[00:00:03]
I CAN'T GET A CALL.UM, JUST A QUICK REMINDER FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR YOU GUYS TO SPEAK AFTER EACH AGENDA ITEM.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, UH, WE WILL CALL OUT, UM, AFTER EACH AGENDA ITEM TO SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A COMMENT.
UM, AND JUST A REMINDER, IT WOULDN'T BE A Q AND A SESSION.
IF YOU DO HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, YOU CAN COME SEE STAFF AFTER.
UM, AND THEN JUST ANOTHER REMINDER, OUR RESTROOMS AREN'T WORKING AT THE MOMENT, SO IF YOU NEED TO USE THE RESTROOM, IT WOULD BE THE SECOND FLOOR.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND START WITH ROB CALL.
TAMIKA BOY, ABSENT KIMBERLY, WE HERE.
AND THEN JUST AN UPDATE ON THE NEW BOARD MEMBERS.
UM, WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR VALERIE AND TRAYVON TO COMPLETE THEIR TRAININGS.
THEY JUST HAD SOME TECHNICAL ISSUES, BUT THEY SHOULD BE READY FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE.
IT'S A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE BOARD MEETING 2026 AND CALL FOR MOTION.
ANY BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS? MINUTES? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEE NONE.
CAN WE DO, WE CAN DO A, A VOTE.
A VOTE TO APPROVE, PROCEED AND APPROVE THE MOTION.
AGENDA ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE DISCUSSION ON.
AND JOSEPH WILL BE PRESENTING ON THIS ITEM? YES.
JOSEPH PATELLO, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR, UM, HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU.
UM, BEFORE WE BEGIN, I JUST WANNA, UH, TWO QUICK REMINDERS.
UM, THE FIRST REMINDER IS, UM, FOR BOARD MEMBERS, JUST GENERALLY, UH, BE MINDFUL FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THIS DISCUSSION SINCE WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT, UH, FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS PARTIALLY.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, JUST OVERALL, UM, JUST REALLY WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS CONVERSATION GOES TODAY, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE ULTIMATELY SOME DIFFICULT DECISIONS BASED ON THE SITUATION, UM, THAT WE'RE IN CURRENTLY.
IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT FUNDING STRUCTURE, PARTICULARLY FEDERALLY, NOT COUNTING LOCALLY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, HOW DIFFICULT OR HOW EASY SOME DECISIONS MAY SEEM OR FEEL, PARTICULARLY FOR FOLKS THAT, UH, MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT MAY BE HERE THAT AREN'T ATTENDING OUR MEETINGS REGULARLY, UM, DO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T TAKE ANY OF THESE DECISIONS LIGHTLY.
WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE RESIDING IN ALL OF THESE PROJECTS.
AND REGARDLESS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT HAPPENS, UM, THERE WILL BE A NEED TO CONTINUE WORKING TO TRY TO ENSURE THAT ANYBODY THAT MAY BE DISPLACED DUE TO
SO, UM, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE, UH, RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, JUST KIND OF LEVEL SET TO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, GENERALLY A PLEASANT CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS AND, AND SOME FUNDING.
SO JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, PUT THAT OUT THERE.
UM, THIS WILL BE THE BULK OF, UH, OUR CONVERSATION TODAY.
UM, IF WE DO CHOOSE TO MOVE FORWARD,
[00:05:01]
UH, WITH, WITH, UH, WHATEVER STRATEGY WE DECIDE ON, UM, WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH BRIEF DISCUSSIONS ON THE SCORING AND REALLOCATION POLICY AND UPDATES TO THOSE POLICIES TO ALIGN WITH THE DIRECTION THAT WE DECIDE TO MOVE IN.HOWEVER, THE DISCUSSION ON THOSE ITEMS WILL TAKE, TAKE PLACE PRIMARILY DURING, UH, THIS AGENDA ITEM, AND THEN APPROVAL WILL MOVE AFTERWARDS BASED ON, UM, OUR DISCUSSION HERE.
SO HOLISTICALLY, UH, THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE, BOTH WITH REALLOCATION AS WELL AS FUNDING PRIORITIES, AS WELL AS RANKING CONSIDERATIONS.
SO, UM, WE FELT IT BEST TO HAVE A LARGER STRATEGY DISCUSSION FIRST BEFORE MOVING ON TO, UH, PROVING ANY UPDATES TO THE POLICY TO ALIGN WITH THAT.
UH, HAVING SAID THAT, WE'RE GONNA START OUT JUST SUMMARIZING THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF BOTH RANKING AND REALLOCATION.
UH, REVIEWING SOME SUB-RECIPIENT FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED DURING AN OFFICE HOURS.
UH, PRESENT OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND THEN DISCUSS, UH, BOTH RANKING, THE RANKING PROCESS AND STRATEGY, UH, AS WELL AS REALLOCATION THRESHOLDS AND STRATEGY.
AND THEN SUMMARIZE OUR NEXT STEPS.
SO WE'RE GONNA SET UP WITH PROJECT RANKING.
SO HUD REQUIRES CO CS TO DEMONSTRATE SINGLE COORDINATED, INCLUSIVE AND OUTCOME ORIENTED COMMUNITY PROCESS TO REVIEW RANK AND SELECT PROJECT APPLICATIONS.
SO, UH, PROJECT RANKING IS ESSENTIALLY THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE TO DETERMINE LOCALLY TO ORDER PROJECTS, UM, IN, IN A LIST FOR HUD'S FUNDING CONSIDERATION.
SO THIS DETERMINES WHICH PROJECTS ARE MORE PROTECTED, SO THAT'D BE TIER ONE, UH, AND WHICH PROJECTS MAY BE AT HIGHER RISK FOR FUNDING.
UM, IN TIER TWO, UH, THERE ARE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RANKING.
UH, WE HAVE DONE HISTORICALLY, UH, AN OVERALL WEIGHTED RANKING.
SO, UH, HISTORICALLY PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS, UH, INCLUDING PERMIT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, RAPID REHOUSING, UH, THEY'RE ABLE TO EARN MORE POINTS THAN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND SO THAT BUILT-IN WEIGHTED SCORING IS WHAT WE'VE USED IN THE PAST TO ALLOW A VERY, VERY, VERY HIGH FUNCTIONING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT TO, UH, TO BE RANKED ABOVE MAYBE, UH, MEDIOCRE PERFORMING, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT.
SO, UH, THE THING THAT WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS PARTIALLY TODAY IS CHANGING THAT RANKING PROCESS TO A PER A PROJECT TYPE RANKING.
UM, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER, BUT, UM, THERE ARE DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO RANKING DIFFERENT CLCS DO IT DIFFERENTLY.
UM, SO TODAY, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GONNA CONSIDER A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO RANKING, UH, THIS YEAR.
UM, FOR REALLOCATION, REALLOCATION IS SIMPLY SHIFTING FUNDS AND PART AND WHOLE FROM EXISTING PROJECTS TO PROPOSE NEW PROJECTS TO IMPROVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE.
UH, REALLOCATION CAN BE INVOLUNTARY, SO YOU HAVE COMMUNITY BASED STANDARDS.
UM, AND IF A PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED UNDER THOSE STANDARDS, THEY'RE, UH, UH, ESSENTIALLY MARKED FOR, UH, REALLOCATION, UH, AND THEN VOLUNTARY.
WHEN A RECIPIENT OR SUB-RECIPIENT ELECTS TO RETURN ALL ARE PART OF THE FUNDS BACK TO THE COC TO CREATE THOSE NEW PROJECTS.
UM, HUD DOES NOT REQUIRE YOU TO REALLOCATE GENERALLY, BUT YOU DO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THAT PROCESS.
UH, AND IN THE COMPETITION THEY WANT, THEY WANT TO SEE, UM, IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ARTICULATE A PROCESS THAT YOU'VE REALLOCATED 20% OF YOUR ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND, UH, BETWEEN CERTAIN COMPETITION YEARS.
SO, UM, THIS IS WHAT HUD HAS CALLED OUT.
UM, WHEN WE MOVE INTO SELECTION, UM, WE WILL TALK ABOUT WHY EXACTLY, UM, WE'RE GONNA MAKE SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE ARE.
SO, UM, HUD HAS SAID THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SELECT PROJECTS FOR FUNDING IN THIS ORDER.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA START WITH COC PLANNING AND YOU FOR COSTS.
UM, SO THESE ARE JUST FUNDS THAT C CS GENERALLY GET TO WORK ON.
THIS INCLUDES, UH, UH, HOMELESS COUNT.
THIS INCLUDES, UH, AGAIN, MONITORING GRANT ADMINISTRATION, UM, OPERATE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY, UH, DOING OTHER THINGS, PAYING LANDLORDS, SOMETIMES THINGS LIKE THIS.
UM, THEN HUD IS GOING TO RANK, UH, OR SELECT PROJECTS THAT ARE RANKED IN TIER ONE THAT PASSED THE ELIGIBILITY THRESHOLD.
WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THE NUMBERS OF WHAT TIER ONE MEANS IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.
UM, THEN THEY HAVE 104 MILLION IN DV BONUS.
UH, SO THEY'RE GONNA THEN SELECT THOSE PROJECTS.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO SELECT PERMANENT HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.
UM, SO THEY'RE GONNA LOOK TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT $430 MILLION IN PROJECTS SERVING FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN HAS BEEN SELECTED NATIONALLY.
IF IT HASN'T, THEY'LL THEN BEGIN SELECTING MORE NEWER PROJECTS AS WELL.
UM, THEN NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SSO PROJECTS, UH, RANKED IN TIER TWO IN ORDER OF PROJECT SCORE, UH, AND THEN OTHER NEW PROJECTS.
SO IF THERE'S STILL ANY FUNDING LEFT OVER AFTER THEY, UH, GET THEIR SET ASIDE OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE ONLY PROJECTS, UM, THEY MAY THEN MOVE
[00:10:01]
ON TO SELECT OTHER PROJECT TYPES IF NOT ENOUGH FUNDING HAS BEEN, UH, ALLOCATED AT THAT POINT.ALRIGHT, SO OUR FUNDING RISK SUMMARY.
SO IN 2025, WE KNOW THAT HUD HAD, UH, IN THE AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR 2025 DUE TO INNOVO BECOMING, UH, ENJOINED AND, AND ULTIMATELY HUD NOT BEING ABLE TO IMPLEMENT THEIR PREFERRED NOFO.
UM, 3.85 BILLION WAS, WERE THE AWARDS ACROSS THE COUNTRY NATIONALLY.
UM, TIER ONE, THE FIRST 60% IS EQUAL TO 2.31 BILLION OF THAT, WHICH LEAVES ABOUT 1.54 BILLION IN TIER TWO NATIONALLY.
THIS IS FOR THE 2026 COMPETITION.
UH, WE KNOW THAT 4.04 BILLION IS AVAILABLE WITHIN THE COMPETITION, UM, WHICH LEAVES $193 MILLION DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE AWARDED THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
AND, UH, FUNDING THAT ARE IS AVAILABLE FOR THIS YEAR.
UM, THE SELECTION PROCESS IDENTIFIED SPECIFIC AMOUNTS FOR PRIORITY FOUR, SO 104 MILLION, UH, HAS TO BE FOR NEW DV BONUS PROJECTS.
UM, THOSE ARE SET, THAT'S A SET ASIDE AMOUNT, UH, 52 MILLION FROM CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS IN 2025, AND THEN ANOTHER 52 MILLION FOR 2026.
UM, THAT 430, UH, 430 MILLION FOR PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS SERVING FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.
UM, NO ONE'S BEEN ABLE TO CONFIRM THIS.
I THOUGHT THAT I HAD HEARD THAT THERE WAS AN ESTIMATE THAT THERE COULD BE ABOUT 75% OF THIS FUNDING FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING NOW.
UM, AND THEN 1.3 BILLION FOR NEW PROJECTS, PRIORITIZING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE ONLY.
SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? THAT AFTER YOU HAVE YOUR TIER ONE AWARDS, 1.73 BILLION IS AVAILABLE TO FUND EXISTING OR NEW PROJECTS IN TIER TWO.
UH, THIS DOES NOT COUNT COST OF LIVING OR FMR ADJUSTMENTS.
SO THIS LIKELY MEANS THAT THERE WILL BE AN EVEN GREATER INCREASE, UH, IN THIS, UH, 3.85 BILLION.
UM, AND WITH THAT RENEWAL EXPOSURE OF 1.54 BILLION, UH, WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE POST SELECTION AMOUNTS, THIS IS A LOT MORE THAN THIS, WHICH GENERALLY MEANS, AND MOST C CS THAT WE'VE SPOKEN TO AS WELL AS A STRATEGIST, NATIONAL ALLIANCE AND HOMELESSNESS, HAS BASICALLY DETERMINED THAT, UH, ANY, ANY RENEWAL PROJECTS THAT ARE RANKED IN TIER TWO, UM, PROBABLY HAVE A ZERO OR CLOSE TO 0% CHANCE OF BEING FUNDED UNLESS POTENTIALLY THEIR PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS SERVING FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN.
UM, BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT FUNDING IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE AVAILABLE.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA DO IS, IS TALK THROUGH THAT AND, AND WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO TRY TO, UH, TO TRY TO MAYBE NOT RESOLVE, BUT MITIGATE, MITIGATE SOME OF THAT, UH, POTENTIAL FUNDING LOSS.
UM, WE DID HOLD SUB-RECIPIENT OFFICE HOURS BACK ON JUNE 17TH, SO WE INVITED CURRENT RECIPIENTS OF COC FUNDING TO AN OFFICE HOURS.
UM, WE DID A OVERVIEW OF THE NOFO, EXPLAINED TO THEM OUR RENEWAL PROJECT, INFANTRY NEW PROCESS, SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PORTFOLIO AS WE HAVE TODAY.
UH, AND THEN ALSO ASK QUESTIONS, UM, OF OUR SUB-RECIPIENTS FUNDED SUB-RECIPIENTS THAT ARE RIGHT IN OUR COC UH, CONTRACTS WITH HUD.
UH, WE HAD REPRESENTATIVES FROM SEVEN AB EIGHT OF THOSE SUB-RECIPIENTS.
UM, WE DID NOT GET ANY, UH, VERBAL FEEDBACK OR FEEDBACK, BUT WE DID HAVE TWO POLLS.
UH, ONE WAS TO COLLECT FEEDBACK ON THE RANKING STRATEGY AND ONE ON THE REALLOCATION STRATEGY.
UH, THE FIRST QUESTION WE ASKED WAS, SHOULD THE COC REALLOCATE PARTIALLY UNSPENT FUNDS FROM RENEWAL PROJECTS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE HUDSON SUBMISSION? UH, THE OPTIONS WE GAVE FOLKS WERE, UH, DO NOT USE PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION, UH, USE REALLOCATION ONLY WHEN PROJECTS HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNDERSPENDING UNDER UTILIZATION.
SO APPLYING THE POLICY FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES ONE AND TWO WERE PRETTY SIMILAR.
UH, THREE, USE PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION BROADLY ACROSS PROJECTS BASED ON PROJECTED UNSPENT FUNDS.
AND FOUR, USE PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION IN COMBINATION WITH A PROJECT TYPE PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY.
UM, AT THE BOTTOM HERE, I INCLUDED, UH, THE NUMBER OF ATTENDEES FROM EACH AGENCY.
THESE ARE ALL THE FUNDED AGENCIES AND A NUMBER OF PSH RAPID REHOUSING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS.
JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, IN CASE, YOU KNOW, YOU WANTED TO, TO THINK MAYBE SOME AGENCIES THAT ATTENDED THAT MAYBE HAVE MORE PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS, MAYBE ARE A LITTLE MORE WEIGHTED TO SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, PRIORITIZE PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS.
BUT EITHER WAY, THE FULL RESULTS, AND I HAVE TO SAY IT'S ONLY OUT OF 10, SO WE ARE LIMITED, A LIMITED NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS HERE.
[00:15:01]
IT WAS ABOUT SPLIT IF YOU, IF YOU PUT THESE TWO FIRST TWO TOGETHER THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR.SO DON'T USE PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION BASED ON SPEND DOWN, USE REALLOCATION ONLY FOR PROJECTS WITH SIGNIFICANT UNDERSPENDING OR UNDER UTILIZATION PER POLICY, UM, AND THEN USE PROFICIENT REALLOCATION BROADLY, OR USE IT IN COMBINATION WITH A PROJECT TYPE PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY.
UM, ALTHOUGH FOR SEPARATE QUESTIONS, UH, I CONSIDER THIS SPLIT FOR THE MOST PART, UH, CONSIDERING AGAIN, UH, NOT USING PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION AND JUST APPLYING THE POLICY IS EFFECTIVELY, UH, THIS ALMOST THE SAME.
AND THEN, UH, USE PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION, BUT THEN USE IT WITH THE PROJECT TYPE PRIORITIZATION STRATEGY.
UH, THIS IS ALSO, AGAIN, PART OF, PART OF THIS QUESTION AS WELL.
SO IT WAS RELATIVELY SPLIT HERE.
UM, WHEN WE MOVE ON TO THE SECOND QUESTION, UH, HOW SHOULD THE COC BALANCE PROJECT PERFORMANCE SCORES WITH PRIORITY, UH, WITH, I'M SORRY, UH, PROJECT TYPE, WHEN DETERMINING THE PRIORITY LIST, WE GAVE THREE OPTIONS.
RANK PROJECTS BY SCORE ONLY, REGARDLESS OF PROJECT TYPE, PRIORITIZE PROJECTS BY TYPE ONLY AFTER THEY MEET A THRESHOLD, A MINIMUM PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD.
UH, AND THREE, PRIORITIZE ALL PSH PROJECTS IN TIER ONE TO PRESERVE PERMANENT HOUSING RESOURCES.
UH, SO AGAIN, BOTTOM, UH, BOTTOM IS EXACTLY THE SAME, RIGHT? SAME NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS THAT WERE THERE.
STILL 10, UH, RANK PROJECTS BY SCORE ONLY, REGARDLESS OF TYPE 20%, UH, TWO OUTTA 10.
THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE HISTORICALLY.
UM, RANK PROJECTS BY TYPE ONLY AFTER THEY MEET A MINIMUM PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD.
AND THEN PRIORITIZE PSH PROJECTS IN TIER ONE TO PRESERVE PERMANENT HOUSING RESOURCES, 60%.
SO, UM, IF YOU WERE TO GROUP THESE TWO TOGETHER, STILL A LITTLE HIGHER PREFERENCE FOR PRIORITIZING ALL PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS IN TIER TIER ONE.
UM, WHEN I GET INTO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, IN THE SLIDE OR SO, UH, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS WE'LL DO, AND IF YOU READ THE MEMO, UH, YOU'LL HAVE SEEN THIS ALREADY.
UM, WE DON'T RECOMMEND A PRIORITIZE ALL PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE PROJECTS IN TIER ONE TO PRESERVE RESOURCES, UH, FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
UM, BUT I'LL, I'LL STICK WITH THE MAIN REASON, AND THAT GOES BACK TO ONE OF THE EARLIER SLIDES ON HUD'S INSTRUCTIONS FOR RANKING AN OBJECTIVE PROCESS, RIGHT? THEY'RE WANTING US TO LOOK AT PERFORMANCE OF THESE PROJECTS, UH, AND DETERMINE OUR RANKING, OR HAVE OUR RANKING BE DETERMINED BY THEIR PERFORMANCE.
UM, IF WE HAVE A VERY, VERY LOW PERMANENT BOARD SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, UH, SCORING PROJECT, UM, LOW SCORING, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT, UM, AND THEN LIKE WE HAD THIS YEAR, UH, WHICH WAS A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT THAT SCORED A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, IF WE WERE TO RANK THAT PSH PROJECT ABOVE THAT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT, I FEEL LIKE THAT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN, ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECT IS SCORING ABOUT 50, 60% OF POINTS AVAILABLE.
UM, HOWEVER, THIS IS A CONVERSATION WE'RE GONNA HAVE, UM, AND I APPRECIATE FOLKS FOLLOWING ALONG.
UH, CAN WE CONTINUE? I KNOW I'M THROWING A LOT OF INFORMATION OUT THERE.
UM, I HAVE MORE TO GO THROUGH, BUT IS EVERYBODY OKAY FOLLOWING WE OKAY TO, TO MOVE ON? OKAY, PERFECT.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT, UH, MOVING A LITTLE BIT TOO FAST.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE STRATEGIES THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IN OUR MEMO, AND YOU'LL SEE ONCE WE GET A LITTLE LATER IN THE CONVERSATION, UM, DESPITE, UH, RECOMMENDING SOME OF THESE STRATEGIES, UM, IN OUR REVIEW, IT MAY BE THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO IMPLEMENT SOME OF THESE AND YOU'LL SEE WHY IN A FEW MOMENTS.
SO, UH, RECOMMENDATION ONE, TRANSITION TIER TWO FUNDING.
SO, UH, AS WE'VE STATED, UM, AND AS WE SAW BY THE NUMBERS, UNFORTUNATELY, THE WAY HUD IS STRUCTURING THE COMPETITION IS WITH A BIG PREFERENCE FOR NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SSO AS SUPPORTIVE SERVICE ONLY PROJECTS.
UM, THIS IS FOR A FEW REASONS, I WON'T PONTIFICATE A TOO MUCH WHY.
BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE THING, UH, WITH THAT IS THAT THESE NEW PROJECTS WILL BE, UH, HAVE TO BE STRUCTURED UNDER THE NEW FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, HUD HAS VARIOUS, UM, SPECIFICS ON HOW THEY WOULD LIKE THEIR NEW PROJECTS OPERATED.
UM, AND SO BY PRIORITIZING FUNDING FOR THOSE NEW PROJECTS, UH, AS WE SAID, IT MAKES TIER TWO FUNDING VERY HIGHLY AT RISK.
SO, UM, WE ARE RECOMMENDING REALLOCATING ANY PROJECTS THAT FALL INTO TIER TWO TO EITHER TRANSITION.
SO THESE WOULD BE, UH, ELIGIBLE PROJECTS THAT PASS THRESHOLD, BUT WOULD LAND IN TIER TWO JUST BASED ON THEIR SCORE AND FUNDING.
UM, AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO SUBMIT TRANSITIONS TO THE OPEN RFP NOW, UM, AND ALSO TAKE THAT ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT MAY BE REALLOCATED AND USE IT FOR ANY NEW PROJECTS, UH,
[00:20:01]
ADDITION ON TOP OF THE COC AND DV BONUS AMOUNTS, UM, TO, TO HAVE NEW PROJECTS IN, IN THE, UM, COMPETITION AS WELL.UM, AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DO BELIEVE THIS WILL HELP WITH COMPETITION SCORING.
'CAUSE AGAIN, HUD ALSO SCORES US ON HOW WE HOLD OUR LOCAL COMPETITION AND HOW WE DESCRIBE THE DECISIONS THAT WE'RE MAKING.
SO WE THINK THAT THESE FUNDING REQUESTS WILL BETTER ALIGN WITH HUD'S PRIORITIES.
WE COULD SCORE A LITTLE MORE, WHICH MEANS THAT WE WOULD GET MORE FUNDING.
UM, THE SECOND IS TRANSITION RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
UM, SO RAPID REHOUSING, DESPITE BEING A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY TO GET FOLKS, UH, IMMEDIATELY INTO A PERMANENT HOUSING, UH, SUBSIDIES OVER, YOU KNOW, UP TO, UP TO TWO YEARS, UP TO 24 MONTHS, UH, TO, TO TRANSITION OFF, UH, ONE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS ARE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO FUND THAN, UH, OTHER SOURCES, PARTICULARLY PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING WITH, WITH OTHER RESOURCES.
SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE THINK WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO, AND, AND YOU'LL SEE THIS IN A FUTURE RECOMMENDATIONS, POTENTIALLY REPLACE FUNDING FOR THOSE ADDITIONALLY RAPID REHOUSING, UM, AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, DESPITE BEING TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE COMPONENTS, UH, YOU COULD ADMINISTER THEM SIMILARLY, MEANING THAT YOU COULD, YOU CAN HAVE FOLKS IN A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING THAT IS, UM, ITS OWN UNIT, UH, THAT'S NOT SHARED LIVING.
UH, THEY CAN PAY AN OCCUPANCY FEE.
AND SO THAT MAY HELP, UH, OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS RATHER THAN JUST COMPLETELY TAKING OVER THE FULL LEASE.
UH, ULTIMATELY ONE OF THE BIGGER DIFFERENCES IS RIGHT, UM, AT LEAST LOCALLY, IS THAT THEY WILL NOT COUNT AS BEING HOUSED.
SO WE ALSO BELIEVE, OR AT LEAST I ALSO BELIEVE THAT HUD IS ALSO MAKING, UM, IT MORE DIFFICULT TO CONTINUE FUNDING OR RATIONALE FOR FUNDING RAPID REHOUSING OVER TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, TO INFLATE HOMELESSNESS NUMBERS AND KIND OF POINT AND SAY, SEE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT GREAT OUT THERE, BECAUSE NOW THOSE RAPID REHOUSING NUMBERS WILL, UH, WILL THEN, OR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING NUMBERS, I APOLOGIZE, UM, WILL THEN KIND OF ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE, UH, THE NUMBER OF FOLKS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
'CAUSE THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS A PERMANENT HOUSING RESOURCE.
UM, HOWEVER, DESPITE, DESPITE THAT, UM, WE DO THINK THAT THE ONE JOINT COMPONENT PROJECT, SO THIS IS OUR ONLY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDED PROJECT, MEANING THAT IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO BE REALLOCATED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED WITH ANOTHER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT OR PROJECT SERVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS.
UM, AND HUD HAS ALSO SAID THAT THEY WILL NOT ACCEPT AT THIS TIME, AT LEAST, UH, NEW APPLICATIONS FOR JOINT COMPONENT PROJECTS.
SO, UH, FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT KNOW.
AND THEN THE AUDIENCE, A JOINT COMPONENT PROJECT IS A PROJECT THAT OPERATES WITH BOTH A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COMPONENT AND A RAPID REHOUSING COMPONENT.
SO AN INDIVIDUAL COULD MOVE INTO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND THEN JUST WORK THROUGH AND IMMEDIATELY ENTER, UH, RAPID REHOUSING WHEN THEY'RE READY.
THEY COULD ONLY ENTER THE RAPID REHOUSING COMPONENT.
THEY COULD ONLY ENTER THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COMPONENT.
HOWEVER, IT DOES CREATE A KIND OF CONTINUITY OF SERVICES 'CAUSE IT'S ALL LIVING WITHIN ONE ORGANIZATION.
UM, IT'S A UNIQUE STRUCTURE AND WE FEEL LIKE ONLY HAVING THIS ONE PROJECT AND BEING UNSURE OF ELIGIBILITY MOVING FORWARD, THAT WE SHOULD TRY TO PRESERVE THAT PROJECT WHILE TRANSITIONING THE OTHER PROJECTS.
UM, I WILL SAY IN CASE FOLKS ASK LATER, UH, THAT PROJECT SCORED EXCEPTIONALLY WELL, SO IT DID NOT HAVE PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT WOULD CAUSE US A CONCERN WHERE WE WOULD SAY, WELL, THIS IS A LOW PERFORMING PROJECT.
MAYBE IT SHOULD BE REALLOCATED.
UM, IT WASN'T FLAGGED FOR ANY OF THOSE.
AND, AND WE'LL GET INTO THOSE FLAGS IN A MOMENT.
UH, RECOMMENDATION THREE, PRESERVE THAT CAPACITY FOR RAPID REHOUSING.
SO, UH, I ALREADY SPOKE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.
UM, I THINK WHAT I, I WOULD ADD IS FOR PROVIDERS THAT MAYBE FEEL AS IF THOUGH THEY CAN'T ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING BY TRANSITIONING THEIR RAPID REHOUSING TO A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM, UM, THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE WOULD BE OTHER REPLACEMENT STRATEGIES FOR THAT FUNDING.
SO THAT PROJECT MAY CONTINUE TO OPERATE.
IT MAY BE THAT THEY HAVE TO, UM, SUBMIT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DOCUMENTATION APPLY TO A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD TRY TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THOSE PROJECTS AND, AND SEE IF WE'D BE ABLE TO AGAIN, REPLACE THAT FUNDING.
SO, UH, THERE WOULD BE, UH, LESS OF AN IMPACT ON, ON PARTICIPANTS.
UM, I WILL MOVE FORWARD TO, UH, OUR LAST THREE.
SO, UH, RECOMMENDATION FOUR IS RANKED BY PROJECT TYPE AND PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD.
SO, UH, THAT'S ESTABLISHING A MINIMUM THRESHOLD.
SO 70% OF, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE POINTS ARE IN, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, PRIORITIZED TYPES ONLY AFTER THEY'VE MET THAT THRESHOLD.
UH, AND THAT WILL HELP US MAINTAIN A MORE OBJECTIVE COMPETITIVE RANKING PROCESS.
AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
UH, IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES.
[00:25:01]
UM, RECOMMENDATION FIVE, REALLOCATE PROJECTED UNSPENT FUNDS.SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE SPOKE ABOUT WITH THE REALLOCATION COMMITTEE WAS MODELING SCENARIOS WHERE 25, 50, 70 5% OF PROJECTED UNSPENT FUNDS MAY BE REALLOCATED.
UM, WE'D REALIGNED BUDGETS WITH PROJE, UH, DEMONSTRATED SPENDING TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RENEWAL FUNDING THAT FITS WITHIN TIER ONE.
UM, THERE WE LIKELY WILL NOT HAVE TO DO THIS.
SO I'M NOT GONNA SPEND TOO MUCH TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE.
UM, BUT WE CAN COME BACK TO IT.
UM, AND THEN RECOMMENDATION SIX WILL BE IN THE RANKING PROCESS.
SO TYPICALLY WHAT WE'VE DONE HISTORICALLY AND MOST OCS DO, IS THEY RANK ALL THEIR RENEWAL PROJECTS FIRST, UH, AND THEN RANK ALL THE NEW PROJECT SUBMISSIONS LAST THAT WAY.
UH, AS HUD FUNDS PROJECTS, IF THEY EVENTUALLY RUN OUT OF MONEY AND YOU STILL HAVE SOME PROJECTS, THE PROJECTS THAT ESSENTIALLY ARE UNFUNDED ARE PRIMARILY NEW PROJECTS RATHER THAN RENEWAL PROJECTS.
UM, BASED ON CONVERSATIONS, OBVIOUSLY WE ALL KNOW THAT, UH, THIS YEAR IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, THAT IT'S, IT'S MUCH LESS LIKELY FOR THOSE OTHER PROJECTS, UH, IN TIER TWO ABOVE ANY NEW PROJECTS TO BE FUND OR TO BE FUNDED.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS FOR THOSE THAT DO HAVE THOSE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO TRANSITION, 'CAUSE THEY MEET THRESHOLD THAT WE WOULD RANK OUR SYSTEM LEVEL PROJECTS, THEN OUR RENEWAL PROJECTS, THEN ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE REQUESTING TRANSITION, THEN NEW PROJECTS BELOW THEM.
THAT WAY IF HUD STARTS FUNDING PROJECTS PAST TIER ONE INTO TIER TWO, THE FIRST SELECTED FOR LONG BEACH WOULD BE THOSE TRANSITION PROJECTS.
OKAY, NOW I'M GOING TO GET INTO SPECIFICS ON, UH, HOW SOME OF THESE, UH, THINGS WOULD WORK.
SO RANKING BY PROJECT TYPE AND THRESHOLD.
UM, SO AGAIN, THIS SEPARATES PROJECTS BASED ON WHETHER THEY MEET A MINIMUM PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD AND THEN RANKS WITHIN THAT GROUP.
SO WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS YOU'D FIRST SAY, WHAT'S A THRESHOLD? AND SO LET'S SAY 70% OF AVAILABLE POINTS EARNED.
SO THIS WOULD BE, THERE WAS A HUNDRED POINTS AVAILABLE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO EARN AT LEAST 70 OF THOSE POINTS.
SO ANY PROJECTS THAT SCORE AT OR ABOVE 70% WOULD RANK AHEAD OF THOSE, THAT SCORE BELOW 70%.
AND THEN WITHIN EACH SPECIAL GROUP, YOU WOULD THEN ORDER FROM HIGHEST TO LOWEST BY PROJECT TYPE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, PSH, UH, THEN OUR JOINT COMPONENT, 'CAUSE IT DOES HAVE THE RAPID RE HOUSING, PERMANENT HOUSING COMPONENT, THEN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, AND THEN SAME FOR PROJECT SCORING BELOW.
UM, AND SO WHAT THIS ESSENTIALLY DOES IS IT JUST CREATES THAT MINIMUM PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD THAT'S SAYING, OKAY, WELL WE HAVE A STANDARD THAT 70%.
I THINK MOST PEOPLE, UH, ESPECIALLY FOLKS THAT HAVE GONE, YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO SCHOOL, EVEN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, EVERYONE KIND OF HAS THAT 70%, YOU KNOW, YOU GET THAT C MINUS, YOU CAN STILL PASS.
AND SO HAVING A STANDARD LIKE THAT WOULD AT LEAST MAKE OUR RANKING PROCESS SEEM, UH, OBJECTIVE.
UM, IT ALSO SUPPORTS THAT STRATEGIC TIER ONE PLACEMENT, UH, BY ALLOWING THOSE PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS OR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROJECTS TO BE RANKED ON TOP.
UH, AND IT ALSO RESPOND TO SOME OF THAT FUNDING RISK.
SO, UH, THIS NEXT SLIDE IS COMPLETELY DEMONSTRATIVE AND, UH, YOU'LL SEE IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, UH, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, BUT THIS COULD BE HOW SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD LOOK.
UM, SO YOU HAVE YOUR SYSTEM LEVEL GRANTS, HMIS, UH, S-S-O-C-E, UH, FEDERALLY ACQUIRED SYSTEM, SO HMIS AND THEN COORDINATED ENTRY.
UH, THOSE WOULD BE RANKED, UH, ON TOP AS THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY 'CAUSE WE EXEMPT THEM LOCALLY.
UH, THEN YOU'D HAVE THESE PSH PROJECTS AT OR ABOVE 70% IN RANK ORDER.
UH, THEN WE'D GO TO OUR, OR THIS SHOULD BE TRANSITIONAL, UH, RAPID REHOUSING, APOLOGIES THERE.
UH, THEN WE'D GO HERE, UH, TO, TO THAT ABOVE 70, UH, THEN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING ABOVE 70.
AS YOU SEE HERE, EVEN AT THAT POINT, WHAT COULD HAPPEN, UH, IS THAT WE HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL TRANSITIONAL HOUSING RANKING AT OR ABOVE 70%, UH, AND THEY END UP FALLING INTO TIER TWO HERE.
UH, AND THEN UNDER THESE PROJECTS, WE WOULD THEN GO UNDER 70% STARTING WITH PSH AND THEN GOING TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
SO THIS IS, THESE ARE ALL FAKE NUMBERS.
THESE ARE NOT ACTUAL PROJECTS.
THIS IS NOT SCORES, BUT THIS IS HOW IT WOULD LOOK.
THIS IS JUST SO YOU CAN SEE HOW IT LOOKS IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THAT KIND OF APPROACH.
UH, NOW WE'RE GONNA START GETTING INTO ACTUAL NUMBERS.
I ASK A CLARIFY QUESTION ON NUMBER SEVEN.
SO WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO THE QUESTION WAS, WHY DOES THIS ONE SAY ONE OR TWO? SO, UH, WHAT HAPPENS WITH A TIER IS YOUR
[00:30:01]
TIER ONE IS, YOU KNOW, 60% OF YOUR ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND.UM, BUT PROJECT BUDGETS AREN'T THAT NEAT.
SO ONCE YOU START ADDING THEM UP, AT A CERTAIN POINT YOU'LL GET TO A PROJECT THAT TYPICALLY IS PARTIALLY IN TIER ONE AND THEN PARTIALLY IN TIER TWO.
MOST OF THE TIME THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE ASSUMING, UH, WE'LL PROBABLY END UP GETTING A COUPLE OF PROJECTS IN TIER TWO.
UM, THIS YEAR, UH, THIS WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE MAY RECOMMEND, AND THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD DISCUSS AT THAT POINT, IS, IS THIS PROJECT THAT STRADDLES, UH, COULD IT, COULD IT SURVIVE WITH A PARTIAL REALLOCATION? UM, AND, AND SO WHAT, WHAT WOULD WE DO? AND THIS WOULD BE A COMPETITION BASED REALLOCATION STRATEGY BY LOOKING AT THAT ONE.
UH, WHEN WE GET INTO THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES, UH, WE'LL ACTUALLY SEE THAT, UH, WE MAY, WE MAY NOT HAVE THIS PROBLEM, UH, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL SEE.
UM, IT IS, IT'S, IT DEPENDS ON A FEW DIFFERENT FACTORS, BUT, UM, THAT WILL BE SOMETHING YEAH, THAT WE'RE, WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ONCE WE GET TO RANKING NEXT MONTH AS WELL, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF FINALIZING THE LIST.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I MOVE INTO THE ACTUAL NUMBERS? SO LONG BEACH COC FUNDING, WHAT SCORES LOOK LIKE, WHAT REALLOCATION LOOKS LIKE? ANY QUESTIONS JUST ON SOME OF THE CONCEPTS WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING OR ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, JAMES.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP.
WELL, UH, THE QUESTION I WOULD'VE IS GONNA BE ANSWER IN THE NEXT ONE.
SO, UM, UNFORTUNATELY I DO HAVE TO SAY WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR BONUS FUNDING AVAILABILITY IS.
THIS IS NEW FUNDING THAT WE CAN APPLY FOR ON TOP OF OUR A RD HU DOES STILL NOT RELEASED IT.
THEY STILL HAVEN'T OPENED THE APPLICATION IN E SNAPS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ARE GONNA BE.
UM, THIS TABLE HERE IN THIS TABLE HERE THOUGH, HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO OUR RFP.
SO RFP, WE DID RELEASE IT LAST WEEK.
UH, IT DID TAKE A LITTLE WHILE, UM, DUE TO THAT TARGETED, UH, THOSE TARGETED FUNDING AND PROJECT PRIORITY TYPES.
UH, OUTSIDE OF TRANSITION PROJECTS, UM, WHAT WE ARE SOLICITING FOR IS SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING UNDER THE COC BONUS.
SO THOSE ARE THE MOST COMPETITIVE TYPES, UM, THAT HUD IS LOOKING TO AWARD.
UH, AND THEN FOR DV BONUS, UM, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, UP TO, AGAIN, AN AMOUNT THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE SURE OF YET, UM, WE'RE NOT, UH, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER TYPES AVAILABLE, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, SOC COULD ONLY BE APPLIED FOR BY LONG BEACH.
WE'RE NOT APPLYING FOR AN EXPANSION OF OUR COORDINATED ENTRY.
UM, AND THEN RAPID REHOUSING AND PERMANENT HOUSING, WELL, RAPID REHOUSING WE'RE ELIGIBLE UNDER BOTH, UH, FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNDER COC BONUS, BUT AGAIN, NOT PRIORITIZED OVER SSO OR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
AND WE WOULD PREFER TO TRY TO GET MORE FUNDING IN, UH, AND HAVE PROJECTS OPERATING AND TRY TO, UH, REPLACE OTHER FUNDING THAN POTENTIALLY SUBMIT PROJECT APPLICATIONS TO ASK FOLKS TO SUBMIT PROJECT APPLICATIONS THAT LIKELY ARE NOT GONNA BE VERY COMPETITIVE BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS, UH, ARE NOT WHAT IS REVIEWED.
I THINK THIS IS ONE THING THAT SOME PEOPLE GET CONFUSED ABOUT, PARTICULARLY FOR COC BONUS.
SO HUD DOESN'T REALLY LOOK AT, THEY WILL FOR THRESHOLD REASONS, BUT HUD WON'T.
UH, IF YOUR PERFORMANCE AS A COC IS BAD AND YOU SCORE POORLY ON YOUR APPLICATION OVERALL, YOU COULD PROPOSE A PROJECT THAT IS, YOU HAVE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THIS PROJECT WILL END HOMELESSNESS GUARANTEED, AND HUD WILL NOT FUND IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE WAY THEY FUND PROJECTS.
THEY FUND PROJECTS BASED ON YOUR REGION, NOT BY THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT NECESSARILY.
SO WHILE THEY WILL LOOK AT THEM FOR THRESHOLD REASONS, ENSURE THAT THEY'RE ELIGIBLE, UM, THEY'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING AT THEM TO SEE HOW GOOD THE PROJECT IS.
UM, THEY'RE COUNTING ON YOU LOCALLY TO PICK THE BEST PROJECT TO SUBMIT TO THEM.
AND THEN IF THEY'RE ABLE TO FUND THE PROJECTS IN THAT ORDER, THEY WILL FUND THEM.
I KNOW THAT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE.
IT'S, IT'S JUST KIND OF HOW THAT WORKS.
UM, SO LOOKING AT OUR A RD, UH, HERE, WE'LL SEE, UH, THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECT TYPES CURRENTLY IN THE PORTFOLIO.
UM, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE IN OUR CURRENT RENEWAL DEMAND.
THIS MIGHT EVEN CHANGE A LITTLE BIT.
WE THINK THEY MAY HAVE MADE AN ERROR ON OUR GRANT INVENTORY WORKSHEET, SO THIS COULD GO UP SLIGHTLY.
UH, WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK.
THEY HAVEN'T RESPONDED TO US YET, BUT WE DID SUBMIT THAT, UH, IN A TIMELY WAY.
AND WE ARE WAITING TO SEE IF WE MIGHT GET A INCREASE OF A FEW TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO THIS AMOUNT.
UM, SO ONCE YOU TAKE THAT TIER ONE AMOUNT, WE'RE LOOKING AT 4.9 MILLION APPROXIMATELY IN TIER
[00:35:01]
TWO.THIS WOULD BE THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO, UH, REALLOCATE AND REPLACE EITHER THROUGH TRANSITION PROJECTS OR NEW PROJECTS TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE OUR TIER TWO, UH, RENEWAL FUNDING.
UM, OUR TIER TWO RENEWAL FUNDING, UH, YOU KNOW, RISK, UH, SO TRYING TO REPLACE THOSE AND PROPOSING NEW PROJECTS.
UM, HOW THAT WOULD GO EFFECTIVELY LOCALLY IS WE, ONCE WE GET ALL OF OUR RFP IN AND THEY ALL GET SCORED, UH, WE'LL HAVE A TEAM THAT THAT SCORES THEM THREE FOLKS.
UM, WE WILL THEN SIT AND WE WILL START ADDING THEM BY SCORE TO OUR PRIORITY LIST.
AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE NO MORE MONEY THAT WE CAN APPLY FOR, UM, THEN WE WILL STOP ADDING PROJECTS TO THAT LIST.
SO ANYONE THAT APPLIES TO THE RFP, AS LONG AS THERE'S FUNDING AVAILABLE AND THEY PASS THE THRESHOLD ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, THEN THEY'LL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION.
AS LONG AS WE'RE BELOW THAT, THAT, THAT THRESHOLD.
UM, OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE GONNA GET INTO, UH, A LITTLE BIT MORE MEAT.
SO THIS IS, UH, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO SOME ANALYSIS OF SCORE.
UM, WE DID INCLUDE AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF BACK AND FORTH, UM, ULTIMATELY IT'S NOT A SECRET.
SO WE DID INCLUDE NAMES OF PROJECTS, UM, JUST FOR AWARENESS, UH, 'CAUSE AGAIN, THEY ALL ARE GONNA BE ON THE LIST.
SO OVERALL, UH, FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, WE HAD SEVEN PROJECTS THAT SCORED OVER 70% AND TWO THAT SCORED UNDER.
WE HAD A AVERAGE SCORE OF 73.7, UH, RAPID REHOUSING.
THERE WAS ONE THAT SCORED OVER 70%.
TWO THAT SCORED UNDER THIS HAD A VERY SIMILAR BUT SLIGHTLY BELOW, UH, AVERAGE SCORE HERE.
UH, ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT IS ONE, I THINK AT LEAST ONE OF THESE PROJECTS SCORED VERY, VERY HIGHLY.
UM, THAT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, RAPID REHOUSING, AS I SAID, UM, SCORED PRETTY WELL, 90 POINT 70%.
THAT PROJECT SCORED 92 ON ITS TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PIECE AND 89.3 ON ITS RAPID REHOUSING PIECE.
UM, THOSE PROJECTS ARE SCORED EACH COMPONENT SEPARATELY, AND THEN IT'S AVERAGED TOGETHER.
UH, AND THEN FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, THERE WERE TWO THAT SCORED UNDER 70% AND ONE, I'M SORRY, IT'S OVER.
AND ONE THAT SCORED UNDER, UM, SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
UH, WE DID HAVE ONE OF THESE PROJECTS THAT SCORED UNDER 70%.
UH, AND SO BECAUSE IT HAD AN EXPANSION AND THERE WAS A DELAY IN REIMBURSEMENT, IT SCORED ZERO POINTS ON HOUSEHOLD SERVES IN RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY.
THIS IS BECAUSE IT WENT, IT BASICALLY DOUBLED ITS CAPACITY, UM, OVER THE YEAR, AND THEN IT DIDN'T QUITE CATCH UP.
UM, I GIVE THIS INFORMATION BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS ARE TYPICALLY EXEMPT FROM ANY KIND OF REALLOCATION, UM, UH, ACCORDING TO THE POLICY.
UH, AND THEN FOUR OF THE NINE PROJECTS, FOUR OF THESE NINE WERE IDENTIFIED FOR FULL REALLOCATION WHEN I APPLIED THE POLICY DUE TO HAVING SPEND DOWN AND CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION ISSUES.
SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS ON THE NEXT SLIDE.
UM, FOR RAPID REHOUSING, UH, CURRENT OPERATORS CAN, CAN PROPOSE A TRANSITION THROUGH THE RFP.
UH, HOWEVER, AGAIN, WE ARE RECOMMENDING FULL REALLOCATION EITHER TO TRANSITION THEM, UM, OR JUST TO PROPOSE NEW PROJECTS, RAPID REHOUSING.
UM, WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT'S LIKELY WE'LL BE ABLE TO REPLACE SOME OF THIS FUNDING THROUGH ANOTHER SOURCE AT LEAST, AND IT'LL BE A LOT EASIER TO REPLACE, UH, THAN, THAN SOME PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, AND THEN OF THESE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS, TWO OF THE THREE WERE IDENTIFIED FOR FULL REALLOCATION DUE TO CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION.
UH, SO THIS IS, UH, HAVING LESS THAN 75% CAPACITY OVER THREE YEARS.
UH, SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK TO SEE HOW THIS PANNED OUT ON THIS NEXT SLIDE.
AND IT'S VERY BUSY, AND I'M SORRY FOR THAT BEFORE YOU SLIDE BACK ON THAT.
HOW DOES THIS, THEY'RE UNDER UTILIZING FUNDING SOURCES? HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO RANK? SO PERCENTAGE WISE? UH, WELL, SO THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
SO IT'S, IT'S, UH, IN TERMS OF LIKE POINTS, OKAY, SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT METRICS.
AND SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT LIKE, UTILIZATION IS ONE METRIC, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT WILL STILL FULLY SPEND DOWN.
UH, THEY'LL SUBMIT THEIR DATA ON TIME, THEY'LL HAVE POSITIVE OUTCOMES, THEY'RE JUST OPERATING AT 50% CAPACITY.
AND SO THE REALLOCATION POLICY WILL FLAG THAT, WHERE THE PERFORMANCE SCORE WILL STILL BE GOOD.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE APPLICATIONS OF REALLOCATION POLICY, ONE OF THE FLAGS IS THAT CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION.
SO WE HAVE CHRONIC UNDERSPENDING AND CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION, WHICH BASICALLY LOOKS AT, UH,
[00:40:01]
THRESHOLDS OVER THREE YEARS.UM, 10% IS A, USUALLY A PARTIAL REDUCTION WHERE 25% ENDS UP BEING A FULL REDUCTION, UM, OVERALL SCORE, UH, AND THEN, UH, SPEND DOWN AND UTILIZATION AS WELL.
SO GENERALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, UNDER FOR, FOR SPEND DOWN, IF YOU'RE SPENDING LESS THAN, UH, I THINK 70% OF YOUR BUDGET, UH, IT RECOMMENDS YOU FOR REALLOCATION.
UM, IF YOU ARE UNDERUTILIZING BY, YOU KNOW, A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IT, IT SUBMITS YOU.
AND, AND ALL THE NUMBERS ARE ON THIS, UH, NEXT SLIDE AS WELL.
SO WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT ACTUAL, UH, PROJECT INFORMATION HERE.
SO THIS TOP LINE ARE SPECIAL NOFO PROJECTS.
SO THERE IS A PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING S-S-O-S-O, WHICH IS STREET OUTREACH AND SSO, OTHER, THIS IS TOTAL IS 1.14, UH, MILLION DOLLARS.
THESE ARE ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE OPERATED BY THE HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU.
UH, AND SO IN THE SPIRIT OF UNDERSTANDING AND ACKNOWLEDGING HOW TOUGH THE COMPETITION'S GONNA BE, UH, WE ARE PLACING ALL OF THESE PROJECTS ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK.
SO WE ARE CONTRIBUTING TOWARDS THIS, UH, 4.9 ISH MILLION.
UM, AND SAYING THESE THREE PROJECTS, WE WILL VOLUNTARILY, FULLY REALLOCATE, UH, TO GO TOWARDS THAT AMOUNT.
UM, MOVING DOWN, WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PSH PROJECTS.
UM, HERE WE HAVE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY.
SO THESE ARE, THIS IS AVERAGE OCCUPANCY, UH, THROUGH BEDS.
AND SO HERE YOU'LL SEE THE REALLOCATION FLAGGED.
SO, UH, THIS FIRST PROJECT, UH, WAS FLAGGED FOR FULL REALLOCATION BASED ON SPEND DOWN.
SO AGAIN, UNDER THAT 70% DE OBLIGATED OR OVER 30% DE DEED, I SHOULD SAY.
UM, THE SECOND, SIMILARLY, DEED 42% OF FUNDING.
UM, ONE IS A PARTIAL REALLOCATION.
THIS IS DUE TO CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS.
UM, A FULL REALLOCATION HERE FOR CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION OVER THREE YEARS.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS OVER 25% HERE, AND THIS IS 10% HERE.
UM, FULL REALLOCATION BASED ON SPEND DOWN, AGAIN, 36% DEED FUNDS.
UM, AND THEN IF WE MOVE DOWN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, UM, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, UH, AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS WERE, UM, ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR SPEND DOWN, UH, REALLOCATION DUE TO DE OBLIGATION.
SO 56% OF FUNDS BE OBLIGATED HERE.
UM, AND THEN THESE TWO BEING RECOMMENDED FOR COMPETITIVE REALLOCATION.
SO THEY PASSED THE THRESHOLD, HOWEVER, AGAIN, REPLACEMENT STRATEGY, UH, AND THEY, THEY WOULD BE, AS LONG AS THEY MEET OTHER THRESHOLDS, THEY'D BE ABLE TO APPLY TO ATTEMPT TO TRANSITION THESE, UM, TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
AND THEN WE WILL WORK WITH THEM, UH, TO TRY TO, UM, AGAIN, GET ALL THOSE FOLKS ELIGIBLE TO TRANSITION WITH THAT PROJECT.
AND IF NOT, TRY TO, UH, FIGURE OUT WHERE WE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE THEM.
UH, AND THEN TWO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS, UM, BOTH FOR CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION.
SO THIS ONE FLOATING AT ABOUT 50% OCCUPANCY OVER THREE YEARS.
UM, THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT AGAIN, 40% OCCUPANCY THREE YEARS AGO, UM, GETTING A LITTLE BIT BETTER, BUT THEN ULTIMATELY, UH, KIND OF STAGNATING AROUND THAT 60% MARK OR SO.
UM, THIS WAS OUTSIDE OF, UH, THREE PROJECTS THAT HSB, UM, IS PUTTING ON THE CHOPPING BLOCK AND THE FULL COMPETITIVE REALLOCATION FOR THESE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR TRANSITIONING.
UM, SIMPLY APPLYING THE POLICY GOT US TO 4.9 MILLION, WHICH IS 60,000 OVER TIER TWO A RD.
SO REALLOCATING OR AT LEAST TRANSITIONING THESE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS.
UM, HSB, UM, VOLUNTARILY REALLOCATING THESE THREE PROJECTS AND APPLYING THE POLICY, UH, THAT WAS APPROVED TO EVERY OTHER PROJECT GOT US THERE.
SO, AGAIN, NOT IDEAL 'CAUSE WE SEE A LONG LIST OF SOME PSH HERE.
UM, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT A CONVERSATION WHERE WE SAT HERE AND WE WERE DECIDING NECESSARILY WHICH PROJECTS BASED ON SOMETHING ARBITRARY, LIKE SPEND DOWN AND CUTTING FOLKS HERE AND CUTTING FOLKS THERE.
UM, APPLYING THE POLICY THAT WE'VE HAD CONSISTENTLY, REALLY FOR YEARS.
AND, UH, APPLYING IT AGAIN CONSISTENTLY THIS YEAR, UH, GOT US TO THE AMOUNT THAT WE NEEDED TO REALLOCATE.
A LITTLE BIT MORE HERE TO DISCUSS THOUGH, UM, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, RIGHT? THERE WERE A LOT OF PSH HERE.
UM, SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT WITH THE REALLOCATION WAS, UH, REALLOCATION COMMITTEE WAS LOOKING AT PROPORTIONAL REALLOCATION AND WHAT THAT WOULD
[00:45:01]
LOOK LIKE.ONE THING WE FOUND WAS THAT A LOT OF THE PROJECTS LEFT OVER DID NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT UNDERSPENT.
SO TRYING TO TAKE 25, 50%, 75%, NOT A WHOLE LOT WAS THERE.
AND, AND EVEN HERE, IF WE WERE TO TRY TO SAY, HEY, MAYBE WE'RE NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, REALLOCATE OR PARTIALLY REALLOCATE A LOT OF SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, UM, THE BUDGETS COMPARED TO WHAT THE ACTUAL SPEND DOWN WAS TO REALLOCATE IS, IS NOT THAT MUCH.
AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THESE WERE, UH, FLAGGED FOR FULL REALLOCATION.
UM, NOT WANTING TO NECESSARILY SINGLE ANYONE OUT, BUT BECAUSE I NEED TO.
UM, THE ONE THAT WE COULD LOOK AT AS A BOARD, UM, AND WE'RE, I'M REMAINING AGNOSTIC ON THIS, IS THE, IT'S A NEW DAY PROJECT, WHICH WAS, UH, EXPANDED LAST YEAR AGAIN, TYPICALLY WOULD BE EXEMPT.
BECAUSE OF THAT, WE ARE RECOMMENDING A REALLOCATION POLICY, UH, UPDATES TO JUST KIND OF CHANGE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE TO BASICALLY SAY OTHER CONSIDERATIONS COULD BE MADE.
UM, BUT, UM, THIS PROJECT LIKELY IS STILL NOT OPERATING AT FULL CAPACITY.
UM, IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE PROJECTED UNDERSPEND, IF WE WERE TO REALLOCATE 25, 50 OR 75%, WE COULD GET AMOUNTS UP TO, YOU KNOW, 375,000.
UM, AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE COMMUNICATING WITH THEM AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A DISCUSSION AND WE WERE GONNA TRY TO SAVE, OR AT LEAST PARTIALLY SAVE ONE OF THESE OTHER PROJECTS AND FUND THEM.
UM, THE TWO I WOULD LOOK AT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT RECEIVED THE HIGHEST SCORE, OR THE ONE THAT WAS CLOSEST TO NOT GETTING A FULL REALLOCATION FLAG.
IF THIS WOULD'VE BEEN 29.9, THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLAGGED FOR FULL REALLOCATION.
MIGHT'VE HAD A PARTIAL REALLOCATION, BUT NOT A FULL, UH, AND WE COULD GO BACK AND, AND, AND GET THAT INFORMATION.
AND AGAIN, THIS ONE, UH, THIS WAS ALSO CONSISTENT SPEND DOWN ISSUES, PROBABLY WOULD'VE HAD A PARTIAL, UM, BUT AGAIN, STILL SCORED A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN SOME OF THESE OTHER, I MEAN, I KNOW THIS ONE'S HIGHER, BUT THIS IS ONLY A PARTIAL REALLOCATION.
THIS IS A PARTIAL REALLOCATION BASED ON UTILIZATION.
UM, THIS, IT, IT'LL, IT'S LIKE A HUNDRED THOUSAND.
SO, UM, LIKELY WITH THE UNDERSPEND, UH, WE'RE HOPING THIS PROJECT WON'T BE HURT TOO BADLY.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THESE TWO PROJECTS ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR FULL REALLOCATION, UH, OBVIOUSLY WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE SOMETHING UP IF, IF, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TO MOVE THIS PLUS THAT 60,000 THAT WE'RE ABOVE THE CAP, RIGHT? WE WOULD ALSO ADD THAT TO THAT, HAVE EVERYONE FIT NEATLY IN TIER ONE, ESSENTIALLY.
UM, ONLY REALLY HAVE, UH, ONE MORE SLIDE.
AND THAT'S REALLY TURNING THINGS OVER TO DISCUSSION.
SO SHOULD WE PRIORITIZE TRANSITION PROJECTS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOFO? SO THIS IS IF WE ARE ALLOWING FOLKS, UH, WELL, WE ARE ALLOWING FOLKS TO TRANSITION, BUT IN OUR RANKING, SHOULD WE PROPOSE THOSE ABOVE ALL OTHER NEW PROJECTS? UH, WE BELIEVE YES.
THAT WAY IF YOU'RE PROPOSING A TRANSITION, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE FUNDED.
UH, SHOULD ALL RAPID REHOUSING BE REALLOCATED AND ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO SUBMIT TRANSITIONS TO, TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING? UM, AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO WITH HUD GUIDANCE AND, UH, MOVING FOLKS FROM RAPID REHOUSING TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, POTENTIALLY EVEN HAVING THEM MAINTAIN THE SAME UNITY, EVEN WITH ELIGIBILITY COULD LIKELY BE POSSIBLE.
UM, AND THEN SHOULD A PORTION OF PROJECTED UNDERSPENT BE REALLOCATED, AGAIN, THAT'S REALLY ONLY LOOKING AT THAT ONE-ISH PROJECT, UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND KIND OF UNFLAG FOLKS AGAINST THE POLICY, WHICH WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT IF WE WANTED TO TALK ABOUT PARTIAL FUNDING HERE OR THERE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, OPEN TO THAT CONVERSATION.
UH, AND THEN FOR RANKING, SHOULD WE ADOPT THAT PROJECT TYPE AND PERFORMANCE THRESHOLD, UH, RANKING SYSTEM, UH, THE WAY THAT IT WOULD PAN OUT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THAT REALLOCATION, WE WOULDN'T TECHNICALLY NEED IT 'CAUSE EVERYONE WOULD BE FITTING INTO TIER ONE.
HOWEVER, I DO THINK THAT ANTICIPATING NEXT YEAR US HAVING TO HAVE A VERY SIMILAR CONVERSATION, IF HUD IS PLACING 60% IN TIER ONE, 40% IN TIER TWO AND SAYING THEY'RE PRIORITIZING THEIR NEW PROJECTS, WE'RE GONNA BE HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATION.
AND PROBABLY WE'LL BE DOING IT WITH A LOT OF BRAND NEW PROJECTS WITH HUD IS THEN TELLING US WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO REALLOCATE POTENTIALLY, UM, WHAT THRESHOLD SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED.
HONESTLY, I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, UM, EVERYONE'S GONNA FIT IN IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
SO IF WE WERE TO SAY 70%, EVEN THOSE LOWER PERFORMING PSH WOULD STAY IN
[00:50:01]
TIER ONE AGAIN IN IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE REALLOCATION.UM, OH, I THINK I, I THINK I, UH, DUPLICATED THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT.
SHOULD WE RANK TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OTHER, UH, OVER OTHER PROJECTS? UH, AND THEN IMPLEMENTATION.
SO JUST CONFIRMING DIRECTION, UM, WHAT YOU FEEL ABOUT WHAT WE SAID TODAY.
UM, WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVE SOME POLICY UPDATES, UH, THAT RANKING, AND THEN JUST SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN THE REALLOCATION POLICY GIVING US SOME FLEXIBILITY IF WE DO DECIDE TO MOVE A LITTLE FUNDING AROUND.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL PREPARE OUR FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS CONSISTENT WITH THE ACTION TAKEN TODAY.
UM, OUR NEXT SLIDE IS NEXT STEPS, BUT, UH, I APPRECIATE THE VERY, VERY LONG PRESENTATION.
EVERYONE, UH, YOU KNOW, REMAINING ATTENTIVE UNENGAGED AND HAPPY TO TURN THINGS OVER TO HEAR WHAT PEOPLE ARE THINKING.
COUPLE COUPLE THINGS BEFORE WE TRANSITION JUST TO PUT OUT THERE.
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT PIECES WITHIN IT THAT HAVE AN IMPACT.
YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE PEOPLE'S JOBS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THESE AGENCIES AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT OBVIOUSLY DEMAND SOME LEVEL OF SENSITIVITY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY WITHIN OUR CONCERNS HERE.
OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY DOES REMAIN PEOPLE'S RENTS THAT ARE WITHIN THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING REALLOCATED.
SO THAT IS KIND OF AS WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, OUR STRATEGIES AS WE GET PAST THE S NOFO, THAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
AS WE LOOK AT OPPORTUNITIES AS WE LOOK AT FUNDING SHIFTS WITHIN OUR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES OF HOW DO WE FREE UP, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL DOLLARS ELSEWHERE THAT THEN CAN BE SHIFTED TOWARDS PERMANENT HOUSING, PICKING UP PEOPLE'S RENTS AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A PRO, YOU KNOW, AN AGENCY THAT IS BEING REALLOCATED OR ANOTHER PROJECT COMING IN, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ISSUE IS, OBVIOUSLY GOING AND GIVING ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE TO SOMEBODY THAT IS RANKING AT THE BOTTOM OF OUR COC PERFORMANCE MAY NOT BE THE BEST IDEA.
UM, BUT THAT PERSON THAT'S IN THAT UNIT ATTACHED TO THAT AGENCY, THEY DID NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT OR, UM, YOU KNOW, ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT LIKE THAT IS OUR TOP PRIORITY, IS ENSURING AS LITTLE DISPLACEMENT FUEL HOMELESSNESS AS POSSIBLE.
IDEALLY, NO, UM, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
WE'VE HAD, UH, SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH A CASA AROUND MEASURE A FUNDING, HOW THAT COULD BE UTILIZED TO SUSTAIN, UH, POTENTIALLY PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED, UH, FROM FEDERAL POLICY DECISIONS SUCH AS THE COC UH, FUNDING DECISIONS.
WE HAVE ALSO HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR MANAGED CARE PROVIDERS AND FUNDING THAT THEY HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, REINVEST INTO THE COMMUNITY, UH, AND PUT FORWARD PROPOSALS TO THEM.
UH, BUT WE ARE LOOKING AT A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL SOURCES THAT COULD BE BROUGHT IN TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT ARE IN UNITS THAT ARE BEING IMPACTED BY REALLOCATION AREN'T LEFT, YOU KNOW, HIGH AND DRY WITH NOWHERE TO GO.
WE ALSO REALIZE THAT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW PROJECTS IN THIS PORTFOLIO, UH, THAT IMPACT ONE SPECIFIC DEVELOPER.
OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER'S AT THE TABLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK OUR GOAL IS NOT TO HAVE THAT, YOU KNOW, BE SUCH A FISCAL IMPACT TO ONE ENTITY.
SO WE WOULD WORK CLOSELY TO FIGURE OUT HOW THOSE UNITS GET MAINTAINED, HOW THEY CAN CONTINUE TO BE FUNDED AND UTILIZED IN THAT.
WE DON'T LOSE A BUNCH OF PROJECT BASED SITE UNITS WITHIN OUR PORTFOLIO.
SO THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A LOT THAT'S KIND OF UNKNOWN STILL WITHIN THIS, BUT OUR COMMITMENT IS TO HAVE THAT BE OUR TOP PRIORITY AS WE LOOK AT, UM, SHIFTING FUNDING AND OUR NEW FUNDING COMING IN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DISPLACING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR, THEIR PERMANENT HOUSING.
UM, I THINK THAT IS THE SIGN OF A FAILED SYSTEM IF WE GET THERE.
THANK YOU FOR ALL THE QUESTIONS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I JOTTED DOWN WAS WHAT IS, DEPENDING ON WHAT DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE, WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL IMPACT WE'RE GONNA HAVE ON FAMILY SERVED, PEOPLE SERVED? UM, I THINK YOU SAID THERE PEOPLE, THE PEOPLE IN THE PROJECTS, RIGHT? SO THIS WAS WHEN WE DID SCORING.
THIS IS THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY, UH, FROM, FROM THE SCORES.
SO THESE ARE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE, UH, ON AVERAGE
[00:55:01]
WHO ARE IN THE PROJECT.SO THE NUMBER'S GONNA BE PRETTY CLOSE RIGHT NOW.
UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I INCLUDED THIS COLUMN WAS SO WE COULD SEE THAT IMPACT AS WELL.
UM, BUT YEAH, WE ARE LOOKING AT A, A GOOD NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
I SHOULD HAVE, I SHOULD HAVE DONE A TOTAL THINKING ABOUT IT NOW, BUT, UH, BUT YEAH.
UM, BUT WE HAVE OUR AVERAGE, AVERAGE OCCUPANCY THERE, SO IT'S, UM, QUITE A NUMBER OF FOLKS.
30 70, A BIG, THE BIGGEST NUMBER ON THERE IS FAMILY COMMONS RIGHT NOW.
IT'S, THAT'S A PARTIAL ION AS A PARTIAL, SO IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, 134.
AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO COME UP WITH, YOU KNOW, STABILIZING THE RENT THERE THROUGH OTHER FUNDING.
UM, I, I THINK THAT THEY PROBABLY HAD A, A SPEND DOWN AS WELL, SO THAT, THAT PROJECT PROBABLY.
UM, IN TERMS OF WHAT AFTER THE REDUCTION, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S ALSO THE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT, WE DO HAVE THAT CHOICE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROJECTS THAT ARE 60 K.
SO IT IS A LITTLE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PLAYING WITH IN TIER ONE RIGHT NOW.
I WOULD, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT ONCE WE FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, WE FIGURE OUT, ONE OF THE THINGS WE FIGURE OUT IS, UH, DEPENDING ON HOW THIS GOES, LIKE WHERE WE MAY ADD THAT BACK IN SOMEWHERE AS WELL.
UM, I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO DO, WE, WE DON'T THINK DRAGGING PROGRAMS INTO TIER TWO IS PROBABLY GONNA BE SUPER COMPETITIVE.
I WOULD SAY IF YOU WANTED TO PRIORITIZE, PUT A POLICY PRIORITIZATION FOR ANYTHING DROPPING INTO TIER TWO ON A PARTIAL, YOU COULD SAY A FAMILY PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECT MIGHT BE THE ONLY ONE THAT IS COMPETITIVE JUST DUE TO THEIR SAYING WE'RE GONNA FUND.
SO THAT IS A SECONDARY PROPOSAL THAT COULD BE MADE TO SAY, PAY ANY FAMILY PERMANENT HOUSING THAT, YOU KNOW, IS PARTIAL, THAT WOULD BE REALLOCATED.
LIKE WE'RE GONNA PUT IT, DRAG IT IN, YOU KNOW, THE REALLOCATION PORTION INTO YOUR TABLE.
SO OTHER THAN THAT, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO PUT ANYTHING IN TIER TWO THAT'S NOT A FAMILY PROGRAM BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR FUNDING STRATEGY, IT'S GONNA GET REALLOCATED BY BY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ATION, AND THIS ISN'T, LET'S BE CLEAR, TODAY IS NOT A VOTE ON, THIS IS OUR FINAL SCORING AND RANKING.
I MAY ASK IF FOLKS COULD MAYBE GAUGE, UM, IF WE COULD MAYBE GAUGE HOW FOLKS ARE LEANING, AGAIN, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE ARE, UM, VERY DIFFICULT DECISIONS TO MAKE.
UM, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THREW THAT AT THE TOP, UM, IT IS, YOU KNOW, APPLYING THIS STRATEGY OR APPLYING, I MEAN, OUR POLICY I SHOULD SAY, RIGHT? WE SAW IT GETS US THERE.
SO ON ONE LEVEL, YOU KNOW, MY IMMEDIATE RESPONSE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF SIMPLY BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF STRATEGIES I WOULD THEN PRESENT TO YOU ALL TODAY, IF THE POLICY DID NOT DO THAT, WOULD, YOU KNOW, BE WIDE RANGING.
WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT TAKING 25% HERE, 50% THERE OF UNDERSPEND, MOVING THINGS AROUND, UM, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING THOSE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS.
UM, BUT, UM, THE CONCEPT OF APPLYING OUR POLICY AS IT'S BEEN IN, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD FROM THERE, UM, FOR FOLKS FEELING AS IF THOUGH THAT'S THE, THE FAIREST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION TO ANSWER, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE FAIREST WAY TO PROCEED KNOWING THAT THIS IS A POLICY THAT WE'VE HAD, IT WASN'T A NEW POLICY AND ULTIMATELY RIGHT, WE ARE SOMETHING WE'VE ADOPTED ALREADY.
WE'RE NOT NOW GOING BACK AND MAKING A LOT OF CHANGES THERE TO CRAM IN WHAT ACTUAL PERFORMANCE WAS.
YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE STANDARDS THERE, THEY'VE BEEN CONSISTENT OVER SOME YEARS.
AND DESPITE IT BEING AGAIN, KIND OF A DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE, UM, I THINK IT, AT LEAST FOR ME, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO KNOW IF FOLKS ARE THINKING THE SAME WAY AS I AM, AS DESPITE, YOU KNOW, THE, ALL THE CONCERNS WITH THIS THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD STICK AS CLOSE TO OUR HISTORICAL STRATEGY AS POSSIBLE FOR THIS COMPETITION.
[01:00:01]
UH, OCCUPANTS IN THESE REALLOCATED PROGRAMS, WOULD THOSE THEY JUST BE ABSORBED BY ANOTHER, LIKE TO WHO IS RECEIVING THE ALLOCATION, CORRECT? UH, NOT NECESSARILY.UM, SO FOR THE, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, WE'RE NOT QUITE THERE EXACTLY HOW IT WOULD BE DONE.
UM, I CAN TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT RAPID REHOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE.
UM, SO IF OUR RAPID REHOUSING RECIPIENTS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SUBMIT TRANSITION APPLICATIONS, UM, ACCORDING TO HU AND I THINK I MIGHT HAVE LINKED IT IN THE MEMO, I DID, UM, HUT HAD RELEASED A PERMANENT HOUSING TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING GUIDANCE BACK IN APRIL.
UM, AND IT BASICALLY DESCRIBES A PROCESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL IN A PERMANENT HOUSING PROGRAM THAT RECEIVES NOTICE.
UM, LET'S SAY, SO THESE PROJECTS, I'LL USE A REAL EXAMPLE.
THESE PROJECTS, UM, IN 2026 WOULD START ON SEVEN ONE.
SO THEY'RE CURRENT, THEY WOULD CURRENTLY BE IN THEIR LAST TERM ENDING 6 30, 20 27.
SO IF ON JUNE 16TH OR 17TH, UM, THE INDIVIDUALS RECEIVED NOTICE, SO SUB-RECIPIENT OPERATOR OF THE PROJECT SPEAKS TO THE LANDLORD SAYS, LOOK, UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE OVER THESE LEASES.
WE HAD TO RESTRUCTURE OUR PROGRAM, UM, PROVIDE THIS INDIVIDUAL WITH THE TERMINATION LETTER.
UH, THEY WOULD RECEIVE THE TERMINATION LETTER, THEY WOULD NOW BE ELIGIBLE UNDER CATEGORY TWO IMMEDIATELY AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS.
UM, THEN THE OPERATORS WOULD AGAIN, WORK WITH THE LANDLORDS, UM, REENTER SOME KIND OF, YOU KNOW, CONTRACT WITH THEM FOR THAT HOUSING UNIT.
UM, WE WOULD THEN WORK WITH THE SUB-RECIPIENTS TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY TO THEN MATCH THEM TO THE NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT THAT WOULD START ON THE FIRST, UH, THEY WOULD BECOME HOMELESS ON THE FIRST AND ENTER THE NEW PROJECT, WHICH IS THE APARTMENT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN LIVING IN.
SO IT WOULD BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT IT INTERNALLY.
UM, IF ANYTHING, THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE EASIER SOLUTIONS TO MOVE FORWARD TO REHOUSE THOSE FOLKS, UH, AS LONG AS THEY MAINTAIN THAT ELIGIBILITY.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THAT RAPID REHOUSING.
OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE SOME CONSIDERATIONS, RIGHT? FOLKS ENTERING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UM, THEN MAINE WHO THEN TRY TO REENTER PERMANENT HOUSING, OUS BOARD OF HOUSING, THEY THEN LOSE ELIGIBILITY, RIGHT? BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'VE BEEN HOUSED, THEY'RE NOW HOUSED AGAIN, THEY WON'T BE ELIGIBLE FOR SOME SOURCES.
SO, UM, THERE ARE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THOSE DISPLACEMENT, UM, YEAH.
UM, AS, UH, PAUL WAS MENTIONING, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH RIGHT NOW TO TRY TO IDENTIFY, YOU KNOW, OTHER SOURCES THAT MAY HELP SUPPORT, REPLACE, UH, SOME OF THE RENT FOR SOME OF THESE INDIVIDUALS AS WELL.
UM, SO IT WOULD BE A COMBINATION OF, OF MULTIPLE STRATEGIES.
UM, I'D BE LYING IF I SAID WE HAVE THE WHOLE THING COMPLETELY MAPPED OUT.
UM, WE'VE JUST BEEN KIND OF REACTING AND TRYING TO, UH, AGAIN, LOOK AT WHAT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO IN THESE SITUATIONS TO EITHER ENSURE THAT THEY CAN STAY IN, MATCH TO A NEW PROGRAM OR REPLACE THE FUNDING FOR EXISTING PROGRAMS. SO IT'D BE ONE OF THOSE THREE.
UM, BUT I DON'T HAVE LIKE CLEAN, CLEAN, SORRY.
YOU KNOW, NONE OF THOSE REHOUSING PROGRAMS SAY I WANT TO TRANSITION MY PROGRAM TYPE TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
WE HAVE HAD, YOU KNOW, PROGRAMS THAT ARE RAPID REHOUSING WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT BE PERFORMANCE RELATED OR ANOTHER ISSUE, UM, OR THEM JUST NOT APPLYING, HAVE HAD A PROGRAM, RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM NO LONGER BE CONTRACTED.
WHAT WE TYPICALLY DO AT THAT POINT IS WE WORK WITH THE EXISTING PROVIDER, UM, AS OUR SUN SETTING TO SAY, LET'S CASE CONFERENCE, YOU HAVE REMAINING IN THIS PROGRAM AND LET'S TRANSFER THEM TO ANOTHER RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT JUST THIS, YOU KNOW, ARBITRARY CUTOFF FOR THE PARTICIPANT WHERE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ON THEIR THIRD MONTH OF ASSISTANCE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NO ASSISTANCE GOING FORWARD.
SO THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT WE CAN TRANSITION, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE PUT OUT SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR RAPID REHOUSING, THERE'S A POSSIBILITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS YOU CAN SEE, TWO OF THESE ARE NOT BEING REALLOCATED
[01:05:01]
DUE TO PERFORMANCE.YOU KNOW, WHY WOULDN'T THOSE BE STRONG PROPOSALS, YOU KNOW, AT THAT AGENCY SAID WE'D WANT TO DO SOMETHING SIMILAR.
UM, SIMILAR ON THE PSH, THERE ARE SOME OF THESE WHERE, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOME SPEND DOWN ISSUES THAT LED TO DE OBLIGATION.
HOWEVER, IT'S LESS SO PERFORMANCE AS FAR AS NUMBER OF PEOPLE SERVED OR OUTCOMES.
SOMETIMES IT MAY BE, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOUR SERVICES AREN'T BAD.
WE JUST NEED TO WORK ON SOME BUDGETING.
MAYBE IT MAKES SENSE IF WE HAVE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY THAT THEY CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES.
IF, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE SCORING BELOW 70 AND THERE'S PERFORMANCE ISSUES THAT GO BEYOND JUST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE BEING, THEIR BUDGETING BEING A LITTLE OFF OR SLIGHTLY BEING, YOU KNOW, UTILIZED.
I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOMETHING ELSE.
IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S THAT 50% UTILIZATION, I'M NOT IN SUCH FAVOR TO GO AND FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE RECREATE THAT PROGRAM WITH OTHER, HOW DO WE MAINTAIN THOSE PEOPLE? HOW DO WE LOOK AT AND IMPROVE PROGRAM MOVING FORWARD THAT IS UTILIZED, I THINK IS WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT.
AGENCY BY AGENCY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME FUNDING THAT, YOU KNOW, FEELS LIKE WE CAN COMMIT.
WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT MAY BRING IN SOME OTHER FUNDING.
SO I FEEL CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN GET TO A POINT WHERE PEOPLE ARE NOT PAYING THIS PAID WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
AND LUCKILY WE HAVE SOME TIME.
THESE PROJECTS ARE ALL STILL SCHEDULED TO BE FUNDED THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 2027.
SO A YEAR TO, YEAH, WE GOT A YEAR TO KIND OF FIGURE THIS OUT.
UH, I JUST, UH, UH, AS ALWAYS, I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S, YOU'VE THOUGHT OF THIS INCREDIBLY TERRIBLE SITUATION AND THE, UM, CONCERN TO THE EMPLOYEES OF THESE PROGRAMS IS, IS CONCERNING AND I SHARE IT.
AND IF I HAD ALL THE ANSWERS, I WOULDN'T HAVE THIS JOB.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT ON THE POLITICS BEHIND THIS.
WHAT IS THE DISDAIN FOR ROUTE REHOUSING VERSUS TRANSITION HOUSING? UM, WHAT IS THE WELL, YOU CAN'T TRANSITION TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, TO A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
UM, RAPID REHOUSING FUNCTIONS THE CLOSEST TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
UM, SO AGAIN, FEDERALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, MY BELIEF AT LEAST IS HUD IS DOING THIS TO TRY TO INFLATE THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS IN LARGE CITIES.
UM, BECAUSE IF YOU TRANSITION, RIGHT, UM, RAPID REHOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING BOTH UP TO 24 MONTHS, UM, YOU CAN COLLECT PARTICIPANT FEES.
UM, YOU ARE STILL PROVIDING SERVICES.
UM, THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE IS THAT, UM, THEY ARE NOT HOLDING THE LEASE.
TYPICALLY IT'S A SUBLEASE OR PARTICIPANT AGREEMENT.
UM, AND AGAIN, TAKING THOSE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, WHICH ARE, OR THOSE RAPID REHOUSING, WHICH ARE UP TO 24 MONTHS.
SO LET'S SAY HYPOTHETICALLY SOMEONE, UH, ENTERED ONE OF THOSE 12 MONTHS AGO, RIGHT? AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE UP TO THE END OF NEXT JUNE, ANOTHER 12 MONTHS TO GRADUATE FROM THAT RAPID REHOUSING AND TAKE OVER THE RENT.
UM, IF THEY'D BE, IF THEY, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T GAIN THAT STABILITY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE THAT PROJECT ANYWAY.
UM, WITH THIS TRANSITION PIECE, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO LEAVE.
IF THEY MAINTAINED THAT ELIGIBILITY, WE'D BE ABLE TO CONTINUE ENROLLING THEM UP UNTIL JUNE 30TH, 2029.
THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF THINGS HAPPENING AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL BY THAT POINT.
AT LEAST I'M PRAYING TO SOMETHING, UM, THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS WHERE, UH, THAT IS SO, UM, IT'S LESS THAT AND MORE OF A PRACTICAL REASON.
UM, RAPID REHOUSING IS TEMPORARY ANYWAY.
UM, HUD IS PRIORITIZING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS TO FUND, UH, THE MAJORITY OF THEIR FUNDING.
THEY WANNA REALLY GO TO THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS.
SO, UM, IT SEEMED KIND OF, UM, ONE OF THE EASIER KIND OF THINGS THAT I DEVELOPED AS A RECOMMENDATION WAS TRANSITIONING THOSE RAPID REHOUSING TO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE, UH, SIMILAR.
UM, THE DISRUPTION LIKELY WOULD BE A LOT LESS.
UM, AND IN REALITY, IF, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE ENTERING LEASES WITH THOSE LANDLORDS IN THOSE UNITS ANYWAY, UM, AND THAT PERSON WAS IN THAT TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE PREVENTING THEM FROM SIMILAR TO A RAPID REHOUSING PROJECT, UNLESS THE AGENCY
[01:10:01]
REALLY WANTED TO KEEP THAT UNIT OF BASICALLY SAYING, WELL, I'VE BEEN PAYING PARTICIPANT FEES.THE LANDLORD ALREADY KNOWS ME.
CAN I NOW ENTER A LEASE DIRECTLY WITH THE LANDLORD AND NOW IT'S JUST MY APARTMENT MOVING FORWARD.
THERE'D BE NOTHING SEEMINGLY PREVENTING ANY OF THAT.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY LESS THAN THIS AIN'T, IF ANYTHING, I, YOU KNOW, I THINK HAVE FREE HOUSING IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMPONENTS BECAUSE IT SUPPORTS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GRADUAL STEP INTO PERMANENT HOUSING.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S EVEN SURPRISING 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE HUD WOULD FEEL SIMILARLY.
'CAUSE THE GOAL REALLY IS TO GET FOLKS TO BE SELF-SUSTAINING.
UM, BUT IT JUST WASN'T REFLECTED IN THEIR FUNDING PRIORITIES THAT WAY.
AND SO UNFORTUNATELY THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE FIRST PLACES THAT I LOOKED AT TO TRY TO MEET THAT, TO, TO MAKE UP THAT GAP OF FUNDING IN TIER TWO.
AND WE TAKE A STEP BACK TO WHAT THEY TRIED TO RELEASE LAST YEAR.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH RAPID REHOUSING, IT'S PERMANENT HOUSING AS A WHOLE.
THERE WAS A LARGE BACKLASH, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST BY HOMELESS SERVICE PROVIDERS, BUT YOU HAD, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS AND, YOU KNOW, IN MANY STATES, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE LANDLORDS THAT ARE EXPECTING RENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PSH PROJECTS AS WELL AS RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS.
THEY SAID, HEY, WE WANT TO COMPLETELY, YOU KNOW, OBLITERATE OUR PERMANENT HOUSING PORTFOLIO.
WE THINK EVERYTHING SHOULD BE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE AND THAT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET BACK ON YOUR FEET AND BE SELF SUSTAINABLE.
SO IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT I THINK THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC TO SUSTAIN FOR RAPID REHOUSING.
I THINK IT'S, THEY DON'T WANT PERMANENT HOUSING AS A WHOLE.
HOWEVER, TRYING TO CHOP A BUNCH OF PSH IS LIKE TOWARD TOUCHING THE THIRD RAIL AND YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GETTING INTO COURT EVEN OVER, YOU KNOW, THE 60% CAP THAT THEY SENT.
THERE ARE STILL TWO LAWSUITS NOW GOING AGAINST THAT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, I THINK THEY JUST REALIZED THEY COULDN'T GO FULL FOR LIKE, WE'RE GONNA REALLOCATE, YOU KNOW, 80% OF THE PERMANENT HOUSING PORTFOLIO THAT EXISTS OUT THERE.
SO RAPID REHOUSING IS THE EASIEST.
AND FOR, AND FOR FOLKS ALSO IN THE AUDIENCE THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE ORIGINALLY THE NOFO THAT, UM, WAS STRUCK DOWN BY THE COURT, SO THEY COULD NOT IMPLEMENT, UM, THAT RESULTED IN THE AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR THE NEXT YEAR.
UH, IN ADDITION TO, UH, A CAP ON TIER ONE, THERE WAS ALSO A CAP ON, UH, PERMANENT HOUSING INCLUSIVE OF BOTH PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND RAPID REHOUSING.
SO THAT COMPETITION SET A 30% CAP.
YOU COULD NOT HAVE MORE THAN 30% OF YOUR A RD, UM, IN PERMANENT HOUSING COMBINED, UH, BOTH PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RAPID REHOUSING, WHICH, UM, IF WE WERE TO GO, UH, BACK TO THIS SLIDE, UH, RIGHT, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, 70% OF OUR PORTFOLIO IS PERMANENT HOUSING, INCLUSIVE OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING OR RAPID REHOUSING.
SO UNDER THAT NOFO, WE WERE LOOKING AT, UH, BASICALLY ELIMINATING THIS AND THEN HAVING TO CUT THIS CLEANLY IN HALF BEFORE THE THR RH.
IT'S ACTUALLY RAPID REHOUSING AS WELL, RIGHT? ACTUALLY 75%.
THIS ONE, YEAH, YOU'RE, YOU ARE RIGHT.
THEY WERE COUNTING DURING COMPONENT AS, UM, AS PERMANENT HOUSING AS WELL 'CAUSE OF THAT RAPID REHOUSING PIECE.
AND AGAIN, AS A REMINDER, THE REASON WHY WE WEREN'T, UH, RECOMMENDING THAT ONE IS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S DV RESTRICTED.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY PROJECT THAT WE HAVE THAT'S FUNDED THROUGH THE DV BONUS.
AND SO IF THAT'S REALLOCATED, IT HAS TO GO TO ANOTHER DV PROJECT.
AND CURRENTLY HUD IS SAYING THAT, UM, YOU CANNOT APPLY FOR NEW JOINT COMPONENT.
AND SO, UM, SIMILAR AS THEY HAVE IN LA RIGHT NOW, ALTHOUGH IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MAY HAVE TO TRANSITION THAT.
UM, I, COMING FROM LA, WE HAD A SAFE HAVEN PROJECT THAT SUPPORTED FOLKS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS AND WE WOULD ALWAYS PRIORITIZE THAT YEAR IN YEAR.
'CAUSE YOU COULDN'T, YOU COULDN'T REPLACE THAT SAFE HAVEN PROJECT EFFECTIVELY FUNCTIONED MOST KIND OF LIKE AS A PERMANENT HOUSING FACILITY AS WELL.
AND SO SIMILAR TO THAT SAFE HAVEN PROJECT, WHICH HASN'T BEEN ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED, UM, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL DO WITH JOINT COMPONENT IN THE FUTURE.
AND AGAIN, BECAUSE IT SERVES OUR DB SURVIVORS, WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT'S IMPORTANT TO SUSTAIN THAT.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, AS I HAD MENTIONED, UM, VERY HIGH PERFORMING, VERY HIGH OUTCOMES IN THAT PROJECT AS WELL.
SO THAT MADE US A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE ALSO MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION.
UM, JOSEPH, YOU SAID, UH, LA SAFETY PROJECT? WAS THAT, I'M SORRY, WAS THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
UM, WAS A PEOPLE CONCERN? IS IT A PEOPLE CONCERN? OKAY.
WAS WHICH YEAH, PREVIOUSLY LAMP AND CC YEAH.
[01:15:01]
IT'S JUST CRAZY YOU MENTION IT BECAUSE I WAS AFFILIATED WOULDN'T MANY YEARS, UM, FROM THE SOUL LIST MOVEMENT BACK TO 2008.AND I REMEMBER TALKING MY MOLLY, SHE WAS TELLING ME THIS WHAT WE SEE RIGHT.
THEM AND HAD EFFECT HIM AND WHAT CONNECTION TO, UH, UH, SANTA MONICA ORGANIZATION, THE COMBINATION SEEN THIS PROBABLY BEFORE.
PEOPLE CONCERNED LAMB COMMUNITY.
'CAUSE LAMB COMMUNITY, UH, FIRST PLACE.
I WAS WORKING ON SKID ROW WHEN I MOVED TO LA SO SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT
AND THEN BEGINNING WE NEED STORY.
UM, I JUST HAVE MY NEXT STEPS ON THIS SLIDE, UNLESS MORE FOLKS, AND, UM, BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
I ENDED UP SENDING OUT THOSE SCORE REPORTS THIS MORNING BECAUSE, UH, I WAS NOT READY TO SEND 'EM OUT UNTIL THE END OF THE DAY YESTERDAY.
I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS FAIR.
SO SCORE REPORTS WENT OUT TO PROVIDERS, UH, YESTERDAY.
UM, SO THEY WERE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, REVIEW, UM, AN APPEAL SCORE CALCULATIONS.
SO THEY FEEL AS IF THOUGH WE MADE AN ERROR IN SCORING THEIR PROJECTS, THEY CAN SUBMIT THAT BY NEXT FRIDAY, WE'LL REVIEW THAT, REVISE, UH, IF APPROPRIATE.
UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, AD HOC COMMITTEE MEETINGS THAT COULD MEET IF WE FEEL NECESSARY TO FINALIZE RANKING REALLOCATION AND FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, DEPENDING ON HOW THE NEXT TWO ITEMS GO WITH THE POLICY UPDATES, UM, WE PROBABLY WILL NOT HAVE TO, UH, RECONVENE THOSE AD HOC COMMITTEES.
BUT I DO WANT TO THANK EVERYONE THAT WE'RE ON THOSE AD HOC COMMITTEES.
WE HAD SOME GREAT CONVERSATIONS AND THOSE MEETINGS WENT THROUGH A LOT OF DATA AND INFORMATION AND, YOU KNOW, JUST REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME, UH, AND KIND OF DIGGING IN.
SO, UH, WE COULD KIND OF, FOLKS COULD KEEP ME HONEST, MAKE SURE I WAS PRESENTING THE, THE RIGHT THINGS.
WHEN WE CAME BACK TO THIS MEETING.
UM, WE RELEASED THE NEW EXPANSION TRANSITION PROJECT RFP ON JULY 7TH.
UM, THAT WILL CLOSE ON JULY 17TH, UNFORTUNATELY VERY TIGHT PERIOD, BUT WE DO NEED TO REVIEW AND SCORE THOSE TO BE ABLE TO RANK BEFORE THE AUGUST 9TH MEETING.
UM, AT THAT MEETING, WE WILL REVIEW AND APPROVE FINAL SCORES AND APPEAL OUTCOMES, APPROVE FINAL RANKINGS, REALLOCATION DECISIONS, FUNDING AMOUNTS, UH, APPROVE ANY OF THOSE NEW EXPANSION AND TRANSITION RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPROVE OUR PRIORITY LIST, UH, AND APPLICATION TO SUBMIT TO HUD.
UH, WE'LL STILL BE WORKING ON THE NARRATIVES, BUT EFFECTIVELY WITH THE PRIORITY LIST, UH, APPROVED, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY AGAIN, A, UM, APPROVAL OF OUR APPLICATION OF WHAT WE'RE SUBMITTING TO HUD.
AND THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION, UH, IS DATA NARRATIVES OF HOW WE DO THINGS LOCALLY.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL BE FINALIZING THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION.
SO ONE OF THE REASONS, AGAIN, WHY WE HAD TO MOVE UP THE BOARD MEETING, UH, AND HAVE THE RFP CLOSED IS BY, UH, THE 11TH.
UH, WE NEED TO SEND NOTIFICATION OF WHICH PROJECTS ARE ACCEPTED, REJECTED OR REDUCE.
WE EARN ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR THAT.
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE GOT THAT DONE.
UH, COORDINATE WITH RENEWAL AND NEW PROJECT APPLICANTS TO COMPLETE THEIR APPLICATIONS IN EAPS.
SO DESPITE THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAD RESPONDED TO OUR RFP, WE GOT RENEWAL PROJECTS, UM, WE STILL NEED TO COMPLETE THOSE APPLICATIONS IN EAPS AND THERE COULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS IN THERE.
SO WE'LL BE WORKING WITH THEM CLOSELY TO GET THOSE, UH, COMPLETED.
UH, FINALIZE THE NARRATIVES, ATTACHMENTS AND PRIORITY LISTING, AND THEN SUBMIT THAT APPLICATION, UH, BEFORE THE NOFO DEADLINE.
UM, I'M REALLY AIMING TO HAVE THAT SUBMITTED TWO DAYS BEFORE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING THERE HITTING REFRESH ON THE EAPS WHILE EVERYONE ACROSS THE COUNTRY IS TRYING TO SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION ON THE 26TH.
SO I'M HOPING TO HAVE THAT DONE, UH, TWO DAYS EARLY.
UM, I SHOULD ALSO NOTE FOR FOLKS INTERESTED, UH, A LITTLE OFF TOPIC BUT NOT QUITE OFF TOPIC, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID TALK ABOUT AT ONE POINT WAS THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS, BEING ABLE TO SUBMIT SOMETHING TO HUD.
UM, AND SO LOCALLY, OBVIOUSLY WE GAVE SOME POINTS.
WE ASKED FOLKS TO SUBMIT THINGS.
EVERYONE WAS ABLE TO GIVE US, UH, SOMETHING THAT DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY ARE REQUIRING FOLKS TO AT LEAST PARTICIPATE, MEET WITH THEM AND PARTICIPATE IN SERVICES.
SO WHEN WE SUBMIT OUR APPLICATION TO HUD, WE, I, I FEEL CONFIDENT, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'LL AWARD US THOSE POINTS, BUT I WILL BE SUBMITTING THAT ALL PROJECTS IN THE COC PORTFOLIO, UH, ARE OPERATING WITH SUPPORTIVE SERVICE.
SOME TYPE OF SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT SHOULD BE 10 POINTS OUT OF 200 POINTS IN THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS GREAT NEWS AS WELL.
BECAUSE WE'RE A UFO, WE ALSO GET EXTRA POINTS FOR THAT AS WELL.
SO WE'RE SLOWLY TRYING TO BUILD UP THOSE POINTS.
'CAUSE AGAIN, AS LONG AS WE CAN GET A
[01:20:01]
BUNCH OF FUNDING, EVEN IF SOME PROJECTS GET DEFUNDED, IT'LL BE A LOT EASIER TO KIND OF MOVE SOME THINGS AND MAKE SURE THAT PARTICIPANTS, UH, ARE SUPPORTED.UM, AND THAT'S IT FOR THIS PRESENTATION.
OH YEAH, JUST I'LL SAY IT BEFORE 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE SAID IT AND GO BACK.
SO DEPENDING ON WHAT COMES IN FROM THAT NEW EXPANSION, RFP SAY WE, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE 4.9 MILLION THAT WE'RE REALLOCATING AND WE GET $3 MILLION OF PROPOSAL, GREAT.
UH, HSP WILL BE WORKING TO PUT TOGETHER PROPOSALS THAT WE PUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE RANKING LIST.
SO WE PRIORITIZE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE RFP SCORING AND FEEDBACK.
YOU KNOW, FIRST ANY REMAINING GAP WE PUT TOGETHER PROPOSALS THAT WE FILL OUT THE REMAINDER OF ANYTHING LEAVING THAT WE WOULD THEN RANK AT THE BOTTOM OF ANYTHING COMING IN THROUGH THE RFP.
YEAH, SO THAT 4.9 FOR TWO TWO, BUT THEN ALSO THE FUND, THE BONUS FUNDING.
SO DV BONUS, COC BONUS, WHICH IS GONNA BE ANOTHER, ALMOST 3.9 OR SO.
SO A LOT OF NEW PROJECT APPLICATIONS WE'LL BE WORKING ON.
I CAN SAY THAT WE'RE IN PUBLIC, WE'RE IN A PUBLIC FORUM.
EVERYONE,
EVEN IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU FEEL A LITTLE ROUGH, IT'S ALL GONNA BE A LITTLE BIT ROUGH FOR EVERYBODY 'CAUSE IT'S NOT A GREAT TIMELINE.
BUT PLEASE DO PUT IN PROPOSALS.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS? QUESTION? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? SEE, NONE.
I GUESS THIS IS JUST A COMMENT I KEEP HEARING ABOUT RAPID REHOUSING, WHICH EXCELLENT, FROM A PROFESSIONAL AND LIVED EXPERIENCE PERSPECTIVE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT SHALLOW SUBSIDY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOME OF THE ABBREVIATIONS UP THERE, BUT JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
UM, FROM MY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, USUALLY RAPID REHOUSING, YOU EMPLOY WHEN YOU GET A WARM HANDOFF TO A SHADOW SUBSIDY PROGRAM, WHICH ENHANCES YOUR PERMANENT HOUSING.
I JUST HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
YEAH, WE CAN TALK, UH, WE CAN TALK LATER.
AND, UH, ESPECIALLY AFTER YOU HERE TRAINING, THEN
NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER HUD FUNDING THOUGH, AS A SEPARATE STANDALONE.
UM, THEY'RE KIND OF A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, CLOSE, BUT AS A STANDALONE CHILD SUBSIDY, IT'S NOT ELIGIBLE UNDER HUD.
AND THEY SHALL SUBSIDY THAT WHAT'S BEING FUNDED IN LA COUNTY WAS PREVIOUSLY THROUGH MEASURE A WITH TRANSITION MEASURE A AND, YOU KNOW, BUDGET DEFICITS GOING INTO THIS YEAR, THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED TO REALLY SUNSET THE SHALLOW SUBSIDY PROGRAM THAT DID EXIST.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY, SO WE ARE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, TOMORROW OR THURSDAY, UM, LAUNCHING OUR HOLDER ADULT SHALLOW SUBSIDY PROGRAM THROUGH SOME STATE AND, UH, MEASURE A FUNDING THROUGH LA CASA.
IT IS MORE OF A PREVENTATIVE APPROACH, UH, FOR OLDER ADULTS THAN THAT.
IT'S EXISTING AT THE COUNTY LEVEL TO MEASURE.
HI FEEL KIND OF HOPEFUL I KNOW THIS.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT FROM A CLINICAL STANDPOINT, WHAT THEY PUT OUT THERE AND FORWARD ALL THIS, AND I HOPE THINGS CHANGE.
WE CAN DO A VOTE, UH, BY SHOW OF HANDS.
CAN GET A MOTION TO GROUP BY? SHOW OF HANDS, ANYTHING.
ITEM NUMBER THREE, RECOMMENDATIONS, REVIEW AND APPROVE.
PROPOSED UPDATE TO LONG BEACH.
CAN WE GET A VOTE MOTION? THANK YOU.
OKAY, AND JOSEPH'S GONNA PRESENT.
[01:25:01]
EVERYONE.JOSEPH PATELLO, UM, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR.
UH, I'M GONNA JUST BRIEFLY GO UP TO PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE COC SCORING AND RANKING POLICIES.
I ONLY GOT ONE SLIDE FOR YOU ALL 'CAUSE THIS IS JUST ON THE RANKING.
UM, DID MAKE A COUPLE OF BRIEF, UH, CORRECTIONS.
ONE WAS JUST CLARIFYING THAT COST EFFECTIVENESS DOES INCLUDE MATCH.
THAT WAS JUST A CALCULATION THING AT THE VERY END.
UM, ANOTHER WAS REMOVING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, UM, TALKING ABOUT, UH, HUD MAY DO THIS.
THIS WASN'T NECESSARY ANYMORE 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE NOFO IN FRONT OF US.
SO WE JUST REMOVED THAT AND TEMPERED IT TO NOT MAKE IT SEEM AS IF THOUGH WE WERE BEING OPENLY DEFIANT AGAINST WHAT HUD MAY DO VERSUS WHAT WE BELIEVE IS LOCALLY.
UM, THE PRIMARY THING THAT WE ADDED TO IT IS THIS.
AND, UM, I DID INCLUDE RAPID REHOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY PROJECTS, EVEN THOUGH THESE ARE ONLY OPERATED BY HSB AND WE'RE FULLY REALLOCATING THEM.
UH, AND THIS, AND THESE WERE PROPOSING FOR REALLOCATION AND TRANSITION, UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE DESPITE THAT, UM, FELT AS IF THAT WAS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE JUST TO INCLUDE THEM IN OUR OVERALL, UH, RANKING PRIORITY.
UM, BUT THIS WAS ADDED IN A DESCRIPTION OF RANKING BY THRESHOLD.
SO, UM, ONE SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE, SO OUR HMIS AND COORDINATED ENTRY PROJECTS, UM, HISTORICALLY IT BEING EXEMPT.
UH, AND SO WE RANK THEM AT THE TOP.
THIS IS JUST FORMALIZING THAT.
REASON FOR THAT IS THESE ARE A FEDERALLY REQUIRED, YOU'RE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM.
UH, YOU NEED COORDINATED ENTRY.
UM, SO THIS SUPPORTS, UM, HMIS STAFF.
UH, I, I BELIEVE SOME COSTS TO THE ACTUAL HMIS SYSTEM.
UM, OUR MATCHERS, UH, OTHER STAFF ARE ACTUALLY DOING THE COORDINATED ENTRY WORK AS WELL.
UM, THOSE WOULD BE AT THE TOP.
THEN PROJECTS MEETING THE EVALUATION THRESHOLD, UM, THEY WOULD BE GROUPED IN THIS ORDER.
SO EFFECTIVELY THE WAY WE'VE DESCRIBED IT, IF WE WERE TO IMPLEMENT THE OTHER POLICIES AND REALLOCATION WOULD BE PSH FOLLOWED BY JOINT COMPONENT, FOLLOWED BY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING.
THEN BELOW THESE PROJECTS, WE WOULD HAVE THE PROJECTS THAT DON'T MEET THE EVALUATION THRESHOLD IN THE SAME ORDER AS ABOVE.
IT IS LISTED IN THE POLICY, BUT FOR THE SLIDE IT WAS A LITTLE TIGHT.
UM, THEN IT WOULD BE TRANSITION PROJECTS.
SO IN ORDER OF RFP SCORE OR CRC BOARD APPROVAL, SO ANYONE THAT'S ELIGIBLE TO SUBMIT A TRANSITION THAT DOES, UH, THEY WOULD BE LISTED HERE, UH, IN ORDER OF SCORE AND THEN NEWER EXPANSION.
UH, IN ORDER OF SCORE, WE WOULD NOT DELINEATE.
AND AS PAUL SAID, ANYTHING, UH, ANY REMAINING FUNDING THAT MAY BE LEFT ON THE TABLE, WE WILL SUBMIT PROJECT APPLICATIONS THAT WILL BE, UH, BELOW THESE.
SO THIS IS THE ONLY UPDATE TO THE, UH, SCORING AND RANKING POLICY.
IT WAS ADDING THE RANKING SYSTEM, UM, BY PROJECT TYPE AND INCLUDING THAT 70% THRESHOLD.
UM, WE WOULD BE HAVING MORE DISCUSSION BASED ON, UH, IS 70% APPROPRIATE, WHICH WE STILL CAN, SHOULD WE DO 65%? THAT GENERALLY WOULD BE A CONSIDERATION IF WE WERE HAVING SOME PROJECTS FALLING INTO TIER TWO THAT WE WERE GOING TO KEEP IN TIER TWO.
UM, IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STRATEGY OF ONLY HAVING OUR RENEWALS IN TIER ONE AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN TIER TWO, UM, THEN THE POINT'S A LITTLE MOOT.
BUT AGAIN, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE AT LEAST ESTABLISH THIS SYSTEM.
SO MOVING FORWARD NEXT YEAR, UH, IT'S NOT BRAND NEW, EVEN IF IT DOESN'T HAVE REAL IMPLICATIONS THIS YEAR.
UH, AND SO I WOULD SUBMIT THIS ADDITION TO OUR RANKING SYSTEM FOR YOUR PROPOSAL, AND HAPPY TO OPEN THINGS UP WITH ANY QUESTIONS.
THIS IS SAYING THAT PROJECTS THAT DON'T MEET THE 70% THRESHOLD WOULD BE RANKED ABOVE TRANSITION PROJECTS AND NEWER EXPANSION PROJECTS, REGARDLESS OF HOW FOUR AND FIVE SCORE.
IS THAT RIGHT? AS LONG AS THEY'RE IN TIER ONE, CORRECT? YES.
SO, UM, THESE ARE EFFECTIVELY, MAYBE I CAN ADD, UH, RENEWAL HERE.
UH, SO IF YOU WOULD ALL WOULD WANNA ADD ME TO ADD RENEWAL FOR THAT CLARITY, UM, THEN I WOULD, BUT YEAH, THE IDEA WOULD BE GENERALLY, UM, THE STRATEGY TYPICALLY IS, AND WE CAN OBVIOUSLY CHANGE THIS.
TYPICALLY THE STRATEGY IS, UM, PLACE ALL YOUR RENEWALS ABOVE YOUR NEW PROJECTS, UM, BECAUSE OF THE WAY HUD FUNDS.
THAT WAY, IF, UH, THEY START FUNDING AND THEY RUN OUTTA MONEY, YOUR EXISTING PROJECTS GET FUNDED BEFORE ANY OF THE NEW PROJECTS.
USUALLY THESE PROJECTS, AND MAYBE EVEN SOME OF THESE PROJECTS
[01:30:01]
ARE FALLING INTO TIER TWO, WHICH IS WHY IT'S USUALLY IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.AND SO YOU'LL OCCASIONALLY LOSE SOME OF THESE LOWER PERFORMING LESS THAN 70% PROJECTS HERE.
UM, OF COURSE, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T PLACE YOUR NEW PROJECTS RIGHT AT THE TOP.
IT'S JUST TYPICALLY NOT CONSIDERED THE BEST STRATEGY.
UM, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW HOW THESE NEW PROJECTS ARE GONNA OPERATE.
THEY'RE GONNA TAKE A WHILE TO RAMP UP.
UM, AND SO, UH, YEAH, THAT, THAT'D BE THE REASON WHY WE WOULD PLACE THOSE BELOW.
UM, AS IT IS NOW, UH, IF WE WERE TO FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, OUR POLICIES THE WAY IT IS, UM, THIS WOULD BASICALLY BE THE TIER ONE CUTOFF.
SO ALL OF THESE WOULD BE IN TIER ONE, AND THEN YOUR TRANSITION TO NEW PROJECTS WOULD BE IN TIER TWO.
IF WE FOLLOW, AGAIN, THE STRATEGY THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING, WHICH IS, UH, JUST AT THIS POINT JUST FOLLOWING THE POLICY.
YEAH, THE TIER ONE PART, I UNDERSTAND.
I JUST, I THINK IT WAS, UM, JUST WANTING CLARITY ON THE RANKING ORDER THREE SECTION, BUT YEAH, YEAH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD, UM, STILL RECOMMEND PLACING THOSE RENEWALS, UM, ABOVE TRANSITION AND NEW PROJECTS, CORRECT? YES.
AND THIS HAPPENS WITH HOW MUCH IS IN TIER ONE AND TIER TWO AND THE STRATEGIES IS THERE'S NOT REALLY GONNA BE ANY PROJECTS THAT WE AREN'T REALLOCATING THAT ALL INTO CATEGORY THREE.
MAYBE ONE OR TWO, NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE.
BUT ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM? SEE NONE.
I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BY SHOW OF HANDS.
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PROPOSED UPDATES OF LONG BEACH CC REALLOCATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.
WE HAVE A MOTION CALL FOR A MOTION.
JOSEPH PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR.
UM, AGAIN, VERY, UH, VERY BRIEF SUMMARY.
UM, AND AGAIN, IT MAY NOT BE THAT WE NEED TO PULL ANY OF THESE, UM, OPTIONS, BUT, UH, FOR CONSISTENCY, UH, I DO THINK WE SHOULD POTENTIALLY STILL ADOPT THEM.
SO, UH, DRAFT POLICY UPDATES FOR THE REALLOCATION.
UM, SO ONE WAS ADDING SYSTEM LEVEL OR PORTFOLIO BASED REALLOCATION.
SO THIS WOULD ALLOW, UH, THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A PORTFOLIO WIDE REALLOCATION STRATEGY USING OBJECTIVE EXPENDITURE, UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE, AND NOFO RELATED DATA.
THAT WOULD BE THAT PERMITTING OF PARTIAL REDUCTIONS ACROSS MULTIPLE PROJECTS WHEN APPROPRIATE.
UM, AND THIS WOULD, UH, REQUIRE THE BOARD TO REVIEW, UH, AS WELL AS DETERMINE THE RATIONALE AND THE PROPOSED AMOUNT.
SO THIS WOULD BE THE IDEA OF IF WE WEREN'T, UM, AGAIN, USING THE TERM VERY LOOSELY, LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE OUR POLICIES KIND OF DO SOME OF THE WORK FOR US IN GETTING THOSE PROJECTS INTO TIER ONE.
WE COULD SAY HOW MUCH HAS BEEN UNDERSPENT ACROSS ALL THESE PROJECTS.
IF WE WERE TO TAKE 25%, 50%, 75% OF THE UNDERSPEND THAT HAS NOT BEEN FLAGGED THROUGH ANY OTHER POLICY AND REALLOCATE IT PERMANENTLY TO PUT INTO NEW PROJECTS OR TO, TO REDUCE THE FUNDING TO SQUEEZE MORE PROJECTS INTO TIER ONE, UH, THIS NEW, UH, THIS NEW PORTION OF THE POLICY WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION, IMPLEMENT THAT.
UM, AGAIN, THE CONSIDERATION MAY JUST BE FOR THAT ONE PROJECT WITH THE, WITH THE SEVERE UNDERSPENDING, BUT AGAIN, WE ARE, THEY'RE TECHNICALLY EXEMPT BECAUSE THEY ARE A NEWER EXPANSION PROJECT.
AND SO, UM, ALSO NOT A DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE.
WE CAN SAY, WELL, THEY WERE EXEMPT, SO THEY'RE EXEMPT AND WE'RE NOT GONNA TOUCH THEIR BUDGET, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, TO TRY TO SHIP SOMEWHERE ELSE.
UH, ONE IS JUST CLARIFYING REALLOCATION EXEMPTION.
SO, UM, WANTED TO JUST PLACE IN THERE.
EXEMPTIONS ARE DISCRETIONARY, THEY'RE NOT AUTOMATIC.
WHILE YOU MAY BE FLAGGED FOR EXEMPTION, JUST LIKE YOU COULD BE FLAGGED FOR REALLOCATION, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S GONNA HAPPEN.
I KNOW THAT, UH, I, I CAN'T SPEAK HISTORICALLY FOR LONG BEACH, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHEN I WAS IN LA THERE WERE MULTIPLE YEARS WHERE WE HAD A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WERE GONNA BE REALLOCATED.
[01:35:01]
HUD WAS AUTOMATICALLY FUNDING 95% OF IT, AND OUR BOARD WOULD SAY, NOPE, WE'RE GONNA GIVE 'EM A PASS.GIVE THEM FROM PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT, GIVE THEM SOME TA AND WE'LL LOOK AT THEM NEXT YEAR.
AND THAT KIND OF BUILT A LITTLE BIT OVER TIME AS WE WERE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT A TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE STRATEGY.
UM, EXEMPTIONS DO NOT GUARANTEE FOR RENEWAL FUNDING.
AND THEN ALSO CLARIFIES EXEMPTIONS MAY NOT APPLY WHEN NECESSARY TO PRESERVE FUNDING, ELIGIBILITY OR IMPLEMENT A BOARD OF APPROVED STRATEGY.
SO AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE YOUR EXEMPT BASED ON ONE OF THE THINGS THERE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S AUTOMATIC.
SO THAT WAS ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE ADDED THERE.
AND THEN CLARIFYING THE APPEAL PROCESS.
SO JUST ADDING LANGUAGE THAT BASICALLY SAYS YOU HAVE TO APPEAL BASED ON DATA CALCULATION, DOCUMENTATION, ELIGIBILITY EXEMPTION, OR PROPOSED REALLOCATION AMOUNTS.
UM, YOU CAN DOCUMENT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES AS PART OF YOUR APPEAL.
SO AGAIN, JUST CLARIFYING THAT, BUT JUST DISAGREEING WITH THE STRATEGY OR METHODOLOGY IS NOT GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
SO SOMEBODY SUBMITS AN APPEAL AND SAYS, WE HEARD YOU TALKING ABOUT YOUR STRATEGY TO REALLOCATE RAPID REHOUSING PROJECTS.
MY SPECIFIC RAPID REHOUSING PROJECT WAS NOT FLAGGED FOR ANY OF THOSE.
SO I'M APPEALING BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE STRATEGY YOU'RE PROPOSING IS INCORRECT.
UM, THIS IS SAYING THAT JUST DISAGREEING WITH, WITH THE EXISTING POLICIES, UM, IS NOT A REASON TO APPEAL.
AND, UM, WHILE THAT ONE, THAT ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE IS NARROW BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON A CONVERSATION YOU CAN IMAGINE, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY YOU COULD SAY, WELL, I DON'T AGREE THAT MY OCCUPANCY HAS TO BE AT 90%.
I DON'T AGREE THAT MY SPEND DOWN NEEDS TO BE MORE THAN 60%.
KIND OF LEAVING IT OPEN TO SAY, WELL, I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT SPECIFIC METRIC.
I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT SPECIFIC THING.
YOU, YOU APPLIED IT CORRECTLY.
UM, THAT'S WHAT PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR, THAT'S WHAT FEEDBACK SESSIONS ARE FOR, UM, TO GET THAT INFORMATION PRESENTED TO ALL OF YOU, WHICH I ALWAYS TRY TO DO AND ENSURE THAT WE HAVE, UM, THAT KNOWLEDGE WHEN WE'RE MAKING POLICY DECISIONS.
SO, UM, THAT IS THE LAST, SO THOSE THREE, UM, YOU SHOULD HAVE A VERSION IN THE PACKET THAT HAS THOSE EDITS.
UM, AGAIN, NOT REALLY SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGING ANYTHING BASED ON OUR CONVERSATIONS UNLESS THE BOARD DECIDES TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT ONE.
UM, IT WASN'T SOUNDING LIKE FOLKS WERE THAT INTERESTED IN, IN TRYING TO DO THAT.
AND SO THIS WOULD REALLY JUST BE ADDING THESE THINGS TO OUR POLICY FOR THE FUTURE, JUST TO KIND OF SAY, WELL, IT MAY BE THAT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS IN PLAY THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.
UM, HAPPY TO TURN THINGS OVER TO THE BOARD.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEE NONE.
CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE? I MOVE.
MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE, RECOMMENDATION TO DISCUSS PROPOSED BUSINESS TO LONG BOARD COMPOSITION, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL EDITION OF NEW CC BOARD SEATS FOR.
JOSEPH PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR.
FIRST, WE'RE JUST GONNA PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW AND WE'VE, WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THE GOVERNANCE CHART A COUPLE OF TIMES.
ACTUALLY, MY FAULT, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO APPROVE UPDATES LAST MONTH, BUT IT ENDED UP BEING, UM, I GUESS A GOOD THING BECAUSE OUR DISCUSSION LAST MONTH INCLUDED THE NOFO, UM, POINT BONUSES TO HAVE CERTAIN SEATS ON THE BOARD.
AND SO, UH, BOARD MEMBERS THAT WERE PRESENT LAST MONTH ASKED US TO COME BACK WITH SOME MORE INFORMATION TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AND CONSIDER THAT THIS MONTH.
SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, UH, AGENDA THIS SEPARATELY FROM THE APPROVAL.
'CAUSE WE DO HAVE TWO COPIES OF THE GOVERNANCE CHARTER.
ONE THAT ADDS EVERY SINGLE SEAT, WHICH COULD BE MODIFIED BASED ON AN APPROVAL IF WE MOVE, UH, IF SO MOVED, UM, OR ONE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE SEATS, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AND WAS SLATED FOR APPROVAL.
UM, SO I'M GONNA MOVE A LITTLE QUICKLY, NOT TO WASTE TOO MUCH TIME, BUT BASICALLY, UM, CRCS HAVE TO HAVE, UH, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE, UM, COLLABORATIVE APPLICANT IN HM I'S LEAD, UH, GOVERNANCE CHARTER THAT'S UPDATED
[01:40:01]
ANNUALLY.UM, WE LAST APPROVED AN UPDATED OURS IN APRIL, 2025.
UH, WE DO IT AT LEAST ANNUALLY.
AND CURRENTLY THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COC DELEGATES, THAT AUTHORITY TO THE BOARD.
UM, BRIEF REVISION HISTORY, UH, WAS CLARIFYING RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES, FORMALIZING THAT DELEGATION TO THE BOARD, FORMALIZING OUR ROLE AS ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL LEAD, UM, INCLUDING, UH, TRANSPARENT.
AND THEN ADDING TRANSPARENCY FOR GENERAL MEMBERSHIP MEETINGS BY PUBLISHING, MEETING NOTICES IN ADVANCE, ALIGNING OUR AGENDA POSTING WITH THE BROWN ACT.
UH, WE ADDED A DEFINITION TEMPORARILY FOR THE ADVISORY BOARD WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE UNTIL WE'RE ABLE TO, UH, HAVE THEM RECONVENE.
AND THEN ALSO CLARIFY SOME REGIONAL HMIS GOVERNANCE DUE TO LONG BEACH'S, UH, MIGRATION INTO THE LOS ANGELES SYSTEM AND PARTICIPATION IN THE COLLABORATIVE.
UM, WE DID HOLD A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD, UH, THAT WAS OPEN FOR A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK IN APRIL.
UH, WE POSTED THAT TO TWITTER X, UM, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES, BUT THAT POST WAS VIEWED 125 TIMES.
UM, GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NOFO CONTEXT.
SO, UM, AGAIN, LAST MONTH WE BRIEFLY MENTIONED THIS AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT ASKED US TO PRESENT IT FORMALLY.
UM, SO WHAT WE, UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TODAY.
SO THE NOFO WILL AWARD EIGHT POINTS OUTTA 200.
SO 4% FOR A REPRESENTATIVE, UH, GOVERNANCE BOARD, UH, THAT EMPHASIZES PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND CROSS SECTOR PARTNERS.
SO IF WE WERE TO UPDATE OUR STRUCTURE, THAT WOULD BE ADDING, UH, UP TO NINE SEATS.
UH, AND WE'LL TALK, AND THESE ARE BELOW, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT INITIAL IDEAS WE HAD THERE.
UM, SO THE REPRESENTATIVE CATEGORIES ARE, UH, THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE POINTS FOR IS AT LEAST ONE PERSON WITH CURRENT OR FORMER LIVED EXPERIENCE OF HOMELESSNESS.
AND WE ALREADY HAD THAT IN OUR GOVERNANCE CHARTER.
AND, UH, WE ALREADY HAVE, UH, THAT FULFILLED, UM, AT LEAST THREE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
SO THAT WOULD BE THREE POINTS.
SO NOT CURRENTLY ON THE BOARD.
UH, AND THEN FOUR ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR INCLUDING, OR ALL OF THE BELOW OR TWO POINTS FOR A MAJORITY.
SO FIRST IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, AND THEY GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
SECOND IS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THIRD IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF RECOVERY, HOUSING, AND SOBER LIVING.
FOURTH IS A REPRESENTATIVE FROM BEHAVIORAL PRIMARY HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS.
SO THEY INCLUDE FEDERALLY QUALIFIED HEALTH CENTERS, UM, HEALTHCARE FOR THE HOMELESS.
UH, THE FIFTH IS LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION OR SYSTEM.
UH, SO AMERICAN JOB CENTERS, STATE WORKFORCE AGENCIES.
UH, AND THEN FINALLY A REPRESENTATIVE FROM A LOCAL COURT SYSTEM MANAGING ASSISTED OUTPATIENT, OUTPATIENT TREATMENT OR OTHER, UH, CIVIL COMMITMENT PROCESSES OR FROM SPECIALTY COURTS.
SO, UM, FIRST THE CONSIDERATION IS ADDING UP TO NINE TARGETED BOARD SEATS TO THE CURRENT COMPOSITION.
UM, WE WOULD, UH, WE COULD PRIORITIZE SEATS THAT ARE VALUED LOCALLY, UH, IF WE DECIDED TO ADD SOME, BUT NOT ALL.
UM, MAINTAIN THE EXISTING, UH, GOVERNANCE REQUIREMENTS, UH, AS WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE WHILE JUST EXPANDING PARTICIPATION.
UH, AND THEN ALSO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT, UH, SOME OF THESE SEATS WOULD BE EXOFFICIO OR APPOINTED OR ELECTED.
SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE, UH, AT LEAST, AT LEAST ONE, BUT UP TO TWO ELECTED COC OR ESG SUB-RECIPIENTS.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, AT LEAST ONE AND WE CAN HAVE AS MANY AS WE NEED.
UM, OR WOULD LIKE, UH, ELECTED, UH, HOMELESS OR FORMERLY HOMELESS, UH, INDIVIDUALS.
UM, AT LEAST ONE FOR YOUTH FOCUSED SERVICES.
UH, AT LEAST ONE FOR LGBTQ PLUS SERVICES.
UH, AND SEVEN TO EIGHT ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF ORGANIZATIONS OR PROJECTS OR INDIVIDUALS OR FAMILIES EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS.
I INCLUDE THE FULL LIST, UH, DOWN HERE.
IT'S A PARTIAL LIST OF WHAT TYPES OF ORGANIZATIONS FIT WITH FIT WITHIN THIS CATEGORY.
UH, THEN WE ALSO HAVE THESE FIVE EX OFFIC SEATS.
SO THEY'RE APPOINTED BY RELEVANT ENTITIES, UH, ONE FROM THE HOMELESS SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE, ONE FROM THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF LONG BEACH.
ONE FROM, UH, THE CITY OF LONG BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HOUSING NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES BUREAU.
UH, ONE FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE, AND THEN ONE FROM THE ADVISORY BOARD WITH LIVED EXPERIENCE.
AND THIS IS ON TOP OF, UH, JUST THE GENERALLY, UH, ELECTED, UH, INDIVIDUAL.
UM, WE HAVE, UH, FOLKS THAT FIT BOTH CATEGORIES.
SO, UM, IF WE HAD TO MOVE INTO WHILE WE WERE POTENTIALLY LOOKING FOR, SO WE DID REACH OUT, UM, TO A REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CITY, UH, UM, UH, UH, CITY, UH, MY MIND IS PRESENTING FOR TOO.
[01:45:01]
UM, WE REACHED OUT TO THE LONG BEACH AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, UH, AND THE COUNCIL OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS TO SEE IF EITHER OF THEM WOULD BE, UH, INTERESTED IN AN EX OFFICIO SEAT THAT THEY WOULD FILL.
OH, ACTUALLY, I APOLOGIZE, I'VE ONLY, OH NO, I'VE REACHED OUT TO BOTH, UNFORTUNATELY, NEITHER AT THIS POINT HAVE GOTTEN BACK TO US, UM, REPRESENTED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO I REACHED OUT TO THE LONG BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT QUALITY OF LIFE TEAM.
UH, WE HAD A LITTLE BACK AND FORTH BEFORE THE, UH, HOLIDAY, THE INDEPENDENCE DAY HOLIDAY.
UM, BUT UNFORTUNATELY HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO RECONNECT WITH THEM SINCE THEN TO TALK ABOUT THE SEAT.
UM, THE RECOVERY HOUSING, SOBER LIVING PROVIDER, BEHAVIORAL PRIMARY HEALTH PROVIDER.
UM, THESE COULD BE MORE TARGETED.
SO, UM, WE COULD MAKE THESE OFFICIO SEATS.
WE ALSO FEEL AS IF THOUGH, MAYBE THESE ARE APPOINTMENTS BY THE BOARD, BUT WE'RE REACHING OUT TO MAYBE SPECIFIC AGENCIES TO SEE IF THEY HAVE FOLKS THAT MAY BE INTERESTED FOR BOARD SELECTION.
UM, WE REACHED OUT TO THE WORKFORCE INNOVATION NETWORK BOARD FOR THE LOCAL WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION OR SYSTEM.
UH, THEY DID INVITE US TO PRESENT AT THEIR NEXT MEETING IN AUGUST.
UM, SO THE BOARD COULD HEAR, UH, IF APPROVED HERE SO THE BOARD COULD HEAR WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES WOULD BE AND WHAT TYPE OF WORK THEY'D BE DOING TO CONSIDER, UH, TAKING NEXT OFFICIO C IF THIS BOARD WANTED TO, UH, HAVE THE SEAT.
UM, AND THEN WE REACHED OUT TO OUR CITY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, UM, FOR THE LONG BEACH HOMELESS COURT PROJECT TO FILL THAT LOCAL COURT SYSTEM.
SEE, UM, UNFORTUNATELY, UH, OUR PRIMARY CONTACT THERE, UH, IS, UH, OUT OF TOWN AT A CONFERENCE.
UM, SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO REALLY HEAR A LITTLE BIT MORE.
THEY'RE GONNA RECONNECT WITH US WHEN THEY GET BACK.
UM, BUT WE DON'T HAVE FIRM COMMITMENTS FOR MANY OF THESE ENTITIES.
WE ALSO DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE APPOINTING ENTITIES OR EX OFFICIO SEATS.
BUT DID WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF WORK BEFORE COMING HERE TO GIVE YOU SOME UPDATES.
SOME OF THE IDEAS WE MAY HAVE IF WE CHOOSE TO ADD ONE OR ALL OF THESE SEATS.
UM, IF WE GO BACK, UH, AND LOOK HERE AGAIN, UM, AGAIN, HUD WILL IS SAYING 1.4, THIS, WHICH WE'RE GONNA GET, UH, AT LEAST THREE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
SO THESE WOULD ALL BE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN LONG BEACH.
THEY'LL GIVE US THREE POINTS FOR THERE, FOUR POINTS IF WE ADD ALL OF THESE SEATS, OR TWO POINTS IF WE ADD, I GUESS FOUR OUT OF THE SIX SEATS.
UM, AND THESE ARE ALSO THE SEATS LISTED HERE.
SO HAPPY TO OPEN THINGS UP TO, UH, DISCUSSION.
UM, WE'RE KIND OF AGNOSTIC ON THIS.
UM, IT'D BE NICE TO EARN MORE POINTS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, OBVIOUSLY A SERIOUS EXPANSION OF THE BOARD.
SO YEAH, HANNAH, WELL, FIRST THREE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS SEEMS BLOCKED AND UM, THEY'LL PROBABLY NOT SHOW UP ON A REGULAR BASIS IF WE WERE TO ADD, SO, BUT IT, DOES IT MATTER? CAN IT BE THE DOG CATCHER OR, I THINK WE'VE INTERPRETED, COULD BE A SCHOOL BOARD YEAH.
MEMBER OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE LBCC OR CITY ATTORNEY OR CITY PROSECUTOR OR CITY, YOU KNOW, AUDITOR.
THOSE ARE ALL ELECTED TO POSSESSIONS AS WELL.
UNLIKELY THAT WE'RE HAVE A SUPERVISOR ON A CC BOARD, BUT, AND IT, THOSE WOULD ALL BE OFFICIAL.
IT CAN'T BE SOMEONE FROM THEIR STAFF.
THAT'S THE WORDING IS ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS.
SO I THINK IT WOULD SAY RE I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD SAY REPRESENTATIVES FROM PUBLIC OFFICIALS OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES.
UM, THE, THE WORDING, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, I ACTUALLY, AND I DID THIS BECAUSE I ANTICIPATED SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, THESE ARE COPIED EXACTLY FROM THE NOFO EXACTLY AS THEY ARE WRITTEN.
SO THE INFORMATION BEYOND THIS IS UP TO INTERPRETATION.
UM, AND THEN I SIMPLIFIED IT FOR THE OTHER SLIDE, UM, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO KIND OF PUT SOME OPTIONS OUT THERE.
UM, BUT YEAH, IF IT'S HELPFUL, I CAN LEAVE THIS ONE UP.
UH, THESE ARE EXACTLY HOW THEY ARE LISTED IN THE NOFO WORD FOR WORD.
UM, AND I JUST, I ADDED THAT LITTLE CHECK BOX.
SO WE ALL KNEW THAT WE, WE FIT THIS, UM, IN REALITY, UM, WHILE IT'S NOT A, UH, DESIGNATED SEAT, RIGHT, WE DO NOW HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM DMH.
SO WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH THAT DOES FILL THIS SEAT.
AT LEAST NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO IS CHOOSE TO MAKE THAT AN OFFICIAL SEAT AT SOME POINT.
UM, BUT WE DO FILL THIS CATEGORY CURRENTLY.
UM, THE REST OF THESE CATEGORIES DOWN HERE, WE DO NOT
[01:50:01]
FIT.UH, AND WE OBVIOUSLY DO NOT HAVE, UH, THREE ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS AT THIS TIME.
SO YEAH, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MORE POINTS AND SOME OF THESE, IT IS GOOD REPRESENTATION, ALTHOUGH I DUNNO ABOUT AGREE, BUT, UM,
'CAUSE WE'VE HAD SO MANY DAYS WHERE IT'S CLOSE TO QUORUM AND I'D BE WORRIED IF WE'RE EXPANDING THE BOARD, ARE WE GONNA JUST CREATE EIGHT MORE VACANCIES AND NEVER MAKE QUORUM BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUSY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT GONNA ALWAYS MAKE THE MEETINGS.
THE CLOUDS, WE HAD, YOU KNOW, AN ACTIVE BOARD MEMBER FROM A BID.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE WE COULD GET SOMEBODY, BUT THE REALITY IS THESE ARE ALL PRETTY BUSY PEOPLE THAT ARE PROBABLY WORKING AT THE TIMES WE'RE MEETING AND LIKE, ARE THEIR JOBS GOING TO GIVE THEM THE TIME OR NOT FOR THIS? AND THOSE ARE ALL QUESTIONS.
SOME OF THEM LIKE RECOVERY, HOUSING AND SOBER LIVING PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION, PROBABLY THE OTHER ONES THAT'S A LITTLE MORE DICEY.
AND I, THE OTHER PART THAT I'M THINKING ABOUT IS IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PICKING THAT THE BOARD TO OVER 20 PEOPLE, WHICH IS A VERY LARGE GROUP TO TRY TO, IF WE'RE ON THE SAME MINDSET, YEAH, THAT MIGHT WORK.
BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME WE COULD BE STUCK IN QUICKSAND AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT THE CORE, WE HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME TO THINK OF MORE WITH THE NUMBERS MOVE OUT AND NOW WE'RE GONNA INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO BE PRESIDENT.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION IS JUST FROM, IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY POSITIONS, WE CHOOSE TO HAVE 'EM AND THEY END UP VACANT, DOES THAT IMPACT HOW OUR QUO IS CALCULATED TOO, WHEN WE ADD ADDITIONAL PEOPLE? BUT THAT POSITION DOES NOT GET FILLED YEAH.
SO, UM, IF WE ADDED THESE NINE, WE WOULDN'T SUDDENLY JUMP TO, 'CAUSE THAT'D BE 26, RIGHT? WE WOULDN'T SUDDENLY JUMP TO 14.
UM, AND SO YEAH, AS FOLKS WOULD BE ADDED ON THE QUORUM WOULD, YOU KNOW, GET BIGGER AND BIGGER.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR QUORUM FOR VOTING IS FOLKS PRESENT, SO OUT OF THE FOLKS PRESENT.
SO, UH, THAT WOULDN'T BE AFFECTED.
BUT YEAH, THE QUORUM TO START THE MEETINGS HOLD THE MEETINGS WOULD BE CORRECT.
AND I MEAN WE COULD DO, OBVIOUSLY IN PUTTING THIS FORWARD, WE DON'T WANT TO KICK SOMEBODY OFF THE BOARD TO MAKE A SEAT HAPPEN.
THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, OUR PREVIOUS ONE SAID 13 AND 17, WE'VE ALWAYS KIND OF AIMED TO GET TO 17.
YOU COULD PUT THAT GOAL IN THERE AGAIN, AND A VACANCY OPENS UP AND WE SAY, HEY, THIS IS A LOT OF PEOPLE AT 26.
LIKE, WE'RE NOT GONNA FILL THAT VACANCY UNLESS IT'S A REQUIRED SEAT, UM, IS SOMETHING YOU COULD DO AS WELL.
AND AS OF NOW, LIKE I SAID, WE COULD TRANSITION OUR NEW OR ONE OF OUR NEW BOARD MEMBERS SEATS TO THIS OFFICIAL SEAT.
UM, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I LEFT THAT AS ELECTED TARGETED, RIGHT? A BEHAVIORAL PRIMARY HEALTHCARE PROVIDER DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO BE THE SAME ENTITY.
WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT HAPPENS, WE OPEN IT UP, BUT WE REACH OUT TO VERY SPECIFIC AGENCIES, UH, THAT OPERATE WITHIN THE COUNTY AND IN LONG BEACH AND ASK THEM, HEY, CAN YOU APPLY, YOU KNOW, SUBMIT AN APPLICATION FOR US, UH, MAYBE SIMPLIFY IT.
SO THAT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, 25.
OBVIOUSLY THE ONLY OPEN SEAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, UH, I'M NOT RECOMMENDING AT THIS TIME.
UH, WE CLOSE OUT, WHICH IS THE LGBTQ PLUS SERVICES HERE.
UM, I WOULD FEEL A PERSONAL DEFEAT IF WE DECIDED TO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE IS PROPOSING THIS, BUT IF WE REMOVE THAT SEAT NOW, I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE TOO MUCH FOR ME.
UM, SO, UH, YEAH, BUT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE IDEA OF POTENTIALLY ADDING, LET'S SAY WE SAY EIGHT SEATS TO 25 IS STILL PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL.
GETTING A 13 PERSON FORM THERE.
I QUESTION, DO WE ACTUALLY NEED THESE EIGHT POINTS FROM THAT? I MEAN, WE, I WOULD SAY WE NEED EVERY POINT POSSIBLE.
SO THE WAY, AND, UH, AS A BRIEF REMINDER, THE WAY HUD DOES SCORING NATIONALLY, SO TIER ONE, EFFECTIVELY, IF YOU PASS THRESHOLDS FUNDED, SO NOW YOUR COC APPLICATION SCORE, THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION SCORE, RIGHT? I'LL SCALE IT DOWN TO A HUNDRED POINTS.
THAT MAKES IT EASIER, RIGHT? 50% OF EVERY PROJECT SCORE IN TIER TWO IS IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO YOUR COCS APPLICATION SCORE.
SO IF WE WERE TO SCORE A HUNDRED OUT OF A HUNDRED,
[01:55:01]
EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PROJECTS IN TIER TWO START OUT WITH 50 POINTS, THEN THE NEXT 40 POINTS ARE WHERE THEY ARE IN OUR LIST.SO THE ONE AT THE HIGHEST OF OUR LIST WOULD GET ALL 40 POINTS AND THEN A LITTLE BIT LESS TO GO DOWN.
AND THE LAST 10% USED TO BE HOUSING FIRST.
FIDELITY IS NOW SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS.
SO NOW THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN, EVERY PROJECT IN TIER TWO LOCALLY IS SCORED, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A REAL SCORE, IT'S BEHIND THE SCENES.
EVERY COC IN THE COUNTRY HAS THAT TIER TWO LIST WITH CERTAIN SCORES.
AND AGAIN, 50% OF THAT IS BASED ON YOUR CO C'S MAIN APPLICATION.
THEY TAKE EVERY SINGLE PROJECT ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND THEY CRAM IT INTO ONE BIG LIST BASED ON SCORE.
THEY START FUNDING PROJECTS AND THEY RUN OUTTA MONEY.
SO EIGHT POINTS COULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE PROJECT BEING SCORED AND THREE OR ONE AND EIGHT OR ZERO AND FIVE, IT DEPENDS ON HOW EVERYONE ELSE SCORES.
SO EVERY POINT IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR IT, SIMPLY BECAUSE EVERY POINT COULD MEAN THAT A PROJECT IS FUNDED OR NOT FUNDED IN TIER TWO.
SO, UM, AND WITH THE SHIFT TO FOCUSING ON PERFORMANCE, SO LOOKING AT RIGHT DEMONSTRATED REDUCTIONS AND YOU KNOW, BY LIKE 20% OF ENCAMPMENTS AND, AND REDUCING THIS AND, AND THIS AND THAT, UM, AS WE KNOW JUST IN THE REGION, VERY EXPENSIVE REGION, UM, SEEMS THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE WE HOUSE AND SUPPORT, MORE PEOPLE ARE FALLING INTO HOMELESSNESS.
SO HISTORICALLY, NO MATTER HOW GOOD WE DO, NUMBERS DON'T ALWAYS NECESSARILY REFLECT THAT.
THINKING A FEW YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, LONG BEACH WE HAD PUBLISHED THAT IF FOLKS JUST STOPPED FALLING INTO HOMELESSNESS OVER THE LAST FIVE TO 10 YEARS, WE WOULD'VE SOLVED IT BY NOW.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, AS WE KNOW, IT'S NOT THE CASE.
SO, UM, YEAH, LONG ANSWER TO
SO SORRY, WE COULD MAKE A DEBATE ON DO WE NEED TO GET ALL EIGHT POINTS? I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY TRY TO GUESS LIKE SOME POINTS, BUT UP TO THE BOARD.
AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO WORK AS HARD AS, YOU KNOW, AS HARD AS WE ARE NO MATTER WHAT, UM, TO, TO TRY TO EARN AS MANY POINTS AS POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IS 4% OF THE APPLICATION SCORE.
SO WE FIGURED, YOU KNOW, MIGHT AS WELL MIGHT AS WELL BRING IT UP HERE.
UM, ONCE IF WE WERE TO, I'M SORRY, AND I WAS JUST GONNA SAY WE WERE TO CUT THAT ONE OUT FOR LIKE TWO POINTS.
FOR MAJORITY OF BELOW WE'RE NOW TO FIVE.
SO SELECTING THREE OF ONE OF THESE THREE.
OUTSIDE OF THIS ONE, IF WE DON'T WANNA ADD PUBLIC OFFICIALS, RIGHT, WE COULD JUST PICK THREE OF FIVE FROM DOWN THERE.
A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS WE COULD DO.
WELL, THE OTHER QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS IF YOU HAVE THESE, LET'S JUST SAY WE VOTE AS A BOARD TO LIST ALL OF THOSE, BUT WE CAN'T FILL THE POSITION.
WHAT IS THAT? I MEAN, IF IT'S TECHNICALLY IN OUR CHARTER, BUT WE DON'T HAVE, IS THAT AN, I THINK AS LONG AS WE SHOW THAT WE DID DUE DILIGENCE TO FILL THEM, IT'S, IT'S HARD.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THEY, I, WHEN HUD RELEASES THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, THIS IS HOW THEY SAID THEY'LL SCORE US.
BUT LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE THE QUESTION YET.
SO THE QUESTION COULD BE HAVE ALL YOUR BOARD MEMBERS SIGN A LOYALTY OATH, YOU KNOW, TO THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
AND IF THOSE FOLKS IN THOSE STATES AREN'T, DON'T SUBMIT LOYALTY OATHS, THEN THEY WON'T GIVE US POINTS FOR THEM.
WHO KNOWS? IT'S, I KNOW IT'S A RIDICULOUS EXAMPLE, BUT I KNOW A COUPLE OF PEOPLE FROM LASLEY WHO LOST THEIR JOBS ARE APPLYING FOR FEDERAL JOBS AND THEY, THEY ASK YOU IN THAT FEDERAL APPLICATION ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO FURTHER, UH, TRUMP'S POLICIES AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS.
IT'S A QUESTION FOR FEDERAL JOBS RIGHT NOW.
SO COULD BE ANYTHING, RIGHT? WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE GONNA ASK THE QUESTION.
I'M HOPING, LIKE PAUL SAID, WE CAN LISTEN IN OUR GOVERNANCE CHARTER AND SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU APPROVED IT AND WE'RE CURRENTLY OUTREACHING WITH FOLKS AND SOLICITING APPLICATIONS AND THEY'LL FIND THAT SUFFICIENT.
BUT YOU'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT.
IT COULD BE THAT THEY SAY, NOPE, THERE'S NO NAMES HERE.
WHAT PAUL SUGGEST MAKES SENSE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE WHEN WE PUT IT OUT THERE, TO BE QUITE HONEST, YOU HAVE TO TWIST THE BURN TO ARMS TO GET THESE PEOPLE ON AIR REALLY.
AND AND TO BE QUITE ANOTHER UNDERSTAND IS I DON'T SEE THE PASSION IN THESE, IN THESE INDIVIDUALS THAT PROVIDE THE CARE.
I MEAN THERE YEAH, SOME OF THEM DO HAVE PASSION, BUT IN AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION.
[02:00:02]
I THINK IT'S SMART TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THEM ALL ON THE CHARTER TO OPEN 'EM UP.PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTED TO THIS, WE KNOW EVERYBODY HERE AT THIS TABLE AND OUR WONDERFUL AUDIENCE IS WE'RE COMMITTED TO IT.
UH, SO THE ONES WHO ARE COMMITTED TO ACTUALLY GOVERNING WILL SHOW UP OR JOINT MAY SHOW UP AND OTHERWISE I JUST HOPE IT DOESN'T MESS WITH OUR QUORUM.
I ALSO DON'T LIKE THAT IT'S AN EVEN NUMBER.
WELL, IT WOULD BE 25 IF WE CONVERT THE SEAT.
IF WE CONVERT ONE OF THE SEAT THAT'S NOW OPEN TO THE BEHAVIORAL OR PRIMARY, YOU'RE BEING VERY OPTIMISTIC, WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE FULL, THAT WOULD BE JUST IN CASE.
AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY THE UP TO, UH, WHOOPS.
THAT'S WHY THE UP TO NINE TARGETED SEATS.
'CAUSE WE DID ANTICIPATE, 'CAUSE YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT FALLS WITHIN THIS THAT COULD ACTUALLY MEET THIS.
SO THE DECISION COULD BE TO, SO, UM, IT WON'T BE ON THIS ITEM, IT'D BE ON THE NEXT.
UM, BUT THE, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, UH, APPROVING THAT DRAFT, BUT UM, NOT ADDING THIS AS AN ADDITIONAL SEAT, BUT CONVERTING ONE OF THE OPEN SEATS TO SOLIDIFY AS THIS, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE ACTION.
ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME WHEN PEOPLE WILL TURN AROUND AND THERE'S GONNA BE MORE VACANCIES? JUST 'CAUSE WE ALWAYS HAVE A HARD TIME FILLING VACANCIES.
IS IT GONNA BE EVERYBODY LEAVING IN APRIL OR NO, I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHECK, BUT IT'S STILL A WHILE BEFORE WE IT'S GONNA BE, YEAH, WE JUST REEDED A COUPLE OF FOLKS.
AND YEAH, SO I THINK WE'RE, YEAH, WE RECEIVED A COUPLE OF FOLKS, THREE NEW FOLKS COMING ON.
UM, YEAH, I THINK WE'D BE GOOD FOR A LITTLE BIT ENOUGH TIME TO FILL THE SEATS.
AT LEAST
I KNOW WE ARE OVER TIME, BUT WAS THERE ANY FEEDBACK ON, UH, IF FOLKS MOVE TOWARDS THAT, ON THIS AREA, ON THE APPOINTING ENTITY? AND HERE AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE WOULD BE CITY MANAGER.
CAN YOU MAYBE RECOMMEND SOME FOLKS? CAN YOU REACH OUT TO FOLKS, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY US EVEN BEEN TRYING TO REACH OUT TO SOME OF THOSE FOLKS.
UM, HERE RIGHT NOW IT'S, WE HAVE THIS KIND OF OPEN, SO THIS COULD BE THAT WE GO TO BOTH, WE COULD CHANGE THIS TO MORE AND, YOU KNOW, TARGETED, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE WE FEELING HERE? 'CAUSE THIS COULD ALSO BE AS PART OF THAT AS WELL AS PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT.
I'M JUST THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX A LITTLE BIT, AND I'M NOT COMMITTING ANYBODY, BUT OUR SCHOOL SAFETY OFFICERS ARE GONNA COMMIT TO BEING SWORN PEACE OFFICERS IN THE UPCOMING YEAR.
SO IF THERE WAS SOMEONE ON OUR LONG BEACH SCHOOL SAFETY OFFICE, BUT THAT COUNT TOWARDS WHAT THE, THE, UH, LOOKING FOR, UM, THEY SIMPLY ABOUT, YEAH, THEY SIMPLY SAY A REPRESENTATIVE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.
SO I THINK THAT IF THEY WERE A, UH, YOU KNOW, SWORN SAFETY OFFICER, PROBABLY CURRENTLY THEY ALL GO THROUGH THE ACADEMY, BUT WE'RE TAKING THE NEXT STEP WHERE THEY ACTUALLY COME.
OFFICERS AND CARRIES THE SAME.
YEAH, UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE I SAID, THEY UNFORTUNATELY THING IS LIKE HUD WELL HUD HAS RECENTLY BEEN PLACING A LOT OF THINGS OUT THERE AND THEN THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF CLARIFICATION OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
I MEAN, I ATTENDED THE HUD OFFICE HOURS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ON THE NOFO AND THEY BASICALLY READ THROUGH PART OF THE APPLICATION AND THEN QUICKLY SIGNED OFF BEFORE ANSWERING TOO MANY QUESTIONS, AT LEAST WAS MY EXPERIENCE IN THE MEETING.
SO, UM, THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GONNA PUBLISH MORE RESPONSES.
WHAT WE GOT WAS SOMETHING SAYING BASICALLY LIKE, WHY DOES HUD NOT LIKE PERMANENT HOUSING? AND THEY WERE LIKE, WELL WE DO LIKE PERMANENT HOUSING.
IT WAS A WEIRD Q AND A KIND OF DOCUMENT THAT'S PUBLISHED ON THEIR WEBSITE THAT I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WAS VERY RESPONSIVE TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE BEING BROUGHT UP IN THE MEETING.
AGAIN, THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION, MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH WHEN I SAY THAT.
ANY PROPOSED ACTION HERE,
WE, UH, OF COURSE, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS,
[02:05:02]
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THE SITE OF, I DID SPEAK TO THAT LAW OFFICER LAST WEEK, UM, WHO ATTENDS OUR, UM, UM, HAMILTON ASSOCIATION MEETING.SO HE'S SAID THAT HE'S THINKING ABOUT, HE NEEDS TO LOOK AT HIS, UM, HIS SCHEDULE.
MAYBE YOU CAN CONNECT WITH JUSTICE.
ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? DINA, CAN YOU TAKE BOTH? UH, SHOW OF HANDS? YEAH, YEAH, SHOW OF HANDS TO, UH, APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
MOVE ALONG TO ITEM NUMBER SIX.
BEFORE WE START ON THIS LAST ITEM, I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING I HAVE TO GET TO.
SO IF I LEAVE, WILL WE NOT HAVE QUORUM ANYMORE? UH, WE'RE GOOD.
NO PRESENTATION ON THIS NEXT ITEM.
IT'S SIMPLY AN ACTION ITEM AND ITEM NUMBER SIX WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE PROPOSAL UPDATES OF
JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR.
SO MOVING ON FROM OUR LAST CONVERSATION WE HAVE, OR OUR LAST AGENDA ITEM, I APOLOGIZE.
UM, WE HAVE TWO, UH, COC WE HAVE TWO COC GOVERNANCE CHARTERS IN THE PACKET.
THE FIRST IS THE FINALIZED VERSION OF THE PREVIOUS, UM, APPROVED, WELL NOT APPROVED, UH, ALMOST APPROVED GOVERNANCE CHARTER, WHICH WE REVIEWED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS.
UM, THE SECOND, UH, HAS A RED LINED VER IS A RED LINE VERSION STARTING ON PAGE 10 AND MOVING TO PAGE 11, UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THERE WAS A, UH, TYPO DESIGNATED SOME, ONE WORD IS MISSPELLED IN THE PACKET.
WE DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO REPLACE THAT.
UM, I WILL FIX THAT UPON APPROVAL.
UM, SO IT DOES NOT SAY DESIGNATED, UM, IN THE, UH, GOVERNANCE CHARTER.
UM, BUT HERE YOU'LL SEE, UM, WE BASICALLY, FOR THESE EDITS, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE, WE SHALL BE COMPRISED OF UP TO 26.
SO AGAIN, NOT, NOT CONFIRMING THAT IT'D BE 26 AND NEXT REVISION, WE WILL JUST CORRECT THAT BASED ON WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING.
UM, SIMPLY DELETED THE DESCRIPTION OF HOW MANY ARE ELECTED, HOW MANY ARE APPOINTED, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY SURE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THESE, UH, NEW SEATS.
UM, AND THEN ADDED THE TARGETED REPRESENTATION, INCLUDING, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M DOING THIS TO MY, I JUST LIKE USING IT.
I JUST REALIZED I WAS GONNA ASK IS THERE'S SOMETHING MAGICAL THAT'S HAPPENING.
YOU CAN TELL I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE NOTEBOOK FOR TOO LONG.
UM, SO YEAH, YOU'LL SEE WE JUST REMOVED THIS SECTION HERE.
UH, AND THEN JENNIFER, IF YOU COULD GO DOWN PLEASE.
UM, MAKING ME LOOK BETTER THAN I'M DOING.
UM, HERE WE ADDED AN ADDITION TO THE REPRESENTATIVE CATEGORIES.
WE'RE INCLUDING THE TARGETED REPRESENTATIVE CATEGORIES.
COPY THIS EXACTLY AGAIN FROM THE NOFO, UH, AND THEN A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN.
OH, JENNIFER IS PRESENTING THE CORRECTED VERSION THOUGH, SO THAT'S GOOD.
UM, WE PLACED THE SO ANTICIPATED APPOINTMENT THROUGH ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS, ANTICIPATED, ANTICIPATED APPOINTMENT THROUGH THE LONG BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, LEAVING US JUST A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM, WHICH WE WILL THEN SOLIDIFY.
UM, AND SO TURNING IT BACK OVER TO THE BOARD, THESE WERE THE ADDITIONAL EDITS.
UM, IF WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE, UH, THE ADDITIONS UP TO 25, UM, THEN WE WOULD JUST APPROVE THIS NEW RED LINE VERSION.
UM, THE PREVIOUS VERSION WAS NOT APPROVED YET, AND SO, UM, THE, UH, GOVERNANCE CHARTER, PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD NOW MANDATED BY THE GOVERNANCE CHARTER WILL BE MOVING FORWARD.
WE HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THAT.
THAT WAS A BRAND NEW ADDITION.
SO, UH, WHEN WE GO BACK, WE WILL REOPEN THAT PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.
FOLKS WILL BE ABLE TO RE-EXPLORE SOME OF THE NEW SEATS IN A, IN A FUTURE REVISION, LIKELY NEXT SPRING.
SO HAPPY TO TURN THINGS OVER TO THE BOARD FOR MORE QUESTIONS OR, UH, OR ACTION.
[02:10:01]
MY FAULT.I CAN'T, I DON'T, I'M NOT, UM, I BELIEVE YOU WERE HERE, BUT YEAH, LAST MONTH I JUST DID NOT ADD, APPROVE TO THE AGENDA SO WE COULD NOT APPROVE IT LAST MONTH.
AND THEN THE CONVERSATION TURNED INTO, WELL, SINCE WE CAN'T APPROVE IT, THERE IS THIS THING IN THE NOFO SHOULD WE PRESENT ON IT NEXT MONTH.
SO THERE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY BEEN ANY SUBSTANTIVE UPDATES TO THIS SINCE APRIL, REALLY.
UM, IT JUST WAS NOT AGENDIZED IMMEDIATELY, UH, DUE TO ALL THE NOCO ACTION ITEMS. AND THEN LAST MONTH WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART, SO APOLOGIES FOR THAT.
SO WE'RE KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS THREE MONTHS LATE, BASICALLY DISCUSSION.
ANYBODY WANT TO FORWARD A RECOMMENDATION? YOU COULD PROPOSE TO EITHER OF THE TWO THAT ARE HERE.
YOU COULD PROPOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT JUST TO GET THE CONVERSATION.
UNLESS YOU HAVE ONE MORE, JOSEPH.
MAYBE I PLAY WITH THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
UM, BUT YEAH, NO, UH, NOTHING, UH, NOTHING ELSE TO PROPOSE HERE.
LIKE I SAID, IF, UH, HAPPY TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FIRMER, UH, FIRMER, YOU KNOW, REQUESTS FROM FOLKS TO REACH BACK OUT TO US.
UM, MY INITIAL OUTREACH WAS TENTATIVE, RIGHT? OUR BOARD MAY CONSIDER.
SO IF THEY KNOW THAT IT'S FIRM, UH, LIKE I SAID, WE WILL GO, UH, TO WORKFORCE, PRESENT TO THEM, SEE IF THEY'RE INTERESTED.
I'LL REACH OUT TO EVERYONE ELSE AND SAY, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
YOU RECALL YOU WERE ASKING FOR A MOTION? I THOUGHT WE HAD ONE TO APPROVAL OF THE, THERE WAS A MOTION FOR NOW.
WE DID ONE FOR SIX, BUT IT WAS JUST SAY APPROVE.
BUT WE HAVE NOT, NOBODY HAS SAID WHICH ONE WE WANT TO APPROVE, SO THERE'S NO DEFINITIVE.
THOSE TWO FIVE WAS JUST A MOTION FOR THE PRESENTATION.
YEAH, WE HELD THE DISCUSSION SEPARATELY JUST TO KEEP IT A LITTLE BIT CLEANER.
UM, I KNOW, BUT I THOUGHT WHEN I WAS VOTING WE WERE RULING.
OH NO, THIS IS, UH, YEAH, NO APPROVAL.
UH, YEAH, JUST, UH, FOR THE DISCUSSION.
AND NOW THE APPROVAL WOULD BE, UM, EITHER, UH, YOU KNOW, MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UH, NON REVISED GOVERNANCE CHARTER.
UM, THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE NEW SEATS OR THE REVISED GOVERNANCE CHARTER, WHICH INCLUDES THE NEW SEATS OR, OR NEITHER SOMETHING.
AGAIN, IF, IF FOLKS DON'T WANNA INCLUDE ALL THE SEATS, YOU COULD MOTION REMOVING THIS SEAT AND THEN WE SEE HOW THAT PANS OUT.
YEAH, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE RED LINE VERSION HERE.
WE ALL ALL IN FAVOR? CAN I GET A SHOW OF HANDS? DO YOU WANNA READ ROLL CALL OR SHALL YEAH, LET'S DO, YEAH.
ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? THE NONE.
ICO TAN ABSENT ANNA TOKI APPROVED OCK MCPA APPROVED.
ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? SEEN? THANK YOU EVERYONE.
EVEN EXTENDED, WE GRANT LATE, SO THANKS.