April 11, 2006 Minutes (City Commission Room, City Hall)
|
MEMBERS PRESENT: |
|
Katherine Dinsdale, Jane Faubion, Kim Gouge, Helen Hartnett, Phil Hemphill, Loring Henderson, Barbara Hogue, Shirley Martin-Smith, Robert Mosely, Sara Taliaferro |
|
|
|
|
|
MEMBERS ABSENT: |
|
Ed Brunt |
|
|
|
|
|
STAFF PRESENT: |
|
Lesley Rigney and Margene Swarts |
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC PRESENT: |
|
Hubbard Collinsworth, Saunny, Norman Scraper, Bill Sims |
Hartnett called the meeting to order at 8:35 am.
Introductions
Members introduced themselves.
Approval of the agenda and the March 14, 2006 minutes
Martin-Smith moved to approve the agenda. Faubion seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Martin-Smith moved to approve the March 14, 2006 minutes with correction. Henderson seconded the motion, which passed.
Budget
Hartnett said the group will discuss current and future funding priorities. To start, Swarts agreed to give a brief summary of the process.
Swarts said the CCH is on a fast time line for the 2007 budget process. The deadline for budget requests from outside agencies was yesterday but Debbie Van Saun agreed to let the CCH submit an application today or tomorrow. It can be finished quickly based on today’s discussion. Staff will need some volunteers to put together the funding request. It is a simple application and can be submitted electronically. The city’s fiscal year is based on the regular calendar year. Regarding the 2006 request, the safety gear and transportation funds have not been expended and the group will talk today about how to spend those.
Henderson clarified what the role of the CCH was with this funding application.
Swarts said for 2007, she is assuming the CCH will ask for the same types of funding as this year, maintaining the status quo. Since Bert Nash has just started the case management process, the request can come from this body for those activities with the caveat that they will be administered in the same fashion as in 2006. For 2008, Bert Nash will have a better idea of the costs and will be better prepared to make a request.
Henderson said there was a little 24/7 money and there was a bit of paperwork confusion. Lawrence Community Shelter (LCS) had asked to receive the money directly and The Salvation Army (SA) had also.
Swarts said that for the future, it may be better to break down the amounts by agency. For 2006, it went in as a general 24/7 amount.
Martin-Smith asked if that was the charge of the CCH.
Swarts said it was part of the Task Force (TF) bulk request.
Martin-Smith asked if it would be appropriate to request that funding remain in place.
Swarts said what might be reasonable for the current year is for the CCH to recommend continuation of current funding and recommend to agencies that, for 2008, they will need to figure out how they will make funding requests.
Faubion said she found it very confusing. Looking at cost estimates, did TF request the money in the Plan?
Martin-Smith said no, cost breakdowns in the plan are rough estimates. It is more for informational purposes.
Hartnett said when the TF met with the CC regarding the Final Plan, pieces were picked out of the Plan that were financially feasible.
Swarts said what might happen is for 2007, the CCH will put forth what they believe is necessary to continue with current funding. At the same time, members may choose to take a closer look at the Plan and state what future priorities will be and which agencies they can see providing the services.
Hartnett said the job of the CCH is to implement the Plan, so we need to request that the city continue with what they are currently doing. Maybe the CCH should choose another small thing to request. Next year we will be in a better position to say “this is what we need.”
Henderson said in the current year budget there is 200K total allocated to homeless services from the general fund: 160K for Case Management, 30K for 24/7 shelter, and some smaller items. Perhaps with some tweaking, we will go forward with that amount for the 2007 recommendation. From his perspective, SA and LCS had agreed that SA would get 10K and LCS would get 20K since the increase in operation was less for SA, but they were making separate requests and this is one place where even a small increase would be helpful.
Swarts said in terms of a budget standpoint, and maintaining the status quo, members should take into account that costs increase from year to year. The CCH might consider a small increase to cover routine inflation, etc. It might be helpful if someone from the group will contact Bert Nash and determine how much it would take to fund the other ½ case manager position and maintain it for 2007. The group could then talk about next steps for implementing the Plan realizing that at some point agencies will be making their own requests.
Dinsdale asked if there were increased costs for the Community Cooperation Committee (CCC).
Swarts gave a breakdown of the 2006 budget allocation.
Dinsdale said the CCH needs to prove they are important. Looking at the Case Managers, without offering mental health outreach as well, the CCH may be setting them up for failure. She is wondering if they should push for some of that mental health outreach money for 2007.
Hartnett asked if the group was ready to start talking about what they want to request for 2007.
Henderson agreed to volunteer to help staff prepare the budget request.
Swarts said to talk about transportation and safety equipment.
Hartnett said that one request in 2006, as a portion of the jobs component, was safety gear and transportation. The question is how to distribute the funds.
Henderson said there are two parts to consider – this may be an example of being able to shift funds. He gets very few requests for safety gear but a vast number of transportation requests – he would like to shift funds. And, who are we talking about getting the money – is it LCS and SA or is it ECKAN, too?
Hartnett said to first talk about how the city gets the money out.
Martin-Smith said the money is there if agencies convene and identify people who are job read and need steel-toed shoes to go to work. She has a problem with just throwing the money out – she does not want it out there.
Henderson said he agrees, but it might be helpful if it were worded a little broader, such as job related. It could be a uniform – there are lots of requests for black pants and white shirts. If it is a job related fund, and that would be appropriate.
Martin-Smith said that when the jobs component is in place, the team will be in charge of distributing the money and this money will be in agencies and not available to the team.
Hartnett said Martin-Smith’s concern is one of distribution. Is 6K worth an RFP? How else can it be disbursed? She would prefer that it not be attached to any specific agency but somewhere where anyone served within the community who had the need could access it.
Taliaferro asked if there was some type of first-come, first-served model.
Martin-Smith said if they were considering distributing it to an agency, they should know that an agency is carrying out the objectives of the jobs component.
Henderson said we are already a fourth of the way through this year. It is too small of an amount to issue an RFP or to have the city distribute to individuals.
Hemphill said the only agency he knows of is LCS. Can LCS administer funds and notify other agencies that it is available so everyone knows it is open to everyone?
Dinsdale asked if ESC still ran the Back to Work room for women.
Swarts said that Vanderbilt’s works with the city for steel-toed boots, with vouchers. Something like that could be worked out with some vendor in town. With the ESC, Ballard gets none of the funds issued to ESC for administrative purposes – it all goes to direct client-assistance. That same model can be used for this. She talked with Cliff Galante, Transit Manager, who is concerned that there should not be a lot of vouchers distributed for the purpose of people riding around because they have nothing to do. She assured him that it was to be used for employment purposes. She knows of punch cards that can be used a week at a time. She suggested the group figure out how many dollars worth of punch cards are needed and which logical agencies are to disburse them. In return, those agencies can provide reports about whom and how many were issued passes.
Henderson said that they usually issue single-ride tickets because it gives them much more control. He would prefer that they be able to issue those. They have requirements, there has to be a reason for the bus pass to be issued. In addition, HMIS will show that bus passes have been issued so they would not be double-issued. He sees this money as replacing funds that are coming out of current donations. It will not be flooding the bus system.
Hartnett suggested keeping the money together and having a single agency distribute funds and not have these tiny little pots divvied up all over the place – keep it as a 6K pot for employment-related expenses.
Swarts said it would be necessary to figure out a process unless they feel comfortable assigning it to one agency.
Martin-Smith said each applying agency can give a one page summary of how they want to disburse the funds.
Swarts said if there is another agency that wants to do it, how are they going to offer them the opportunity?
Taliaferro said her idea was that they would not be issuing RFP’s for small pots of money. Is it necessary in the case of issuing it to a single agency?
Martin-Smith said that 2007 will look a lot different organizational wise. She doesn’t have easy answers, but we aren’t talking about a long-term use of this funding. If they ask LCS to do this, they can make it clear that this is an interim decision; the money is being shifted after the jobs component is available.
Henderson said it might be that he would provide a proposal about how he would distribute the passes and safety gear.
Taliaferro suggested gathering information from agencies about how they distribute the passes. If we find that other agencies have those needs, down the road, if we are doing a comprehensive job, we need to ask for more money if the needs are there.
Faubion moved to charge the LCS with the distribution of the 6K for transportation vouchers and safety gear and for Henderson to provide a brief description of how funds will be distributed. Gouge seconded the motion.
Henderson said he would work with the City Manager’s office and staff to complete the request and provide the description to the CCH in May.
Martin-Smith said staff had explained the 2006 budget, 196K from 209K. Should we hold the request to 209K? This would send a message that we are not trying to drain the city budget, with the anticipation that there will be a bigger request for 2008.
Henderson said that would allow for a slight increase in 24/7 for inflation, but still stay within the request. He has no idea how much to ask for, perhaps 33K instead of 30K.
Taliaferro said the CCH is supposed to do a lot of communication and promotion of programs – to be the PR agency for the CCH and the Plan. At some point, if the CCC is doing all of those things, it is possible they will incur meeting costs, printing costs, etc.
Hemphill said the city assumes inflation in their budget process.
Swarts said the various departments will include increases in salary/benefit costs, etc. When Departments put their budgets together they itemize expense projections, they don’t say “we will request an additional percentage to cover inflation.”
Swarts said it would be cleanest to identify actual items they want to fund and assign numbers to those items. State the activity and the amount you want it funded at. Explain why the 2007 request is greater than 2006.
Hogue suggested requesting the money to fund the additional ½ case manager.
Swarts said the key is to justify what it is you are asking for.
Gouge said if shelters need more money for 24/7 let’s ask for it. If we need money for the CCC to operate effectively, let’s ask for it. We won’t know what we need for the Case Managers until Henderson talks to Bert Nash.
Hartnett suggested a motion.
Hemphill said there is an amount of 209K, and asked if the group just needs to just figure out how to spend it.
Martin-Smith said she had suggested that but forgotten about the Bert Nash Case Managers.
Dinsdale moved to request the original 209K to include current Case Managers, 24/7 shelter, transportation, employment-related equipment and that they authorize staff and Henderson to talk to agencies to determine additional amounts required to account for inflation, CCC administrative support, and an additional ½ case manager to provide the original four case managers. Gouge seconded the motion.
Taliaferro asked if they could temporarily withdraw the motion to discuss the mental health outreach.
Gouge said the starting point is 209K, but Henderson and staff have the authority to add to that request. It is pretty clear.
Faubion clarified that 209K includes money that has not been spent – that there is 13K of flexibility.
Gouge said we may find out that 209K is enough or we may find that it is short.
Hartnett wants to be clear – is there a cap or not? She wants to be sure.
After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the motion was clear that there was not necessarily a cap on the 209K.
The motion passed, Faubion opposed.
Taliaferro clarified that the vote is finished and we will wait until 2008 to make a request for mental health.
Hartnett said the previous motion does not preclude anyone from making a motion to request additional funds.
Martin-Smith said even if they could reconvene the CCH to discuss the mental health component, the City needs numbers and they cannot come up with that in time.
Faubion moved to skip ahead to agenda item 6 – Study Session agenda. Martin-Smith seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
The CCH agreed to extend the meeting until 10:15.
CCC Update
Taliaferro said the CCC met Tuesday and will be meeting the first Tuesday at noon in the NR Department Conference Room. There are 15 members and all positions are filled. She made up a list of procedures and guidelines that the Committee is currently reviewing. They discussed how to get involved with the SA and LCS discussions and they are going to be observing for now. The next meeting will be putting together a list of community concerns. She gave them a description of the CCC as in the TF plan. She asked for questions. The will hold both 15-member committee meetings and town meetings during which all in attendance will be voting members.
Current Community Issues
Henderson stated that as part of LCS’ response to the CC’s request for action plan on how to work with neighbors they are doing three public forums at the library. Hartnett and Taliaferro have met with members of the shelter board and the CCC will be there in some degree to listen to the community. What they are working toward is a Good Neighbor Agreement.
Misc./Calendar
Swarts said the Study Session agenda was sent to the CC and to the CCH after approval by the Chairs.
Faubion said Hartnett would be chairing the Study Session and she summarized the agenda.
Martin-Smith said to clarify that the CCH is going to ask the CC to refer issues to the CCH at some point before it plays out in public.
Dinsdale is worried that others are not being included in the discussion.
Henderson we cannot have a community approach to homelessness unless all key agencies are involved in the discussion.
Faubion clarified that we are asking for timely notification of all policies and issues related to homelessness.
Swarts said the CCH could ask that staff be a little more proactive – the CC can make it clear to staff (Planning, Parks and Rec, etc.) that CCC and CCH are in existence and issues should be referred to them before it ever gets to the CC. There should be an education on the part of staff that these bodies are mechanisms for dealing with these issues.
Martin-Smith said if they want a holistic plan, instead of piece-meal, it will require a different way of thinking.
Faubion asked about the process for the Study Session.
Swarts explained the Study Session procedures. It is generally a conversation. The CCH has one hour.
Public comment
Scraper said in dealing with bus pass issues, he ends up getting a monthly pass because it is convenient. He does it through the SA. People in the homeless community – if they are going out to look for a job they give you two bus passes, one to get there, one to get back. If the employer wants them to get drug tested, they have to return to the shelter first in order to acquire more bus passes, and on and on. It can hamper the job search process. He suggested ways to get accountability for a 10-ride pass. It is a big problem for homeless – employers will not hire without reliable transportation and they do not consider the city bus reliable transportation.
Sims said he is concerned with issues regarding SA – it has been quite apparent within the homeless community that they have no intentions of providing services for the homeless community. They are proposing a whole new program that may work but it is not geared toward the homeless community at-large. It would be nice to hear from the CCH what they intend to do with the population not being served by the SA. Mental health and substance abuse issues are not being addressed by SA. He is also concerned that there is discrimination by the SA of gay and lesbian homeless and they are notoriously insensitive to minority groups. As a Commission, he would like to hear if the CCH looks at the homeless as a whole community.
Collinsworth emphasized the CCH and tools for communication. Where was the CCH at the meeting last night between East Lawrence and SA? Should he be the communication specialist for CCC to the CCH? He will e-mail the group to inform the committee of relevant meetings.
Hogue said it would be great to receive that information.
Adjourn
Taliaferro moved to adjourn the meeting. Mosely seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:15 am.