Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-01-14 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 5 Special Meeting January 14, 2026 The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and by virtual teleconference at 6:01 p.m. Present In-Person: Lu, Stone, Veenker (Chair) Absent: None Call to Order Mayor Veenker called the meeting to order. The clerk called the roll with all being present. Public Comments There were no requests to speak. Action Items 1. Referral: Consideration of the Frequency for Joint City Council Meetings or Policy & Services Meetings with Boards and Commissions, Youth Council, and Meetings with Boards and Commissions Chairs. CEQA Status – Not a project. Chantal Cotton-Gaines, Deputy City Manager, indicated the item before the Committee is a referral that came from the full City Council at the end of 2024 related to the ability to have more discussions with boards and commissions as well as the youth commission. Staff's recommendation is to update the handbook to include having the chair, vice chair, and staff liaison present updates from joint meetings between City Council and boards and commissions to the City Council in the workplan discussion. Ed Shikada, City Manager, added it is preferable to have the opportunity for discussion between the chair, vice chair, and Council but it has only been as time permits. Vice Mayor Stone inquired if the chair and vice chair would be able to specify having a joint meeting or standing committee meeting. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines replied the intent was to include the full Council but there is room to go to a standing committee depending on SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 01/14/2026 the subject matter. Vice Mayor Stone thought maximizing discretion for the mayor would be ideal. Mayor Veenker wanted to know the reaction of BCC chairs about placing workplans on City Council's action or consent agenda. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines responded when the Board and Commission Handbook was updated, the workplans were slated for consent. The intention was the committee's would do their work then it would go to Council to be approved on consent. It was not guaranteed to be a discussion item. The feedback from the boards and commissions was to have the opportunity to talk to Council about the workplan. City Manager Shikada added the preferences varied. There were no requests by the public to speak. Councilmember Lu opined the boards and commissions are underutilized. From experience on the PTC, there is a sense that the workplan is a formality that most things would roll over, the workplan would be generically vague, or would be pulled directly from Council priorities. During the PTC meetings, there were questions about what Council wants on any topic. The chair or vice chair could have steered conversations to help the PTC be more productive. Going to full Council is unnecessary and going to Policy and Services or directly to the vice mayor or the mayor would be fine. A regular cadence of Policy and Services, the mayor, or the vice mayor reviewing the workplans after the Council retreat would be helpful. Vice Mayor Stone agreed with Councilmember Lu. The conversations could be more helpful in a smaller setting. A check-in with P&S makes the most sense. Allowing the mayor to have a one on one with the chair might give a better sense about hopes and expectations. Having an annual meeting with Policy and Services and the Palo Alto Youth Council would be beneficial. Annual or multiple check-ins with the Climate Ad Hoc would be useful. Mayor Veenker liked the flexibility proposed of the chair or vice chair bringing requests to the mayor and city manager. Hearing from the youth council and YCAB would be nice. This will be a good discussion to have at full Council to decide what belongs on the workplan. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines commented the planning commissions are typically less reliant upon the workplan. Kristen O’Kane, Director of Community Services, added the Public Art, Parks and Rec, and Human Relations Commissions set their workplans around this time of year, typically after the Council retreat so the workplan can be related to Council's priorities. Goals are established for the year. The Community Services Departments advises them. It is beneficial in the sense that it allows the department to stay focused with them. Mayor Veenker asked if the workplan setting timing is the same for most commissions. City Manager Shikada replied half are in the spring and half in the fall being driven by the timing of appointments to commissions. Mayor Veenker asked if it would be problematic for new commissioners to come in with a workplan in progress. Councilmember Lu and Director O’Kane agreed that is not problematic. Mayor Veenker wondered if all workplans should be synced up in spring. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines stated the key of flexibility is best. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 01/14/2026 MOTION: Councilmember Lu moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to recommend the City Council approve the below recommendations: a) The Chair/Vice Chair of a BCC can coordinate with the Mayor and City Manager regarding an annual opportunity to meet with the Council or Council Committees each year, with timing being flexible as needed for each BCC b) Youth Council meet with Policy & Services Committee in the fall and report out to the full Council in the spring c) YCAB meet with Climate Action and Sustainability Committee in the fall and/or spring MOTION PASSED: 3-0 2. Discuss and Approve Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase I Process Improvements Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, provided a slide presentation including a background of the Policy and Services Committee referral, nonprofit workplan major areas of work, nonprofit workplan phase 1 process challenges and improvements, nonprofit service categories, applications, designs, engagement, draft timeline, and recommendation. City Manager Shikada commented this was never intended to be a new grant program. The intention was to provide a consistent and clear way of evaluating the requests that came into the budget. The question of the goal of the phase 1 process will come back to Council and there is risk of overbuilding it depending on how it fits in with the overall goal and how a program based on that goal might be implemented. Public Comment: 1. Sheryl M. talked about having a short timeline to do things due being in a different category of the grant. 2. Charlie W. requested to have applicants know in advance that not all of the funds will be distributed on or about the date they are awarded, it may come in distributions or reimbursement, redefine the requirements around submitting financial statements, and add dates to the timeline to include steps after June 15. 3. Nicole C. emphasized the importance of adequately funding HSRAP in the most recent cycle and the importance of designing processes that do not pit nonprofits against each other. Having a distinct funding source with smaller grant amounts and clearer expectations could help address some of the concerns raised in the presentation and ensure both stability for long-standing providers and space for thoughtful experimentation and new organization where gaps exist. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 01/14/2026 4. Tony H. agreed about the community and the non-profit community collaborating and being partners and the importance of certainty of funding and understanding criteria. Councilmember Lu suggested making it clear that nonprofits are not competing for funds but that the funds are limited and must be stretched between nonprofits. Eligibility restrictions need to be clarified and would argue for expanded eligibility. It would be useful to ask what could be done with partial funding. Vice Mayor Stone agreed about partial funding. The vice mayor worried about this becoming another grant program and wanted to recall how it started last year. City Manager Shikada recalled it was Staff recommendation with the P&S Committee to develop a framework through which to rationalize how decision making was occurring. Before that, there were one-off requests that came in that Finance and Council struggled with evaluating. There was discussion on whether more money should go to HSRAP to meet the needs that had been identified within existing categories. Vice Mayor Stone supported expanding funding to HSRAP and that focus should be maintained but felt there is a more sustainable way of doing it by formalizing. Mayor Veenker commented this is supposed to fill the gap for new programs that do not fit within HSRAP. There is need to figure out if HSRAP should be funded better or should there be a more well-defined supplemental program and how to do it in a more predictable way. Vice Mayor Stone commented the expectations were not clear last year for the nonprofit community and creating better standards will help. Councilmember Lu advised making the funding for special programs and not a recurring source of revenue. Mayor Veenker recalled the effort was to figure out if there is an unmet need that did not fall under one of the existing programs to have a once a year way to make room for it with the potential to grow into one of the other categories. The mayor wanted Staff's thoughts on the interplay with the Finance Committee. City Manager Shikada replied the cleanest way would be to have a number agreed upon upfront. The intent was to have P&S make specific recommendations within the dollars available. The challenge was that the funding set aside had previously been allocated to specific nonprofits that were ending. There was not awareness of that ending status most of those funding allocations. Staff wants to be very clear up front what assumptions are going into the budget as to nonprofit funding that is part of the baseline recommendation. Mayor Veenker agreed with seeking information from applicants on partial funding. The mayor had questions about service agreement, grant definitions, and categories. Ms. Alamos responded the purpose was about having clarity on how the agreements are entered into and defining the relationship. The nonprofit audit pointed to some process improvements around that. Through the years, there have been different organizations that started as a city program then then evolved into a nonprofit organization. City Manager Shikada added it is a discretionary decision to collapse categories distinguishing multiyear versus one year to back up the workflow to reflect Council's interest in having them structured and periodically reviewed and renewed. Mayor Veenker asked if the service agreements for the multiyear and enduring partnerships go through Finance and not through this program. Ms. Alamos replied the grant SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 5 Sp. Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 01/14/2026 programs and service agreements have an application. They tend to be a request from the City. The enduring partners was a recommendation on the dais and is something for the Committee to further discuss. This defines entering the multiyear and RFP. There are clear guidelines on how to amend changes to the scope of services for the service agreements. Grants are one- time funding. Any additional funding is requested at the next cycle. Mayor Veenker asked if it is possible for the entities to evolve. Ms. Alamos replied they can evolve as the relationships formalize or there is a need from the City. Mayor Veenker stated the process should be clarified and supported excluding applicants that cannot get fully funded from the process. Vice Mayor Stone opined it might be helpful to have the first batch of applications go to the HRC for recommendations to P&S. Mayor Veenker was curious how many of the entities that were recipients would not have fallen within HSRAP. Ms. Alamos stated there were a few organizations that provide workforce housing, environmental services or education, and those around arts and culture that would not fit within the HSRAP guidelines. Mayor Veenker asked if workforce development and environmental volunteers HRC related. Vice Mayor Stone replied it can be. With CDBG funding, there are categories regarding things that are not typically thought of as HRC expertise. The HRC have a better understanding of how the nonprofits work together than the Council. There is less risk of partiality at the HRC level. Mayor Veenker wanted Staff's thoughts of going through the HRC. City Manager Shikada recalled the audit used HSRAP as the specific best practice because it has been comprehensive. Mayor Veenker asked if HRC will have the bandwidth for this. City Manager Shikada answered Staff would need to look at the timeline and how best to incorporate what is needed for the budget in the context of what else HRC is doing as well as the HSRAP cycle calendar. Vice Mayor Stone commented HSRAP is typically on a two-year funding cycle. The HRC would separate these into subcommittees. There is a general sense that HISRAP and CDBG are the primary responsibility of the HRC. They would prioritize the work. Councilmember Lu agreed this would be within the wheelhouse of the HRC. City Manager Shikada advised more work should be done and the discussion brought back to the Committee. Mayor Veenker agreed more information is needed before going to Council. NO ACTION Future Meetings and Agendas Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines reported once the new Committee is assigned, the next meeting will be February 10. Tentative items for that day are related to Senate Bill 707 changes to the Brown Act, the Seismic Ordinance, and one that has to do with some economic benefits/redevelopment. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.