(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
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.
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 Group agreed that the proposal was withdrawn, and Michelle and Brenda of the AIDS Office received the proposal.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
Community Outreach & Advocacy
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Membership Committee | Planning Committee | Steering Committee