DRAFT – SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
|
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. For his own self, 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 can consider a small increase to
cover routine inflation, etc. It might be helpful if someone from the group
will contact Bert Nash and talk about how much it would take to get the other ½
case manager and maintain it for 2007. 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 themselves 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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
CCC Update
Taliaferro said the CCC met
Tuesday and will be meeting the first Tuesday at
Current Community Issues
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.
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
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