* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.
          [00:00:04]
          YES. 
          WELCOME EVERYONE. 
          EVERYONE'S HAVING A GOOD START AND KIND OF STAY. 
          COOL. 
          SO TODAY IS AUGUST 4TH AND MEETING. 
          WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND CALL TO ORDER AND LET JENNIFER DO A ROLL CALL. 
          OKAY. 
          CLAUDE DIAL PRESENT. 
          TAMIKA BOY PRESENT. 
          KIMBERLY, WE PRESENT JAMIE SCHEUER. 
          PRESENT IKO TAG ABSENT. 
          ANNA TOSKI. 
          ABSENT. 
          HACK HAW. 
          MC. 
          YES. 
          NIKKI AMICK. 
          ABSENT. 
          CONNOR LOCK ABSENT. 
          PATRICIA SCOTT. 
          HERE. 
          MELANIE MARS ABSENT. 
          STEVEN ROCKENBACH ABSENT. 
          BRANDY BROWN. 
          SHOCK ABSENT. 
          JACOB MUNOZ. 
          VALERIE WILLIAMS HERE. 
          OKAY, WE HAVE FOUR. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN, UM, NEXT MEETING. 
          MEMBER TRAYVON CHAMBERLAIN. 
          SHOULD BE GOOD. 
          HE'S JUST WAITING ON ONE, UH, FORM 700 AND HE SHOULD BE GOOD. 
          UM, AND JUST A QUICK REMINDER FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. 
          UM, OUR RESTROOM ISN'T CURRENTLY WORKING ON THIS FLOOR, SO IF YOU NEED TO USE THE RESTROOM, PLEASE USE THE SECOND FLOOR. 
          UM, AND THERE IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU GUYS TO SPEAK AFTER EACH AGENDA ITEM. 
          THERE IS A TWO MINUTE LIMIT. 
          UM, AND JUST A REMINDER THAT IT'S NOT A Q AND A SESSION. 
          UM, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU NEED TO ADDRESS AFTER YOU CAN COME SEE STAFF, OR YOU CAN ALWAYS, UH, EMAIL US AT HOMELESS SERVICES ADMIN EMAIL. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU GUYS. 
          STARTING WITH OUR FIRST AGENDA ITEM. 
          AGENDA NUMBER 2 6 2 6 5 5 7 1 0. 
          RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE CONTINUUM CARE BOARD MEETING OF TUESDAY, JULY 14TH, 2026. 
          LEMME GET A MOTION. 
          PAT WAS SECOND. 
          PAT WAS SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT THANK YOU . 
          ANY BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS? NO. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA? IF YOU CAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          SEE NONE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR WITH A SHOW OF HANDS PASS. 
          PARDON? ARE YOU IN FAVOR? OH, YEAH. 
          SORRY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I WAS READING. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          ANY OPPOSED PASSES? THANK YOU. 
          MOVING ON TO OUR SECOND AGENDA, ITEM 5 7 1 1. 
          RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL HSP 20 26 3 CARE PORTFOLIO FOR NEW EXPANSION AND TRANSITION PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR INCLUSION ON PHYSICAL YEAR 2020. 
          PROJECT BY I GET MOTION. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, IF YOU CAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          OKAY. 
          SCENE NONE. 
          WHAT DID YOU WANNA DISCUSS? YEAH, LEMME UH, SORRY. 
          ACTUALLY WE'RE GONNA HAVE DISCUSSIONS, UH, NOW I JUST SENT IT TO YOU. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          SORRY FOLKS. 
          WE'RE JUST PULLING UP OUR, UM, OVERVIEW OF THE, UH, REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, UH, MEMO. 
          UM, OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM HANDLES THE, UH, RP AND PROCUREMENTS GENERALLY. 
          SO, UH, IT, IT WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART. 
          UM, SORRY, IT'S, INTERNET'S A LITTLE SLOW, BUT IT'S LOADING. 
          [00:05:08]
OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          ALRIGHT. 
          UH, GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          JUDGE PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR. 
          UH, I'M GONNA BRIEFLY REVIEW THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS, UH, SELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE COC APPLICATION. 
          I'M PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE RFP PROCESS, SUMMARIZE HOW PROPOSALS WERE REVIEWED AND SCORED, UH, DISCUSSED THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED, AND THEN PRESENT RECOMMENDED PROJECTS FOR INCLUSION IN THE APPLICATION. 
          UM, SO FIRST, UH, AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, 4.04 BILLION AVAILABLE THROUGH THE PROGRAM. 
          COMPETITION, UH, TIER ONE IS LIMITED TO 60% OF THE ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND OF THE CONTINUUM OF CARE, WHICH LEAVES A LARGER SHARE OF RENEWAL FUNDING EXPOSED TO THE NATIONAL COMPETITION. 
          AND TIER TWO PROJECTS WILL COMPETE NATIONALLY AFTER HUD AWARDS TIER ONE. 
          AND AS A REMINDER, UM, HUD HAS A LOT OF, UH, PARADISE SET-ASIDES FOR NEW PROJECTS. 
          UM, SO NOT ONLY, UH, LOCALLY HERE IN LONG BEACH, UM, BUT ALSO IN, UH, PARTNER CRCS AND OTHER CRCS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, UH, GENERALLY ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT, UH, RENEWAL FUNDING IN TIER TWO IS VERY RESTRICTIVE, UH, AND LIMITED, UM, PARTICULARLY FOR, UH, FOR ANY KIND OF PROJECT THAT DOESN'T ADHERE TO, UH, HUD STANDARDS. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE GONNA BE DOING IS PRESENTING THE PROJECTS TO INCLUDE, UM, WHICH WILL GET US, UH, GET US UP TO OUR RENEWAL AMOUNT IN TIER TWO. 
          SO ALL OF THESE PROPOSED, UM, THAT YOU'LL SEE, UH, WILL THEN BE RE-EXPLORED WHEN WE GET TO THE PRIORITY LIST, AND WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THE AMOUNTS OF EVERY PROJECT AND EVERYTHING. 
          UH, SO AS A REMINDER, THE ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND FOR THE LONG BEACH EOC IS A LITTLE OVER $12 MILLION, 12.2 MILLION. 
          UH, OUR TIER ONE IS 7.3 MILLION, WHICH LEAVES 4.8 IN TIER TWO, UH, RENEWAL EXPOSURE, UH, THE COC BONUS FUNDING. 
          SO THIS IS ADDITIONAL BONUS FUNDING FOR COC PROJECTS THAT WE CAN APPLY FOR. 
          SO FOR NEW FUNDING, UH, THAT'S 1.8 MILLION, AND THEN 1.3 UNDER THE DV BONUS. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, HUD HAS SOME PRIORITIES THAT AFFECT OUR LOCAL PORTFOLIO. 
          ONE IS A 1.3 BILLION SET ASIDE FOR NEW PROJECTS, BUT THE PRIORITY FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY. 
          UH, THE SECOND IS 430 MILLION TARGETED TO PERMANENT HOUSING PROJECTS THAT SERVE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. 
          UH, THIRD, THE 104 MILLION AVAILABLE THROUGH 2025 CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS AND 2026 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BONUS FUNDING. 
          UM, AND AS A REMINDER, C CS MAY USE BOTH THE BONUS FUNDING AS WELL AS ELIGIBLE REALLOCATED RENEWAL FUNDING. 
          CREATE NEW PROJECTS THAT ARE ALIGNED WITH HUD'S ELIGIBLE PROJECT COMPONENTS, UM, AND ALL RENEWAL PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF TIER ONE FACE SIZE, SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL FUNDING RISK BECAUSE THEY'RE COMPETING AGAINST ALL THESE, UH, SET ASIDE AND PRIORITIZE FUNDING, AS WELL AS, UM, NEW PROJECT SET ASIDES, UH, WHICH INCLUDES, INCLUDES ALL THOSE AND OTHER HUG PRIORITIES AS WELL. 
          UM, SO THE RFP WAS ISSUED ON JULY 7TH. 
          UH, WE REQUESTED PROPOSALS FOR NEW EXPANSION AND TRANSITION PROJECTS. 
          WE ACCEPTED ELIGIBLE COC BONUS, COC, REALLOCATION DV BONUS DV REALLOCATED FUNDING. 
          UM, ELIGIBLE PROJECT TYPES INCLUDED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY. 
          UH, THE PROPOSAL DEADLINE WAS JULY 17TH. 
          WE RECEIVED EIGHT PROPOSALS. 
          SEVEN MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND RECEIVED FULL EVALUATIONS. 
          SUBMISSIONS WERE REVIEWED FOR MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS, COMPLETENESS AND RFP REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, A THREE PERSON COMMITTEE OF HOMELESS SERVICE BUREAU STAFF WITHOUT CONFLICTS. 
          REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS. 
          PROPOSALS WERE SCORED USING THE PUBLISHED EVALUATION CRITERIA IN THE RFP, UH, AND REVIEW INCLUDED PROJECT DESIGN, ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY, PARTICIPANT OUTCOMES, IMPLEMENTATION READINESS, SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, CS COORDINATION, BUDGET REASONABLENESS AND LEVERAGE RESOURCES. 
          AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS WERE BASED ON PROPOSED SCORES, PROJECT QUALITY ELIGIBILITY ALIGNMENT WITH THE RFP. 
          SO I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL OF THESE, BUT I DID INCLUDE THE PERCENTAGES OF EACH SECTION, UH, THAT EACH, UH, FUNDING OPPORTUNITY WAS SCORED UNDER. 
          SO, FIRST, THE COC BONUS AND THE DV BONUS, UH, THAT WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE RFP AS WELL, BUT I INCLUDED THOSE ALSO ON THE SLIDES. 
          UM, HERE YOU'LL SEE THE RESPONSIVE PROPOSALS AND SCORES. 
          UM, SO UNDER THE COC BONUS, UH, YOU'LL SEE SIX HERE. 
          UH, A SEVENTH WAS ALSO SUBMITTED, BUT THAT SEVENTH WAS A, ACTUALLY A RENEWAL PROJECT WHO THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD TO SUB, UH, SUBMIT A PROPOSAL THROUGH THIS RFP. 
          THEY WEREN'T REQUESTING TO TRANSITION OR ANYTHING, THEY WERE JUST A RENEWAL PROJECT. 
          UM, AND SO THEY DID NOT NEED TO APPLY THROUGH THIS. 
          SO THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED HERE. 
          UH, THAT IS THE EIGHTH PROPOSAL. 
          UM, SO 
          [00:10:01]
HERE YOU'LL SEE THE THRESHOLD. 
          UH, WE DON'T HAVE A NECESSARILY A THRESHOLD, UH, FOR SCORING. 
          UH, WE WOULD INCLUDE AS MANY, UH, REALLY AS POSSIBLE AS LONG AS WE FELT AS IF THOUGH THE PROPOSALS, UH, WERE, UH, SUFFICIENT AND SOUND BASED ON THE RFP. 
          UH, HAVING SAID THAT, THE FIRST FOUR THAT YOU'LL SEE, UH, HERE ARE ALL RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION. 
          UH, THE LAST TWO YOU'LL SEE ARE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR INCLUSION. 
          UH, AND BELOW YOU'LL SEE THE DV BONUS REALLOCATION. 
          UM, SO WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE PROJECT, UH, UNDER THE DV BONUS. 
          UH, AND IT WAS FOR A RELATIVELY MODEST AMOUNT. 
          UH, THAT ONE WAS ALSO RECOMMENDED, UH, DUE TO ITS SCORE. 
          UH, AND AS YOU'LL SEE AT THE BOTTOM, WHAT WE RECEIVED, UH, THROUGH THE RFP, UH, WE HAVE THE TOTALS HERE. 
          UH, ONCE WE GET TO THE PRIORITY LIST, UH, WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE REQUESTED AMOUNTS, BUT THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS. 
          AND THIS IS, UH, SUMMARIZED IN OUR, OUR MEMO FROM OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM. 
          UM, HERE YOU'LL SEE A BRIEF REVIEW OF EACH OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          SO THE FIRST ENCOMPASS MAGNOLIA LANDING. 
          THIS IS MO MOTEL BASED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, 24 UNITS IN CASE MANAGEMENT. 
          WE HAVE A DV SPECIFIC TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM, A FAMILY FOCUSED HOUSING STABILITY PROJECT, UH, HOMELESS HEALTH CARE FOR SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY TO EXPAND HEALTHCARE, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE, CASE MANAGEMENT, AND OUTREACH. 
          UH, AND THEN SHARE, UH, RECOVERY AND COLLABORATIVE HOUSING. 
          SO THIS IS A PEER-BASED TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SHARED HOMES FOR ADULTS, UH, WITH PRIORITY FOR FOLKS WITH CHRONIC HOMELESSNESS, AND THAT ALSO HAVE PATHWAYS TO PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          UH, AND BEING FAMILIAR WITH SHARE. 
          I KNOW THAT'S PRIMARILY THROUGH, UH, GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT AS WELL. 
          UH, SO HERE WE WILL ASK FIRST FOR THE COC BOARD TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDED PROJECT SELECTIONS FOR INCLUSION. 
          UH, NOTING THAT JUST BECAUSE WE RECOMMEND INCLUSION DOESN'T, UH, GUARANTEE ANY HUD FUNDING STATE CONTRACTS OR FUNDING AT THE REQUESTED AMOUNT. 
          UH, AND WE'LL, AGAIN, WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT, UH, IN A FEW MOMENTS. 
          UH, WE'LL ALSO ASK FOR THE, UH, THIS IS, YOU KNOW, KIND OF MOVING DOWN THE REST OF TODAY AS WELL. 
          UH, APPROVING OUR LOCAL REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINALIZING THE REALLOCATION FUNDING AMOUNTS, REVIEW AND APPROVING THE PRIORITY, UH, RANKING LIST. 
          UH, AND THEN WE HSB WILL FINALIZE ALL PROJECT APPLICATIONS IN EAPS TO INCLUDE THE CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION, UH, AS WELL AS WORK ON NARRATIVES, WHICH, UM, TO UPDATE THE BOARD. 
          THE, UH, HUD HAS STILL NOT RELEASED THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE APPLICATION FOR THE NOFO. 
          SO WE'RE JUST ABOUT THREE WEEKS OUT. 
          UM, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE, UH, SYSTEM SPECIFIC QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T QUITE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE YET. 
          WE HAVE PREPARED, UH, TO RESPOND TO THEM. 
          BUT, UH, HUD DID SEND AN EMAIL YESTERDAY SAYING THAT IT WILL COME OUT SOMETIME SOON, BUT WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN. 
          UH, AND FINALLY, UM, THIS IS THE END OF THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. 
          SO I HAVE IT OPEN THINGS UP FOR QUESTIONS AND, UH, REQUEST APPROVAL OF OUR RFP RESULTS. 
          ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE? WHAT'S SO AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES? THANK YOU. 
          UH, WITH HUNT SUPPORT ONLY ARE TYPICALLY ANY STANDALONE SERVICE. 
          UM, THE KINDS OF SERVICE THAT COULD BE SERVICES ONLY. 
          IT CAN BE, THERE'S A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT COULD BE INCLUDED. 
          IT COULD BE A PROJECT THAT'S ONLY CASE MANAGEMENT, ONLY OUTREACH, ONLY EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, ONLY LEGAL SERVICES. 
          BUT IT'S BASICALLY ONE STANDALONE SUPPORTIVE SERVICE. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, AT WHAT POINT ARE WE GONNA LOOK AT THE, UH, 1736 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER? I DON'T SEE THEM ON THE LIST. 
          UH, THEY DID NOT SUBMIT A PROPOSAL FOR A NEW PROJECT. 
          THIS IS NEW PROJECT. 
          PROJECT. 
          THESE ARE NEW PROJECT PROPOSALS. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE'LL DISCUSS REALLOCATION LATER IN THE JUDGE. 
          ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS? NONE. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? IF YOU COULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          SEE NONE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BOARD FOUR? MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY, MOVING ON TO JUDGE ITEM NUMBER 3 2 6 DASH 5 5 7 2, WHICH IS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 LONG BEACH COC PROJECT, 
          [00:15:01]
PERFORMANCE SCORING APPEALS RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION? SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN JOSEPH WILL BE PRESENTED. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UH, JOSEPH PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR, UH, HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU, CITY OF LONG BEACH. 
          UM, BEFORE I GO INTO OUR APPEAL ITEMS, UH, I JUST WANT TO START REALLY BY JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE DIFFICULT AND ALL THE PROVIDERS, ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY SERVE VERY IMPORTANT ROLES IN THE COMMUNITY, WORK WITH PEOPLE IN VERY VULNERABLE SITUATIONS. 
          AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS YEAR, MORE SO THAN MOST YEARS, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING TASKED WITH ATTEMPTING TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S NEW PRIORITIES AND ATTEMPT TO SECURE AS MUCH FUNDING AS POSSIBLE, UM, FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH. 
          UH, WITH THE IDEA, YOU KNOW, KIND OF UNDERSTANDING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, MO ABOUT 40% OF OUR PROJECTS ARE NOT GONNA BE VIABLE TO BE FUNDED THROUGH THE COMPETITION AS A RENEWAL PROJECT. 
          UM, AND THAT THERE ARE, UH, ALTERNATIVES WE ARE CONTINUING TO SEEK FOR, UH, I'LL SAY REPLACEMENT FUNDING, MAYBE NOT NECESSARILY REPLACEMENT FUNDING, BUT IN TERMS OF SHIFTING FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT, UM, NOT ONLY THE PROVIDERS, BUT ALL THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE LIVING IN THESE PROJECTS. 
          BECAUSE I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALL SIT IN HERE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DECISION. 
          BUT, YOU KNOW, THOSE FOLKS ARE THE ONES REALLY THAT ARE, UM, BEING AFFECTED BY THE SYSTEM. 
          AND SO, UM, BEFORE WE GET IN, LIKE I SAID, I WOULD BE, UH, REMISS IF I, IF I DIDN'T KIND OF MENTION THAT AND GROUND US A LITTLE BIT. 
          UM, SO FOR TODAY'S DISCUSSION, WE'RE GONNA FOCUS ON APPEAL STANDARDS APPROVED FOR THE COMPETITION. 
          UM, ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE NOT A STATEMENT ABOUT WHETHER A PROJECT OR A PROVIDER SERVICES ARE VALUABLE. 
          THEY'RE FOCUSED ON WHETHER THE APPEALS WE RECEIVE DEMONSTRATED DATA CALCULATION, ELIGIBILITY EXEMPTION, OR REALLOCATION AMOUNT ERRORS UNDER OUR ESTABLISHED PROCESS. 
          UH, SO WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR COC PROJECT PERFORMANCE SCORING APPEALS. 
          UH, THESE ARE SCORING APPEALS THROUGH THE REVIEWERS FOCUS ON WHETHER THE APPEALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED DEMONSTRATED A CORRECTABLE ERROR IN THE PROJECT SCORE OR IN ANY INDIVIDUAL METRICS SCORE. 
          UM, AND THEN WE'RE ASKING YOU ALL TO ACT ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUTHORIZE US TO ISSUE A FILE FINAL APPEAL DETERMINATION LETTERS CONSISTENT WITH ANY BOARD ACTION TAKEN TODAY. 
          UM, AND BY THE END OF TODAY'S MEETING, WE WILL KNOW EVERY SINGLE PROJECT THAT WE WILL BE SUBMITTING TO HUD FOR THE COMPETITION. 
          UH, AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH YOU ALL AS HUD RELEASES THE APPLICATION AS WE, UH, RESPOND TO THE NARRATIVES. 
          AND ULTIMATELY, AS WE FINALLY SUBMIT THAT TO HUD FOR FUNDING CONSIDERATION, PROJECT PERFORMANCE SCORE REPORTS WERE ISSUED TO RENEWAL APPLICANTS. 
          SO THESE ARE RE, UH, OPERATORS OF RENEWAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS ON JULY 14TH, AND THE APPEAL PERIOD CLOSED ON JULY 24TH. 
          UM, THE KEY POINT FOR THIS ITEM IS THE APPEAL STANDARD. 
          SO APPEALS WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF A DATA OR CALCULATION ERROR. 
          THE APPEALS PROCESS WAS NOT INTENDED TO REOPEN THE APPROVED SCORING METHODOLOGY OR RECONSIDER BROADER POLICY PREFERENCES. 
          UH, AND STAFF APPLIED THAT STANDARD CONSISTENTLY TO ALL PROJECTS AND ALL APPEALS. 
          UH, FOR THE PROJECT HARBOR PSH, THE APPEAL COVERED THREE AREAS, EMPLOYMENT, INCOME DEED, OR UNDERSPENT FUNDS, AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO DENY THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE APPEAL DID NOT SHOW THAT THERE WAS INCORRECT DATA THAT WAS USED OR THAT THE SCORE WAS MISCALCULATED. 
          THE CONCERNS REALLY WERE PRIMARILY ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE EMPLOYMENT INCOME TO FOLKS LIVING IN A PSH PROJECT. 
          UM, BUDGET LINE ITEM ALLOCATIONS SPEND DOWN ISSUES RELATED TO, UH, ACTUAL COSTS OF RENT, UH, AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICE DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS REQUESTED IN RESPONSE TO NOFA REQUIREMENTS, UM, THAT ULTIMATELY WAS SUBMITTED AFTER THE DEADLINE. 
          SO, UM, S STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT ALL THESE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED, UM, BUT S STAFF DOES NOT APPEAL THAT THESE MEET THE APPEAL STANDARD FOR SCORING DATA OR CALCULATION ERROR. 
          UH, SO FOR THIS PROJECT, THIS STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO DENY THE APPEAL AND LEAVE THE PROJECT SCORE, UH, UNCHANGED FOR THE SECOND PROJECT, UH, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, UH, T-H-R-R-H JOINT COMPONENT PROJECT, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE APPEAL IN PART AND DENYING IT IN PART, SO, UH, S IN AGREEMENT THAT THE JOINT 
          [00:20:01]
STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN CALCULATING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS METRIC. 
          UH, APPLYING THAT CORRECTED CALCULATION DOESN'T, UH, CHANGE THE SCORE FOR THE TRANSITIONAL COMPONENT, BUT INCREASES THE RAPID REHOUSING COMPONENT SCORE BY 5.2 POINTS. 
          SO WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS, UM, THE TWO DIFFERENT COMPONENTS ARE WEIGHED SEPARATELY, UH, AND THEN THEIR SCORES ARE AVERAGED TOGETHER. 
          UM, WE RECOMMEND, UM, AGAIN, UH, ACCEPTING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS, UH, APPEAL. 
          UM, BUT WE DO RECOMMEND DENYING THE APPEAL TO INCLUDE RAPID REHOUSING STAIRS IN THE COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATION. 
          UM, THIS IS 'CAUSE THE APPROVED SCORING METHODOLOGY DOES TREAT PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND RAPID REHOUSING DIFFERENTLY. 
          UH, PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING EVALUATES THE HOUSEHOLDS THAT REMAIN IN THE PROJECT OR EXIT TO ANOTHER PERMANENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITY, WHILE RAPID REHOUSING ONLY EVALUATES HOUSEHOLDS THAT EXIT TO PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          UM, AND SO THERE IS A DISTINCTION THERE. 
          UM, AND WE ALSO RECOMMEND, UM, JUST SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION, PARDON ME, IN OUR DATA WORKBOOK. 
          UM, SO INSTRUCTIONS REGARDING HOW STAYERS ARE, UM, ARE, ARE APPLIED IN THE CALCULATION IS CLEAR AND THAT IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO PSH PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND THAT STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AGAIN, IS TO APPROVE THE APPEAL IN PART AND ALSO DENY IT IN PART, UH, FOR THE THIRD PROJECT, UM, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, WHICH IS A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          UH, SO THE APPEAL ASKS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY BE CALCULATED USING AVERAGE DAILY OCCUPANCY IS SUBMITTED BY THE AGENCY, UH, RATHER THAN THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, UH, WHAT THEY CALL THE Q OH SEVEN B POINT IN TIME COUNT, UH, FROM THE SUBMITTED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FROM, UH, THAT PARTICIPANT, UM, OR FROM THAT AGENCY. 
          UH, SO STAFF REVIEWED THIS WITH THE DATA MANAGEMENT TEAM, UH, AND WE DID CONFIRM THAT, UH, DOMESTIC PROJECT SERVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS, UM, AS THEY USED COMPARABLE DATABASES THAT THE CITY OF LONG BEACH DOES NOT HAVE OVERSIGHT INTO, UH, RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN THE WAY THAT THESE PROJECTS WERE EVALUATED USING THAT Q OH SEVEN DATA SUBMITTED BY THE PROVIDER, UH, WHICH IS IN TURN SUBMITTED TO HUD BY THE CITY OF LONG BEACH AS THE REPORTING FOR THAT PROJECT'S PERFORMANCE. 
          UH, THE MAIN ISSUE IS THAT THE CITY IS EVALUATING THE COC FUNDED PROJECT, UM, AND NOT THE FULL SHELTER CENSUS THAT IS ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          SO THIS PROJECT IS IDENTIFIED BY SUPPORTING 51 COC BEDS IN ITS PROJECT APPLICATION TO HUD AND IN ITS CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF LONG BEACH. 
          SO THE QUESTION ULTIMATELY WAS WHETHER THE PERSONS OCCUPYING THOSE BEDS WERE ASSIGNED TO AND REPORTED UNDER THE COC FUNDED PROJECT IN THE COMPARABLE DATABASE. 
          AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE AGENCY, THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY REPORTS REFLECTED THE SHELTER'S FULL CENSUS ACROSS FUNDING SOURCES. 
          WHILE THE A PRQ OH SEVEN B POINT IN TIME COUNT REFLECTS THE CLIENTS THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED TO THIS PROJECT. 
          SO THE SOURCES DON'T APPEAR TO MEASURE THE SAME PARTICIPANTS IN THE SAME PROJECT. 
          SO BECAUSE OF THAT, STAFF DOES NOT RECOMMEND SUBSTITUTING THE BROADER MONTHLY SHELTER, UH, SHELTER CENSUS FIGURES FOR THE SUBMITTED A PR DATA FROM THE AGENCY, UH, THAT'S USED FOR SCORING REVIEW AND ALSO, UM, USED BY, USED FOR HUD REPORTING. 
          UM, SO FOR THOSE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENYING THIS APPEAL. 
          UH, SCORING METRICS IDENTIFY FOR REVISION. 
          SO SEPARATE FROM APPEAL DETERMINATIONS, STAFF DID IDENTIFY AREAS WHERE FUTURE SCORING MATERIALS COULD BE CLEARER. 
          THAT INCLUDES HOW DV PROJECTS ARE EVALUATED WHEN THERE'S A COMPARABLE DATABASE RATHER THAN HMIS. 
          UM, THAT ALSO INCLUDES RAPID REHOUSING COST EFFECTIVENESS LANGUAGE, SPECIFICALLY WHEN CALCULATING STAYERS THAT ARE INCLUDED FOR PSH PROJECTS ONLY. 
          UH, AND THEN ALSO COST EFFECTIVENESS FOR JOINT COMPONENT PROJECTS OF WHICH WE HAVE ONE. 
          UM, AND POTENTIALLY EVEN SEPARATING OUT JOINT COMPONENT SCORING AS A WHOLE, GIVING ITS OWN DEDICATED SECTION. 
          SO IT'S A LOT CLEARER RATHER THAN HAVING TO, UH, LOOK AT TWO SEPARATE SCORES FOR THOSE PROVIDERS, UM, FOR THAT ONE PROVIDER. 
          UM, SO THESE CLARIFICATIONS DON'T CHANGE OUR APPEAL DETERMINATIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, BUT WE DO THINK IT'LL PROVE TRANSPARENCY AND ACCURACY MOVING FORWARD. 
          UM, UH, BOARD OF ACTION. 
          SO STEPH NOW REQUESTING THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE FOLLOWING ACTION. 
          SO DENY THE APPEAL FOR HARBOR PSH, UH, APPROVE IN PART AND DENY IN PART THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE T-H-R-R-H APPEAL. 
          UM, DENY THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING APPEAL, UH, AND THEN AUTHORIZE HSB STAFF TO ISSUE FINAL APPEAL DETERMINATION LETTERS CONSISTENT WITH COC BOARD ACTION. 
          UM, AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WE'LL GET INTO OUR REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND APPEALS, WHICH IS SOMEWHAT RELATED WITH A SEPARATE PROCESS. 
          UH, FOR NOW WE ARE ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT, UH, THESE SCORED APPEALS, UM, AND TURNING THINGS OVER TO THE BOARD 
          [00:25:01]
FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE INTERVAL HOUSE. 
          UM, WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT OF A PARTIAL APPEAL? UM, FUNCTIONALLY ZERO. 
          IT, IT WOULD NOT CHANGE YOUR RANK AT ALL. 
          UM, THE SCORE WOULD GO UP BY I THINK A POINT AND A HALF MAYBE. 
          UM, BUT IT, IT'S A SCORE SCORE ONLY. 
          THEY WANTED TO RECEIVE CREDIT FOR THE WORK THAT THEY HAD DONE. 
          AND IN OUR REVIEW, WE FELT AS IF THOUGH THEY WERE RIGHT. 
          UH, AND IT WAS A SMALL ADJUSTMENT, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, ON OUR PART, WE DO FELT LIKE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, NOT INCLUDING THOSE TOGETHER AS ONE COST EFFECTIVENESS METRIC. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, FOR THESE, WHAT IS THE THREE PROJECTS THEY'VE BEEN RECEIVING, LIKE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON THEIR, CAN YOU EVEN ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW? UH, HAVE THEY BEEN RECEIVING LIKE AS FAR AS LIKE HOW TO ACCURATELY REPORT AND WHAT, WHAT ARE THE EXPECTATIONS AND HOW IT FULFILLED THEM? I HAVE NOT PERSONALLY BEEN PROVIDING THEM WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 
          I CANNOT SPEAK FOR OUR PROGRAMS TEAM. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, ULTIMATELY, UH, REPORTING THROUGH, I WILL SAY THIS, UM, MOST PROJECTS IN THE PORTFOLIO, IF NOT ALL, UM, AND YOU CAN GO, I KNOW WE'RE MOVING A LITTLE BIT, SO I WON'T NECESSARILY REFER TO IT, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PROJECT'S GRANT NUMBER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST TWO NUMBERS OF THAT GRANT NUMBER, THAT'S HOW MANY, HOW MANY YEARS THAT PROJECT GENERALLY HAS BEEN IN OPERATION. 
          AND IF YOU GO DOWN OUR LIST, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A LOT OF NUMBERS THAT ARE OVER 10. 
          SO SOME LONG STANDING PROJECTS. 
          UM, SO MOST FOLKS, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE EXTENT OF ASSISTANCE, UH, PROVIDED TO, TO ALL THE PROJECTS. 
          NO. 
          BUT WHEN MISS AZI AWARDS, UM, LIKE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IS INCLUDED IN, IT'S AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY, WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YES. 
          ANY SPEED HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU? YEAH. 
          THE HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU FOR CITY OF LONG BEACH. 
          YEAH. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. 
          ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE COURT? YES, I HAVE ONE. 
          UM, THESE AGENCIES THAT KNOW THAT WE GONNA DENY YOUR APPEAL AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WILL THEY BE RECONSIDERED? UM, SO IT'S A DIFFICULT QUESTION BECAUSE WHAT EFFECTIVELY THESE PROJECTS, THESE SCORES, UH, ON THESE SPECIFIC, SO THESE ARE SCORE RECOMMENDATIONS, RIGHT? AND SCORING CAN HAVE IMPLICATIONS ON, UH, REALLOCATION OBVIOUSLY. 
          RIGHT? UM, SO ALL PROJECTS, ALL PROVIDERS, I SHOULD SAY, RIGHT? ALL PROVIDERS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REAPPLY FOR FUNDING THROUGH THE LOCAL PROCUREMENT RFP PROCESS. 
          THAT'S HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT FOR THE CITY OF LONG BEACH. 
          BUT THAT'S ALSO WHAT HUD REQUIRES AS WELL. 
          HUD REQUIRES THAT YOU HOLD A LOCAL COMPETITION, UM, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, UNLESS THERE IS A KIND OF SEVERE DEFICIENCY, UM, THAT IS IDENTIFIED AT SOME POINT DURING MONITORING, UM, THAT WE'RE NOT RESTRICTIVE OF PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE A, A POOR PERFORMANCE THAT RESULT IN REALLOCATION FROM REAPPLYING FOR, FOR FUNDING. 
          SO THERE WAS NO RESTRICTION FOR FOLKS TO APPLY FOR NEW FUNDING THROUGH THIS COMPETITION. 
          UH, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE WON'T BE ANY FOR THE FUTURE. 
          UM, AND IF THE PROJECT DESIGN IS VERY SIMILAR TO THESE PROJECTS, THEN THAT'S SHOULD BE FINE. 
          'CAUSE IT'S NO LONGER A PROJECT IN OPERATION. 
          ULTIMATELY, LIKE HUD IS REALLY MOST CONCERNED WITH, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, REPLACEMENT FUNDING, LIKE SAYING, OKAY, WELL WE'RE PAYING FOR SOMETHING, UH, YOU KNOW, FROM THE CITY AND THEN THIS EXACT, WE'RE JUST GONNA REPLACE THE MONEY AND DO NOTHING ELSE, RIGHT? THAT'S REALLY WHERE HUD'S MOST CONCERNED. 
          BUT A VERY SIMILAR PROJECT THAT'D BE PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE. 
          UH, AND YOU KNOW, IT POTENTIALLY MAY HAVE BEEN PROPOSED THROUGH OUR RFP, UM, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT PASSED ALL OUR OF REVIEW, THEN IT WOULD BE, UH, ACCEPTED AND AND RANKED AND SUBMITTED TO HUNT FOR FUNDING CONSIDERATION. 
          YES. 
          IF THAT'S, IF HOPEFULLY THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. 
          YEAH. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THESE, UH, ORGANIZATIONS ARE ACTUALLY GOOD. 
          THEY'RE DOING POSITIVE THINGS, YOU KNOW, OVERALL, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE IS NOT BENEFITING. 
          BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THEM AND, AND HOPE, AND THAT'S MY REASON, UM, IF I CAN ADD A LITTLE BIT OF, IF THIS IS HELPFUL. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, HUD EVERY YEAR, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE COMPETITION IS STRUCTURED, STILL REQUIRES THE FUL COC TO ESTABLISH, UM, UH, SCORING AND RANKING FOR ALL THE PROJECTS IN THE COC 
          [00:30:01]
AND REQUIRES US TO HAVE POLICIES AND METHODOLOGIES THAT ARE, UH, TRANSPARENT, FAIR, AVAILABLE, ADOPTED BY THE BOARD. 
          AND SO EVERY YEAR WE GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO DEVELOP METHODOLOGY, THE PRO THE, UH, POLICY PRESENTED FOR ADOPTION AND THEN APPLY THAT TO, UM, THE PROJECT BASED OFF OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN AGREED TO FOR HOW YOU RANK AND SCORE. 
          AND EVERY YEAR SOMEONE IS SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION, DEPENDING ON, UH, HOW HUD HAS WEIGHTED THE, THE TIERING TYPICALLY, UM, REALLOCATION, UM, HAS BEEN LESS AGGRESSIVE. 
          YOU KNOW, 90 TO 93% OF THE FUNDS RENEW EVERY YEAR, BUT THAT BOTTOM SEVEN TO 10% IS SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION. 
          UH, AND THIS YEAR IT'S THAT SAME PROCESS WITH THE ADDED ELEMENT OF BEING REQUIRED ESSENTIALLY TO REALLOCATE, REPROGRAM 40% OF YOUR PORTFOLIO. 
          'CAUSE ONLY 60% GOES INTO TIER ONE. 
          SO WE ARE ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED TO THEN APPLY THAT MORE AGGRESSIVE REALLOCATION STANDARD TO THE SAME RANKING AND SCORING, WHICH MEANS INEVITABLY PROJECTS WILL BE SELECTED FOR REALLOCATION. 
          UM, WHAT I'LL SAY IN RESPONSE AS FAR AS, UM, I THINK SORT OF ECHOING CONCERN AROUND NOT WANTING FOLKS TO, UM, UH, TO HAVE THAT RESULT IN LIKE DISRUPTION OR DISPLACEMENT OF HOUSING, OF STAFF, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. 
          UM, THE, UH, THE NOFO INCLUDES FUNDS FOR NEW PROJECTS THAT COULD BE PROPOSED, WHICH WE JUST, UH, PRESENTED. 
          SOME OF THOSE WILL INCLUDE PROJECTS THAT DON'T YET, IF A PROVIDER IDENTIFIED THAT THE, THE BUREAU WILL SERVICE THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE WILL RELEASE OUR OWN NOTICE OF FUNDING. 
          UM, AND SO ANYONE, WHETHER THERE THEY WERE REALLOCATED OR NOT, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR THAT AS ESSENTIALLY REPLACEMENT FUNDS, SO LONG AS IT ALIGNS. 
          AND THEN, UM, SEPARATELY, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE CHANGES THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST OR THE NEXT YEAR. 
          SO WE ARE IN CONVERSATION WITH OTHER FUNDERS AROUND, UM, FUNDING TO STABILIZE, UH, PERMANENT HOUSING IN PARTICULAR, UM, WITH SOME TENTATIVE AGREEMENT THAT PROBABLY REQUIRES SOME REFINEMENT. 
          WE CAN DISCUSS MORE LATER WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. 
          BUT, UM, I THINK WE ECHO YOUR CONCERNS AROUND, YOU KNOW, UM, THE NATURE IN WHICH THIS YEAR'S REALLOCATION HAS BEEN, UM, SORT OF THRUST UPON US, UH, AND WHAT THAT MEANS AND WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE APPROACH THIS IN A WAY THAT MINIMIZES DISRUPTION AND DISPLACEMENT. 
          UM, ALRIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, FIRST LET ME ASK FOR FORGIVENESS TO EVERYBODY. 
          AS I SAID, THIS IS ALL NEW TO ME AND I KNOW I WILL BE ASKING A LOT OF DETAILED QUESTIONS. 
          SO IF I ASK A QUESTION THAT I GUESS YOU FEEL, WELL, THAT'S GONNA TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME. 
          PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO SAY, WELL, VALERIE WILL TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT LATER. 
          YEAH, NO WORRIES. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          IS IT POSSIBLE FOR, YOU KNOW, EACH ONE OF THESE THAT ARE DENIED? CAN SOMEONE JUST GIVE ME LIKE A VERY LAYMAN ONE SENTENCE WHY THEY'RE BEING DENIED APPEAL OR THAT, UM, YEAH, I CAN, LET ME GO BACK. 
          UM, LET ME DO EACH ONE QUICKLY. 
          UH, SO THE FIRST ONE, THEY DID NOT ACTUALLY SAY THAT THERE WAS ANY INCORRECT DATA. 
          THEY JUST DISAGREED WITH THE METRICS. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, THE SECOND ONE, UH, DENYING PART ONE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE, INCLUDING RAPID REHOUSING STAIRS. 
          SO THE REASON WHY IS RAPID REHOUSING IS TIME LIMITED. 
          OKAY? RIGHT. 
          PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS PERMANENT. 
          SO IF YOU STAY IN PERMANENT HOUSING OR YOU MOVE OUT OF PERMANENT HOUSING INTO SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S PERMANENT HOUSING, THOSE PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED STABLE MOVING FORWARD. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT RAPID REHOUSING, STAYING IN RAPID REHOUSING DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN YOU'RE GONNA BE STABLE IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IN TWO YEARS THAT FUNDING IS GONNA RUN OUT. 
          SO WE'RE NOT INCLUDING RAPID REHOUSING STAYERS BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK THAT A STAYER IN RAPID REHOUSING IS NECESSARILY STABLE LONG TERM. 
          UH, WHAT WE ACCEPTED WAS THE IDEA THAT WHEN WE TAKE THE PROJECT BUDGET, THEY HAVE OUTCOMES FOR THE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING COMPONENT. 
          THEY HAVE OUTCOMES FOR THE RAPID REHOUSING COMPONENT. 
          WE CALCULATED THOSE SEPARATELY BECAUSE WE SCORE THEM SEPARATELY. 
          BUT THEY'RE LIKE, WELL TECHNICALLY THIS IS ONLY ONE PROJECT BUDGET. 
          YOU'RE KIND OF DOUBLING OUR BUDGET. 
          AND SO WE SAID, YEAH, YOU'RE KIND OF RIGHT. 
          WE SHOULD JUST TAKE ALL YOUR POSITIVE OUTCOMES, ADD THEM TOGETHER AND USE THAT INSTEAD. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO IT WAS, RATHER THAN SAYING TWO FROM TRANSITIONAL HOUSING 'CAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT SMALLER TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY, UH, AS WELL THAT MAYBE UNFAMILIAR WITH JOINT COMPONENT PROJECTS. 
          SO JOINT COMPONENT PROJECT OPERATES BOTH TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND RAPID REHOUSING. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU HAVE TO GO INTO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING BEFORE YOU GO TO RAPID REHOUSING. 
          THEY CAN SERVE FOLKS 
          [00:35:01]
IN ONLY ONE COMPONENT. 
          THEY COULD SERVE SOMEONE IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND THEY MOVE RIGHT TO PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          THEY COULD ENROLL SOMEONE AND THEY'RE READY FOR RAPID REHOUSING 'CAUSE THEY HAVE A JOB ALREADY. 
          SO IT DOES, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A FLOW FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. 
          AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS KIND OF A FAIR ARGUMENT. 
          UM, FOR THIS ONE, UM, BASICALLY WE RECEIVED, UM, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WE MONITOR MONTHLY OCCUPANCY. 
          AND SO WE HAVE A DASHBOARD THAT SPITS OUT A REPORT THAT OUR STAFF SENDS OUT TO FOLKS TO LET THEM KNOW AND MONITOR IT. 
          UH, DV PROJECTS THAT SERVE SURVIVORS, THEY USE A COMPARABLE DATABASE. 
          SO WE ASKED FOR THEM TO SEND US A REPORT. 
          UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT REPORT AND WE LOOKED AT VERY SPECIFIC DATES AND COMPARED THAT TO REPORTED DATES IN THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, THE PARTICIPANTS ENROLLED DIDN'T MATCH. 
          THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF ABOUT 20 PARTICIPANTS. 
          IT WENT, THE A PR SAID 27, THE MONTHLY REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN EXCEL SAID 47, AND THIS IS OUT OF 51. 
          SO FOR THIS ONE, WE ASKED FOR AN EXPLANATION AND THEY BASICALLY SAID, WELL, THE A PR IS ONLY COUNTING THE COC FUNDED BEDS, THE MONTHLY REPORT COUNTS ALL THE BEDS, SO OF ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          SO WE SAID, OKAY, SO IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE WE'RE NOT REALLY CONCERNED WITH ALL THE BEDS. 
          WE'RE ONLY CONCERNED WITH THE ONES THAT ARE FUNDED BY COC AND THOSE 51 BEDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY COC. 
          UM, AND SO WE DIDN'T FEEL AS IF THOUGH WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY. 
          AND BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE DIRECT OVERSIGHT INTO THE DATA, WE HAVE TO TAKE THE INFORMATION THAT WE WERE RECEIVED AND THE EXPLANATION WE RECEIVED AND THE EXPLANATION WE RECEIVED SEEMED TO SUPPORT WHAT WE BELIEVED, WHICH WAS THAT THE NUMBERS WEREN'T REALLY AFFECTING THE SAME THING. 
          AND THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT IS THE THING THAT WE SUBMIT TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT SAYS WHAT THE PERFORMANCE OF THE PROJECTS ARE DOING. 
          SO WE FEEL LIKE THAT ONE HOLDS A LOT MORE WEIGHT. 
          WHERE THE BIGGEST ISSUE, I THINK WITH THIS ONE WAS, WAS THE DISCREPANCY. 
          AND THIS IS PROBABLY JUST A NEED FOR US INTERNALLY TO IMPROVE OUR COMMUNICATION. 
          UM, OUR SCORING POLICY CONTAINS DEFINITIONS WITHIN IT, UM, WHICH I'M THINKING MOVING FORWARD, MAYBE WE SHOULD SEPARATE THAT OUT SIMILAR TO HOW I HAD IN MY PREVIOUS JOB IN LA. 
          UM, BUT THE DEFINITION EFFECTIVELY SAYS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THEY DO, UM, COMPLETE FOR PROJECTS THAT USE H-M-I-S-A HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM, WHICH IS THEY'RE ABLE TO RUN A REPORT THAT LOOKS AT OCCUPANCY FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, DIVIDES IT BY 365, THE NUMBER OF DAYS A YEAR, AND GET AN AVERAGE. 
          UM, IT, WE CAN'T DO THAT DIRECTLY FOR PROJECTS TO SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS. 
          SO THEY'VE ALWAYS HISTORICALLY USED THIS THAT COMMUNICATION DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
          SO THAT, LIKE, IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, ENSURING THAT THE SCORING METHODOLOGY EXPLAIN THAT DISTINCTION. 
          AND SO THAT WAS ALSO PART OF THE APPEAL. 
          UM, I SAID ALL DB PROJECTS WERE, UM, EVALUATED IN THE SAME WAY. 
          AND SO UNFORTUNATELY, LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS JUST, UH, SOME MISALIGNMENT IN THE EXPLANATION FOR HOW THAT WAS. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY TRYING TO DIG DEEPER INTO THE DATA, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO KIND OF RECONCILE THEM. 
          SO WE WENT WITH THE OFFICIAL REPORT RATHER THAN THE UNOFFICIAL REPORT. 
          UH, AND THEN FOR, OH, I, I'M SORRY. 
          THAT WAS THE THE THIRD ONE. 
          SORRY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ON THAT. 
          SAME YES, THAT SAME THING. 
          THEY WERE, THIS, ACCORDING TO THIS CHART, THEIR SCORE IS 86%. 
          IT'S A PRETTY HIGH SCORE, AND STILL THEY GOT WILL BE REALLOCATED, UH, BASED ON THEIR DATA, WHICH WE DON'T OVER OVERSEE. 
          BUT THE SCORE DOESN'T REFLECT THE SCORE IS BASED ON THEIR DATA. 
          HUH? THE SCORE IS BASED ON THE DATA THAT THEY SUBMIT TO US. 
          WE HAVE NO OVERSIGHT INTO THEIR DATA. 
          YEAH, BUT THIS IS 86. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE, WE DON'T HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER AND WE DON'T TRUST THEIR NAME. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT. 
          I'M JUST, YOU'RE YOU'RE ASKING ME. 
          YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE A SCORE THAT IS TRUE. 
          UM, BUT SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS ONE SCORE DOESN'T MEAN OTHER STANDARDS ARE BEING MET. 
          SO IF YOU FULLY EXPEND YOUR PROJECT, IF I SPEND, IF I HAVE A PROJECT THAT'S WORTH A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND I SPEND ALL THAT MONEY, BUT I ONLY HAVE ONE POSITIVE OUTCOME, WELL, MY SPEND DOWN'S GREAT. 
          I SPEND DOWN A HUNDRED PERCENT OF MY FUNDS. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MULTIPLE MEASURES, MULTIPLE PERFORMANCE MEASURES, MULTIPLE REALLOCATION MEASURES IS MEANT TO LOOK AT IT HOLISTICALLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          THERE ARE MULTIPLE COMPONENTS THAT MAKE A PROJECT SUCCESS. 
          THIS WAS GOING ON FOR A YEAR, THEN WHY DIDN'T YOU CATCH IT EARLIER? WE ONLY RECEIVED THE PERFORMANCE REPORT AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          ALSO, THERE'S ONLY ONE REPORT. 
          THE ANNUAL 
          [00:40:01]
PERFORMANCE REPORT COMES AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          CORRECT? YES. 
          SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T GET REPORTED MONTHLY. 
          WE DID GET THE MONTHLY REPORTS AND WE WERE UNABLE TO RECONCILE THEM WITH THE FINAL REPORT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          THAT WAS KIND OF THE ISSUE. 
          ARE, IS THERE ANY PLAN TO PUT THEM ON HMIF TO GET THEM TO USE IT? WELL, THEY SUR SURVIVE. 
          THEY, THEY WORK WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS. 
          AND SO THEY DON'T USE THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR CONFIDENTIALITY REASONS. 
          SO IT'S ACTUALLY PROHIBITED. 
          THEY CAN'T USE THE HOMELESS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM. 
          THE CITY OF LONG BEACH WOULD HAVE TO GET ENOUGH FUNDING TOGETHER TO DEVELOP OUR OWN SYSTEM THAT'S SPECIFIC TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE POPULATIONS THAT ONLY FOLKS THAT HAVE CERTAIN CERTIFICATIONS, CERTAIN TRAININGS, CERTAIN TYPES OF PROJECTS CAN THEN OPERATE. 
          AND THEN WE OVERSEE THAT SYSTEM, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD GOAL. 
          UM, IT IS HARD BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WHILE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POPULATION, I MEAN, EVEN LOS ANGELES AS A WHOLE DOESN'T HAVE A UNIFIED SYSTEM FOR, FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE POPULATIONS. 
          UH, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT. 
          UM, BUT I, I DO THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD GOAL TO HAVE. 
          UM, UNFORTUNATELY AT THIS TIME, LIKE I SAID, WE, WE HAVE TO USE SUBMITTED DATA. 
          AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THIS RECOMMENDATION ISN'T REALLY ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE REALLOCATION. 
          THAT'S THE NEXT ONE. 
          THIS IS ONLY ON THE PROJECT SCORE FOR THAT ONE METRIC. 
          SO WE CAN DEFINITELY GET INTO MORE OF THAT CONVERSATION. 
          BUT FOR THIS SPECIFIC METRIC OF OCCUPANCY, UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SUCH SIMPLY BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL PROJECT DATA THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE A PR THAT WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT TO HUD, UM, IT SHOWS A MUCH LOWER AMOUNT THAN THE MONTHLY, UH, DATA AND THEN THE EXPLANATION WE WERE PROVIDED, WHICH IS ALSO, UM, THERE WAS, UH, SUBMITTED PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S FOR THIS ITEM OR THE NEXT ITEM FROM 1736. 
          UM, IT WAS THE NEXT ITEM. 
          NO, THIS ONE. 
          OH, IT WAS, IT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKET. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I CAN REFER IT TO THE SENTENCE THAT I AM, UH, THAT I AM, UH, GETTING. 
          HERE WE GO. 
          UM, IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE PARAGRAPH TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, UH, THAT STARTS WITH THE CITY'S CORRESPONDENCE. 
          UM, SO THE CITY'S CORRESPONDENCE IS FOCUSED ON A PRQ OH SEVEN COUNTS FROM THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF EACH QUARTER. 
          THESE QUARTERLY SNAPSHOTS DO NOT BY THEMSELVES CALCULATE AVERAGE DAILY ENROLLMENT THROUGHOUT THE REPORTING YEAR. 
          THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY REPORTS IN A PRQ OH SEVEN D ALSO MEASURE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. 
          THE MONTHLY REPORTS REFLECT THE TOTAL CENSUS OF THE 51 BED FACILITY ACROSS MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES. 
          A PRQ OH SEVEN REFLECTS PARTICIPANTS ENROLLED IN CA OH 6 2 7, WHICH IS THE PIN FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          ON PARTICULAR REPORTING DATES, UH, NEITHER THE SHELTER WIDE CENSUS NOR FOR QUARTERLY SNAPSHOTS SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE METHODOLOGY. 
          SO HERE THEY'RE CORRECTLY POINTING OUT, AS I SAID, THE, THERE WAS NOT A RECONCILIATION IN THE DESCRIPTION IN THE SCORING POLICY THAT DV PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY DON'T USE HMIS HAVE TO BE SCORED IN A DIFFERENT WAY. 
          UM, THE THING THAT KIND OF JUMPED OUT AT ME WAS THAT THEY MEASURED DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. 
          UM, IF WE'RE REQUESTING, IF I WERE TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND I WERE TO SAY, PAT, UM, SEND ME A MONTHLY REPORT OF HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE IN YOUR BEDS EACH DAY, AND THEN YOU SEND IT TO ME, AND THEN I LOOKED AT A SPECIFIC DATE ON THAT DAY, AND THAT DATE CORRESPONDED WITH THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT YOU SUBMITTED TO ME. 
          AND THAT IS LOOKING AT A CERTAIN DATE. 
          I THINK WE WOULD AGREE, EVEN IF WE AGREE, DISAGREE ON OTHER THINGS, THAT THOSE TWO NUMBERS SHOULD MATCH EXACTLY WHAT THE RESPONSE WE RECEIVED WAS, WAS THAT THE MONTHLY REPORT IS ACTUALLY MEASURING MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES ACROSS POTENTIALLY MULTIPLE PROJECTS. 
          ALTHOUGH THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT IS MEANT TO BE 51 BEDS. 
          SO THE OFFICIAL REPORT THAT WE'RE SUBMITTING TO HUD, WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH IS LIKELY MORE ACCURATE, ALTHOUGH IT ADMITTEDLY DOES NOT ADHERE TO THE SCORING METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF THAT METRIC. 
          SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THAT, UM, ENDED UP IN, IN, IN LOOKING AT THE DATA AND TRYING TO RECONCILE WHY IS THIS NUMBER DIFFERENT? WHY IS THIS NUMBER DIFFERENT? UM, AND IT, AND IT SEEMS AS IF THOUGH, THAT IT'S BECAUSE THEY WERE MEASURING DIFFERENT DATA. 
          SO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ONE THAT WE WERE TOLD IS MEASURING THE DATA FOR THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, NOT FOR MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES. 
          HOW DOES INTERVAL HOUSE GET AROUND THAT, UM, THAT RESTRICTION, THAT 
          [00:45:01]
HMIS RESTRICTION? DO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DATABASE AS WELL? UH, THEY, ANY PROJECT THAT SERVES DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS, THEY CAN USE ANY, AT THIS POINT, IT'S ANY COMPARABLE DATABASE. 
          SO THAT HUD DEFINES AS A COMPARATIVE, THEY HAVE A LIST OF KIND OF CHECK BOXES AND THERE ARE VARIOUS VENDORS THAT PROVIDE THAT SUPPORT. 
          SO, UM, THEY DO THE SAME THING. 
          SO AT THE END OF THE, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THEY SUBMIT THEIR, UH, ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, AND THEN WE USE THAT ESSENTIALLY FOR DATA EVALUATION THAT WE SUBMIT IN ONE BIG PACKAGE TO HU AT THE END OF THE YEAR. 
          UH, THERE'S, UH, WELL THERE WAS NOT A NOT SAME PROBLEM. 
          WELL, THERE WAS NOT A DISCREPANCY THAT WAS IDENTIFIED. 
          CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT. 
          I JUST NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          YEAH, CORRECT. 
          YEAH. 
          THERE, THERE, YEAH. 
          THERE WASN'T A DISCREPANCY IN, UH, FOR THE OTHER PROJECT , UH, JOSEPH, YES. 
          PRIOR TO THE PANDEMIC, WHAT WAS THEIR PERFORMANCE? OR BASICALLY, DO WE JUST GO BACK TO PREVIOUS YEAR OR DO WE GO BACK MULTIPLE YEARS WHEN THE PERFORMANCES, UH, SECTION ONE OF THE PERFORMANCE METHODOLOGY, SO THAT INCLUDES RE RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY, UM, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYMENT INCOME, UH, RETURNS TO HOMELESSNESS IS, IT IS WEIGHTED. 
          SO THAT GOES, AND THAT WON'T BE IN, IN YOUR MATERIALS TODAY, THAT'LL BE UNDER THE PERFORMANCE SCORING METHODOLOGY THAT WE REVIEWED LAST MONTH. 
          SO IT'S A 60%, UH, OF THE MOST RECENT TERM THAT ENDED 30% OF THE PREVIOUS TERM. 
          UH, AND THEN 10% OF THE PREVIOUS TERM BEFORE THAT. 
          SO THE SECTION ONE PROJECT PERFORMANCE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE RELATIVELY, SOME PROJECTS ARE RELATIVELY SMALL. 
          UM, WE DO USE SOME WEIGHT OVER YEARS. 
          UM, WE DON'T, UH, LOOK AT THIS YEAR PLUS LAST YEAR. 
          UM, THEY'RE JUST WEIGHTED. 
          SO THE MOST RECENT YEAR IS THE HIGHEST PORTION OF THAT SCORE. 
          UM, AND THE LEAST RECENT YEAR IS THE LOWEST PORTION. 
          SO FOR THIS, UH, FOR THIS YEAR, AND I'M SAYING THIS IS MAYBE A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS, UM, FOR A SPECIAL NOFO PROJECT, UM, THE 60% OF A PROJECT SCORE IN SECTION ONE, WHICH IS THE, UM, BASICALLY SERVICES PORTION, UH, WAS THE JULY 1ST, 2025 TO JUNE 30TH, 2026 PERIOD. 
          SO REAL REASON, AND WE ASKED FOLKS, BASICALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE FIVE DAYS AFTER THE END OF THE TERM TO UPDATE YOUR DATA IS WHAT OUR POLICY IS. 
          SO WE PROVIDED FOLKS REMINDERS, YOU NEED TO GET THIS SUBMITTED AND THEN FOR, OR, YOU KNOW, UPDATED. 
          AND FOR OUR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS, YOU NEED TO SUBMIT IT TO US BY THE FOLLOWING DAY. 
          SO THE DAY AFTER YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO COMPLETE IT. 
          UM, AND THEN AGAIN, SO THE PREVIOUS TERM BEFORE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN JULY 1ST, 24 TO JULY 30TH, 25, AND THEN 23 TO 24. 
          SO THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW IT WORKS. 
          AND THEN AS A REMINDER IN THE FISCAL PERFORMANCE SECTIONS, BECAUSE FOLKS HAVE EXTRA TIME TO SUBMIT THEIR BILLING, WHAT WE DID WAS, AND THIS WILL COME UP IN THE NEXT ONE, SO I'LL EXPLAIN THIS NOW AND MAYBE IT'LL HELP, UH, WITH THE OTHER, WITH SOME OF THE OTHER APPEALS. 
          UM, WHAT WE DID WAS WE LOOKED AT THE TERM, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE UNDERSTOOD, WELL, PEOPLE AREN'T GONNA BE ABLE TO SUBMIT ALL OF THEIR BILLING BY THE TIME BECAUSE IT'S A EAR VERY EARLY COMPETITION. 
          RIGHT? SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE USED A PRORATED AMOUNT. 
          SO LET'S SAY YOU, I'M GONNA USE A ROUND NUMBER 'CAUSE IT'S EASIEST. 
          LET'S SAY YOU HAD A $120,000 PROJECT THAT BASICALLY MEANS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SPEND AN AVERAGE OF 10,000 A MONTH, RIGHT? SO WE SAID, OKAY, LET'S LOOK AT THIS AS AN 11 MONTH BUDGET. 
          SO LET'S LOOK AT, UH, 110,000. 
          AND THEN LET'S SAY, UH, RATHER THAN, YOU KNOW, USING RECEIPTS ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THE TERM, JUNE 30TH, WE'LL USE EVERYTHING THROUGH THE END OF MAY. 
          AND SO AGAIN, WE KIND OF REACHED OUT TO FOLKS AND SAID, UM, OKAY, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO USE A PRORATED BUDGET BECAUSE WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE COMPETITION. 
          'CAUSE HUD HAS RELEASED IT SO MUCH EARLIER. 
          AND SO MAKE SURE YOU SUBMIT ALL YOUR RECEIPTS BY SUCH AND SUCH A DATE, AND THEN WE'LL USE THAT PRORATED AMOUNT WITH THE PRORATED BUDGET TO CALCULATE YOUR SPEND DOWN AND ULTIMATELY IN OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, OTHER POTENTIAL REALLOCATION FACTORS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, AND WE DID LOOK BACK HISTORICALLY, UM, TO SEE LIKE, DID THAT PROJECT, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO SPEND $10,000 A MONTH, WAS THERE A PATTERN OF THEM SUBMITTING 20, 30,000 THE LAST MONTH AND REALLY TRYING TO GET THAT SPEND DOWN? AND WE DIDN'T REALLY SEE THAT. 
          UM, IT, IT KIND OF UPTICK A LITTLE BIT, UM, PARTICULARLY FOR PROJECTS, UM, THAT HAVE A LOT OF SPEND DOWN, BUT THAT'S USUALLY WHAT WE SAW. 
          PROJECTS THAT FULLY SPENT THEIR BUDGETS USUALLY HAVE ALMOST FULLY SPENT THEM BY MAY. 
          [00:50:01]
UH, AND THE ONES THAT END UP THE OBLIGATING A A LARGE NUMBER OF FUNDS, UH, USUALLY ARE NOT INCREASING THEIR BILLING AT THE END. 
          MAYBE VERY SMALL, BUT WE DIDN'T FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT WAS JUST SIGNIFICANT. 
          IT WAS MAYBE A FEW PERCENTAGES HIGHER IN THAT LAST MONTH. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT'LL ALSO KIND OF SET US UP FOR THE, FOR THE NEXT, UH, CONVERSATION AS WELL. 
          BUT HOPEFULLY THAT ALSO CLARIFIED THAT YOU MENTIONED THEY NORMALLY SPEND DOWN BY MAY. 
          AND WHEN YOU SAY THAT EVEN THOUGH THE FISCAL YEAR IS JUNE 30TH AND, AND YOU KNOW, PROBABLY STARTED DOING IT IN JANUARY OF THAT YEAR, I'M JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, IS THERE ANY FRIVOLOUS TYPE SPENDING IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS TO SPEND THE MONEY? UM, YEAH. 
          SO OUR TEAM DOES A HUNDRED PERCENT DOCUMENTATION REVIEW ON, ON, UM, FEDERAL, UH, FEDERAL EXPENDITURE. 
          SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY A DESK AUDIT EVERY MONTH. 
          IT'S, I THINK IF YOU'RE A PROVIDER, YOU'LL PROBABLY AGREE THAT IT'S PRETTY ADMINISTRATIVELY BURDENSOME ON BOTH SIDES, BUT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY DOING A DESK AUDIT EVERY MONTH. 
          SO, UM, INELIGIBLE AND INELIGIBLE COSTS ARE FLAGGED. 
          THERE'S A, UM, DISA ALLOWANCES REPORTS THAT GET SUBMITTED IN THE EVENT. 
          WE FIND SOMETHING THAT WAS, UM, NOT DOCUMENTED APPROPRIATELY, NOT ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT, WAS NOT A PART OF AN APPROVED BUDGET. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, COSTS WERE NOT, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE, ELIGIBLE, ALLOWABLE THAT. 
          SO, UM, THAT'S THE PART OF THE TEST IS MAKING SURE COSTS ARE REASONABLE, ALLOWABLE, DOCUMENTED, UM, AND ALL THAT. 
          SO, UM, SOMETHING LIKE, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS LIKE, BECAUSE FUNDS ARE RETURNED AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, SORT OF BEING ENCOURAGED TO FULLY SPEND DOWN, UM, WE DO WANT TO ENCOURAGE FULL UTILIZATION OF FUNDS TO MAKE SURE THAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED, YOU KNOW, BROADLY TO AS MANY ELIGIBLE PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE. 
          BUT WE'RE ALSO, UM, REVIEWING FOR APPROPRIATENESS OF, OF EXPENDITURE. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, JOSEPH. 
          UH, HAVE ANY, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ON THIS. 
          NO, YOU'RE GOOD, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          I'M IN, I'M IN THAT COMMITTEE. 
           . 
          I'M IN THAT COMMITTEE AND, UM, I THANK YOU FOR SAYING THIS. 
          YEAH. 
          DON'T THANK ME YET. 
          WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE MONTH AFTER WE SUBMITS A HU THANK YOU FOR SAYING MAYBE DECEMBER WHEN WE HEAR THE RESULTS. 
          UM, BUT WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY IS, THE GOOD THING IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE THERE, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS, UH, AS WELL, BUT WE DID HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, A REALLOCATION ONE TIME REALLOCATION CONVERSATION A FEW MONTHS AGO. 
          AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE PROMISED TO DO WAS BRING MORE TIMELY SPENDING, UH, REPORTS BEFORE THE BOARD. 
          SO WE WANNA DO THAT AT LEAST QUARTERLY. 
          UM, WE FEEL LIKE IT'LL BE HARD AT THE BEGINNING TO USE THAT INFORMATION TO REALLY GAUGE HOW FOLKS ARE DOING, BUT WE'RE HOPING BY LIKE MIDWAY THROUGH THE YEAR, IF WE HAVE LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE SLATE THAT FOR EXAMPLE, FOR A JANUARY MEETING OR SO, UM, WE'LL BE ABLE TO HAVE A GOOD, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS ARE USUALLY AT THE END OF JULY, YOU DON'T USUALLY HAVE A TON OF INVOICES, RIGHT? YOU ARE USUALLY WAITING A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO GET THOSE INVOICES IN. 
          SO WE THINK THAT PROBABLY A A A SIX MONTH RUNUP PERIOD WAIT TILL AFTER THE NEW YEAR, UH, FOLKS PROBABLY HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF INVOICES IN, WILL GIVE US A GOOD PLACE TO SIT DOWN AND KIND OF LOOK AT THE PORTFOLIO SPENDING AND BE ABLE TO KIND OF DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE NEEDS TO BE POTENTIAL SHIFTS MADE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          BUT I DON'T WANNA GET TOO MUCH INTO THAT 'CAUSE IT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF HERE. 
          BUT YEAH. 
          ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS? SEE, NONE. 
          UM, THERE ARE A FEW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAD SIGNED UP. 
          UH, THE FIRST ONE IS PABLO ESCO. 
          UM, IF YOU WANT TO, YOU, YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN THERE'S JUST GONNA BE A TWO MINUTE TIMER. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          POP LIKE THE  MM-HMM . 
          UM, AND THE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL SERVICES FOR 1736 BY THE CRISIS CENTER. 
          UM, IT'S MY, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT THAT'S IN THE RECORD, SO I WON'T GO OVER, UH, THOSE POINTS. 
          UM, UH, WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT BEEN SAID, UM, WHICH IS THAT THE DATA THAT'S BEING USED TO EVALUATE 1736 BY DEFINITION IS NOT LIKE HMIS WHERE YOU CAN JUST INPUT NUMBERS. 
          UM, IT, WE ARE BEING BY THE STAFFS ZONE ADMISSION, UNFORTUNATELY BEING NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BECAUSE WE USE A DIFFERENT SCORING SYSTEM OR A DIFFERENT SYSTEM OF PROVIDING THE DATA, UH, CONCERNING THE OCCUPANTS OF OUR SHELTER. 
          AND THE SYSTEM THAT WAS USED WAS FOUR DATES, FOUR SPECIFIC DATES ON THESE FOUR DATES. 
          HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE THERE 
          [00:55:01]
THE DAY BEFORE? IT COULD HAVE BEEN DOUBLE THAT AMOUNT THE DAY AFTER. 
          COULD HAVE BEEN HALF THAT AMOUNT. 
          WE DON'T KNOW ONLY THOSE FOUR DATES WERE USED. 
          AND WHEN WE START LOOKING AT OTHER DATA MEASURES THAT WE HAVE, WE SEE THAT THE NUMBERS ARE ACTUALLY A LOT HIGHER BY THE ADMISSION OF THE STAFF HERE. 
          IT SAYS THAT FUTURE SCORING MATERIALS SHOULD MORE CLEARLY IDENTIFY A PR COMPARABLE DATABASES WHEN DEALING WITH DV PROJECTS. 
          SO DV PROJECTS, BY DEFINITION, NOT THROUGH THE FOLLOW THEIR OWN, BUT BY THE LAW, ARE BEING NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THESE SYSTEMS THAT PROTECT PEOPLE'S IDENTITY AND SAFETY. 
          OKAY? WE ARE BEING PENALIZED FOR THIS. 
          AND IT IS A VERY DRACONIAN MEASURE THAT'S BEING USED AS EVEN SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ARE SEEING THAT OUR SCORE IS SLIGHTLY LESS THAN OTHERS, YET WE'RE BEING RECOMMENDED TO BE REALLOCATED, WHICH I KNOW IS THE NEXT PORTION OF IT. 
          UM, AND ALSO TO NOT HAVE OUR APPEAL HEARD. 
          UM, WE HAVE THIS DATA, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A MONITORING VISIT COMING UP IN A MONTH, WHICH WE COULD SHOW THINGS IN MORE DETAIL. 
          YOUR TWO MINUTES ARE UP, BUT THE CHAIR CO-CHAIRS ARE ABLE TO EXTEND IF THEY WISH. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT I HEAR THE LAST TWO NUMBERS ARE THE NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS. 
          WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 18 YEARS. 
          APPARENTLY OUR SCORES HAVE BEEN BELOW 25% FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, YET I HAVEN'T HEARD, I HAVE STAFF MEMBERS WITH ME. 
          WE HAVEN'T HEARD THAT OUR SCORES WERE THAT LOW. 
          IN FACT, WE WERE ON THE UNDERSTANDING, WE WERE IN THE 90TH PERCENTILE AS FAR AS I KNOW, AND YET WE DIDN'T GET ANY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO SAY, HEY, 1736, YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR ALMOST TWO DECADES. 
          WHAT'S GOING ON? SO IT, IT IS THOSE KIND OF THINGS THAT I WANT THE BOARD TO SEE AND REALLY CONSIDER WHEN DOING THIS RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER YEAR, WE COULD SHOW YOU WHAT WE COULD DO, MAYBE COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT SYSTEM TO CAPTURE THE DATA MORE APPROPRIATELY THAT STILL PROTECTS PEOPLE'S INFORMATION SO THAT YOU SEE THE STRENGTH OF WHY WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MAY I ASK A QUESTION? UH, YEAH, GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN IN BUSINESS AND UM, BE STRAIGHT OUT. 
          ARE YOU JUST WAREHOUSING PEOPLE? ARE PEOPLE MOVING FORWARD AFTER THEY LEGAL ISSUE OF PROTECTION IS BEING SATISFIED? ARE THEY GETTING PLACED SOMEWHERE? IT CAN BE SAFE FOR YOU? ACTUALLY, WE, OUR ORGANIZATION IS VERY PROUD OF THE FACT THAT WE DO A VERY HOLISTIC SYSTEM WHERE WE PROVIDE FOR LEGAL, WE PROVIDE FOR MENTAL HEALTH, WE PROVIDE FOR HELPING THEM TO GET WORK TO BE STABLE SO THAT WHEN THEY HAVE TO LEAVE, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE TO LEAVE. 
          WHEN THEY DO LEAVE, THEY ARE STABLE. 
          OUR DOORS ARE ALWAYS OPEN. 
          IF THEY HAVE TO COME BACK, HOPEFULLY THEY DON'T. 
          SO WE DON'T JUST TAKE THE NUMBER, OKAY, YOU'VE BEEN HERE X AMOUNT OF TIME, GO ALL YOUR PROBLEMS ARE STILL THE SAME. 
          OUR GOAL IS TO HELP PEOPLE TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE IN A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE BETTER THAN THEY WERE WHEN THEY FIRST CAME. 
          A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH UNDERSTANDING THE CAUSES OF THAT, CAUSES OF DV, ET CETERA, UNFORTUNATELY IS A VERY CYCLICAL, AND JUST KNOWING THAT YOU'RE A DV SURVIVOR DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ONE AGAIN. 
          BUT THAT'S THE GOAL, THAT'S THE PUSH AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO A LOT OF. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          HOPE THAT ANSWERS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT. 
          UM, I, I THINK A LOT ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLENCE. 
          UM, THAT'S WHAT I DID MY DISSERTATION ON. 
          UH, I'VE BEEN A VICTIM OF SEVERAL SYSTEMS OF VIOLENCE. 
          UM, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT, THAT WE ARE STUCK IN A ROLE WHERE WE ARE HAVING TO INFLICT AND ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLENCE ON PEOPLE. 
          AND WE ARE BEING ACT, WE'RE ACTING AS A MEDIATOR BETWEEN AN INCREDIBLY MICROSCOPE TUNE AUN HUD, WHICH IS HAS CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN THE CROSSHAIRS CHECKING FOR ALL T'S AND I'S TO BE DOTTED AND CROSSED. 
          AND I'M REALLY UPSET THAT WE HAVE TO BE PART OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLENCE PROCESS. 
          AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE, THAT'S, THAT'S HOW THE CHIP ARE FALLING RIGHT NOW, AND IT'S REALLY HEARTBREAKING FOR ME AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD LOOK FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER TO JUST CONTINUE ALL FUNDS, UM, AND TO MAKE THE CITY LOOK BAD AND THE REGION LOOK BAD AND THE STATE LOOK BAD. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO JUST ACKNOWLEDGE LIKE THE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT 
          [01:00:01]
SPOT THAT I NEED TO COME IN AND THAT WE'RE ALL IN RIGHT NOW OF HAVING TO DECIDE HOW TO WIELD THIS WHEN IT'S NOT NECESSARILY UP TO US, UH, ALL THE TIME. 
          I MEAN, THESE ARE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE GONE OVER AND OVER FOR THE PAST YEAR, PUTTING EVERYTHING ELSE ASIDE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS A, LIKE A, A LIKE WE CAN'T BE FOUND AT FAULT. 
          SO THIS, UH, IT'S JUST HEARTBREAKING. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S ANOTHER COMMENT I HAVE. 
          I GONNA ADD ON, SORRY, IT IS VERY HEARTBREAKING, BUT WE ARE ASSURED THAT OUTSIDE THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR OUTSIDE WILL ASSIST THESE AGENCIES, BUT OUTSIDE FUNDING IS THEIR DOOR OPEN? UM, THE IS DOOR OPEN FOR OUTSIDE FUNDING? IS THAT THE QUESTION? YES. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UM, I MENTIONED MY ONE, ONE OF THE COMMENTS PREVIOUSLY. 
          UM, SOME OF THE STRATEGIES THAT WE'RE PURSUING, SOME OF 'EM ARE WITHIN THE, WITHIN OUR RESPONSE TO THE HEAD NOFO ITSELF. 
          SO WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, A FEW NEW PROJECTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HU IS LOOKING FOR. 
          UM, WHICH INCLUDES NEW DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS. 
          SO WE, UH, BUT WE ONLY, SO, UH, AT THE SAME TIME WE RELEASED AN AN RFP FOR APPLICANTS TO PROPOSE THEIR OWN NEW PROJECTS. 
          WE RECEIVED, UM, UH, ONE DD APPLICATION, UH, INTERVAL HOUSE, WHICH IS BEING INCLUDED. 
          BUT BECAUSE THERE WAS STILL FUNDING CAPACITY, THE CITY IS GOING TO, UH, ESSENTIALLY APPLY FOR ITS OWN PROJECT, BUT WE WILL RELEASE SUBSEQUENT RFPS TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR NEW APPLICANTS. 
          SO WE'RE PROPOSING, UM, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RAPID REHOUSING, UM, UH, WHICH, YOU KNOW, 1736 OR ANY OTHER APPLICANT COULD APPLY FOR, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE VEHICLES. 
          UM, SEPARATELY WE'RE IN, WE'VE BEEN IN CONVERSATION WITH COUNTY, UM, AND A NUMBER OF COUNTY ENTITIES LOOK OFF TO LA CARE REGARDING MAKING FUNDING AVAILABLE, UM, OR REPURPOSING FUNDS TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE IN PERMANENT HOUSING IN PARTICULAR ARE, ARE STABLE AND THAT PEOPLE STILL HAVE ACCESS TO SUBSIDY, RENTAL ASSISTANCE, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          SO, UM, WE, WE HAVE SOME TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS. 
          IT'S GONNA TAKE A LITTLE WHILE TO FULLY EXECUTE THEM, BUT I THINK WE'RE PRETTY WELL CONVINCED THAT BY THE TIME THESE FUNDING CHANGES WOULD BE, UM, EFFECTUATED, WHICH IS JULY 1ST OF NEXT YEAR, THAT WE'LL HAVE LIKE A VARIETY OF, OF OF FUNDING TOOLS THAT WE CAN PRESENT THAT WOULD SAY IF YOU ARE SUBJECT TO REALLOCATION, HERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO ACCESS FUNDING SERVICES TO, UM, SUPPORT YOUR, YOUR PARTICIPANTS, YOUR PERSONNEL. 
          THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT HERE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          SORRY. 
          WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER MEMBERS THAT FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO COMMENT. 
          UH, DR. 
          ADRIAN ESTRADA JUNIOR. 
          YES. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE. 
          MY NAME IS DR. 
          ADRIAN ESTRADA JR. 
          AND I'M SPEAKING REGARDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 COC PROJECT PERFORMANCE SCORING APPEALS RECOMMENDATION, WHICH STATES THAT THE 17TH 36 APPEAL HAS BEEN DENIED. 
          THE RECOMMENDATION EXPLAINS THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT'S RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN EVALUATED USING THE A PR QUESTION 0 0 7 D LAST WEDNESDAY POINT IN TIME DATA LONG BEACH HOMELESS SERVICES STAFF ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THIS METHODOLOGY DIFFERS FROM THE AVERAGE DAILY OCCUPANCY METHODOLOGY REFLECTED IN THE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND SCORING DOCUMENTATION THAT THEY PROVIDED. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE LONG BEACH COC RECONSIDERS ITS EVALUATION AND USE THE MONTHLY AVERAGE OOC AVERAGE OCCUPANCY DATA RATHER THAN THE SINGLE POINT IN TIME DATA FOR SCORING PURPOSES. 
          THIS APPROACH WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIBED IN THE SCORING DOCUMENTATION AND WOULD PROMOTE GREATER TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, SORRY IF I SAY THIS WRONG, LINA. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS LINDA POWELL AND I AM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS 4 17 36 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER. 
          UM, WE'VE SERVED THE COMMUNITY FOR OVER 18 YEARS LONG BEACH COMMUNITY. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE RECOMMENDATION, I KNOW WE'LL TALK ABOUT REALLOCATION IN THE NEXT TERM FOR REALLOCATION, DEFINITELY BE OVERTURNED. 
          [01:05:01]
AND OUR APPEAL ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, UM, THE CITY'S OWN ADMITTANCE IS THAT THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR PROJECTS ENTERING INTO HMIS AND THE METHODOLOGY USED FOR DV PROJECTS IS DIFFERENT. 
          AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY COULD HELP US TO CLEARLY MORE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THIS, THEN THAT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE US SOME TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT AS THIS PROJECT CONTINUES. 
          MY THING IS, IS THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN PROVIDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE OR THE OFFER OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO EVEN RECTIFY THIS. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PROVEN BY THE FULL DATA SCOPE, IF YOU LOOK AT ALL OF OUR DATA THAT WE'VE SERVED, DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF CLIENTS THAT WE HAVE PROMISED, THE CITY THAT WE WOULD EVEN SERVE 218% OF CLIENTS THAT WE SERVE, THAT DOES NOT REC, THAT DOES NOT SHOW BEDS GOING EMPTY. 
          BUT THE ACCEPTANCE OR THE, THE NON-ACCEPTANCE OF OUR APPEAL WILL GUARANTEE THAT THOSE BEDS WILL GO EMPTY 18 YEARS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE'S ONE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, UH, SARA ASHLEY. 
          GOOD AFTERNOON. 
          MY NAME IS REYA ASHLEY. 
          I'M THE VP OF HOUSING FOR HARBOR INTERVIEW. 
          UM, I'M JUST SPEAKING IN REGARDS TO THE APPEAL PROCESS FOR HARBOR PSH. 
          UM, I SAW THAT THE MAIN LINE ITEM WAS MAINLY EMPLOYMENT. 
          SO I WANTED TO KNOW IF IT WAS EVER CONSIDERED THE TYPE OF CLIENTS THAT ARE AT THE PSH SITE BECAUSE 95% OF THEM HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES ARE DISABLED. 
          SO IT WOULD BE HARD FOR THEM TO GAIN EMPLOYMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR DISABILITY. 
          UM, AND I KNOW THAT'S THE MAIN REASON WHY WE WERE DENIED IS BECAUSE OF EMPLOYMENT. 
          ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? NONE COMMENTS. 
          THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION. 
          BY SHOW OF HANDS, ANY OF OPPOSED, I'M SORRY, WAS YOURS, YOUR HONOR? APPROVE. 
          SORRY. 
          CAN YOU JUST RAISE YOUR HAND? SHOW OF HANDS TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION? ANY OPPOSED? MAY, MAY I ASK? SO IS THIS FOR ALL RECOMMENDATIONS? WELL, I, THAT WAS, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT QUESTION. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          UM, BECAUSE A FEW OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE HEARD, AND I'M JUST GONNA SPEAK FOR MYSELF, UM, I HAVE CONCERN WITH THAT, ESPECIALLY WITH A PROVIDER WITH THE 18 U TRACK RECORD AND THE SERVICES THAT THEY PERFORMED, UH, CONSISTENTLY ACROSS THAT TIME, NOT HAVING ANY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. 
          IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE COMPLEXITIES THAT WITH THE POPULATIONS THAT THEY SERVE, HOW THEIR COUNT IS, UH, THEIR DATA IS COLLECTED AND RESERVED VERSUS THE HMIS ONE. 
          UM, I, I LIKE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE APPROVING THAT RECOMMENDATION. 
          I JUST WANNA CLARIFY JUST REAL QUICK, UM, ONCE WE GET TO THE PRIORITY LIST, ANY DENIAL OF REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS WILL HAVE TO RESULT IN OTHER PROJECTS BEING REALLOCATED. 
          I HOPE WE'RE CLEAR ON THIS BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE 60% OF OUR A RD THAT IS, UM, COMPETITIVE IN TIER ONE. 
          AND SO ANY RENEWAL PROJECT THAT FALLS INTO TIER TWO, UNLESS IT IS A PERMANENT HOUSING, SPECIFICALLY SERVING FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN, HAS A CLOSE TO 0% CHANCE OF BEING FUNDED. 
          THAT'S WHAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE THAT'S BEEN WORKING ON THAT NOFO HAS SAID. 
          SO I WANNA CLARIFY THAT ALL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE MADE, UM, ARE BASED ON ALL OF THE APPROVED POLICIES THAT WE MADE, ALL OF THE APPROVED THRESHOLDS THAT WE MADE, ALL THE DATA THAT WE EITHER HAVE ACCESS TO OR WAS SUBMITTED TO US, UM, THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT. 
          I WISH THAT OUR, UH, DATA 
          [01:10:01]
MANAGEMENT FOLKS WERE HERE TO SPEAK MORE ABOUT THEIR PROCESS FOR EVALUATING THOSE PROJECTS. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THEY'RE NOT. 
          UM, BUT I DO WANT THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT MAINTAINING, UM, AND THIS IS NOT A REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION, THIS IS A SCORING RECOMMENDATION, SO I'LL ALSO CLARIFY THAT. 
          BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE NEXT ITEM, UM, THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE BASED ON A STRUCTURE THAT IT'S GAINED TO PROVIDE US THE HIGHEST COMPETITIVE, UH, ADVANTAGE TO TRY TO SECURE AS MUCH FUNDING AS POSSIBLE, BUT NOT NECESSARILY FOR ALL OF THE PROJECTS CURRENTLY IN THE PORTFOLIO BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE, UM, THE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY IS DESIGNED, UH, SPECIFICALLY TO NOT FUND A LARGE PORTION OF YOUR RENEWAL DEMAND TO FORCE COMMUNITIES TO TRY TO CREATE NEW PROJECTS THAT MORE CLOSELY ALIGN WITH HUD VALUE. 
          SO I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO HAVE THE MISUNDERSTANDING THAT A DECISION TO NOT REALLOCATE A PROJECT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THEY ARE INCLUDED ON OUR LIST. 
          IT MEANS THAT OTHER PROJECTS WILL BE REMOVED. 
          IT COULD BE PROJECTS THAT HAVE NO REALLOCATION CONCERNS. 
          IT COULD BE PROJECTS THAT ARE A HIGHER PRIORITY SUCH AS A PSH PROJECT. 
          UM, IF YOU GO TO YOUR LIST, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SEE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT THERE IN A COUPLE OF ITEMS. SO, UM, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT AND WE CAN, UM, MOVE FORWARD TO THE REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          'CAUSE ULTIMATELY THOSE WILL BE THE ONES THAT INFORM THE LIST, UM, WHICH ARE TECHNICALLY SEPARATE FROM THE SCORE. 
          SO, NO, THERE WAS A LOT IN THERE. 
           AND I MADE THIS COMMENT EARLIER AS WELL, BUT, AND IT'S ECHOING WHAT JUST CHAT SAID, BUT THE SCORING AND RANKING AND REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS IN APPEALS ARE NOT REFLECTIVE OF WHETHER WE LIKE A PROJECT OR NOT, OR, OR HONESTLY, WHETHER, HOW, HOW IN SOME INSTANCES, HOW WELL THEY PERFORMED OR DID NOT PERFORM. 
          IT IS, WELL, IT RESULT IN, IT IS, IT IS IN THE PROJECT THAT WE ARE CAPPED AT HOW MUCH RENEWAL FUNDING WE ARE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR. 
          SO ANY REVERSAL OF ANY APPEAL WILL RESULT IN A LIKEWISE REALLOCATION OF SOMETHING ELSE FROM WITHIN THE TIER ONE. 
          SO IF THERE WERE REQUESTS TO FURTHER EXAMINE THE ONE PROJECT IN QUESTION 1736, UH, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT, UM, IF THE BOARD ULTIMATELY MADE THE DECISION, IT WOULD BE THE BOARD'S DECISION, BUT IT WOULD BE AT THE EXPENSE OF HALF A MILLION DOLLARS OF A DIFFERENT PROJECT. 
          THAT'S, THAT'S IN TIER ONE AS WRITTEN. 
          I THINK IT WOULD. 
          SO DOES THE SCORING AND ALLOCATE THAT WE'RE DECIDING ON TODAY POTENTIALLY RESULT IN THE DEFUNDING OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT? IT'LL, IS THAT, IS THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING? IT'LL RESULT IN THE DEFUNDING OF PROJECTS. 
          10 PROJECTS OVER 10 PROJECTS, I BELIEVE YES, THERE'S ABOUT $4 MILLION IN IMPROVEMENT THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED. 
          4.8 MILLION. 
          YES. 
          I THINK WE NEED TO DISCUSS A, AN ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION. 
          I THINK JEFF DID A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, LIKE, BUT ARE YOU, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT, WHAT WILL THEY DO? WHAT COULD WE HELP THEM WITH, WITH, SO I MENTIONED THAT THROUGH AS AN ALTERNATIVE THROUGH THIS NOTICE OF CAN THEY, CAN THEY REPRESENT SOMETHING AS A NEW PROJECT? THEY DID NOT APPLY FOR THAT. 
          SO WE RELEASED AN RFP YEAH. 
          FOR NEW PROJECTS, WHICH INCLUDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR NEW DV PROJECTS AND THEY DID NOT APPLY. 
          HOWEVER, BECAUSE THE, UH, THERE IS A, A DV BONUS AMOUNT FOR WHICH WE ARE ELIGIBLE TO APPLY FOR. 
          WE DID RECEIVE PROJECTS, BUT NOT TO THE AMOUNT OF THAT FUNDING CAPACITY. 
          SO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MAKING FUNDING ON THE TABLE, WE ARE SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS FOR THAT DV BONUS MONEY FOR WHICH 1736 HARBOR INTERFAITH, ANY OTHER PROVIDER WHO WAS INTERESTED CAN APPLY AND THE THE PROJECT TYPES SHOULD ALIGN WITH THE PROGRAMMING THAT THEY'RE, UM, OPERATING RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE ONE VEHICLE, ONE AVENUE. 
          RIGHT. 
          UM, AND THEN SEPARATE TO THAT, I REFERENCED THAT, UH, TAKE, TAKE TIME. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FUNDING THAT WOULD BE FUNDING CHANGES THAT WOULD GO INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 
          CONVERSATION WITH THE COUNTY WILL COST I A CARE, BUT, UM, BASICALLY AROUND EITHER REPURPOSING EXISTING FUNDS THAT WE HAVE, UH, AND OR 
          [01:15:01]
RECEIVING ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WOULD PRESERVE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO, UM, WOULD BE IMPACT IMPACTED BY THE LAWS OF FEDERAL FUNDS. 
          SO, UM, UNFORTUNATELY 'CAUSE OF THE TIMING OF THE APPLICATION'S DUE TO AUGUST 26TH OR SO, YEAH, 26TH, UM, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AREN'T FULLY IN PLACE NOW, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE, UM, WE SHOULD RECEIVE THE, THE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS BACK FROM HUD AROUND DECEMBER, JANUARY, UM, WHICH WILL INCLUDE HOW MUCH NEW FUNDING WE WERE AWARDED FOR. 
          WE CAN START TO STRUCTURE OUR FP NOW TO RE-RELEASE. 
          UM, SO WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS, MAKE FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ALIGN WITH THE NEW FUNDING THAT WE ARE NOTIFIED UP IN DECEMBER, JANUARY. 
          LIKEWISE, ANY CONFIRMATION OF NEW FUNDING OR OR MODIFICATION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH COUNTY AND THE COUNTY PARTNERS SHOULD ALL BE APPROVED BY THEN. 
          SO ROUGHLY WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS WOULD BE WHEN SORT OF THE ALTERNATIVE FUNDING PATHWAYS WOULD BE RELEASED? I THINK, I THINK THE BOARD WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER IF THEY, IF THEY KNEW THAT YOU WERE GONNA WORK WITH THEM TO TRY TO FIND A WAY OF GETTING, UH, OF GETTING REPLACEMENT FUNDING THAT IS BEING DENIED HERE AND TO GET THEIR DATA ALIGNING WITH YOURS AND, UH, SO THAT THEY CAN REAPPLY FOR THE NEXT ROUND OF, YOU KNOW, FUNDING THE WAY, THE WAY IT'S NORMALLY DONE. 
          I THINK, I THINK WE WOULD BE MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE IF WE SAW A PLAN. 
          UH, AGREED. 
          I THINK THE TIMING IS SUCH THAT A FORMAL PLAN IS NOT YET READY, THOUGH WE CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS WITH WHAT THE PLAN IS. 
          UM, AGAIN, THERE'S ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE THESE CHANGES WOULD GO INTO EFFECT. 
          UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN HAVE THINGS FINALIZED SO THAT THERE'S AT LEAST SIX MONTHS OF, UH, TRANSITION SUPPORT FOR WHATEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHETHER IT'S, UM, UH, PROJECTS THAT ACTUALLY ARE RAMPED DOWN, UH, WHICH WE ARE TRYING TO PREVENT, UH, OR PROJECTS THAT TRANSITION THROUGH DIFFERENT FUNDING FIRMS. DOES THAT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? I MEAN, DOES EVERYBODY, DOES ANYBODY FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF, IF THERE'S A STRUCTURED PLAN IN PLACE TO TRY TO REPLACE THE FUNDING THAT'S GONNA BE LOST? I'M CONFIDENT IN WHAT THEY'RE SAYING. 
          AND THEN ALSO, UM, THESE ORGANIZATIONS NEED TO BETTER BOOKKEEPING AND PRETTY MUCH MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT'S NECESSARY. 
          BUT DOES, IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT WAS A FINANCIAL, UM, MONEY MISMANAGEMENT ISSUE. 
          IT SOUNDS MORE LIKE A DATA TRACKING AND OUTCOMES ISSUE. 
          IT WILL BE TO A MONEY MANAGEMENT ISSUE AT SOME POINT IN TIME. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          ARE THERE MEASURES IN PLACE TO OFFSET THE BACK TO HMIS ACCESS TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND MOVING FORWARD, IS IT, HOW IS IT GONNA AFFECT FUTURE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS? I HEARD THAT THERE'S DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES COMING DOWN THE PATHWAY, BUT THAT'S FROM A WHOLE NOTHER DIRECTION IN THE HOOD WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WITH THE COC, ARE THERE THINGS TO OFFSET THAT? LIKE IF THEY CAN'T ACCESS THE HMIS AND THEY LOSE POINTS THERE, ARE THERE OTHER THINGS IN PLACE DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEIR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO WHERE IT PICKS BACK UP BECAUSE THAT CONSIDERATION DOESN'T SEEM TO BE CONSIDERED IF THEY'RE NOT, UH, REQUIRED TO ACCESS THE HMIS PROTRACTED? YEAH, I'LL, I'LL LET, UM, I THINK A PORTION OF THAT MAYBE I HAVE TO LET, UM, GET, GETS A LITTLE BIT INTO PROGRAM. 
          SO I HAVE TO, UM, DEFER TO JEFF SO HOPEFULLY HE CAN GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INFO. 
          I DO WANT TO CLARIFY. 
          THE PROJECTS ARE NOT PENALIZED FOR NOT USING H-M-I-S-I-I-I, I DON'T THINK THEY WERE NECESSARILY PENALIZED, BUT THEY JUST DIDN'T PICK NOTHING UP WHEN EVERYBODY ELSE DID. 
          SO IF, IF THEY DIDN'T PICK ANY POINTS UP, BECAUSE NOT EVERYONE, NOT OTHER, OTHER PROJECTS WERE FLAGGED FOR THE SAME REASON OR BEING PROPOSED FOR FREE REALLOCATION FOR THE SAME REASON WERE THEY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS? UM, THAT'S THE THING BECAUSE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, IT SEEMS TO BE HAVING ITS OWN SECTION AND THE CONSIDERATION FOR THEM NOT BEING REQUIRED TO USE THAT AND OTHER PROJECTS THAT MAY HAVE NOT BEEN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. 
          YEAH, AND THEY HAVE THE SAME ISSUE. 
          THAT'S A SEPARATE REASONING. 
          YEAH. 
          THE OTHER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS SCORED, AND I'M GETTING INTO THE PRIORITY LIST, UM, THEY'RE NOT DESIGNATED AS SUCH HERE, UM, BUT ONE SCORED 92.5%, ONE SCORED A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          UM, YEAH, THERE ARE THREE. 
          UM, AND THIS, THIS DOES SERVE, I KNOW THIS IS A DISTINCTION THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T MATTER FOR THIS GROUP, BUT I'M GONNA MAKE THE DISTINCTION, WELL AT THIS TIME ANYWAY, IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY. 
          UM, BUT, UM, THIS PROJECT DOES SERVE 
          [01:20:01]
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS. 
          UM, BUT FOR, JUST FOR GENERAL CLARIFICATION, IT'S NOT RESTRICTED FUNDING. 
          SO SOME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVING PROJECTS HAVE RESTRICTED FUNDING AND THEY WERE APPLIED FOR SPECIFICALLY UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BONUS. 
          THIS IS NOT A PROJECT THAT HAS RESTRICTED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FUNDING, SO IT'S NOT FUNDING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BY HUD EARMARKED. 
          AGAIN, THIS DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, BUT IN TERMS OF THE REALLOCATION PORTION, IT DOES. 
          SO JUST FOR CLARITY, UM, IT IS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT. 
          THE FUNDING TOWARDS THAT PROJECT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT. 
          SO JUST LIKE I SAID, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER FOR THIS CONVERSATION, BUT FOR THE LARGER CONVERSATION, IT'S JUST SOME CONTEXT I WANTED TO DO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, AND THEN JEFF, I WASN'T SURE IF YOU HAD ANY, UM, KNOWLEDGE OF ANY OF THE QUESTION. 
          I BELIEVE THE SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION WAS REGARDING, UH, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMPARABLE DATABASE SUPPORT OR MATCHING OR SYSTEM, UH, COORDINATION. 
          I BELIEVE IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, UM, AND THEN IN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE I THINK WAS MAYBE PART OF THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, SO YEAH, SO, UH, ARE YOU SPECIFIC TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING FOR DB PROVIDERS RELATED TO, LET'S SAY DATA INTEGRITY DATA, DATA QUALITY WITHIN THEIR COMPARABLE DATABASES? HASN'T BEEN SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE HAVE OFFERED THOUGH TA IS AVAILABLE FROM BOTH HUD AND THE STATE, AND SO WE CAN CERTAINLY REQUEST IT. 
          UM, THE STATE AND HUD BOTH PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO US FOR ADMINISTRATION OPERATION OF OUR HIS SYSTEM. 
          SO, UM, WE, WE'VE BEEN PARTICIPATING IN TA COHORTS, UM, I THINK HAD PRESENTATION LIKE ICF FOR EXAMPLE, PROVIDING TA AROUND, UH, INTEGRATION WITH WA HMIS. 
          UM, LIKEWISE THERE IS SOME TA THAT IT EXISTS RELATED TO THE COMPLEX DATABASES AND SO WE CAN CERTAINLY REQUEST THAT AS A PROJECT FOR US. 
          I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE, UM, EMPLOYMENT METRIC THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. 
          IS THAT A HUD THAT IT IS, BUT WE'VE HAD THAT METRIC FOR YEARS. 
          IT WAS SLIGHTLY THE POINT ALLOCATIONS WERE INCREASED SLIGHTLY. 
          UM, SO WE SAID THAT IT WAS WORTH MORE OF YOUR SCORE OVERALL. 
          UM, IT IS SOMETHING WE'VE HAD, BUT YEAH, HUD IN THE NOFO IS ALSO SCORING. 
          SO THERE WERE THREE, UH, ONE NEW, WELL ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY TWO NEW. 
          THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT WE ALREADY HAD AS A SCORING, UH, METRIC SO THAT HUD SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE. 
          ONE WAS EMPLOYMENT INCOME, WHICH, UH, PSH UM, YES, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IS, THAT IS TRUE THAT PEOPLE IN PSH ARE LESS LIKELY TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYMENT INCOME. 
          THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE, WHICH IS WHY IT IS WEIGHTED FOR A PSH LOWER THAN RAPID REHOUSING AND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE GENERALLY EXPECTED PROBABLY TO, TO GET GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT, PARTICULARLY FOR RAPID REHOUSING. 
          SO IT WAS INCLUDED, IT WAS INCREASED POINT ALLOCATION, UM, STILL LOWER THAN THE OTHER PROJECT TYPES, BUT HAS BEEN HISTORICAL METRIC FOR LONG BEACH. 
          THE TWO THAT WERE NOT HISTORICAL METRICS WERE RETURNS TO HOMELESSNESS, WHICH WE INCORPORATED THIS YEAR, AGAIN PER PER HUGS DIRECTION. 
          UM, AND THE SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS, WHICH, UH, REPLACED HOUSING FIRST. 
          UM, AND THAT IS, UM, UH, HUD USED TO SCORE UP TO 10%, UH, PROVIDE UP TO 10% OF, UM, GREEN PROJECT APPLICATIONS WITH POINTS FOR HOUSING FIRST SUPPORTIVE SERVICE PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENTS. 
          UH, I WILL, I THINK I CAN SAY BROADLY, I DON'T THINK THIS REALLY MATTERS. 
          EVERY SINGLE PROJECT SUBMITTED SOMETHING AND WE ACCEPTED THEM ALL. 
          UM, THE ONLY ONE WE DID NOT ACCEPT WAS THE ONE DISCUSSED TODAY, AND THAT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS SUBMITTED A WEEK AFTER THE DEADLINE. 
          AND THAT WAS COMMUNICATED AT THE TIME THAT WE WOULD, UH, INDICATE THAT IT WAS INCORPORATING THOSE, BUT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR LOCAL SCORING BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO, TO EVERY OTHER PROJECT THAT SUBMITTED IT BY THE DEADLINE. 
          SO THOSE WERE THE THREE. 
          UM, BUT I FIGURED I'D JUST, YOU KNOW, GIVE THE FULL CONTEXT. 
          WHAT IS OUR DEADLINE? AUGUST, THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION TO HUD IS AUGUST 26TH. 
          THE DEADLINE TO NOTIFY ALL APPLICANTS OF WHETHER THEY'VE BEEN ACCEPTED, REJECTED, UH, OR REDUCED IS NEXT TUESDAY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE MEETING TODAY. 
          YEAH, WE WE'RE, WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION, I THINK, NO LESS THAN 15 DAYS BEFORE THE APPLICATION. 
          THAT IS CORRECT, YES. 
          SO WE MOVED TODAY'S EARLIER BECAUSE, UM, WITH THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO TAKE, FOR EXAMPLE, SCREENSHOTS, UM, BOARD MATERIALS TODAY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS 
          [01:25:01]
PART OF THE APPLICATION TO HUD DEMONSTRATING WE HELD A MEETING ON THIS DATE, WHICH WE DISCUSSED THESE THINGS. 
          UM, AND THEN NOTIFICATIONS TO THE INDIVIDUAL SUB-RECIPIENTS, UH, WILL POTENTIALLY ALSO BE INCLUDED. 
          USUALLY JUST ONE TO SHOW THAT WE SENT OUT NOTIFICATION BY AN ESTABLISHED DEADLINE. 
          THEN WE TAKE SOME SCREENSHOTS OF OUR WEBSITE WHERE WE PUBLISH IT, WE SEND OUT A COUPLE OF EMAILS WITH, UM, WITH DATES ON THEM, AND AGAIN, EXPORT THOSE. 
          SO THOSE ARE ALL PART OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL. 
          IT'S THINGS THAT HOOD SCORE US ON. 
          YES. 
          SO THERE OPPORTUNITY WILL BE UNDER A NEW FUNDING FOR THESE ORGANIZATIONS. 
          TRACK GET FUNDED OVERALL, YOU KNOW, THE END RESULTS, ALL THIS. 
          CORRECT. 
          WAS THAT A, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? WHAT I SAID WAS, THE OVERALL THING IS THIS, THESE ORGANIZATIONS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REFUNDED AT SOME POINT IN TIME UNDER A NEW PROJECT. 
          UM, WELL, EITHER UNDER THE SAME PROJECT OR A NEW PROJECT. 
          I, I, I HESITATE AND I, I THANK JEFF FOR BEING HERE AND BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE THAT. 
          I PERSONALLY HESITATE TO, UM, TRY TO SNEAK IN SCORING AND REALLOCATION CONSIDERATIONS WITH LIKE, DON'T WORRY, WE'RE GONNA GET YOU MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE JUST TO PROVE THIS. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, BEHAVE THAT WAY. 
          WE HAVE, WE, IT IS SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON AND IT IS, WE DO HAVE SOME THINGS IN THE PIPELINE THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE READY TO ANNOUNCE IT BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A LOT OF DETAILS. 
          UM, BUT YEAH, I MEAN, I, I THINK BROADLY ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT RECEIVING FUNDING, UM, YOU KNOW, IF APPROVED, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO REPLACE THAT FUNDING. 
          UM, I'M, I JUST FEEL A CERTAIN WAY ABOUT LEADING WITH THAT. 
          'CAUSE I FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT KIND OF UNDERCUTS THE PRESENTATION AND KIND OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, WHICH IS HAVING TO MAKE A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR THIS FUNDING SOURCE. 
          AND I DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOUR APPROVAL CONTINGENT ON SOMETHING, BUT I CAN SAY THAT THAT IS THE PLAN. 
          YES. 
          WELL, MY APPROVAL IS GONNA BE ON THE REALITY EVERYTH THING FROM THE FUNDING AND THE OUTCOME, WHAT'S GONNA AFFECT. 
          SO YEAH, I, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. 
          ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. 
          COULD PART OF THE SOLUTION, I'M NOT SAYING THE WHOLE SOLUTION. 
          YEAH. 
          COULD PART OF THE SOLUTION BE PARTIALLY REALLOCATING A SMALL PORTION OF THE APPROVED, UH, FROM OTHER, YOU KNOW, OTHER APPLICANTS JUST A VERY SMALL TO MAKE UP PART OF THE MONEY THAT THEN CAN BE SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE PARTIALLY I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. 
          YEAH. 
          INSTEAD OF FULLY REALLOCATED. 
          YEAH. 
          LAST MONTH I DID, WE TAKE LIKE 10%. 
          WELL, THAT, THAT'S A 0.05%. 
          THE, THE TIERS ARE CALCULATED BY A FUNDING AMOUNT, NOT NUMBER OF PROJECTS. 
          SO ONCE WE HIT 7.3 MILLION OUT OF OUR 12.2 MILLION, EVERYTHING BELOW THAT HAS A ALMOST NON-EXISTENT CHANCE OF BEING FUNDED BY HUD BECAUSE THEY ARE, IF YOU REMEMBER A COUPLE OF, MAYBE EVEN LAST MEETING, THEY'RE GOING TO START WITH PLANNING AND UFA AND, AND TIER ONE. 
          SO THAT STUFF THAT'S UNCONDITIONAL, THEN THEY'RE GONNA MOVE TO THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BONUS, THEN THEY'RE GONNA MOVE TO, UM, PERMANENT HOUSING FOR FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. 
          THEN THEY'RE GONNA MOVE TO THEIR NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY PROJECTS 1.3 BILLION. 
          SO ONCE YOU DEDUCT ALL THAT, THERE'S BASICALLY NOTHING LEFT. 
          AND THEY SAY, WELL, IF WE HAVE ANYTHING LEFT OVER BECAUSE ENOUGH PEOPLE DON'T SUBMIT APPLICATIONS, MAYBE WE WILL GET TO YOUR OTHER RENEWAL PROJECTS. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID PRESENT LAST MONTH WAS THE VERY BRIEFLY, BECAUSE UM, WE BASICALLY SAID, HEY, IF WE JUST APPLY THE POLICY, UM, AS DIFFICULT AS IT WOULD BE, WE MEET THE AMOUNT, SO WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE TO MAKE ARBITRARY DECISIONS, UH, BASED ON OTHER FACTORS, LIKE THE POLICIES THAT WE DEVELOPED AND PASSED AND AGREED UPON, KIND OF DID THE WORK FOR US, IF YOU WILL. 
          THEY IDENTIFIED PROJECTS BASED ON SPECIFIC THRESHOLDS. 
          AND WHEN WE ADDED THOSE UP, BASICALLY IT REALLOCATED THE AMOUNT THAT WE NEEDED TO REALLOCATE FOR THE COMPETITION. 
          ONE OF THE THINGS THE REALLOCATION COMMITTEE EXPLORED WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DATA YET, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE SCORES WERE OR ANYTHING, WAS THE CONCEPT OF TAKING A PERCENTAGE OF UNDERSPENT ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO. 
          SO IF WE LOOKED AT ALL THE PROJECTS, WE DIDN'T SPEND ALL THEIR MONEY, WHAT IF WE TOOK 25%, 50%, 75% OF WHAT THEY DIDN'T SPEND? AND WE TRIED TO USE THAT TO INCLUDE AS MANY PROJECTS AS POSSIBLE AND FUND MORE PROJECTS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE COULD FIT CLEANLY INTO THE TOP OF OUR LIST HERE. 
          ONE, UH, WHAT WE KIND OF REALIZED WAS, 
          [01:30:01]
UM, AT THE END OF THE YEAR, ONCE YOU START KIND OF PICKING FROM EACH OF THESE PROJECTS, UM, THAT IT'S REALLY ONLY GONNA BE MAYBE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT YOU CAN FUND AND YOU ARE TAKING FUNDING AWAY FROM PROJECTS THAT MAYBE IN A NORMAL YEAR WOULD NEVER HAVE HAD THEIR FUNDING TOUCHED AT ALL. 
          AND SO BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO GET TO THE NUMBER THAT WE NEEDED TO WHAT WE FELT TO BE COMPETITIVE AS A PORTFOLIO, UM, WE DIDN'T DIG DEEPER INTO THE CONCEPT OF KIND OF ARBITRARILY DEFUNDING PARTIAL PROJECTS IN ORDER TO TRY TO INCLUDE EVERYONE. 
          AND SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM PROVIDERS, I WON'T SAY ALL, BUT SOME WAS THAT THEY WEREN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN HAVING, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, TRIMMING ALL AROUND THEIR PROJECT BUDGET AND CUTTING THEIR BUDGET DOWN AND, YOU KNOW, BEING LEFT WITH WHATEVER, THAT THEY WOULD RATHER A DECISION BE MADE ON REALLOCATING PROJECTS THAT DON'T MEET A THRESHOLD VERSUS HAVING THEIR BUDGETS WHITTLED AWAY TO THE POINT THAT THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO EFFECTIVELY RUN THE PROJECTS. 
          UH, SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHY WE ENDED UP MAINTAINING THAT AND NOT GOING AND TRYING TO, TO TRIM HERE AND THERE BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, THE THRESHOLDS THAT WE HAD USED, AND I WILL SAY THE REALLOCATION THRESHOLDS, DESPITE, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, ADMITTED ISSUES WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY THE LANGUAGE OR THE EXPLANATION FOR SOME OF THEM, THEY'RE THE SAME ONES THAT YOU'VE PASSED EVERY YEAR. 
          AND WHEN YOU GO BACK HISTORICALLY, IF YOU WERE TO GO TO THOSE RECORDS, I THINK YOU'LL FIND WHAT OFTEN HAPPENED WAS THAT THERE WERE PROJECTS IDENTIFIED FOR REALLOCATION. 
          AND I'M NOT GONNA SAY ANY OF THESE WERE INCLUDED OR NOT INCLUDED, THAT SIMPLY WEREN'T REALLOCATED BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO, YOU WEREN'T BEING FORCED TO. 
          AND SO THEY GOT A PASS. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING IT WAS ANY OF THESE SPECIFICALLY, IT COULD HAVE BEEN, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GONNA GET INTO ALL THAT, BUT HISTORICALLY THE BOARD HAS NOT NEEDED TO REALLOCATE. 
          SO EVEN WHEN PROJECTS WERE IDENTIFIED, THEY TYPICALLY WERE ALLOWED TO SUBMIT THEIR FULL BUDGETS OR HAD A MUCH LOWER, UH, KIND OF PENALTY FOR HAVING ACHIEVED THAT REALLOCATION. 
          AND, AND SO JUST AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT OF ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, BECAUSE I KNOW SOME BOARD MEMBERS EVEN SAID LIKE, WELL, WE DON'T REALLY HEAR ABOUT PEOPLE GETTING OR PROJECTS GETTING REALLOCATED YEAR AFTER YEAR, PARTICULARLY THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND THE BOARD. 
          UM, I KNOW THAT VERY OFTEN IT'S SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE, WELL, LET'S, YOU KNOW, GIVE THEM A LITTLE MORE TIME TO TRY TO HELP. 
          LET'S SEE IF THEY'LL IMPROVE. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, VERY LIKELY THAT THE CITY SHOULD STEP IN AND MAYBE PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE ASSISTANCE AND NOT ARGUING AT THAT POINT. 
          BUT, UM, I JUST DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT LIKE, THE IDEA THAT THESE REALLOCATION STANDARDS ARE VERY DIFFERENT THAN OTHER, THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOT, WE DIDN'T REALLY CHANGE ANY OF THEM OTHER THAN SOME OF THE EXEMPTION INFORMATION, WHICH WE'LL GET INTO, YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT ONE. 
          BUT OTHER THAN SOME EXEMPTION INFORMATION, UM, WE KEPT ALL THE THRESHOLDS THE SAME, UH, FOR EACH OF THOSE REALLOCATION STANDARDS. 
          SO WHETHER THAT BE SCORE UTILIZATION OR SPEND DOWN, UH, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY CHANGE ANY OF THOSE STANDARDS. 
          THEY'RE EFFECTIVELY THE SAME ONES THAT THE CITY OR THE BOARD HAS PASSED FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. 
          IT'S JUST THAT THIS YEAR WE'RE BEING FORCED TO REALLOCATE BECAUSE IF WE DON'T, WE'RE GONNA SUBMIT IT TO HUD AND HUD LIKE WON'T EVEN CONSIDER THEM. 
          AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO DO KIND OF A REBALANCING, MAYBE IF WE CAN GET MORE MONEY FOR OTHER PROJECTS, WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR CAPACITY AND THEN USE OTHER FUNDING TO SUPPORT PROJECTS THAT MAY LOSE IT. 
          SO THAT WAS, THAT'S KIND OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE STRATEGY HAS BEEN. 
          THINK THE, THE BRIEF ANSWER IS, UH, A PARTIAL REALLOCATION IS POSSIBLE. 
          THE RESULT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME OF NEEDING TO FIND, UM, ADDITIONAL PROJECTS AND FUNDING WITHIN TIER ONE TO REAL, TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WITHIN THE MAXIMUM TIER ONE AMOUNT. 
          SO IF, IF WE DID A, YOUR EXAMPLE TALKING 1736 WAS A 10% REALLOCATION, WE WOULD DROP THAT DOWN BY 53,000. 
          UM, SO THE NEW AWARD WOULD BE 480,000, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          AND THEN WE WOULD NEED TO FIND $4,000 WORTH OF MONEY TO REALLOCATE WITHIN TIER ONE QUESTION. 
          SO, AND I'M, I'M JUST GETTING READY TO GET TO THE NEXT EXERCISE HERE, BUT, UM, AND KNOWING THAT WE CAN'T, DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND ABOUT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN, WHAT'S GONNA BE AVAILABLE FOR THESE FULLY REALLOCATED PROJECTS, WOULD WE, IF AND WHEN THAT TIME COMES, WILL WE BE USING THE SAME METHODOLOGY AS FAR AS WHICH ONES GET PRIORITY? I'VE SEEN SOMETHING THAT ARE SCORING HIGHER, SCORING HIGHER THAN SOME TIER ONE PROJECTS, AND WOULD WE UTILIZE, UH, EQUITABLE PROCESS OF WHICH ONES GET FUNDED AS WELL? 
          [01:35:01]
JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE SO THAT A CHRONICALLY LOW SCORING PROGRAM DOESN'T GET WORDED. 
          YEAH, AND I, AND ONE OF OUR LAST AGENDA ITEMS TODAY IS, IS THE, I WANT TO GET THE TITLE RIGHT, UH, THE PRIORITIZATION AND TRANSITION PLANNING, INTERIM GUIDANCE. 
          SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM, UM, TO ALLOW US TO, UM, MATCH FOLKS THAT MAY LOSE, AND I KNOW THIS IS MOVING A LITTLE BIT, BUT I ALSO WANNA, UM, YOU KNOW, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ORGANIZATION AND, YOU KNOW, THE INDIVIDUAL. 
          SO YES, THE ORGANIZATIONS AND THE PROJECTS WILL RECEIVE THAT KIND OF SUPPORT, BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE'RE, WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO PUT THIS GUIDANCE IN PLACE. 
          SO WE SAY, OKAY, IF THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED BECAUSE THIS PROJECT LOST FUNDING, THEY'RE ABLE TO BE PRIORITIZED IN A CERTAIN WAY BECAUSE OF THE LOSS OF FUNDING AND DISCONTINUANCE OF FUNDING. 
          SO IN ADDITION TO THAT STRATEGY, WHICH RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE LIKE A VERY FIRM GRASP ON EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE'RE GONNA GET AND EXACTLY HOW WE'LL DETERMINE LIKE WHERE SOME OF THAT FUNDING'S GOING. 
          THE ONE THING THAT WE CAN DO RIGHT NOW IS SET THINGS UP, UH, FOR THE FUTURE. 
          AND, AND SO FOR THIS IS SPECIFICALLY TO CONSIDER THE PARTICIPANTS AS WELL. 
          AND SO WE'LL ASK THE BOARD TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THAT POLICY. 
          AGAIN, THAT'S GONNA KIND OF SUPPORT WITH THE, THE MATCHING OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE EVENT THAT THAT PROJECT THEN HAS TO, YOU KNOW, A PROJECT THAT NEEDS TO BE, UM, SUNSETTED OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          BUT THEY'RE BOTH STILL EQUAL CASES. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, I JUST, I PERSONALLY DON'T LIKE TO DANGLE THE CARROT, SO I, I TYPICALLY DON'T FOCUS ON THAT 'CAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'S COMES OFF AS UNDERHANDED. 
          MAYBE, YOU KNOW, OTHER FOLKS DON'T FEEL THAT WAY. 
          IT'S JUST THE WAY I FEEL. 
          SO I DON'T LIKE TO SAY, DON'T WORRY, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF YOU. 
          I'M LIKE, WE'RE WORKING ON IT, AND THEN WE'LL PRESENT THE PLAN, UM, YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS WE HAVE IT. 
          YEAH, YEAH. 
          I GOT THAT. 
          I, I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. 
          WE'RE AT 3 42 AND WE STILL HAVE FIVE ITEMS LEFT. 
          UM, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, BASED OFF THE VOTE, THE MOTION, THE ITEM WOULDN'T PASS, UM, WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS? TAKE ANOTHER VOTE. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK PART OF THE DIFFICULTY, UH, AND THIS ISN'T THE TIMING THING, IS THE, SO THEY, THEY CAN, YOU KNOW, SO THE RECOMMENDATIONS DON'T PASS. 
          SO AGAIN, SPECIFIC TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, UM, THEN WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH THE APPEAL, RIGHT? SO ARE WE MEANT TO, I, I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST POINT OF CLARIFICATION. 
          IF WE CAN MAYBE GO LINE BY LINE, UM, FOR INDIVIDUAL, INDIVIDUAL APPEALS THAT WOULD KNOW, I GUESS THAT, THAT WAS KIND OF ONE OF MY QUESTIONS SWINGING BACK. 
          I'M SORRY IF YOU ALREADY ANSWERED IT. 
          I KNOW. 
          NO, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW WE'RE VOTING ON A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ALL OF THEM, RIGHT? AS ONE, AS TO EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. 
          YEAH, WE COULD, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I, YEAH, WE COULD DO THAT IF YOU'D LIKE. 
          AND NO, I'M, I, I WAS JUST ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          WE HAVE TO EITHER APPROVE ALL OF THEM TOGETHER THAT WERE PRESENTED, OR ARE WE GOING EACH INDIVIDUAL ONE SAYING YES TO THIS ONE? NO, TO THAT ONE. 
          YES, YES. 
          OR ET CETERA. 
          YEAH, YOU COULD APPROVE ALL DENIAL, UM, OR INDIVIDUALLY, UH, OR WE COULD INDIVIDUALLY GO THROUGH THEM AND AFTER WE DO, WE'LL HAVE TO DECIDE WHICH OTHER PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO BE REALLOCATED INSTEAD WOULD BE BACK HERE AGAIN, REVISITING WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS. 
          CORRECT. 
          AND WOULD NEED TO DO, NEED TO DO THAT BEFORE TUESDAY IN 22. 
          I MEAN, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          IN 22 DAYS, 15TH IT WILL TECHNICALLY BEFORE NEXT WE HAVE TO SEND OUT NOTICES NEXT TUESDAY, SO, SO WE WOULD NEED TO RECONVENE PROBABLY LATER THIS WEEK, EMERGENCY MEETING OR A SPECIAL MEETING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE WE WOULD BE MEETING HIGH REQUIREMENTS REGARDING THE, THE FUNDING ALLOWED, THE MAXIMUM FUNDING ALLOWED. 
          WE HAVE MORE PROJECTS THAN WE HAVE FUNDING FOR. 
          SO WE WOULD HAVE TO, IF THESE GET REMOVED FROM THE 
          [01:40:01]
CHOPPING BLOCK TODAY ELSE IS THERE. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN NECESSARILY. 
          THE CITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE A PLAN PLACE FOR WHAT THE NEW FUNDING MAY LOOK LIKE. 
          LOOK, THE REALLOCATION THING, I HAD FAITH THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. 
          I FEEL LIKE, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING WITH HUD REGULATIONS FOR MONTHS NOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAXIMIZE EVERY POSSIBLE CENT WE CAN GET TO PREPARE TO PRESERVE AS MANY POSSIBLE PROJECTS AS WE CAN. 
          AND THIS IS THE KNOWN EVENTUALITY IS SOMEBODY HAS TO BE, SO WE CAN DO THE LINE BY LINE, PROJECT BY PROJECT, AND IT WILL RESULT IN OTHER PROJECTS BEING FOR, WE'RE GONNA BRING THIS UP ALSO, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS VOTE WAS JUST ON THE SCORING AND THAT YES, EVEN IF THESE ARE ALL OVERTURNED, THESE PROJECTS ARE STILL TIER TWO AND THEY'RE STILL ON THE RIGHT OTHER LINE, CORRECT? YEAH. 
          THIS IS JUST THE SCORING. 
          CAN WE, WE VOTE NO WITH THAT EXTENSION? IT WILL POTENTIALLY. 
          SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING EVERY SINGLE ONE OF, SO THESE ARE ON INDIVIDUAL SCORES. 
          UM, AND THEN THE NEXT IS ON THE REALLOCATION TRIGGERS. 
          SO, UM, TECHNICALLY RIGHT, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, PASS ON THESE AND THEN I BELIEVE REVIEW REALLOCATION IN OUR NEXT STEP. 
          UM, WHICH DEPENDING ON HOW THAT CONVERSATION GOES, COULD FUNCTIONALLY RESULT IN THE APPROVAL OF A REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION. 
          AN APPROVAL OF AN APPEAL, ESSENTIALLY. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE, WE COULD PROBABLY MOVE FORWARD THERE. 
          IT'S A LITTLE, YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE, UM, IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT YEAH. 
          QUESTION. 
          SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. 
          WE LOCATION TO REVISIT THIS LATER IN THIS MEETING OR MOVE FORWARD AND VOTE INDIVIDUALLY ON THE PROJECTS OR HAVE A REVO YEAH, WE, OR HAVE A REVO. 
          I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY DO ANY OF THIS. 
          WE COULD DO MOVE FORWARD AND IF WE MOVE FORWARD, WE REVISIT THIS VOTE AFTER THE REALLOCATION OR LATER ON DURING THIS MEETING, HOW CAN WE WORK THAT INTO THIS SITUATION? OR HAVE A REVOLT NOW? YEAH, MAYBE WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL AFTER WE DISCUSS THE REALLOCATION PROCESS. 
          THE REALLOCATION IS BASED ON THE SCORES. 
          BASED THE SCORES. 
          THAT'S WHAT TRIGGERED. 
          SO, UM, HOW DOES ROBERTS RULE SAY THAT YOU IN THIS, THAT IS GONNA AFFECT REALLOCATION? WELL, THE, WELL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE REPLACEMENT SCORES TECHNICALLY. 
          RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS ARE REQUESTING US TO USE DATA THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THAT WE WOULD THEN AFTER THE FACT NEED TO RECEIVE. 
          UM, AND MY CONCERN IS, AGAIN, WE, THERE HASN'T BEEN A CLAIM THAT THE DATA WE USED WAS NOT THE RIGHT DATA. 
          IT WAS THAT IT WAS INCOMPLETE DATA, RIGHT. 
          THAT WE DIDN'T USE EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          THAT WE USE A POINT IN TIME, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          SO THAT WOULD, UM, YEAH. 
          AND IS THE ORGANIZATION'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE THE DATA THAT THEY CLAIM IS INCOMPLETE? THEY WOULD HAVE TO, WELL, WE, TO THE OWN THEIR OWN REPORT, THE DATA THAT THEY'VE BEEN SUBMITTING TO US INCLUDES NON COC FUNDED BIDS. 
          SO I'M NOT SURE IF THEY'VE BEEN TRACKING IT IN ANY OTHER WAY. 
          UM, I'M ASSUMING THROUGH THE DATABASE WE CAN, CAN WE HAVE A VOTE AMONGST OURSELF, BUT WHAT DIRECTION TO VOTE NEXT? UM, I THINK MAYBE WE CAN STOP THAT WORK WITH US. 
          UH, I THINK MAYBE WE CAN, IF WE NO VOTE THE APPEAL, IF WE NO VOTE, THE SCORING RECOMMENDATIONS, THE SCORES WILL REMAIN THE SAME. 
          AND THEN THE REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION IS A SEPARATE APPEAL PROCESS THAN WE'VE BEEN HEARING. 
          I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE SAFEST AND SOUNDEST WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND THEN WE CAN, WE CAN CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION WITH A LOOK AT THE LARGER PORTFOLIO. 
          UM, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE SOME AND NOT OTHERS, UM, YOU CAN, IF YOU WANT TO NOT VOTE ON IT AT ALL, UH, WE CAN DO THAT. 
          IT BASICALLY MEANS THAT NONE OF THE APPEALS WILL HAVE BEEN APPROVED, AND SO THESE SCORES WILL REMAIN THE SAME. 
          UM, AND SO 
          [01:45:02]
FUNCTIONALLY THAT DOESN'T, IT LEAVES US IN THE SAME PLACE WE WERE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATION. 
          AND THEN THE REALLOCATION CONVERSATION WILL CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT, UH, AT LEAST ONE OF THESE PROJECTS AND OTHER PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND, AND AGAIN, IT WOULD JUST, WOULD NOT CHANGE THE SCORES AT THIS TIME. 
          I, I, I MOTION FOR, UH, CAN, CAN I, CAN, CAN WE MOTION FOR, UH, A MOVEMENT IN HERE FOR THIS MM-HMM . 
          MOTION FOR A NO VOTE. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          SO IT WOULD BE LITTLE OVER, HUH? UM, TABLE IN INSIDE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE, YEAH, WE'D TABLE THE ITEM, TABLE THE ITEM. 
          UM, SO THEN WE'D MEET UP FIRST AND A SECOND. 
          YOU ALREADY MOVED SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO TABLE ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN CAN WE JUST DO A FINAL SHOW OF HANDS? THANK YOU. 
          A FINAL SHOW OF HANDS FOR WHO TO TABLE ITEM. 
          TABLE ITEM ITEM. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS THE ITEM NUMBER 4 2 6 5 7 5 5 7 1 3. 
          RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PHYSICAL YEAR, 2026, LONG BEACH, COC REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION AND HEAR ANY APPEALS I CALL FOR A MOTION. 
          I SO MOVED. 
          SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ALRIGHT, JOSEPH. 
          SPEAKER JOSEPH PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR, HOME SERVICES BUREAU. 
          SO THIS ITEM WILL PRESENT, UH, REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, OR REALLOCATION, UM, UH, PROPOSALS AND THEN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE APPEALS RECEIVED. 
          UM, SO STAFF RECEIVED FOUR, UH, UH, APPEAL RECOMMENDATIONS OR FOR APPEALS? I'M SORRY. 
          UM, SO I'M GONNA FOCUS ON THE APPEAL ISSUES, UH, RATHER THAN WALKING THROUGH EVERY DETAIL AND MEMO, BUT IT MAY BE THAT WE ARE GETTING INTO THAT IN A MOMENT. 
          UM, SO THIS PROVIDES OVERALL REALLOCATION REVIEW CONTEXT. 
          SO WE REVIEWED PROJECTS USING THE SCORING AND RANKING METHODOLOGY AND REALLOCATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. 
          UH, REALLOCATION NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO AFFECTED APPLICANTS APPEALS WERE LIMITED TO DATA CALCULATION, ELIGIBILITY EXEMPTION, OR REALLOCATION AMOUNT ERRORS. 
          UH, THE FOUR APPEALS RECEIVED WERE FROM, UH, US VETS FOR PROJECTS, UH, ADVANCED VIP CHAMPS AND CABRILLO PLAZA, PHD SLASH H UH, SPC 96 99, AND FROM 1736 FROM THE CRISIS CENTER FOR THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT. 
          UM, NOW HERE I SHOWED THIS SLIDE LAST MONTH, BUT BASED ON SOME COMMENTS, I DON'T THINK IT TRACKED FOR SOME FOLKS. 
          THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED FOR REALLOCATION IN OUR PORTFOLIO. 
          SO THE TOP PROJECT ARE THREE PROJECTS THAT THE HOMELESS SERVICES BUREAU ADMINISTERS THAT WE ARE VOLUNTARILY REALLOCATING TOWARDS THE 4.8 MILLION THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REALLOCATE IN ORDER TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE. 
          UM, THE NEXT TWO ARE RAPID REHOUSING, UH, PROJECTS. 
          UM, THESE WERE INCLUDED, UH, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE, UH, RAPID REHOUSING IS, UH, NOT, I'M NOT GONNA SAY THE EASIEST, BUT, UM, THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES FOR RAPID REHOUSING DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT'S NON-PERMANENT. 
          UM, EACH INDIVIDUAL, UH, AGENCY THAT OPERATED THESE PROJECTS, UM, COULD HAVE SUPPORTED, UH, TO SUBMITTED THEM FOR TRANSITION INTO TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          UH, THEY DID NOT. 
          SO BARRING THAT, UH, WE'RE IDENTIFYING THEM FOR REALLOCATION AGAIN TO GO TOWARDS THAT, UH, PRIMARY AMOUNT. 
          UM, FOLLOWING THAT, WE HAVE A PARTIAL REALLOCATION, UH, DUE TO CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION OVER SEVERAL YEARS. 
          UM, THEN WE HAVE, UH, A COUPLE OF SPEND DOWN REALLOCATION FOLLOWED BY, UH, CHRONIC UNDER UTILIZATION. 
          UM, AND, UH, A COUPLE MORE SPEND DOWN AND A COUPLE MORE CHRONIC UTILIZATION. 
          SO, UH, HERE YOU CAN SEE THE REALLOCATED FUNDING AMOUNTS. 
          UM, AND ULTIMATELY, LIKE I SAID, THIS, UM, THIS ENDS UP, UH, ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT, MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT LESS, UH, GETTING US, UH, TO THAT 4.8 MILLION. 
          UM, AND THIS WAS SIMPLY BY APPLYING OUR POLICY AS WELL AS INCLUDING, UH, THESE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ON TOP OF THE POLICY TO GET TO THAT, TO THAT 4.8. 
          UM, 
          [01:50:01]
OKAY. 
          SO FIRST FOR ADVANCED VIP, UM, SO THERE WAS AN APPEAL FOR THE RULE, UH, FULL REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION. 
          UM, FOR TWO REASONS, THEY REQUESTED A RECENT CONSOLIDATION EXEMPTION. 
          SO THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE POLICY, UM, THAT A PROJECT THAT RECENTLY CONSOLIDATED, UH, MAY BE EXEMPT, UH, FROM REALLOCATION IN THE FOLLOWING COMPETITION, UH, AND REQUESTED THAT THE UTILIZATION BE RECALCULATED, UM, BY USING COMBINED DATA FROM TWO OF THE PROGRAMS. SO WE SUBMITTED, UH, I'M SORRY, THE AGENCY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL DATA. 
          UM, AND THE ISSUE THAT WE FOUND EFFECTIVELY FOR THIS PROJECT IS THAT THE, UH, THE DATA THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS A LARGER PROJECT THAN THE COC SCOPE. 
          SO IT WAS OVER A HUNDRED BEDS, BUT ONLY FIVE OF THOSE BEDS WERE ACTUALLY FUNDED BY COC, UM, WHICH IS FINE, BUT AGAIN, WE WEREN'T GOING TO USE THE FULL SCOPE OF THE NON COC FUNDED BEDS TO DO THAT CALCULATION. 
          SO WHAT WE DID WAS, UM, WE TOOK A, UH, AVERAGE. 
          SO WE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE A HUNDRED BED, UM, SAID WHAT PERCENTAGE OF, UH, UTILIZATION DOES THE ENTIRE, UH, PROJECT HAVE, UH, APPLIED THAT TO THE FIVE BEDS BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO TELL WHICH BEDS ARE SPECIFICALLY COC FUNDED AND WHICH ARE NOT. 
          UM, AND THEN APPLIED IT PROPORTIONATELY AND COMBINE THEM WITH THE ADVANCED DATA, WHICH IS A PROJECT THAT'S FULLY FUNDED BY THE COC. 
          UM, GENERALLY WE DON'T RECOMMEND USING THAT FULL OCCUPANCY OF A BROADER PROJECT. 
          IT'S ONLY PARTIALLY FUNDED BY COC TO CALCULATE UTILIZATION FOR THAT COC PROJECT. 
          UM, AND THEN WE ALSO REVIEWED THAT RECENT CONSOLIDATION EXEMPTION. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, THAT IS DISCRETIONARY NOT AUTOMATIC. 
          SO THE REASON WHY WE RECOMMEND NOT APPLYING IT HERE, UM, IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE LONGSTANDING PROJECTS. 
          SO THE CONSOLIDATION, UM, DOESN'T NECESSARILY ESTABLISH THAT THE PROJECT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, UH, EXEMPT. 
          TYPICALLY, THAT'S, UM, FOR A RAMP UP PERIOD. 
          AND THE CONSOLIDATION WAS DONE SPECIFICALLY TO SUPPORT THE PROJECTS TO, UM, HAVE A LOWER ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. 
          BASICALLY, INSTEAD OF TWO CONTRACTS, YOU HAVE ONE CONTRACT OVER TWO DIFFERENT PROJECTS. 
          UM, FOR THE SECOND PROJECT, UM, THERE WAS, UH, IS US VET CHAMPS. 
          UH, WE ACTUALLY RECOMMEND APPROVING THIS APPEAL. 
          UM, SO THIS IS A SMALL VETERAN FAMILY PROJECT WITH, UH, FOUR UNITS AND SEVEN BEDS IS WHAT IT'S FUNDED UNDER. 
          UM, AND SO THE EVALUATION SHOWED AN AVERAGE OF FIVE OF SEVEN BEDS OCCUPIED. 
          UH, AND WHEN YOU DO THAT MATH, THOSE TWO UNOCCUPIED BEDS SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE UTILIZATION PERCENTAGE. 
          HOWEVER, UM, THERE WERE FOUR UNITS. 
          SO THE ISSUE WAS ULTIMATELY A COM FAMILY COMPOSITION ISSUE. 
          SO WE RECOGNIZE THAT THAT UNOCCUPIED BED, UM, IN A FAMILY UNIT IS NOT THE SAME AS AN AVAILABLE BED THAT'S VACANT INDEPENDENT OF A SPECIFIC UNIT. 
          AND BECAUSE THE FAMILY HAD FEWER HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS AND WAS PROJECTED ORIGINALLY, UM, WERE UNABLE, THEY'RE UNABLE TO USE THAT ONE BED TO SERVE ADDITIONAL PER PEOPLE THAT ARE UNRELATED TO THE FAMILY. 
          SO, UM, THE UNDERLYING BED UTILIZATION DATA WAS ACCURATE, UM, BUT DUE TO LIKE THE CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECTS, UM, WE'RE CONSIDERING OR RECOMMENDING THAT WE WITHDRAW THAT FULL REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION, WE'D RETAIN THIS PROJECT ON THE LIST. 
          UM, THIS PROJECT WOULD FALL, UH, PARTIALLY IN TIER ONE AND PARTIALLY IN TIER TWO. 
          NOW YOU'RE PROBABLY SAYING TO YOURSELF, WAIT A MINUTE. 
          THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WE'VE BEEN HAVING FOR THE LAST HALF HOUR OR SO, IT'S BEEN ABOUT ANY PROJECT THAT'S IN TIER TWO IS PROBABLY NOT GONNA GET FUNDED. 
          IT'S ALMOST 0% CHANCE THAT IS A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE. 
          UM, THIS IS A SMALL PROJECT, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, AROUND $168,000, I THINK, UM, ABOUT 104 WOULD BE IN TIER ONE, SO GOOD TWO THIRDS OF THE PROJECT. 
          AND IT IS A PERMANENT HOUSING SERVING FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. 
          IT'S ONE OF THE FEW RE UM, IT'S ONE OF THE FEW RENEWAL PROJECT TYPES THAT DOES HAVE A CHANCE TO BE FUNDED IN TIER TWO. 
          AND SO ADDING THIS BACK TO THE LIST BASICALLY WOULD FUND THE PROJECT A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OUT OF ITS $168,000, THE ADDITIONAL $68,000 WOULD FALL INTO TIER TWO. 
          UM, AND THEN IN DECEMBER WE WOULD FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT HUD, UH, FULLY WOULD, UM, FULLY FUND THAT PROJECT BECAUSE TIER TWO IS THE FUNDING THAT WOULD BE, UH, UP FOR GRAB. 
          SO OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE WOULD BE TO APPROVE THE APPEAL TO INCLUDE IT PARTIALLY IN TIER ONE, PARTIALLY IN TIER TWO. 
          UM, AND THEN ALSO FOR CLARIFICATION, A PROJECT THAT FALLS PARTIALLY IN TIER ONE AND PARTIALLY IN TIER TWO, UM, AS LONG AS IT'S ABLE TO SUSTAIN, IF IT'S FUNDED, HUD'S MORE LIKELY TO FUND IT. 
          SO IF WE HAD LIKE A $1.5 MILLION PROJECT AND A HUNDRED THOUSAND WAS IN TIER TWO, UH, IN TIER ONE AND 1.4 MILLION WAS IN TIER TWO, UH, WE'D BE A LOT MORE 
          [01:55:01]
CONCERNED WITH INCLUDING THAT BECAUSE THAT PROJECT COULD NOT OPERATE ON A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS BUDGET. 
          UH, WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH, WHILE NOT IDEAL, UM, THE PROJECT WOULD PROBABLY BE MOSTLY SUPPORTED, UM, THROUGH THIS AND POTENTIALLY OTHER FUNDING, UH, TO SUSTAIN THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT OF THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT AND THE UNOCCUPIED BEDS. 
          UM, FOR NUMBER THREE, CABRILLO PLAZA PHD, UM, WE, UH, UM, THE APPEAL, I'M SORRY, UH, I MADE SOME NOTES. 
          UH, SO THE APPEAL REQUESTED A RECENT CONSOLIDATION EXEMPTION, UM, AND THEN IT NOTED THAT IT WAS ALSO IDENTIFIED FOR A ONE-TIME FUNDING SHIFT. 
          SO THIS IS ONE OF THE PROJECTS THAT, UM, HAD A ONE-TIME FUNDING SHIFT. 
          SO IN MAY WE NOTIFIED THEM THAT WE WERE GOING TO RECAPTURE A PORTION OF THEIR FUNDS BECAUSE THEY WERE SEVERELY UNDERSPENDING. 
          UM, IT HAPPENED AT THE END OF THE TERM, AND THEY'RE ASKING US TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY THAT TO THE GRANT BUDGET AND BASICALLY SAY, OKAY, WELL THEY, THEY SPENT THE MAJORITY OF THE LOWER BUDGET, UM, AND SO MOVE FORWARD IN AWARDING THEM AGAIN WITH THEIR, WITH THEIR FULL BUDGET. 
          UM, THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENTION. 
          THE SHIFT HAPPENED AGAIN AT THE END OF THE YEAR, UH, EFFECTIVELY IN THE LAST MONTH. 
          AND SO WE DON'T FEEL AS IF THOUGH, THAT WOULD'VE IMPROVED THE SPEND DOWN RESULT OVERALL, THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE SPENT AN EXTRA $130,000 IN A MONTH, UM, AND, AND INCREASED THE UTILIZATION TO THE POINT OR THE SPEND DOWN TO THE POINT THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN, UH, SEVERELY UNDERSPENDING. 
          UM, THERE ARE, THERE IS STRONG UTILIZATION PERFORMANCE SCORING THAT THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT TRUE. 
          BUT, UH, REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, ARE INDEPENDENT, UH, FLAGS. 
          SO A PROJECT DOESN'T NEED TO MEET EVERY SINGLE REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION IN ORDER TO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION TO REALLOCATE IT. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE MULTIPLE, IT ONLY NEEDS TO MEET, UM, ONE. 
          SO, UH, WE DON'T RECOMMEND THE CONSOLIDATION EXEMPTION FOR THE SAME REASON AS BEFORE. 
          THERE WAS, UH, NOT A RAMP UP PERIOD. 
          AND DUE TO THE INCREASED COMPETITION, WE DON'T FEEL AS IF THOUGH THE PERFORMANCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT WOULD'VE BEEN IMPROVED SEPARATELY. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, THE EXEMPTION IS DISCRETIONARY. 
          SO FOR THIS ONE, WE ARE, UH, RECOMMENDING A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL. 
          AND THEN THE FOURTH, UH, WAS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT FOR 1736. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, THE SAME CORE OCCUPANCY ISSUE AS THE APPEAL, UM, ASKING THAT OCCUPANCY BE RECALCULATED USING THE AVERAGE DAILY OCCUPANCY RATHER THAN THE POINT IN TIME COUNTS FROM THE SUBMITTED A PR. 
          UM, SO AGAIN, WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT WE WANT PROJECTS THAT ARE SERVING DV SURVIVORS, UM, THAT THERE, THERE IS SOME GOOD PERFORMANCE FROM THIS PROJECT. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, OUR REVIEW IS FOCUSED REALLY ON THE COC FUNDED BEDS FOR THE PROJECT, NOT THE FULL SITE CENSUS THAT ARE ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          UM, THE PROJECT IS MEANT TO SUPPORT 51 BEDS. 
          UM, AND REALLY WE CALL INTO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THE BEDS AND PARTICIPANTS WERE ASSIGNED TO AND REPORTED UNDER, UH, THE SPECIFIC COC FUNDED PROJECT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY REPORT DATES WITH THE SPECIFIC DATES THAT ARE USED IN THE A PR THAT CAPTURES CLIENTS THAT ARE ASSIGNED TO THE PROJECT IN THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF EVERY QUARTER. 
          SO, UM, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THOSE SOURCES MEASURED THE SAME PROJECT UNIVERSE, AND BECAUSE THAT WAS ALSO COMMUNICATED TO US, UH, WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND SUBSTITUTING THE MONTHLY SENSE, UH, CENSUS, UM, FOR BASICALLY ALL FUNDING SOURCES WITH THE SUBMITTED A PR COMPARABLE DATABASE, UH, IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 REVIEW. 
          UM, SO THE MOTHER REPORTS, UM, DO SHOW THE SHELTER WAS BEING USED, BUT THEY DON'T NECESSARILY DEMONSTRATE THAT THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT MET OCCUPANCY STANDARDS USING THAT PROJECT LEVEL DATA THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO US IN THE A PR THAT WE SUBMIT TO HUD FOR, UM, PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. 
          SO THAT IS THE REASON WHY, UH, THIS APPEAL RECOMMENDATION WAS TO DENY. 
          UM, HERE YOU'LL SEE OUR FINAL, THESE ARE OUR FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          SO WE DID RECOMMEND THE ONE CHANGE, WHICH WAS THAT THE FULL REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION FOR THE CHAMPS, UH, WHICH IS A VETERAN FAMILY SERVING PERMANENT SUPPORT OF HOUSING PROJECT IS WITHDRAWN, UH, TO RETAIN THAT IN THE PRIORITY LIST WITH PORTIONS ANTICIPATED TO FALL INTO TIER ONE AND TIER TWO. 
          UM, AND OF COURSE, HUD FUNDING, ESPECIALLY THAT IN TIER TWO IS NOT NECESSARILY GUARANTEED. 
          UM, BUT THE MAIN TAKEAWAY HERE IS IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS, UM, THAT CHAMPS WAS THE ONLY RECOMMENDED, UH, CHANGE FOLLOWING THE APPEAL REVIEW. 
          UM, SO, UH, I CAN MOVE ON TO REQUESTED BOARD ACTION, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GONNA WANT TO SIT ON THIS ONE FOR A LITTLE WHILE. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION. 
          UM, AGAIN, THE, UH, PURPOSE OF THIS EFFECTIVELY ONCE TO GET TO, SORRY, I'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT, WAS TO GET TO A CERTAIN NUMBER TO ENSURE THAT WE CAN APPLY 
          [02:00:01]
FOR THE MOST FUNDING POSSIBLE, UM, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AWARDED, UH, TO ENSURE THAT OUR, TO, TO ENSURE THAT WE RETAIN SOME LEVEL OF SYSTEM CAPACITY THROUGH COC DOLLARS. 
          UM, AND SO THE ALTERNATIVE UN RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE IS, UH, NOT TO REALLOCATE PROJECTS. 
          UH, AND THEY WILL EFFECTIVELY BE FUNDED BY HUD IN TIER TWO, AND THAT'LL BE MONEY THAT WE JUST LOSE IN THE SYSTEM. 
          SO THAT'S WHAT WE FEEL THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE FOR THE MOST PART. 
          UM, AND THEN THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE THIS FULL LIST. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD BE ON THE BOTTOM. 
          I FEEL LIKE THESE ARE THE ONES, UM, UH, AGAIN, UH, BASED ON THOSE REALLOCATION TRIGGERS AND YOU CAN SEE THE ACTUAL, UH, MEASURES PERCENTAGES IN THERE, UM, WHY WE'RE MAKING THOSE REALLOCATION DETERMINATIONS BASED ON OUR POLICY. 
          SO HAPPY TO OPEN THINGS UP FOR QUESTIONS AND STAYING ON THE SLIDE. 
          AND I KNOW WE ALSO PROBABLY HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ONE. 
          THANK YOU, JOSEPH. 
          ANYBODY FROM THE BOARD HAVE ANY UH, QUESTIONS? GOOD QUESTION. 
          I'M COMPARING IT. 
          THE PATENT TO THIS LIST, UM, FOR A REASON FOR REALLOCATION, JUST A DEFINITION OF TERMS. UM, I SEE SPEND DOWN VOLUNTARY PORTFOLIO BASED REALLOCATION WAS THAT PORTFOLIO BASED REALLOCATION WAS, UH, A REALLOCATION STANDARD THAT WE ADDED, UH, TO THE POLICY. 
          UM, THAT WAS, UM, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS THE LAST MONTH OR THE ONE BEFORE. 
          UH, SO THIS IS THE DISCRETIONARY BOARD ACTION, UH, BASED ON OUR PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENT. 
          SO EFFECTIVELY HERE, THIS WAS A DISCUSSION OF, BECAUSE WE MAY BE ABLE TO REPLACE RAPID REHOUSING THROUGH OTHER SOURCES, INCLUDING MAYBE LIKE ESG OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, UM, THAT, UH, THE RAPID REHOUSING, UH, PROJECTS, UM, WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION VERSUS SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE FULLY FLAGGED ON SPEND DOWN. 
          SO, UM, THERE YOU'LL SEE LIKE I SAID, FOR THESE, AND YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE WHEN YOU GO ON THE LIST, I HAVE TO, UH, ADMIT THAT WHEN, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR DATA TEAM IS JUST RELEASING THE, UM, UH, RELEASING THE HOMELESS COUNT, UH, WHICH I HOPE TO GET TO ALL OF YOU IN OCTOBER, UH, LIKE FOR AN OFFICIAL PRESENTATION. 
          UM, A COUPLE OF THESE, UH, HSB PROJECTS, UM, HAVE INCOMPLETE SCORES. 
          SO THEY LOOK LIKE THE PERFORMANCE IS A LOT LOWER THAN THEY ACTUALLY WERE. 
          SO WHEN YOU LOOK ON THE LIST, UH, YOU'LL SEE, I THINK ONE OF THEM IS LIKE 10% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S 'CAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE MET, BECAUSE WE WERE GONNA FULLY REALLOCATE THEM AND THEY WERE HSB PROJECTS, UM, THEY, THEY ULTIMATELY JUST DIDN'T COMPLETE SCORING AND WE WERE REALLOCATING THEM. 
          SO WE JUST TOOK THE HIT ON THE LOW SCORE BASICALLY BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, BUT YEAH. 
          UH, SPECIFIC TO YOURS, UH, THOSE WERE COMPETITIVE REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, TO GET US UNDER THAT CAP. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, TRYING TO LOOK AT POTENTIALLY REPLACING, UH, THAT FUNDING. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          REALLOCATION OF ALL OF THOSE PROGRAMS IS A TOTAL RESULTING IN A TOTAL OF 318 BED LOSSES ARE WE MAKING UP FOR THOSE BEDS WITH THE NEW PROJECTS? , THIS IS A, THIS ONE'S ACTUALLY A PARTIAL. 
          SO THIS ONE, UH, THIS ONE, THE HIGHEST ONE I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MAYBE EITHER REMOVED THAT OR ADDING A CLARIFYING STATEMENT. 
          THESE ARE NOT GONNA BE LOST. 
          THIS PROJECT'S STILL GONNA EXIST AND IT HAS UNDER UTILIZATION. 
          UM, SO IT'LL, THIS IS A CHUNK OFF OF A NINE. 
          IT'S ORIGINALLY 9 89 K, IT'LL GO DOWN TO EIGHT 80 4K. 
          UM, AND SO THE MAJORITY OF THESE, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, 'CAUSE I BELIEVE THERE'S ALSO SOME SPEND DOWN HERE ARE GONNA BE SUSTAINED. 
          SO, UM, YEAH, NOT TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOT OTHER NUMBERS HERE, BUT THAT 134 IS A LITTLE LIKE OUT OF PLACE. 
          I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ADDED SOMETHING CLARIFYING THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          BUT I'M SORRY, I THINK YOU STILL HAD, I THINK YOU STILL HAD A GREATER POINT ABOUT THE OTHER NUMBERS IF YOU COULD YEAH, HELP ME REPEAT. 
          YEAH, I'M LOOKING AT LOSS OF OCCUPANCY EMBEDS. 
          SO THIS MEANS I, I'M THINKING ABOUT AVAILABILITY. 
          ARE WE PICKING THOSE NUMBERS BACK UP WITH THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE APPROVED TO MOVE FORWARD? UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT, UM, SO THE NEW, THE NEW PROJECTS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO APPLY FOR ARE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, UH, AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY, UH, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY. 
          SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY DOES NOT PROVIDE BEDS. 
          IT'S STANDALONE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. 
          AND THEN THERE'S THE DV BONUS. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE SUBMITTING, UH, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING APPLICATIONS, NEW NEW PROJECT APPLICATIONS 
          [02:05:02]
FOR I THINK MAYBE LIKE 70 BEDS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, SO, WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD BE A REPLACEMENT FOR, UM, TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND THEN THERE IS THE DV, WHICH UM, WILL BE A MIX OF TRANSITIONAL AND RAPID REHOUSING. 
          AND THEN AS MENTIONED, UM, WHERE FUNDING DOESN'T ALIGN WITH THE NOFO, THAT'S WHERE WE WILL EITHER REPURPOSE OTHER FUNDING THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE NOTICE OF FUNDING AND OR RECEIVE ADDITIONAL FUNDS, UM, TO TRY TO, THE, THE MAIN THING WE WANT TO PRIORITIZE IS PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          UM, HAVING SOMEONE SEND A LEASE, GET KEYS, MOVE INTO THE UNIT, AND THEN BE DISPLACED AS LIKE SOMETHING THAT WE LIKE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN. 
          SO BASICALLY WE'RE TAKING EVERY EFFORT THAT WE CAN TO PRESERVE PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          UM, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE A YEAR FROM NOW, IT'S HARD TO SAY, BUT LIKE THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING WITH GENERAL AGREEMENT INTERNALLY WITHIN THE CITY, EXTERNALLY WITH FUNDERS THAT AGREES AND COMMITS TO PRESERVING PERMANENT HOUSING. 
          SO FOR, AND I THINK ANOTHER IMPORTANT POINT OF CLARIFICATION, LIKE A LOT OF THESE ARE OBVIOUSLY PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S HARDER THAT'S GONNA BE A REPLACEMENT OUTSIDE OF THE NOFO BECAUSE, UM, PERMANENT HOUSING IS THE LOWEST PRIORITY FOR A HUT TO FUND. 
          SO, UM, WE ARE INCLUDING A, A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RAPID REHOUSING THAT WE WOULD PROCURE OUT IF IT GOT AWARDED. 
          UM, WE ARE INCLUDING THAT AT THE END OF THE LIST THOUGH 'CAUSE WE FEEL LIKE IT'S VERY UNLIKELY FOR IT TO BE FUNDED. 
          UM, BUT UM, AS FAR AS LIKE THROUGH THE COMPETITION, WE DIDN'T SOLICIT FOR PSH SIMPLY BECAUSE, UM, THEY'RE NOT COMPETITIVE PROJECT TYPES. 
          HUD DOES NOT WANNA FUND, UH, NEW PERMANENT HOUSING, UM, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE THOSE WITH FAMILIES, WITH CHILDREN. 
          UM, IT, IT'S PRIMARILY $1.3 BILLION TRYING TO FUND TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES ONLY. 
          SO THAT'S WHERE WE, WE FOCUSED OUR EFFORTS TO BE ABLE TO MAYBE GET FUNDING IN THAT AREA AND THEN USE OTHER FUNDING TO SUPPLEMENT THE PERMANENT HOUSING PORTFOLIO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UM, WE DO HAVE TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. 
          UH, PABLO ESCOBEL. 
          YEAH, , UH, PABLO ESCOBAR FOR 1736 FAMILY CRISIS CENTER. 
          UM, NOT TO REHASH TOO MUCH OF THE SAME THING THAT I SAID BEFORE, 'CAUSE THE ARGUMENTS ARE VERY SIMILAR. 
          UM, WELL SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD IN RESPONSE AFTER THE VOTE WAS TAKEN IS THAT ADDITIONAL DATA WAS PROVIDED BY US, IT WASN'T ACCEPTED, DIDN'T LIKE IT, FIND THAT WE COULD PRESENT IT IN ANOTHER WAY. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO BALANCE PRESENTING THE DATA THAT WE HAVE VERSUS NOT, OBVIOUSLY NOT TRYING TO, TO COOK THE NUMBERS, QUOTE UNQUOTE THE PEOPLE ARE THERE. 
          WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BASED ON MORE A YEARLY ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE PROJECT DOES ON FOUR SPECIFIC DATES, AT LEAST 12 DATES, YOU KNOW, THAT WE CAN SHOW THAT IT WAS HIGHER THAN THE PERCENTAGE THAT'S THERE. 
          AND ONCE AGAIN, THREE YEARS BEING SHOWN HERE THAT UNDERPERFORMING, THIS IS THE FIRST THAT WE HEAR OF IT. 
          I'M ASKING PEOPLE THAT ARE IN CHARGE OF THIS PROGRAM AND WE THOUGHT WE WERE IN THE 90TH PERCENTILE AND IT TURNS OUT IT'S IN THE 50TH PERCENTILE. 
          THERE'S SOMETHING MISSING THERE THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. 
          AND THEN ALSO LOOKING AT THE, UH, THE PRIORITY LISTING I HEARD MENTIONED THAT WE'D BE A TIER TWO IF WE DON'T GET THE FUNDING, BUT I SEE ON HERE THAT ACTUALLY OUR TIER RANKING SCORE WOULD BE NA, THERE ARE TIER TWOS ALREADY THAT ARE ACCEPTED. 
          SO THAT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE EITHER. 
          UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVEN KNEW TO APPLY FOR SOME OF THESE OTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES BECAUSE WE'RE WORKING ON THESE. 
          SO THAT OPTION, WHILE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO IN THE FUTURE, UM, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO REDO THAT, ESPECIALLY 
          [02:10:02]
WE'RE ONCE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS THAT SEEM TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH ADDITIONAL HOOPS COMPARED TO NON DV SURVIVORS. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND THEN LINA POWELL. 
          HELLO DAN. 
          UM, FIRST I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY JUST TO SPEAK, TO HEAR HERSELF. 
          UM, I KNOW THIS IS A DIFFICULT DECISION. 
          WE'RE SERVICE PROVIDERS. 
          WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THE PROGRAMS TO HAVE TO BE REALLOCATED. 
          THAT WOULD BE OUR WISH THAT ALL PROGRAMS ARE FUNDED. 
          THIS IS WHAT WE FIGHT FOR, THIS IS WHAT WE GO TO WORK FOR EVERY DAY, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE WHO IS IN OUR UNHOUSED COMMUNITY HAS A SAFE PLACE TO THEIR HEAD. 
          AND WE DEAL WITH A UNIQUE SUBSET. 
          WE DEAL WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS. WE DEAL WITH THE OVERLAPPING, LIKE HUMAN TRAFFICKING CONCERNS. 
          LIKE OUR SURVIVORS COME FROM A VARIETY OF BACKGROUNDS. 
          AND SO THAT'S WHY WHEN WE FERENCE LIKE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS OF SURVIVORS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO AS THOUGH WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DATA CAPTURING WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHEN YOU GUYS LOOK AT OUR PERFORMANCE OVERALL, WE RANKED THE 86.7% PERFORMANCE WITH ZERO POINTS IN THIS CATEGORY THAT THEY AWARDED US BECAUSE OF THIS DATA ISSUE. 
          SO AWARDED SOME POINTS IN THAT CATEGORY, WE WOULD'VE BEEN RANKING OVER 90% TO A HUNDRED PERCENT PERFORMANCE, WHICH WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT REALLOCATION. 
          SO, LIKE I SAID, WE UNDERSTAND THAT NO PROJECT WANTS TO BE REALLOCATED, BUT IF WE FAIRLY LOOK AT THE METHODOLOGY, IF THEY TOLD US THAT THEY WOULD USE IN ORDER TO EVALUATE OUR SCORES, WHICH WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE METHODOLOGY IS USING, AND I UNDERSTAND WE'RE A SERVICE PROVIDER, WE ARE REALLY FOCUSED ON SERVICE. 
          WE HAVE DEPARTMENTS FOCUSED ON DATA AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOUBLE-DIPPING IN POTS AND DOING THINGS, AND THAT WE'RE ACCURATELY REPORTING TO THE COC. 
          HEY, LOOK, WE ARE A SHELTER. 
          IT'S VERY RARE THAT WE GET AWARDED FUNDS BIG ENOUGH SO THAT EVERY FUNDING COVERS THE A HUNDRED PERCENT OPERATIONAL COST OF A SHELTER. 
          WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SERVING 108 CLIENTS THROUGH THE YEARS ON A $400,000 BUDGET, YOU KNOW? SO YES, WE WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE LONG BEACH COMMUNITY. 
          WE ARE OPEN TO ACCEPTING CONVERSATIONS, SUBMITTING MORE DATA, WHATEVER THEY NEED. 
          WE HAVE A UPCOMING AUDIT. 
          WE HAVE THE DATA THERE. 
          WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE ACCESS TO ALL OF OUR REPORTING. 
          IT WILL BE THERE, AND WE'RE OPEN TO WHATEVER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CAN BE PROVIDED. 
          BUT WE SAY THAT LIKE FULL REALLOCATION OF OUR FUNDING. 
          WE DO NOT FEEL LIKE IT IS THE CORRECT STEP IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. 
          NOT FOR JUST US AS A SERVICE PROVIDER, BUT IT'S FOR OUR COMMUNITY. 
          IT'S FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY LYING IN THESE BEDS RIGHT NOW. 
          SO I THANK YOU GUYS AGAIN, JUST FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THIS. 
          UM, JUST OPPORTUNITIES TO PRESENT, UM, TO GET AN ARGUMENT SIDE OF IT. 
          AND WE HOPE THAT YOUR RECONSIDERATION FOR OUR PROGRAM, UM, YOU KNOW, STANDS. 
          SO THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? IF YOU CAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          GO. 
          HELLO EVERYONE. 
          UH, MY NAME IS DR. 
          ADRIAN JR. 
          I'M A 1736. 
          I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS, UH, PRIORITY LIST. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE PRIORITY LIST AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS BASED ON THE PUBLISHING. 
          PARDON ME? WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT ON THE PRIORITY LIST. 
          OH, YOU'RE NOT ITEM? NO, WE'RE ON THE REALLOCATION ITEM. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, SO IF YOU CAN FOCUS IT, JUST REFRAME IT ON REALLOCATION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          SO, UH, FOR THE REALLOCATION, BASED ON THE PUBLISHED PROJECT PERFORMANCE SCORES, THERE ARE NINE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION, UM, FOR TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          UH, 1736, UH, PROJECT RANKED AMONG THE TOP PERFORMING TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS. 
          GIVEN THE STRONG PERFORMANCE, WE'RE SEEKING AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY 1736 POUND CRISIS CENTER HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED FOR REALLOCATION. 
          WHILE PROJECTS WITH LOWER PERFORMANCE SCORES WERE NOT RECOMMENDED FOR REALLOCATION, THE RECOMMENDATION RAISES CONCERNS REGARDING CONSISTENCY AND EQUITABILITY EQUITABLE APPLICATIONS ON THE CO C'S PUBLISHED, UH, LIST. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. 
          SEE ENOUGH? MAY I PROVIDE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION? 
          [02:15:01]
I FEEL LIKE I'VE BEEN FORCED TO, IF WE LOOK AT THE COLUMN RANKING GROUP AND WE GO DOWN TO NUMBER NINE, WE'LL SEE THAT EVERY PROJECT FROM NUMBER NINE AND TIER TWO ON ARE ALL BRAND NEW PROJECTS PROPOSED TO THE RFB. 
          ONLY ONE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT IS CURRENTLY BEING RECOMMENDED FOR RENEWAL BECAUSE HUT IS ONLY TAKING NEW PROJECTS, NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING AND SO YEAH. 
          SO THE MAJORITY THAT GOT SUBMITTED THROUGH THE RFP RIGHT ARE NEW TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          SO THOSE SCORES ARE RELATED TO THE RFP. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE. 
          UH, LET'S GET A VOTE. 
          UH, LET ME GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BY SHOW OF HANDS. 
          SORRY, CAN YOU JUST READ OUT THE, READ IT, READ IT OUT? YEAH, THE AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS IS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 2 6 5 5 7 1 3. 
          RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE PHYSICAL YEAR, 2026 LONG BEACH, COC REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS AND HEAR ANY APPEALS? I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BY A SHOW OF HANDS? GIMME ONE SECOND. 
          I'M A PROVIDER. 
          I DON'T THINK I CAN VOTE. 
          UH, YEAH, I'M ABSTAINING AS, YEAH, THEY, YEAH, WE HAVE TWO BOARD MEMBERS THAT NEED TO ABSTAIN. 
          SO THEN WE NEED TO SEE THE NOTE. 
          DO WE NEED TO SEE THE NO VOTES? I'M SORRY. 
          THE VOTES. 
          SO WE SAID, ALL IN FAVOR RAISING HAND 90, RIGHT? ALL IN FAVORS RAISED THEIR HAND ALREADY, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO NOW YOU SAY ALL NO. 
          OPPOSED. 
          ANY OPPOSED? AND ANYBODY OPPOSED? PLEASE RAISE YOUR HANDS. 
          UH, YOU GUYS HAVE TO CHOOSE. 
          YOU HAVE TO VOTE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          YOU HAVE TO VOTE. 
          I'M CONFUSED. 
          VOTE. 
          SO LET'S, LET'S GO OVER AGAIN. 
          LET'S GO AGAIN. 
          NO, I MEAN, IS THIS ONE WE WAS JUST, YOU VOTE ON, NOW WE, CAN WE PULL THAT BACK UP SO WE TABLE YEAH. 
          WE TABLED, WE TABLED THE FIRST ISSUE. 
          THAT WAY WE CAN GET HEARING AND GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION, GET UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          YEAH. 
          LET'S SKIP TO THE, SO NOW WE ARE HERE, WE'RE BACK AT THIS FOR THE REALLOCATION ITSELF. 
          YEAH. 
          SO LET ME, UH, KIM AND JACOB, YES. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          AFFECT DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO THIS ONE SEEMS MORE TO ME NOW THAT WE HAVE, UH, A BETTER UNDERSTANDING. 
          IS THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A VOTE THERE? QUESTIONS? YEAH, IF I, IF I'M, CAN I PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT PLEASE? OR MAYBE NOT ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, BUT KIND OF REFRAME IT. 
          SO, UM, SO WE ARE, UH, WE HAVE AN ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND OF $12.2 MILLION. 
          UH, 60% OF OUR ANNUAL RENEWAL DEMAND, UH, IS TIER ONE, WHICH MEANS THAT AS LONG AS IT PASSES THRESHOLD FUNDING BY HUD, THEY SHOULD AWARD IT. 
          SO THIS IS $7.3 MILLION OR SO. 
          UM, OF THAT. 
          IN ADDITION, WE CAN APPLY FOR 1.8 MILLION IN COC BONUS AND 1.3 MILLION IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE BONUS. 
          UM, SO WE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE APPROVED OUR SCORE REPORTS, UH, DISSEMINATED THOSE, UH, APPLIED OUR REALLOCATION FLAGS. 
          UM, AND SO WE ARE NOT ON THIS ITEM, BUT I DO THINK IMPORTANTLY, WHILE, UH, NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE BEING, UH, PROPOSED FOR REALLOCATION, I THINK THAT THE AMOUNT OF TIME WE SPENT ON THIS CONVERSATION HAS PERHAPS LED US TO NOT THINK ABOUT THE PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT BEING PROPOSED FOR REALLOCATION. 
          SO THERE ARE $7.3 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS THAT DID NOT MEET ANY REALLOCATION FLAG, WHOSE PERFORMANCE WAS DEEMED SUFFICIENT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND SO, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HUD ASKS 
          [02:20:01]
US TO DO IS HAVE AN OBJECTIVE DATABASE PROCESS THAT IS INFORMED BY NOT OUR WHIMS, BUT BY ACTUAL DATA FOR BOTH EVALUATING PROJECTS AND REALLOCATING PROJECTS. 
          WE ARE NOT ONLY SCORED ON OUR COMPETITION NARRATIVES, SO OUR DESCRIPTION OF OUR SYSTEM AND HOW WE COORDINATE SERVICES AND HOW OUR PROVIDERS WORK TOGETHER, WE'RE ALSO SCORED ON HOW WE HOLD OUR LOCAL COMPETITION AND HOW WE MAKE DECISIONS. 
          THIS IS ALL COMMUNICATED TO HUT. 
          SO ONE THING THAT I MENTIONED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, AND I'VE MENTIONED ON A PROVIDER CALL, IS, WELL, WHERE WE INVITED FOLKS TO GIVE US FEEDBACK IS AT 1.1 OPTION WAS JUST PUT ALL PERMANENT HOUSING IN TIER ONE. 
          AND IF WE WOULD'VE DONE THAT, ALL, ALL THESE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS, INCLUDING SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING ALREADY WOULD'VE BEEN, WOULD BE REALLOCATED. 
          UM, THAT WOULD ALSO DEMONSTRATE THAT OUR PROCESS IS BASED ON OUR PREFERENCE FOR PERMANENT HOUSING OVER EVERY OTHER, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DIDN'T RECOMMEND THAT TYPE OF RANKING SYSTEM. 
          UH, WHAT WE ULTIMATELY AGREED ON WAS A RANKING SYSTEM WHERE, UM, WE TAKE PROJECTS, PERMANENT HOUSING FIRST, UM, THAT SCORE OVER 70% OF POINTS AVAILABLE, UH, MOVE DOWN TO, UH, UH, TRANSITIONAL, WELL THE ONE JOINT COMPONENT IN TRANSITIONAL HOUSING, AND THEN LOOK AT PROJECTS THAT SCORED, UH, UNDER AS WELL. 
          UM, OUR REALLOCATION STANDARDS, UM, AGAIN, WE'VE HAD STANDARDS FOR SEVERAL YEARS, UM, AND ALTHOUGH WE MAY HAVE NOT ALWAYS APPLIED THEM UNIFORMLY, UM, BE FOR THIS VERY REASON, BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, UH, REALLOCATE FUNDING. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN A SITUATION WHERE WITHIN THIS SPECIFIC PORTFOLIO, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION OF WHICH 60% OF PROJECTS ARE WE SUBMITTING TO HUD FOR FUNDING CONSIDERATION, AND WHAT 40% ARE WE GOING TO ATTEMPT TO REPLACE FUNDING FOR AND SECURE NEW FUNDING TO JUST ENSURE OUR SYSTEM DOESN'T TAKE, UH, YOU KNOW, A A $4.8 MILLION, $4.9 MILLION HIT. 
          UM, SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE VERY WELL COULD MOVE FORWARD AND ATTEMPT TO SCHEDULE AN EMERGENCY MEETING AND TALK ABOUT THIS AGAIN, BUT I WOULD IMPLORE THE BOARD TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WOULD MAKE FOR WHAT PROJECTS THEY WOULD REALLOCATE OUTSIDE OF THE POLICIES THAT YOU ALL PASSED. 
          BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT LIKE WHAT IS IN THE POLICIES THAT THE BOARD WORKED ON AND PASSED, MANY OF WHICH HAVE BEEN STANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 
          AND SO IN LIEU OF THAT, WE WILL HAVE TO MAKE A SUBJECTIVE CHOICE, NOT AN OBJECTIVE CHOICE, A SUBJECTIVE CHOICE BASED ON OUR FEELINGS OF WHICH PROJECTS ARE MORE DESERVING REGARDLESS OF THE POLICIES WE PASS AND THE DATA THAT WE HAVE TO EVALUATE. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND, I DON'T THINK THIS IS, I LOOK FORWARD TO TAKING MY CRYING GAME SHOWER LATER TONIGHT. 
          HOWEVER, UH, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, WHETHER IT'S TODAY, TOMORROW, FRIDAY OR MONDAY, WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT $4.8 MILLION WORTH OF PROJECTS, UH, WE ARE NOT FUNDING, UH, AND NOT SUBMITTING TO HUD FOR FUNDING. 
          THE ALTERNATIVE OF SUBMITTING THEM TO HUD WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY SAYING, HUD, TAKE BACK THIS $5 MILLION. 
          IT'S TOO DIFFICULT FOR ME TO, TO BASICALLY MOVE FORWARD AND, AND MAKE A DECISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS COMPETITION. 
          SO I, I THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION OF, AND, AND I KNOW SOME IDEAS WENT OUT THERE AND WE DID TALK ABOUT AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL, SOME OF THOSE IDEAS AS WELL. 
          BUT IF WE'RE NOT USING THIS METHODOLOGY, IF WE'RE GONNA COME BACK TO THE TABLE, I DON'T THINK I HAVE CLEAR DIRECTION ON WHAT METHODOLOGY WE SHOULD BE USING. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE NEXT STEP. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEEDS TO BE THOUGHT ABOUT AND DETERMINED AS WE'RE MOVING FORWARD. 
          SO IF WE ARE NOT TAKING OUR REALLOCATION POLICY AND MOVING FORWARD TO SAY, WE PASSED THIS POLICY BEFORE WE KNEW WHAT ANY OF THE SCORES WERE BEFORE, WHAT ANY OF THESE PROJECTS WERE THAT WE WERE GONNA HAVE TO PROPOSE THAT, AND I DON'T LIKE TO LEAN ON THIS, BUT AGAIN, WE ARE GONNA TRY TO GET REPLACEMENT FUNDING FOR THESE FOR, FOR THESE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS. 
          UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD NEED CLARITY ON 
          [02:25:01]
IS WHAT DIRECTION ARE WE GONNA MOVE IN TO GET THIS PORTFOLIO PREPARED TO SUBMIT FOR FUNDING CONSIDERATION TO HUT? BECAUSE THE MEASURES THAT WERE APPROVED OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, UM, POTENTIALLY ARE NOT THE DIRECTION THE BOARD IS NOW CHOOSING TO GO. 
          SO IF WE CAN MAYBE HAVE SOME CONVERSATION ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME TO KNOW THE DIRECTION AND IT MAY BE HELPFUL FOR, UH, THE BOARD TO, UH, AGAIN, CONSIDER WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES WE MAY HAVE WHEN CONSIDERING OUR PORTFOLIO AND WHAT WE WILL SUBMIT TO HUD. 
          YOU SAY, UH, MONDAY, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF DECISION BY MONDAY, RIGHT? UH, IF WE HAVE A FINALIZED, UH, LIST ON MON, WELL, WE HAVE TO HAVE SCREENSHOTS AND NOTIFICATIONS OUT BY TUESDAY, THE ABSOLUTE LATEST. 
          UM, SO I WOULD, YEAH, I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE, UH, SENDING THOSE OUT MONDAY. 
          , I DON'T WANNA SEND THEM OUT ON TUESDAY PERSONALLY. 
          UM, WHICH AGAIN DOES MEAN WE COULD TECHNICALLY RECONVENE FOLKS WOULD HAVE TO BE BACK HERE PROBABLY FRIDAY MAYBE. 
          BUT I WOULD ALSO, LIKE I SAID, KIND OF WANT TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION WE'RE TRYING TO MOVE IN. 
          UM, IF THAT IS THE CASE, JOSEPH, I WAS PART OF THE REALLOCATION COMMITTEE AND I, WE, I THINK, LIKE YOU SAID, WE, WE CHOSE A METHODOLOGY ALONG BEFORE WE KNEW WHO IT WAS GOING TO AFFECT. 
          AND I THINK THAT THAT WAS A FAIR WAY TO DO IT. 
          I THINK WHAT'S HOLDING PEOPLE UP HERE TODAY IS NOT THE METHODOLOGY, BUT SPECIFIC TO 1736 IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WERE YOU ABLE TO APPLY THE METHODOLOGY BASED ON THE DATA THAT THEY PRESENTED, OR WAS THERE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THEIR OCCUPANT OCCUPANCY DATA? AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S HOLDING US UP THERE ON, ON THAT ONE IS JUST THE DATA CONFLICT AND LIKE, NOT THE METHODOLOGY NECESSARILY, BUT THE DATA CONFLICT. 
          UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER, WHAT HAWK SAID EARLIER IS LIKE, THERE'S NO GOOD ANSWER HERE. 
          YEAH. 
          LIKE, NOBODY'S HAPPY ABOUT THIS, NOBODY WANTS TO DO THIS, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE IS LOSING THE FUNDING FOR THE CITY, BUT THE CONTINUOUS, RIGHT? AND SO WE WANT IT, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I DO. 
          AND ALTHOUGH THE, THE INTERPRETATION OF THE DATA MAY DIFFER, I THINK THE AGREEMENT WOULD BE THAT I TWICE ASKED FOR NEW DATA AND SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT WHAT MY ISSUE WAS AND RECEIVED A CLARIFICATION THAT MADE ME BELIEVE THAT THE DATA SUBMITTED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WAS NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, WHICH IS HOW WE CAME FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION AS A SERVICE PROVIDER. 
          I HAVE ONE PROGRAM UP THERE AND IT'S ASSISTANT IN HIGH RANKING PROGRAM, AND THEY THINK OUR MEMBERS ARE JUST DESERVING AS ANY OTHER MEMBER THAT, RIGHT. 
          THAT IS IN NEED OF HOUSING. 
          SO, UM, I'M GLAD I DON'T GET A VOTE FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM BECAUSE, UM, IT IS A HIGH PERFORMANCE STAFF, IT'S INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AND WE ARE PUT IN THIS POSITION. 
          I DON'T THINK IT WAS PRIOR. 
          I JUST WANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE HAWK FOR HER WORDS. 
          UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE VALUE. 
          WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING WE VALUE, BUT DON'T WANT TO DO. 
          UM, SO, UM, JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT. 
          I THINK THIS HAS BEEN STATED BEFORE, BUT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE, THE DATA IN QUESTION, THE DATA THAT WAS UTILIZED WAS DATA THAT GETS SUBMITTED TO HUD AS PART OF THEIR ANNUAL, UH, PERFORMANCE FOR ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT. 
          AND SO IN USING THAT DATA FOR THIS COMPETITION, BECAUSE THAT'S THE DATA THAT GETS SUBMITTED TO HUD, SO WE WOULD BE USING ALTERNATIVE DATA FROM ALTERNATIVE SOURCE METHODOLOGY, UM, WHICH WOULD MEAN DEVIATING FROM A SYSTEM OF, UH, FAIRNESS, UM, THAT EVERYONE ELSE WAS, EVERYONE ELSE APPLIED TO A PARTICULAR DIFFERENT, A PARTICULAR STANDARD WAS ESSENTIALLY USING A PR DATA. 
          SO WE'D BE ALLOWING A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR A DIFFERENT PROVIDER. 
          UM, AND IF, UH, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THERE'S, THAT'S KINDA LIKE THE PRIMARY REASON FOR OUR NOT CONSIDERING THAT DATA AT THIS TIME IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DATA RECEIVED FOR AN ANNUAL PERFORMANCE. 
          I BELIEVE I WAS ON, I DON'T BELIEVE I WAS ON THIS FOREIGN METHODOLOGY COMMITTEE, AND I BELIEVE TWO OTHER MEMBERS YEAH. 
          WAS ON THERE. 
          WE UNDERSTAND CLEARLY WAS NEED TO BE DONE, AND WE DID TOUCH BASES ON THE REALLOCATION. 
          UH, WE COULDN'T 
          [02:30:01]
GO TOO DEEP INTO IT, JOSEPH, AS YOU KNOW, BUT THOSE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, I CLEARLY GET THE BIG PICTURE AND, UM, I'M READY TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS MOVE FORWARD. 
          I THINK, I THINK THE FOCUS AND CONCERN ISN'T SO MUCH ON THE ENTIRE PORTFOLIO THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, BUT SPECIFIC TO 1736, THAT RAISE SOME VALID CONCERNS IN THE METHODOLOGY AND THEIR DATA TRACKING BECAUSE OF THE DEMOGRAPHICS THAT THEY, THAT THEY SERVE AND THE DIFFERENCE IN THE, THE A PR. 
          AND AGAIN, I'M JUST, I'M SORRY YOU GUYS, I, I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING SUPER LATE AND I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND AND BE CLEAR JUST WITHIN MYSELF SO THAT I KNOW THAT I'M MAKING AN INFORMED AND CLEAR DECISION, BUT THERE'S, THERE'S THIS GAP BETWEEN THE A PR AND THEIR DATA AND HOW THEY WERE TRACKING AND WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND WHAT WAS COUNTED WITHIN THEIR CENSUS. 
          OR WASN'T IT? THEY WERE BOTH, THEY WERE BOTH SUBMITTED BY THE AGENCY. 
          YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THE AP APR. 
          YEAH. 
          YEAH. 
          THE A PR DATA IS A, A COLLECTION OF MORE DATA THAN, YEAH. 
          MORE DATA THAN JUST OCCUPIES. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, BUT WHERE, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL A GAP, THERE'S STILL A DISTANCE, CORRECT? YES. 
          BETWEEN WHAT WAS PRESENTED, I'M, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, CORRECT. 
          BOTH WERE PRESENTED, RIGHT, BUT WITH WHAT THE, OR WITH WHAT THE ORGANIZATION TRACKED AND THE WAY IN WHICH THEY TRACKED IT AND THEIR NUMBERS AND WHAT THEIR CENSUS SUPPORTS SURE. 
          VERSUS THE INFORMATION THAT MADE IT ONTO THE A PR. 
          THERE'S CLEARLY A GAP BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO THEIR, THEIR EXPLANATION WAS THAT THE A PR DATA WAS SPECIFIC TO THE COC FUNDED BEDS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THAT THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY INCLUDED ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO TO UNDERSTAND. 
          AND THAT'S, THAT'S IN THE, THAT'S IN THE, UH, APPEAL. 
          WELL, THAT PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THAT WAS ALSO IN THE APPEAL AS WELL. 
          MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE'LL INCLUDE THE, ALL THE APPEALS AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          JUST SO YOU CAN READ IT THERE. 
          LUCKILY THEY ALSO INCLUDED IT IN THAT PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          SO IT'S PRETTY MUCH VERBATIM AS THE EXPLANATION WE RECEIVED OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          UH, I CON MY CONCERN IS THAT THEY'VE BEEN, THEY AREN'T, THEY'VE BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE. 
          WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THEM FOR A WHILE. 
          THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH US FOR A WHILE. 
          WHY IS IT THAT THEIR DATA WAS ACCEPTED BEFORE AND IT'S NOT ACCEPTED NOW? IT WAS ACCEPTED EVERY TIME. 
          YEAH. 
          THE PROBLEM IS THAT THEY DIDN'T, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE A PR DATA IS NOT ACCURATE, BUT THEY SUBMITTED US THE A PR DATA. 
          SO EVERY YEAR THEY SUBMITTED A PR DATA AND EVERY DAY THEY USED IT. 
          BUT THE DATA BEFORE IT WAS ACCEPTED, AND NOW IT'S NOT, IT IS ACCEPTED. 
          WE DID ACCEPT IT. 
          THEY, THEY, THEY'RE SAYING NOT TO USE THEIR APR DATA IS ACCURATE. 
          CORRECT. 
          THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE A P DATA IS NOT ACCURATE OR INCOMPLETE OR, UM, OKAY. 
          SO IF I, IF I THINK THAT IF WE, IF WE UNDERSTOOD THE OPTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN, THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THAT PROJECT. 
          THE, THE 1736, I THINK THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE, WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. 
          RIGHT. 
          THE OTHERS I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH, BUT IF WE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEIR OPTIONS ARE, THAT WE WEREN'T GONNA JUST COMPLETELY TURN OUR BACK ON THEM AND NOT OFFER THEM ANY KIND OF OTHER OPTIONS WITHOUT PROMISING THAT WE WILL DO THIS, WHICH I KNOW YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT ALL SET UP. 
          BUT TO GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE AT OUR NEXT, NEXT TIME WE GET TOGETHER AND VOTE OR BEFOREHAND I THINK WOULD BE PREFERABLE. 
          THEN I THINK THAT WE WOULD BE A, WE WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE ON OUR VOTE. 
          'CAUSE I DON'T REALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE. 
          I'M COMPLETELY SHUTTING THEM OFF. 
          PROBABLY. 
          MAYBE I COULD ACCEPT A PARTIAL REALLOCATION IF THAT WAS OFFERED, BUT THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE. 
          BUT IF I UNDERSTOOD THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO COMPLETELY TURN THEIR BACK ON THEM AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO THEM THAT WE WOULD OPEN UP AND PUT THEM ON A PRIORITY LIST FOR, THEN I THINK I COULD MAKE THE DECISION. 
          SORRY. 
          UH, WE JUST LOST QUORUM. 
          I BELIEVE HAWK YOU WENT TO THE RESTROOM. 
          SO IF WE COULD JUST WAIT FOR THEM TO RETURN. 
          [02:35:29]
NO, IT'S A DRAGON. 
          NO. 
          HOWEVER, I'M SO SORRY. 
          I ALSO HAVE TO ASK BOARD MEMBERS NOT TO DISCUSS THE ITEMS WHILE PEOPLE ARE YEAH. 
          'CAUSE WE'RE  IT'S RIGHT. 
          IT'S A SERIAL KIND OF THING. 
          YEAH. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          JUST BECAUSE WE'RE AT PUBLIC MEETING, SO IT HAS TO BE DELIBERATION SHOULD BE IN PUBLIC. 
          SO YEAH, JUST DISCUSSING. 
          YOU CAN TALK ABOUT OTHER THINGS. 
          , WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING THAT WHEN WE GET YOU HAVE TO BE I CAN, YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. 
          , WE HAVE A BIG EVENT. 
          THAT'S GOOD. 
          CAN YOU TABLE THE REST OF ITEMS? I MEAN, I MEAN, THE OTHER ONES, I GUESS WE CAN, BUT LIKE THE NEXT ONE, LIKE I, AND THEN LATER I WAS LIKE, OH YEAH, I GUESS WE DID, I'M LIKE SAYING THAT JEFF, LIKE MAYBE I COMPLAIN TOO MUCH, BUT I LIKE, I THINK I, THIS SPECIFIC ISSUE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE ALL, SORRY. 
          GOOD. 
          WE JUST HAVE TO NO, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          DON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT IT. 
          SORRY, I GRABBING A BODY THAT . 
          IT'S TOTALLY OKAY. 
          HONESTLY, WE SHOULD HAVE PULLED A BREAK AT SOME POINT. 
          UM, SO YEAH, UM, GOING BACK, JEFF HAD TO UNFORTUNATELY LEAVE, UH, JEFF SAID HE WOULD BE PERFECTLY HAPPY TO, IF THAT'S A THING, CONSIDERING THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE, UM, THAT WE'RE WORKING ON ABOUT REPLACEMENT FUNDING. 
          UM, IF THAT'S THE THING HOLDING SOME FOLKS UP, HE'S HAPPY TO IZE THAT PRESENTATION IN THE NEXT MEETING. 
          I WAS ACTUALLY GONNA PROPOSE AT THE END OF THE MEETING, UH, CONSIDERING HOW MUCH WE'VE BEEN MEETING RECENTLY AND EARLIER, UM, THAT WE DO NOT MEET IN SEPTEMBER, RECONVENE IN OCTOBER, UH, AND HAVE A RETREAT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          SO IF THAT DOES HAPPEN IN THAT WAY, WHERE WE SKIP SEPTEMBER OUR NEXT MEETING, OR YOUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WOULD BE IN OCTOBER, UH, JEFF SAID HE WOULD BE HAPPY TO RELA UH, TO, UM, PRESENT ON, UH, A FUNDING REPLACEMENT STRATEGY AND POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR FOLKS THAT LOSE FUNDING THROUGH THE COC COMPETITION. 
          UM, SO IF THAT IS, UH, YOU WANTED ME TO COMMUNICATE, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS HOLDING UP AND PEOPLE WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE. 
          IF WE ACTIVELY AGENDIZE AN ITEM WHERE WE TALK ABOUT, UH, FUNDING REPLACEMENT AND OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE FOR FOLKS THAT LOSE FUNDING THROUGH THE COMPETITION, THAT WE COULD AGENDIZE THAT IN OCTOBER, WHICH WOULD BE THE NEXT MEETING IF WE CANCELED SEPTEMBER'S MEETING. 
          AND TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO TAKE SMALL AMOUNTS FROM OTHER PRO OTHER. 
          I WOULD. 
          SO, SO I'M ASKING FOR YOUR METHODOLOGY, PAT. 
          WE CAN'T DO THAT. 
          WELL, I'M ASKING FOR YOUR METHODOLOGY. 
          YOU CAN DO THAT. 
          BUT HOW DO YOU CHOOSE WHICH PROJECTS TO DEFUND ACROSS THE BOARD, EVEN IF THEY HAVE NOTHING WRONG WITH THEIR PERFORMANCE AT ALL? WE JUST SAY WE'RE JUST TAKING YOUR MONEY. 
          JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO HUD WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          SO IF IT'S WE ARBITRARILY TOOK 10% OF EVERYBODY'S BUDGET TO FUND A PROJECT, THEN I NEED TO BE CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT IT IS WE'RE DOING. 
          [02:40:01]
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, AND I KNOW IT MAY SEEM AS IF THOUGH I'M ESPECIALLY MAYBE THE PUBLIC IN THE ROOM PROBABLY SAYING, THIS GUY'S PRESSING THE BOARD A LITTLE BIT TOO MUCH. 
          I THINK MAYBE WHAT SOME FOLKS DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WE DON'T GET FUNDING BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS. 
          WE GET FUNDING BASED ON OUR CONSOLIDATED APPLICATION, WHICH DESCRIBES THE SYSTEM OF HOMELESSNESS. 
          HUD DOESN'T REALLY LOOK AT THE INDIVIDUAL APPLICATIONS, BUT IT DOES LOOK AT OUR POLICIES AND OUR PROCEDURES FOR HOW WE RAN OUR LOCAL COMPETITION. 
          SO THE REASON WHY I AM PRESSING BACK ON, WELL, WHAT'S THE METHODOLOGY WE'RE USING? YOU ALL HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING. 
          I THINK BOARD MEMBERS WOULD GENERALLY AGREE THAT I DO TRY TO PRESENT A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND HOLD DISCUSSIONS ON THEM WHEN POSSIBLE. 
          UM, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR THIS, I'M TRYING TO KIND OF REFRAME US INTO TALKING ABOUT LIKE, IF WE DO HAVE THIS OTHER METHODOLOGY AND WE DO CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING, HOW ARE WE COMMUNICATING THAT? BECAUSE THE PRIORITY LIST THAT'S IN YOUR PACKETS WILL SHOW REALLOCATION FROM EVERYONE. 
          AND THERE HAS TO BE A REASON THERE. 
          'CAUSE WE HAVE AN APPROVED POLICY FOR THE CONTINUUM OF CARE. 
          AND YES, IN THAT POLICY, WE DID BUILD IN SOME ADDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS AND WE SAID WE'VE EXAMINED THE PORTFOLIO. 
          SO I'M NOT SAYING IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. 
          WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE NEED A RATIONALE AND A METHODOLOGY FOR DOING SO THAT WE'RE ABLE TO CLEARLY COMMUNICATE IN A WAY THAT WE CAN FRAME AS AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE. 
          SO HUD UNDERSTANDS THAT WE'RE RUNNING A LOCAL COMPETITION THAT'S FAIR AND INCLUSIVE FOR FOLKS THAT ARE APPLYING FOR EITHER NEW OR RENEWAL FUNDING. 
          AND AS, AS PART OF THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST THE COMMUNITY OF, IT'S NOT JUST US MAKING THIS DECISION, IT WOULD'VE TO GO THROUGH AN ENTIRE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS. 
          I, I BELIEVE LIKE THERE WOULD'VE TO BE A PRO PROPOSITION, THERE'D HAVE TO BE PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          IT WOULD'VE TO BE POSTED ONLINE. 
          IT'D HAVE TO BE APPROVED AND VOTED ON, I'M ASSUMING FINE. 
          WE WOULD BE, NO, WE WOULD BE OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          HOWEVER, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME UP WITH A NEW METHODOLOGY THAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED OVER THE TIME SINCE JANUARY WHEN HUD PULLED THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER EVERYBODY AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. 
          UM, I DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT. 
          I DON'T HAVE CAPACITY EITHER. 
          I'M ALSO CONCERNED, I'M SORRY. 
          I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT IF WE CHANGE THAT METHODOLOGY, WE'RE GOING TO WEAKEN OUR APPLICATION. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING JOSEPH SAY THAT DO NOT WANT TO DO THAT POTENTIALLY. 
          WELL AS, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE AN OLD ALTERNA. 
          I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT HUDSON'S THINKING, BUT YEAH, YEAH. 
          KIND OF. 
          WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT GOING WITH WHAT THEY'RE NOTS NOT WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROCESS. 
          NO, IT'S JUST LIKE, I THINK IT'S HARDER BECAUSE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO, TO LIVE WITH THE DECISION. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK IT'S HARD BECAUSE THERE'S A, THERE'S REPRESENTATION IN THE ROOM FROM AFFECTED, THERE'S REPRESENTATION IN THE ROOM FROM THE PLACES THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED. 
          RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY, THERE ARE PEOPLE REPRESENTING THE, THE, THE ORGANIZATION. 
          YEAH. 
          THE REALLOCATION ADVOCATING. 
          AND IF WE GO AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GONNA TAKE 3% OF EVERYBODY'S, UH, OPERATION BUDGET, THIS ROOM IS GOING TO BE PACKED FULL OF PEOPLE WITH STRONG OPINIONS. 
          YEAH. 
          BECAUSE WE CAN'T JUST DO THAT. 
          UM, I ALSO WANT TO, UH, I COME FROM, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT AND DATA AND SYSTEMS AND WE, THIS IS OUR OPPORTUNITY. 
          WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT. 
          WE CANNOT JUST START USING CREATIVELY BECAUSE WE ARE MOVED BY THINGS WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN TRANSPIRE RIGHT NOW. 
          IT FEELS LIKE WE ARE INDEFINITELY CUTTING FUNDING FOR THESE CERTAIN PROJECTS. 
          AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. 
          WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS EXACTLY MOVING FORWARD. 
          BUT I HATE TO GO ON RECORD SAYING THAT I TRUST THE GOVERNMENT, BUT I, I TRUST JOSEPH . 
          I'LL SIT HIM THERE. 
          ALSO TRUST THE SYSTEMS. I TRUST THE SYSTEMS THAT WE'VE PUT IN PLACE AND THAT WE'VE AGREED UPON. 
          AND THIS IS JUST THE VERY, VERY ODIOUS ASPECT OF THIS COMMITTEE THAT WE HAVE TO FACE RIGHT NOW. 
          THE CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ACTIONS. 
          I GET IT. 
          FOR ME, IT GOES BACK TO THE, TO THE SCORING. 
          YEAH. 
          BECAUSE IF THERE WASN'T A, A, YOU KNOW, THIS GAP WITH THE DATA MM-HMM . 
          WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT SCORE. 
          MM-HMM . 
          AND THAT NAME PROBABLY WOULD NOT BE ON THE LIST. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND AS A PERSON, AS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS LITERALLY DESIGNED SYSTEMS FOR HOMELESS SERVICES, DATA TRACKING AND OUTCOMES, BECAUSE I RECOGNIZE THE GAP IN SYSTEMS THAT SIMPLY 
          [02:45:01]
LIKE EITHER DON'T EXIST OR ARE VERY LIMITED. 
          I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGE FROM THE PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE. 
          THAT'S WHERE I, I THINK I'M, I'M STUCK WITH IT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT CHALLENGE FIRSTHAND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. 
          MAY I, AND IF I'M SO SORRY IF IT NOT FOR THAT THING, THAT SCORE WOULD BE DIFFERENT. 
          AND WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT REALLOCATION CHART. 
          I SEE. 
          NOW WE'D BE, WE'D BE KNOCKING THE OTHER PEOPLE OFF POTENTIALLY WHO DIDN'T, WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE HAD THE SAME CHALLENGES, IF THAT'S FAIR. 
          YEAH. 
          AND I WAS GONNA ADD, I THINK THE OTHER THING, UH, AND, AND YOU KNOW, NOT GETTING TOO FAR OFF, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS ADMINISTRATION IS GONNA HOLD ANOTHER COMPETITION NEXT YEAR. 
          AND WE'RE, WE'RE THE PRO THE NEW PROJECTS, IF THEY GET FUNDED, THAT'D BE A REALLY GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE. 
          WE GET NEW PROJECTS FUNDED, RIGHT? , WE GET NEW PROJECTS FUNDED FROM HUD. 
          THEY WILL NOT BEGIN OPERATIONS UNTIL JULY 1ST. 
          THAT MEANS THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BE EVALUATED AS PART OF THE COMPETITION. 
          WHICH MEANS THAT NEXT YEAR THE SURVIVING RENEWALS ARE GOING TO BE PUT TO A STRESS TEST. 
          WHERE IF HUD DOES THIS EXACT SAME THING AGAIN, THE ENTIRE REST OF THE PORTFOLIO WILL LIKELY HAVE TO BE REALLOCATED REGARDLESS OF THE DECISION WE MAKE TODAY. 
          THAT'S A POTENTIAL REALITY IN THE FUTURE. 
          BECAUSE IF HUD JUST SAYS, COPY PASTE 2027, HOW ARE YOU EVALUATING A PROJECT THAT ONLY HAS ONE ONE MONTH OF DATA? 'CAUSE THESE FUNDED PROJECTS WILL NOT START UNTIL JULY 1ST, 2027. 
          AND SO THE ONLY PROJECTS THAT IT WILL BE ABLE TO BE EVALUATED IS THE $7.3 MILLION THAT LAND IN TIER ONE. 
          THOSE TIER ONE PROJECTS THAT DO GET RENEWED. 
          AND IF THEY SAY, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS AGAIN, THEY DON'T ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE TIME THEY TELL YOU YOU CAN'T, YOU KNOW, NEW PROJECT YOU'RE NOT GONNA RAISE. 
          WHY, WHY WOULD YOU REALLOCATE? IT HASN'T EVEN STARTED YET. 
          SO THERE'S ALSO THE REALITY THAT WE HAVE FUTURE COMPETITIONS WHERE IT MAY BE THAT WE END UP HAVING A COMPLETE TURNOVER OF THIS PORTFOLIO SIMPLY BECAUSE HUD HAS DETERMINED THAT THAT'S THEIR PRIORITY TO DO SO. 
          UM, SORRY. 
          DON'T WANNA CUT YOU OFF, BUT YEAH. 
          NO, YOU'RE GOOD. 
          WE JUST LOST QUORUM AGAIN. 
          SO YEAH, IF WE CAN JUST HOLD ON. 
          SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO NO, THANK YOU GUYS. 
          SO WHAT IF THEY AGREED WHY WE, WE HAVE TO WAIT. 
          WE WE'RE GOING TO PAT, PAT, PAT. 
          WE'RE WE LOST FORUM AGAIN? HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. 
          WE YEAH. 
          WE HAVEN'T AGREED ON ANYTHING. 
          QUESTION. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          SORRY. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          YOU'RE GOOD. 
          YEAH. 
          WE JUST LOST QUORUM AGAIN. 
          UH, 'CAUSE EVERY, WE ONLY HAVE ENOUGH FOLKS THAT WE BARELY HAVE QUORUM. 
          AND SO ANYTIME SOMEONE LEAVES THE ROOM, WE LOSE QUORUM. 
          AND SO THAT, JAMIE, WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO PAUSE MOMENTARILY. 
          YEAH. 
          NO, IT'S OKAY. 
          WHAT TIME DO YOU HAVE TO LEAVE? UM, HOUR. 
          I NEED AN HOUR AGO, BUT I, YEAH, I'M, I'M GOOD TILL PROBABLY FIVE 30. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          WE'RE MISSING? NO, WE'RE GOOD. 
          SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, YEAH. 
          WAS THIS A A DV BONUS PROJECT OR NO? UH, SO DV BONUS WOULD BE NEW PROJECTS, BUT IT 
          [02:50:01]
WAS NOT ORIGINALLY FUNDED UNDER THE DV BONUS. 
          YOU CAN'T APPLY FOR PROJECT I I DON'T KNOW WHY. 
          UH, I CAN, I COULDN'T SAY WHY. 
          OKAY. 
          UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT DOESN'T FUNCTIONALLY MATTER OUTSIDE OF, FOR THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. 
          IT MATTERS IN THE REALLOCATION ASPECT WHERE, UH, IF IT WAS FUNDED WITH DV BONUS DOLLARS, THOSE FUNDING SOURCES HAVE TO BE REALLOCATED AND REPLACED SPECIFICALLY WITH ANOTHER PROJECT THAT SERVES DV SURVIVORS. 
          THIS WAS FUNDED UNDER THE REGULAR BONUS. 
          UH, SO IT WOULD NOT, UH, HAVE TO, UH, AND TECHNICALLY, I GUESS TECHNICALLY, WELL WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ENOUGH. 
          WE WOULD'VE PROBABLY INCLUDED IT, BUT WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE DV BONUS APPLICATION. 
          SO ALL THE OTHER ONES ARE PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE AND THEN POTENTIALLY CONTRACT OUT, YOU KNOW, HOLD ANOTHER PROCUREMENT FOR EXAMPLE. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO, UH, WE PROBABLY WOULD'VE KEPT IT AND TRIED TO INCLUDE THAT AS ANOTHER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECT IF WE RECEIVED ENOUGH APPLICATIONS. 
          BUT WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE APPLICATION FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS. 
          AND THOSE WERE, UH, POSTED ON OUR WEBSITE. 
          I WENT THROUGH OUR LISTSERV, UH, AND I ALSO, UH, SUBMITTED A, UM, LIKE A GENERAL NOTICE TO OUR PROVIDERS, UM, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT, UH, WE OPENED THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING THAT POTENTIALLY SOME FOLKS MAY HAVE SUBMITTED TRANSITION PROJECT APPLICATIONS, WHICH THEY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY'D SAY, WE HAVE A RAPID REHOUSING, WE'LL TURN IT INTO A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          AND WE COULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT, BUT WE DIDN'T GET ANY OF THOSE APPLICATIONS. 
          SO. 
          RIGHT. 
          THAT'S WHY SO MANY ARE BEING REALLOCATED ANY OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          WELL, I GUESS THE REASON THAT I WAS ASKING YEAH. 
          UM, WAS JUST BECAUSE THAT IS REPEATEDLY RECOGNIZED THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTERS HAVE UNIQUE OPERATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT RELATE TO THE BED COUNT, THE CENSUS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. 
          SO I'M JUST, AGAIN, LIKE I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE UTILIZATION CALCULATION WORKSHEET THAT WAS USED. 
          WAS THERE ONE, OR WAS THIS JUST PURELY BASED ON THE REPORTS SUBMITTED? IT WAS BASED ON THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT SUBMITTED. 
          THE Q OH SEVEN B, I FORGET EXACTLY WHAT IT'S CALLED. 
          YES. 
          AND SO WAS IT THEN, WAS THAT THEN COMPARED AGAINST THE BED INVENTORY REPORT OR THE PARTICIPANT ENROLLMENT? BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE UNDER UTILIZATION OF THE CLC FUNDED BEDS VERSUS THEIR OCCUPANCY, IT SOUNDS LIKE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? WHERE THE DISCREPANCY IS, IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE PARTICIPATION, IT WAS THE COC FUNDED BED PARTICIPATION. 
          SO THAT WAS REPORTED SPECIFICALLY. 
          SO HERE, SO EVERY SINGLE MONTH WE EITHER, FOR HMIS PROJECTS, WE SEND OUT A COMMUNICATION THAT SAYS, UH, LET'S SAY YOU'RE AT 70% UTILIZATION, RIGHT? AND OUR DATABASE SHOWS THAT HMIS. 
          SO WE GET A REPORT AND WE'LL SEND A PROVIDER AND SAY, HEY, YOU'RE BELOW UTILIZATION. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, GIVE US AN EXPLANATION WHY. 
          SO THAT TAKES PLACE ON A MONTHLY BASIS FOR DV PROJECTS WE DON'T, OR PROJECT SERVING DV SURVIVORS. 
          UM, WE DON'T GET THAT SPIT OUT 'CAUSE THEY'RE IN A DIFFERENT SYSTEM. 
          SO WHAT HAPPENS INSTEAD IS, UM, FOLKS SUBMIT TO US A SPREADSHEET AND THEY SAY, OKAY, UH, JANUARY 1ST TO, YOU KNOW, JANUARY, UH, 30TH, UH, YOU KNOW, THE END OF THE MONTH, UM, OR 31ST, UM, THE END OF THE MONTH, UH, THERE ARE THIS MANY PEOPLE AND EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          SO IT'S SPECIFIC TO DATES, RIGHT? SO JANUARY 1ST, 40 PEOPLE RIGHT OUT OF THE 50 BUCKS, THE ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT, THE A PR HAS A LOT OF DIFFERENT DATA IN IT. 
          SO IT DOES HAVE OCCUPANCY, IT HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, EMPLOYMENT INCOME. 
          IT'S ALL BASED ON LIKE HOW YOU UPDATE THE RECORDS. 
          SO AS PEOPLE ARE GET REACHING GOALS AND THEY UPDATE THEIR INCOME, IT TRACKS ALL THAT INFORMATION. 
          RIGHT? AND SO THEN THE PROVIDER, UH, FOR DV PROJECTS, UH, PLUGS IN THEIR DATA AND THEN TAKES THAT REPORT AND SENDS IT TO US. 
          UM, FOR HMIS, WE EXPORTED OURSELVES 'CAUSE WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE DATA. 
          UM, SO WHAT HAPPENED WAS I LOOKED AT THE, OR THE, I SHOULD SAY THE DATA MANAGEMENT TEAM, AND WHEN I RECONCILED IT, I DID THE SECOND PART. 
          BUT THE DATA MANAGEMENT TEAM LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT WHAT THEY CALL POINT IN TIME WEDNESDAY. 
          SO THEY TAKE THE LAST WES OF EVERY MONTH AND EVERY QUARTER, AND THIS IS HOW I THINK THEY DO IT FOR ALL PROJECTS IN, IN LA. 
          UM, AND USE THAT AS A POINT IN TIME. 
          TAKE THOSE 
          [02:55:01]
FOUR, ADD THEM TOGETHER, DIVIDE THEM BY FOUR, AND TAKE AN AVERAGE OF THAT POINT IN TIME COUNT, RIGHT? SO THAT'S HOW HUD CALCULATES THAT METRIC, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S IN THE A PR THAT WAY. 
          UM, OUR DATA TEAM SAID, OKAY, IN THE METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION OF HOW THEY CALCULATE THAT, UH, IT BASICALLY SAYS WE TAKE, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANCY FOR THE YEAR AND TAKE AN AVERAGE BECAUSE IN HMIS THEY CAN RUN THOSE NUMBERS. 
          SO THE FIRST THING WE DID WHEN WE GOT THE APPEAL WAS WENT BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT THEY SENT US EVERY MONTH. 
          SO WE LOOKED AND SAW WHAT THEY SENT US AND THEN LOOKED AT THE SPECIFIC DATES BECAUSE WE KNOW WHICH WEDNESDAYS ARE IN THE A PR REPORT. 
          IT'S THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF EVERY QUARTER. 
          IT TELLS YOU THE MONTH, RIGHT? JULY, OCTOBER, JANUARY, APRIL. 
          RIGHT. 
          SO I LOOKED AT THE CALENDAR AND I SAID, WELL, WHAT'S THE DATE OF THE LAST WEDNESDAY OF EVERY MONTH? OKAY. 
          AND I WROTE THOSE DOWN. 
          THEN I LOOKED AT THE MONTHLY SUBMITTED REPORTS AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A LARGE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE A PR DATA IN THE REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED AND THE MONTHLY REPORTS THAT WE GOT ON A MONTHLY BASIS. 
          AND SO I BASICALLY SAID, HEY, I'M SEEING A DISCREPANCY HERE. 
          THIS REPORT SAYS THESE NUMBERS, THESE REPORTS SAYS THESE NUMBERS, WHY DON'T THEY MATCH? AND THEN WE KIND OF RECEIVED EFFECTIVELY A, A, A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE RESPONSE THAT ARE IN THE COMMENT. 
          LIKE I SAID, IN THE FUTURE, MAYBE WE'LL JUST INCLUDE THOSE SO THEY'RE FOR FULL TRANSPARENCY OF LIKE WHAT PEOPLE ARE COMMUNICATING TO US. 
          BUT THE FIRST TIME I DIDN'T QUITE GET THAT INFORMATION AND I SAID, I STILL DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S SUCH A LARGE GAP BETWEEN THE SUBMITTED A PR DATA IN THIS DATA. 
          BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE SUBMITTED A PR DATA IS, WAS BASED ON , IS THE DATA THAT WE SUBMIT TO HUD, RIGHT. 
          THAT THEY, THAT THEY GIVE US. 
          AND IT SHOULD ALL, IT SHOULD BE THE SAME. 
          THERE'S NO REASON WHY IT SHOULDN'T BE THE SAME. 
          THE EXPLANATION WE RECEIVED IS THE A PR DATA ONLY MEASURES THE OCCUPANCY FOR THAT PROJECT. 
          AND THAT THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY DATA IS ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          AND SO, AND LIKE I SAID, THAT'S IN, I HAD READ IT, IT'S IN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BELIEVE ME. 
          THAT WAS PART OF A PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          AND THAT WAS BASICALLY ALMOST VERBATIM IN THE EXPLANATION I RECEIVED. 
          SO WE SPOKE ABOUT IT INTERNALLY AND WE SAID, WELL, THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY SHOULDN'T MATCH. 
          AND WHEN WE'RE EVALUATING CONTINUUM OF CARE PROJECTS, LIKE WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE CAN BE MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES. 
          BUT SIMILAR TO THAT US VETS PROJECT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH V-I-P-V-I-P HAS 110 BEDS IN IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          IT'S A LARGE TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECT, BUT ONLY FIVE OF THOSE BEDS ARE FUNDED BY THE COC PROGRAM. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN THEIR CONTRACT. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT'S IN THE APPLICATION WE SUBMIT TO HUT. 
          SO WE SAID, WELL, WE CAN'T REALLY COUNT ALL OF 'EM BECAUSE IF WE COUNT ALL OF 'EM, THERE ARE ALL THESE DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCES. 
          NONE OF THESE ARE WITHIN THE CONTRACTS. 
          WE'RE NOT TRACKING ALL OF THESE BEDS FOR COC SPECIFICALLY, THE FUNDING IS ONLY FOR THESE FIVE BEDS OUT OF THE 110 BEDS. 
          SO WE DID THAT PROPORTIONAL. 
          WE SAID, OKAY, WHAT WAS THE AVERAGE, UH, YOU KNOW, PERCENTAGE? AND THEN WE APPLIED THAT PERCENTAGE FOR THE WHOLE, FOR THAT 110 BEDS. 
          IT WAS LIKE 60%, LET'S SAY OCCUPANCY. 
          AND SO WE SAID, OKAY, WE'LL TAKE THOSE FIVE BEDS, 60% OF THOSE FIVE BEDS, SO IT MATCHES THE WHOLE NUMBER. 
          WE'LL ADD IT TO THE OTHERS. 
          BUT ULTIMATELY, LIKE I SAID, IT, IT KIND OF MATCHED. 
          THERE WAS, AND WE HAD ACCESS TO THE DATA, SO IT WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. 
          THE CONCERN WITH THIS ONE WAS THAT THE TWO DIDN'T MATCH. 
          AND THEN THE EXPLANATION WE RECEIVED ON CLARIFICATION WAS THAT ONE WAS MEASURING THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, WHICH WAS THE A PR DATA THAT WE SUBMIT TO HUD, WHICH WAS THE LOWER NUMBERS. 
          AND THIS REFLECTS BEDS ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES, WHICH WAS THE HIGH END NUMBER, WHICH AGAIN, WE'RE NOT REALLY CONCERNED WITH BEDS ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          WE'RE ONLY REALLY LOOKING AT THE COC PORTFOLIO. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EVALUATING HERE. 
          WE DO HAVE OTHER MEASURES FOR, UH, OTHER PROJECTS OUTSIDE OF THE COC. 
          WE HAVE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE. 
          AND SO WE USE THOSE, WE APPLY THOSE TO OTHER FUNDING SOURCES. 
          IF THEY'RE FUNDED, I DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER BEDS ARE FUNDED THROUGH US OR NOT. 
          THAT'S WHAT I, THAT WAS GONNA BE MY NEXT QUESTION. 
          SO YEAH, IS IT THAT THERE WERE OTHER BEDS WITHIN THEIR INTERNAL PORTFOLIO THAT, THAT WERE NOT COC FUNDED? WE, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY DATA, AND LIKE I SAID, I REALLY WANT TO POINT TO THE MEMO THAT THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY DATA, OR NOT THE MEMO, THE UH, EXPLANATION. 
          IT SAYS THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY REPORTS IN A PRQ OH SEVEN B MEASURE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS. 
          THE MONTHLY REPORT REFLECTS THE TOTAL CENSUS OF THE 51 
          [03:00:01]
BED FACILITY ACROSS MULTIPLE FUNDING SOURCES. 
          A PRQ OH SEVEN B REFLECTS PARTICIPANTS ENROLLED IN CA 6 2 7. 
          THAT'S THE PIN. 
          THAT'S HOW HUD IDENTIFIES THE PROJECTS ON PARTICULAR REPORTING DATES. 
          AND SO THE ARGUMENT OUTSIDE OF THAT WAS THAT THE CENSUS OF FOUR QUARTERLY SNAPSHOTS, WHICH IS THAT POINT IN TIME, WAS NOT HOW THE POLICY DESCRIBED MEASURING THAT METRIC. 
          THIS IS TRUE. 
          UM, AND SO WHAT I, MY ESSENTIAL EXPLANATION FOR THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T DO THE MEASUREMENTS, I WRITE THE POLICIES THAT, YOU KNOW, I FINALIZE THE POLICIES AND I SAY, OKAY, DATA TEAM, ARE THERE ANY UPDATES THAT NEED TO BE NEEDED DEFINITIONALLY. 
          AND SO I WAS TOLD IT'S GOOD WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. 
          I PRESENTED IT ALL TO YOU. 
          AND SO THE OMISSION, I GUESS, I GUESS MAYBE ONE THING TO CONSIDER IS IF THE POLICY SPECIFIED, WE USE THE POINT IN TIME LAST WEDNESDAY FOR DB PROJECTS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN THE A PR. 
          BUT FOR EVERYTHING ELSE WE USE THIS AVERAGE OCCUPANCY CENSUS. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD'VE MATTERED TO PEOPLE THAT THAT, BUT BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEARLY COMMUNICATED IN THAT WAY, WHICH LIKE I SAID WAS AN INTERNAL, YOU KNOW, BREAKDOWN OF COMMUNICATION SEEMINGLY BECAUSE YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, I'M FORWARDING THIS POLICY I'M SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, ARE THEY DEFINITIONALLY ACCURATE? UM, I'M, I SAY YEAH, YOU KNOW, YES. 
          THEN THE PROJECT REPORTS ARE RUN. 
          AND SO I THEN AM THEN LOOKING AT THAT NEXT TO THE APPEAL. 
          AND I'M IDENTIFYING ALSO THAT THE QUARTERLY POINT IN TIME COUNT WAS USED RATHER THAN THE OCCUPANCY DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT WAS A DV SPECIFIC PROJECT. 
          SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS AGAIN, NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE POLICY AS AN OVERSIGHT AND SEEMINGLY HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT WAY. 
          'CAUSE I EDITED THE PREVIOUS POLICIES IN THE POLICY FOR YEARS AND HAS BEEN APPLIED IN A CONSISTENT WAY, BUT HAS NOT BEEN COMMUNICATED IN THAT WAY CONSISTENTLY. 
          AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE ISSUE HAS COME UP WITH 1736. 
          LIKE SPECIFICALLY, I PERSONALLY CAN'T SAY BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE IN THE PAST. 
          OKAY. 
          SO I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE, THE RECENT DATA THING. 
          I'M NOT SURE IF, IF THEY HAD COMMUNICATED A CONCERN IN THE PAST. 
          IT SOUNDS AS IF THOUGH THEY HAD NOT BECAUSE THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TOLD THAT, OR HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT THERE WERE ANY DATA CONCERNS OR THAT THERE WERE THRESHOLD CONCERNS IS I THINK WHAT I GATHERED THAT THEY HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY. 
          AND SO THAT THAT'S A ANOTHER REAL ISSUE. 
          RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. 
          SEPARATE ISSUE, BUT STILL ANOTHER REAL ISSUE THAT THERE WAS NOT A CLO SEEMINGLY A CLOSER MONITORING. 
          THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK ABOUT THE MONITORING. 
          UM, BECAUSE TYPICALLY WHEN WE HAVE THE ANNUAL MONITORING, THEN THERE ARE, IF ANY ISSUES ARE FLAGGED AND IDENTIFIED, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, THEY'RE NOTIFIED AND THEN THEY ARE GIVING A, THEY ARE AFFORDED A PERIOD OF CORRECTIVE ACTION TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR GO BACK IN AND SAY, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CHANGING WITHIN OUR INTERNAL TRACKING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE REMAIN IN COMPLIANCE WITH, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? WITH, WITH THE ACCOUNT. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN I WOULD SAY OVER THE PAST YEAR, BECAUSE I MEAN THE, YOU'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT AND I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, HSB PROBABLY HAS, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW 'CAUSE I'VE BEEN HERE PROBABLY HAS NOT MONITORED AS CLOSELY. 
          I KNOW THAT THEY ARE RAMPING UP EFFORTS NOW. 
          UM, SINCE I'VE COME ON BOARD, UH, ALMOST IMMEDIATELY A LOT OF MEETINGS WERE ABOUT MONITORING AND, AND COMPLIANCE AND WORKING THROUGH THINGS BECAUSE OF ISSUES THAT MOST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM HAVE PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT 'CAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN THE NEWS. 
          UM, I THINK SEPARATELY FROM THAT, UM, IF THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY REPORT THAT WE BELIEVED WAS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT, BUT REALLY INCLUDED ALL FUNDING SOURCES DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ISSUE, IT WOULD'VE NEVER BEEN FLAGGED. 
          SO WE RECEIVED THE REPORTS AND IT WASN'T FLAGGED BECAUSE THERE WAS A HIGHER OCCUPANCY IN THOSE REPORTS. 
          IT WAS ONLY UNTIL WE RECEIVED THE A PR AT THE END OF THE YEAR THAT THAT WAS ABLE TO BE IDENTIFIED. 
          AND THEN THAT'S WHEN WE SEEMINGLY DISCOVERED THAT THE MONTHLY REPORTS WE WERE GETTING WERE INCLUSIVE OF ALL FUNDED BEDS RATHER THAN ONLY COC FUNDED BEDS, WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE THE OCCUPANCY REPORT FOR COC SPECIFICALLY. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND I, I KNOW THAT HSB IS UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE PUBLICLY BECAUSE OF WHAT WE'VE ALL HEARD ABOUT IN THE NEWS. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AGAIN, I'M JUST, I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT BEFORE WE, WE WRAP ALL THIS UP AND I KNOW THAT 
          [03:05:01]
THE MONITORING NOW IS MORE, IS A LOT MORE STRICT AND YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN, STRINGENT AS IT HAS BEEN, AS IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE. 
          HOWEVER, I WOULD BE CONCERNED WITH A LONGSTANDING ORGANIZATION WITH A 18 YEAR SERVICE TRACK RECORD SERVICING A VERY VULNERABLE POPULATION WITHIN THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, COMING UNDER A HIGHER STRICTER SCRUTINY BECAUSE OF THE OTHER PRESSURES ATTRIBUTED TO ANOTHER MUCH LARGER ISSUE THAT IS MONETARILY TIED TO MONETARY MISMANAGEMENT VERSUS A DATA AND TRACKING ISSUE. 
          JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, PUT THAT OUT THERE AS A, OKAY, MY AGENT, MY PROGRAM'S UP THERE AND IT'S THE HIGHEST RANKING PROGRAM HERE. 
          THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GETTING CUT. 
          IT'S 89 20 3% AND IT'S A SMALL CENSUS MONTHLY CENSUS OF 13, 12.6. 
          IT'S TA USED, YOU KNOW, ZERO 18 TO 24 5. 
          UM, AND THE REASON WE I'M REALLOCATION IS BECAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVAL BECAUSE REHOUSING MIGHT BE TO TRANSITION HOUSING THAT IS THAT 17 YEARS IN PLACE. 
          SO IT, SO IT'S NOT FAIR, BUT IT'S FOR, UM, FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THIS LIST. 
          WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH $4 MILLION FOR US, SHELL THE APPLICATION. 
          SO THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY I GET IT. 
          YEAH. 
          AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF DATA, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THINGS. 
          THE DATA'S LEGIT, BUT IT HAS A BETTER CHANCE WRITING YOU ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE. 
          AND THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING FOR. 
          UM, BUT AS FAR AS EQUITY AND FAIRNESS, THIS, THIS IS A, UM, IS NOT A FAIR EQUITABLE PROCESS. 
          AND WE NEED THAT. 
          AND THE ADMINISTRATION TRIED TO CHANGE THINGS UP BY MASTER QUI. 
          THANK YOU JACOB. 
          THANK YOU, SIR. 
          THANK YOU FOR, AND THAT IS, THAT IS MY HOPE AS WELL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THESE PROGRAMS WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE UNDER SOMETHING ELSE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE WHERE WE ARE. 
          WELL, WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE JUST TO ENSURE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN? I MEAN, UH, I'M I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT YOU MEAN. 
          THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. 
          WHAT IS THIS? I WOULD NEED TO ASK FOR A DEFINITION. 
          DATA IS NOT, I THINK ENSURING THAT OUR, I THINK ONE, THE INSTRUCTIONS MAYBE I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION OF THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ABSOLUTELY, YEAH. 
          CAN ONLY BE COC FUNDED BEDS AND THIS IS HOW IT NEEDS REPORTED, I THINK ACROSS THE BOARD. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK EARLIER COMMUNICATION FOR THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCES. 
          IF YOU, IF YOU, YOU KNOW, WELL, AGAIN, IT'S NOT CONSEQUENCES. 
          IT'S THAT THE, THE DATA THAT WE RECEIVED BEFORE WAS COVERING MORE BEDS. 
          IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE PUNISHING ANYONE, IT'S A CLARIFICATION. 
          IT'S LIKE IF YOU GO TO THE STORE AND THEY GIVE YOU BACK SOME CHANGE AND THEY GIVE YOU TOO MUCH. 
          RIGHT. 
          AND YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK. 
          YOU'RE NOT BEING PUNISHED FOR GIVING IT BACK. 
          RIGHT. 
          IT'S NOT, AND, AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS TERMS OF THE FUNDING, I'M SAYING IN TERMS OF THE, THE COMPAR, IT'S PROBABLY BAD EXAMPLE WITH THAT. 
          BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT MUCH LIKE YOUR SCENARIOS THAT YOU'RE TALKING TO MENTIONING IT AFFECTS THE OUTCOME. 
          UM, IT, IF TECHNICALLY IF WE WOULD HAVE, I FEEL LIKE THE BIGGEST CONTENTION IS THE FACT THAT IT DOES NOT COMMUNICATE IN THE POLICY THAT IS HOW IT'S MEASURED. 
          AND SO, UM, AND, AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT, AND I DID, I ASKED JEFF DURING THIS MEETING, I KNOW THAT WE'RE ALL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A LOT LESS, UM, STAFF THAN, UM, YOU KNOW, THAN I HAD PARTNERS AT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS AT LASA. 
          AND ALTHOUGH THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, HOMES COUNT WAS HAPPENING AND THERE WERE DATA AND WE NEED TO RELEASE THE DATA. 
          THAT I WOULD APPRECIATE IF HE SUPPORTS ME IN MAKING SURE, BECAUSE I DON'T OVERSEE THE DATA TEAM, THAT THE DATA TEAM IS MORE MINDFUL WHEN I ASK THEM TO ENSURE THAT THE INFORMATION THAT I'M PRESENTING TO ALL OF YOU AND THE PUBLIC IS ACCURATE, THAT THEY PROVIDE IT A THOROUGH REVIEW. 
          BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT THE REVIEW BASED ON THIS HAPPENING WAS AS THOROUGH AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN. 
          BECAUSE IF THEY WOULD'VE READ THAT PORTION, THEY WOULD'VE IDENTIFIED THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROJECTS, WHICH DO USE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MEASUREMENTS 
          [03:10:02]
DUE TO THE FACT OF WHERE THE DATA'S COMING FROM, UH, THAT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN, UH, COMMUNICATED. 
          YOU KNOW, AGAIN, CLEARLY, UM, I PERSONALLY THINK, AND I WAS SAYING THIS ACTUALLY TO JEFF BEFORE THIS CONVERSATION EVEN HAPPENED, UM, THAT I, I THINK THAT I WOULD PREFER THE POLICY TO FOCUS ON OUR THRESHOLDS AND THAT A SEPARATE DATA CALCULATION MANUAL SIMILAR TO LASA. 
          I MEAN AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE MHA ALSO HAS PROJECTS THERE. 
          THEY HAVE A SEPARATE WORKBOOK THAT THOROUGHLY EXPLAINS EACH CALCULATION IN ADDITION TO JUST DEFINING, WE TAKE OCCUPANCY AND DIVIDE IT BY THE YEAR. 
          MM-HMM . 
          RIGHT? THAT'S KIND OF HOW IT SAYS IN THE POLICY. 
          IT'S LIKE A SENTENCE, RIGHT? RIGHT. 
          IT'S VERY BRIEF. 
          IT DOESN'T SHOW YOU A FORMULA. 
          IT DOESN'T SAY NUMERATOR OVER DENOMINATOR AND WE'RE DIVIDING IT AND ALL THIS. 
          UM, I THINK A SEPARATE SCORING WORKBOOK WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          AND I THINK THE FOCUS ON A WORKBOOK THAT HAS TO SPECIFICALLY EXPLAIN FOR EVERY METRIC AND PROJECT TYPE, HOW THAT IS, I FEEL LIKE IF WE HAD SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THIS PROBABLY WOULD'VE BEEN AVOIDED. 
          I THINK LOOKING AT A HOWEVER LONG OUR POLICY IS, DOZEN PAGES OR SO, YOU'RE REVIEWING IT AND YOU'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON, OR THESE THRESHOLDS CORRECTLY DONE CORRECTLY, DOES IT SAY MORE THAN OR EQUAL TO? BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T HAVE EQUAL TO, THEN WHAT HAPPENS IF IT LANDS EXACTLY ON THAT NUMBER, RIGHT? YOU'RE SO FOCUSED ON THESE THINGS THAT SOMETHING AT THE END THAT DESCRIBES OCCUPANCY AS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE IN THE PROJECT DIVIDED BY THE NUMBER OF DAYS, YOU'RE KIND OF MISSING THAT. 
          RIGHT? IF I'M ASSUMING, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M TRYING TO BE GRACEFUL TO MY COLLEAGUES, NOT TO SAY THAT I DON'T THINK I SHOULD BE, BUT YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE MAY FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT'S A MUCH MORE SERIOUS OVERSIGHT. 
          AND I DO THINK IT'S A SERIOUS OVERSIGHT CONSIDERING THIS, UH, CONVERSATION. 
          YEAH. 
          BUT SIMULTANEOUSLY, UH, I ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT IS, WHEN IT AFFECTS A SCORE TO THE POINT THAT IT PUTS IN A LONGSTANDING ORGANIZATION. 
          YEAH, I MEAN, I DISAGREE THAT IT AFFECTED THE SCORE. 
          I THINK THE DATA AFFECTED THE SCORE. 
          I DON'T THINK THE METHODOLOGY DID OKAY. 
          BECAUSE THE DATA THAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USING THE MONTHLY OCCUPANCY DATA THAT THEY SUBMITTED. 
          IF WE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS ACROSS ALL FUNDING TYPES, THEY SUBMITTED DATA THAT WAS ONLY COC, WHICH WAS LOWER. 
          SO I WOULD HAVE TO ASSUME THAT THE DAILY OCCUPANCY WOULD BE MORE REFLECTIVE OF THE DATA IN THE C-O-C-A-P-R THAN THE OCCUPANCY REPORT THAT COUNTED ALL FUNDED ALL FUNDING SOURCES. 
          SO I'M, I'M NOT PERSONALLY CONVINCED I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT DATA. 
          THAT IS TRUE. 
          BUT LIKE I SAID, I'M, I'M NOT CONVINCED SOLELY ON THE CONCEPT OF, WELL, ONLY A POINT IN TIME COUNT WAS USED. 
          THIS IS HOW, AND POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, I MAY RECOMMEND THAT WE JUST DO THAT ACROSS ALL FUNDING SOURCES BECAUSE THAT'S HOW HUD MEASURES IT. 
          THAT'S HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MEASURES IT. 
          AND THAT'S WHY THE A PR IS STRUCTURED IN THAT WAY. 
          THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT MEASURE OCCUPANCY EVERY SINGLE DAY. 
          SO THAT'S HOW THEY'RE MEASURING THAT METRIC. 
          SO IT IS CLOSER TO THE FEDERAL METRIC THAT THEY'RE MEASURING US ON AS A SYSTEM USING THAT TYPE OF METHODOLOGY. 
          NOW WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT EXACTLY IN THAT WAY. 
          UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THE METHODOLOGY ITSELF IS SEVERELY FLAWED, BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS OVERSIGHT THAT COMMUNICATES THAT WITHIN THAT, UM, SCORING POLICY. 
          YEAH. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THAT'S VERY CLEAR. 
          WE ARE AT FIVE 18. 
          UM, WE WOULD NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER VOTE SINCE WE WERE MISSING FOUR VOTES. 
          SO, OKAY. 
          FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 2 6 5 5 7, 1 3 RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 OF LONG BEACH COC REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION AND HEAR ANY APPEALS. 
          AND I GET A VOTE BY A SHOW OF HANDS TO APPROVE. 
          OKAY. 
          AND THEN ANY ABSTAIN? ANY, OH, ABSTAIN. 
          SORRY. 
          SHE, US. 
          AND ANY OPPOSED? ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          [03:15:01]
MOTION PASSES. 
          AND I WANNA REITERATE, I I WANT TO FUND ALL OF THESE PROJECTS. 
          IT, I KNOW NO ONE, LIKE I AM NOT THE FOCUS HERE. 
          I GOT VERY LITTLE SLEEP LAST NIGHT ANTICIPATING THIS MEETING, AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS IS GREAT. 
          IT COULD BE ALSO PARAGRAPH, UM, BUT I, I DO HAVE TO SAY THAT WE ARE HAVING CONSTANT COMMUNICATIONS, UM, RECENTLY, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EHV, THERE'S THESE, I CAN SAY THAT WE'VE MADE NOTHING THAT WE CAN ANNOUNCE, BUT WE'VE MADE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS ON BOTH AND I VERY MUCH LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO MAKE THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          BUT THOSE ARE KIND OF OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF COC. 
          SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I JUST WANNA, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THANK, UM, EVERYBODY FROM 1736. 
          HOPEFULLY THEY UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION WE'RE IN AND KNOW THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SECURE OR MOVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO SUPPORT THEM. 
          UM, BUT I, I, HOPEFULLY WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AND AT LEAST GET TO THE NEXT TWO AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY, UH, YEAH, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. 
          UH, IT'S GONNA DEPEND ON HOW PEOPLE, I THINK, FEEL ABOUT, UH, MAYBE THE NEXT ONE. 
          UM, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PROJECT PRIORITY LIST. 
          I THINK THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, UM, IS IF WE GO DOWN TO THE BOTTOM, SORRY, THIS IS, WE'RE MOVING ON TO FIVE, RIGHT? UH OH. 
          YEAH. 
          THEY NEED TO, CAN WE, MOVING ON, CAN YOU WAIT, THE COMMANDER ALREADY SHOWED UP SO I'M NOT RUSH BACK. 
          I MISSED THEM. 
          SO AGENDA, I CAN GO AHEAD. 
          AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE WOULD BE RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 LONG BEACH CONTINUUM OF CARE PROJECT PRIORITY LISTING FOR SUBMISSION TO THE US DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT. 
          CAN WE GET A MOTION? UH, PAT AND TAMIKA? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UM, SO YES, CORRECT. 
          SO THIS IS THE PRIORITY LIST. 
          SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SAID IS REFLECTED. 
          I THINK THE ONE THING I REALLY NEED FEEDBACK AND APPROVAL ON IS TIER TWO, IF WE CAN GO DOWN. 
          SO I NEED TO PROVIDE RATIONALE HERE. 
          UH, YEAH, LET'S GO UP A LITTLE BIT. 
          SORRY. 
          UM, SO EVERYONE ELSE OH NO, TO THE, TO THE PREVIOUS PAGE. 
          I'M SO SORRY. 
          SO YEAH, SO AS WE DISCUSSED TIER ONE AND TIER TWO FALL, SORRY, HERE. 
          AND SO THIS IS THE CHAMPS PROJECT. 
          IT'S ONE OF THE FEW PROJECTS THAT COINCIDENTALLY WOULD FALL HERE AFTER THAT APPEAL WHERE A PORTION WOULD FALL INTO TIER ONE AND A PORTION WOULD FALL INTO TIER TWO. 
          IT COULD BE THAT A CHUNK OF THIS IS REALLOCATED IF WE PERFORM SO POORLY AND THERE'S SO MANY OTHER FAMILY PROJECTS, PH PROJECTS THAT GET FUNDED BEFORE. 
          'CAUSE THERE IS A SET ASIDE. 
          WE FEEL LIKE THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET THIS. 
          AND AS A REMINDER, UM, WE ARE GONNA BE DISCUSSING THOSE PARTIAL YEAR REALLOCATION. 
          SO WE HAVE THE ABILITY 95% OF OTHER CCCS DON'T HAVE, WHICH IS DURING THE YEAR LOOKING AT OUR PORTFOLIO. 
          AND IF PROJECTS ARE UNDERFUNDED, WE MAY BE ABLE TO MOVE THINGS AROUND. 
          UM, WHAT I WANNA POINT TO FIRST IS, UM, THE HIGHEST SCORING COC BONUS HERE. 
          SO WE PUT THAT ONE ON TOP AT THE TOP OF TIER TWO. 
          UM, AND THEN IF WE GO DOWN NOW WE CAN GO, SORRY, JENNIFER, TO THE NEXT PAGE. 
          UM, HERE WE HAVE THE NEW DV BONUS. 
          SO THESE TWO WERE TIED COC BONUS AND DV BONUS. 
          THE SCORE BREAKER WE DECIDED ON WHICH ISN'T DOCUMENTED. 
          AND SO THIS IS DISCRETIONARY. 
          UM, THE REASON WHY WE RANK THIS PROJECT FIRST IS BECAUSE THE AMOUNT IS MUCH LOWER AND HUD WON'T, IF THERE'S, LET'S SAY HUD ONLY HAS 200,000 LEFT OR A HUNDRED THOUSAND LEFT, RIGHT? THEY FUNDED ALL THESE OTHER PROJECTS EVERYWHERE ELSE, AND THEN THEY COME BACK TO OUR LIST BECAUSE WE'RE NEXT. 
          AND IF THIS PROJECT'S NEXT WITH A HUNDRED THOUSAND, THEY MAY PARTIALLY FUND IT BECAUSE THEY, THEY MIGHT SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS PROJECT COULD PROBABLY SUSTAIN. 
          UM, BUT THIS PROJECT, A HUNDRED THOUSAND, ONLY FUNDING 10% OF THIS BUDGET, THEY WOULD NOT FUND. 
          THEY'D SAY, AH, IT'S NOT A VIABLE PROJECT. 
          SO THE REASON WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THIS OVER THIS, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE THE SAME SCORE, DESPITE BEING A DIFFERENT KIND OF, UM, FUNDING OPPORTUNITY, IS BECAUSE IF HUD GETS TO THIS POINT ON THE LIST, AND THIS IS ALL THEY'RE GONNA 
          [03:20:01]
FUND, THIS ONE WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO BE FUNDED ON THAT ONE, JUST ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY. 
          UH, WE WOULD FOLLOW THAT WITH THIS $1 MILLION, UH, FAMILY PROMISE APPLICATION. 
          SO THESE WERE ALL APPROVED. 
          UM, AND THESE WERE AS WELL. 
          UH, AT THE BOTTOM, WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT THESE. 
          AT THE BOTTOM IS A DV S-S-O-C-E. 
          THIS IS FOR A, THIS WOULD BE FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COORDINATOR TO SUPPORT WITH SOME OF THOSE SYSTEM ISSUES. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE INTEGRATED INTO THE SYSTEM AND TRY TO SUPPORT, AGAIN, TO REALLY TRACK, UH, DV, UM, SERVICES AND SUPPORT PEOPLE IN MAKING CONNECTIONS TO THOSE SYSTEMS. IF THESE GET FUNDED DOWN HERE, WE'RE ALL GONNA BE IN HERE POPPING CHAMPAGNE. 
          IT'S SO UNLIKELY, BUT WE WANNA NOT LEAVE ANY MONEY ON THE TABLE. 
          SO WE'RE DEVELOPING PROPOSALS. 
          THIS RAPID REHOUSING PROJECT, SPECIFICALLY FOR DV, AGAIN, IS UNDER THE IDEA THAT THIS, IF THIS DOES GET FUNDED, LET'S SAY WE DO DO WELL, WE MAY BE ABLE TO SUPPORT SOME FOLKS IN, UH, PROCURING OUT THIS MONEY. 
          UH, THIS GAP RIGHT HERE IS WHERE WE WANT TO, UH, HOLD A BRIEF DISCUSSION. 
          SO THESE PROJECTS ARE ALL PROJECTS THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING APPLICATIONS FOR. 
          WE CANNOT SCORE OURSELVES, BUT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE OURSELVES WITH A SCORE. 
          SO WE HAVE TO GIVE OURSELVES A HUNDRED. 
          I KNOW THAT MAY SEEM SILLY OR UNFAIR OR STUPID, IT JUST HOW WE HAVE TO DO IT. 
          HOWEVER, WE'RE ASKING YOU ABOUT PLACEMENT. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE AN OUTREACH PROJECT. 
          UM, WE ALREADY HAVE SERVICES UNDER THIS REACH. 
          THEY, UH, AND THE, THE SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT, THESE ARE OUTREACH WORKERS. 
          THEY'D BE THROUGH THE CITY. 
          THEY COLLABORATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. 
          THIS IS PART OF OUR STRATEGY. 
          IF YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING AT ALL TO THE CITY BUDGET, THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE POLICE, RIGHT? QUALITY OF LIFE. 
          THIS IS OUR ATTEMPT TO TRY TO BRIDGE THAT GAP TO ALLOW THE CITY TO FUND THEM AND HAVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT. 
          SO THIS IS ONE PROJECT THAT HSB IS DEVELOPING. 
          THE NEXT TWO ARE FAMILY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING. 
          THIS WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY A MOTEL. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE FOR FAMILY CRISIS PLACEMENTS PRIMARILY. 
          UH, AND THIS WOULD BE, UH, PROJECT HOME KEY, T-H-P-H-K-T-H. 
          THE IDEA FOR THIS IS AS FUNDING IS EXHAUSTED, UM, FOR THOSE SITES, UM, AND THEY ARE, UH, THEY'RE KIND OF COMING OFF OUR BOOKS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. 
          UM, THIS WOULD BE FUNDING TO POTENTIALLY SUPPORT THAT. 
          SO EFFECTIVELY WHAT I'M ASKING THE BOARD, AND AGAIN, THIS IS ALSO CONSIDERING THAT ANY OF THESE PROJECTS GET FUNDED IN TIER TWO. 
          RIGHT NOW, WE'RE OPERATING UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT NONE OF THEM WILL. 
          BUT THE WAY THAT WE PROPOSED IT THAT WE ARE PRESENTING TO YOU IS, WOULD YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE UNDER PLACING THESE HSB PROJECTS? UM, THESE OF WHICH WOULD PRIMARILY BE RENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR HOTELS. 
          AND THIS ONE WOULD BE OUTREACH COORDINATION THAT'D BE PAIRING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVELY. 
          UM, PLACING THESE BELOW EVERYONE THAT SCORED OVER 80, BUT ABOVE EVERYONE THAT SCORED UNDER 80, WHICH IS BASICALLY THESE TWO, UH, ONE IS A, UH, SSO MEDICAL, UH, PROJECT. 
          EFFECTIVELY, THIS IS THROUGH THE CHILDREN'S CLINIC, AND THIS IS SHARE HOUSING COLLABORATIVE WHO SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION. 
          AND THEIR APPLICATION IS ACTUALLY, UH, ALREADY HAD TO BE REDUCED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING IN TIER TWO THAT WE COULD APPLY FOR. 
          AND BECAUSE THEY WERE RANKED LAST, UM, IN COC, UH, WE PROPORTIONATELY REDUCED THAT PROJECT. 
          UM, THERE. 
          SO THE QUESTION IS, UM, WHAT ARE THE THOUGHTS AND FEELINGS? THIS IS REALLY, WE CAN DO FULL APPROVAL IF NO ONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH THIS, BUT I'D BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T PRESENT THE CONCEPT OF RANKING, UH, HSB PROJECTS, WHICH AGAIN, ARE NOT, IT'S NOT LIKE ALL THE MONEY'S GOING TO HSB. 
          THERE'D BE SOME STAFF HERE, RIGHT? UM, PRIMARILY HOTELS HERE IN BETWEEN THE THREE HIGHEST SCORING PROJECTS AND ABOVE THE TWO LOWEST SCORING PROJECTS. 
          UM, BASED ON THE PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS, AND YOU MIGHT NEED TO THINK BACK TO A LITTLE WHILE AGO WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THESE PROJECTS ARE. 
          SO THESE ARE THE CHILDREN'S CLINIC AT THE MSC, RIGHT? THEY WANTED ADDITIONAL FUNDING. 
          SO THEY APPLIED THERE AND THEY PROVIDE, UM, UH, HOMELESSNESS, MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, AND THEN SHARE RECOVERY HOUSING. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH SHARE, THEY OPERATE A PEER DRIVEN. 
          UM, SO BASICALLY THEY'LL LIKE RENT A HOUSE AND THEN THEY'LL SAY, OKAY, ARE YOU ABLE, WILLING TO WORK, MOVE IN? THEY MANDATE THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEIR WORK, AND THEY ALL LIVE TOGETHER WITH THEIR PEERS AND KIND OF SUPPORT THEMSELVES. 
          SO THEY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION, UH, FOR A TRANSITIONAL HOUSING TO BASICALLY SUPPORT THEIR, UM, TO SUPPORT THEIR PROJECT. 
          [03:25:01]
UM, SO OUTSIDE OF THE SCORES AND REALLOCATION RECOMMENDATIONS, THESE ARE KIND OF THE NUANCE HERE. 
          UM, AND SO IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ONE OR MORE HERE, UH, WE PUT THEM AFTER THESE, OR MAYBE WE BUMPED THIS ONE UP, WE DO HAVE SOME OPTIONS HERE THAT WE CAN DECIDE ON BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO SCORE THE HSB PROJECTS FAIRLY BECAUSE WE'D BE SCORING OURSELVES. 
          SO WE'RE NOT GONNA SCORE OURSELVES. 
          WE'RE GONNA ASK ALL YOU WHERE YOU WANT TO PUT US ON THIS LIST. 
          AND AGAIN, I, I MEAN, I'M NOT SAYING THIS BECAUSE I WANT YOU ALL TO KEEP US HERE. 
          IT'S FINE. 
          WHATEVER YOU DO, IF WE'RE GETTING TO THIS POINT IN THE LIST AND PROJECTS ARE BEING FUNDED, IT'S AN UNBELIEVABLE SUCCESS. 
          UM, SO NOT TO SAY THAT YOU SHOULDN'T TAKE THE DECISION SERIOUSLY. 
          UM, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO THINK LIKE, OKAY, WE'RE DEFINITELY, THESE PROJECTS ARE ALL GONNA BE NEW PROJECTS OPERATING NEXT YEAR. 
          WE, THEY NON EXAM COULD BE FUNDED. 
          UM, YEAH. 
          AND THAT'S IT FOR ME. 
          I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THIS ITEM. 
          THIS IS JUST EFFECTIVELY APPROVAL. 
          DO YOU APPROVE THE LIST OR DO WE NEED TO MOVE THESE AROUND? 'CAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE IS BASED ON SCORES AND REALLOCATION EFFECTIVELY. 
          I, MY COMMENT IS THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLACEMENT AS IS. 
          I DON'T SEE THE NEED TO MAYBE MOVE DOWN OR UP WHERE THEY LANDED. 
          I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE IF THERE WAS A MOCK SCORE. 
          I KNOW THAT THERE'S EPIC ISSUES WITH, BUT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN LIKE, WELL, WE CAN'T DO IT, I WOULD JUST GIVE US A HUNDRED. 
          I THINK THAT WOULD, I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE BETTER, A LOT MORE CONFIDENT IF THERE WAS A MARK SCORE ABOUT IT, UH, APPLYING 'CAUSE APPLYING WHATEVER SCORING, UM, MECHANISMS THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED AND PUT IN PLACE. 
          I THINK WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE THOSE TO SUBMIT TO HUD IS DIFFERENT THAN BRINGING TO THE, TO THIS COMMITTEE HERE. 
          YEAH, NO, THAT'S A, THAT'S DEFINITELY A FAIR CRITICISM. 
          ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? NO. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HELLO EVERYONE. 
          7 3 6. 
          UM, I JUST FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEW PROJECTS WITH A SCORE OF A HUNDRED PERCENT WHERE THEY'RE NOT GIVING THEMSELVES A SCORE OR EVEN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF WHAT THE SCORE IS ON, ON REALLY, YOU KNOW, UM, GIVING THEMSELVES JUST REMINDER WHEN WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR 18 YEARS AND WE HAVE A FULL SCORE OF 86.7 AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TAKING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, UH, EVENTS AND, UH, CLIENTS OUT OF OUR SHELTER. 
          BUT WE'RE GOING TO, UM, UH, TRUST THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE, THAT THE CITY HSB IS GONNA BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES AND REALLY NOT PROVIDE THIS WITH AN ACTUAL SCORE. 
          ACTUALLY JUST GIVING THEMSELVES A HUNDRED PERCENT. 
          AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THIS APPEALS CONVERSATION FOR QUITE, UH, SOME TIME AND THEY SAID THAT SCORES DON'T MATTER, BUT CLEARLY IT DOES. 
          'CAUSE WE GOT A 6.7 AND WE'RE NOT, UH, GONNA GET OFFENDED NEXT YEAR OR SO. 
          UM, I THINK THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD QUESTION THE CITY AND WE SHOULD DEFINITELY BE QUESTIONING, UH, COC ON HOW THEY DETERMINE THEMSELVES TO GIVE THEMSELVES A HUNDRED PERCENT, UH, SCORE. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTION ASKED BY THE BOARD THAT I'M ALLOWED TO. 
          CAN YOU EXPLAIN NAME MORE TIME, GIVING THE A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE AS TO THE, WHAT, WHAT HAW MENTIONED? SURE, SURE. 
          YEAH. 
          SO WE HAVE TO, ALL PROJECTS THAT ARE RANKED HAVE TO BE SCORED BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL NEW PROJECTS. 
          THERE'S NO DATA ATTACHED TO THEM, RIGHT? UM, SO IN 2028, AFTER THIS, ALL OF THESE PROJECTS IN TIER TWO, INCLUDING HSB PROJECTS, UM, AFTER THIS PERFORMANCE SCORE, THEN THERE WILL BE EVALUATED ON PERFORMANCE. 
          UM, THESE SCORES HERE ARE BASED ON REVIEW OF THE PROPOSALS. 
          UM, AND AGAIN, AS WE'VE MENTIONED, 
          [03:30:01]
UH, SOME OF THESE MAY BE PROCURED OUT SEPARATELY, RIGHT? SOME OF THIS FUNDING AS WELL. 
          SO, UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS IF FOLKS WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE STATING, YOU KNOW, 50%, I THINK THE RANK IS THE BIGGER QUESTION BECAUSE IF WE RANK SOMETHING HIGHER THAN TECHNICALLY, IT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE FUNDED, EVEN THOUGH WE DON'T EXPECT MUCH FUNDING IN TIER TWO. 
          UM, UH, SO I MEAN, I PERSONALLY WOULD BE FINE WITH PUTTING ZERO. 
          UM, THE PROBLEM IS, LIKE I SAID, HUD SAYS ALL PROJECTS NEED TO BE SCORED AND RANKED. 
          UM, I THINK THAT THE, UM, CONCEPT OF POTENTIALLY HAVING, WHICH IS HARD WITH THE, LIKE WE REVIEWED AND, AND OUR PROCUREMENT TEAM AND STAFF THAT WORKED ON THIS REVIEWED EVERYTHING WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          UM, I PERSONALLY WOULD BE VERY HAPPY IF WE COULD GET BOARD MEMBERS TO DO EVALUATIONS IN THE FUTURE THAT IS WITHIN THE SCOPE. 
          I THINK TIME-WISE IT CAN BE DIFFICULT 'CAUSE WE NEED ALL THE EVALUATIONS REVIEWED AND YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE GONNA BE SUBMITTED, RIGHT? UM, SO YEAH, SO I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND, UM, THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT CONCEPT OF, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T, WE'RE UNABLE TO SCORE OURSELVES. 
          UM, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT IF WE ARE WRITING A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A SCORE FOR PROJECT THAT, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T QUITE EXIST YET, UM, WHERE WE'RE EFFECTIVELY SAYING, OKAY, THIS IS A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE'RE WRITING THE RFP, IT'S A LOT EASIER FOR US TO, IF YOU WRITE THE TEST, IT'S EASIER TO WRITE, TO TAKE THE TEST. 
          SO EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT US ON OUR TEAM, WE KNOW GENERALLY INTERNALLY 'CAUSE I'M NOT SITTING THERE WRITING AN RFP BASED ON MY OWN PERSONAL FEELINGS. 
          WE ALL KNOW HOW WE'RE EVALUATING PROJECTS GENERALLY. 
          AND I THINK THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOME OF THE STRONGER PROPOSALS AND THE LESS STRONG PROPOSALS THAT WE HAVE, THESE NEW PROJECTS, YOU CAN PROBABLY LOOK AT SOME OF THE AGENCIES AND SAY, OKAY, WELL THEY GOT A, THEY HAVE A REALLY STRONG PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BEING EVALUATED ON. 
          THEY KNOW WHAT TO SAY THAT'S GONNA MAKE STAFF BELIEVE THAT. 
          SO I DEFINITELY THINK THAT THAT'S A VALID CRITICISM. 
          UM, WHICH IS WHY I WAS ASKING WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD BE PLACED HERE IN THE MIDDLE BELOW THE THREE 80 ONES AND ABOVE THE TWO LOW SEVENTIES. 
          UM, BUT AS I STATED BEFORE, I WOULD ALSO BE HAPPY TO PUT THEM AT THE BOTTOM, BARRING THAT. 
          UM, THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS, UH, WE LEAVE, UH, THIS MONEY, THESE, THIS, AND THIS. 
          UH, WE LEAVE BASICALLY OFF THE TABLE BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PROPOSALS WE RECEIVE. 
          SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE DIDN'T PUT THESE FIRST AND SAY, WHATEVER'S LEFT OVER, WE'LL DO AN RFP. 
          WE RAN THE RFP AND SAID, WHAT PROJECTS DID WE GET? AND THEN WE SAID, OKAY, WE HAVE TO FILL THIS GAP. 
          WHAT PROJECTS CAN WE PROPOSE TO FILL THESE GAPS THAT WE MAY BE ABLE TO PROCURE OUT AFTER THE FACT? UM, I KNOW I'M KIND OF DOUBLE TALKING 'CAUSE THERE WAS THE ONE THAT I SAID HAD TO BE, UH, YOU KNOW, REDUCE AT THE BOTTOM. 
          UM, THAT WAS ALSO PARTIALLY DUE TO THE, UM, EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL. 
          UM, LIKE I SAID, THEY ARE NOT, UH, THEY'RE NOT ADMINISTERING, UM, CERTAIN FUNDING AND WE DO HAVE TO TAKE, YOU KNOW, AGENCY CAPACITY AND ABILITY TO ADMINISTER FUNDING AND OPERATE PROJECTS AND BE COMPLIANT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INTO CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THAT AS WELL. 
          UM, AND SO, UH, AGAIN, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPANSIONS AND POTENTIAL MOVING IN THE FUTURE. 
          IF THEY ARE ROCKING AND ROLLING AND THEY GET FUNDED, I'D VERY HAPPILY SIT HERE AND TELL YOU ALL, WOW, THIS PROJECT'S DOING SO WELL, UH, AND IT GOT FUNDED AND LET'S MOVE SOME IN THIS YEAR AND, AND SEE HOW THEY DO WITH SOME, UH, FUNDING THAT MAY BE ABLE TO BE PARTIALLY REALLOCATED FROM SOMEONE ELSE ON A ONE-TIME BASIS. 
          RIGHT? SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS TOO. 
          THANK YOU. 
          YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. 
          ARE THE TWO DV, UM, PROJECTS AT THE BOTTOM BECAUSE OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, NOT SCORE? UH, NO, THEY'RE SIMPLY AT THE BOTTOM. 
          UH, THESE ARE THE, THE ONES THAT WE WERE PROPOSING. 
          UH, WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO, AND YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE MAY THINK THAT, BUT, UM, WE JUST DIDN'T WANNA CREEP THEM UP. 
          AND THESE WERE LESS, UM, THERE'S LESS FUNDING AVAILABLE, RIGHT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A HUNDRED MILLION VERSUS 1.3 BILLION, RIGHT? SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THERE IS ONE MORE FUNDING IN THAT POT. 
          UH, AND IT'S JUST MORE LIKELY TO BE 
          [03:35:01]
FUNDED. 
          UM, WE DIDN'T WANT TO START BUMPING PEOPLE DOWN EVEN FURTHER. 
          UM, WE DID FEEL AS IF THOUGH IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO PLACE THESE HERE IN BETWEEN, BUT WE ALSO WEREN'T TRYING TO JUST SAY, LET'S PUT EVERYONE AFTER US, OR LIKE, LET'S KNOCK PEOPLE OFF BECAUSE WE WANNA GET OUR PROJECTS OUT THERE FIRST. 
          THE GOAL WAS NOT TO LEAVE ANY MONEY ON THE TABLE AND SUBMIT APPLICATIONS FOR EVERYTHING. 
          UNDERSTANDING THAT NOT ONLY COULD WE PROCURE IT OUT, BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE FUNDING AROUND IF THESE PROJECTS END UP, YOU KNOW, UNDERSPENDING OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          WE COULD SUPPLEMENT OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE PERFORMING AT A HIGHER CAPACITY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. 
          ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS QUESTION? UM, I DID PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          YEAH, WE CAN TAKE A, ALL RIGHT. 
          CAN I GIVE A MOTION? APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SHOW HANDS PLEASE. 
          UH, ANY OPPOSED, ABSTAIN? GOOD. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          UM, WE'LL MOVE FORWARD TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE LONG BEACH CC 30 ORIENTATED HOUSING POLICY. 
          UM, THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          UH, JUDGE PATEL, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR. 
          UM, LONG BEACH, TOC RECOVERY ORIENTED HOUSING POLICY. 
          UM, SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS, AGAIN, IS BEING RESPONSIVE TO HUD REQUIREMENTS. 
          OUT OF OUR 200 POINT APPLICATION, WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL 10 BONUS POINTS, WHICH WILL LEAD US CLOSER TOWARDS SECURING ADDITIONAL FUNDING IF WE HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE. 
          UM, SO, UH, I THINK THE MAIN THING WE SHOULD MENTION OFF THE TOP TO KEEP IN MIND, AND I'LL SUMMARIZE THAT, IS THIS POLICY DOESN'T PLACE ANY ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT RECOVERY ORIENTED. 
          SO THE APPLICATION, AGAIN, AWARDS UP TO 10 POINTS THAT TO C CS OF THE DOPA IMPLEMENT A POLICY. 
          THEY'RE BASICALLY ASKING US ONE, TO SAY THAT COC HOUSING, UH, HOUSING PROJECTS CAN'T OPERATE SAFE CONSUMPTION SITES OR DISTRIBUTE DRUG PARAPHERNALIA OR ALLOW DRUG USE ON, ON THEIR PROPERTY. 
          UM, THAT THEY, THAT THERE ARE REMEDIES IF THE PROJECT IS OUTTA COMPLIANCE, THAT PROJECTS CAN CONNECT PARTICIPANTS WITH SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND OTHER RECOVERY SERVICES. 
          AND THEN THAT THE COC DOESN'T PROHIBIT SOBRIETY OR TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS WHEN THEY'RE PERMITTED. 
          SO THIS LAST ONE IS REALLY THE PURPOSE OF THIS. 
          IT'S NOT ABOUT EVERYONE IMPLEMENTING THINGS, IT'S ABOUT ALLOWING THEM TO IMPLEMENT THEM IF THEY HAVE A PROJECT TYPE THAT ALLOWS THIS TYPE OF RECOVERY HOUSING. 
          SO, UM, IT APPLIES TO PROJECTS THAT SEE THAT RECEIVE COC PROGRAM FUNDING ONLY. 
          UM, IT ESTABLISHES THE BOUNDARIES REGARDING ACTIVITIES ON THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTROL. 
          IT ENCOURAGES THE VOLUNTARY CONNECTIONS TO TREATMENT, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE, RECOVERY, UH, AND RECOVERY HOUSING. 
          UM, IT REQUIRES SUB RECIPIENTS AND RECIPIENTS TO CERTIFY COMPLIANCE. 
          IT'S DIRECTED BY THE COC. 
          SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THAT YOU ARE NOT, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, PUNISHING FOLKS, FOR EXAMPLE. 
          AND THEN IT ALLOWS THAT COMPLIANCE TO BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE EXISTING MONITORING. 
          WHAT IT DOESN'T DO IS, UH, REQUIRE SOBRIETY. 
          IT DOES NOT REQUIRE TREATMENT OR PEOPLE TO ENTER TREATMENT. 
          IT DOES NOT REQUIRE TERMINATION FOR DRUG RELATED, UH, FIRST TIME OFFENSES OR LEASE VIOLATIONS. 
          IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT, AND THIS IS THE PART THAT HUD'S CONCERNED WITH. 
          IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANY KIND OF RECOVERY SUPPORTS, UM, OVERDOSE EDUCATION OR ANY OTHER LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE SERVICES. 
          AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EVERY COC PROJECT TO BE RECOVERY HOUSING OR SOBER LIVING. 
          SO, HUD WANTS TO FUND THESE. 
          THEY WANT YOUR SYSTEM TO HAVE THESE, THEY WANT YOU TO HAVE A POLICY THAT SAYS, WE WELCOME COC PROJECTS TO IMPLEMENT THESE, BUT THEY DO SAY, BECAUSE THEY, THEY CAN'T SAY, UH, YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO FEDERAL LAW, THEY CANNOT SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO MANDATE IT AND THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO DISCHARGE PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VIOLATION. 
          SO THIS IS A VERY 
          [03:40:01]
SHORT STRATEGIC POLICY THAT OUTLINES HUD'S REQUIREMENTS. 
          UM, AND THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD COMMUNICATE THESE EXPECTATIONS. 
          SO WE WOULD INCORPORATE THIS INTO OUR MONITORING, AND WE'D ALSO SEND OUT SOME ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE. 
          WE'D INCORPORATE THAT CERTIFICATION INTO THE LOCAL COMPETITION OR MONITORING PROCESS FOR PROJECTS THAT IT IS APPLICABLE TO. 
          UH, WE ADDRESS QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATION BEFORE TREATING ANYTHING IS NON-COMPLIANT. 
          SO IF WE FEEL AS IF THOUGH SOMETHING'S GOING ON, WE REACH OUT AND COMMUNICATE WITH THEM, UH, WE'D ONLY USE CORRECTIVE ACTION APPROPRIATE THROUGH COC PROCESSES. 
          UM, SO WE WOULDN'T JUST DEFUND SOMEONE. 
          UM, WE'D ONLY CONSIDER STRONGER REMEDIES WHEN THERE IS DOCUMENTED NONCOMPLIANCE. 
          SO THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT THEY ARE PURPOSEFULLY, FOR EXAMPLE, OPERATING A SAFE INJECT INJECTION SITE WITH COC FUNDING. 
          'CAUSE THE GO COC FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOW SAYING YOU CANNOT DO THAT. 
          RIGHT? SO THIS IS, UH, THAT'D BE A SITUATION WHERE THERE MAY BE STRONGER REMEDIES. 
          UH, AND THEN AGAIN, WE JUST CONTINUE TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THIS AS, UH, FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION INVOLVED. 
          SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS POLICY, THIS RECOVERY ORIENTED HOUSING POLICY, UH, TO BE APPROVED. 
          I ALSO SHOULD CLARIFY THE NUANCE OF, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAY, AND AGAIN, WE ALSO WANT PEOPLE, ULTIMATELY, RECOVERY IS POSITIVE FOR EVERYONE. 
          IT'S JUST HOW YOU GO ABOUT GETTING THAT RECOVERY. 
          SO WE'RE NOT SAYING ALL HOUSING NEEDS TO BE RECOVERY ORIENTED. 
          WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THERE IS RECOVERY ORIENTED HOUSING AND WE ACCEPT IT INTO THE COC PROGRAM. 
          AND THINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, NOT BEING ABLE TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN KINDS OF CONTROLS BECAUSE LOCAL POLICIES SAY YOU CAN'T. 
          WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING NO FEDERAL POLICY SAYS WE'RE, IF YOU'RE RECEIVING COC FUNDING, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THESE CERTAIN THINGS. 
          AND IF YOU'RE A, YOU'RE FRAMING YOURSELF AS A SOBER LIVING PROGRAM THAT'S FUNDED BY THE COC, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO IMPLEMENT SOBER LIVING REQUIREMENTS. 
          SO THAT'S THE FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY. 
          UM, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? ANY BOARD MEMBER? SEVEN QUESTIONS. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BY SHOW OF HANDS? OKAY. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY, NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS NUMBER 7 2 6 DASH 5 5 7 6. 
          RECOMMENDATION TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM, UH, PRIORITIZATION AND TRANSITIONAL PLANNING. 
          INTERIM GUIDANCE. 
          SORRY, I THINK IT'S MY FAULT. 
          IT SHOULD BE TRANSITION. 
          YEAH. 
          COULD WE GET A, CAN I GET A MOTION? SO MOVED. 
          THAT'S MOUTHFUL RIGHT THERE. 
          YEAH, I KNOW. 
          UH, YES, JUDGE FELLOW ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR TOGETHER. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WHY IS TRANSITION PLANNING NEEDED? SO AS WE KNOW, LONG BEACH HAS AN ESTIMATED 4.88 MILLION IN TIER TWO RENEWAL EXPOSURE. 
          AND SO THE LOCAL STRATEGY RECOMMENDS REPLACING THOSE PROJECTS. 
          UM, AND WE NEED TO FIND A COORDINATED WAY TO MATCH AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS WHO AVAILABLE RESOURCES IF THOSE PROGRAMS, UH, DISCONTINUE, UH, THEM OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM THAT MAY LOSE FUNDING. 
          UM, SO HOUSEHOLDS CAN LOSE ASSISTANCE BECAUSE FUNDING IS EXHAUSTED OR TERMINATED. 
          EHV ASSISTANCE IS ONE EXAMPLE. 
          UM, BUT THIS GUIDANCE IS NOT LIMITED TO EHV HOUSEHOLDS. 
          UM, SO THIS DOES ILLUSTRATE THE NEED FOR A BROADER TRANSITION PROCESS. 
          SO, UM, I WON'T REVIEW, UH, UH, THE WHOLE EHV UM, KIND OF SUMMARY, BUT EFFECTIVELY, UH, HOUSEHOLDS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON LISTS. 
          UM, I DON'T THINK, UH, WE HAVE MANY OTHER UPDATES THERE, BUT LIKE I SAID, SIGNIFICANT PROCESS HAS BEEN MADE AND I'M HOPING THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO OUR PROGRESS'. 
          THE ANNOUNCEMENT, YEAH, MAYBE THIS WEEK, EARLY NEXT WEEK ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO WE WILL, WE'LL GET SOME UPDATES HERE. 
          UM, AND THEN THIS APPLIES TO HOUSEHOLDS THAT FACE AN IN INVOLUNTARY LOSS OR END OF ASSISTANCE DUE TO FUNDING CONSTRAINTS, EXHAUSTION OR TERMINATION OF FUNDING. 
          UM, SO EHV IS ONE EXAMPLE, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE ONLY POPULATION THAT WOULD BE COVERED BY THIS GUIDANCE. 
          SO IT ESTABLISHES A WAY TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE HOUSING AND OTHER RESOURCES AND SUPPORTS THAT EARLY PLANNING TO PREVENT A RETURN TO HOMELESSNESS. 
          SO ONE, WE'RE ASKING TO CONFIRM FORMAL DOCUMENTATION. 
          TWO, WE'LL ASSESS THE RISK, NEED AN ELIGIBILITY. 
          THREE WILL 
          [03:45:01]
IDENTIFY THE AVAILABLE TRANSITION OPTIONS AND FOUR, REFER OR MATCH WHEN APPROPRIATE. 
          SO THE IDEA HERE AGAIN IS THAT WE ARE SAYING, ESTABLISHING WHAT KIND OF NOTICE WE NEED, HOW WE'RE GOING TO, UH, OR THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO EVALUATE THEM. 
          WE'RE STILL DEVELOPING EVALUATION PROCESSES, UM, IDENTIFYING THOSE TRANSITION OPTIONS THAT MAY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH OTHER SOURCES AND THEN REFER A MATCH WHEN APPROPRIATE. 
          THE IDEA HERE IS YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. 
          UM, YOU'RE ALSO NOT GOING TO THE TOP OF THE LIST. 
          YOU'RE GOING TO EFFECTIVELY A SEPARATE LIST OF PEOPLE THAT ARE SPECIFICALLY AFFECTED BY FUNDING LOSS. 
          UM, SO SOME OF THE PRIORITIZATION FACTORS INCLUDE THE FORMAL DOCUMENTED, UH, NOTICE OF THE LOSS, THE EFFECTIVE DATE, THE RISK OF RETURNING TO LITERAL HOMELESSNESS. 
          AND THIS IS NOT THE RISK OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU RETURN, BUT HOW LIKELY ARE YOU TO RETURN? SO JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          THE LEVEL OF SERVICE NEEDS, SO THIS WOULD CONSIDER CERTAIN POPULATION TYPES, INCLUDING FOLKS THAT ARE ELDERLY OR HAVE, UH, DISABILITIES, UH, ELIGIBILITY FOR HOUSING RESOURCES. 
          SO OBVIOUSLY THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE MATCHED TO SOMETHING THEY'RE ELIGIBLE FOR. 
          AND ALSO AVAILABILITY. 
          UH, WHAT IT DOES NOT DO IS AUTOMATICALLY PLACE A HOUSEHOLD IN THE HOUSING OPPORTUNITY POOL. 
          UH, IT DOES NOT ESTABLISH NEW CRITERIA FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, RAPID REHOUSING OR OTHER RESOURCES. 
          UH, IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE ELIGIBILITY, UH, FOR ANOTHER RESOURCE OR OVERRIDE EXISTING ELIGIBILITY OR PRIORITIZATION. 
          UM, OR RESERVE ALL RESOURCES FOR ANY SINGLE FUNDING LOSS POPULATION OR EHV HOUSEHOLD. 
          SO THEY'RE NOT BEING PRIORITIZED ON TOP OF EVERYONE ELSE. 
          IT'S SIDE BY SIDE AND IT'S BASED ON VARIOUS FACTORS, INCLUDING HOW APPROPRIATE IT IS, HOW AVAILABLE IS IT, AND IF THEY'RE ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE FOR THAT FUNDING. 
          UM, SO HOW WE'LL IMPLEMENT IT, UH, WE'LL UH, RECEIVE THAT DOCUMENTED NOTICE. 
          UM, AND THERE'RE PROBABLY SOME STEPS HERE THAT WE'RE NOT QUITE COVERING, BUT CONFIRM THAT THEY'VE BEEN REFERRED, ASSESS THEIR RISK AND LEVEL OF SERVICE NEED, COORDINATE WITH ANY AGENCY THAT THEY'RE WORKING WITH, OR ADMINISTRATING ENTITY THAT IS OPERATING THAT PROJECT THAT IS LOSING THE FUNDING. 
          UM, CONSIDER PREVENTION DIVERSION AND OTHER RESOURCES BASED ON THE HOUSEHOLD'S NEED. 
          AND THEN MONITOR THAT IMPLEMENTATION TO ENSURE EQUITABLE ACCESS. 
          UM, AND SO THE REQUESTED ACTION HERE IS TO APPROVE THAT LONG BEACH C AS PRIORITIZATION AND TRANSITION PLANNING, INTERIM GUIDANCE. 
          UH, THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT IN THE FALL, ONCE WE'RE ABLE TO RECONVENE WITH THE COMMITTEES AND WE CAN LOOK AT OUR CES POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, WE WOULD INCORPORATE THIS OR SOME VERSION OF THIS INTO THAT TO CLEARLY DESCRIBE HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH SITUATIONS WHERE PROJECTS, UM, OR, YOU KNOW, SYSTEMS LOSE FUNDING AND FOLKS SUBSEQUENTLY LOSE THEIR HOUSING. 
          SO HAPPY TO TURN THINGS OVER. 
          HAVING SAID ALL THAT, SORRY FOR RUSHING THROUGH. 
          AND ADDITIONALLY, WE ARE TAKING MOVES THAT COULD FREE UP MONEY TO SUPPORT THE TRANSITIONS. 
          YOU KNOW, PROJECTS LIKE, YOU KNOW, PUTTING SOME OF A PHK PROGRAM FREES UP OTHER FUNDING THAT CAN PAY FOR RENTS. 
          UH, YOU KNOW, THE POTENTIAL IF REACH WERE TO BE FUNDED THAT IS DOLLARS PAYING FOR, YOU KNOW, STAFF THAT COULD BE ALSO FREED UP FOR RENT. 
          UH, WE ARE IN CONVERSATION WITH A FEW FUNDERS TO, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT WHAT'S POSSIBLE, UH, THAT ARE INTERESTED IN THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT HAPPENS IF, YOU KNOW, COC FUNDING IS LOST, THAT'S PAYING FOR PEOPLE'S RENTS. 
          UM, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT 'CAUSE NOTHING SAYS A FAILED SYSTEM. 
          LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU FUNDED AND YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA SUPPORT SOMEBODY AND THAT FUNDING ENDS AND THAT PERSON ISN'T SUPPORTED IN FINDING SOMETHING ELSE. 
          THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT LIKE CHANGES DON'T HAPPEN. 
          AND THIS PROCESS IS TO TRY TO NOT NECESSARILY, AGAIN SAY, ALRIGHT, EVERYBODY GETS THIS, BUT TO ASSESS EACH SITUATION INDIVIDUALLY AND FIND, YOU KNOW, PATHWAYS THAT BEST MEET EACH INDIVIDUAL'S NEEDS WITH THE RESOURCES THAT WE DO HAVE. 
          SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT THAT GOES INTO THIS REALLOCATION THAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE EHPS THAT, YOU KNOW, CREATE A LOT OF ANXIETY, A LOT OF CONCERN, UM, AND A LOT OF CHALLENGES FOR US. 
          AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE NEED A PROCESS THAT WORKS TO IMPACT THOSE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR THE PEOPLE. 
          THAT SERVING QUESTION, SIR, COMING FROM THE BOARD, ANY 
          [03:50:01]
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA? ITEM CNA, MOTION TO APPROVE PROFESSIONAL CHANCE, PLEASE. 
          OKAY. 
          MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WILL BE ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, A RECOMMENDATION TO RECEIVE A FILE, UPDATED AND UPDATE ON OUTREACH AND RECRUITMENT EFFORTS FOR NEW LONG BEACH COC CONTINUING CARE BOARD MEMBERSHIP SEAT. 
          I GET MOTION. 
          SO MOVED. 
          THANK YOU. 
          UH, JOSEPH PATELLO, ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR. 
          UM, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. 
          UM, SO WE HAVE ONE ELECTED OFFICIAL, UM, WHO, UH, IS BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY WOULD BE ON BOARD, WE'D PRESENT THEM TO YOU OBVIOUSLY. 
          UM, THERE'S SOME TURNOVER IN THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE FOR THE HOMELESS SPECIALTY COURT SEAT. 
          SO, UM, THE PERSON THAT WE, NOT WITH THE CITY PROSECUTOR, BUT WITH ONE OF THE PRIMARY STAFF THAT HAS SUPPORTED THAT THERE, THEY GOT A GREAT OPPORTUNITY ELSEWHERE, BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE LOSING THEM. 
          SO WE MAY SPEAK TO SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT OFFICE AND THEN WE MAY BE, WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR, UH, CONFIRMATION, UM, UH, PRESENTING TO, UH, THE WIND BOARD, THE WORKFORCE BOARD FOR LONG BEACH TO SEE IF THEY WOULD ACCEPT THAT SEAT. 
          UH, PROBABLY REQUESTING, WE'RE STILL REACHING OUT AND THERE HAS BEEN, UM, SOME PEOPLE HAVE BEEN RESPONSIVE, SOME HAVE NOT. 
          I THINK WE'RE ALMOST AT THE POINT THAT I WOULD SAY THAT WE ARE GONNA RECOMMEND LIKELY EXPANDING AND POTENTIALLY PUBLISHING A SOLICITATION FOR SOME OF THESE SEATS POTENTIALLY TO ALLOW FOLKS TO APPLY FOR THOSE IF THEY FIT INTO THOSE SYSTEMS. AND AGAIN, HAVE THE BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVE THOSE. 
          UM, WE WANT TO KEEP REACHING OUT TO A COUPLE MORE FOLKS TO ENSURE THAT WE PROVIDED THEM WITH EVERY OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLE. 
          'CAUSE WE THINK A LOT OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WE IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME, I'M SORRY, INTERESTED PARTIES. 
          SORRY HOLLY. 
          SEE I REMEMBERED I LEARNED SOMETHING . 
          I THINK THAT, UM, THAT I THINK THAT INTERESTED PARTIES, UM, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE BOARD, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE ABLE TO TAKE ON THE SEATS. 
          BUT I THINK THAT IN THE NEXT MONTH, PARTICULARLY IF WE ARE CANCELING OUR SEPTEMBER MEETING AND RECONVENING IN OCTOBER, WE'D PROBABLY LIKE TO JUST OPEN THE SOLICITATION FOR AT LEAST SOME OF THOSE SEATS AND GAUGE PUBLIC INTERESTS FOR FOLKS THAT MAY BE MATCHED TO THOSE. 
          SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION. 
          I DON'T THINK YOU'D NECESSARILY NEED TO APPROVE THAT, BUT THAT'S EFFECTIVELY THE UPDATE. 
          SO I WOULD SAY IF ANYBODY HAS AN ISSUE WITH US TRYING TO EXPAND THAT, RATHER THAN JUST SAY YOU ALL GET EX OFFICIO SEATS, UM, I THINK WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. 
          WE DO WANNA JUST MODIFY SLIGHTLY OUR APPLICATION PROCESS SO WE GET SOME MORE, UH, LIKE REFERRALS AND GET MORE RESUME OR NOT RESUME REFERENCES FOR FOLKS. 
          SURE THEY'RE TIED TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT NECESSARILY MORE HOOPS, BUT AGAIN, TRYING TO GET THEM AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE CLOSELY TONIGHT TIED TO LONG BEACH AND THE, THE HOMELESS COMMUNITIES, AT LEAST IN THEIR INTEREST. 
          UM, AND AREN'T JUST LIKE TAKING A SEAT TO, YOU KNOW, EITHER UPEND THINGS OR ANYTHING ELSE. 
          NOT TO SAY THAT I THINK MANY PEOPLE ARE LIKE THAT, BUT, UM, SO THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME TO POTENTIALLY EXPAND SOME OF THOSE SEATS AND TRYING TO SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC OUTSIDE OF RESPECTED OFFICES. 
          YEAH, I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT IT LAST TIME, CONSIDERING WE CAN'T GO TO THE RESTROOM WITHOUT LOSING FORUM . 
          WE DON'T WANNA BRING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT WILL SHOW UP TO THE MEETINGS. 
          AND SO I HOPE THAT INTEREST IS NOT ONLY CAPACITY IS ALSO BEING DISCUSSED, LIKE TRUE CAPACITY. 
          I KNOW MEETING LIKE TODAY WAS A DIFFERENT OFF THE SCHEDULE MEETING, WHICH MAYBE IS A CHALLENGE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT, IS ADDING A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT STILL AREN'T GONNA SHOW UP AND WE'RE NOT GONNA END UP LOOKING FOR EM. 
          SO, UM, HOPEFULLY WE CAN JUST INCLUDE THAT IN THE PACKET SOMEHOW. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUARANTEE IT. 
          ABSOLUTELY. 
          BUT REALLY PRESS THE IDEA OF SHOW UP. 
          DID YOU HEAR ANYTHING FROM THE QUALITY OF LIFE TEAM? UM, THE, MY CITY BUDGET RIGHT NOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FLUCTUATION AND THINGS HAPPENING, SO AT THIS MOMENT THERE IS NOT A POSITIVE YES, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE WILL REVISIT ONCE BUDGET KIND OF SETTLES. 
          UM, AND GOING BACK TO KIM'S POINT A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, IT NEVER FEELS GOOD TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, YOUR ATTENDANCE AND SAYING, HEY, WE'RE GONNA ASK SOMEBODY TO, YOU KNOW, STEP DOWN FROM THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP TO MEETINGS. 
          BUT AT A CERTAIN POINT, I THINK WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT THAT BECAUSE WE'VE NOW HAD QUITE A FEW MEETINGS WHERE QUORUM IS 
          [03:55:01]
BECOMING AN ISSUE. 
          SO I'M IN AGREEMENT WE DON'T WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL PEOPLE THAT CAN'T SHOW UP. 
          BUT I THINK WE ALSO NEED TO LOOK AT CURRENT SEATED MEMBERS CAN, UH, LIKE COMMITMENT TO SHOWING UP TO MEETINGS. 
          I'M SO SORRY, PAUL. 
          YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, WE CAN COMMIT TO ATTENDANCE REPORT. 
          UM, WE CAN DO AN ATTENDANCE REPORT IN A, IN A, IN THE NEXT MEETING AND JUST SEE WHERE FOLKS ARE. 
          SO YEAH, IT'S EASY ENOUGH. 
          YES. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE NOT READY TO ASK THE HSAC COMMITTEE. 
          DO THEY KNOW ANYBODY WHO WOULD BE INTERESTED? WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE AN OPEN SOLICITATION, SO I WANNA BE AS FAIR AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT'S, BECAUSE IT'S, WE'RE, THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH IS NOT, UH, AN ELECTION PROCESS. 
          IT'S AN APPOINTMENT PROCESS POTENTIALLY THROUGH, YOU KNOW, QUALITY OF LIFE AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          UM, I DON'T WANT TO, I WANT IT TO BE VERY BROAD AND FAIR. 
          AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY I THINK THAT, UH, DEVELOPING, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I ASKED, UM, BASICALLY FOR A BLESSING TO EXPAND OUR OUTREACH TO ALLOW FOLKS TO APPLY. 
          AND THEN THAT WAY WE'LL BE ABLE TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION AND WE CAN ALWAYS SEND THAT OUT VIA EMAIL TOO. 
          SO, SO IN MY REPORT, DO I MENTION IT THAT IT'S COMING OR WHAT, UH, YOU COULD MENTION, WHAT WOULD YOU SUGGEST YOU COULD MENTION I'LL GET THERE A LITTLE BIT EARLY. 
          WE CAN TALK TO, BECAUSE I HAVE, I THINK YOU COULD I HAVE A REPORT. 
          I HAVE TO YEAH, YOU CAN MENTION, OH, IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT WAY YOU CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN, UH, JUST SAYING THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'VE APPROVED THE EXPANSION OF THE BOARD AND YOU CAN GO TO THE WEBSITE AND LOOK AT THE LAST IF YOU WANT LIKE DETAILS IF YOU DIDN'T SAVE THE PAPERWORK, UM, AND SAY THAT THE COC BOARD EXPANDED MEMBERSHIP SEATS, UM, THEY'RE CURRENTLY SPEAKING WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS, UH, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN THE REGION TO SEE, TO GAUGE THEIR INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION AND ARE LIKELY GOING TO, UH, YOU KNOW, SOLICIT APPLICATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE PUBLIC. 
          AND THEN THAT WAY THAT'S, THAT'S EVERYTHING WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING. 
          AND THEN ONCE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICATION READY, THEN YOU CAN ANNOUNCE THE APPLICATION, WE'LL EMAIL IT TO EVERYONE AND IT'LL BE PUBLISHED ON THE WEBSITE. 
          WELL, MY THOUGHT WAS THAT IF I CAN GET THEIR MINDS THINKING ABOUT IT, THEY MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT SOMEBODY THEY KNOW MM-HMM . 
          WHO MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE AND THEY MIGHT MENTION IT, YOU KNOW, AND GIVE THEM SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT AND IT MIGHT LEAD TO SOMETHING. 
          YEAH. 
          I MEAN I THINK BROADLY, BUT I DON'T WANNA, YOU KNOW, STEP ON ANYTHING. 
          NO, I THINK BROADLY YOU CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE IT IN YOUR UPDATE. 
          I THINK JUST STOP SHORT OF SAYING I'LL STOP EMAIL THEM THAT THEY CAN APPLY. 
          EMAIL THEM IF YOU WANNA SEAT, YOU KNOW, , YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS YOU YEAH. 
          THEN THAT, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE. 
          YEAH, YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. 
          TOTALLY FINE TO SAY THAT WE'VE EXPANDED THE BOARD AND WE'RE CURRENTLY SEEKING PEOPLE. 
          YEAH. 
          COOL. 
          ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEE? NONE. 
          OKAY. 
          CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE BY A SHOW OF HANDS? MOTION PASSES. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY, UH, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? IF YOU CAN PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. 
          SEEN ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS. 
          DOES THAT INCLUDE MYSELF? YEAH. 
          OKAY. 
          UH, YEAH, SO WE'LL CANCEL THIS SEPTEMBER MEETING. 
          I THINK FOLKS ARE IN AGREEMENT AND WHEN WE RECONVENE IN OCTOBER, UH, SORRY EVERYONE, I WILL BE A MARRIED MAN. 
          SO , I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL IN OCTOBER ON VACATION. 
          SO TELL FIVE THREE, YOU CAN TELL THEM PAT PAT'S COMING TO THE WEDDING. 
          SHE'S GIVING ME AWAY, BUT THAT'S MY ONLY ANNOUNCEMENT. 
          YEAH, JUST CONFIRMING WE'LL CANCEL AND WE'LL SEND A NOTICE OUT TO THE FULL BOARD AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IT'S OCTOBER 10TH? IT'LL BE OCTOBER, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          YOU KNOW, APPROXIMATELY WHEN SAME BOARD TIME. 
          SO WE'LL GO BACK TO OUR NORMAL TIME. 
          SO WE'LL DO THE SECOND TUESDAY, THREE O'CLOCK. 
          THANKS EVERYBODY FOR COMING EARLIER, THE PAST TWO MEETINGS AND MAYBE WE CAN RE-EXPLORE TIMES. 
          I KNOW PEOPLE HAD A LOT OF PUSHBACK ON THE EARLIER MEETINGS, NORMALLY LIKE TO CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD, BUT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD, YEAH. 
          AND THEN LAST OTHER ANNOUNCEMENT, UH, PLEASE DO TUNE INTO WHAT'S HAPPENING AROUND CITY BUDGET, IT'S BUDGET SEASON. 
          IT IS A TOUGH BUDGET YEAR. 
          THERE ARE LOTS OF IMPACTS TO ALMOST EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT. 
          SO PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU'RE TUNING IN. 
          UH, HEALTH WILL BE PRESENTING, UH, TO COUNCIL ON BUDGET ITEMS ON THE 18TH, I BELIEVE IT IS. 
          SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE SPECIFICALLY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT BUDGET 
          [04:00:01]
PRESENTATION, IT'LL BE ON THE EIGHTEENTHS BIRTHDAY AND THE ONE DAY APART.
* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.