Committee Members Present: Billie-Jean Kanios, Don Soto, Ken Pearce, Ellen
Sweetin, Margot Antonetty
Committee Members Absent: Laura Thomas (co-chair), Chris Callandrillo
Other Council Members Present: George Simmons, Raymond Banks
Others Present: Susan Strong (Prioritization facilitator), Allison Westin,
Erika Takada, Michelle Long
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Skot Jonz
1. Introductions
Co-chair Soto called the meeting to order and those present introduced themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
Co-chair Soto asked committee members to review the agenda. There were no objections
to the agenda and it was approved by consensus.
3. Review/Approve Minutes – August 9, 2005
Co-chair Soto asked for feedback on the minutes from August 9, 2005. CM Pearce
moved to approved the minutes. CM Kanios seconded. All were in favor of approving
the minutes.
4. Announcements
There were no announcements.
5. Public Comment
There were no public comments.
6. Steering/ General Update
A monthly update of the Steering Committee activities and discussions and any
other Council/ Committee Updates.
CM Soto reviewed the draft minutes from the Steering Committee meeting. He
asked if anyone present had further details.
7. Needs Assessment Report Presentation
The committee will review and discuss the draft Needs Assessment Report.
Allison and Erika from Harder + Co. provided a report on the Needs Assessment and reviewed the latest draft of the report that was distributed to Council Members last Friday. (copy on file at Council Support Offices). She emphasized that the report is still in draft form, there are remaining sections that need to be flushed out. She added that the completed report will be provided to all Council Members at the Prioritization meeting on Friday, August 26.
Committee members reviewed the draft report and made comments.
Erika distributed an example of the service utilization data that will be provided
at the prioritization meetings. (Copy on file at Council Support Offices).
Each service category will have similar individual sheets. Allison also communicated
to committee members that there will be more flushed out narrative provided
to help explain some of these issues.
Both Allison and Erika explained how the final report will be bound with tab
separators and special instructions for how to best utilize the data. The purpose
of their presentation will highlight some of the key findings. Additionally,
an explanation of the methods used to obtain the data will be provided.
Erika emphasized to committee members that they are providing the data for council members to make their own conclusions, and they are not presenting the report in a manner to influence or sway the interpretation of the data.
The out of care population and severe need population will be focused on in the presentation, since this has been identified as a priority by council members.
Allison added that in addition to the data provided, there will also be narrative included regarding pitfalls of the provider survey, as well as any issues that need to be addressed in future needs assessments (such as follow-up on provider surveys, allowing more time for focus groups, allowing more time for turnaround of the report, etc.).
Allison encouraged anyone to attend the presentation review later this week, or to email comments by Thursday 10 a.m. She also invited anyone to email comments, questions, or concerns. She added that there have been several meetings over the past weeks where anyone could have come to provide their input.
8. Moving/ Merging Service Categories- VOTE
The committee will discuss merging some of the service categories.
CM Soto reviewed the matter regarding moving/merging service categories. One
primary concern was the change to move case management, to “housing case
management.” Nobody else was aware of any other categories to be moved
or merged.
CM Antonetty distributed a draft “Subcategory Reassignment Proposal” (copy on file at Council Support Offices) and reviewed with committee. Committee discussed. CM Antonetty informed committee members that the HRSA Consultant will be providing his report this Thursday via a conference call at the Housing Working Group meeting.
CM Simmons stated his conflicts, since his agency provides housing services.
He moved to approve this proposal and forward to the Planning Council to be
voted on and adopted.
CM Pearce seconded.
Committee discussed.
Michelle Long expressed concern about creating a burden on the fiscal staff
each time a subcategory is created. She did not have a concern about moving
categories, but rather creating new categories. She indicated that there are
additional categories pending for COEs.
CM Simmons suggested doing this now, since there appears to be no other solution, and work with the AIDS Office and HHS to determine how to do it better in the future.
CM Antonetty recommended that this be done now because this is the time the Council makes the important decisions on these matters. She reiterated that every step made involves a consequence, but this matter needs to be addressed.
Co-chair Soto moved for a roll-call vote.
Council Support called the names of those present, and all voted in favor of
the proposal.
CM Simmons declared his conflict, and voted in favor. CM Banks chose not to
vote.
CM Antonetty mentioned that she would clean up the proposal and bring it to
the prioritization meeting on Saturday for discussion.
9. Prioritization and Allocation Recommendations (Continued) VOTE
The Committee will continue to determine additional recommendations to be made
to the Full Council regarding Prioritization and Allocation.
Co-chair Soto asked if anyone had any other recommendations.
CM Pearce made a motion that the tallies at the end of Day 1 on the categories
order will be the starting point for discussion on Day 2.
CM Soto seconded.
Discussion on the motion. None.
Co-chair Soto called for a roll call vote: All in favor. CM Banks chose not
to vote.
ACTION: Committee discussed that the issue with regard to the housing case
management subcategory, be clarified on Day 1.
ACTION: Committee Members asked to have the Priority Setting Worksheet fit
onto a single page by using a smaller font.
ACTION: Committee asked to have a second Priority Setting Worksheet available in the event the Council approves the proposal. Note: this requires a change to the draft agenda.
ACTION: Make the second form (pending approval of the housing case management subcategory) clearly distinguishable from the first by printing it on another color (pink was suggested).
Committee discussed the matter with regard to COEs and whether they should be held harmless in the presence of other category cuts. CM Simmons suggested that if the cut is more than 10 percent that the COEs should not be held harmless, and this was identified as a topic for discussion in the next agenda item.
CM Soto explained that the COEs are being grouped together, rather than separating out Bayview or Southeast Corridor. In other words, COEs are being referred to in general, rather than individually.
Michelle asked about where the Southeast Corridor would be included.
CM Pearce indicated that the issue was whether or not a specified dollar amount
would be held out, or let the AIDS Office determine the specific amount for
Bayview.
Michelle stated that through a solicitation process, it was determined who
would get how much. Each year, it is looked at again, and it is an implementation
issue. The money is allocated and the programs will start. She explained in
detail how the AIDS Office will determine how it is decided what amount will
be allocated to each COE.
Michelle indicated that updates will be given on how the Council allocated and prioritized dollars with regard to new programs, by service category. She stated that the motions being entertained will not provide any further information.
CM Pearce asked whether the Bayview should be referred to separately.
Michelle explained the process.
CM Simmons confirmed that all COEs will be flat funded, if they take cuts all
COEs will take cuts. No specific COE is being held up higher than the others.
Michelle indicated that if the Council says to cut 10% from the COEs that amount
will be cut from all of them, and none will be held separately.
Susan asked about clarification regarding the COE concept and prioritizing
HRSA categories.
Committee clarified.
CM Banks asked about when funding was more plentiful no money went to Bayview.
Now that funding is being cut, and now that there is action to give more money
to the underserved area, they are faced with cuts. He stated that there has
been a disappointing response on the part of the Council because that area
is in dire need.
10. Funding Scenarios Recommendations (Continued) VOTE
The Committee will determine recommendations to be made to the Full Council
regarding funding scenarios.
CM Soto pointed the committee to the document “proposal for funding
scenarios” (copy on file at Council Support Offices).
Committee discussed the need to know how much from each service category is
being used within the COE category. This causes confusion because it is unclear
about how much is actually being cut from a service category, if some of that
money from the service category also goes to the COE.
Michelle indicated that there is no way to know this at this time, as they
have not completed negotiation of the contracts yet. Michelle emphasized that
the information will not be available.
CM Simmons suggested that all categories need to share the cuts, and it is
not possible to wait due to the time necessary to respond to HRSA.
Michelle indicated that she understands the dilemma.
CM Banks asked if this is an ongoing situation, how should it be remedied.
CM Simmons clarified that this is a one-time situation because $6 million or
more was allocated to COEs but it is unsure how that will be allocated in the
subcategories. It will be more clear next year, once it is seen how the money
was spent.
Committee discussed that it would be difficult to support these funding scenarios,
based on the lack of information available.
CM Pearce suggested an across-the-board cut, and a protection of core services.
Susan Strong asked if there was any historical information available that might
be useful in helping to make a decision.
Committee discussed that the top four to five categories have been re-arranged
in order, but have not changed.
Michelle indicated that preliminary budgets from the contractors are available,
but it is still tentative, and there could be changes. She indicated that she
could talk to staff and suggested that some “ballpark” information
could be provided with the caveat that it could change.
Committee agreed this would be helpful.
CM Simmons stated he would not support any of the funding scenarios proposals presented here. He suggested protecting core services, and cutting all equally.
CM Simmons made a motion to have an exercise at the prioritization meetings
to identify the difference between core and non-core services at the local
subcategory level because that is how allocations will be done.
Committee discussed.
CM Pearce suggested not getting into a bind with defining core and non-core
services.
CM Simmons withdrew his motion.
Michelle was asked for guidance in identifying a different term. She suggested that it is mixing apples and oranges.
CM Pearce made a motion using the proposal identifying top tier and bottom tier (instead of core and non-core) for essential and non-essential service categories. This will be done on the local subcategory level.
First identify categories as top tier or bottom tier. Top tier means most essential, most important to fund with CARE dollars. Bottom tier means important but not essential or less necessary to fund with CARE. This will be done at the local sub-category level.
CM Simmons seconded.
Committee discussed.
Co-chair Soto asked for a roll call vote. All in favor.
The group ran out of time. It was agreed by Committee to continue discussion.
CM Antonetty made a motion that the group continue 20 more minutes.
CM Soto seconded.
All in favor of continuing the meeting for 20 additional minutes.
Michelle asked for an email to be sent to her and her staff identifying what
budget information and models are wanted for the Council to make its decision.
She wants it in writing as soon as possible so that staff can complete the
request and it will be seen that HHS and the AIDS Office is providing everything
needed.
Provide the best-guess ballpark figures for the subcategory breakout of funds
provided to COEs. It is worth having some information, rather than none.
The specific requests for Michelle are: the base budget from this year with the flat-funding scenario, and a ball-park estimate of COE sub-categories allocations based on HRSA categories, and the summary of unspent funds.
Michelle indicated that a summary of unspent funds from last year will also
be provided.
It was discussed that it is important to have this information in the event
the proposal is not approved, and the funding scenarios for cutting COEs is
up for debate.
ACTION: Add agenda item for the EXERCISE TO IDENTIFY CORE & NON-CORE SERIVCES AT LOCAL SUBCATEGORY LEVEL.
ACTION: CORE HRSA CATEGORIES BOLDED on Service Category Worksheet to help stand out.
No other items were mentioned for discussion. No other motions were made.
11. Review Small Group Assignments
The Committee will review and make changes to the small group assignments for
the Prioritization and Allocation meeting.
Co-chair Soto indicated that since the group was out of time, he would review
with Jack Newby.
12. Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
The next Planning Committee meeting is scheduled for September 13. Potential
agenda items were not discussed.
Co-chair Soto adjourned the meeting at 6:20 pm.
Mission Statement: The Planning Committee, as the Council’s forward
looking body, plans and coordinates a timely and relevant prioritization process
to ensure an effective annual prioritization, consistent with the Council’s
Three Year Plan.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee