CTHPCA Members present: Parker Willson-Chair, Blair Hodgkins, and Mark Donberger.

BVCOG staff present: Crystal Crowell and Sherry Falgout

A quorum of four members of the AC is needed to approve or not approve the allocation adjustments and reallocation requests. However, only three members were present for the conference call. In addition, Mr. Hodgkins cannot vote on the Austin reallocation because that is his HSDA. The committee will need to vote via e-mail.

Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hodgkins, and Mr. Donberger agreed on the Temple Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation and the State Services 2005-2006 allocation adjustments.

The AC members disagreed on whether or not to approve the Austin Ryan White 2004-2005 reallocation request. The Administrative Agent informed the committee members that the purpose of the reallocation of funds into case management was due to a cut in case management dollars from Title III funds. [Note: It was originally thought that the provider requested the reallocation because of a loss of funds in case management from another funding source. Following the conference call, the Administrative Agency learned that the reallocation request was to address Title II funding cuts in the case management category, not Title III. The agency is also requesting a reallocation to address an overexpenditure of case management in Title II because a portion of ambulatory money was originally budgeted to cover part of a case manager's salary to serve as a clinical coordinator, but because the rural clinic wasn't set up until 6 months into the grant year, they were not able to charge ambulatory for that portion of salaries.]

Mr. Hodgkins expressed concern with the reallocation request and made the following points:
* The money should be allocated to service categories not to providers.
* The AC originally allocated money to the ambulatory and drug service categories, which have higher priority. Funds should not be reallocated from ambulatory/outpatient medical care (priority one) to case management (priority four).
* Only one month remains in the grant year and the provider had a year to adjust for this loss in funding. Others should have the opportunity to receive the money.
*The bulk of the clients are in Austin and most clients outside the EMA come into the EMA to receive services.

Mr. Donberger and Mr. Wilson made the following points in support of the reallocation:
*The reallocation request is for the case management service category not a provider. This provider was the only one to receive case management money.
*Without reallocation to case management, the agency would lose one case manager.
*This is a geographically challenged area with only one provider. The loss of a case manager would detrimentally affect the clients.
*Transportation is an issue for a rural area. Title II funds are used for the case manager to provide transportation for the clients.
*A change in funding or a loss of funding is reason for a reallocation request.

BVCOG will e-mail a summary of the discussion to the committee. The committee will vote via e-mail.