9/1/2015 Minutes
Present: Sharon Dade (VOA), Susan Cancro (Advent House), Mark Criss (CRM), Pam Elise (CACS), Joan
Jackson Johnson (CoL), Susan Land (LSD), Michelle Lavoy (NCA), Jenny Leaf (L&F), Angie Mayeaux (Haven
House), Mark Morton (CFC), Meghan Rhoades (Haven House), Vicki Sandbrook (JIMHO), Katrina Urista
(CoL), Doris Witherspoon (CoL), and David Henrion (GLHRN).
1) Sharon called to order at 10:09.
2) Sharon announced that last Thursday the CoC learned that MSHDA pulled the community application from their system, apparently because of how we allocated funds. a) There was a discussion until Friday afternoon, trying to determine a solution. b) Susan said she spent a good amount of time trying to understand what MSHDA is asking for. c) Sharon stated that she took time trying to understand what needs to happen. d) Katrina said her initial interpretation was that MSHDA wanted the increase to go to the HARA. e) Susan said that Stephanie’s point is that the state-wide average percentage of direct assistance from MSHDA is 31%, ours is 18%. i) Katrina calculated the entire amount. ii) Sharon noted that the CoC followed NOFA regulations. The 31% was not a regulation.
(1) Vicki asked a specific question about the distributed funding. iii) Sharon said the network was going to meet at MSHDA to figure out what MSHDA wanted. iv) Susan, Katrina, and Sharon discussed possible motives of MSHDA.
(1) Katrina said she thought MSHDA wanted to move shelter money, but Stephanie said no.
(a) Stephanie had said you need money for RRH.
(b) Pam said that showing that should be easy. Sharon said that it eventually got there. f) Susan said she doesn’t know if it was purposeful, but eventually all MSHDA wanted was that funding would be dedicated to high risk families for RRH. i) This could be letters from RRH programs showing that this is the case. ii) Angie and Mark M discussed whether it includes those federally regulated programs. iii) Susan said that GLHRN should get a letter from the city confirming this.
(1) Pam noted that since the city is a HUD recipient, it should be included.
(2) Doris stated that this is HUD’s priority, and the CoC took that into consideration. g) Mark M is concerned about the completeness vs incompleteness of the application. i) Mark M noted that the only reason shelter was increased is because the overall funding was increasing. He is concerned about long term consequences of this. ii) Sharon said that Stephanie wanted a letter on Monday, but that wasn’t reasonable.
(1) Mark M wanted to include the importance of certainty that an application is complete.
(2) Angie stated that the network should be able to look at the rest of the state’s applications, to confirm GLHRN is an outlier. iii) Sharon said that Stephanie said the network should state why their percentage is lower than rest of the state in terms of direct assistance.
(1) Katrina said this was in the application.
(2) Sharon said that in the second email, Stephanie wanted the money to be used for RRH.
(a) Katrina and Angie discussed the timeline for that.
(3) Mark C noted that some CoCs would be below average.
(4) Katrina asked MSHDA about the rules and how our application failed them.
(5) Katrina talked about the importance of the HARA having control of the funding, to make it easier for clients, but it takes time for change to happen.

(a) Sharon said she asked for a meeting and asked for clarity about this.
(b) Sharon said that other possibilities were discussed.
(i) Stephanie had said her supervisors were ok with accepting other RRH sources.
1.
Pam noted that this is what the network does.
(c) Mark M said it seems MSHDA is making something mandatory without prior notice.
(i) Sharon and Katrina discussed whether the RRH information is in the application.
(ii) Sharon stated that there needs to be backups from Haven House/CACS saying that they coordinate with HARA.
1.
Sharon suggested looking at making RRH referrals in a coordinated fashion.
(iii) Mark M asked if this was consistent with the NOFA.
1.
Sharon said it is not consistent with requirements, but it mentions that you would need to explain it. She believed that MSHDA wants to determine how their money is spent. a.
Mark C, Sharon, Katrina, Joan, Angie, and Susan discussed MSHDA mandates.
(iv) Pam noted that this proposed letter would be easy, because we currently doing that action.
(v) Susan said the HARA meeting is making recommendations; that’s how it works.
1.
Pam said CACS is connecting clients to the HARA.
2.
Sharon asked if RRH funds are going for the most vulnerable.
(vi) Angie discussed the SPDAT requirements of hotelled clients.
1.
Sharon said they don’t qualify for financial assistance, but can be helped elsewhere
(vii) Pam and Sharon discussed who are the most vulnerable. h) Susan noted that if a letter is drafted, these minutes, which reflect the commitment from the other entities to work with the HARA, can be referenced. i) Pam, Sharon, and Doris discussed how SPDATs only apply to RRH, not prevention, clients. ii) Joan noted the MOUs need to be done. iii) Sharon said MSHDA just wants a letter from the fiduciary. iv) Mark C and Sharon discussed whether the funding should be focused.
(1) Susan stated GLHRN needs the dollar amount, and need to talk about those most at risk.
(a) Sharon said the network don’t have enough PSH for families.
(i) Joan noted that LHC has units for families.
(ii) Sharon said there are people scored for PSH, but without units for them.
(b) Joan is concerned about the sustainability of RRH families, they have many issues.
(i) Susan said GLHRN can say we are addressing the needs of those scoring 5-9.
1.
Angie discussed how this would affect Haven House.
2.
Katrina said you could use the SPDAT score as reference on MSHDA app.
(2) Susan said the CoC needs still to determine how HUD funds will be used, because proposed family PSH units could be helpful on grant applications.
(a) Pam said that we can just confirm our actions in writing to satisfy MSHDA.
(b) Susan asked if the group can make a statement about the needs of this group.
(i) Angie and Susan discussed this proposed letter’s impact on Haven House. i) Mark M is concerned this is capricious from MSHDA. j) Katrina said that the app is complete, and there is not space for explanation. k) Sharon said that she has questions after today. i) Sharon said GLHRN can talk about how to coordinate with the HARA, and how HUD dollars are used for RRH. Pam agreed with this.

ii) Sharon asked about the prevention ESG funding. Liza and Pam said that their agencies have it. Legal Services uses it for case management time, and it is a mix at CACS.
(1) Sharon said that GLHRN can talk about how that is coordinated.
(2) Katrina noted that the city’s matching should also be mentioned. iii) Sharon stated it is important to show MSHDA how our system works.
(1) Joan shared an anecdote. iv) Pam mentioned the importance of showing other sources and their HARA connections.
(1) Sharon said it needs to be answered in a boarder way, showing coordination occurs v) Doris noted that HUD dollars are both MSHDA and HUD. vi) Susan, Katrina, Pam, and Sharon discussed the advantages of a simple letter.
3) Sharon moved: “With the HARA being a central point of coordinating resources and with a commitment to utilizing Rapid Rehousing funds to ensure that high-risk individuals and families are housed, the GLHRN confirms that these households will be prioritized for use of community funds and that we will provide a letter to verify this commitment. “ Liza seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
4) The meeting adjourned at 11:07am.