Working Group Members Present:
Margot Antonetty (co-chair); George Simmons (Planning Council Member); Sherilyn Adams (Larkin Street Youth Services); Lori Cook (Housing & Urban Health); Elizabeth Colomello (SF Redevelopment Agency); Michelle Long (SF Department of Public Health, HIV Health Services); Laura Thomas (Continuum); Brian Basinger (AIDS Housing Alliance); Courtney Pearson (SF AIDS Foundation); Robert Oropeza (Planning Council Member); Pam Sims (SF Redevelopment Agency); Dana van Gorder (SF AIDS Foundation); Richard Bargetto (Advocacy Project); Ken Pearce (Community Advocate); Charles Siron (Planning Council Member)
Council Support Present: Jack Newby, Susan Latham
1. Introductions
Co-Chair Antonetty called the meeting to order at 9:34am and those present introduced themselves.
2. Review/Approve Agenda
The working group reviewed the draft agenda and without objections it was approved by consensus.
3. Review/Approve the January 20, 2006 Minutes
Mr. Simmons moved to accept the minutes as written; seconded by Ms. Thomas.
The motion was approved unanimously.
The following announcements were made:
Brian Basinger announced
o 5th disabled person is on contract to buy a home; two African Americans and one Latino
o Section 8: invitations have been closed: Ms. Antonetty noted that a flyer will be sent out explaining why Section 8 has been closed.
o Evictions:
- People getting on lists
- Threat to client’s CARE subsidies: Ms. Antonetty noted that losing CARE subsidy is not something that is lost tomorrow; that development of a policy is being worked on
o Mr. Simmons congratulated HUH (Housing and Urban Health) and San Francisco Redevelopment Agency on opening The Plaza at 6th Street and Howard.
5. Election of Co-Chair – VOTE
Mr. Simmons nominated Sherilyn Adams, Larkin Street Youth Services; the election was approved by consensus.
6. Public Comment
There was no public comment.
7. Report Back from Conversation with HRSA (Health Resources and Service Administration)
Ms. Long reported on the HRSA conference call.
• Time limit with an “actual number"
• No formal appeals process
• HRSA releasing draft policy in 2006
• 30 days for comments after the draft is released > then, rewrite draft > 30 days for comments, again
• Recommend EMA (Eligible Metropolitan Area) request TA (technical assistance) for implementation
o There was no commitment for a Grandfather Clause
• The City would respond to HRSA policy
• There are not a lot of “ifs”, but “whens”
COMMENTS
• Policy is more restrictive than our recommendations, ex., timeframe/definition of “emergency” housing
• Policy does not adjust with market conditions in any EMA
• Policy will probably support extensions
• Exceptions for extensions based on individuals?
o Antonetty: based on individuals with appropriate documentation; ask contractor to request two objective verifications and certifications of case managers
o Clients had to sign statements that housing was temporary
o HRSA lays out absolutes, but it is up to the EMAs’ grantees, providers how to implement
• HRSA draft becomes policy after posting (usually) after six months
o Antonetty noted that 2000-1 policy reached us in approximately two years before anything was implemented, that the 2001 manual was released with the 1999 policies.
• When should the community be informed?
o Administration and psychological issues take a long time to make adjustments
o Van Gorder: planning communication to 350+ to explain what’s going on (very soon); i.e., SFAF has regular meetings
o Work with committee to figure out message and keep clients current
• Notify providers with suggestions
• Employment providers work in conjunction with housing providers
• What will our plan be approaching the City, i.e. backfill
• CARE and Addbacks = 3M
o 338K annualized + 27K General Funds addback (HUH) + private sector funds
• Create Talking Points to share with others
o clients need to plan accordingly
o providers may make different budgeting decisions
• Explore opportunities by publicizing the $137M City surplus
o HOPWA increased funding request
o Ellis Act: 85,000 PLWA in San Francisco, 545 need housing
• Housing may be disallowed or 75% required to be spent on core care
• Planning Council Members are meeting with the Board of Supervisors: Educational Project that discusses the impact of the CARE funds cuts. The City’s surplus exists today, but they are one-time only funds, creating a need to coordinate with MOH (Mayor’s Office on Housing) and the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. Schedule a meeting with MOH; meet with Michelle Long, DPH HIV Health Services
• TA is needed, more than analysis: The Planning Council, DPH, HUH need to work together to define needs, write a letter to HRSA requesting TA regarding CARE fund housing regulations and how it affects housing.
• Review Wait List, i.e., how can the list be changed regarding special sub-groups
• Who is not at this meeting?
8. Recommendation and Discussion of Response to the Policy
Comments on the presentation were discussed during the above item
9. Possible Next Meeting Date & Agenda Items
The next meeting date will be 9:30 – 11, Thursday, April 20th at the
same location.
10. Meeting Adjourned
Co-Chair Antonetty adjourned the meeting at 11:00 a.m.
Home |
Community Outreach & Advocacy
Committee
| Policy & Evaluation Committee | Evaluation
Committee
Membership
Committee | Planning
Committee | Steering
Committee