And thank you so much to the agencies that have already filled out this form.
I am also available
for questions,
comments or concerns, and
that is Tori
at hand
detroit.org which I'll also put in the chat. Applause. Thank
you Tori,
thank you Chelsea. Very timely announcements. Governor charter review. Just want to say to all of the individuals who have been meeting weekly for months, we really appreciate all of the hard work and the time that you are putting into this endeavor, understanding that it is taking longer than we initially anticipated, but that is for our good. So just want to thank you for maybe you didn't sign up for a three month period or a six month period, but we appreciate you staying the course as it pertains to the review of the governance charter, and I just wanted to just mention the training piece. Very excited to hear about standardized training across our community. We want to make sure that we are all sharing the same information with all of our customers and all of our guests. No matter what door they come into, they should be receiving the same information as it relates to what is happening and services that are going on within our continuum. So we appreciate the work that you are doing, Tori in that regard. So we're going to keep moving. I believe we are at time now for our consent agenda, we're going to minutes did already go out for those of you who have received them, hopefully you've had an opportunity to peruse them at your leisure, we're going to give you about a good 50 seconds to look at it one more again Before we move into the consent of that agenda. I
this particular action does require a motion?
Did we receive a first, a support? I'm sorry I did not hear that.
I motion to approve the July 2024 board minutes, meeting minutes,
thank you tiara and I believe Alan Second that so. Thank you tiara and Al.
Thank you. Thank
you. Thank you. While you are completing that assignment, we would like to move on to our next agenda item. Before we move into this portion of our meeting, we know that there are 5064 Wow, great. 64 individuals on the call today. The Detroit continuum of care is the umbrella organization that actually does a lot. We thank God that we have been privileged, as many other communities within the United States and others, to be able to administer the needed services, or to help our community do so and to lead that process. A part of that, a part of everything we do, there is a process for it. So we have a competition process which those of us who competing, we are very aware of the ins and outs of that competition. We are going to be we have already done a lot so far for some of our renewals. If you are a renewal and receive certain things, we're in the process now where we are continuing that discussion. So we're going to ask that you lend your attention and your time to Amanda, who's going to go through the 2024, COC project Priority Ranking policies. Thank you, Amanda.
All right, thank you. I'm going to share my screen. If you had a chance to see the agenda today, you'll notice that it's about it a lot. So. I'll just give you an overview of the various things that we're going to be talking about and voting on in today's meeting. So the first item that I'm going to be going over is our project Priority Ranking policies. At the end of my presentation, there will be a vote. All of our board members are eligible to vote on this item. So you know that will be prompted to do so when we get to it. Then we're going to move into a conversation on the appeals with the project, appeals and the voting for that. And there will be some board members who will need to be recused from that vote. Those votes when we get to it again, we'll get give some more details when we get to that, then I think we're on the agenda for a bit of a break. And then I'm going to come back and give an overview of the COC competition this there's actually two nofos notices of funding opportunity that are out right now, the regular COC NOFO, and then the COC builds NOFO. So we'll go over what that's all about after the break, although I will be referencing some things related to them in kind of the other parts of my presentation. The informational part after the break. There's no vote planned for those. So just to give you kind of a heads up of where we're going. Okay, let me start with the project Priority Ranking policies. So with this going to also give kind of a update on where we're at in terms of the COC competition, with some timeline items for us to be aware of. And again, at the end of this presentation, this is a voting item the board members, all board members are going to be asked to vote on. So just an update of where we are in the competition. I try to do these kind of updates monthly when we come to the board, just you see where we are in the process of what you're being asked to vote on. So some things that have shifted a little bit is now that had released the FY 2024, NOFO, we now know the due date of everything. Up until now, we had been operating with an assumption that the COC application and project applications were going to be due at the end of September. We now know the due date is October 30, at the end of October, which may impact some of our processes along the way, now that we have another month, but regardless, just as kind of an overview. So HUD released the NOFO on the screen we have says July. It was July 31 so technically it was still July. Also, throughout the course of July, we have been reviewing and scoring our renewal projects, new project applications were also submitted as of the end of July. Today, what the again, the board is going to be asked to vote on are these project Priority Ranking policies and the appeals recommendations. Also starting this month in August, we are kicking off the review of our new project applications that were just submitted the end of July, in September, at the September board meeting, we had initially had that slated where, at that meeting, the Board to receive the new project funding recommendations you see on this chart here. Now I have that kind of attentively there may there are some kind of new developments with the NOFO that may mean that these recommendations may come in a tentative manner to the board in September, with final decisions needing to be made in October. Some of that is going to still see how that plays out within the new project review process, but just know that in September and or October, the board is going to be asked to make decisions on new project funding. Also, as now that we are you have the NOFO the COC application is open. Can staff will begin the process of developing responses to the COC application, writing those responses, getting input from relative partners, so that by the end of October, we're ready to submit that application to HUD. So today the project Priority Ranking policy. So let's give some background on what these what this is all about. So when we talk about Project Priority Ranking, HUD requires CoCs to list their projects. So the renewal projects and the new new projects, we have to list them in a ranked order, literally numbered one through whatever however many projects we're submitting. It's usually around 45 projects or so. So we have to give them all a number and list them in a ranked order. And that ranked order is intended to be a reflection of how we are prioritizing those projects for funding. Locally, we are required to do this because HUD never guarantees that there's sufficient funding to fully fund all of the projects that we submit for funding. So as we go into this with the assumption that there's not going. Be enough funding available for us to get all of the projects that we submit for funding, we have to prioritize which projects. You know, as a prioritize. You prioritize those projects that, if we're sure, watching, ensure are funded, are going to be higher on the list versus those who are going to be lower on the list. The HUD uses that ranking list. Then, as they make their funding allocations, they allocate funding in accordance to how we have those projects ranked or listed. Also relevant to this ranking process is the concept of tier one and tier two. These tier one and tier two are financial thresholds that HUD sets that indicate essentially how much funding is available for projects. These are based on formulas that are set by HUD. Now that the NOFO is out, we have an idea of how much funding we have for tier one this year. Tier one again, that funding threshold is 90% of our annual renewal demand, or ARD the annual renewal demand is the sum total to renew all of our renewal projects for one year. So we take that dollar amount, multiply it by 90% that is our tier one. Tier one projects, or projects that are placed in tier one are highly likely to be funded by HUD. Those are the projects that we often think of as being guaranteed. If you see me say this enough, you know I always do guaranteeing air quotes because of the federal government, we don't control them, so I'm not going to guarantee something I don't have direct control over. Historically, in Detroit and elsewhere around the country, projects that are placed in tier one have been fully funded because that is essentially the amount of money that HUD is telling you. We have this much money for you, for your community. Projects that fall in Tier Two are at greater risk of not being selected by HUD for funding. This is really where a lot more of that competitive nature comes in to get those projects funded. The extent to which we are able to get tier two projects funded depends on how well we as a COC perform and score in comparison to other CoCs around the country. Again, when we talk about the continuum of care, competition, when we use that word competition, this is really where we see that come into play. So we as a COC are competing with other CoCs around the country for funding that we really see that competition come into effect when we talk about our tier two projects. The last point on this tier one, tier two issue is that any type of project can be in tier one over tier two, the new projects or renewal projects, projects of any type, permanent supportive housing, Rapid Rehousing, what have you. It's really it's up to the COC again to set those priorities. So as we go into kind of the aim of these recommendations or these kind of priorities. What are we hoping to accomplish with them? So a few things. So one is a really trying to meet the goal and the expectation that we are prioritizing projects for funding in a transparent in a performance based manner that we're able to clearly communicate to the community by projects are ranked the way that they are. Secondly, we do seek to align ourselves with expectations that we are using objective performance criteria when ranking our projects. There certainly are other criteria that we use locally when we are doing our application review process, but using objective performance criteria is also a big part of that. Thirdly, we really strive to make efforts to preserve funding for projects that continue to meet performance standards and continue to build needs in our community. And lastly, we really, we are seeking to prioritize projects for funding them align with our goals, such as ending chronic homelessness, couple more kind of points before we get into the policies themselves. So all projects must earn at least 70% of the points possible for their projects for in order to be placed on the Pride Project priority ranking list, to be submitted to HUD,
to be earned that 70% or be granted an appeal if they thought we load that 70% threshold that is part of our reallocation policy that was approved by the board that last month support meeting the policies that we're going to be going over today have been discussed and approved by the values funding priority committee. This committee spent a good amount of time over the past few months talking through these policies, these ranking orders. They also went out for public comment for about three weeks in throughout the. In July, early, late June, early July, they were out for public comment. We did receive three comments in the values of funding and priority committee also reviewed those comments and developed responses to them. We did not make any changes to the policies based on the comments we we received. We did receive those comments. The document in the board packet has a link to all of the comments we received and our response to them. That document is also posted on our website, so you can go and review those comments if you choose. Okay, I'm gonna just kind of dive right in so the this chart here, and what I'm going over as well. I should have said this, The was included in the board packet in more detail. So there's additional language, additional detail in the board packet. And may not be going through all of those, you know, line by line. But my 10 tiers to give you enough of an overview so that you can make a feel informed enough to make a vote. So this is an overview of the order that the projects will be ranked in by kind of major groupings of project types and the kind of major project priority ranking order. I'm going to be kind of going over these orders little bit more individually, but this is just intended to be an overview. Couple of things you're not going to see discussed here, the COC planning grants, or the yhdp youth homelessness demonstration program grants. So as we've talked about before, the COC planning money, those are funds that we do not include in the project ranking list. They're just based on how HUD funds them. They are not ranked, so you're not going to see that project there. Likewise, for our yhdp projects, this is the first year they're coming up for renewal, and likewise, HUD instructs us, instructs us to not include those projects on our ranking list. They will still be submitted for renewal funding, but just due to some of the uniqueness on how pod funds, those programs were not required to rank them. So they will be submitted for renewal funding. You're just not going to see them on the ranking list this year. So one significant change in the ranking policies from last year is how we are handling new projects funded with our COC bonus dollars and or any reallocation dollars. When we get into the rankings, you're going to see a recommendation that we rank approximately or up to $500,000 of new projects in tier one, with the remaining new project funding being placed in tier two. This is a new element to the ranking policies this year, and the rationale behind that was to really try to get some new projects funded in Detroit, excuse me, while also trying to mitigate the risk to renewal projects. And I say mitigate the risk, because the more new project funding we place in tier one, the more renewal projects will be kind of bumped down into tier two. The more new product or the more renewal projects that are in tier two, the greater risk they'll be at of not being selected by HUD for funding. So trying to find this balance between getting some new project fund, some new projects funded, while also not trying to control how much renewals end in tier two when we get to the grouping of our permanent supportive housing renewals. You'll see that kind of that fourth grouping there. This is the bulk of our project funding, our renewal of permanent supportive housing projects. This is just due to the way that we've prioritized our funding over the past several years. So as we go through the ranking list, certainly our renewal, permanent supportive housing does take up a lot of the funds and a lot of the space on that list. These projects that kind of these groupings that are highlighted in yellow are renewal, Rapid Rehousing, our renewal transitional housing, any remaining new projects funded with bonus or reallocated dollars in any new domestic violence bonus dollars these right now are recommended to be ranked these positions, which does likely mean that they will end up in tier two. Again. We're not really going to know the final placement of all these projects until we finish the final ranking list, but it is anticipated that projects of this type will be ranked in tier two, and this is also consistent with how we have ranked them in years past. Okay, so I'm going to kind of now go through each of these ranked orders, kind of one by one, and just so. Teach them a little bit more specifically. So the first projects that would be ranked are in the first ranking order is what we call our infrastructure projects. These are our renewal Coordinated Entry grants. And each is grants. I should have said to you in the full policy document that you received, you also it gives the details on the specific performance elements that the projects will be ranked by. So as we're talking through them here, you're going to see these just kind of in big groupings of project type, but know that within those groupings, they're also additionally listed by different performance factors and the score that they received, either on their housing outcomes or their total project application. So there is performance factors that come into play in the listed order. So again, our first grouping is ours renewal infrastructure projects. So again, a coordinated entry of each minus, with the caveat that is these projects, any one of these projects scores low enough, which is less than 90% on several of its performance factors, it will be bumped down the list to be ranked with our permanent supportive housing projects. You're going to see this as a pattern as we go along. We've got projects, if they don't, if they have underperformance in several areas, they will be bumped down to the next or to a lower grouping that is done in recognition and really wanting to communicate that just because you are a project of a certain type doesn't necessarily mean that you're always going to be ranked as high on the list. We still take you know, individual project performance factors into consideration. The next grouping is our projects that have less than 12 months of operation, that are being renewed. We often will have projects that have to renew for their first or second time, even before they've begun operations. This is just due to the nuances of how the funding cycles work. So there's really for these projects, often very little, if any, performance data to evaluate them on. So we are recommending ranking them high so that they can continue to receive funding to implement their programming, so we will be able to evaluate them in the future. The next grouping is the new COC bonus, or, excuse me, new projects funded with COC bonus and or reallocation up to $500,000 in worth and programming. So COC bonus is a given pool of funding the HUD has allocated to us that we know we can use to fund new project applications. Reallocation is funding that is made available if the budgets of any renewal projects are reduced. Those are called reallocated dollars. So the reallocated dollars can be combined with the COC bonus dollars to create one pool of funding out of which we would fund new projects. So this recommendation here is placing some of those new projects relatively high on this list, up to approximately $500,000 that dollar amount may not be precise. It's going to depend on the applications that come in and as they're reviewed. But the intent here was not to place all of our new projects in tier one, but to place some of them in tier one to try to increase the likelihood of getting some new projects funded. The fourth grouping. Then again, this is our renewal, permanent supportive housing project. So this is where the majority of our project funding would fall again, with the caveat that if any one of those projects scores as if they scored less than 90% on their housing outcomes and their overall project score, they would be bumped down to be ranked with renewal Rapid Rehousing projects. And this is this kind of bumping down process is consistent with how we've done this in prior years.
The next grouping is our renewal and domestic violence joint component, transitional housing, Rapid Rehousing projects. These are projects that are specifically targeted to serve people fleeing domestic violence. They would be ranked this fifth grouping again, unless they, you know, had the lower performance on those several criteria, they would be pumped down to be ranked with the renewal transitional housing projects. The sixth grouping is our renewal Rapid Rehousing projects. Again, unless they have that lower performance, they're going to be bumped down with the renewal transitional housing projects. Then we have, we have one remaining COC funded transitional housing project, which would be right here, unless, again. It had that lower performance on those three factors, it would be bumped down to the bottom of the list, at the bottom of tier two, lastly, second to last, we would have our remaining new projects funded with either COC bonus or reallocated dollars. So again, this is where we split up those projects to try to put some into tier one, to try to increase the likelihood of getting new funding, with the remaining in tier two, which means they may be at risk of not being selected. So that's where they would fall. And then the final listing is any new domestic violence bonus projects that we would want to submit would be listed here, the bottom of tier two. So there's, again, in the document that I placed in the board packet, there's additional details related to tie breaking criteria, in addition to some of the nuances. So there will be projects where they're going to be tied at the same spot. So we did have to implement some tie breaking criteria. Those criteria are really related to specific scores that the project receive and different elements of their performance when we review them. The other kind of key element to note, again, that we've had in place for several years is that the values and funding priority committee has the ability to recommend that if a project would normally be ranked in tier two, they can recommend that the project be essentially bumped up into tier one. So what's going to happen once these policies are final, once we know the final list of projects, meaning we know which all new projects are going to be submitted and which renewal projects are going to be submitted. The values and funding committee will receive that entire list of projects in ranked order. They will see which projects are in tier one and which are in tier two. And based on that list, they can make a recommendation if they think a project that would otherwise be in tier two should be moved up into tier one, they would then make that recommendation to the board with appropriate rationale on why they're making that recommendation. Ultimately, the board will be voting to approve that final project ranking list. That vote will happen in October. All right, we'll pause for any questions or any clarification that I can provide to the ranking list for ranking policies. Applause,
I don't see any questions in the chat. Amanda, okay,
okay, so this item, again, it is for a vote, and this is an item where all COC board members are eligible to vote if there's no questions, I guess I would just need a motion and a second, and I can drop the link in the chat when we're ready. Yes, Lydia,
I just was wondering. So in voting for this, if we vote yes, we're voting to approve everything we just looked at if we vote no, is it, is it giving us more time to reconsider and come back to the table? Or is it like, Does my question make sense? I guess, sure.
Yeah. So if proposed so if you know the overwhelming majority of board members vote no, then we would have to go back to the values of funding committee to reconsider these policies. I think it would be helpful to know what about the policies maybe isn't sitting well. Ultimately, we do need a policy document by the time October rolls around to be able to know the order in which we want to rank our projects. So, you know, again, the majority of the board votes no would need to understand, you know, you know what. Again, what is, what is the board not comfortable with, so that the values and funding committee can kind of go back and rework them
Sure.
And this is sorry, Candace is no you go from anything to do with, like, an appeals process. These are two separate correct,
yep. These are Yep. This is two separate so this is yep, this, this these policies are they're really literally like spelling out. How will we know which project is number one? Which project is number two, which one is number three, when we list them? Yep.
So in the chat, in case you missed a second, you showed number seven, eight. I.
Submitting. So, so the seventh grouping, again, that is our renewal. So we just have one remaining renewal, transitional housing project. So that would be ranked in this seventh group is just the one project, to be honest. And then the eighth grouping would be any remaining new projects. So you'll recall, we have this kind of third grouping up here where we would have some new projects this. You know, what will end up here in this third grouping, it could be one project. It could be more than one project, depending on the budget request of that project. So that's why we went with $1 amount. So the eighth grouping, then, is essentially all the other new projects that we want to have submitted for funding would be in this eighth group meeting. Yes. Tara Amanda, so
if I guess, and what I'm trying to just think through in my head is, is there any situation in which we would have money that's been reallocated to support a new project lost to our community by having them ranked solo, or does it not? Does it not? I guess I say, like by ranking number eight and not having a big rank for further, are we putting ourselves at risk of potentially losing money that we were used to having in our community? We're just reallocating it to support a new project.
So any project that lands in Tier Two is at risk of being lost, whether that is a project funded with an existing renewal project, whether it's a new project funded with reallocated money, or if it's a new project funded with COC bonus money, anything in Tier Two is at risk. So yes, it could be lost. Anything in tier two could be either lost or not gained, not gained. If it's a COC bonus money that we've never received before, or lost evidence funding on behalf of the storm that received.
But even Okay, so even if we, let's say, moved new projects funded with COC bonus or reallocation, or just made a new project funded reallocation up and up, right, it would then be renewal trans th. Would that be thumbed down, and then we have the higher probability of not being, of being in tier two, and those money, that money that we're used to having in our system, being lost, right? So at the end of the day, the chance that a project, a renewal project, ends up in tier two, or money for reallocation ends up in tier two, maybe Thank you, maybe higher. But like, we could lose, we could lose money that's for that's in our system already, regardless, right? If it might just be the type of project, so a th program that's currently serving residents, or a new project that hasn't yet started?
Okay, thank you. Yeah, so, yeah. So, another way to think of it is, the more the Oops. I'm sorry, and I tried to highlight here again. So based on some initial calculations that I have done, I am anticipating that based on the ranked order that is, you know, recommended here, I am anticipating that some of our renewal Rapid Rehousing projects will fall in tier one, and some will fall in tier two. That that tier one, tier two caught offline, going to slice right through our renewal project, our Rapid Rehousing projects, which is what happened last year. Last year we had some of our Rapid Rehousing projects were in tier two. Our renewal th project was in tier two. We had a bunch of new bonus projects in tier two and a new dv, some new DB projects that were in tier two last year. All of the renewals that were in Tier Two were fully funded. And we did get a couple of the new projects that were in tier two as well. So we do have a history of getting some of our tier two projects funded. It is always difficult to say or to predict how much of them we will get funded, because so much of it depends on how well our COC performs compared to how other CoCs around the country for more. So that's it's always difficult to project. I will say again, historically, we have gotten, you know, at least the first few projects listed high at in tier two funded. That may or may not be the case this year, though. I think there was a couple of other main scroll up to the chat, Tara. I'm looking at Tara's question. So based on this, would it be possible for projects to repeatedly be denied, if you need to be denied funding from HUD? So maybe we'll answer, not sure if I'm going to answer your question. So ultimately, when we submit our project listing to HUD, HUD is the one that makes the final decision on whether or not to fund projects. And again, projects that are in tier two are going to be more likely to not be selected by HUD for funding. So if HUD does not select a project for funding, then, whether it's a renewal project or a new project, and it's not funded, that's HUD's final position is. I mean, at some point, the agency could come back around and apply for additional funding if they chose, but it's not funded. So okay, you missed a minute. Let
me I'm sorry. Amanda,
so Okay, let me go back read the question. So is it possible for projects? Can you, I'm sorry, basically
what we have previously talked about when I had asked about a particular project not being funded, it wasn't submitted based on this process right here. So is it possible for agency a to continue to submit this or submit this project, it doesn't rank and it repeatedly gets denied or
so if, like, you
got denied last year, if you submit it again, so it may rank a little higher, but you might get denied again. Is that possible? So
if, if the COC denies a project, let's if we choose to not submit a project for funding, then it will not be ranked. I mean, it won't even be submitted through the application process. If the COC if a project goes through the appeals process and it is ultimately approved to be submitted for funding, then it will be submitted for funding and it will be ranked according to these ranking policies, which means that it again may be renewed for another year. So there's kind of two processes any project locally, you know, kind of that the COC says, No, we don't want to submit this project for funding, whether that's as an outcome of the appeals process. Work is a new project that we review and just doesn't, you know, align with what we want. If we make the decision to not submit a certain project for funding, it's never going to show up on this ranking list. If we do make a decision to submit a project for funding again, either a new project, or as an outcome of the appeals, it will be ranked on this ranking list in accordance to kind of this ranked order.
And Amanda, can I just interject one second? I don't know if this would help at all, but when we say the word did not we, we, as the board, make decisions based on recommendations that we have received, based on policy. So we create policy and priorities to help guide our decision making. So I don't think anyone is our But truly, you know, just deny the word itself. You know, they go through a process and in their policy and criteria that people must meet. You, I guess you'd be more familiar with this if you were ever on a review committee or something like that. So I just wanted to make sure that I share that information. Thank you.
Thanks. Candice Lydia,
okay, not to drag it out, but I so it sounds like you're saying the appeals process is the local so once, once we submit a somebody submits an application to hand or to the COC, at that point, if the COC determines, you know, we're not submitting this, that that project would have an opportunity to appeal the decision, but once it gets here to the ranking order, there it is. If HUD says we're not, you know, that's it. There's no appeal process. Is that correct? I'm trying to, I guess. What I'm trying to understand is where, at what point in our processes is someone able to appeal, and is it what we're voting on today is, is that someone disagrees? Do they have an option to appeal at that point, or is it huts
kind of thing? Sure. So, so it's really this, the next agenda item where we're going to be going over the appeal. So maybe I should have done these agenda items in reverse order. But so really what we're so I'm trying to think how I want to explain this so, so the first kind of step in making a decision on which projects even get submitted to. That first step is done locally. That's our role here, to review projects. Have scoring thresholds to have evaluation criteria to do that review and that evaluation, to make a decision on Okay, us locally, the Detroit CUC has made a decision that this is the whole portfolio of projects that dear HUD, we would like you to fund all of these. These are all the projects we want funded in our community, and this is the ranked order that we're funding them, because we know Mr. HUD that you have told us you're not going to probably be able to fund all of them. So if you don't have enough money to fund all of them, start with Project Number One. Work your way on down the list to give us as many of these projects as you've got funding for. I don't know who Mr. HUD is, but you know what I mean. So that's sort of the first step. Now, technically, if HUD, you know, after we submitted our projects to HUD, say, there's a project in tier two, we as a COC don't score high enough to get that project funded. HUD does make an allowance in their regulations on how an individual agency may appeal that decision to HUD. I don't really want to go into that too much, because honestly, I've never seen that be successful. I've never heard of it really, to be successful anywhere across the country, HUD has that language out there in the regulations. So there technically is a way that an agency could appeal to HUD gets there if the local COC submits their project to HUD, and HUD ultimately doesn't fund it. But again, that's sort of a separate process outside of our hands that's between that agency and HUD. So our role here is to really make that decision on what do we want to submit to HUD? And so then, yes, the appeals part is, is, is a part of that which, again, we'll be talking about in a few minutes. So the ranking priority order is, it is put into play once we know the full, again, that full portfolio of projects that we locally want to submit to HUD, after all of the new projects have been reviewed in this board and once we have gone through the appeals process for renewal.
Okay, that's really helpful. That's looking for there's already been so there's already going to be a chance for people to appeal the initial are we going to request for this funding or not before we get to this
ranking? Yes, though, is what we're going to be voting on, yes, as long as that happens first,
then I prepared to vote. I just wanted to make sure. Thanks.
Any other questions, I think I saw everything in the chat, but if I missed anything,
nope, you didn't miss anything. Okay? Anything
else.
You don't have any questions. We can move to motion. Is that where we are at this point?
Yep, let me so again, I'm gonna, I will just go ahead and put the link in the chat. Motion in a second
move. Dr, curling
second Lydia,
okay, so the link is in the chat, so when you pull it up, you'll have a vote to approve, yesno or abstain. I do ask, as board member again, all COC board members are eligible to vote. If you are not a COC board member, please do not vote. I do ask for the names in this form, just so we can make sure that we don't have accidentally, anyone who isn't able to vote, I did see one other question come through is, how do you regain a lost project? So once a project in the COC no longer is receiving COC funding, that agency really at any point, whenever we release an application for new funding. Agencies can apply for funding for whether it's to start an entirely new project, whether it's to restart a project that perhaps had funding at one point but lost it. So there is an application process for to be re granted. COC funding that's really high level in general, although you know to do with the caveat that whenever we have an application process for new funding, it's never guaranteed there's a competitive process locally, just like any other application process is. So it's just like fine for any other I'm seeing the most weekend, I'm fine with kind of leaving that boat open. I want to be mindful of
time. Want to go. On or to the next agenda item.
Okay, okay, okay, let me. Let me get my substituted. Here.
Nice. Okay, so I made
like, four presentations today, so trying to make sure I pull up the correct one here. Not gonna get too sick of my voice. Alright, so now we're switching gears. And so again, that link for the ranking policies that'll be open throughout the meeting so you can board member, please make sure you there for now, for two years, and we're going to be talking about the appeals process. So I'm going to so for you who are COC board members, you did receive an email from me midday on Friday with the recommendations that I'm going to be going over here. So hopefully you've had a chance to review them. I'm going to start by giving us some background on the appeals process. Then going to be talking about kind of some timeline issues. I sort of alluded to this earlier that with the release of the NOFO, I kind of gave us surprises when it comes to the timeline, so I'll be touching on that and how that may impact the kind of appeals discussion. I will be going over each of our appeals recommendations. There are three recommendations that are going to be voted on. We are going to vote on each of them separately. So we're going to go over one, pause, take a vote, and then we'll go through the next one and vote, etc, etc. The one caveat for this, for these votes, is that we will need certain board members to be recused from the vote to avoid any conflict of interest. I'll go over that in little bit more detail when we get to the vote, but just be mindful of that, even though certain board members may need to be recused, board members certainly aren't asked to be present and engaged in any conversation about these appeals. Even if you do, people need to be recused. All right, so I'm going to start off with some kind of timeline. It's sort of backgrounding in context to this. So again, if you've been around at these board meetings for the past few months, you'll know that I've been talking about an anticipated application due date of september 30, that has aligned with historically, when HUD has made everything due. HUD released the NOFO last week, and we now know that the CSU complication in all project applications are due October 30, so we have longer than we were anticipating. So the current timelines, we still have new project recommendations coming to the board in September. So I'm referencing new projects because the decisions that are made regarding appeals impacts New Project recommendations. Any funding that may be reallocated from renewal projects as a result of the Appeals is added to the pool of funding that we have available for new projects, so that dollar amount, ultimately will need to be known by the new project review committee, so they know how to make recommendations that align with the total pool of money now we have available for new projects. So that's why we when I go through this appeals process, you're going to hear me referencing new projects as well, because the two are connected. So however, so given that what we know is in a NOFO regarding both the timeline and the amount of funding that we have available for new projects, it's possible that as the new project review committee meets in late August and early September, they may need to be bringing to the board some tentative recommendations on new projects, with final recommendations coming in October, and I am anticipating that because The dollar amount of new project funding that we have available through our CFC bonus is significantly more than last year, and it is more than what we received new project applications for. So I think there's going to have to be some conversations within the new project review committee about how to, you know, really ensure that we're utilizing as much of the new project funding as possible. If the appeals decisions are finalized today, the new project review committee will have that full scope of the total amount of funding they have to be able to allocate to new projects. You. As they make their recommendations. However, if decisions can't be finalized today, they would need to be finalized in September, doing so would still allow us to meet. So I tried to also lay this out in the graphic, because I realized it's a little it's a little clunky and feels a little funky because it is lucky. It's also, I'm just going to play pot for this, for throwing us for bothered, easy target these days. So the current timeline that you see in green on the left is how we have kind of currently scoped it out that today the board would make decisions on all of the appeals recommendations. At the September board meeting, the Board would vote on New Project recommendations again, if the new project committee was able to make those full recommendations in October. In October, Board meeting, the Board would vote on that final project priority ranking list that would be the projects listed in ranked order according to the policies that we just voted on, and then by the end of October, everything submitted to HUD. So that's how I'm kind of currently planning things out. The kind of alternate timeline, if needed, would be that would have asked the board to vote on the appeals today to the extent that we are able, however, there again, could be the possibility that come September, the new project review committee will only be able to make preliminary recommendations. And I'm saying that because I anticipate there may need to be some negotiations that might happen with Project applicants specifically to see if they may be able to manage multi year grants instead of one year grants, given the amount of funding that we have to allocate. So there may need to be some conversations with applicant agencies throughout the month of September before we can make final recommendations to the board. This is simply a projection. This may not happen as well, just trying to be prepared for different scenarios regardless. By September, we would need final decisions on all appeals to that. Come October, final decisions can be made on new projects. We would then need to call the special board meeting in October to vote on that final ranking list. So a little bit more clunky alternate timeline, but again, still doable in order for us to meet the final HUD deadline. All right, so I hope that didn't make it even more confusing. Again, it's just because HUD has given us an extra month that we weren't expecting, and more funding that we also weren't expecting, which I'll I'll get to that funding amount in a minute. So some additional context on the appeals process. So project so right now, we are talking about renewal projects. I know I referenced new projects, but in terms of the new projects themselves, we're not discussing those today, because the applications are under review right now. So projects are seeing renewal funding. So these are agencies that are currently receiving COC funding, and they want to continue to receive that funding. They go through an application and evaluation process. They are scored on certain scoring criteria, which we make public every year, and they have to score at least 70% of their points of those points possible in order to be submitted for renewal funding. This has been our policy. This has been our process for many years. Projects that fall below that 70% threshold will not be submitted to HUD for funding unless an appeal is granted. So renewable projects received their scores July 19 and appeals were due July 25 so there's a couple of different types of appeals that agencies can submit. And they can submit what we call a threshold waiver, which is essentially for projects that fall below that 70% threshold, they can appeal that request to still be submitted to hyper funding. Or projects could appeal what we would call the calculations or a timely submission, appeal if they can demonstrate that their score was calculated incorrectly, or that they were docked points for not submitting something in on time that they were instructed to submit in on time. All of all three of the appeals under review today are threshold waivers. Those are for all three projects that will be low that 70% threshold for the role of the appeals committee. The appeals committee received the appeals that the agencies submitted, along with some supplemental just information about the agency and the project. They read the appeals on their own. The committee met last week over two days on July 31 and August 1. To develop recommendations. Ultimately, the board is going to be asked to vote to approve or not approve the recommendation. We're going to vote on each one separately, according to our appeals policy, if the board votes to not approve a recommendation, then the board will be responsible for developing action, for
developing a decision on what action should be taken. So the materials that the appeals committee received, so what did they receive? What did they review to base their recommendation on? So the appeal document submitted by the agencies, each agency was given instructions on what to submit, when to submit it. They also received some, just some background information that was put together by hand staff, so information about the agency, agency's website, so they could go look up, you know, more information about the agency. They received the project description from the HUD application, the project, the funding amount, the budget lines that is funded for the number of units the project is funded to provide. They did receive information on the score that the project, kind of details of the score that they received, and any additional facts that are relevant to the agency or the project, so things like, if this project's been falling below threshold in the past, or if the agency was currently under corrective action plan. So those factual things that were contextual to what was being discussed, that information was also provided to the appeals committee. So the appeals committee can make there was sort of one of four different types of recommendations that they could make for each appeal. The first was that they could deny the appeal. So in this case, denying the appeal would mean that the project's not submitted for funding, and we're we would reallocate 100% of that project's budget, which is essentially the entire project. That's the first denying the appeal. The second option would be to grant the appeal with no further conditions. In this case, the project would be submitted for full funding, for full renewal funding with no further conditions. The third option would be to grant the appeal with conditions, meaning they would be submitted for full funding with conditions, essentially a corrective action would need to be put into place. The fourth option is, would be to submit the project with a reduced budget and conditions. So the fourth option is also reallocation. This is where the project budget would be reallocated in part, so scaling back the budget a little bit and placing that project on a corrective action plan. So a new elevated to the appeals process this year, which we wrote into the appeals process after last year, was that any recommendation to reallocate a project's budget must have at least 75% of the committee members in support of that recommendation. So though this policy was enacted this past year, so that if the combined total of the committee members who voted for either full or partial reallocation met that 75% threshold, that that would be the recommendation going forward. If, however, that combined total was not 75% of the committee numbers, then the next highest option, the next highest selected option, is the recommendation going forward. And you'll see kind of how this plays out when we get to the specific appeals, which I think right, just go back. So one of the three appeals that we're going to be the board will be voting on, one of those three appeals is recommended to deny the appeal and not submit the project for renewal. Funding again, this is a reallocation. This instance, it would be reallocating 100% of that project budget, and that funding would then go to fund new projects. Also based on our appeals policy, any decisions that the board makes today are the final decision, and there is no additional appeal process to the COC board. That was also a change that we put into place after last year. So this is a chart of how these reallocated funds could be used. This is going to tie back to what I referenced earlier, about the amount of new project funding that we have available from HUD. So this year for the COC bonus funding, we have at least $4.3 million available. That's almost $2 million more than what we had in years past. Is significantly more than what we are anticipating. Could actually be more than 4.3 HUD has a. At least those final final numbers yet, but this is our best estimate. If we then the one project that is recommended for reallocation is that project budget is almost $1.2 million if that project is reallocated, it will be added to that 4.3 million for a total of about five and a half million dollars available for new project funding for COC bonus. Should say everything here does not include any DV bonus projects. We cannot reallocate these funds to dv bonus. So right now, we're just talking about our COC bonus projects. So we have received all of those new projects have been submitted. The total dollar amount of what was requested for those CUC bonus projects is about $1.7 million so we have, and again, those projects have not yet been reviewed. We don't have a sense of, you know, the quality of those applications, or if we would want to move them forward. Just have the numbers here at this point. Excuse me, but we do have, again, 1.7 million, about $1.7 million in new project applications, five and a half if the one project is reallocated, we would have five and a half million dollars to essentially allocate. So this is where I referenced earlier. There may need to be some negotiations with these applicant agencies. It may be a matter of, again, this is all going to depend on the quality of those new project applications and the ability for the agencies to possibly do multi year budgets or increase their budget by some bit, because we do this is all that is all bit of a conjecture. Again, I don't know exactly what will happen, but this is an unexpected situation where we have this much more new funding than we received applications for. I will pause there, because that was a lot of information before we go on just if there's anything I can, I know we haven't gotten into the specific projects yet, but if I can clarify anything around kind
of these facts
unmasked as its own beast.
Amanda,
if we don't have projects that meet this dollar amount, we just don't submit for projects that meet this dollar amount, right? Like, I think I remember last time, not last time, like one time we had, like, a second round, because we still had a lot more money, not suggesting to want to give you a heart attack, not suggesting, like a second round, or anything like that. But I'm just curious, like, if we have an opportunity for 5.5 we don't have enough high quality applications for 5.5 what's kind of your thought on, on that or kind of think about it if it happens, like, you know, down the road?
Yeah, so I think, I think probably, but again, this is just, this is only Amanda's thoughts that she come up with over the weekend. It seems like the, you know, initial way to approach it would be to ask those applicant agencies if they could do a multi year grant, for example. Because right now, we have historically limited new projects to one year grants, because HUD has always done one year funding cycles. This is a spoiler alert. What I'm going to be talking about over the break, HUD is moving to a two year application cycle, which means there will be no new project applications next year, because, as part of a sneaky map and encouraging communities to do multi year budgets, why they've allocated so much more funding. So that could be, that could be an opportunity. So for example, say we had a project application that just requested $250,000 for one year. There could be an opportunity to go back and say, Hey, we do a two year budget that would be using a $500,000 of our application. Again, this is all just one option. It's all going to depend that applicant agency would need to have match resources or other applications, all of that to go through, but at the end of the day, so let's say so comparatively, we are always in this situation. Every year with our dv bonus funding, every year we have more domestic violence bonus spending than we ever received applications for locally. Ever since HUD has made these DV bonus dollars available, so we are in that we it will be in that same position again. This year. We have one DV bonus applicant. We have the amount of funding that they requested is. Less than the total amount of duty bonus money that we have. So this has happened in the past where we have had more new funding available to us than we have had applications to out here.
Thank you, Amanda, so I just wanted to clarify in the scenario where we would ask, say New Project applications to say, maybe double their budget, or do a two year budget versus a one year budget, just based on the math alone, it still does not meet the total we potentially would have if, in fact, there were reallocated funds added to the final budget. Is that correct? I
mean, it just depends on, you know, I said double we can do up to three year grants. Okay, you're right. So, I mean, again, it's hard to really do the precise math at this point. To be honest, maybe I'm just trying to sort of give, maybe think through some options,
okay, and then the if, if funds are reallocated, is, this is the only space that they can be re absorbed. I would just put that's my Is this the only way they can be absorbed into our CLC through being added to the new project. Bonus dollars. Yes,
it feels like you had another question. No,
I think that's it. I mean, I'm just trying to make sure, like this is the only path for those dollars if they are reallocated, there is not like an opportunity to transfer the funds or do any of those type of things that maybe we have done before when it wasn't this particular situation, and only thinking about that because of the project Having clients that have to be absorbed, you know, by the CLC, just trying to think through that math of how much that's going to cost us. But thank you.
I will say so a grant transfer is completely different than reallocation. And right now we're not really talking about a grant transfer. A grant transfer is when the agency holding the grant transfers the grant in whole with the clients that people are being served to another agency, for that agency to pick up those clients in that programming. Right now, what we're talking about is potential reallocation again, because we're going back to our policies, that project has to score at least 70% in order to be submitted to HUD for funding. If it's not doesn't score that much, it's reallocated.
Amanda, would it be possible through some of the actual applicants? I think it would help. Yep, yep,
we're gonna go through that. Yep, move on. So.
So this is a summary of the appeals that we received, the number of these one by one in this order. So for Anderson, again, all three of these projects up with a threshold. This chart is intended to point out that Anderson and alternatives for girls, their recommendation is that their appeal be granted and that may be submitted for full funding. Central City Health, their supportive housing program is recommended to be reallocated. So that was sort of at a glance, what this chart was intended to show. We're going to now go over them individually, and we're going to start with matters I do try to put a question in the chat, what is done with any leftover funding isn't carried over to the next project. You need. Any leftover funding from individual projects budget, anything that they have leftover at the end of that grant term that's not spent is taken back by HUD. It goes back to the US Treasury from other government uses any leftover funding that we do not request for new project funding. It's just it was never ours to begin with, really. So I need to say they take it back. So Okay, gonna go over one by one so we understand this a permanent supportive housing project. Again, they requested a threshold waiver. Final Project score that they received was 62% this is the same project threshold in 2023 it went through the appeals process in 2023 and was granted an appeal, and it was renewed for both in last year's competition as a result of last year's appeals process. It was also placed on a corrective action plan. That corrective action plan is really kind of just getting underway as a result of that, or as a part of the corrective action plan, they are also a good. Be working with CSH Corporation for Supportive Housing to strengthen their permanent supportive housing programming. Folks may be familiar with is that they are in the process pretty close to opening the doors of their new permanent supportive housing building that will be transitioning their PSH programming from their existing building to that new building, which is called APRA. So the appeals committee recommendation is to grant the appeal and to submit the project for full funding, with a note there that the agency will remain on that corrective action plan, as was in October last year's competition, and that that plan may also be modified to include some corrective elements that mariners can identify in their appeal as well. So just expand that.
I do want to show
again we talked earlier about voting, and this 75% for a reallocation recommendation to go forward. I just want to show how that is coming into play here. So again, these are the four options that the appeals committee member can vote on. We have seven committee members, all who voted. So this is how the individuals voted. They can see the two options for reallocation, option number one and option number four total 71.4% of the committee members. So it did not meet that 75% threshold. So the next option that is going forward is the next option, which not the most votes, which in this case, was to grant the appeal with no further conditions. Yes,
that makes sense to me, right? They did hit that 75% threshold, I guess, for me,
or like one that was taken off the table. Did the group that have conversation and all agree that the consensus was that the grant appeal was no further conditions as what the committee in general wanted to, wanted to recommend to the board, because it was just too out of stab,
and that's pretty like, that's not even close to,
that's not even close to majority, you know, I mean, so I guess I was trying to figure out, like, after This additional vote was their conversation that was like, Okay, we're not relocating any money. We didn't hit that 75% so now as a group, we have decided then to move forward with the no no further conditions versus conditions. Yeah. So I will also make a note for manager city in particular, they will still be under a corrective action plan that was carried over from last year's. So this is also an instance where the first year of living fields policy that we put that 75% language in Placer,
product, blessed for their discussion. Who's on the appeals committee to chime in here as well? I
mean, I think the question would have been, then, if we didn't meet that 75% threshold, the next option, and it is intended to be, I know folks have said, well, this is less than a majority of the committee, and that is true because the 75% was meant to be more than just a simple majority. It was meant to be overwhelming most of the committee. So Tara, I see your hand with you.
Couple. To
answer Jane's question. First of all, I was one of the people on the appeals committee, and as far as mariners in I was actually okay with funding them, and part of the reason being is because they did not get previously funded for their project, and I didn't realize they have some things they needed correcting. They're asking for $250,000 as opposed to half a million dollars or more. Again, they are uncorrected at you, in my opinion, they're moving in the right direction. However, one thing we definitely want to consider is they're never going to get where they're supposed to be if we continue to not fund them. And there is this. It appears to me that there's a problem with the bigger agencies continuing to get funded. Nobody has questions. They don't have to prove themselves and lie on your application of some of them. And nothing is done. Nothing. Staff, and then you have these smaller grassroots agency coming in here. They can put the bare minimum and still being turned down again. If we are going to put a debt in homelessness and move things forward, it's gotta be a give and take. It can't constantly be a give, give, give to the big agencies. Meanwhile, the smaller was falling to the waste tonight. That's how we lost operation. Get down. So
I appreciate that feedback. I was just curious if there was, if it was two out of seven values and
funding that was important with granting the appeal of no further conditions, or if, after that, a conditional Bill was taken, if there was further consensus, and the committee as a whole said, Yes, we recommend no further conditions. That's what I'm trying to figure out, is if it's two out of seven, this is like the full committee stands behind this recommendation,
I will speak to this and so, based on how the rules for this particular appeals process was conducted on this committee, the X majority, which is the two out of seven, was what prevailed.
And to be honest, the
committee had robust discussion about the failing for the guidelines, because, as you pointed out, this is roughly 28% of the committee determined to move forward, and you had five out of seven to see some sort of corrective action for the project.
I'm just making sure I understand the so. So originally there was a vote, and the vote was, you know, the five out of seven. And if that doesn't reach 75% then you go with the next highest vote, regardless of because the next two would be either grammar conditions or grammar conditions, right? And since there was no votes, is that why they're looking kind of funny when it's like two out of seven, it's because the first one didn't press majority. So then you go with the next highest correct so there was yes, so there was only one vote, and then the recommendation that was put forth was again, because that 75% threshold was not met, the recommendation that was put forth was the option that got the next highest number of folks in and we'll also affirm what Dr G said. A lot of discussion within the committee about how to improve this process for future years. This was the first year that we are operating under a policy that stipulated any type of voting threshold to be met or accommodation to put forward. And so I think we, you know, learning some lessons from them. Yeah, I totally get it like the first time with this, that makes sense to me that there are some road bumps that you did not anticipate encountering with this, I think for me, I just want to know what the majority of the committee recommends, right? It wasn't 75% only get that support. But what does the committee actually recommend having conditions or not having conditions? Now that relocation reallocation is off the table, because you guys are the ones who had the most robust conversations about this, right? And so, you know, we went down this road last year, right? So
many of the committee members,
because I did not vote, and I was there to facilitate the process, I it could be that part of the reason why the grant appeal of conditions was not selected is because it was made clear that Madison would remain under a proactive action plan, like They already are under corrected action plan. So
even if so, that may have come into play
in terms of the status, though, it would have started from scratch and there's no corrective action plan in place. So that may be why no further conditions were selected. I don't know.
Committee Sure.
I guess I would just say as an appeals committee member, because we only did one vote, and that's all that the board can see. That's why Amanda brought it on screen. I think you know my recommendation would be to to consider that there are of the Senate committee members five recommended some form of reallocation, whether that be partial or full. We weren't able to get to the 75% either of those categories, and that's how we ended up with moving the appeal forward with no further considerations, but to kind of just use what's available from the vote that we were able to have to determine what to move forward with. You'll see as Amanda presents that we did have further conversation, because this recommendation doesn't necessarily feel like it aligns across the agencies need to make recommendations on again, because the way the voting kind of fell out. So if that's helpful,
I
so your question, so the cap really is just in the process now of being implemented. There were part of AI, you know, we wanted to align that work with they were selected matters that was selected by CSH late last year to receive some targeted technical assistance. We wanted to make sure we combine those efforts that work with CSH really just got off the ground earlier in the spring. So a lot of the formalities of being a capital plan are really just getting off
the ground. I'm not sure between.
Thank you, tipo. I just wanted to affirm the participation of all of the review committee members, I have sat in this seat before, and I appreciate all your hard work and all your diligence, but we are talking about, you know, really walking through these recommendations. I just want you to know that you actually read the application, and we I appreciate you doing it right? You might respect your opinions, and I just wanted to
affirm that pressure. So
I just want to ask questions for my clarification, so if I'm understanding correctly, there was a voting threshold of 75% correct yes
for reallocation or reality
for and so if you Don't get the 75%
then there's no reallocation Correct. Okay, and then there was four options that people could
vote on, yes, okay, yeah, that, I mean, that's probably part of the issue, is that there were four options for people to vote on with so many little meetings.
Okay, got it?
Yes? Yes, Jane, I see your response. Give me a question in response to respond to that. So again, I this is the first year that we've operated under the appeals policy. But this again, new structure. We've learned some ways to improve it next year, part of that could be increasing the size of the community. The policy, you know, also being laid out, we need to be five to seven members, so we have the seven members, so that is all important feedback that we're considering next
year. Amanda as a facilitator, I know we are running low on time, and we have a lot to get through. I also want to remind the board that these are recommendations, so you will be voting, and you have the option to when we get to that point, you you have a vote. So I just wanted to amend. Maybe if you wanted to go through the others. So
I do, yes, certainly I do have this kind of set up to do each spoke individually, but I will, I will certainly go through the others. That's why we can kind
of come back to just my recommendation that we go through all before.
Okay, sure, sure.
Okay, so alternatives to the next agency and our appeal, alternatives for girls, the project threshold was their domestic violence, joint component, transitional housing, Rapid Rehousing project, again, they were requesting threshold labor project. The final score was 64% so below that 70% threshold, this is the first time in this project that we look threshold. Although it was noted that AFG had a different project, there are other rapid housing projects that felt below threshold last year, and it was granted an appeal that was submitted for full funding last year. So for this joint component project, the recommendation is to grant the appeal with conditions so that if the appeal is granted, that project would be placed under a corrective action plan. So again, to show how this morning kind of came out again, the same four options, there were the seven committee members, or the seven committee members voted for some type of reallocation. That was only about 57% of the committee. So the recommendation that is being put forward is to grant the appeal with conditions.
Can I talk through the path of health efforts? But any questions on this?
All right. So the final project under review is Central City Health. Central City integrated health. So the permanent supportive housing project. Likewise, we love threshold, that 70% threshold. Their final score was 69% this is the same project that fell below threshold last year, and last year that appeal was granted with a partial reallocation. So it was had its budget reduced by 10% so it was renewed for funding with that 10% cut, and it was also placed on a corrective action plan, like I mentioned with man, understand it's a similar situation where the corrective action plan is really now being underway because they were selected to do work with the Corporation for Supportive Housing. So that corrective action plan, even though it was an outcome of last year's competition, is really just now it's getting underway. It was recently practiced. So the recommendation from the appeals committee is to deny the appeal and to not submit it for renewal funding. I'm going to go over some of the ramifications of denying the appeal and not submitting the project for funding. One thing to note this was noted in that document the board received is that the appeal was submitted two hours late, and that was a factor that the committee did take into consideration during their discussions. So again, so in this case, we had one of our committee members was recused from the discussion and vote on this project. So we had six committee members, and as you can see this chart, before the other two of the six committee members that combined total voted for reallocation, some form of reallocation, was 100% of the committee members, I do want to go over because this is a little bit different, some of the ramifications of reallocating this project in its entirety. So again, this is a permanent supportive housing project. It's approximately $1.2 million if this project is reallocated and not submitted for funding in this year's competition, it will retain its current grant through next September. So because it will have existing funding for another year or so from October 1 of 2025 the project would no longer be receiving COC funding. Referenced this before the funds from this project would be added to the pool of COC bonus funding that we have to fund new projects whenever this earlier, essentially we would we had this project to the four sub million dollars in bonus funding, having approximately a total of five and a half million dollars in new project funding available the total. Total Request that we've received for new funding is about 1.6 million. Again, we talked about this earlier, that the total new project request we've received so far that we have received is less than the total amount of new funding that we have available, and those conversations will need to be pushed on or within the new project. Ranking committee. So that's the funding side of things, in terms of the people side of things. So there are, excuse me, currently about 67 people being served in this permanent supportive housing so they scattered site, permanent supportive housing project for people with units throughout the city. If this project is reallocated, cch doesn't have other funding to continue the programming. The project will need to be ramped down over the coming year. So as a as a COC, they will need to make every effort to either transfer the existing clients to other permanent supportive housing resources or to other permanent housing resources that may be available in the community. While we do anticipate, you know, our PSH projects do have vacancies that occur throughout the year as people turn over. So there likely will be vacancies that will come up throughout the year, the total number of these vacancies is not yet hard to predict what PSH availability will look like in the coming year. Just to know, we have never had to write down a PSH project of this size before. So this would be undertaking for the csch work with cch on that. Another important ramification is that as we transfer these existing clients to other PSH resources, that will impact our ability to move people off the prioritization list, those individuals who are on the prioritization list, it will impact the ability to move that into those questions in the chat, I see, I am going to grab just a round addresses, so the list of who was on the appeals committee got is In the document that was provided to the board. However, because that document has not yet been made public, let me wait a minute. I will put out that and put it in the chat here, because I know people are going to speak for them. Can't do everything, so just give me a minute, but we will provide that information. So just go through the questions in the chat. So Lydia, I think I answered your question. We would need to try to ensure that we could, if the individuals need continued, permanent supportive housing, transfer them to other PSH units as those units.
Eleanor, your question feels to me, will the appeals committee be part of the conversation? What will happen to people in the existing Project recommendation?
Eleanor Metro, your question,
what should have
I have also suggestions on what should happen so that project, or maybe we can put that
in the future, right along
with the suggestion of reallocation. You know, what is the solution? If we close that program or that project matter, what the call should be. That's why.
Mapping and better. Paige, thanks.
Amanda, just a really quick question in terms of
individuals or number of people, is that households, or is that individuals? That is households? This project does primarily serve single individuals. So there could be funded for one bedroom apartment. So if it is more than just an individual, is likely to be perhaps a couple or small company, but it's going to primarily be super individuals, okay, thank you. I'm not sure who lives next, either Candace or Tara.
Thanks. I just want to try to make a correlation in light of what you talked about earlier today with our reallocating funds. People being significant, even more significant than what we have projects, or even though you did make suggestions about multi year granting, it's hard in this situation. I know we had three appeals, and I know they're different, but there are some similarities. I don't want us to get away from the fact that, you know, we are servicing people. Of course, we're servicing people, and that's very important to what we do. But to also realize that 67 is a large amount of hope, and we have to look at the inventory if we're even able to support that type of movement, but I just want to talk about all that, and I want to talk about the most of the application. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Amanda is data. It's not as subjective as some people may want to think a lot of the score is based on actual data that is compiled into a system, and I don't want to forego the importance of that data and the importance of performing. Will that being seen? Is there a way to think about what happens with with the projects, mainly the one that we're discussing now, in relative to that reallocated money, and I don't know, I don't know. And someone mentioned earlier today that this was the values and funding committee, and it is not. This is the review committee that is a separate committee that is doing this. So I just want to just put that out there for consideration, if there is a possibility for consideration around around that I just wanted to throw that
up. I think Tara was next. I just want
to be clear,
I realized, and I think everybody thought about this, what happens to the people if we don't fund this project every year, when these recommendations go out, money is with you. We don't vote to support them, or however it goes, there's always the discussion of what happens to the people. Yes, we should consider what happens to me, but the people who submit these applications should worry about what happens to people. And I'm just going to tell you, I voted Absolutely, and part of the reason being is because we have the same problems that they had last year. They need to make matters worse. They took the same appeal that they had last
year. Changed the date on it, resigned it, and submitted it again, then turned around at eight o'clock, Friday night, at 11 o'clock Saturday night, locking us down with paperwork, clicking their bag in their case, giving us information that should have been given in the application, or at the very least giving him the appeal. At some point, we got to put our foot down and say, You know what? You're gonna submit this application, right? Or you're gonna submit this appeal, right? But what you're not gonna do is give us what you want us to have when you want us to have it, and we turn around and give you $1.2 million my other problem with that is, as you all know, a couple months ago, I went through the 990s of the organizations that utilized the Detroit CLC, and I remember cch that got in my head because they're the employees make more than the mayor, more than the governor, and are very close with financial benefits to $300,000 so that you can afford to pay executives that kind of money we're supposed to be service and homeless people, you will have absolutely no problem moving our budget around to keep this money or make way for these people to keep a place to live, because you didn't care about the application process. You didn't care about the appeals process, and by the way, you're already on a corrective action. Again, these are three organizations out of my organizations dealing with the COC, and somehow we have the same organization that know how to submit an application without having to go to the appeal process. Or better yet, even when they have to go to the appeal process, they do at least recognize the changes that we pointed out the prior year and do better. It's like this excuse up, but what happens to the people they just started their corrective action? Not really should be on a corrective action.
This is nothing new.
I guess I don't want to see people in the street, but I want to see situation better. And it sounds like the only way to get there is for them to. Are not going to be finding, especially at $1.2 million
and you're not
going to do a better
job. Yeah, so I don't know how this works
with Robert's Rules, but I think because this is such a large project, that if this board does vote to uphold the recommendation from the appeals committee and deny appeal, that we need a group to start working on a ramp down of what this looks like, formed like
November. Now you know what I mean. Just because we don't have, we already have seen a slowdown. This is my perception. HMIs staff can tell me if this is my perception is correct, but we've seen a slowdown number of folks who've been referred to PSH due to vacancies. And I'm just concerned about when we think about shelter outflow, and we think about getting people housed, if we have 67 of our overturned units being dedicated to this project, because the people still deserve to have PSA Right. Like, I think everyone's really good. People have their no fault right for this, right? But if we have 67 of us that's going into turnover units where we've already seen a decrease, that, to me, is very concerning about how we can move people out of shelter and into housing, and that is a systems issue, right? Like, at the end of the day, like, folks are going to look to us to figure out the answer to this problem. And so I would Dr G help me out. Like, I don't know if it's like appropriate to then make another motion
after this discussion item has closed, or when that we form a group to start. You know, if it's
if it's if this appeals, will we get the result of appeal? Maybe then making a motion that an ad hoc groups form together to, like, start working on a ramp down of the size and how we can try to exit those out, whether it's moving up or other further forms of like section eight vouchers, other things that we can do in order to get people into stability without just Using our turnover units, not moving up, apparently. Okay, got it really speak to
the Roberts Rules. There's no motion currently on the floor so the chair can entertain any motion that she chooses, and who's the chair
that's injecting something here, I think we have to tear thank you for that suggestion. I think it's right on point. Whatever decision is made, we will have to be strategic in how we move forward. I think we do have to get through where we are now before we can move on that we have to know the outcome of what we're talking about presently.
Yeah, basically everything Tara said. I'm concerned, very concerned, that the number we're looking at, 67 BSH, five units is significant. I'm a little worried that, as Tara mentioned, we're going to be, you know, even more of a standstill as far as shelter flow goes, until it's hard for me to determine which way I want to vote, knowing a couple things. One, that's that's massive, and yeah, I definitely would think we would need a hub committee to take that on. And two, it sounds like and maybe I need to look at the slide that showed the votes again on this project, but it sounds like the majority voted to re alloc I gotta look at it again. Okay, reduce budget conditions or deny Okay, so I guess I was wondering, with the cap that they have, it sounds like the timeframe to implement that is similar to the timeframe for not actually, what was the other one? So I'm wondering, like, are those both? Were there both the caps implemented at the same time? Have they had an opportunity to start the improvement plan? Or is this, I don't know this, one's just tough. So I will answer your question later to see Tara's hand. So the time. Time for the official implementation on these caps for both Anderson CCI agents, relatively the same timeline in that they are formalized, the process of being formalized. Really this this summer. Number of reasons for that. Partly. One of those reasons was we wanted to try to Again, align with the work that CSH is doing to provide some targeted technical assistance. We wanted to try to make sure that we were not duplicating efforts making things formalized and streamlined. So that is part of the reason why projects have felt about the low threshold in 2023 some of that formal corrective action is just getting placed in place now. So Tara, I'll take your hand. Tasha, I'll answer your question in the chat.
Yeah, my question is, where did the people oversee the services operation get down go when the shelter closed, because wherever they went, I imagine that if something happens with cch, those people can go to the same place. I can
speak to that. So the folks who are in operation B down shelter were sent to other shelters. We actually added additional shelter beds in our system around the same time, and so they went to shelter, but operation get down home to shelter, while CCIA just permanent supportive housing. So if we put the people in permanent supportive housing into shelter, we would be re entering them into homelessness again.
Okay, well, I guess this weekend, till 2025 this will be a good time to tap our mayor, who's doing affordable housing and promising low income and affordable housing. Yeah, maybe we should have that conversation with her, and I can start that next Tuesday. Yeah, just also not even affordable housing permits for I think you have differences as well. Yeah, I understand that. But again, to give them a million dollars with the application and the appeal that they submitted again would be irresponsible to the public, to the people who receive their services, and it would also be a disservice. I mean, this is crazy. I wish that you all could have seen what we saw. Again,
just
to interject, interject, we appreciate the work that was done and what you did see. So please, please know that I think, Lady, I have a hand, if that's not an old one, I'm not
sure, just hopefully a final thought. I guess I don't know, part of me is like, this is all based on data, but I do hear that there's, you know, some very understandably so emotion behind this decision too. As far as, like, it was two hours late, and it was the same applicator last night where, you know, all these details that I'm obviously not on the committee. So I didn't get this. And so I do looks like five out of seven. You know, five out of six did kind of initially feel to deny it. So I do want to respect that, but I also just feel like this is it's just, there's so many implications, and it's hard for me to say, Yeah, knowing now we have to find 67 life events on top of, like everyone mentioned being kind of at capacity and not knowing if we're going to have new applications for Psh, so my question, sorry, my question is, if, as the board, if we both know on this particular is it that the board would then have to come up with the action steps, or what we recommend to happen instead, is that what you said? Amanda, yes, yes. That is, that is the extent to which the policy language exists. It just says that the board would have to come up with a decision. So this is where we get expectation that that happens today. I think it would need to take some time in the coming months to have those conversations.
And Lydia, thank you for your due diligence and thinking this through Alan, and I think we may have to move on Alan. You have a question?
I Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Alan, thank you for your comment. I agree,
but at the same time and.
Yes,
okay, so, so, you know, being somebody that is on that program. If this does go if the recommendation does go through, I'm going to be one of those 67 worried individuals. So then I've only been housed for three months. So let the rest of the board know there's definitely somebody on this, on this call that is concerned about that, but agree is with the recommendation the appeal is going to be put forward. I myself was on that committee, but again, I did not vote on this particular item.
Thank you. Thank you for that, that transparency. I think we have to if there's no other concern, not concerns, but there are concerns, if there are no other questions, we have to determine how we will at all. So Dr Thomas,
so we have ramped up projects before. We have just never ramped down a PSH project of this summit. So maybe the best example is in last year's competition, we had a PSH project that did have a slight budget reduction, which required it to ramp down five units that were occupied at that time. So we did have to work with that provider, as well as a couple of other providers, to identify who had vacancies, transfer those households to those new providers to those new units. So that was five units. So 67 we have also we have had to ramp down adequate housing programs in the past, transitional housing in the past. So we do have some also policy language in place around this and how to do this. I just wanted to, again, the purpose of bringing that up is because of the number of units that there are to break down. I also I want to be mindful of time. So technically, I do see another hand that just popped up to Candace or Dr G as well. So we do technically group this up into three separate votes, one for each agency. If that's how we want to go forward, we can mute a motion in a second, and then I can drop the voting link in the chat for each of them. If that is how we want to go forward a bike. And I do see an order. Everybody. Can I just get
over here? We will call the last hand. But Amanda, you can prepare to drop the votes. You prepare them separately will allow people to vote on them. We all know can vote among the man that has already shared that in the beginning of this slide, if your name is on this list, you are eligible to vote, vote on this, on these recommendations, and she will share the outcome of these votes as soon as she possibly can. I do understand that she wants to make sure that who vote had a piece of Monica. I hope I pronounced your name right. Yes, you are. I am my guest. I'm proud of St Vincent de Paul. I did try to question it, and my question was, can the funds and actual people be moved to another PSH project, that was my question that I typed in a few minutes ago, that are now allocated to Central City? Can they be allocated to another project that that also manages housing, PFA housing, is that possible? So
the funds would be used to fund new projects, so which may be permanent supportive housing. So we have a process where agencies apply for new project funding. Those applications were submitted a couple of weeks ago. They're currently under review, so those funds would be used to fund some of those new projects. We also had a rapid rehousing application that came through so but there will be, I think maybe what you're going to have, there will likely be a difference between what agency the funds go to versus the agencies that clients would be transferred to if we need to transfer them to a different PSH provider, because we don't have, you know. A black PF eight provider that has 67 units sitting ready to go.
So before we I will go back to the list of who's I will say roughly so who's eligible to vote, anyone who's not affiliated with a COC funded agency. So you are employed by it or on the board of a COC funded agency, and I, we are also asking, as again, part of our process for transparency, if you are currently or have within the past six months, received services from one of these agencies, and you are also a board member, we are asking you to also recuse yourself from that vote, I will go back to the list as well. Again, the list. So this list of it, these are the individuals on the board who are not quite the item on the board of a COC funded agency. Only you personally will know at this point in you are recent recipient of services from any of these agencies, because we haven't asked board members to disclose that. So that does apply to you. Just please recuse yourself from from the group. I do need a motion that we're going to start with mariners in again. So we're kind of going back in time a bit, because we do still need to vote on each of these. I do need a motion for mariners in and again, their recommendation was to grant the appeal and submit their renewal project for full funding. That's the That's my suggested motion for that appeal support.
Thank you. Thank you.
Let me get
the Anderson link. I apologize later, so
the link in the chat is for Dennis, for banners, and so people would do we'll just pause for a few minutes to let folks do their vote, and they're going to seem to speak up for votes, and we'll go on To AMG, and then we'll Go on to cch. So
I do see six posts. We're going to keep it seven. Give it another 30 seconds or so. Again, I take a minute for us to go through the results, just to make sure that all of those tasks were by folks being the board members that are eligible. So not going to be able to make that announcement here. I
so when you in terms of so the recommendation, the language of the recommendation is also in the voting form. So we go on the farm, you will see the language of the recommendation as well. So we have eight votes. I think that we're given just a couple more seconds again. If you as a board member are able to vote on this one, please do so expediently so we can go run to the next one.
All right, moving on to alternatives for girls to get AFG. Recommendation from the appeals committee is to grant the appeal, submit the project for full funding and place them on a corrective action plan. So that is, that's the suggested notion. But if there's any changes that anyone wants to speak to that or any further discussion,
I just wanted to say, keep in mind, three people denied this. They were already on a corrective action. I
Is there? A is there? I guess new second for this motion. I.
I think.
Okay, so the link is in the chat, so again, it's the same. Your name is on this list. You are eligible to vote unless you are a current or recent recipient of services from AMG, also one of our board members on this list. Please recuse yourself and do not vote. We'll leave this one open for just a minute or so as well. I don't you
I give it another 30 seconds
or so I see see i votes, and we're going to go on to cch, so again, The
recommendation motion would be to approve the recommendation that the appeal is denied and that the project being reallocated is entirely that is The suggested motion. There's any support and the second I
a motion to help to approve. I
think that's there, all right, the form again, is in the chat,
same list of names that we've seen before. Again, if you need to recuse yourself on the book, please do not vote for a
minute.
I can I ask a question? This is Julie, yes. I want to make sure that people go back to
it.
Okay? So if I vote yes, I know what that means. If I'm saying no, I don't agree. What is that we need? Like, they wouldn't get allocate holiday. I just want to make sure I'm not incorrectly. Yeah, that's great. So if you that means that you do sort of that means you do not say this. So right now, the recommendation is to not submit the project for funding. Yes vote means you agree that the project should not be submitted for funding. And if the majority of the board votes no, then we will need to have further discussions within the court about what course of action to take that would have happened today.
I think the next thing on the agenda list, I know we're running late. We did that. Different.
So I'm going to have to add some consensus here. We we've only lost one or two people. We're doing good, but we are running behind. We are at four, 412, and we do have another agenda item that I would actually like to hear Amanda new funding. I think that we need to discuss that so we want to move forward in that vein. I hope that everyone I'm just making an executive decision here. I hope that you can stay engaged to hear about this new funding that is available to us. I'm also going to skip the break. I hope that's all right as well. If you have to just cut your computer off and go make a run, please do so. But let us just move forward, man. If that's all right, okay, so might be okay.
And so I have so on the agenda as a COC notebook update. Actually have two no pro updates, because there's two no votes from opportunity available. So as HUD likes to keep us on our toes. So I'm first going to talk about the COC build opportunity, and then I'm going to do a brief overview of the regular COC notebook. Excuse me, but the more and we'll also ensure that I post to our website, the more detailed kind of analysis that I get from our regular COC notebook. But I do want to start with the COC builds opportunity. So can I talk about what it is the funding that's available? There's all of those emails. So in terms of the CSC bill, this GoPro was released on July 18, the application is due on November 21 and this is a little bit different than other CSC notebooks that we've seen in the past, and that there is just one application that needs to be submitted by the actual applicant. There's no overarching kind of COC application. However, it does still need to be submitted in grants.gov by the collaborative applicant. So by hand, the COC bills info allows the CoCs to apply for funding specifically for permanent supportive housing development or PSH development applications must include capital costs, so that means cost for acquisition, property acquisition, new construction or rehabilitation. These are costs that we typically don't fund under our normal competition because they're not renewable. So this is sort of a unique opportunity to get some of those capital costs to pay for developing psh. The projects may also request operating and support services cost and, of course, admin for project based rental assistance to support their costs. Going forward, Hyde has a total of $175 million that they're making available in this application. However, they do have some priorities to fund projects on tribal lands or other rural communities. So based on my estimates, when I kind of back out how much I think they're going to be funding for tribal and rural communities, there's probably about a dozen or less non tribal, non rural communities across the country, not tribal front. So this is a highly competitive application Detroit, there are half the rate of many other urban communities. Probably be awarded 10 to 12. We can apply for up to seven and a half million dollars total. We may only submit one project application. So what this means is that one entity can be can apply for these funds. We are able to submit an application that would have subrecipients if there are more than one PSH developments that we want to support, and if we can identify an entity who's willing to be the direct recipient of the funds and to subgrant the dollars out To those subrecipients, I anticipate, however, that given the seven and a half million dollars we will likely just would just have one applicant, just one project. The initial grant term can be anywhere from two to five years. So these are multi year grants, and then after that initial grant term ends any non capital costs, so cost for operating services or project based rental assistance would be renewed under the standard COC competition. Projects must serve people who are experiencing homelessness and have a disabling condition, which is the kind of broad eligibility criteria for Psh, however, HUD has made it clear that their projects are expected to serve people through the community's Core Data Entry System, which means we can further target these units to people according to our prioritization process. So some key considerations for potential applicants. Knowing the timing of where our PSH project is in its development is going to be pretty key, because there's some timing issues where there's not necessarily a lot of flexibility. We are anticipating that HUD will be making funding awards in early 2025 executing plan agreements in mid to late 2025 the expectation is that those capital costs, which are finishing construction or rehab, that the project starts incurring those costs within nine months of signing that grant agreement. So have to be ready to start incurring those costs by the. Complete. 2025 early 2026 those construction activities do have to be completed within two years of signing that grant agreement. And then any activities like the provision of services that have to wait until after construction is done that needs to start within three months of construction being complete. So we've started to have some kind of what's been happening to date, and the city have been having some initial conversations just to identify which PSH projects may be in the pipeline, in terms of in a good place, timing wise, to potentially apply for these dollars. We're having some additional meetings to kind of further flesh that out, there will likely need to be some targeted outreach to potential applicants. Once we have an idea of who is maybe in a good position to apply, in terms of some next steps, there will need to be a local application process for these funds. So I mentioned there needs to be some targeted outreach. It'll be not to say that this will still be an open application process, you know, where any eligible applicant can apply. That is certainly the case, but because the COC can only submit one application, and that one application has to have the support of the COC. We need to have a process locally to identify who that one entity is going to be. So there will need to be a local application process. We anticipate the RFP to be released mid to late August. The RFP will mirror what HUD has in the NOFO is not going to be laid out the way that highlights it has, which is going to be a 25 page narrative. There's very specific things that the applicant will have to write to and respond to, including their experience developing and managing permanent supportive housing, the provision of services partners are involved. So really, the application is really going to be looking for kind of the project readiness and applicant experience. So anticipate that our piece be released this month with applications due late September and October, we'll be reviewing, and then the board will get a recommendation in November as to which project to submit by November 21 you see hand submits the application on behalf of the selected recipient, and that's because the collaborative applicant needs to be the one to actually submit the application in grants.gov but the entity named in the application is the one that will be receiving the funding and implementing appropriate. That was a quick and dirty, high level overview of the COC bills. What questions? Hopefully not too many questions. This is what I know about it. I'll take any questions that folks may have about it. I
seven or
it has been released that
is gonna
ask all right, I'm gonna switch gears and then talk about the regular cocnovo as well, because once again, we're in another year where we have two novos at the same time. This to us, so I don't know the details of this. Again, I will make sure that this kind of analysis that I've done is posted on our website. But there are some highlights that I do want to point out regarding a 2024 Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO that slide has provided. So the NOFO was released on July 31 if sorry, references it's due October 30. So that gives us another month from what we were expecting. I do have this section on plus priorities in the NOFO kind of our strengths and weaknesses, just in the interest of time. Not going to linger too much on this, but again, I will make this available. One thing I do want to point out that is new this year, a new priority for HUD is not as safe as they have been last year's there's a new priority, which is building an effective workforce. Think HUD has been hearing what agencies have been struggling with, with recruiting and retaining staff for. For their housing programs. So this has now become a priority of them within their funding. One way that addressing that which will get you is they are going to be making some automatic cost of living adjustments to our current COC projects. So for those of you who receive rental assistance budget line. You know that kind of makes automatic adjustments to your budget lines for FMR increases. So this is going to be the same type of thing within a supportive services budget line, or HMIs, for the HMIs direct grants. I don't know the details, kind of information, NOFO is rather scant in terms of how they're going to make the adjustments. How much the adjustment is going to be. All that we know is that HUD will be making some adjustments to allow for cost of living increases, which is great news. It will probably not be as much as we want it to be. It is the other significant change is that HUD is moving to a two year notebook. So if you read the notebook and pulled it down at all, which is 120 some pages of thrilling reading, so highly encourage you to take a look at it, you'll see that it says it's the 2024 2025, notebook. So what that means is that we are doing our regular COC application this year that we're going to get scored on. However, there will be no COC application next year. The score that we receive on the application this year will apply to next year as well. So also, what will happen next year is that there will not, least, this is what I anticipate, is that there will not be any new project funding to apply for next year. Kind of alluded to this earlier. I think that's why I've made the allocation for new funding so much more this year. My understanding is that in 2025 projects will essentially be automatically remade. It may look very similar to how it's been during the pandemic. Some of those details are still not entirely clear, not entirely clear, in terms of what we will have to do locally for a local competition, HUD will allow reallocation in 2025 if that is something that we wanted to pursue, but in terms of what a local review process will have to look like next year, still working that out is so more to call on that, but I will say there will be no overarching COC application that will need to be written next year, the other change that I saw in the notebook, there does seem to be some increased emphasis on ensuring homelessness is not criminalized. I think a lot of this past decision where HUD is really wanting to see efforts that political communities are making to ensure people are not criminalized for sleeping outside, or not seeking shelter. So that is, these are some of the highlights of the changes that I've seen so far in the NOFO. Touched on this briefly regarding the amount of new project funding that's available. I'll just go over this real quick. We have about a total of $45 million available. That includes funding for all of our renewal projects, which is about 36 million funding for domestic violence bonus and COC bonus. And these are estimated dollars that 4.3 million and 5 million still waiting to fund for rent, to give us the final, final numbers on that. But again, you can see it's a larger amount than what we had last year, which you see compared on the screen there, the amount for COC planning is the same. This is the funding that comes directly to hand to support our work as a collaborative applicant. We talked a little bit about tier one and tier two when we were doing the ranking policies, so this chart is just intended to give a snapshot of our tier one amount. It is 90% of our annual renewal demand this year, which is a lower percentage than it was last year. However, the dollar amount is greater because we have more projects that are coming up for renewal this year. So it's a little somewhat difficult to compare the two. Based on the estimates that I've done, it seems like being roughly the same portion of projects may end up in tier two that ended up in tier two, if you say renewal, projects will end up in tier two this year as they did last year. Brief, briefly on the scoring criteria. So the score is the criteria that scores our COC application on our score on this is what drives our ability to get those tier two projects funded, the scoring criteria. Area this year is largely the same as it has been last year. It gives a broad overview on how it's broken down. The one of the most significant areas is in our system performance. These are measures that are data driven related to our system performance measures, our point time count. The proportion of those points is the same this year as it was last year. You've heard me talk in the past about the difference between data driven points versus narrative points roughly the same this year. Just break down about a quarter of the points that we can earn this year related to our point time data and our system performance data is the same as last year. However, I do want to point out this one big difference in terms of the estimated number of points I think we will be receiving for these data driven elements, significantly less so in 2023 we earned 35 out of 52 points for our performance. Again, our point time count system performance measures this year, projecting that we will earn, believe about 14 of those 50 points due in large part to our point in time count numbers that increased from 2022 to 2024 I do have a summary document that goes into more detail on this data every time, also post on our website, so folks can access that place. In essence, we had, I'm sorry, we had an increase in our point in time, and particularly our unsheltered point in time, from 2022 to 2024 which will likely mean that we'll be getting those points associated with point in time. Now, HUD has stated in the notebook, if the community can demonstrate that their increase in the point time count is impacted by new arrivals to the community, that HUD will take that into consideration. How we will be able to demonstrate that, or how HUD will take that into consideration, is not clear yet, but I just wanted to make that note that HUD is aware that some communities like Detroit may have seen an increase in their pit numbers because of new arrivals to the community. So it sounds like they are trying to account for that in some way. So still kind of more to understand in terms of what that could look like locally. I already. Don't want to belabor the point, but just noting that some things are going to be pushed back a little bit into October, now that we know that deadline is October. For those of you on this call who have applications that are going to need to be entered into E snapshot details and instructions for me on those steps in those processes. But ultimately, everything will be submitted to HUD by the end of October, and we anticipate that weekly funding awards in early 2026 really high level information. Any questions around? Hey,
Amanda.
Erica, really quick. You were discussing the adjustments, I believe, like the first one or two slides maybe that you had, and you said that was simply for rental adjustments, not that one. Yeah, automatically
Living Adjustments, sure. So well. So what I was so this is the first year that HUD will be making cost of living adjustments. Every year HUD makes adjustments for rental assistance for projects that have a rental assistance budget line, which, because your budget lines are operating in support of services, but for projects that have a supportive service budget, mine, my understanding is that mine is going to be making some type of cost of living adjustments for all of those service, supportive service lines, the details on how much, but it's the adjustment. And even increase, right? Progressive would increase. I don't know, they gave some really high level information, even though that is not super helpful, I just know that the point is that they want to be able to give communities more conscious than to pay your staff. Because you'll know, for those of you that have these you that have these funding however many years ago, if you never afforded additional project funding, you received the same amount of funding pay your staff. Cost of funding has certainly gone up. Your budget hasn't gone up and up until the. How the only way to get more money is to apply for projects and go through all that. So this is Fed's attempt to recognize that cost of living has increased. Your budgets have not. So they are going to be giving a bit of a bump in those supportive service lines. Thank you.
Thank you, Amanda, for all of all of your time today, let it be known that after Amanda has an opportunity to review all the things that have scores everything, there is a possibility that she will be reaching out to board members via email to Iver convene again or have some suggestions on what we do. So please stay tuned for that information, as she has time to review. This was a very robust conversation. Thank you. Thank you to the review the review committee. Thank you to everyone who participated, to everyone who was here to help us. We throughout the movie pieces that we talked about today, we do not want to leave this meeting without having public comment. That's that's probably one of the most important things we do. And although we have been on this call for a moment, we do still want to have public comment, so I'm going to turn it over into the hands of Kiana, and she can take us further.
Good afternoon, and thank you, Candace, so we are at the point in our agenda for public comments. If you would like to reach out to me via chat to be unmuted, or you can simply raise your hand if you have a public comment for today. In front of you are the rules that we have jointly created for public comment. Your time limit is three minutes, and we will have a timer up when you start your comment. Any questions, or is anyone ready or wanting to make a comment today?
Okay, I have a head up from Monica area.
My question is, may not pertain to your organization.
Why people?
Why is their security deposit not covered?
We get a lot of calls when people are looking for security by they said they're on Section Eight. They're looking for security deposit. Why is it not covered by federal government? And then, like I said, this might not pertain to your particular agency, but I want, I would like, to know if you know someone can give us an answer.
Thank you. Thank you. One of the recommendations in the chat is to contact Mr. Hood directly. Is there anyone else on the board meeting today that feels confident enough to respond to miss
Monica, if not, We can type maybe those contacts in the chat. Applause,
Monica has her hand raised, okay,
I just thought that was the only question.
Thank you. Okay, I
All right. Well, thank you for your comment.
Regina to
answer part of a question if the client is coming from an agency that handles that, they will pay the client security deposit. Other than that, the client is responsible for their own security deposit unless they can get, you know, find somebody to cover you
if they're like, coming from a homeless from an agency that helps with the homeless, they may get your security deposit covered for the very first time, like they're just coming out of the shelter. So I would say that depends on the funding of that organization. Often organizations don't have the funding to do so, and it's not connected to the HUD voucher itself that's regulated by the federal government. So if it really needs to affect any change with with that, we would have to advocate with the federal government. I do have my reference, my US Representative looking into it also. Thank you.
You're welcome.
Thank you.
Is there anyone else for public comment? Chelsea,
there is a comment or question in the chat that I would ask if you could reach out to miss Marionette call in relationship to her Question
and request.
Yes, I'll be so fast. I just wanted to comment on today's meeting, and I really feel like I can say I really appreciate the time you were given to ask those questions. I have that engaging conversation. My experience in the past on different courts is that sometimes you get a recommendation, you just gotta vote really quick, and you don't get the chance. So thank you for letting me and others ask those supporting questions. And I think it was great meeting today. Thank you.
All right. Candice, at this time, I do not see any additional hands up, and I have not received any requests in the chat, so I'm going to turn it back over to you and close our public comment for August 5, 2024 Thank you Kiana, again and again. Thank you, Lydia for that comment. Thank all of the board members, all of the guests, anyone who participated all in today's meeting. What we do is important and it is worthy, and we appreciate your time, your energy and your talent. We look forward to continuing this discussion because we understand that it is ongoing, and we hope to see you again next month at our regularly scheduled board meeting for board members, please stay tuned, because you will meet you will probably be hearing something So Amanda, thank you again, and have a wonderful rest of your day. Applause.