Human Services Board

hsb0910b.doc (37 KB)

Members Present: Alexander, Bowers, Fabisiak, Dippel, Fordham, Stoeckmann, Sinklair, Lombard

Members Excused: Vertein

Members Absent: None

Others Present: Orth, Brattset, Box

Chair Alexander called the meeting to order and certified compliance with the Open Meeting Law.

Motion by Fordham, seconded by Dippel to adopt the agenda. Motion Carried.

Motion by Bowers, seconded by Fabisiak to approve minutes of the previous meeting. Motion Carried.

Public Comment: 

None

Communications:

None

Business Items:

• A. Review and Approval of Monthly Vouchers: Box distributed the monthly voucher report (see attached). She reviewed the following aspects: Salary and Benefits were up due to timing of the pay period. Administration was also up due to Family Care contributions due. Community Treatment was down due to less utilization this month. Energy Assistance was down due to fewer bills this month from this area. Sinklair asked if the Family Care payment was per budget. Box indicated that yes, it is due at this time. Motion by Sinklair, seconded by Dippel to approve the monthly vouchers in the amount of $2,235,520.62. Motion Carried.
• B. Review Quarterly Board Reports: This topic was deferred until the October Human Services Board Meeting.
• C. Outside Agency Request Presentations:Central Wisconsin Community Action – Fred Hebert: Mr. Hebert could not attend the meeting, however, Mr. Craig Gaetzke presented a request for $7,500 for CWCAC (see attached describing programs). Mr. Jeske also reviewed flood repair dollars that were approved in 2010 as payment for homeless projects. A review of CWCAC programs was done including weatherization, food pantry, homeslessness and audit summary.
  • Hope House – Jess Ritschke: Ms. Ritschke spoke about Hope House and staff. She noted legal advocates are now attornies and some staff now have master degrees, which should help enhance services. In addition, Hope House has bought a new building in Baraboo (former Magdeline House). Programs will all be in one building and the site will be known to the public. This will help in being a community presence and resource. Ms. Ritschke also spoke about Hope House education outreach to schools and youth (see attached handouts).
• D. Discussion of Outside Agency Requests: Motion by Stoeckmann, seconded by Fabisiak to approve CWCAC request of $7,500. Discussion: Bowers asked Fordham about CWCAC. Fordham indicated that CWCAC’s programs are not in question, but she continues to reserve some concerns about management, however, it is positive that there is a board member participating with CWCAC to assure that the county dollars are being spent well. Motion Carried.
  • Motion by Fordham, seconded by Fabisiak to support Hope House at $25,000, per their request. Motion Carried.
• E. TMG Study Preliminary Results: TMG presented the results of the study (see attached study materials). Mr. Gerry Born, Heidi Pankoke, and Robert Lefeber each presented components of the study. There were three compenents to the presentation: a financial summary, department organizational summary and a billing summary. During the financial summary (see attached) Lombard asked, are these unfunded mandated services or are they optional? Mr. Lefeber noted that the study did not address this issue. However, Mr. Born indicated CSP and other such programs are defensive and cost preventative programs. Other programs such as Economic Support are subsidized, by the state and state aids, however, lower than they cost to administer. Sinklair noted that he is concerned that funding for various programs is unpredictable and therefore it is difficult to pursue conclusions until there is better stabilization in the funding sources. Mr. Born indicated that Family Care risk has been eliminated soon by the state, so this is a positive for the fiscal situation for counties. In the organizational review, Ms. Pankoke reviewed the current organizational structure, opportunities for improvement and other county health and human services functions. In reviewing the department structure, Ms. Pankoke reviewed model which reduces units of the human services department from nine to four units (see attached). This consolidates units and will increase the integration of behavioral health and children and families units. Economic Support would continue to stand alone and business and administration/support could be consolidated. Implications were reviewed as noted in the handouts. In addition, other county health and human services department functions were reviewed (see attachment 3, pages 1-3, and attachment 5, page 1), along with implications of optional changs. Alexander noted that he likes option number 3 combined with option number 4. Ms. Pankoke also explained in option number 4 there could be subcommittees as well as health and human services board. In addition, in areas such as billing, there could be consolidation for all health and human services departments. Lastly, billing opportunities were reviewed, stressing the importance of billing and collections as a priority for capturing all appropriate revenues.
• F. 2011 Budget: Orth noted that the 2011 budget was completed with the additions of the budget request from outside agencies. In summarizing, about a 3.2% levy increase was realized in the developmen of the 2011 budget. If necessary, this could be reduced, however, it may provide significant risk to service areas. Brattset stated that there have been discussions as presented in the TMG presentation and at other times to the Human Services Board that many programs prevent loss and by reducing or eliminating them, it could present a greater risk for costs. Fordham noted that although there seemed to be a 0% levy increase consensus among oversight board chairs, she did not agree that all departments should absolutely come in at a 0% levy increase. It does not make sense for certain departments, especially when services are impacted to citizens. Stoeckmann noted that we can’t reduce programs at the expense of citizens and higher risk costs. Fordham asked, what services that the county provides throughout the county are provided that are not needed? Fordham noted that this question is as of yet to be answered. The service decisions are county board decisions, however, Fordham noted that it is important to get imput from administration and department head. Orth suggested that the budget draft be submitted as read and if not agreed upon by the Finance Committee it could be sent back to be reconsidered.

Department Updates:

• A. Southwest Family Care Alliance Transition: Orth noted that the transition for employees will be on December 28, 2010 and employees starting new employment with Southwest Family Care Alliance would be on December 29, 2010. Letters will go out soon to employees regarding offers of employment for those employees that interviewed for positions with Southwest Family Care Alliance. Orth noted that the next step will be getting the names of accepted positions by September 20, 2010 with a follow-up meeting on September 22, 2010 to discuss individual employees on a person by person basis. Stoeckmann asked, will Personnel provide any counseling and services for employees that may be displaced? Orth will pursue this with Personnel. Bowers asked if there would be a rapid response from Workforce Development Board. Orth indicated he would pursue this question as well.
• B. Rescue and Restore Human Trafficking Training: Brattset reported that the Rescue and Restore Human Trafficking Training will occur on Thursday, September 23, 2010 at the West Square Building. This is a federally contracted training which has been done nationally and throughout the state. A handout was referenced which was in the board member’s packets. Registration is required, however, the training is free of charge.

The next meeting of the Sauk County Human Services Board is scheduled for Monday, October 4, 2010 at 5:00 p.m.

Motion by Bowers, seconded by Fabisiak to adjourn. Motion Carried.

Respectfully Submitted: Andrea Lombard