CoC Special Meeting for Appeals

August 19, 2016 at 1:00 p.m.

Voting Members/Attendees:Cheryl Bartlett, Darrell Brown, Connie Chavez, Barbara Church, Jim Cochran, Anna Jones, Heidi Jordan, Paul Lanier, Becky Mayeaux, Linda Simon, David Sisneros, Kara Summers, Lynn Valdez

Non-Voting Members/Attendees:Theresa Armendariz, Joyce Arellano, Sanjay Chooudhrie, Natalie Green, Mary Ann Chavez-Lopez, Nicole Martinez, Natalie Michelback, Alexandria Taylor, James Walker, Lara Yoder, Vera Zamora, Carol Luna Anderson,

NMCEH Staff: Hank Hughes, Lisa Huval, Lisa Maury, Rada Moss, Hannah Ottesen, Roman Seaburgh

  1. The meeting was chaired and called to order by Alexandria at 1:05 p.m.
  2. Hank reviewed the Appeals process. Since the two appeals are from the Balance of State, no organization from the Balance of State CoC can vote; only members without a financial interest in the Balance of State CoC such as those from the Albuquerque CoC can participate in the voting. The Albuquerque and Balance of State CoC came up with and adopted the ranking criteria two years ago. Accordingly, organizations can appeal and CoC members can hear the appeals and vote via a Special Committee to hear the appeals. If the appeals go forward, a Special Committee reviews and considers revising the project ranking. The final decision is made by the Special Committee and is submitted to HUD.
  1. Appeal - City of Las Cruces/Mesilla Valley Community of Hope
  2. The City of Las Cruces – Mesilla Valley Community of Hope CoC Application was placed in Tier 2. The organization feels that since they have not operated for a full year there was not enough data to compare them to other programs and would like to be considered to be placed in Tier 1.
  3. They took over program services from the Eastern Regional Housing Authority in the 4th of the 5th year of the grant and feel that this transition year of data collection should be taken into account.
  4. They feel they are a high performing organization, serving individuals with disabilities and veterans. Some outcomes include:
  5. 8 out of 13 participants are veterans;
  6. 100% of utilization rate as of now;
  7. Housing success measure is 100%;
  8. Income success measure is 69%.
  1. This current grant period ends on 9/30/16. They feel as though they met their numbers and that they’ve exceeded them.
  2. Discussion
  3. There have been no exits at the time of the APR submission so that data would not be reflective in the APR.
  4. The data captured the period of 4/30/15 – 5/1/16 yet the program did not start until September 2014.
  5. There should be some assurance that other agencies were evaluated fairly and within the same timeframe. Other programs with no or limited data were placed at the bottom of Tier 1.
  6. Participants that are served in the program are seen and serviced by case managers.
  7. 313 veterans were served by MVCH during the program year.
  8. The 69% data figure refers mainly to cash income and represents the total number of income that has been maintained.
  9. It was suggested that a more complete APR should be run for a more complete operating year in order to be rated.

David made a motion to send this appeal to the Special Committee for further and final consideration. The motion was seconded by Lynn. 10 approved; 0 opposed; 2 abstained. The motion carried.

  1. Care 66
  2. Two projects were up for renewal. Both were initially denied. One is up for appeal. The one for appeal is for Permanent Supportive Housing in Lexington.
  3. CARE 66 would like to reallocate funds for its Transitional Housing to Permanent Supportive Housing.Without this funding, there might be no form of shelter in Gallup and staff will have to be laid off.
  4. The Executive Director shared that the organization did not perform its desired outcomes and feels he may have to replace key staff.
  5. He shared that defunding the program would have a major and negative impact on housing services in Gallup and for the Navajo people. Regardless, transformation with the grant, and working with the Coalition and HUD, the project performance would have to improve.
  6. Discussion
  7. Other HUD funding include an SRO grant for 8 units (in the same Lexington building) and an SHP grant for transitional housing. The 8 units are in the process of resolving HUD findings pertaining to ineligibility of participants. CARE 66 is in the process of finding suitable housing options for those participants.
  8. CARE 66 leadership became aware of problems due to a letter from HUD and communication with NMCEH leadership. CARE 66 leadership is aware that a more proactive response is needed, and redefined roles and responsibilities are needed.
  9. There are 8 staff, including a program manager, on board at CARE 66. There are plans to remove and/or shift responsibilities and make long-term, sustainable changes.
  10. Financial systems are clear and work well. Sanjay would like to develop similar processes and systems for the service provision component of the organization.
  11. He feels that he will be able to transition to Permanent Housing if the grant is funded.

Linda made a motion to send this appeal to the Special Committee for further and final consideration. The motion was seconded by Cheryl. 7 approved; 2 opposed; 3 abstained. The motion carried.

The following members have volunteered to serve on the Special Appeals Committee which will make the final review and approval of the second-level appeals: Connie Chaney, Jim Cochran, Terry Ellis, Anna Jones and Paul Lanier. David made a motion for approval of the Special Appeals Committee. The motion was seconded by Lynn. 14 approved; 1 opposed; 2 abstained. The motion carried. The meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 23 from 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. at the Barrett Foundation located at 10300 Constitution Ave., NE in Albuquerque.

The meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

1