HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2505-4748, Staff Report 2504-4465CITY OF PALO ALTO
Policy & Services Committee
Special Meeting
Wednesday, June 04, 2025
7:30 PM
Agenda Item
1.Recommend to the City Council Approval of the FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan
Phase I awards Late Packet Report, Staff Presentation
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 4, 2025
Report #:2505-4748
TITLE
Recommend to the City Council Approval of the FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase
I awards
This will be a late packet report published on Monday, June 2, 2025.
6
9
9
1
Policy & Services Committee
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: ACTION ITEMS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: June 4, 2025
Report #:2504-4465
TITLE
Recommend City Council Approval of the FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I
Award
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee discuss and recommend Nonprofit
Partnership Workplan Phase I awards to the City Council for approval.
BACKGROUND
On March 24, 2025, the City Council approved the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I
process, a phased approach to enhancing nonprofit partnerships, beginning with process
improvements for nonprofit requests for funding through the FY 2026 City Budget that fall
outside currently established funding processes.
During the May 12, 2025 Study Session on the FY 2026 Budget, the City Council reached general
consensus to follow the Finance Committee’s recommendation to allocate $396,000 to support
Phase I of the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan. The Council also recommended that, in
reviewing the proposals, the Policy & Services Committee give consideration to previously
funded nonprofits: UNAFF, Youth Connected Initiative (YCI), Environmental Volunteers, Magical
Bridge, and 3rd Thursday (via the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce).
The application period for the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I was April 2-May 9, 2025.
This report provides a summary table of proposals received and results of an initial staff
evaluation based on the approved rubric as well as additional information as requested by the
Policy & Services Committee at its May 28, 2025 meeting.
ANALYSIS
A total of 22 proposals were received from registered 501c(3) nonprofit organizations totaling
$819,089 in funding requests. Proposals were reviewed by staff, applying the Council approved
rubric:
6
9
9
1
Criterion Description Weight Score
Range
1. Community Reach Measures the number of Palo Alto residents
served and the significance of the services.30%1-10
2. Equity Impact Assesses whether the proposal serves
underserved or underrepresented groups.30%1-8
3. Alignment with
Goals
Evaluates alignment with the Council's
Priorities 20%1-10
4. Program
Sustainability
Assesses the organization’s capacity to deliver
and sustain its proposal effectively.20%1-10
In addition to the rubric, at its May 28th meeting, the Policy & Services Committee requested
that staff summarize additional variables to support the Committee in its discussion and
evaluation. Those included staff reviewing the requests to assess whether partial funding
would be a viable option for advancing individual requests, categorizing the areas of services to
be provided by the proposals, and providing information on the amount and source of other
funding received by the City over the last two fiscal years. Additionally, the Committee also
requested that staff flag any documents or responses that were not included in the submittal.
Attachment A details the proposals and results of the evaluation by staff, in alphabetical order
by organization. Descriptions of each column in the table are summarized below.
Organization Name- The proposers’ organization name and associated known acronym.
FY 2026 Request Amount- Amount of requested funding for the FY 2026 award cycle included
in proposal.
Partial Program Funding Viable- Identifies if partial funding would be a viable option for
advancing individual requests. Yes, indicates that based on the proposals' intended purposes,
partial funding would remain helpful to support the intended uses. No, indicates that partial
funding would not assist in accomplishing the intended purposes, an example of this is if the
requested funding is intended for grant matching funds.
Rubric- For each of the four-criterion listed in the rubric, staff indicated a low, medium or high
scoring based on the following; staff evaluated proposals as objectively as possible.
•Community Reach- Measures the number of Palo Alto residents served and the
significance of the services provided, with a weight of 30%. Staff did not evaluate
programs based on the number of Palo Alto residents served due to the broad
responses. Instead, staff noted whether Palo Alto residents were served as a binary
response. Staff focused on the significance of the proposed program’s services by
reviewing clarity of program goals, expected outcomes, and alignment with funding
requested.
6
9
9
1
A High score in this category indicates that the proposal will serve Palo Alto residents,
provided a clear program description, clearly stated goals, and demonstrated strong
alignment between program outcomes and the funding request. A Medium score
reflects those one or more elements, program description, goals, outcomes, or funding
request, were unclear or not well aligned. A Low score means the program description
was vague; the goals, outcomes, or funding request were misaligned or unclear, or key
information was missing.
•Equity Impact- Assesses whether the proposal will serve underserved or
underrepresented groups, with a weight of 30%. As discussed with the Policy & Services
Committee during the development of the proposal, the intent of this section was to
determine if the program or service targets underrepresented or underserved
populations. This included consideration of whether services were offered at cost,
subsidized, or free to the community. Staff evaluated proposals based on cost of service
to the community as well as a variety of categories, including:
- Racial ethnic minorities - Low-income individuals and families
- Women - Rural/isolated communities
- People with disabilities - Immigrant and refugee populations
- LGBTQ +
- Youth and Seniors
- Veterans
- Unhoused Population
- Non-English-speaking communities
A High score in this category indicates that the proposal clearly identified the
underrepresented or underserved population the program supports, including
demographic details and whether services were provided free or at a subsidized rate. A
Medium score suggests that a target population was mentioned, but without supporting
demographic data or clarity on the program’s reach. It may also indicate that services
were not free or subsidized. A Low score means the proposal did not identify an
underserved population or whether services were offered at no cost and/or at a
reduced rate.
•Alignment with Goals- Evaluates alignment with the Council's Priorities, with a weight of
20%. While recognizing that Council priorities may not always fully reflect the breadth
of community human service needs, they provided a framework for evaluating a wide
range of nonprofit services. The Policy & Services Committee recognized that in
retrospect, that this criterion is challenging to measure, especially since the Council
Priority Objectives had not yet been adopted by Council during the application period.
Scores under this criterion reflect the proposer’s description of the number of Council
Priorities its program supports.
6
9
9
1
A High score indicates that the proposal services aligned with multiple Council Priorities
and demonstrated strong, clear connections to each. A Medium score reflects alignment
with fewer Council Priorities and weaker connections. A Low score means the proposal
supported only one Council Priority and/or the connections made were inconclusive. As
noted above, this criterion could be refined for next year.
•Program Sustainability- Assesses the proposal’s demonstrated capacity to deliver and
sustain its programs effectively, with a weighting of 20%. To evaluate program
sustainability, staff considered several factors, including the proposer’s longevity,
overall financial health, the funding request as a percentage of the total program
budget, and whether the requested funding would be leveraged to secure additional
resources.
A high score in this area indicates that the organization is well-established (in operation
for five or more years), with no significant concerns identified in the IRS Form 990.
Additionally, the program funding request represented less than 20% of the
organization's total budget, and the funding would be leveraged to secure future
funding opportunities. A Low score could result from several risk factors, including fewer
years in operation, multiple concerns in the Form 990, a high reliance on City funding,
and a lack of demonstrated fund leveraging. Organizations with moderate risk or a mix
of these factors were rated in the Medium range.
Area of Service- This column outlines the primary area of service provided by the organization
and their proposal. These areas of service terms are not a precise definition, rather staff’s
attempt to highlight key areas of service. There is overlap between areas as service impacts
may extend beyond the identified key area. Areas of service include Special Needs; Youth
Services; Arts & Culture; Nature Education; Job Training; Homelessness; Senior Services.
Received City Funding in Last two years- The Committee requested awareness of the historic
funding from the City by each organization, the following columns identify if funding was
provided and in which manner it was provided to the organizations.
•HSRAP- Organizations who received funding from the Human Services Resource
Application Process, which an application period is opened every two years and
awarded by the Council through review by the Human Relations Commission (HRC).
•Emerging Needs- Organizations who receive limited one-time funding from an annual
$50,000 allocation of funding to the Community Services Department, that assesses
emerging needs on a quarterly basis annually.
•Service Contract- Organizations who have a contract with the City for the provision of
services that would likely be provided in-house by staff if not provided by the third-party
provider.
6
9
9
1
•Co-Sponsorship- Organizations who receive other forms of non-monetary support such
as free or subsidized use of community facilities, free or subsidized lease space,
promotional support such as printed banners, Free ad space in the Enjoy Catalogue or
other promotional supported through our website or social media channels.
•CDBG- Community Development Block Grants fall under a Federal program,
administered by the Planning and Development Services Department that provides a
grant opportunity to service providers in alignment with the goals of the CDBG program.
•Other- These capture other miscellaneous arrangements that occurred between the City
and the organization. Further detail on the specific situation is in the “Staff Comments”
column.
Staff Comments- Additional context of observations of the materials included in the formal
proposal or context for past funding from the City by each organization is further detailed,
examples may include prior passthrough grants or lease agreements with price and payment
terms at below market rent levels.
The Committee also requested whether staff could indicate whether similar program or
services as those being proposed were being provided by other nonprofits currently funded by
the City, however the information was not possible to compile in time for the publication of this
report.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
No resources are required to support this discussion and public comment item; however, the
fiscal impact amount is subject to City Council approval to fund the Nonprofit Partnership
Workplan Phase I in the FY 2026 budget. As noted previously, the Finance Committee currently
has recommended allocation of $396,000 for this process, including funding allocations
provided to some of these organizations previously.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement with nonprofit partners is ongoing through dedicated listening
sessions to gather feedback on the nonprofit framework principles and informational sessions
on the proposed Nonprofit Workplan. A dedicated webpage is being maintained to provide up
to-date information on the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
City Council action on this item is not a project as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA guidelines section 15378(b)(2).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: FY2026 Proposal Summary Table
APPROVED BY:
Ed Shikada, City Manager
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Re
a
c
h
Eq
u
i
t
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
HS
R
A
P
Em
e
r
g
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
-
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
CD
B
G
Ot
h
e
r
1 25,000$ Y Hi Me Me Hi
Needs space at Mitchell Park Community
Center. Co-sponsorship included
free use of El Palo Alto kitchen in FY
2 50,000$ Y Me Hi Lo Me Y 13,185 13,185$
3 5,000$ Y Lo Lo Lo Me
4 28,643$ Y Hi Hi Lo Hi
Services
5
Volunteers
10,780$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi Nature
Education Council directed allocation.
Proposer receives subsidized lease
space at Sea Scout Base. Co-
sponsorship includes subsidized use
of at City facilities.
6 60,000$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi
Training
7 25,000$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi Homelessn
ess
Y 24,711 24,711$
8 66,366$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi
9 15,000$ Y Hi Hi Lo Hi Senior
Services
Y 22,171 22,171$
10
Foundation
150,000$ Y Hi Me Me Hi Special
Needs Proposer receives free marketing in
Enjoy Catalogue. Co-sponsorship
includes free use of tennis court for
programming, and other City
facilities.
11
Center
50,000$ Y Hi Me Hi Me
Culture
FY2024 + FY2025 Funding AmountsRubric*
#
Organization
FY 2026
Request Area of
+ FY2025
Funding
Attachment A: Page 1 of 3
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Re
a
c
h
Eq
u
i
t
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
Ci
t
y
G
o
a
l
s
*
*
Or
g
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
HS
R
A
P
Em
e
r
g
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
-
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
CD
B
G
Ot
h
e
r
FY2024 + FY2025 Funding Amounts
Attachment A: FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Proposal Summary Table
Rubric*
#
Organization
FY 2026
Request Area of
+ FY2025
Funding
12 Momentum for
Health
Y Hi Hi Lo Hi Homelessn
ess
Y 1,670,544 1,670,544$ US Dept of Health and Human
Services grant SAMHSA Program.
13
American
10,000$ Y Hi Me Me Hi Arts &
Culture space.
14
Memories
5,000$ Y Hi Hi Lo Lo
Services
15
Abroad
17,500$ Y Lo Lo Me Me
Culture
Y 5,000
sponsorship includes subsidized use
of City facilities for hosting and
other meetings. Council directed
$20K allocation for hosting services.
16
Chamber
Foundation:
Third Thursday
46,800$ Y Me Me Hi Me
Culture
sponsorship includes promotion of
events and City staff engagement.
17
Education PTA
5,000$ Y Me Hi Me Me
Needs
N -$
18
Advocates for
Remarkable
5,000$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi
Needs
19
Healthcare
35,000$ Y Hi Hi Hi Hi Homelessn
ess
20 45,000$ Y Me Me Hi Hi
Culture City also provides $10K annual
banners and free space at Mitchell
Park Community Center.
Attachment A: Page 2 of 3
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Re
a
c
h
Eq
u
i
t
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
Ci
t
y
G
o
a
l
s
*
*
Or
g
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
HS
R
A
P
Em
e
r
g
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
-
S
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
CD
B
G
Ot
h
e
r
FY2024 + FY2025 Funding Amounts
Attachment A: FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Proposal Summary Table
Rubric*
#
Organization
FY 2026
Request Area of
+ FY2025
Funding
21 Vista Center for
the Blind and
Visually Impaired
99,000$ Y Hi Hi Hi Hi
Needs
22
Community
Services
50,000$ N Hi Hi Lo Hi Youth
Services with County matching funds for
total cost of the program, partial
funding not viable. Council directed
multi-year allocation. Co-
sponsorship includes subsidized use
the Enjoy Catalogue.
819,089$ Total Requested Funding
**Scoring based on organization's articulation of alignment with the number of the 2025 City Council Priorities. Not a reflection of quality or value of program.
* Hi = High; Me = Medium; Lo = Low
Attachment A: Page 3 of 3
June 4, 2025 www.paloalto.gov
Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I
FY 2026 Budget Status
Finance Committee recommends Council budget
adoption with “$ placeholders”
•$6 million General Fund savings; $4 million
one-time, minimum $2 million ongoing
•Alternative function/operations,
•Suspend funding for positions targeting
vacancies, and
•Defer or suspend projects, programs with
least impact(s)
•Increase reserves in FY26 and FY27
Present recommendations to Finance Committee
in August 2025
2
3
City Council Consensus
•City Council confirmed Finance Committee recommended target funding of
$396,000.
•Council consensus reflected P&S Committee give consideration to previously funded
nonprofits as part of the award process:
•UNAFF $45,000
•Youth Connected Initiative (YCI) $50,000
•Environmental Volunteers $11,000
•Magical Bridge $150,000
•3rd Thursday (via Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce) $40,000
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
Re
a
c
h
Eq
u
i
t
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
Al
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
Ci
t
y
G
o
a
l
s
*
*
Or
g
Su
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
HS
R
A
P
Em
e
r
g
i
n
g
Ne
e
d
s
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Co
n
t
r
a
c
t
Co
-
Sp
o
n
s
o
r
s
h
i
p
CD
B
G
Ot
h
e
r
1 Ada's Café 25,000$ Y Hi Me Me Hi Special
Needs
Y 116,399 4,680 121,079$ Proposer receives subsidized
lease space at Mitchell Park
Community Center. Co-
sponsorship included free use of
El Palo Alto kitchen in FY 24
2 Children's
Health Council
50,000$ Y Me Hi Lo Me Youth
Services
Y 13,185 13,185$ Budget template not used
3 Dance Action
Inc
5,000$ Y Lo Lo Lo Me Arts &
Culture
N -$ Proposer receives below market
value lease space at Cubberley.
4 DreamCatchers 28,643$ Y Hi Hi Lo Hi Youth
Services
Y 86,157 9,500 95,657$
5 Environmental
Volunteers
10,780$ Y Hi Hi Me Hi Nature
Education
Y 4,616 11,000 15,616$ Budget template not used.
FY2025 Council directed
allocation. Proposer receives
FY2024 + FY2025 Funding Amounts
Attachment A: FY 2026 Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Proposal Summary Table
Rubric*
#
Organization
Name
FY 2026
Request
Amount Pa
r
t
i
a
l
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Fu
n
d
i
n
g
V
i
a
b
l
e
Area of
Service Re
c
e
i
v
e
d
C
i
t
y
$
i
n
La
s
t
2
Y
e
a
r
s
?
Total
FY2024 +
FY2025
Funding
Received Staff Comments
4
Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I
22 Proposals Received totaling $819,089 in funding requests
5
Policy & Services Committee Review and Discussion
Possible option to start review of proposals:Begin based on rubric scores of “high,”
tentatively allocating recommended award; followed by consideration of five
organizations that received prior allocations as another initial frame.
Organization Proposal Request
P&S Recommended
Award Amount Running Total
ABC…$25,000 $15,000 $15,000
123…$100,000 $50,000 $65,000
TOTAL $819,089 $396,000
Proposed tracking table
6
Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I: Develop a method to receive, evaluate and
award nonprofit requests made during the Budget Process.
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee discuss and recommend
Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I awards to the City Council for approval.
Staff Recommendation
Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager
June 4, 2025