM Antonetty stated that he would give his proposal to HRSA, and once they
can come up with a compromise it will be sent back to San Francisco Planning
Council to review.
Jack stated that it will be a presentation to the Council from HRSA and will
not require a vote.
7. Discussion of Proposal for Service Category Reassignment/Reallocation
Group will discuss issues with regard to proposal for service category reassignment
and reallocation to more accurately reflect housing costs, and develop a recommendation
to present to Steering Committee.
CM Antonetty provided a draft Subcategory Reassignment Proposal (Copy of file
at Council Support Offices). Group members reviewed. CM Antonetty discussed
thoughts about dividing the subsidy programs to pull out direct services and
operating expenses. If support services ends up getting cut, what good is it
to have money in operating if there is not money in services to support it?
She mentioned this is merely for semantic reasons, and suggested that this
matter needs more thought. Group discussed that operating expenses include
fiscal management, support services, intakes, staffing, and other services
needed to conduct programs. CM Antonetyy discussed that this might amount to
another $2 million.
CM Banks asked about how the reduction of $1 million would affect the subcategories.
CM Antonetty reviewed the attached table and discussed that the programs would
stay the same and provide the same services, but that the case management comes
out of the housing subsidy budget item, which makes it look like SF EMA spends
more money for housing than is actually spent.
CM Thomas reiterated how the reassignment and renaming of the budget items
actually changes no services and hopefully creates a situation where HRSA is
not so concerned.
Brian Basinger commented about rationalizing the process.
Sherilyn discussed how this could affect the prioritization process, when the
housing costs are protected and the staffing costs are not protected, which
in turn could compromise the housing programs. She emphasized the need to ensure
that people are sure of what is being prioritized and understanding how they
are connected.
Sherilyn asked whether it was really important to reduce this number.
CM Thomas mentioned that Harold is aware of the situation, with the CARE Act
up for reauthorization, and there is a lot of action to make the CARE Act specifically
about direct health care, and services such as housing should not be included.
HRSA has been directed to determine why so much money is going into these other
services. Whatever the Council can do to make these figures look smaller, the
less attention it draws.
Group discussed the need to clarify this so that in the future it is understood
that case management for housing and support services is in this category and
protected, and the Council needs to make a conscious effort to do so. By inadvertently
cutting that category for other reasons, it could potentially cause problems
for housing programs.
Group discussed moving the proposal forward and to look at the programs listed
on the document; over the coming six to nine months, do some review and analysis,
provide a recommendation to Steering at that point. CM Thomas mentioned that
it would be a good idea to move this proposal now.
Brian Basinger commented about the Mayor’s Housing and Homeless budget,
and asked whether if resources could be leveraged from another source, such
as Care Not Cash to cover these programs of support services in the interim,
so money could be used for housing.
CM Antonetty stated that regarding the Mayor’s budget it has already
been decided where the money is going, which is not specifically targeting
HIV-positive populations.
Group discussed that there are too many competing interests for these dollars
and it is unlikely that HIV-positive people would be prioritized over other
people.
Group discussed other programs and funding sources and challenges around using
CARE dollars for housing needs.
CM Thomas suggested removing the final sentence in the footnote, or indicate
that grantee staff will do an assessment and return to the Council with a recommendation.
It was suggested to add another paragraph in the proposal, indicating the reason
for putting this in a separate subcategory is that certain housing programs
rely on these supportive services.
The intent to put it in this subcategory is for the Council to protect them.
Also make the point that no services will actually change, just the allocation.
Group discussed what to call this subcategory and agreed that it really didn’t
matter much as it will be rolled up into the major HRSA category, as long as
it is not in the housing category. “Case Management in Housing Programs” or “Case
Management in Residential Programs” was suggested. If this is ever expanded
a different name could be decided on at a later date.
This will be taken back to Steering Committee after consulting with the AIDS
Office.
8. Review Frequency of Work Group Meetings
Group will review frequency of meetings and make changes as needed.
CM Antonetty thanked everyone for the twice a month meetings and indicated
that there has been a lot of work done in preparation for the consultant visit.
She commented that there is no longer the urgency as before. Nobody was against
the proposal of once a month meetings. Jack indicated that it was important
to have a meeting before the next Council Meeting when Harold would be presenting
his proposal. Group agreed to cancel the meeting scheduled for June 9, and
keep the meeting scheduled for the 23rd of June.
9. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
Group will discuss items for the agenda at the next meeting scheduled for June
9.
As discussed in the previous agenda item, the group will meet next on June
23. Potential agenda items include:.
Harold Phillips’ report
Report back on what the Steering Committee decided on the Proposal (to submit
to Full Council)
Recommendation from Work Group to keep Allocation the same for subcategory
of case management and the reasons, so Planning can take to Prioritization.
Group agreed that this group can make a recommendation directly to Planning without having to go through Steering first.
10. Meeting Adjourned
CM Antonetty adjourned the meeting at 5:53 pm
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee