You have joined us with this month's Detroit board meeting. Meeting starts at two o'clock. It is approximately
20720. Yes,
I think you can get started. Welcome to all the people who have joined us virtually. We have quite a few people
online.
Can they get in? Yes, so
we're going
to go ahead and get started. Wanted you to pay attention to our welcome today, and all of our, I would say, our housekeeping things that are right here. Be mindful of them as we move through this meeting. Thank you to hand organizers. Thank you so much. And all of the all of the L's from haine. And thank you so much for making this possible for us today, and I think we can get started. So I hope you consider yourself warmly welcomed. Somebody talk back to me now. Y'all got welcomed.
We're welcome. That's
what I'm talking man. I want to say this is an opportunity for us to meet in person, which we have not done in several years. Um, but we are hoping that this is a time for us to engage better by arms, one with another, learn from each other, and even get to know each other. I just met someone personally today with the board meeting. We've met virtually, but it is so good to actually create that bond in person. So we're going to be sending out a poll to you all about how we move forward. We're going to throw out some suggestions to you and ask you to respond and and we'll go from there, helping us decide exactly what age we take with being in person and how often, and all of that good stuff. So we'll share that with you, and then once we get that information back, they're disseminated, and we'll know how to move forward for October. Everybody alright with that? Okay, so the agenda, Elsa, do you want to throw that up there for us? Oh, my name is Candice Moyer, and I am the chair. Our Vice Chair is trying to join us remotely. He's on his way to a conference, as well as another one of our board members Miss lipster. They're under here to a conference. They're going to try their best to see if they can join us first. Okay, so thank you for that. We're going to now get the mic over to Chelsea for announcements.
Hello, everyone. My name is Chelsea Johnson, and I am the program coordinator for hand. I just want to just say that the general membership that originally was supposed to be scheduled September 17 is now going to be rescheduled to October, October 15, that's the third Tuesday of October
to align with the CLC competition. Thank you. Okay,
did everybody get that? So if you've already had your schedules planned for September, which is the usual scheduled payments of our membership meeting, we needed to move that because there's some voting that has to take place that aligns with our COC competition. So we hope that did not get convenient. You too much, but we hope that you can join us for the general membership meeting. Thank you, Chelsea, we're not going to have a couple of moments for you to look at your board members. Please review your minutes. If you have not done so from our previous board meeting, we're going to give you a couple of seconds before we move forward with our consent, applause.
It also for the board members that are online, I will pop the link in the chat
for the consent agenda.
So just a quick reminder, Chelsea already sent out notice to the board members, but we do have quite a few things that we're voting on today, so she asked you to come prepared with a fully charged instrument. So as she throws out the polls, we're going to be able to and
also, we need a motion a second. Yes,
can I get a motion to move forward with the consent for our minutes from office. So move
you have a second from Rosetta, one
seconds that we will
accept our agenda, our minutes from last month as they are. Thank you for that, board members. So we're going to move a little further in the agenda. And I think this is
board elections, just as you
can oh, can someone move the slides from. Dislocation.
Chelsea know how to do stuff, right? See, I
All righty, so I again thought we'll be presenting like an overview of the 2025
Board election, so restructured in this
term for Matt from 2016 every year, board members are selecting, you a nomination application and voting process. Members of the Board represent local service providers, consumers, funders, recommend entities and other members who can translate to homelessness. So as you can see, there's a little quote below. It says, the board brings together a diversified stakeholders working to address issues of homelessness and leverage the expertise and resources of the park. Poor responsibilities outlined in this slide are some of the various responsibilities of the Detroit CLC board. Board members are responsible for governance and oversight of the Detroit CLC, and do so through participating in committee attending and ethically participating in board meetings, establishing and implementing skills and priorities, as well as other tasks to ensure that the POC continues to meet the needs
of the local community.
Okay, there are several types of seats available on the Detroit CLC board, as shown, there are a lot of number of seats for our communities homeless service providers, individuals with lived experience slash expertise, and members of ours, as well as holding up to 10 appointed which do not fall under the regular election process. There are two main types of courses, those that are elected and those that are appointed. Today, we will be focusing on the electricity and facilitated the prospect to elected board members to serve beginning in January 25 we have three types of elected B, those for our community direct homeless service providers, those for persons with lived experience of homelessness, and additional selection of at large B, these at large centers are for stakeholders with a divesting issues in homelessness who may not fall into the other two categories. Did I miss one
for this year's board reduction process?
There are three homeless service provider. Seat, one community advocate or individual religious currency available and three available member at large. Seat electives serve for a three year term. We only allow one representative per agency on the skills and board, so please coordinate internally to determine who is the best entity from your agency to apply. If you are interested. Our current chair again this morning, time is inspiring this year. So so we'll be working on me about the chair.
Okay, wait a minute. Not a lot lost. Okay, alrighty. Thank
you. So also apply, everyone will receive a link to the online application by the university. This link will go live Tuesday, September 17. The application link will take you to an informational document that gives historical detailed information about the COC board and our expectations of ordinance. Please read this movie before advancing to complete the application, applicants will be asked to provide summary answers to various questions regarding their interests in applying and verifying their qualifications for board membership, for those applying for homeless service provider and remember that large sheet, a short one page resume and photo will be needed to will need to be submitted. There is a space to upload these directed to the application. This is optional for those applying for the community advocacy, but required for academics. And also, September 17 is actually, you know, the original gig for the general membership. Um, so we're not having that meeting right now for this month, I would say we're not having that meeting this month. So additional information will go to the general membership as well correct okay. Application timeline. Here are the highlights. After today's announcement, the Board election process will open to receive applications on September 17, as previously mentioned. The election materials will be released by the end of the week. If you are interested in nominating board pageant, those nominations by October 8 will allow time for the nominee to submit an application. You do not need to be nominated to apply. If you are interested, you are welcome to direct and skip to the application step. All Applications are due by October 25 at 1159 upon receiving application, the team at hand will provide will compile. Profiles for this applicant and post them on our website. Elections will then take place at the November general membership meeting on November 19, we will email applicants to help you prepare for the election process on that day, once the election results are finalized, we will share results by Monday, November 25 and new board members will start returning. January 2025 and we'll be expected to attend our four organization series in the early MONTH of 2021, so if you guys have any any questions or comments or concerns, then please email me at Chelsea, at hand break.org
and yes, thank you. Thank you. You all ready. Thank you for that. This is a great opportunity for those who are here, who are not at the board University, and for those who are listening online, it's a great opportunity. You're already involved, but if you would like to be on the board, please pay attention to the election process so that we can get involved more. If you would like to, I do have a question. For instance, say there is a a board member whose term is, I
Just a question. I know last year we had some some concerns we didn't have enough people running for certain positions. So we want to make sure that we have all of all our spaces. So if there's someone who is from your time, and you know noone is being for that, we want to make sure that you can so thank you again, Chelsea, for that information. I think we're going to get on to some meat. I believe that's what we're going are we going to Amanda, yes, we are.
Alright. Thank you. You're so excited. I also have to say, I'm really distracted by the speaker and the comment myself and I speak, I feel like I need to, like, have a really great cadence or something early, get the lights going. But I'm going to be talking about something equally excited as the speaker, and that is the COC builds funding opportunity was my attempt to have peers to do this type way. Um, also, I want to say that everything that I've been talking about for those board members who are here in person, you should have received everything in a hard copy, paper materials for the board members online. These are all items that were emailed up to either this morning or last week, Friday. So I so you'll see I'm on the agenda for a number of things today that do all need to be voted on. The first thing that we're going to start with is the COC builds evaluation criteria. So at the end of this piece of the agenda, there is a vote, and all board members are eligible to vote, with the caveat that if you are affiliated with an organization that may be applying for these COC bills funds, then you will need to recuse yourself. But otherwise, all board members are eligible to have a technical go to the next slide. So I'm going to first give just an overview of what COC bills is. We talked about this briefly, I think, at our August board meeting, but just to kind of remind us all of what this funding opportunity is about. So COC fields is a special funding opportunity for our plan is Continuum of Care funds, and it allows the COC to submit one application to HUD for a project that would receive capital cost to build and develop a permanent supportive housing project. Applicants would need to request some supportive services cost in that budget, but the majority of the funds have to be used for capital costs. Capital costs are acquiring our property new doing new construction or rehabilitating an existing property, any supportive services costs that we need awarded are renewable under the typical COC competition, Detroit has seven and a half million dollars total that we can apply for, and an applicant may request a grant term that's anywhere from one to five years. One thing to note that hopefully will become clear as we talk about the evaluation criteria is that the timing of where a project is. Going to be really key in order for them to be competitive, both locally and
so this slide here, and this is really where we're getting into the meat of the elements that the board is going to be asked to approve. First we're going to talk about applicant eligibility criteria. So those criteria that an applicant needs to have defined it at all, and even in order for us to even consider their applications, then we'll be going into the more competitive evaluation criteria. I should say to all of these criteria were developed through conversations with hand staff and the city of Detroit, particularly their staff who have experience with the housing development side, and we also received some assistance from CSH as well, just tapping into their knowledge of developing permanent supportive housing. So these criteria have also been vetted and approved by the values and funding priority committee. So we really did try to kind of follow our typical process. So these first five items are the eligibility criteria. We run through these some of them are HUD's requirements. So we don't have much wiggle room there the university, the applicant has to be one of the eligible types of organizations that will allow the second is that the project site must be located in Detroit Highland Park. Those are our COC jurisdictions. The third criteria is that the applicants must have experienced developing at least one PSH or affordable housing project that's of a similar size and scale of the one being proposed. So one thing to note is that code is really going to be looking for applicants that have experience for developing these types of projects. And so we really wanted to ensure that any applicants locally have experience doing at least one project of the type that they're applying for. The application, when they simplify locally, does need to include your requirement includes a budget for supportive services, again, that's to take advantage of the fact that these services will be renewable after the initial grant term ends, and the final eligibility criteria does that mean the project must not be an occupied rehab? So occupied rehab meaning that it is a building that is there are people currently living in it who would need to be moved out in order for the rehab to take place, due to the timeline and the Ura requirements that would need to be met for that, it's just not compatible with the timeframe that we have to work with for these projects, so we would not consider a project. So those are the eligibility criteria. Kind of think of them as like threshold criteria that an agency needs to have in order to be considered for funding for the next slide. So before we get into the actual evaluation criteria, so what are those things that an agency can earn points for on their application? Wanted to just give a framework here, and these evaluation criteria are included because they either align with HUD's expectations for these projects. They align with the requirements regarding the project timelines, they align with our values of having uncomprehend quality supportive services. They align with our value of regarding equity and centering the voices of those who lived experience. And they align with our requirements for using HMIs and coordinating Okay, so I'm going to kind of walk through each of these evaluation criteria and what they are at the document, the board packet, goes into more details on some of the specifics of what will be included in that criteria. Then you do see I give the maximum points possible, like with any other evaluation of these four points, so, you know, or possible. So this is kind of a, will be a scale approach, but just to kind of run through what these evaluation criteria are, we also in terms of the point values. We've really tried to the intention of with the value attached to them, in terms of how those criteria would then be weighted, in terms of the kind of importance that that element has to the overall score. So the first set of criteria has to do with the project timeline. These are, so again, these are all questions that the applicant will be answering in their application. So there'll be responding to questions around if they have site control, if they've done the environmental review, or where they are in the environmental review process, the overall timeframe where construction start and end, when they anticipate having a certificate occupancy and when they anticipate unit occupancy to begin. It so again, all those states will help us understand if that project will combine with the kind of the timeline and the time frame we're going to be under for these projects. Same thing with the zoning requirement for either continual how the property is currently zoned and if the new zone appropriately, again, because of the time frame that it could take to get parcels rezone. We just may not have the timeline to be able to accommodate the property needs to be property needs to go through the entire rezoning process. The third criteria is just information about the project, including how many of the project is going to provide, what we call integrated units, or if it's going to be 100% psh. So integrated units mean both the units in the building include both PSH and non PSH units, and then also asking if the property is what's called adaptive reuse. So are they taking a building that was maybe formally not an apartment building, and turning them into purpose. So these, again, those are to align with what we know HUD is going to be looking for in these applications. The fourth criteria is evaluating the applicant's experience in developing similar projects, the extent to which they found that how many they've done in the past, what the funding sources for those projects were. The fifth criteria is the experience of the property management company, and then the sixth is the service provider experience. So questions four, five and six are really diving into the experience and the history of all of the partners involved in the project, how they've done this work in the past, their experience serving people experiencing homelessness, and kind of the scale of those projects that they've done in the past, or the next slide? So the second, sorry, yes, so I'm assuming,
if it's 100% CSA for im so
that's a great question, actually. So now this is too aligned with our sense of what HUD is looking for. For those on the call, the question was whether or not projects that were 100% PSAs would score higher or not. We have a sense that fight is really interested in funding integrated projects, or where there's PSH units and non PS units and one building, so there could be more points for a project that is at that time. That doesn't that does not mean that we will consider projects that are 100% psh. Certainly we will. A lot of our project based buildings are, again, just trying to align with what we think HUD is going
to be adapted,
same thing. So it was a project as a conversion of this four more because, again, HUD is really interested in communities, looking at what buildings do you have in your community that put to a different use. We have to put to use for psh. And then the
project is proposing, if it doesn't have property management company attached to the agency itself, considering the property manager, how would that, if it doesn't play into point based on that nonprofit
experience provided really good so in terms of the question of the property manager is really going to depend on how they answer the question, I will say if they are at this point in their timeline, and they really haven't thought about who The Property Management is going to be or even approach that they may not from a timing perspective, they just may not be in a good position to receive these files. This is again, where you're really these projects are really going to have to have these partners kind of already all lined up in terms of knowing who is you So, if so, in that respect, they should have an idea of who is going to be the entity, who will be managing the property. So great questions. Okay, so going on. So the terms of number seven for the evaluation criteria, seven and eight are kind of similar. This is where we're diving into getting more information on the service model description tell us about the services that are going to be provided. What's the model of services? How will you be compliant with housing first, without barriers. What is the client to case manager ratio? We will be looking for projects to have you know that are one to 15 client to case manager ratio. So the closer they are to that, the more points they're likely to earn. We're going to be looking for number nine, the extent to which the project has included people with lived experience of homelessness into their project design planning. So you know, have they been talking to. You, the people who may be impacted by this project, and are you? How are you incorporating their input in the planning of the project? Questions 10 and 11 are also they're important questions for us, but they also align with questions that we know. How does going to be looking for that is the experience that the applicant, applicant project partners have with building community partnerships with grassroot organizations and advancing, excuse me, their experience in addressing racial equity. So questions along those lines in terms of the experience of the applicant and project partners in that regard. Question 12, this is where we start getting into 1213, and 14 is where we start getting into, like, the money aspect of things. So question 12 is going to be asking for information about the funding gaps, because, again, the majority of these funds do need to be used for capital costs. So we are going to ask for demonstration of that gap in the capital costs, and asking for their documentation to support that questions. 13 and 14 are asking around the leveraging of other housing resources or healthcare resources. Again, this is to align with what we know HUD is going to be looking for. People have details to get the application on how you demonstrate leveraging, what that looks like, how much needs to be leveraged in order to earn points. But again, we're trying to, you know, make that alignment with what we know HUD is going to be looking for. Go to the next slide. So question 15, that is the actual budget itself, the budget of the applicant submits. We're going to want to make sure that, again, that they are proposing to use the majority of the funds for capital costs, and then also looking at what they're proposing to do with those supportive services costs that they may be requesting. The last two camp participation and HMIs participation are not necessarily going to be mere their responses, but rather they're going to be we will know the extent to which an agency is participating in cam or HMIs just based on who the applicant is. So that will be a score that will be given based on what is known about the agency and their experience and involvement in the COC, and if they are a new agency, I think they knew what that question was. Perhaps they're newer to Detroit, to coordinated ministry or to HMIs, than either what we probably would frame this as we do with other applicants, those points would not apply, but we will have as a part of the application materials is incorporated in the signature page, which is what we have standard for all of our applicants, a confirmation that the agency understands and the participation in HMIs, in coordinator entry is a requirement. So even if you don't have experience now, if you are funded, you will need to participate. So those are the criteria before we go for kind of details on the phases of what this process is going to look like. Any questions on the evaluation criteria.
We are taking questions now on the criteria, evaluation criteria, you
guys, okay,
not seeing any. I want to then go over the kind of the like, what this application process is going to look like, speaking to the next slide. So locally, we're going to implement this application process in two phases. Part of this sort of phased approach is because of the timeline that we're under and because we can only submit one applicant to HUD. So this is very different than other processes, where we can select more than one application to submit to HUD, we can only submit one in this one. So phase one, first of all, we're going to pick that off with an informational webinar this Friday sends information out by that about that interested parties are going to need to apply to the COC by September 27 so there is going to be a relatively short turnaround time again, the questions in the application are going to be those questions and those evaluation criteria. I just went over the those applications that are submitted that will be reviewed and scored using that evaluation criteria, and then based on that review, one application will be brought to the COC board for recommendation for funding at the October board meeting. After that one application is approved or selected, we will then move into phase two. And so phase two is where that selective agency is then going to be. Write the full application that they have to submit to HUD. Again, there's a little bit different than other application processes where everything is written and submitted to HUD is done by the agency who is declined. So there's a long narrative that they're going to have to write and submit to HUD, and some of those questions will be included in what they submit to us locally, but they will have to develop that fuller narrative. There's required budget form will have to complete, and there are some supplemental narratives they'll have to complete as well. So that selected applicant will need to do all of that work, really, for kind of the month of October. And we'll have built in there a process for us to read, you know, hand staff and others you know, to review that narrative as they're writing it, before it's submitted to HUD. But ultimately, that full narrative, the budget form, everything is going to be submitted to HUD by November 19, and hand as the collaborative applicant is the one that has to actually do the submitting of the application to HUD, even though the applicant, if they are awarded, are the one that will enter into the grant agreement and be the one to receive the funding. But due to how HUD has structured this, the collaborative applicant, to him, needs to be the one to actually submit it all to HUD. Yes,
for the informational webinar. Is
it the 111 three,
or is it on
September the information webinar is on September 13, on Friday, Friday the 13th. Monday, Friday the 13th. So yes, I apologize. In the board packet, it does say September 12, it is the 13th. And then all of the email communication, everything went out, there is the 13th. So thank you for catching that Yes.
Would it be fair to say that individual? Candace's
question was around agencies that apply, should they have some of this already going on, and if you mean the like specific project that they're applying for? Yes, the project has to be pretty far along in its development, and to be in order to really to be competitive again, both locally in our review process and with HUD. And I say that I'll go over this and more information at the webinar, but because there's been there's certain time markers where the applicant is going to have to show site control, gonna have to have the environmental review done. Can't figure out, start drawing certain funds until that environmental review is done. We know those reviews can take a long time. You run into all the good stuff, and you run into like, live asbestos and all that. And so because of the how that can take that time, there's projects that do need to kind of be at a certain phase in order to be competitive. And I say that because these funds, if awarded, unfortunately, they're not the kind of funds where you can get them and then hang on to them for a couple of years before you're ready to start spending them. That's not how these funds work. You need to be able to start spending them within a certain timeframe in order to be able to spend on their certain markers that have to be met. Did you have another question? Some of us who are
eight, right? Yeah, it is a unique No. And if so, right. So if you're an agency and thinking, Oh, at some point down the road, yes, I think I would like to rehab this building, or I wish I could acquire that building on the corner someday to get it to turn it into, psh, if it's right now, things are just sort of a thought and a general plan. Unfortunately, this is probably not going to be the time, the time.
Other questions. Again, there is a vote for this. The vote is for to approve the eligibility criteria and his application criteria. But before we move to the bill record, are there any those, any questions in the chat? Have anything else that I can Yes? Candace,
yeah. Integrated. Use,
like the ratio, like the ratio of how many units are FSH? How many are FSH? So I don't think so. I mean. Think so. I think we will ask, in the application of the total number of units in your building, how many are psh? How many are not psh? In terms of our evaluation criteria, we have to look at how we have sketched that out. I don't see that because I don't think has set a an expectation or a standard. So I think we're trying to
combine.
Other questions. Oh, all right, you're all way in the corner there. Oh,
yes, so the supportive services will be renewable once the initial grant term is completed. So these are going to be likely be multi year grants, just because of the amount of funding that's going to be available. So let's say it's a five year grant. At the end of that initial five years, the supportive services amount will essentially be incorporated into our normal COC renewal process
so they can apply for operations and project based rental assistance as well and but the capital costs are non renewable. I mean, which kind of makes sense. Once you use the capital money to figure rehab, they're spent involved.
If there's no more questions I would go to I think we can. We're good to start, good to move into the vote. I think in terms of the voting, I think Chelsea will you maybe putting the link in the chat box. Okay, so for those who are on the Zoom call, there will be the typical voting link in the chat box. Again, any board member is eligible to vote unless you are affiliated with an organization who may be applying. To my knowledge, I don't think any of our organizations represented on the board are interested in applying, based on the conversations I've had with entities. But if you are, please repeat yourself from the vote. Otherwise and for the board members who are here in person, I believe you have a QR.
Any questions? What
do you mean about I'm sorry, any instructions regarding the QR code? Oh, no, you
just scanning with your
camera. Mm. Room that's where I'm lazy. You do not want to do anything, but just we need people here that don't mind working, you know, and me and Miss willborn, she gone because her gonna fall out the minute she get in here, she go everywhere, but to this desk. I sat out there for like 10 minutes before I got in here this morning. Hello. Hello. Michelle,
it was a mistake. I believe I could send the link really fast to the board members. I can send a link to other board members right now in the email, oh, you got it. So it's only sorry, so it works for you now. So maybe try it. I'm gonna just send a wait.
Let me see you. Send me an email. Okay, okay, let me see. Oh, it worked. So does it work? Now you guys,
and then we also have tablets. We also have tablets. Yeah, we do need a motion in a second. But we also have tablets
to
criteria,
motion and a second, okay, so for those, for those board members. Again on the Zoom call, you will see the form in the meeting chat, those who weren't here in person. If you are code isn't working for you, you can use that.
So we're going to leave that voting open for a minute. I do want to remind
as is kind of typical when these votes were not always able to get the announcements live in person. We do need to make sure that only fourth in person. Okay? And we're good to move on. So again, assuming that this does all pass, we will have that webinar on the 13th. We do have plan to also have the final application materials published to Ann's website on the 13th as well.
Okay, had 13 as
well. Amanda, I just the next agenda with the voting. Is
everyone good with the voting? The board members? Yes, okay, great.
Okay, all right, so this next agenda item will also require a vote. So this is that, and the information about this went out to the board via email this morning. I apologize I was not able to get it out prior to that, but what we're bringing to the board is a request for to approve a grant amendment that mariners then needs to make for their current COC PSH grant. And when we get to the vote, all board members will be eligible to vote for this. So I'm going to give some background to kind of what it is that we're talking about here we can go to the next slide.
So we
got distracted by the Zoom chat. So the COC currently has a policy in place that any agency that receives COC funding, so there are recipient of COC funds needs to have permission from the board before they make what's called a substantial amendment to their COC grant. This is a policy that we have had in place for several years. We have implemented it in various times over the years. A substantial amendment to a grant from a HUD's perspective would include things like a change in the project site of, you know, change of where the activities are going to be held, a change in the target population and a change in the numbers to be served. These are all considered substantial amendments to the grant, because, as you can see, like they're kind of changing what the initial how the grant has initially written or initially designed, and because the COC board has a role in approving these grants and they're submitted to that in terms of where the activities are going to take place, who's going to be served anytime that the grantee wants to make this type of substantial change, we have this policy in place where they need to get permission from the board before they approach up. And this policy was put in place more so, so that the board would be aware of what's what was happening, kind of what's going on in the community, so that we don't get caught unawares by Regency going directly to HUD, making these significant changes to their programs, and then we end up finding about it like after the fact. So this why we put that policy into place several years ago. Again, we haven't implemented it in various times over the years. It's not a common thing, but it does happen from time to time. So that's some of the kind of history on the policy go to the next slide. So some history now about kind of mariners in particular, and the should say to the overall change that they are requesting in their grant as part of those three items that I just referenced, a change in the project site, the change in the target population and a change in the number of people to be served. They are, maybe I should get started with this, but so they are, as I think many of us know mayors. In is in the process with a completed construction on a we're very close, at least, to completing construction on their new permanent supportive housing project, quality anchor. The brand new apartment building is being built kind of right next to their current facility. And that new apartment building will be their new site for their PSH program. So they are requesting that that change, to change the project sites from their current site to the new site, changing the number of people to be served their their current grant serves 32 people. There will be 44 people served in the new unit their new site, and a change in target population right now due to their current site, due to the communal living environment of the building that they serve only men in the new site, they will be your standard one bedroom apartments, and they will not be limited to serving just one gender anyone who is eligible for those one unit departments or one bedroom apartments. So that's kind of Anderson's request, but some a little more history on Mayor nursing project in general. Again, some of those we may be already aware of. In 2019 they were awarded moment housing tax credits, so they went through our local CSDs review process to be approved to submit for those tax credits. In the conversation with Fe 2019 regarding those tax credits, they indicated an interest in reducing their current COC funding in that name site. So this conversations really kind of started about five years ago, as an outcome of that there was a kind of a plan and intent put in place that for the 2020 competition, we would ask fairness in to submit a plan that would describe how they would use their current COC funds at the new site, and that we would review their service plan, their services, budget and policies as well. That was the intense community 2020 for the 2020 competition, the 2020 competition was canceled because of the pandemic, so that was not able to be implemented. And likewise, back in 2019 2020 marinerson was looking at a timeline about but being ready to lease up in about 2022 again, construction delay is related to the pandemic, and other things have delayed that where they are just now really getting to the point now, in 2024 where they're ready to start leasing up, finishing up that instruction. So with that delay, the two year delay has also delayed, really the need to do this brands amendment, but they really do it until they were ready to start programming in the new building. So I think the reason why I'm bringing up that kind of this historical context, is to just really point out that the areas that would have been addressed, any kind of that 2020 plan have in many ways, expanded or are in the process of being addressed by virtue of any kind of these following points, the fact that we get the COC approved that to be submitted for new project funding in The 2023 competition for a new project that would to provide services at their new building, which would be an expansion of their existing project. There's an ending recommendation that they be submitted for new funding in this year's competition. Likewise, we are in the current development of the corrective action plan and engagement with the Corporation for Supportive Housing to address areas like their policies, their staff training plans, their supportive services budget. So those things that had initially been intended to be really kind of laid out and looked into four years ago in 2020 really have since been addressed or in the process of being addressed, by virtue of the other activities that have happened surrounding their grant, we can go to the next slide. So all right, so I guess, yeah, open it up for any questions. Again. The ask is that the Board approve their request to amend their grant to allow the project activities to take place under the new site, which is the new building, the change in target population and increased number of limits. I realize this is sort of those more technical things for the board, yes,
they're going to add uncertainty.
They want to not have an email
in mail, correct, correct. Yep, moving around additional guidance for granted.
I measure. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. So I'm gonna put up Chelsea for me to put the link in, put it in there. Oh, Chelsea. Also, the link is again in the chat. And again, if you are here in person and try submitting that, you are going on your agenda for and
if it's not Working, we do have tablets with the link open you.
Those were the two items that I had pretty great. So again, those voting that should be open for a bit. I think everyone will remember you.
Order and a handful all of that fireworks. So we have moved is simply today, you got two things that we've already voted on, the community, the COC feel
very hopeful that we
and significant change. Thank you. Amanda, right now we have like, five minutes. Great. We
want you to have an opportunity to
grab
me five minutes. Anyway, 304, let's come on. Pat, thank You guys. I'm
Would it be helpful?
Definitely helpful. Okay, yeah, yeah. Like, what happens with the survey and stuff like that? But I'd be happy, like,
I'm struggling, like,
I feel like getting this, like, virtual, like, how
are you how do we do both?
We both, how
do we honor that in this process? So, yeah, yeah,
because I feel like the general notion was the biggest brand of but, you know, I don't think you offered it virtually right. You do know? Yeah, what's the, what's, what's the right balance,
getting people involved.
Yeah, no, yeah, I think
ideas in person. Here, I
also wouldn't have
a problem as long as we're not moving
at the same
time. Right? The same time, right?
So yeah for sure, no problem.
Thank You. Amy, you
Good afternoon, 304, and we would like to call our meeting back to work. We are ready. Thank you so very much. We are going to now have another action item presentation from Amanda sterber, 2024 CSC, new project recommendations
that you have to put up with a bunch of the day today. Thank you for your patience. All right.
How am I doing on the lights? Was that very entertaining? Those sneaker lights try to do better about this guy. Okay, so we are going to dive into some new project recommendations, and this all has to do with the COC competition. We have kind of two novos that we're, you know, managing the COC bids, which we just talked about, and then our typical slash standard CFC competition, which is what this next piece of information relates to. You can go to the next slide. So just kind of an overview of what I'm going to be talking about here. So ultimately, there's going to be two votes that are going to be taking place, kind of as we go throughout this this portion, the first is when we get to there's going to be a vote on the recommendation for the use of domestic violence bonus funding, and then there's going to be a vote regarding the use of what we call our CSU bonus project recommendations. So when we get to those votes, and I will have a slide that will have the names of the board members who can vote. Essentially, if you are a board member who is affiliated with a COC funded agency or who have applied for one of these funding opportunities, you aren't going to be refused from the vote that does not apply to you, then you are eligible to vote, and we could ask that you would vote the. Again, when we get to that, you'll put up a slide with the name, so you'll know if you can vote or not. So the applications that we are presenting and that we're talking about, here are all of the project applications that were submitted at the end of July in response to the RFP that was released in June for new project funding. And there were two pools of funding available, the domestic violence bonus funding and the COC bonus funding. We're going to first Chelsea for the next slide, comfort we're going to first talk about the domestic violence bonus recommendation for the next slide. So I wanted to put this slide in here just to kind of remind us of a policy that was approved by the board back in June at the ground how do we prevent allocate any COC bonus funding available to us in terms of what order, depending on the types of projects that we received. So essentially, what we said was we were going to first make sure that any projects that we're going to bring on new units would get an allocation of funding. And then if we had funds remaining, many projects that were requesting services only. And then if any fund remains, and any coordinated entry only from projects. So the way that it kind of ended up with the competition, this year is that we only had one application for COC loan study. That was the application submitted by hrsda. And they kind of fell into this first and allocation priority in which, if funded the project, will bring up new units, you know, units of transitional housing and rapid housing. So I guess kind of wanted to provide that illustration to show how that prior decision of the board kind of came into play here with our recommendation. So I realized this print might be a little small. I apologize for that. It is in your work packet. For those of you here in person you do have a printed copy. And I was also sent out for email. So again, we received one application for the COC bonus funding. The application came from HRSA. They applied for what's called a joint component project type, which combines transitional housing and rapid rehousing into my project type, they reflected would provide five units of transitional housing and 15 units of rapid rehousing. Just a kind of a side note about what this joint component project type is. It's intended to the kind of the transitional housing part of it is intended to provide that immediate safe place that a person leading domestic violence needs to go, you know, in that immediate need to be safe. And then the Rapid Rehousing side of it is intended to look very similar to kind of a typical Rapid Rehousing program where they would wrench A union in the community that aligns with their needs, where they get the safety, and that would be a short term time negative intervention assistance. So it really combines the need for immediate safety with the transitional housing programming. So the first step project, again, they were the only application you received for this domestic violence bonus funding, their score was 77.9% we do have a 70% threshold for our scoring. Until they passed that threshold, they are being recommended to be submitted to file for funding. You do see on your screen and in the packet that the recommended funding amount was a little bit less than what they actually submitted for, and I'll get to why that is in a minute. It does not have anything to do with reducing the number of units they apply for for their services. I'll talk about that in a minute. But essentially, we are recommending that maybe submitted. We have $5 million in the domestic violence for the spending available to us, and so you can kind of see the numbers, or at the bottom of the screen there, that because we have just this one project that requested funding, there is $4 million in funding that we did not receive applications for, so that we would not be able to submit projects. Oh, yes. Mail. Opportunity.
So this get to this is different than the bills opportunity. We could submit as many applications as we wanted to for these funds based on applications that we received, I will say, historically, ever since HUD has made this dv bonus funding available in Detroit for the last like five or six years, we have never requested all of the funding available to us. We have always had a higher allocation than what we have had projects submit for. So we have always not applied. Alcohol points available.
So first gen currently operate programming,
so they are in the process of the slide.
Okay, so first off, correctly, they currently provide shelter services for people of clean domestic violence outside of Detroit and outside of our jurisdiction. They are in the process of developing and opening the shelter within our COC jurisdiction to the shelter, this transitional housing programming would be incorporated into that physical site, so the physical transitional housing programming would be located within our COC and then, likewise, any units without rapid housing, the funding would be to meet house requirements to either be within the COC. There's some caveats that up to half of the units can be outside the COC, but I guess to your point, the fact that the agency right now does not provide those services in Detroit does not preclude us from considering and they would, yes, they would have to have a physical site in Detroit, but they would that is part of the site that they are Developing, that emergency shelter that is in development already, where
so in terms of, and let me kind of get some different hopefully get to your question. So just an overview again on sort of why this project is being recommended, one support over our scoring threshold and kind of range through what will revive again. You know, there are many, many saw clear evidence of extensive experience from this agency serving people who are fleeing domestic violence. These kind of last two points, we did note that providing Rapid Rehousing will be new to the agency, and so we noted that they could benefit from if they were funded, and some technical assistance during that ramp up phase, likewise, to move into those policies that will need to be developed or modified to buy the rapidly housing expectations. So I think we would frame this as a requirement, that if they were funded, then we would expect them to work with the lead agency to develop and implement those policies. I want to talk a minute about some of these budget modifications, so I'm going to kind of get into the numbers. So we're going to get to the least a little bit just in terms of why there's a difference between what they applied for locally versus what were requested or recommended them to be funded. For Chelsea, if you want to go to the next slide, so the initial call, or the column that you see, the initial request to the COC again, that pays us, submitted for a one year budget. You can see that total is about a little over a million dollars. The recommended budget to be submitted to HUD is about half million, 5000 we are projecting them. That funds them. They would ultimately be funded at a little more than a million dollars. We can go to the next item. So the difference, where this difference comes in is really within that rental assistance category. This fits into the weeds a little bit in terms of how applicant enters their budget into HUD's online application portal. The agency is going to have to apply to HUD using the fiscal year 2023, fair market rent. When they apply to us, we have them apply using the 2024, fair market rent, because that is the rate that is currently in place. Online application system for whatever reason, does not reflect the current rate, reflects last year's rate. And so when they actually submit their application to five, it will have to be at that lower rate. However, if by the funds that they will be blended on the 2025 range, which is the final column, which is even greater than the 2024 range. So it's a little in the weeds with the math it has to do with some nuances of pledge outline, application system out that defines these projects. I guess I'm bringing it here just to find. Out that even you know that, again, the recommendation is that they be funded. I'm pregnant at the full amount of what they've requested. Technically, the dollar amount was less, but it's because of these rental rates are calculated, and ultimately they will be funded for more than what they applied for. Here you might try to make the adjustments for so that was a high level overview about why those numbers All right, so we're kind of at the any, I guess, questions or clarification before we move to a vote. I do want to try to say one more thing if we go to a vote, because this question might come up in our next conversation. So when we move in a minute or so to talk about the CUC bonus projects, you're going to see reference to those agencies requesting multi year budgets. So the question may think about, why are we not allowing this agency to select a multi year budget, to essentially use up more this money that we have, and that's because these domestic violence bonus grants may only request a one year budget. That's a budget requirement. So that's why we're not having any discussion about allowing them to request a multi year budget. Just wanted to kind of anticipate that question that may come up from our next conversation. Are there any Yes, yes. So on the slide, these are the board members who are eligible to vote. These are board members who are not currently affiliated with COC funded agency or also have not submitted an application. So Lauren is one of our board members. She's making the first step. So obviously she's refused from this phone, any questions that I can answer before we move to a vote.
Yeah. And then I think Dr G said that, since you were a presenter, that you can move it, and then someone has just had to support it. I was saying that. Dr G said that, according to Robert Roose order, since you are the presenter, you can move it, yeah. And someone just had to support it, yes.
And I'd be forgetting that I have the power. All right, I will make a motion to that the board vote to approve the recommendation to submit the First Professor Violence Project to that
I outside
of
school. That with the past, that was one thing we specifically stated in our application to that will be provided their their nuisance, Yes, but when the transitional ledger is
not get pregnant,
and then we did mention we also have a shelter so the shelter beds are not the shelter beds are not a part of this. Shelter beds are being funded through the city of Detroit. Donna, if you want to. Yeah. I referenced the shelter holding in reference to like set. All
right, any other questions? If not, I think Chelsea in the chat, and then again, if you're in person, you can use the one we're going
to get, link will be open so you can cast your vote. I do want to just keep us rolling. Okay, so the next pool of funding that we're talking about, so for this COC competition, again, this is the typical competition, not the bills we have also, in addition. To the domestic violence funding that we just talked about, we have another pool of funding called COC bonus and reallocate so the COC bonus funding is the allocation we received from HUD. The reallocated funding is funding that's made available from projects that we have decided to reallocate. They are combined together into one pot of funding, and then we can fund the new projects out of that pot of funding. You can go to the next slide. So the recommendation so for those of you who have been on the board for some time, you may be accustomed to we've got to get to this point in our competition, and typically, what we would bring are a list of projects that we are recommending be submitted to part for their funding amount, and all of those details, just like we did with the DV one where things are a little bit different this year for several reasons, which I'll get into. So the recommendation that's coming to the board is that we that there be approval to have additional conversations with the new project applicants that I'll go over in a moment to determine if these agencies are able to request a multi year budget order to help increase the amount of funding that we would be requesting. But there's a lot of words there. Hopefully we can get into that a little bit once we kind of get into these details. But I just wanted to say the recommendation we're making right now is not for necessarily specific projects to be submitted for a specific dollar, and it's a little bit more general. At this point we can go to the next slide, one or two again, just as we did with the other project, kind of bring us back to these funding allocation priorities that the board approved earlier this summer. And these are the intent of these allocation priorities come into play when we have more projects that have requested funding than what we have funding to get. So this order of allocation helps us to answer the question, how do you know we have this limited pool of funding, this big pool of projects? How do we make a decision on how to assign funding to those projects that we want to fund? So we laid out these allocation priorities, which essentially said, first we want to fund PSH projects that are going to bring on new units. Then we want to plan them faculty housing projects that are going to bring on new units, and then PSH funds that may be requesting services only, and then on down the line as funds, until the funds were all completely utilized. Go to the next slide. So this year, the applications that we received for these funds. The six applications really only fell into these two allocation priorities. We had a rapidly housing project that would bring on new units and the remaining five projects, excuse me, the remaining six projects were seven total are permanent supportive housing projects that are going to request services funding for services and operations only. So those are kind of the two allocation priorities that really came into play. The other factor that came into play is the fact that we had significantly more funding available than what we have projects that requested the funding. You could go to the next slide. So again, I realized this screen is there's a lot of the details on the screen. Again, it is in the board packet. Just want to walk through who we have that applied for the lunch at the current outcome of the evaluation. So again, these are the seven
six, I'm sorry,
six projects. These are the six projects that are applied for the COC bonus funds. Again, they've all gone through our review process with the review committee. They are all listed here, and you can see their project scores. So again, we have that 70% scoring threshold. You got one project that just passed the threshold. The other projects are somewhere above that threshold. You see as well the again, the type of project, the amount that they requested. I want to talk briefly about the permanent supportive housing projects. These five projects, because you see in the number of units that would be funded, number of units that would be gained with COC funded, we see a lot of NAS there. All of these projects are projects that does not receive level home housing tax credits. And so they are, at some points already in their development or their Recep phase. And so the request that they may receive the COC was for either additional services funding to Armen and support the services or operations funding. So any COC funding that they would receive would. Not result in additional units being realized. The PSH units associated with those projects would come online, even if we did not plan some of them already on. For example, the AFG project, sure we're familiar with it, that is 23 units of permanent supportive housing there in the process of leasing up right now. So for all of those PSAT projects, that's why we kind of see those NAS, because there will be not new PSH units that will be realized with the funding, yes, but
I didn't understand
the concept, but I do want to be very clear that all of these projects do have new students that are being realized and will impact the infrastructure, like navigation management. So I just want that and not though the CLC is not paying for the rent assistance is not paying for the unit. The unit, as Amanda said in his license, however, they are required to come to report litigation and answer data and HMIs, which is still impact by bringing on the capacity. And it's just something I want to say when it got because the way it kind of raised is like, Oh, we're just going to give the service hours, and we're not going to realize we're doing this through the COC. But the COC guilty impact, because they are, they are asked to participate fully from beginning to end, from the referral side. So I just you know, want to point that out, though, if again, COC is not paying for the unit, the COC is still impacted in a positive way, obviously, for our clients to move into these communities, but the system can navigate and as I guess, guest, has addressed every single
One of these practices to bring them online. Supports are services and operations, and that is a requirement. Yes, I do think that We need to think about
overnight.
At and I think there's
something unique to think about. As a as a community, because the board is
our system and
do what we need to do. So my question on this is, will these people be expected to decide
this is something? The assessment. So, yeah, so any, any that assessment is required based on grant. So yes, if they receive the students grant or now, it's not that. So, because I'm it. I think, I think the point as well about the impact these projects have on our infrastructure is important to consider, because we could, any one of these projects could very well have not come to us at all for funding, right? So we but they would still be coming on market and still have the same demands on our infrastructure,
even if they never
competing to us, yeah, so sorry, I first put that on the slide here, so let me just talk through the number of units associated with each of these projects, I might have some of these numbers a little wrong, so don't so the SOS project, I believe, is about 30 units of permanent supportive housing. The five housing project is 30 units. SOS wrong. They don't think we've had 30. The units, two of them, AFG is 23 the path of charities. St Matthews is 25 and then mariners in this 44 out of five of those, right? SOS is somewhere between 30 and 40. Give myself a little grace. So in the future,
yes anytime that you want new funding to expand what's being done, the services that are being provided, it would have to be funded using COC bonus, unless the activities are specific to people fleeing domestic violence, then the Coordinated Entry at least be funded using the DV bonus. Yep.
Yeah, no. SOS
so I have a guy who's SOS, you may know it as a lighthouse. So, SOS South Oakland shelter and Lighthouse of Oakland County, if you suddenly merged within the last year or two or so, so lighthouse, you think of lighthouse and local county is the same organization. Again, in a similar vein, the first step they don't currently have COC programming in the city of Detroit. The project, the PSH project on Grand Boulevard, is it was approved for our local my tech review process for credits to be approved to be developed In Grand Boulevard in Detroit. What's the money?
Himself at looking at projects and added some of that cost of their
business? Yeah, no, those are all good questions in terms of, how do we how do we be mindful of those additional infrastructure costs that are going to be that'll be impacted. I mean, so I think those are larger conversations that need to have. I think, you know, there's questions around, how do you you know, at what point is the impact going to be sufficient enough that we will need to do additional HMIs resources and coordinated entry resources, right? There's a different impact if it's a new five unit project from an agency that maybe already uses HMIs, versus 100 units from agencies that have never used HMIs. So I think there's additional kind of planning that needs to be done to determine what is sort of the point of impact that would require right now, we really need some more HMIs funding and more coordinated entry funding, and then what does that look like for our local use of resources? Does that mean that those projects don't need to apply competitively locally, or does that mean that we have a policy in place that as soon as we meet eco threshold, the CC is going to allocate X amount of money towards additional HMIs, X amount of money towards additional Coordinated Entry resources. So I think those are all think those are all great conversations, because, yes,
but if they were The funding
presented by services, but If it doesn't
implement
the way, but On the back,
if none of these five PSA projects ever came to us, if they never submitted an application list at the beginning these these PSA projects would still come online at some point in Detroit over the next year, and we would still have the HMIs coordinated requirements for them together. Was there? A great conversation, because I want to, so I want to get a little bit to some of the kind of this recommendation here, if you want to go to the next slide to show a little bit more of these dollars. And then touched on this briefly at our August board meeting. I now have some more formal numbers here. So I wanted to show the funding that we have available to allocate to these new projects as compared to the sum total of the what was requested. So those six projects that were submitted their budget totals for one year grant total of one, about 1.6 almost $1.7 million we have a total of almost $6 million to give to new projects, and almost $6 million comes from the allocation that we are receiving from five of us to 4.7 85, million and the additional funding from the project that was approved to be reallocated. So those two sums added together is how we get that $5.9 million you can see, compared to the 1.6 million that was requested for the one year budget. So we have about $4.3 million kind of left. I will say two, just typically, this is a unique situation for CSE bonus. We typically do not have that allocation. Our typical allocation provided for CDC bonus is closer than $2 million
so it's just significantly
higher this year than what we were anticipating. Can I go to the next slide? Chelsea, okay, so the so the recommendation on the table is really a recommendation to give permission for to have conversations with these applicant agencies, people that live in the review committee as well, to see if these applicant agencies are able to request a multi year budget instead of a one year budget. So we have historically limited New Project applications to requesting just a one year budget in their local application to us, we've done that for a number of reasons why it has historically allowed us to submit more projects to HUD and get a greater diversity of what we're submitting to HUD and as those projects their first year they come up for renewal, we're essentially pumping more money into our annual renewal to the end. As they come up for renewal after their first year, all of their funds are renewable, so able to kind of generate more money more quickly within the COC by historically limiting projects to a one year budget again this year because of the amount of funding available if we allow act agencies to request a multi year budget that would allow us to use up, for lack of a better word, more of that funding that's available to us because the individual agencies would be submitting for a greater amount of money to fund. So I just want to run quickly through some of the benefits to allowing multi year grants in this situation. So the first is that it will allow us to request more of the funding that's available to us. The first one is sort of the reason of why this recommendation is being made. I do make a note there that we have, historically, when we had reallocated funding to use we've used those funds first to fund new projects, before using our bonus funding to fund new projects. The second benefit of having multi year grants for these projects, several of which are new to the COC and or new to this type of programming, it can create an additional line of accountability during project, reinforcing implementation. So this somewhat gets to, I think, the point that Kiana was making, that if these these projects are going to come on my name, regardless if they receive COC funding that gives us a kind of alignment accountability during that ramp up to make sure they are fully compliant at HMIs for big entry. And, you know, aligning with housing first and all of those best practices, because they would be receiving funding through the COC to do that. And the third point is that it will allow so there were some questions that came up during the review for some of these agencies that review team really product would be great to ask the applicant agency, X, Y and Z. So allowing for some more time before we bring final recommendations for the to the board, to just give us that chance, few more weeks to get some of those questions answered, helping academic agencies you go to the next slide, so some of the recommendations that the
disease committee don't want us to go on
the recommendation.
Yeah, so I don't know that those interesting certification questions that we have aren't necessarily going to change whether or not we would get comfortable submitting a project at all. The reason why we're not asking the Board to vote on a specific project to be submitted for a specific dollar amount today, because we don't have those dollar amounts, that's kind of the point. I do want to just touch on some limits to recommending multi year grants. So the first that we still, even if agencies may be able to request a multi year grant, we cannot guarantee that we'll be able to fully utilize call local funding available. We can't guarantee that an agency will be able to request a multi year grant. The more funding may request, the more it's going to impact our match obligations. Agency may or may not want the capacity to do that, so that is something that we need to be kind of determined as we have conversations with them. Secondly, a multi year grant is not going to come up for renewal until several years from now. So depending on the term of their current it could be 345, years from now before they're up for renewal, and they're kind of making a decision to refund for another year. So with that, if there are unresolvable challenges that come up during that initial grant term that can be resolved through technical assistance or directive action, we would need to explore other options. If it's significant enough of an issue, like a possible grant transfer, as we wouldn't be able to re allocate those projects until they finish their it was really until, I think, they're reviewed once. So it's going to until several years down. So that's, I think, something to be conducted as well. Do you want to go to those next steps just to if this again, if this recommendation is approved again, we have a facilitate conversations with these applicant agencies to see if they're able to request a multi year grant. I don't know that I put it on the slides here, but based on some projections that we've done, it could be, I talked about halting your grants. It could be a three to four year grant for that roughly how much we're looking at that each agency could possibly apply for to use up all the funds available. Additional next step, again, we would facilitate getting some of those responses to questions or points of clarification that came up during the review process. We would then reconvene that new project review committee in late September, based on those agencies responses to develop final recommendations that would come to the board in October, so that in October, the board can get this final estimate the projects are going to be the same projects, unless there's something, you know, violating the bridges that comes up that we would need to not recommended, but the final recommendation will include the projects as well as the dollar amount and the grant term that they're being recommended for. So that opens the board in October. If the board approves that, then the values and funding committee will make the final project ranking list, and we will need to have a special board meeting in October for the Board to approve that final ranking list, especially to be determined. But those are essentially the next steps of what would happen if this recommendation is any questions I haven't heard of keeping an eye on the chance no questions.
Okay, I Well, since I have the authority to make a motion, I'm going. So again, you see the list of the board members. So again, these are board members who are not affiliated with the COC funded program. I do just want to note what Lori is eligible to vote on this because she was not eligible to vote on the DV project, because obviously her agency was applying the funding of COC bonus projects are not impacted or related to that other DB project. So she is eligible to go for this item. So I make a motion that the Board approve your recommendation, that we have additional conversations with these project applicants to determine if they're able to request a multi year budget. I
All right, any other questions for clarification? Okay, I do so, Chelsea, I do see the link that you put in the chat earlier was for this bonus funding, and not the DV fund. Thing, so we do need to put
Sorry. Okay,
so those board members here in person again, you should be able to access the QR code to vote the links, getting the links in the
chat as well. Apologize. I've been a little over time. I think we've had the things in the chat. I think it's a great conversation, great things that coming up regarding the need to consider impact on the infrastructure projects. I think those are, again, further conversations that I need to really compare and then we'll eventually bring back to the board. So for those on the Zoom call, you have two links in the chat. So then one that Chelsea just posted is for the de bonus, which we had talked about earlier. And then you have a little bit farther up in the chat. Was posted at about 319 is for the COC bonus. Regardless, I've been asked for those eligible board members that you can go in and access those links and cash to go before you leave.
That is all I have, so you can finally turn it over and listen to someone else talk. Thank you all for your issues and how the guy have to work. So Thank you Amanda, for all that wonderful
information, and thank you everybody for all your votes and participation as well. And thank you for putting this I'm sorry um, Alrighty, so we are going to fall down to our CLC border norms. Um, just a general question, right? Who can kind of just give me a background or just a simple definition. I hope you make norms are innovative. Might have some norms. What is this? The general definition of looking at norms, yeah, agreements,
yeah, behavior.
Okay? Anyone from the anyone from the meeting, wants to answer in the space, what are, what do you think norms are? Crickets. All right. One side for myself. I grievance and behavior, right? So I'm getting that as a body, as a group, that we're coming together on to agree upon how we conduct ourselves, how we behave, what are some basic standards of our meetings that we want to enact, right? And then we all can agree upon right. And so actually, this was something the Amy over here too, was something that Amy Brown, at the time that you were chairing the CLC for me, had put in place. And there were some norms that the EC all came up with, and that has been the divide, and kind of live by meaning the COC side. So we upon ourselves, we kind of revisit those norms that were created back then to try to come up with some type of agreement right among us all, as far as what we would follow, what we should follow, how we should follow today. So the executive committee of our COC board came up with some thoughts and ideas. Again, we utilize the norms that we had previously, and so I'm just going to kind of go through some of those that are there, or some of the ideas that we came up with, and then if there's time for anybody's feedback, we'll go,
thank you.
Alright, so, oh, you put us on a spot just in time. So I'll read when I start Be proud of your arrival. You're returning for breaks. Tackle problems, not people, stay open to new or other ideas, not just your ideas, if you can't drive it to a destination, then park it. Conflict. Disagreement and tension are part of this work. Teamwork and solution to our team. Let's build together using all of our tools for the continuity of the people we serve. So I guess I. On here, anybody's top norm that was stated in the first five that I just read that resonated with you or that you feel like you could agree upon my
people? Okay,
so everybody's familiar with the parking lot rule, right? So if it's something that you can't agree upon or get to some type of discipline. Then my thought and idea that that was just that we go back to that method of the parking lot, but, and in terms of a norm, I try to think of people any kind of city, alright? So you got to have the problem people, if you can't drive no destination in a park, alright? So Doctor Curley, who actually was doing this kind of stuff right now, but these are the ones that he listed, listen to understand instead of listening to respond. Effective communication is rooted in respect. We owe it to one another to exercise respect successful team members restraining their health and egos for the good and the work and I also recognize so for those three that I just read, what resonates with with folks three, I'm
glad you said that, because that's what I kind of felt too as we kind of do this, because we didn't talk about it already, we kind of just sent them in, and so I think some of them are going to kind of mirror one another and
then ask you to provide some of your thoughts and bring them all back together. But I just want to say, Doctor, listen to understand. I have been good yoga,
sitting, and if they don't like when you're talking about something, one respond, but then you feel like
before you respond. So no matter if you turn to you then or not, you can still take, you know, inventory of yourself. Thank you.
Thank you. Alright, moving on this one. Tara, he comments brief and on point so that all who wish to participate in the conversation have a chance to do so. Direct your comments to the group as a whole, rather than to anyone individually. It is okay to disagree with others, but it is not okay to be disrespectful. Let others express their views without interruption, show respect for the views expressed by others, even if you strongly disagree. Alright. So again, my same question, which one or possible norms does they hear resonated with folks around
other people just the opportunity to speak instead of being young again,
first of all, always, right. Presentation. So
as teachers, because that's my degree, we use that like wait time. Sometimes that wait time helps to get that feedback and others, anyone else? Yes,
definitely, sometimes, sometimes we might not even know everything is respectful, right? And then we have to have a space and a safe space to be able to communicate with each other, to say, Hey, I feel disrespected by that, you know. And then we have a healthy conversation even after that point too. Because sometimes. We're so passionate right about stuff that sometimes things come off disrespectfully to somebody else, and they can't receive it the way that we're trying to intend, but being able to also have that communication to say, hey, this wasn't appropriate or be specific, yes, go ahead.
Language. Ahead when
we're speaking, when we speak color blind,
when we speak to be color Blind, sorry, instead of color blind, we
I might not
that is related to one another, happening I might not be aware and then just remembering something about one That started being direct reports, personal number one. I mean, I perspective, but also this perspective is also like personal attacks and things like that
that fall for sure. And again, this is just a start, right? So we've got time to take a little think about it and give us some more feedback, but I appreciate those comments and Alright, going on to the next one, everyone has a right to feel safe. Taking responsibility for our actions, our thoughts and our words is the right thing to do. I will take responsibility for how I show up in this space. What about you?
Hey, Erica Armani Arnold, one of the board members of Candace, is norm, okay, all right, so that resonated with that person, right? Yes, I shared this because I actually have come to a meeting before,
and I'm pretty small.
And I'm pretty strong, independent type of person, and when I feel
that way, I got, you know, so it doesn't, it'll make it to you all, and you can still be unsafe in a place, and it doesn't have to be, you know, like physically, you can just feel emotionally, brand your work. So I just feel this business, and we should show
that's why,
some of The norms here.
Okay, so this is our start, right? Thank you again for the feedback. I think we've taken notes so that we can go back and look at the the norms that you already resonated with that you know.
Oh, yeah, don't take the problem off.
And I think that was kind of mentioned previously in our psychopaths, not people. You know, I didn't elaborate as much as we did, but that's the concept, right? No, but that makes sense, right? So that people understand that norm, right? That's what we mean, yes,
maintaining a system.
To right, and then I think it's the piggyback off of that too. We're all here for a kind of dog and not to serve the people that's in our system, right? Not to serve, not to serve some of our personal love, but to really serve the overwhelm view and picture, which is to serve the people that's in our system, right? So if we can't be here under at least that common mission ago, then we really gotta rethink why we're here.
Well,
I did my wait time. I think I could pass it along now. Right? Because
the last word she hears, she's going to just mess up, okay, but I want to just say that we are all really what we do because of our norms are only something that help God. Help keep us. Help steer us on the right side. So don't lose your match. Don't if you got something important to say, We want you to say it, then we just want you to stand in a way that's conceptualized and that things right. Because we're here to listen. We're not here to push anybody back. We're not here to say you don't count. You don't count because you count, you count and you get a cop. We all count. We all have we're doing great things. We all make a difference. So I want to just thank you for being here today, but it was a great setting. Thank you, Chelsea again and for help put this together for us. I'm really enjoying senior Baker, but I hope we can do that a little more to all my people who are virtual. Thank you for coming. We got so many people who joined us virtually. We're very thankful for them. And Amanda that's all
too press off and
we're going to give it to Kim. So I'm pretty loud. Well, this is the last but absolutely
not. Lower board meeting, it is the public time,
very important part of what we do for the Detroit DMC in general, the public comment is three minutes, and they give you the timer before I get started, the conducting platform that has signed up for public comment. I would like to ask Kelsey to call the online participants to determine if we have any additional public
Hey, you guys. Do we have anyone that wants to sign up for public comments? Please put your name in the chat or raise your hand signify somehow, some way, if you guys want to sign up,
and then you can just let them okay, for sure,
we can bring up the time. First I have Mrs. Felicia Burke from the Detroit Housing Commission. She has public comment for us today, my name
is the recorder of the college program
to administer the agency program,
because the minute, because if you all have not heard any information, can't start whether or not we are doing so before I say the answer, I'm going to remind you of what she said. Act.
And right now we are in one but. To follow legendary sources that we are spending more than
we are allocated for
right now, but our
source but there is not an estimated time of fall in I can tell you I have to leave, but I'm going to make sure that as we move the ball, any updated will respond. Into the wall. Very hard to find the one program
that we are just processing so that is going on when we don't have a class. But the most important takeaway I want everybody understand is that our current government, because that's what anyone that's on our code, that as they go, they are okay. We have subjects to them.
Some of our programs have made a week. So
I'm Next up, I have Julia felt. Julia Belton from Henry Ford Health,
hi, thank you all so much for having me here. I am a clinical psychologist from Henry Ford Health, and I primarily do research. My research is in decision making and the way that environments affect decision making. Because if everything is free, you have all the resources and stability you need, we can all make some really great decisions and plan ahead for our future and have really excellent problems. But when things start to fall apart, your environment is unstable if you don't have the resources that you need, your environment naturally reinforces this context of or decision making approach to surviving right, where you get what you can get right, and you don't tend to have that bandwidth to plan ahead for those healthy behaviors. And so we're running two different research projects right now. I just wanted to kind of make folks aware of the first is for returning citizens, so any individual that's been incarcerated for any period in the past year and identifies as someone of recovery can take part in a program. And the second is for parents who are also identified as different recovery and have kids between the ages of six and 10. And with these projects, we just we use peer recovery coaches to work with parents more training citizens to help individuals identify their goals for the future, and to think about them salient way, so that you can actually enlarge your time domain focus on those longer term goals and be able to engage in that planning and behavior. So I have some sliders, if anyone might be interested. I should mention because these are research studies, we also have some money for incentives. So for the returning citizens, we can pay up that $185 depending on how many pieces of that project people want to be involved with. For the parenting project, you can get paid $75 but also learn some wonderful parenting approaches, super helpful. So I'll just be over here if anyone have any questions or anything, providers,
yes, so we work closely with Detroit Recovery Project and some other groups that we can connect folks with services as well. So it can also be kind of like a hub to connect to people with other we don't
want to flood.
No but the only limit is our timeline. Our returning citizens project is wrapping up in the next month or two, and then our current project is around for another year. So like so many of you, we work on grants. But thank you so much. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Julian.
Alright, up next, I
have Seth. I. For me?
Yeah, you don't already know me. My name is Zach. I'm the coordinated entity manager, and I'm about to talk about COC stuff. So Amanda Sasha, I don't know where else. Please be my guardrails if I start going up. But so quick historical context, our PSH reviews committee provides letters of support and eventually signs memorandums of understanding for new PSA fraud. It is our current policy that projects will only receive a letter of support if they are offering to have 100% PSH units, meaning everyone that's going to be referred to. Those units are going to be of the highest needs, and they're going to be chronically home the self sound, correct, okay, what I thought was interesting during our meeting is that the COC fields funding conference is going to be as a point system in which integrated projects would receive more points than one that is not integrated? Is that correct?
Yeah, do it okay?
So really quick, I only have one minute, but listen
the reason why we require at 100% PSA payment is in an effort to maximize the number of PSA teammates in our system and house as many times people as possible, as quickly as possible. And there's the added benefit of maybe having everyone in one place to be here to get resources in implementation. This isn't necessarily and definitely post pandemic, we're experiencing increased needs of the folks who are coming into our system as prep. So there are developers out there. There are people out there that are interested in PSA, but they are more interested in providing integrated models that are coupled with low income housing. And so I say this to say, please join the PSA Review Committee, because there's openings. And I say this to say that I hope we consider innovative ways to not only increase our number of units, but increase the number and diversity of the developers that we are working with in our city. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Beth, and I was not ready for the sounding of the alarm. Now I'm telling the person next up knows I am Mr. Carl Williams from second chance, and he has public comments today.
My name is Carl Williams, Executive Director of Second Chance city, Detroit, and we want to propose a recovery project against Pfc. Our recovery housing project is located south of Grand River the
questions for Mr. Williams didn't
say one below the lack
of funding.
Yeah, if there are any questions or concern or comments, I from
and So
because her
problem. Y'all
any other questions for Mr. Williams at this time?
Chelsea, do we have any for
public park, no, but there were comments that was related to Zach comment, um, Lauren Licata said, Actually, that's not true. If a project is 100% Psh, then they have to take all referrals from cam. If it's mixed affordability, then only PSH units have to follow prior to prioritization. And then Amanda responded saying, So, I hear you saying that a PSH project could get a letter of support if the project has percentage of units that are not PSH regardless. I think Zach's comment is something we may want to consider in terms of how of how do we help diversify our portfolio, portfolio of providers. And then Lauren comes to saying, yes, the COC has provided a letter of support to projects that are not 100% Psh, sure.
Thank you for reading those comments.
Comment, I do have a comment for board members that called that I forgot to mention, as we know, we voted a month or so ago on renewal, on renewal, and just wanted to keep you in line with the reallocating project, there has been some communication going back and forth our decision. But as things arise, we will keep the board abreast of any things that arise, concerns that
by Thank you. Candice, if there are no other public comments, I like how people put me in turn in the board meeting, so we will call the board meeting at four. Thank you all for attending.
