Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-11-08 Finance Committee Summary Minutes FINANCE COMMITTEE FINAL TRANSCRIPT Page 1 of 26 Regular Meeting November 8, 2017 Chairperson Filseth called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. in the Community Meeting Room, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Present: Filseth (Chair), Fine, Holman arrived at 7:04 P.M., Tanaka Absent: Oral Communications Chair Filseth: Thank you very much. You’re welcome to the Tuesday, November 7th Finance Committee meeting. First item is oral communications. If there are any members of the public who wish to speak to any item not on the agenda. Seeing none, we’ll move to the first Action Item. Agenda Items 1. Approval of Human Relations Commission Recommendations for Second Allocation of FY 2018-19 Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) Funding in the Amount of $311,118. Chair Filseth: First Action Item, which is approval of Human Relations Commission recommendations for the second allocation of 2018-19 Human Services Resource Allocation Process, funding in the amount of $311,118. Is there a staff presentation or anything like that? So, I was going to say, why don’t we do that, and then ask members of the public to speak. Is that all right? Please proceed. Minka Van Der Zwaag, Human Services Manager: That’s good. Thank you so much, Chair Filseth and Committee Members. My name is Minka Van Der Zwaag. I’m the City’s Human Services Manager, and joining me at the table is Jill O’Nan, a member of the Human Relations Commission. And the Chair of the Human Relations Commission, Valery Stinger, and many of the other audience members are representatives from the agencies that have applied for HSRAP funding. So, as you know, we are here tonight to bring you the HRC’s funding recommendations for the second allocation of Human Services Resource Allocation Process, affectionately known as HSRAP. So, HSRAP is a TRANSCRIPT Page 2 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 grant program open to organizations who deliver direct services to Palo Alto residents, so they have a safety net of services that otherwise might not be available. And I just wanted to give a few words on why we’re here today, in November and when this usually happens back in May. So, as you may recall, last spring when HSRAP was brought to the Finance Committee as part of CSD’s budget, one of the applicants, Adolescent Counseling Services, who had been the provider of on-campus counseling programs at all PAUSD secondary school campuses withdrew their portion of their HSRAP application to serve that area, and that left over $100,000 on the table in HSRAP funding. And they’d also been an HSRAP awardee for over 30 years, so the HRC felt pretty uncomfortable just saying, well, let’s just reallocate the funds among the other HSRAP grantees. The City has had a long-time commitment to mental health services on the secondary school campuses, and they also thought, well, let’s also open it up for other grantees that might have asked for a modest amount of funding and now a greater amount of funding is more available. And there might be agencies in the community who never applied for HSRAP because they have this feeling that it’s a closed group because of the funding that’s available, and they never applied. So, the Council concurred with that, and they also, very generously, thank you, gave $44,000 in extra HSRAP funding. So, we then distributed an RFP last August to over 35 agencies in the community, and we received eight applications, and the funding requests that we got exceeded the available funding by over $200,000. So, we received applications from two agencies that had never received HSRAP funding before, and the rest were from agencies that were already receiving HSRAP funding currently, although a couple of those agencies were pretty new to the HSRAP family, as we call it. So then, the next step in the process is that a subcommittee from the Human Relations Commission reviewed those applications, and they brought their recommendations to the full Human Relations Commission for their review and deliberation. I’d like to ask Commissioner Jill O’Nan from the HRC to go over those deliberations with you right now. She was a member of that subcommittee. Jill O’Nan, Human Relations Commissioner: Thank you Minka, thank you Finance Committee Members. I’m Jill O’Nan. I’m a member of the Human Relations Commission. I served on the Selection Committee for about the first round and the second round of HSRAP allocation recommendations. I thought I’d talk you through our process and then invite any questions that you might have. As Minka said, we had an unprecedented opportunity to do a second round of funding, which was awesome, which is a great responsibility to have. I’ll start with some of the funding requests that are pretty straightforward and easier for us to handle. As Minka mentioned, we TRANSCRIPT Page 3 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 did have some new agencies come to us. One was PARCA. This is an agency that provides independent living for adults with disabilities, and we have heard over the years from many, many Palo Alto residents that they have adult children with special needs, and they would like for them to be able to live independently, and that it’s very difficult in this environment with the housing situation being so tight. So, PARCA’s work is directly on point with what we’re hearing from the community, and it was a relatively discreet request, so we decided to go ahead and fund them, not the full amount that they requested, but close to the full amount that they asked for, to serve the Page Mill Court residents. As I said, I think that’s an unmet need, and this was an opportunity to bring a new agency into the HSRAP family. We also had requests from some of the agencies that we’ve been working with in order to extend or expand the programs that they’re working on. Another agency that’s relatively new to HSRAP is Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Again, we’ve heard many times from the community that there were long wait lists for people who had visual impairment to get this very specialized one-on-one training so that they can continue to stay in their homes. Some live independently. We decided to up the amount that Vista got. They had gotten a grant in the first round, we gave them a grant in the second round. This will enable them to see several more Palo Alto residents and help them with this very intensive one-on-one training that I mentioned. Momentum for Mental Health is another group that has been a long-time HSRAP recipient. They have basically one outreach worker who specifically deals with the homeless who have mental health problems, and by giving them an additional award, he will be able to spend more hours in our community dealing with that population. Kara is a new member to the HSRAP family that got a very modest grant in the first round. This was a first-time grantee. We thought that by upping the amount in the second round, they can do more meaningful work in the community. They have been collaborating with the school district around grief counseling and, as you know, with the suicide clusters and problems we’ve had, that’s been an urgent need for the school district, and that was a way to help support that collaborative effort. Dream Catchers is a program that we’ve all been very supportive of. They joined HSRAP a few years ago. They asked for a very specific small grant to fund a new volunteer coordinator position that will enable them to expand their volunteer mission. They’ve been doing great work with the middle schoolers and helping underprivileged youth get caught up, so they can achieve in high school and go on to college. So, again, we felt very supportive. Where things got a little bit more complicated were with the larger grant requests from three agencies. One was CASSY, which is the replacement for adolescent counseling services, the on-campus program. One was Community Working Group, which is sort of the oversight body for TRANSCRIPT Page 4 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Life Moves, which was formerly Envision Shelter Network. And the other is Downtown Streets Team, which is a long-time HSRAP grantee but had asked for funding for a different program, not the Downtown Street Team Program, but for the Food Closet Program. So, we had to wrestle a little bit with these three. Ultimately, what we decided was all three were very crucial to the community. The on-campus counseling program is obviously mission critical, especially in light with the recent suicide that started the beginning of the school year. Community Working Group is running day services through Life Moves and their other partners. That day services program services underprivileged families and individuals, including children who need that drop-in service. So, we felt that was important to continue funding. Downtown Street Team is now running the Food Closet. Without some additional support from the City, there is a chance the Food Closet would not be able to open every day, which means people would be going hungry. So, because all three needs were perceived as very critical, we came up with a funding allocation that was roughly equivalent. There was some disagreement about whether some agencies get a little more or a little less, but eventually we were able to compromise and come up with these funding recommendations. None of the agencies got everything that they wanted, except maybe Dream Catchers, good job Dream Catchers, but since HSRAP funds never match the full need of the community, we felt this was an equitable distribution that taps into different needs, including seniors, homeless, youth, children, and so on. And so, this is what we have brought for you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have about our deliberations. Chair Filseth: Thank you very much. What I would really like to do is get to the public, so what I’m going to suggest is that we defer Council questions and comments until after that, unless somebody has got like a really burning question they have to ask? Okay, great, super. Then, why don’t we do that, and the first speaker will be Jim Santucci and you’ll have three minutes, and if you could come to the podium. Thank you for joining us tonight. Jim Santucci: Yes, I’m Jim Santucci from Kara, Executive Director with Kara. I just wanted to express my gratitude for the Committee and the City for really supporting us. We’ve been around the area for 40 years. We been vetted in the community, providing grief support services. It is a quite type of work that we do, but more recently, in the last few years, we’ve been really supporting the schools with the tragedies and the suicides that we’ve been experiencing together. So, getting support from the City is really important for us, because as a donation-based organization, we rely on donations from all those we serve, and so being able to get a shot in the TRANSCRIPT Page 5 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 arm from the City in that way is really helpful and it really helps us to do that work, so that we can ensure that every Palo Alto resident that comes to us, and the school students, can get the service they really need, whether it be in our group format, one-on-one format. I personally came to the agency as a client myself nine years ago, so I value the agency more than I can imagine, and that’s why I serve as its director. So, thank you so much for the opportunity to receive the funding and be part of the HSRAP family, and I would hope that we would continue to be in years to come, so we can continue to do the good work that we are doing serving the residents. So, thank you. Chair Filseth: Thank you very much. So, the next speaker will be Sharon Hudson from Vista Center. Sharon Hudson: Hi, I’m Sharon Hudson and I’m the Associate Director. I’m also one of the instructors at our agency and I am grateful for this opportunity that you are thinking about expanding some of the funding, because that allows us to expand the services that we can provide to the people in Palo Alto. Originally, we were able to just do the core living skills and orientation and mobility. The expanded grant will allow us to do counseling and support groups as well as assisted technology training, which makes a great difference to people, whether they can actually do a lot of things on their own. Assisted technology is actually the booming thing that’s really opened up the world for a lot of people who are blind or visually impaired, and so having that opportunity to offer that service is a great boost to our clients, and the counseling and all that goes with it, it’s really a grief counseling itself when you lose something like your vision, you do grieve it, and it not only affects just the person, but it affects the family as well. So, we appreciate your taking this time to, hopefully, support us a little more. Thank you. Chair Filseth: Thank you very much for joining us and thank you for doing what you do. The next speaker will be Kyle Morgan from the Downtown Streets Team. Welcome. Kyle Morgan: I’m a little taller. We’ll put it back up here. Good evening (crosstalk). Good evening. Thank you for having us. I’m Kyle Morgan, the Project Manager of Downtown Streets Team within Palo Alto. As most of you know, we were founded in 2005 in Palo Alto, and we’re proud of our history here. We’re very thankful for the City having funded us for the past few years in our work experience program. Unfortunately, after having taken TRANSCRIPT Page 6 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 over the food pantry, that City funding doesn’t cover the food pantry operations. The food pantry kind of offers a different service to some of the individuals and families in Palo Alto and it’s unique in the fact that it’s helping people just get by, compared to our work experience program, where we’re helping people go from point A to point B. The food pantry serves over 400 people a month, and those are families and single individuals, and without our food pantry services, which are open five days a week, some of those families would go without food, so I want to thank everyone here this evening for considering us for the extra funding, and thank you for all of your past, present and future support. Thank you. Chair Filseth: Thank you. And our final speaker will be Barbara Klausner. Hi Barbara. Barbara Sih Klausner: Now back down again. Thanks so much. I just want to start by saying, nobody has ever accused me of kind of, I was going to say beyond the spectrum and not quite getting the social cues, but I have to say that I did submit the request for $10,000, not because we don’t need more than $10,000, but because I was just sort of being very straightforward and realistic about what I thought were the priorities of the City, given the amount of money that was available. But, we certainly could use more than $10,000, but I see all these other great organizations. This is a really exciting, I was going to use like the Silicon Valley words like pivot, but it’s not really a pivot. It’s, this is really the first time that I wrote a grant that was different from all the other grants that I’ve written in the last few years, because the focus of Dream Catchers since it started by a Stanford undergrad in 2008, was about helping the low-income households that have middle school students in Palo Alto Unified, and they definitely needed help. There’s a huge opportunity gap in terms of the resources that are available for those families. It looks like they can go into a Palo Alto classroom and why can’t they just access everything that’s there? We have great teachers, we have great, you know, families. But, you know, you have to picture what it feels like. I have all sorts of analogies that I’ve been thinking about and the latest one is really about – it’s interesting, actually talking about some of these other organizations, my parents were elderly and they passed away recently and during that time I remember being in the hospital and knowing that they needed services and knowing they needed help, and I’m pretty smart and my brother has a Ph.D. in Science, we couldn’t quite figure out kind of how to access everything that the hospital had to offer. And in some ways, that’s kind of the way I think about the Dream Catchers families. It’s all there for them here in Palo Alto, but they actually need some help figuring out how to access what’s there, and that’s actually what Dream TRANSCRIPT Page 7 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Catchers tries do to. But, let me stop there and say, the real change with this grant was focusing on the high school and college tutors. And it was only watching the growth of the program in the last few years that I realized that this actually is almost as valuable an aspect of the program as the services that we’re providing for the low-income middle school students. So, we now have an equal number of anywhere between, depending on what time of year it is, 50 and 80 high school and college tutors who come in and they are developing these one-on-one relationships. I just came from a YCS event, you know the connections and relationships, and we’ve gotten feedback and comments from the high school students. We have a whole bunch of students from (not understood) and how much it means to them. It makes them feel like they’re giving back to something. There is some meaning in what they’re doing. And so, with this extra $10,000 we were able to hire someone who specifically, a tutor coordinator, and she happens to have a Masters in Social Work, to really focus on, what can we do to support our volunteer tutors that they have a really valuable experience. And it’s another way to support Palo Alto youth. Thank you. Chair Filseth: Thank you very much. With that, we will return to the Committee for questions and comments. Council Member Holman. Council Member Holman: So, this is both one of my favorite and least favorite things to do. Favorite because we get to distribute money to, or allocate money to organizations that are more than worthy. And least favorite because there is never enough money. So, it covers that gamut. If we were going to give it by best names, I’d say Dream Catchers has the best name and CASSY has the best acronym, so just put that out there for whatever it’s worth. So, I just want to make sure that the good that we have on packet page 8, just want to make absolute certain that it’s clear. So, the right-hand column is what’s already been approved this year by the full Council, and what is in the first column, though, is what they requested this round? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: That is correct. Council Member Holman: Okay, alright, good. And then when I looked at the minutes for the HRC, it didn’t seem like there was much difference, and all we have is the motion here, so it’s kind of like, what was, either one of you, maybe Jill, so the dollars are not very different, so what were the hold ups on being able to get consensus? TRANSCRIPT Page 8 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Ms. O’Nan: The amounts reflected, unfortunately, there was a slight error. Ms. Van Der Zwaag: No, she means the different motions. Council Member Holman: In the motions. The dollars… Ms. Van Der Zwaag: The dollars, $4,000 to 5,000. They got a no or a yes that passed. Council Member Holman: Yeah, the $600 one is, that seems like it must be an error. Okay. Ms. O’Nan: Yeah. So, I think what it came down to, where there was a group of commissioners who wanted to fund CASSY at a higher level, I think it was $40,000, and then reduce Community Working Group down to $25,000. And then there were other commissioners, which I was the second group, which wanted a more equitable distribution. Part of the thinking was, on the one side, was that CASSY was doing work at the schools, and had been overwhelmed with requests because of the suicide and we wanted to make sure we were giving them adequate support. On the other hand, Community Working Group may have an opportunity to get money from the County, but the County would like to see Palo Alto make a significant contribution from the City, although there was no hard number attached. We were also concerned that the youth is also served by Community Working Group through their Bay Services Program. So, we’re trying to serve youth, but in different ways. And so, it was a little bit of a philosophical difference, I think. And it really came down to a few thousand dollars. So, a compromise was reached that we came up with this distribution, where CASSY didn’t get quite a much as the one group wanted, but not as little as another group wanted, and the three agencies ended up being pretty much within a few thousand dollars of each other, so that all three critical needs could be addressed in a meaningful way, or what we hope will be a meaningful way. Council Member Holman: Okay. And then one other question is, I mean, you sort of touched on this with Community Working Group and Youth, but CASSY is pretty much taking the place of ACS. Ms. O’Nan: Yes, correct. TRANSCRIPT Page 9 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Council Member Holman: Yeah. So, was there conversation, I mean, you sort of suggested that some wanted to give the full 50 to that, so what was the? Ms. O’Nan: I think it was 40, actually. Council Member Holman: 40? Okay, they asked for 50, but you talked about 40. So, what was the, was the ultimate deciding point just that, well this is a more evenly distributed among those three that got the higher allocations? Is that just a more even allocation, or how did the group, both your subcommittee and then the whole board, committee, talk about, you know, the replacement for ACS and the absolute critical service that that provides, not funding at a higher level. So, it’s that balance. Like, how do you not fund CASSY when it’s replacing ACS? Ms. O’Nan: Well, agreed. Some of it had to do also with the availability of other resources for the agencies and some of the history that we had with funding the on-campus program. So, in the past the City had actually been funding it at, I think, at even a higher level than the school district. Now, the school district is spending significantly more on the on-campus program and came to us with a much lower funding request, so it appeared that the school district does have some resources. We weren’t sure how much they really needed from the City, but we certainly wanted to make a meaningful show of support. Community Working Group and the Downtown Streets Team food pantry are really in pretty desperate need at the moment. I don’t know that those agencies have an abundance of resources to pull from. If the City doesn’t give them some seed money to start their fund-raising effort, I think there’s a real danger that the food pantry would either close or have to drastically reduce its hours, and Community Working Group might have to suspend its day program altogether. So, there was sort of some push and pull. Of course, we support CASSY and the counseling, but if people are hungry and, you know, not being housed, those are also on the most basic priority of needs too. And so, it was an effort to try to touch on all of the needs and respond to them, but we couldn’t, you know, give all, I mean, Community Working Group had asked for a very large grant, which if we had done that, that would have been to the exclusion of the other agencies. And so, these are hard choices and there may not be a perfect choice, but this is what we as a group felt would enable each agency to carry out its mission and make the lives of Palo Alto residents better. TRANSCRIPT Page 10 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Council Member Holman: And that is, you know, the least favorite part of this. So, yeah, I think it precedes by a little bit the time of Council Members Tanaka and Fine being on the Council, but the food closet was close to closing a couple years ago, and I think we used part of our $50,000 emergency funding, didn’t we? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: We didn’t. There was a point where the management of the food closet, when it was in a pretty hard state, Downtown Streets Team approached Life Moves, which was operating it, and in a decision the program transferred from the one agency to the other agency. So… Council Member Holman: That’s how it was. Okay, good. Thank you. I don’t think I have any other questions or comments, other than, you know, wishing there was a lot more money. But thank you for your work. You know, I’m just a great fan of the Human Relations Commission. I think you do tremendous work and all the nonprofits that are here too and represented and those that aren’t here too. Just, thank you so much for your work. Chair Filseth: Council Member Fine. Council Member Fine: Thank you. So, I also do want to thank all of these great organizations. I mean, these are really serving kind of underserved, sometimes invisible people in our community, and I think it’s pretty amazing what all of you do with, in the scale of the City budget, so little money actually. So, I do echo what Council Member Holman says. I did have a few questions also about why there were those motions moving around. I would put to my colleagues, I would tend to agree that it’s probably better distributed more equally, especially when some of these service providers are serving the same groups. We want to kind of spread our bets there. Just one question. Am I mistaken in that Project Sentinel used to be under this? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Project Sentinel was in the HSRAP program till about 2008. And then it asked to be out of the HSRAP process and now it’s just a direct contract with the City. So, their contract is within Human Services, but it’s general fund money, just a straight contract and not within HSRAP anymore. Council Member Fine: Thank you. That’s helpful. And the only other question. You said you put this out, the RFP, to about 35 organizations and got 10 or 20 applicants? TRANSCRIPT Page 11 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Eight applicants, yes. Council Member Fine: From about 35? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Yes. Council Member Fine: Where is that list of 35? Where do we get that and how do we make that? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: How do I make that? I look at other, I look at the priority of needs that is established, and then I go through the agencies that I know that address those needs in Palo Alto, or for Palo Alto residents. So, Human Services also oversees an information and referral data base called Family Services, Family Resources, and most of those agencies are listed on that data base. So again, I very methodically go through the priority of needs to be able to reach out to agencies that address these needs. That’s how Parca got on the list. I know they have been in Palo Alto for years, running the Page Mill Court. I run a program for developmentally disabled adults, some of our participants live at that facility. So, that’s really how the list is managed and added to. Council Member Fine: I guess I’m just asking because it would be, as long as we can keep that fresh and up-to-date and expansive and bring in new folks when possible. Ms. Van Der Zwaag: I look at it every time we go out for HSRAP I update that list. Council Member Fine: Cool, thank you. That’s all. I’d be happy to support all of this as is. Chair Filseth: Greg? Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. So, thank you guys for your work on this. I really appreciate it. I know it’s not easy. I agree with what the other Council Members say, which is, there’s a lot of great organizations out there and not much money, so it’s very difficult. So, I’m a little bit new to some of this, so I just wanted to get some background on it. So, some of these questions may seem extremely basic, but, I guess, what is the criteria for the TRANSCRIPT Page 12 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 organizations that are considered? Like how do we, what are the parameters that we use? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Well, we have, thank you. So, in the RFP we list, we have review criteria that we go and, evaluation criteria. But as far as the actual agency, they have to be serving Palo Alto residents. They have to meet one of the priority of needs. They do not need to be a nonprofit, but till this day most all the agencies that have applied for HSRAP are nonprofit, but we primarily look at, that they are meeting the needs of Palo Altons in the priority of needs that has been established by the Human Relations Commission after doing a series of needs assessments. Does that answer your question fully? Council Member Tanaka: It does, thank you. So, that’s good. So, we’re using taxpayer dollars, residents’ dollars to serve Palo Alto residents. That makes total sense to me. Okay, great. And so, for all of these programs listed here, are all of them going to help just Palo Alto residents, or are they helping people who may not be residents of Palo Alto? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Some of these agencies help people that are not Palo Alto residents, but are, HSRAP money only goes to Palo Alto residents that are their clients, so only Palo Alto residents. Council Member Tanaka: Okay. So, it’s a stipulation that they cannot use money for any non-Palo Alto residents? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: That is correct. Council Member Tanaka: Okay, that makes sense, okay. And then my other question, is effectiveness. So, one thing I was very inspired by is the Gates’ Foundation. I’m not sure you guys follow kind of the work they do, but I think, I was listening to a podcast about Bill Gates and Linda and how they’re trying to – and as it turns out, giving away a lot of money is actually hard, and being effective is extremely hard. And one of the things they did, and maybe you know, we’re not at the level of the Gates’ Foundation, right, but one of the things they did was they tried to measure the effectiveness to kind of maximize the good that’s being done with the dollars. So, kind of like return on investment. So, what are we doing in that regard? How do we know that, you know, for the amount of scarce dollars that we have, we are maximizing the return for the City residents, right? How do we know, like TRANSCRIPT Page 13 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 how do we measure that? How do we even, is there any quantifiable way that we can see if this is like, you know, we’re making the right investments. Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Right. Well, I’ll answer that as best as I can and if Commissioner O’Nan wants to go in. So, each of the grantees is part of the work that they are proposing are required to come up with a scope of services that has clear and measurable outcomes, and on a semi-annual basis they are required to report back to the City their performance measures in each of the areas of the scope that they are, that the City is funding. So, staff looks at that. They look at their contract measures, their actuals. They have them, we have them indicate any unmet performance standards and an explanation why those aren’t being met, any unmet client needs, their financials. The HRC goes out and does a visit. We go out and do a visit as well. We get their audited financials. So, we try to really look at the fact that they are doing what they say they’re going to do. They are directly meeting the needs of the clients they say they’re going to meet. They are meeting very clear, measurable outcomes, and that’s what we try to do in monitoring these contracts, and trying to… Council Member Tanaka: Is there some sort of like, the dollars that we spend are pretty investment, but do we have some sort of measure of quantifiable goodness that it brings, so to speak. Because, you know, the problem is, I mean, and I say this with seriousness because 35 organization applied, right? We can look at one through eight, and even then, we couldn’t give money to all that we wanted to, right? And so, unless you kind of break it down to some numbers, some sort of numbers, you could kind of see, well, this one seems to have a higher return on investment than this other one. It’s hard to know, are we, it could be that maybe some agencies are just much more effective in terms of bang for buck than others, right? And so, we would want to, to me it’s not so much spreading the money to everyone, because I think there are some organizations that are just higher performing than others, and the ones that are higher performing you want to give them more, right? And the ones that are less performing, you want to give them less. So, that’s why, I didn’t see any sort of return on investment or ranking or anything like that. So, it’s hard to judge. That’s why I’m asking. (crosstalk) Ms. O’Nan: If I could jump in, Council Member Tanaka. In this type of scenario, it’s really deceptive to try to rank things as if all the agencies are on an equal playing field. Certain types of services are extremely resource intensive. So, for example, with Vista, if I’m working one-on-one with someone who has lost their sight, and I have to train them how to use public TRANSCRIPT Page 14 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 transportation, get around their home, use their stove, use an assistive technology on their smart phone, it may take hours of one-on-one intensive training. Now another organization may be able to use a group format to help many more people, but then we would be saying to blind and visually impaired people, well, you’re just not a good return on investment. It takes too much time and effort to train you. Council Member Tanaka: I don’t know. Ms. O’Nan: So, we wouldn’t do that. So, that’s why it’s difficult to rank the agencies against each other. Council Member Tanaka: I encourage the, your team to look at, like I think Bill and Linda Gates, I think they’ve done a pretty good job in terms of, because they do try to quantify. Because the very things that you talk about is what they’re trying to do, right. Because even though they have billions of dollars, they also want to make sure that they’re maximizing their good in the world. So, and I realize that a lot of this stuff is really soft, touchy and feely and it’s kind of hard to quantify, but unless you do that, it’s hard to know, like, are we maximizing the dollars of the City and so, and if we keep it kind of fluffy, then it’s all kind of gut feel. Like, it’s my opinion against your opinion versus some sort of… Ms. O’Nan: Well, there is some opinion that comes into play with the HRC, but we talk frequently with people in the community and with the agencies who serve people in the community. We have a large and growing senior population, for example, that’s losing vision. I mean, people are living longer and one of the bad things about living longer is that you lose certain capabilities and sight is one of the first things that can go. We also have a large population of people with diabetes who are subject to retinopathies and other problems with their vision. There is a strong, growing demand for visual type services. So, being in touch with what the community needs is part of what informs the HRC. So, it’s not all, we just like this agency or we don’t care as much about this agency. It’s that people come to us and say, my son or daughter has autism, and needs to live independently, and there’s nobody here in Palo Alto to help us do that. Or, my child needs services at the schools, you know, he or she is depressed, and we need to have counseling. We hear this from the community, and so we’re trying to be responsive in that sense, and I think all of these agencies meet demand and, in fact, there is usually a long waiting list of people waiting to get more services. TRANSCRIPT Page 15 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Council Member Tanaka: I have no question that there is a lot of demand for all these services. They all seem extreme worthy. My only point is that, you know, just like companies, just like anything, there is usually a spread of performance. There are usually some that are just really high performing. Give them just a little bit of money and they do amazing things. And others which, for whatever reasons, maybe, you know, for whatever reason, they’re just not as effective. You give them a certain amount of money, they don’t perform as well as maybe some other ones. And so, and that’s why, maybe it’s beyond the abilities or scope or, to do it right now. But, that’s something I want to encourage, just because I think, otherwise, these kinds of calls are extremely subjective. Ms. O’Nan: I do take your point. I do think another thing to bear in mind, though, is that not all problems are immediately solvable. So, for example, people who are homeless often have a myriad of problems, addiction, mental illness, income problems, criminal justice problems. So, that population tends to be chronic. So, you could say, well, we’re spending a lot of money, we’re not getting return on investment, and yet we are, because we’re keeping people out of trouble, we’re keeping the streets cleaner, we’re giving them some opportunities to improve. We may never solve the problem of homelessness. It’s an extremely difficult, complex problem to solve, but we’re managing it and we’re making, you know, people on the margins safer, better and keeping the community safer and better by investing in at least managing the problem, even if we can’t cure it. Other things, I mean, we can really address and take someone from point A to point B and transform their whole life, and that may look like a better investment, but if we don’t manage some of these chronic things, mental illness doesn’t go away, homelessness doesn’t go away. Those are things that you just have to deal with in the community. So, as I said, it’s not really apples to apples always, in terms of how the agencies perform. Council Member Tanaka: I understand. I mean, you bring up another good topic, which is that, you know, a lot of times, like a certain amount of capital or money you need to get something happening and if you don – I’m now sure if you have ever seen the website Kick Starter? Like, unless you get a certain amount of money for your goal you just don’t get funded, right. Because you could get $1 but that $1 is not going to help you build, you know, a spaceship. It’s just not going to happen, right. You need a certain amount of money in order to do that. So, I also wonder about that too, as well, right. I mean, some of these organizations wanted a lot more than we could give them, right? So, I do wonder, like, you know, there’s the whole idea of your – I kind of know the feeling, we’re trying to be fair, we’re trying TRANSCRIPT Page 16 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 to spread our bets and stuff like that. But, sometimes, maybe unless we fully fund it, it’s not, it’s like, I’m not sure if you guys have ever read the book, Woebegone. It’s in this fictional town… Ms. O’Nan: Lake Woebegone? Council Member Tanaka: Lake Woebegone, yeah. And there’s this story about the average family and there’s like 2 ½ kids, or something like that. And they have 2 ½ kinds and there’s two kids and there’s a half, right. Like, so, sometimes when you don’t give enough in the budget, right, that’s needed, it like a Lake Woebegone issue. You have half a kid, right. I mean, half a kid works in Lake Woebegone, but not in Palo Alto. So, that’s what I wonder is that if we, in some ways, if giving them the full funding is like forcing us to prioritize, making sure that people can truly execute, because if you don’t give enough sometimes, you get to 2 ½ kinds, like the Lake Woebegone problem. So, that’s the other thing I’ve been thinking about is, in terms of how the money was split. Like, are we giving enough capital, or was it really asked for, to fully execute and do a sufficient job that can execute on the mission that we want them to, versus like, if we just give them a little bit and then they have to go scramble for something else, right? So that can also make it difficult. So, I just wonder if that was under consideration? Ms. O’Nan: Well, there’s kind of like three aspects to that. So, one is that a HSRAP requirement generally is that the agency cannot be overly dependent on the City. The City can be one source of funding, but the majority of their funding really should come from other sources. So, they know that going into the application. Council Member Tanaka: So, it’s like a kickstart where, unless they get enough, we don’t give them money. Is that the way it works? Ms. On’Nan: Well, we look at the diversity of their funding resources and do they have some kind of model that will allow them to sustain, because we can’t have agencies come to us for their full operating budget. So, that’s part of the HSRAP deal. But what agencies do is, they come to the City, they get a grant of some amount, and that is sort of like the seal of approval for them. They can then go and much more successfully fundraise out to other areas, including the County, by saying, hey, the City of Palo Alto gave me this grant. It may be a modest amount of money, but that money means that they were vetted and approved here, which really aids in their TRANSCRIPT Page 17 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 fundraising efforts, and we are thanked many, many times by the agencies, even for small amounts of money, because it serves like a seed capital for them to go out and fundraise. Council Member Tanaka: But, shouldn’t it be more like the kick-starter model, where, unless you get, you know, (not understood) chip in a bit of money, then, unless they raise the full amount they need to really run a program, you know. Chair Filseth: I think what she’s described is a very, very coarse way of approximating what you said. I mean, it was very, very coarse, okay. But, the question you’re asking, which is a legitimate one, is, jeeze, if somebody really needs $200,000 and we give them $20, have we wasted the $20? I think that’s sort of what you’re asking. And I think what you’ve said is, well, you know, we only look for people where the majority of their funding comes from someplace else, okay. And so, that doesn’t guarantee that that’s not going to happen, but it makes it less likely if we’re sort of, not sort of… Council Member Tanaka: So why don’t we make it contingent based on raising all the money, so then actually, programs are fully funded. Ms. O’Nan: The programs are sort of aspirational in some sense, and often very scalable. Oftentimes, it comes down to, if they have the full amount they could fund a staff position all year at full time. With a partial amount, they can at least give us a social worker ten hours a week to work in the community. So, we do get the services, it’s just that we will maybe see fewer clients and we will have fewer hours. That doesn’t mean we don’t get it at all, we just get a portion of it. And again, we know that going into it as well. So, it’s a bit of a push and pull with the agencies and they know we’re doing our best to try to get them some funding to help them with their fundraising efforts, but they also know they’re going to have to supplement from other sources, that they won’t be able to rely fully on the City. Council Member Tanaka: Okay. Well, I mean, like I said, I think kick-start model is not a bad model to follow, because it makes sure that, because if they don’t really need all that money, then they shouldn’t ask for all that money. They should ask for what they need. But if they need a certain amount, we should actually try to hit it, otherwise my concern is what Chair Filseth just said, which is, maybe the money gets wasted. We should have put that money to another organization that could have used it and made an effective program. So, anyways, that’s my comments. TRANSCRIPT Page 18 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Ms. O’Nan: Thank you for that. Chair Filseth: Thank you. So, I’d add on there, thank you guys for doing what you do and it’s clear that it’s not an exact science, so it takes people. I just had one question. I think you may have answered it with Karen, but the 4/2 split on the motion, did I hear you folks say that was primarily about sort of the split between CASSY and the Community Working Group? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: And Downtown Street Team. The top three. Yes. Chair Filseth: The top three, okay. But that was, so what was the minority opinion. Ms. O’Nan: I think the minority opinion was that they wanted CASSY to get, I think it was $40,000 and they wanted Community Working Group to get more like 25. And then the rest of us wanted a more equitable split and we wanted to help Community Working Group position itself to get additional County funding. And we felt that CASSY had some additional resources at the school district and didn’t need the money as urgently. Chair Filseth: Okay, alright. Sounds good. Thanks. So, motions? Karen, do you want to take, do the honor here? Council Member Holman: Before I make a motion though, I thank the HRC and you all can never leave. But, I would be remiss if I didn’t also recognize Minka, because Minka has been doing due diligence on this for how many years now? Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Six or seven. Council Member Holman: Yeah, and always, I mean, you can tell the commitment by the investment of information and time and knowledge that you have in this too, so I want to thank you as well very much. So, with that I will move the staff recommendation, which is to approve the HSRAP Agency funding allocations as recommended by the HRC, and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute one-year contracts with the organizations recommended by the HRC for not to exceed amounts recommended by the HRC for fiscal year 2018, with an option to renew for one additional year, that being fiscal year 2019.The total amount of these contracts should not exceed $155,559 for fiscal year. TRANSCRIPT Page 19 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Chair Filseth: I’ll second. MOTION: Council Member Holman moved, seconded by Chair Filseth to recommend the Council: A. Approve the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) agency funding allocations as recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC); and B. Authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute year one contracts with the organizations recommended by the HRC for not-to- exceed amounts recommended by the HRC for Fiscal Year 2018, with an option to renew for one additional year (Fiscal Year 2019). The total amount of these contracts shall not exceed $155,559 per fiscal year. Chair Filseth: Care to speak to your Motion? Council Member Holman: Just speak a little bit to comments that, and questions that Council Member Tanaka was asking. I think they’re diligent comments and questions. It is not exactly, as the response you were getting, it is not exactly a science. It’s one of responsibility and research and diligence as much as it is, you know, being able to measure things, because life isn’t exactly measurable. Accomplishments aren’t exactly measurable. Failures aren’t exactly measurable. It’s the progress that’s made in the course of helping other human beings and life conditions. So, I think your questions are very good ones. I think they’re just very, very difficult questions to answer in the ways that might be more satisfactory to, you know, different minds work in different ways and that’s why we’re all here and that’s why we have a nine-member Council, because we think in different ways. So, I very much appreciate the questions and I hope the answers and responses were satisfactory. So, the organizations listed here, and many, many others that don’t even apply because it takes time to make application and there’s limited funding, so some organizations that serve our community, and serve it very, very well, don’t apply because the likelihood of success and especially for the return on investment, because the time it takes to make an application, go through the process and stuff, isn’t worth even the nonprofits’ time to get limited amounts of money. So, I thank the organizations that have applied. I thank you for the work you do, the service you provide to our community and community members, and also thank the HRC and Minka very much for your service. TRANSCRIPT Page 20 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Chair Filseth: What Karen said. Yes. Council Member Tanaka: So, I’ll be supporting this as well. I don’t mean to give you guys a hard time, but you know, before I listened to this Bill Gates and Linda Gates thing, right, I also thought, you know, this is kind of touchy, feely, measure human life and human suffering and all that kind of stuff, right. But, I guess what I was really impressed on this, how they did turn it into a science, right. They really did quantify things. They really, I mean, you would think there was so much money, you would just kind of spread it around and call it a day. But, no, they really think about it. I mean, they really try to get some smart people thinking really hard about how to like maximize the good in the world. And so, I realize, you know, we’re not the size of that organization. This is not even a fraction represented right, so, of course, we probably can’t go to that level, but you know, I think that for anyone that’s thinking about giving or, it’s not a bad idea, because you know, just like with everything, there’s such a spread in performance difference, right. I mean, some organizations provide so much more than others, and I think it’s our responsibility to, you know, and I realize these are all volunteers, but I think it’s our responsibility to do due diligence, to try to make sure that we select high-performing organizations. But, you know, I can’t do it here, so I have to rely on your opinion and judgement. Ms. Van Der Zwaag: And I appreciate that feedback and I don’t want to, you know, have the impression given that there isn’t due diligence in review and analysis of these organizations, and we continue during the entire tenure of the grant… Council Member Tanaka: I didn’t mean it like that. I meant more, I’m sure you guys are diligent. I’m talking about like the quantification, right, and I know it’s very hard to turn things into numbers, right, but when you have limited resources, and you’re trying to do some planning, right, trying to select which, what are the priorities, you know, sometimes just spreading the peanut butter thin, you know, rather than putting it on things that really matter, isn’t the most effective. I think choosing is also important, right, and that means there’s going to be people you select and some people you’re not going to select, and so versus trying to spread money across all these organizations and maybe making a few extremely successful, that would really have a big impact on Palo Alto would be the better decision versus, you know, a little bit here, a little bit there, you know. TRANSCRIPT Page 21 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Ms. Van Der Zwaag: I appreciate that. You know, I’m sure that Commissioner O’Nan and Chair Stinger will bring that feedback back to the HRC. You know, it has been hard. They have a pretty broad priority of needs that they set. Some communities just set those as two things. They say, we’re going to just serve, do homelessness and senior services, and the HRC has historically wanted to have HSRAP funding go to a pretty broad category, so I know that the next time HSRAP comes up, that will be a definite conversation that we have. We also try to work with our grantees throughout the tenure of their grant on improving the way that they work internally. We have technical assistance programs for grantees looking at better ways in which they can build the capacity within their organizations, better ways in which they can tract and measure the impact of the work that they do as well. So, I wanted to let you know that. Council Member Holman: So, just one other thing it occurs to me that maybe would be appropriate and pertinent to make is that if we’re going to leverage our dollars, if the City is going to leverage its dollars, so much better to give finite amounts of money to the nonprofits rather than the City trying to make these lives better, make Palo Alto a better community by trying to source it all in house. So, it’s another way of thinking about leveraging our dollars and making better use of our limited funds. Ms. Van Der Zwaag: Right, and in the very beginning of HSRAP a lot of the programs that were funded were kind of offshoots of services that the City was providing in house. ACS, if you look at Avenidas, you know, Senior Coordinating Council previously. So, that was at the core of the beginning of HSRAP, leveraging those dollars. Chair Filseth: Further comments? All in favor? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming. Thank you for joining us tonight and good luck and Godspeed with it. MOTION PASSED: 4-0 Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Filseth: So, next on the agenda, future meetings and agendas. Michelle Flaherty, Assistant City Manager: Yes. Mr. Chairman, we have a proposed change to future meetings. We, staff has determined that the items that were scheduled for the November 28 meeting, which was an TRANSCRIPT Page 22 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 extra meeting that had been scheduled in, would be better served by bringing them to you later. So, we would propose cancelling that meeting and just moving forward with the December 5th meeting, where we do the annual financials. Chair Filseth: So then, transportation impact fees and the parking management study would go out into potentially January, is that what you’re saying? Ms. Flaherty: That’s correct. They would be in the new year. Chair Filseth: Okay. Council Member Holman: Is it because the information won’t be available or compiled by then, or what’s the? Ms. Flaherty: Yes. Staff are still working on the information. Council Member Holman: For both of those things? For both one and two? Chair Filseth: You have two pretty different things there. Ms. Flaherty: I think staff are working on an over-arching set of issues related to parking and transportation and how all of those things fit together and want to bring them forward in a more strategic fashion that we would be prepared to do right now. Chair Filseth: Maybe you answered this already, but I know that staff, after the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting sort of went back and was going to do sort of a little more thinking on the parking management and finance study. But the transportation impact fees I would have thought was different, but you’re saying actually they’re closer related than you might guess? Ms. Flaherty: I think we’ll know that better when we bring them to you. I think we want to be thoughtful and strategic about bringing them in a framework rather than piecemeal. TRANSCRIPT Page 23 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Council Member Fine: So, I think item number one, the transportation impact fees is also somewhat contingent on our discussion on the comp plan. Right, because it’s one of the mitigations that we may be considering. Chair Filseth: Transportation impact fees, so when the Council raised the parking permit fees, does that count as part of the transportation impact fees? Is that sort of the same umbrella? Ms. Flaherty: When you say count, I’m now sure what you mean. Chair Filseth: So, the Council a month ago raised the proposed or increased the staff’s recommendation, increased, moved to increase the cost of parking permits downtown by an amount adequate to cover the gap in funding for the TMA this year that was requested, right. And specifically, for that reason, which then got allocated. So, is that what we mean by a transportation impact fees, it’s how to fund the TMA? Ms. Flaherty: No. Council Member Fine: I think this is seen as like the mitigation for some of the jobs numbers and stuff we’re looking at. Chair Filseth: Okay. You look like your about to say something. Kiely Nose, Budget Manager: I was going to say, I can, depending on how far you guys want to go down this, but you’re right, the Transportation Impact Fees are separate. They’re associated with additional congestion, additional development and whatnot, and the fees associated with mitigating those impacts. Whereas the parking fees are fees and charges. They’re part of our municipal fee schedule and you’re right, it did go into effect and those funds were allocated to the TMA. In terms of the downtown parking management financial plan, financial study and plan, after PTC staff went back and regrouped, and ultimately have put in kind of a different, but more slowly phased plan. However, what it does mean is potentially we’re going to have to upfront provide some funding, and so rather than coming to you guys with just information, we want time to think through, what does that mean, what is the right strategy, what are some options, so that you guys aren’t kind of floating around in the dark with, here’s all these things, but we don’t know how we’re going to do it. So, we want some more time to flush through that, given all of the funding priorities that this organization has. TRANSCRIPT Page 24 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Chair Filseth: Okay, so if we did that, then, okay so then the November 28 meeting would be canceled and the next one would be December 5th? Ms. Nose: Correct. Chair Filseth: That’s going to be a big meeting. Ms. Flaherty: Well, it was going to be a big meeting anyway, so we’re not adding anything to it. Chair Filseth: Okay, sure. Council Member Tanaka: So, for the December 5th meeting, since we have item 5, which is the long-range financial forecast, I think we supposed to also address some of the pension issues, right, so what I was going to suggest is that we invite, formally invite Professor Bulow and Joe Nation to the meeting. Chair Filseth: Which, I believe you already did that. Council Member Tanaka: I think the Mayor said we should talk about it, because otherwise Legal will flip out, right. So, that’s what I’m doing. Chair Filseth: Yeah, so the Committee has reached out to the two Stanford professors to see if they’re interested in joining the meeting on the 5th, and if they reply in the affirmative, then we will ask, we’ll bring this back to you and have a discussion on it. Ms. Flaherty: Okay, great. And I think Legal had raised the issue the last time about how we manage public comment at the Committee meetings. Chair Filseth: Yup, so we have to notice properly and so forth. Ms. Flaherty: Great, thank you. Council Member Holman: And there was also the question about Stanford and our negotiations with Stanford too, and that relationship too, so you know, inform us of that prior to the next meeting. TRANSCRIPT Page 25 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Ms. Flaherty: We will have Legal take, are you directing us to have Legal take a look at your invitation? Chair Filseth: Not yet. I’d rather wait and see if they’re interested first. Ms. Flaherty: Okay. Council Member Holman: It was the data sharing, because that’s what they were mostly interested in and I thought why they came last time was they’re trying to get access to that data sharing, and I saw staff members over here and they were expressing some concern and raising some concern about that, so. And that’s a legal issue. Ms. Nose: Sure, and in your guys’ prior motion you guys asked us to explore that. We have reached out to Joe Nation at Stanford and so we will report back to you guys as part of long range. Chair Filseth: Is there any update on that discussion, by the way? Ms. Nose: Long range? Chair Filseth: On the data sharing with Joe Nation’s project? Ms. Nose: We shouldn’t get too far into it because it’s not agendized. Speaking of Legal, since Terence isn’t here to keep me in line, the one thing I do want to tell you guys is, as we’re pulling together this long range, given how large of a report it’s going to need to be, it may come to you in chunks. So, please bear with me. By that I mean, John Bartel and his staff are extraordinarily busy, so some of the information I will probably not receive until after the Thanksgiving holiday, so it’s going to be a really tight turnaround, so please excuse any brevity in the report. But also, please do realize what we, I think we’re going to do is bifurcate it and try and get you what we can in the normal packet process, and then do a second At-Places with supplemental information. Chair Filseth: Okay, I see. So, what you mean by chunks is, we’ll probably see part of (no mic) and part of it we might not see until (inaudible). Ms. Nose: Correct. TRANSCRIPT Page 26 of 26 Regular Finance Committee Meeting Action Minutes 11/08/2017 Council Member Holman: Understood. Ms. Nose: Duly noted. Thank you. Chair Filseth: Okay. So, do you need a Motion from us to cancel the meeting? Ms. Flaherty: I don’t think so. Chair Filseth: Alright. Then with nothing else, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Happy holidays, or happy Thanksgiving. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at 8:03 P.M.