Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-28 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 15 Special Meeting May 28, 2025 The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Community Meeting Room and by virtual teleconference at 6:06 PM. Present In-Person: Veenker (Chair), Lu, Stone Absent: None Public Comments Ken H. discussed youth mental health concerns. Ken H. expressed disappointment regarding the cancellation of the City/School Liaison meetings for May and June. Ken H. was upset that the School District did not go forward with the City’s recommendation regarding The Jed Foundation. Ken H. recommended a book he found in the library about mental health, The Anxious Generation. Ken H. was glad the City would be moving forward with The Jed Foundation and expressed a willingness to support the effort. Jennifer L. wrote to Council in January to express her concern about City priority issues that do not have a standing committee or an ad hoc. There is a staff liaison and a Council liaison but there has been a lack of public outreach to interested community members regarding airplane noise. This week, there is an upcoming deadline for the City to express resident concerns. Jennifer L. stated an email was sent to the City Council, City Attorney, and City Manager requesting public outreach because the City’s position on this issue is unknown. Jennifer L. suggested that a committee review her letter with the intent to encourage further public engagement. Olenka V., the Founder and CEO of Magical Bridge Foundation, briefly recapped her foundation’s history. Olenka V. thanked City Manager Ed Shikada, the City Council, and the Finance Committee for their support. Last year, the Magical Bridge Foundation entered into a partnership with the City and received a grant, supporting 46 programs and events to date. Olenka V. expressed her desire for Magical Bridge Foundation to be included as a line item in this year’s budget in order to continue their work in the community. Agenda Items 1. Recommend City Council Approve the Office of the City Auditor Annual Risk Assessment and FY 2026 Audit Plan and Corresponding Task Orders SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 City Auditor Kate Murdock presented a slideshow and discussed the results of the Audit Office’s Citywide risk assessment and resulting audit plan for FY 2026. The current audit plan was developed six months after the previous audit plan due to changes in the audit leadership team. The FY26 Audit Plan will take course over the next fiscal year with projects rolling out between July and October, and all audit projects being completed over the spring. City Auditor Murdock explained the risk assessment methodology. First, information is gathered, such as assessing budget documents, Council priorities, and prior audits. Then, the gathered information is assessed and possible risk types are identified. The risks are assigned a rating based on the likelihood and potential impact on the organization. A survey was conducted of City Council, the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), and other key staff from 11 departments with questions related to Citywide and department-related risks. Three slides were presented highlighting the top 34 high- to- medium risk areas. City Auditor Murdock noted that many of the risks had remained the same when compared to reports from prior years, such as Utility billing and grant management. The audit plan for FY 2026 addressed several risk areas. The Audit Office proposed a Citywide advisory/assessment project to address suboptimal solicitation and contract authority level thresholds as well as a contract management best practices advisory project. An audit will be performed on the City’s below market rate affordable housing program. An advisory project was proposed to look at Utility reserve levels to address Utility asset management risk. Feedback from surveys and staff interviews helped inform the selection of audit topics and proposed advisory projects. A slide outlining the FY26 proposed audit plan was shown, which included three audits and three advisory projects. Also proposed were an audit of fleet resources and fleet’s progress on S/CAP goals or key actions and an audit of traffic safety improvements. A follow-up on prior audit recommendations and a status update will be provided at the end of FY 2026. Public Comment: None Vice Mayor Veenker asked for clarification regarding affordable housing and the risk from below market rate housing. Vice Mayor Veenker also inquired how many risk areas reflect the inherent risk of a service versus a risk exacerbated by City practices. Vice Mayor Veenker opined that a certain level of risk is inherent by virtue of offering certain services. City Auditor Murdock explained that the risk for affordable housing has come up in relation to Palo Alto residents and City employees, which has been a topic of interest among people over the past couple years. Therefore, the Audit Office looked into what programming the City was providing and whether it was operating in an effective and efficient manner. The risk score is SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 frequently reflective of the City’s risk population, and as such, it is common for the risk score of bigger items to stay the same. City Auditor Murdock explained the next step was to determine if there was a particular area of concern within the larger risk areas that needed to be addressed. Councilmember Lu expressed a desire to see vacancy data on the affordable housing units, specifically the time it took to fill the units, whether the preferences discussed and codified for BMR housing programs were being met, and whether the wait lists were being administered in such a way as to ensure the affordable housing went to the most impacted populations. Councilmember Lu wanted to confirm that the scope would explicitly include Alta Housing practices and programs and inquired whether Alta Housing was receptive to a detailed audit. Councilmember Lu asked for elaboration on the traffic safety improvement audit, specifically how they determined effectiveness and efficiency. Councilmember Lu queried whether the recent Crescent Park Traffic Calming Project was focused on in the scope of the traffic safety improvement audit along with other, smaller projects that had been completed, and whether projects that had not been completed were considered. Councilmember Lu suggested the Audit Office take a deeper look at the Crescent Park Traffic Calming Projects and the projects, both completed and not completed, at Churchill. Councilmember Lu asked for clarification about the contract solicitation and authority levels advisory project. City Auditor Murdock affirmed work with Alta Housing was in scope but they had not approached Alta Housing in particular; however, Alta Housing is subject to the Audit Office, who is willing to work with them. A longer audit timeline was allowed due to the complexity of the topic. City Auditor Murdock explained the process of determining risk assessment for a particular area. Effectiveness was determined by assessing where the City tried to make traffic safety improvements, what data went into those decisions, and whether improvements went to areas with greater risk to pedestrians and drivers. Efficiency was determined by assessing if the City made improvements to an area at the same time as other projects, and whether different departments worked together. The risk assessment process played a role in determining what was focused on. City Auditor Murdock affirmed that any major projects would have been included. The Audit Office also examined what criteria the City utilized when making their decisions. City Auditor Murdock explained that the City sets thresholds for determining when a contract requires a certain level of authority, and that there was concern whether it has kept pace with inflation. Thresholds were also analyzed to determine if they were appropriate or needed to be raised. Data from surrounding cities was also incorporated. MOTION: Councilmember Stone moved, seconded by Councilmember Lu, to recommend the City Council approve the following reports: 1. Fiscal Year 2025 Annual Risk Assessment Report 2. Fiscal Year 2026 Annual Audit Plan Report MOTION PASSED: 3-0 SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 2. Workplan for Developing and Implementing Best Practices in Consultant Management City Manager Ed Shikada provided a slideshow of a Citywide review of consultant engagement, indicating it will be taken to City Council after the July recess and was expected to have more substantive work to report on by that time. The slideshow presented a comprehensive review about how decisions on consultant engagement were made and how those engagements proceeded. City Manager Shikada indicated there are multiple staff that will be put into the role of contract manager for consultant engagements at a future time, and as such viewed this as an opportunity to build staff skillset and organizational support. City Manager Shikada concluded there was a lack of base resources done for public agencies in this area, and as such sees an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by building the resources for other organizations. City Manager Shikada walked through the overview of the workplan. A member of management in City Manager Shikada’s office interviewed key staff of relevant departments to identify and document current practices, which has been ongoing since December 2024. The annual budget for FY 2026 was completed and reviewed. A more structured approach is anticipated in future fiscal years. Line items were reviewed with departments to determine where utilizing consultants was anticipated. Retaining in-house staff was discussed as an alternative to consultants. City Manager Shikada opined that bringing on consultants should be done on an organizational level as opposed to a project level. Over the summer, the City will identify practice improvements and clarify local knowledge, which is the role of City staff to ensure a consultant has sufficient knowledge on Palo Alto context, project history, and community expectations. During the fall, skill gaps in staff training will be identified, expectations will be set, and support will be ensured from the organizations provided. Staff tools and training will then be implemented in the fall and winter of 2025. City Manager Shikada noted the most important immediate interest was to ensure the quality and value in consultant work products. Also of high interest were elevating visibility in decision making and what criteria is used, clarifying and supporting staff roles throughout the lifecycle of a project, and reinforcing consistency across departments while recognizing the wide range of consultant engagements. A slide was presented acknowledging areas of vulnerability, such as market depth and competitiveness among service providers, individual skill and experience, inadequately defined scope of work or City’s management responsibilities, and unanticipated impacts such as staff turnover or changes in scope. The City Auditor report included a consultant management best practices at City Manager Shikada’s request. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 Other challenges identified included bringing in consultants for addressing issues of community change, which carries the potential for disagreement and criticism. Also noted was the level of sophistication required by the City and consultants to manage work while respecting the consultant’s expertise and independent perspectives. Another slide outlined the proposed next steps, which included completing a workplan with an interdepartmental team and engaging respected consultants for input and feedback on products. City Manager Shikada said he expects to report to Council on progress and outcomes. Vice Mayor Veenker thanked City Manager Shikada for addressing the topic and stated it has captured Council and community attention. The lack of base resources solidified the importance of the topic. Vice Mayor Veenker observed that the City uses consultants based on expertise, efficiency, and economy. Vice Mayor Veenker noted that consultants have a short- term financial cost but no long-term financial commitment and is willing to further discuss the tradeoffs. Vice Mayor Veenker also proposed the City has lost some trust in the community as to how they have used consultants, and as such appreciates analyzing the situation. Councilmember Stone suggested the City overutilizes consultants but appreciated the explanation of the need and derived benefits. The Jed Foundation was highlighted as a positive example of a consulting group bringing in outside expertise that is lacking in-house. Councilmember Stone noted that bringing a high level of expertise on multiple complex projects without consultants would expand the City’s already large staff but agreed that refining how consultants are used would be beneficial. Elevating staff to rely on consultants less was proposed as a way to provide balance. Councilmember Stone wanted to see more objective analysis and alternate positions incorporated by consultants, especially when Council questions or does not accept the recommendations. Councilmember Stone said there should be a clear expectation that consultants pivot and work with Council when provided with that direction and expressed frustration with that issue in the past. Councilmember Stone desired to look into how to incorporate that structurally, either in contract or with staff conversations. City Manager Shikada acknowledged Councilmember Stone’s comments and agreed to look into what can be done within that scope. Councilmember Lu asked to define consultant for the purposes of Attachment A. Councilmember Lu expressed confusion regarding the list on the first page of the staff report and asked if Baker Tilly was considered a consultant, noting they were not on the list. Designing the engineering for grade separations was mentioned as the City’s biggest line item for consultants. Councilmember Lu asked what the timeline was for taking a collective look at City’s practices and if the City will try to collect more data from previous years. Councilmember Lu acknowledged the work is ongoing but wanted to know if there would be a time in which the full Council would review the report, address specific issues, and propose solutions. Councilmember Lu understood that the City would look at alternatives to consultants and changing the scope of work using tools like AI. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 City Manager Shikada referenced the bullet points on the first page of the staff report to give examples, which include planning architectural engineering, services related to capital improvement or construction projects like architects and engineers, specialized or supplemental staffing due to a need of expertise or peak staffing, and special studies and plans. City Manager Shikada explained the list did not represent all consultant work that occurred last year, only those approved by the City Council during calendar year 2024. Baker Tilly was not on the list because there was no contract amendment approved in 2024, but one was approved in 2025. City Manager Shikada also noted the Office of Independent Review, the Police Auditor, was on the list because there was a contract approval last calendar year. City Manager Shikada said the project described this evening was forecasted to be complete by the end of the calendar year so that practices are reflected beginning calendar year 2026. City Manager Shikada reiterated that the City will not wait until 2026 to begin making improvements. City Manager Shikada said this topic would come to the full Council as part of the budget. City Manager Shikada noted as a part of the annual budget review that the Planning Department would come forward both at a staff level and with the full City Council and Finance Committee to discuss this topic. The discussion would include identifying a line item for contractual services, defining it in terms of dollars and provided capacity, and debating whether one or more staff planners would be a better investment than contractual consultants. The potential tradeoffs and amount of ongoing work required would also be considered. City Manager Shikada suggested that, in the fall, Council may want to see planning projects and identify the studies and plans anticipated for the upcoming year, after which a report could be put together. City Manager Shikada noted that if a report were produced now, it would look similar to Council’s priority objectives. City Manager Shikada opined that 90 percent or more of the 70- or-so projects involve consultant studies in order to move those initiatives forward. Vice Mayor Veenker asked for further description about the ongoing efforts to do training sessions on contract management. Vice Mayor Veenker wondered about other outside counsel, noting that Baker Tilly was considered a consultant, and if they are brought in for their expertise and bandwidth. Vice Mayor Veenker was concerned that workflow templates, dashboards for progress tracking, and structured training for project managers would result in too much process where gains from having less consultants would be lost and asked how to strike a balance. Vice Mayor Veenker opined that analyzing the issue would aid in intentional discussion. Vice Mayor Veenker commented that cost is an important factor but cannot be the sole consideration. City Manager Shikada referenced the overall project workplan slide, noting that some things classified as practice improvements are ongoing. The Administrative Services Department and the City Attorney’s Office currently hold workshops with staff involved in consultant contracts or similar procurements regarding how to write a good scope of work and structure tasks to ensure the City receives the best product possible. The contract administration work had been going on for about a year. City Manager Shikada mentioned attorneys used for litigation are outside counsel. City Manager Shikada’s prior work history as a consultant was briefly recapped. City Manager Shikada agreed on the importance of balancing staff focus, noting the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 focus should be on the progress and product of the work and not solely the process. Developmental tools are expected to be provided to help keep focus on the product. City Attorney Molly Stump added that the City is focused on contract administration, which involves being an active partner in the work and progress while respecting the independence of independent contractors. City Attorney Stump agreed that the renewed focus in building and renewing staff capacity is about a year old. City Attorney Stump noted that outside attorneys had been used for excess capacity in the past but has not been done in several years. Litigation is not handled in-house due to the special expertise needed. Item 2 Public Comment: Jennifer appreciated City Manager Shikada referencing priorities because the public is who put the priorities on the agenda. Jennifer referenced a study done by the City 8 or 9 years ago in which the residents were involved in scoping and an outside consultant was hired, and believes it can evolve into a framework for the City to address citizen concerns. Jennifer acknowledged the City’s use of outside counsel for aviation but mentioned the aviation counsel is industry-led and does not represent citizen interests. Jennifer expressed concern with the City becoming partners with outside entities that are on the other side of citizen concerns. Jennifer suggested providing an annual report so people can understand the role and benefit of consultants and reiterated the importance of public engagement and feedback. NO ACTION TAKEN 3. Receive the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Applications in Advance of their June 10, 2025, Evaluation and Recommended Awards Vice Mayor Veenker asked that public commenters who were not applicants would speak first, followed by comments from applicants. A staff report was passed out and received. Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, presented a slideshow regarding the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I. The purposes of the meeting were for the Committee to receive applications from nonprofits, receive public comments from the nonprofits and allow the Committee to ask questions of the speakers, and address criteria and get feedback from the Committee. It was noted that Council approved a rubric for application evaluation on May 24, 2025. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, acknowledged this is a pilot process and wants to learn from it to improve next year. Slides were shown detailing the Council-approved evaluation rubric, which was previously discussed with the Committee during several meetings in 2024. There were 4 major criteria on how to evaluate the request. Community reach was considered, including whether Palo Alto residents were served, the program description and goals, and whether the program outcomes and funding requests aligned with those goals. Equity impact evaluated whether underrepresented or underserved groups were served and whether the services offered were SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 free or subsidy provided to the community. Program sustainability was addressed. When the nonprofit was founded would be considered as well as organizational health indicators, including form 990, the budget, and reconciling diverse revenue streams. The funding request as a percentage of the total program budget, the level of risk if the City did not support it, and whether the funding requests would be leveraged were also considered. City Manager Ed Shikada commented that this is an overview of ongoing work and how the evaluation will be done. City Manager Shikada noted that the City is preparing an initial evaluation to discuss at the June meeting and reiterated it was not completed. Additional evaluation variables were identified for Committee’s consideration. These were based on feedback from prior meetings and Councilmember comments. A question in the application requested the amount and sources of funding received by applicants in the past 2 years. A summary of service categories was shown, and the suggestion of additional service categories was encouraged. Cost effectiveness was also mentioned. Staff recommended that the Committee receive the applications and public comment before the June 2025 meeting and confirm evaluation variables that would aid the discussion. Vice Mayor Veenker differentiated this from a standard grant program due to the consideration of whether there is a reason for Council to fund nonprofits to provide services to residents as opposed to the City. Vice Mayor Veenker referenced the dollar figure in the staff report and opined it was not considered Council’s final decision regarding the dollar amount available. Vice Mayor Veenker wondered if the Finance Committee could make a larger number work and whether there should be boundaries, and believed there is flexibility depending on the services provided. Vice Mayor Veenker was interested in questions addressing why the City should offer the applicant’s service to its residents, how it is distinct from other offerings, whether there is a viable reduced version of a project if it cannot be fully funded, and if there are matching funds dependent on the City’s funding. Vice Mayor Veenker believed that a history of providing services and prior interactions with the City was relevant. Vice Mayor Veenker was more concerned with redundancy than categorization. Councilmember Stone was happy the City was increasing funding for nonprofits and agreed with the approach and framework staff laid out but noted the need to prioritize due to the amount of money being requested. Councilmember Stone wanted to focus on funding things the City may otherwise provide in-house if there is greater expertise with nonprofit partners, or if certain nonprofit services may be better offered by the City, County, or School District. Councilmember Stone noted the HSRAP, CDBG, and line item nonprofit funding in the budget is consistent, and the HRC is hesitant to include new organizations or lower funding for existing ones. Councilmember Stone viewed this as a way to help nonprofits establish a relationship and potentially access more permanent or regular funding sources in the future. Councilmember Stone commented that new funds are available to help manage one-off requests and opined this approach works. Councilmember Stone thought it would be beneficial to have a breakdown of where the organizations have received their funding in the past and the amount requested. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 Councilmember Stone asked if an additional step would be taken to align goals with the more detailed workplan as opposed to the broader goals presented in the evaluation rubric. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, said the application period was over and Council had not adopted the objectives, only priorities. Guidance was given to nonprofits to speak into the overarching Council priorities. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, agreed to have the objectives as a point of reference for nonprofits next year. The nonprofits were credited for requesting more information to address in the applications, but at the time it was unable to be provided. Councilmember Lu asked what the output of the evaluation process would be. A table was suggested that would include the nonprofits, scores by subsection, and a consolidated score which would help advise which nonprofit to fund. Councilmember Lu wondered about Council’s reaction to a stack ranked rubric with percentage scores, noting the difficulty to extrapolate a numerical score due to the categories and length of applications. A low/medium/high evaluation for each subcategory was suggested to prevent a stack rank against other applications. Councilmember Lu expressed concern about being unable to ask the applicants clarifying questions and allow sufficient time to respond prior to the June 10 meeting. Councilmember Lu did not believe the subdivision of responsibility should be an evaluation criterion, noting the desire to maximize good even if there is overlap, such as with youth mental health. Councilmember Lu suggested grouping them into a shorter list of categories in order to compare them more directly. Councilmember Lu felt it was difficult to score the alignment with goals because the goals were too broad. Councilmember Lu suggested evaluating incrementality along with sustainability. Councilmember Lu desired feedback on how to factor confidence in the application and the ability of the group to execute, citing mathematical errors or perceived overestimations, and how to note uncertainties within applications to indicate to Council the need for further investigation. Councilmember Lu highlighted cost effectiveness as an important attribute the Committee could consider instead of staff. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, expressed a willingness to have a table to summarize and easily compare information. It was suggested the Committee have a breakdown of different scenarios within the table, such as one to look at ranking or to organize information by type or funding received. Vice Mayor Veenker thought the rubric was a way to organize and compare information and asked if staff was trying to give the Committee numbers and rankings, which was unexpected. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if the Committee would know if the number was lower due to a lack of information in the application. Vice Mayor Veenker encouraged a broadly categorical ranking, noting the difficulty in comparing diverse services. Vice Mayor Veenker was in favor of high/medium/low evaluation on different categories because it could prevent unnecessary disagreements. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, said the goal was to provide ranges on where the applications lie within the subcategories. Staff wanted to find areas within the application to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 gauge the criteria, noting the difficulty in judging applications due to differing responses. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, confirmed the desire for a percentage as to where the application would lie, with the understanding it would partially reflect the quality of the application and take into consideration any missing information. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, recognized the rubric is one way to make recommendations and reiterated the desire for feedback on other variables City Manager Shikada confirmed staff has been working towards a ranking and commented the feedback is valuable if the Committee concludes that is not desired. City Manager Shikada acknowledged the potential to switch to a more qualitative evaluation and recommended a high/medium/low evaluation on the 4 major criteria with discussion to fill in the gaps as to Committee’s recommendation to Council. Councilmember Stone had envisioned a high/medium/low ranking system and was interested to see how many high-ranking nonprofits fit within the allocated budget. Councilmember Stone wanted to delineate in order to set clear expectations on whether this is a reasonable funding source. Councilmember Stone expressed concern about the potential for politics to get involved, citing individual relationships with nonprofits and executive directors. Vice Mayor Veenker noted there will be public comment when brought to full Council and at the next Policy & Services meeting when the Committee is deliberating. Item 3 Public Comment: 1. Ken H. thought a long-term source is needed to fund nonprofits. Ken H. suggested taking it out of the hands of Council and staff and instead creating a Citizens Advisory Board to monitor the money. Ken H. proposed a sugar-sweetened beverage tax as a long-term solution, noting it would generate approximately $1.5M. 2. Charlie W., for the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Foundation, presented the grant application to continue supporting Third Thursday, which features local music artists and collaborates with other local nonprofits and community groups to offer family- friendly activities, such as arts and crafts, outdoor games, and poetry readings. Recent data shows an up to 40 percent increase in visitors to California Avenue businesses on a Third Thursday as opposed to other Thursdays in the month. Data also shows Third Thursdays attract between 400 to 900 visitors monthly, 40 percent of which are new to the event. Third Thursday matches the City’s priorities of economic development, wellness and belonging, and climate action by encouraging community members to support local businesses, creating a space where all visitors are welcome, and including themed activities such as Greening Up of Cal Ave and the Sustainability Fun Fair. The 2025/2026 objective is to increase event attendance, encourage local dining and shopping, and bring visitors back throughout the month. 3. Sheryl M., the CEO and Founder of the Musical Memories Foundation, which was started January 2025, explained that the organization serves underserved members of SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 the senior community through professional musical performances and programs. Active seniors, seniors in assisted living, and memory care seniors are served with a focus on those experiencing dementia and Alzheimer's. Sheryl M. highlighted 3 of the 5 programs offered: the flagship musical melodies program, workshops, and movement programs. Funds received from the proposal would allow the expansion of programs and build a ukelele and cardio drumming workshop. Vice Mayor Veenker asked at what type of venues the performances and workshops are held. Sheryl M. said the group performs and hosts workshops at senior centers, assisted living facilities, and memory care facilities. The Foundation is also working on a program for community concerts. Councilmember Stone asked if there was a way to contact seniors living in single family homes. Sheryl M. noted the Foundation was currently launching a podcast and encouraged seniors to participate in an interview about their life experiences. However, there is no other method of reaching seniors in single family homes currently. Sheryl M. was willing to look further into that as the Foundation grows. 4. Misha M., the CFO of UNAFF, which has been around for 28 years, opined the most important factor when considering allocating funds is whether the money will be spent wisely. Misha M. presented statistics for the annual film festival budgets of cities of similar or smaller size around the world, with the average annual budget being between $300,000 and $700,000. Misha M. stated UNAFF spends $150,000 to $250,000 to provide 11 days of film festival in addition to year-round programs that are free for the community. Misha M. reassured the Committee that any funds received by UNAFF will be stretched as far as possible. 5. Nicole C. explained that DreamCatchers is a local nonprofit that serves Palo Alto middle schoolers and families by providing free after school social and emotional learning, academic support, and mentorship. Nicole C. stated the work addresses academic gaps and the systemic inequities that affect low-income families. Parents are engaged through multilingual parent education, family events, resource connection, and regular two-way communication. Nicole C. acknowledged the partnership with PAUSD but believed the challenges addressed expand beyond the School District’s reach and are community issues, and as such asked for funding from the City. Nicole C. emphasized that DreamCatchers is the only free after school enrichment and family support program for socioeconomically disadvantaged Palo Alto middle school students and families. Vice Mayor Veenker asked how a student becomes enrolled in DreamCatchers. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 Nicole C. said students apply to enroll and that outreach is performed through elementary schools and community groups. The application supports 3 languages, and support is offered to walk families through the process. Councilmember Stone asked where the tutoring takes place and if the School District provides funding. Nicole C. explained that tutoring takes place on campus at all 3 middle schools, which is included in the partnership with the School District. DreamCatchers has an MOU with the School District, which provides funding that amounts to less than $1,000 per student. Nicole C. noted it costs over $5,000 per student for the academic year. Councilmember Lu asked what the total amount from the School District was. Nicole C. stated the amount for this year is $150,000. The School District informed DreamCatchers that the funding for the next year will decrease to $128,250 because it was a temporary increase in funding. 6. Siosiua V. recapped the history of JobTrain, which spans 6 decades, and explained the purpose is to help individuals gain the skills and confidence required to build sustainable careers in fields such as healthcare, technology, construction, and hospitality in Silicon Valley. Over 400 Palo Alto residents were served over the past 3 years. Program outcomes were addressed, highlighting the medical assistants and CNAs working in hospitals across Palo Alto. Siosiua V. said a partnership would enable JobTrain to reach more people, break down systemic barriers, and help build a workforce that reflects a promise of equity and opportunity. 7. Mora O., Executive Director of the Palo Alto-based nonprofit Youth Community Service, shared a quote from former supervisor Joe Simitian which highlighted the nonprofit’s Youth Connect program. The Youth Connect program focuses on teen mental health and suicide prevention by helping build positive relationships and by undertaking service projects and creative outlets. The nonprofit’s YCI program began in the 2017-18 academic year and has obtained $50,000 in County funding, which was matched by $50,000 from the Palo Alto City budget to address Council priorities regarding youth mental health. Mora O. noted that every budget approved by Council since 2017 has included a line item for the YCI program, which serves over 2,300 individuals annually. Councilmember Lu asked if there was a county match going forward. Mora O. confirmed the County has already approved $50,000 to continue to match what is done in Palo Alto and that more funds were given to expand the work throughout the county. 8. Sarah F. was invited to speak on Zoom but there was no response. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 9. Katheleen F. is the Executive Director of Ada’s Cafe, a nonprofit whose mission is to provide job training and career development for mission-based employees with disabilities. Ada’s Cafe has engaged employees with disabilities and community members and has hosted events for a number of years. The request is to create additional opportunities for positive gatherings and to foster community, especially in south Palo Alto. Katheleen F. desired to continue the stargazing parties that Ada’s Cafe sponsors 6 times a year for the community and noted ideas for site improvement and fostering community through other activities. Vice Mayor Veenker commented on objective 3 and asked if a dance was being contemplated. Katheleen F. confirmed the desire of 6 staff members to host a Valentine’s dance open to everyone. 10. Christina B. stated the goal of Peninsula Healthcare Connection is to deliver healthcare to the unhoused, chronically ill, undocumented, and underserved vulnerable members of the community through backpack medicine, behavioral health, outreach services, primary medical care, and comprehensive case management. The services are free, delivered in community settings, and integrate health and housing support. Christina B. thought the work aligned with Palo Alto priorities, specifically advancing housing strategies that promote social and economic balance and enhancing public safety, wellness, and community belonging. Vice Mayor Veenker asked about street outreach, specifically how many sites are attended and how the sites are chosen. Christina B. reiterated the desire to meet individuals in the community and mentioned reaching out to churches, food pantries, and anywhere else clients may be. Councilmember Lu asked what would be funded. Councilmember Lu stated it seemed open- ended and clarified that it would most likely fund a case management worker. Christina B. indicated there was an expansion program for the clinic and confirmed one reason additional funding was being sought was to hire a case management worker. 11. Sophie P., the Program Director of the Opportunity Services Center, explained that LifeMoves is seeking funding to cover new food costs for the OSC due to an increase in annual food expenses. The food cost for FY2025 was $18,000. The estimated cost for FY2026 is $66,000 due to the loss of complimentary meal providers. Sophie P. noted the funding will directly support the meal partnership with Martha’s Kitchen. Sophie P. said the OSC food program serves breakfast and lunch Monday through Friday to those experiencing homelessness, which reaches 80 unique individuals per week and 35 to 40 people per day. Sophie P. opined that the food program allows clients to experience stability and built trust, which leads to effective case management relationships. Sophie SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 P. noted the food program serves as an entry point for clients to find housing support, medical referrals, and mental health services. 12. Michelle F. spoke on behalf of the Museum of American Heritage, located in the historic Williams House and surrounded by a garden which is currently open to the public Friday through Sunday, 11 AM to 4 PM. Michelle F. desired to open the garden 6 days a week from 8 AM to 4 PM. The requested City support would provide maintenance of the garden and ways to enhance community experience through the addition of tables and chairs, a water fountain with bottle filling station, signage, and various safety features. Michelle F. believed this would support City priorities by being a free and inclusive space, maintaining a bio-diverse and eco-friendly garden, and contributing to the City’s economic vitality by being a free historic institution and another local venue for event use. 13. Bryan B. spoke for the newly chartered community-based Palo Alto Special Education PTA, which serves children and youth with disabilities across all school sites and age levels. Bryan B. said many of the over 1,100 students in PAUSD that receive special education services face barriers to youth programs. A $5,000 grant was requested to fund the social skills development program, which uses the structured PEERS curriculum and community-based buddy meetups to teach social skills and promote authentic peer engagement, self-confidence, and inclusion of neurodiverse youth. Bryan B. believed this initiative aligned with Council priorities, particularly youth wellbeing and equity inclusion. Bryan B. noted the grant would be foundational seed funding to pilot the program, demonstrate capacity, and build a track record. Councilmember Stone asked if any PAUSD funding had been received. Bryan B. stated no funding has been received from PAUSD and that the nonprofit will be seeking its own funding but is willing to leverage and collaborate with individual PTAs for individual schools. Vice Mayor Veenker stated the future opportunities to address the Committee and Council were not requirements. Vice Mayor Veenker asked if funding would be made available to the public in order to allow correction if a mistake was made with regard to the viability of partial funding. Vice Mayor Veenker suggested asking about partial funding viability and redundancy on applications next year. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed to see the AI-drafted spreadsheet if staff confirmed it. Councilmember Lu was concerned staff may second guess certain information provided in the applications. Councilmember Lu wanted a clear picture of what the final outcome would look like and mentioned the low/medium/high rankings, other potential categories, and if there would be an overall average. Councilmember Lu opined it was acceptable to have a late staff report. Councilmember Lu said AI helped analyze and consolidate the application information into a spreadsheet and proposed sharing the spreadsheet with members of the Committee. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 15 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 5/28/2025 City Manager Shikada said that the plan is to get a packet out tomorrow. City Manager Shikada noted the Committee desired not to overcomplicate the evaluation but was concerned the question of overlap and redundancy would not be addressed without categorization. City Manager Shikada mentioned exploring whether a proposal is conducive to partial grant funding. The intent of releasing the evaluation early would be to allow corrections to be made by the applicants. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, confirmed the key takeaways from the Committee, which included a low/medium/high ranking for the 4 identified criteria and a breakdown of previous funding received. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, acknowledged the alignment with goals category was broad, that there were differing opinions on division of responsibility, and there was a need to identify redundancy within applications. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines clarified that the packet would likely be late for the June 4 and June 10 meetings and suggested considering a late packet for the June 16 Council meeting as well, which will print next Thursday. NO ACTION TAKEN Future Meetings and Agendas Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines stated the June 4 meeting would begin at 8 PM to discuss the nonprofit item and asked if the June 10 meeting would be cancelled. Deputy City Manager Gaines suggested 2 meetings in August. Vice Mayor Veenker agreed to limit the June 4 meeting to 1 item and agreed to cancel the June 10 meeting. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 8:46 PM.