NOFA Input Session: August 15th

Topic: CoC Application, 4A Mainstream Benefits and Additional Policies

I. Welcome & Introductions

Members Present: John Foley, SSHH; Mike Jaske, Sacramento ACT Staff Present: Kate Casarino, CoC and Contracts Coordinator; Michele Watts, CPO

II. FY2017-FY2018 CoC Application Part 4A Matrix Overview See the FY2017-FY2018 CoC Application Comparison and Input Matrix* (attached)

III. Member Input (Content, Partners to Engage, Other Input) See the FY2017-FY2018 CoC Application Comparison and Input Matrix* (attached)

IV. FY2018 Planning Project Application Update Michele reported that the draft FY2018 Planning Project Application is not available for review as planned. The draft will be completed in time for next week’s input session (Input Session #5). Members present reviewed the Eligible Planning Costs table from the August, 1 2018 Input Session #

Eligible Planning Cost Detail Local Response Current Funding Sources
Coordination Activities Sacramento CoC Advisory Board Local (SHRA)
Determining the geographic area of the CoC City and County of Sacramento and all cities within Process complete, no ongoing funding required
Project Evaluation, CoC Program and ESG Year-Round Performance Review Committee evaluates CoC Program projects.

No CoC-level engagement in evaluating ESG

HUD Planning

Not yet implemented

Participating in the consolidated plans of the jurisdictions in the CoC area SSF and SHRA coordinate, no CoC-level engagement in place.

New Info: SHRA will do a new Con Plan in 2019

Not yet implemented
CoC Application Activities Year-Round Performance Review Committee & Annual Review & Rank HUD Planning


 Members present discussed how the CoC Advisory Board could interact with SHRA’s Con Plan efforts in 2019. Options include dedicating staff time to the process.  Members present suggested that planning project funds should be prioritized for completing the gaps analysis required in the HEARTH Act. Michele noted that the gaps analysis is already being developed, inconsultation with the City, County, and SHRA, and that it will be funded under the Data Hub. Revisions to the draft Data Hub detail document shared at Input Session #2 will include a description of the hub’s role in completing this important task.

The FY2018 Planning Project esnaps application and the revised Data Hib detailed will be reviewed at next week’s session (Input Session #5, August 22, 2018). These materials will be shared electronically prior to the session.

V. Follow Up and Next Steps See the FY2017-FY2018 CoC Application Comparison and Input Matrix* (attached)  Get renters helpline and Project Sentinel partnership information from SSHH for the fair housing question.  SSF staff to discuss SHRA Con Plan engagement opportunity internally.

VI. Prior Sessions Follow Up Updates 8/8/18 Follow ups  SSF to convene DV providers regarding the DV questions for FY2018: in process, meeting date pending.  SSF to research CoC discharge policies in other communities: underway.  SSF to develop a calendar for sharing draft sections of the CoC Application: in process, to be completed by next week (week of 8/20/18). 8/1/18 Follow ups  Planning project application activities, discussed in item IV above.

VII. Adjourn

Input Session #5: August 22, 2018

* Staff developed the FY2017-FY2018 CoC Application Comparison and Input Matrix following Input Session # 3 on August 8, 2018. It was difficult to move back and forth between multiple documents for FY2017 and FY2018 at the session and the matrix brings most of this information together into one document. We will use this matrix structure for all future CoC Application Input Sessions. The matrix, however, is not a substitute for the Detailed Instructions, where more information on how to respond to questions is provided