Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2026-08-11 Policy & Services Committee Summary MinutesPOLICY & SERVICES COMMITTEE SUMMARY MINUTES Page 1 of 21 Regular Meeting August 11, 2026 The Policy & Services Committee of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and via virtual teleconference at 6:00 p.m. Present In-Person: Lythcott-Haims (Chair) and Stone Present Virtually: Reckdahl - Remote Call-In Teleconference Location: Holiday Inn Huntsville Research Park, 5903 University Drive, Huntsville, Alabama 35806 Absent: None Call to Order Chair Lythcott-Haims called the meeting to order. Councilmember Reckdahl stated that he was attending the meeting remotely via standard teleconferencing from the Holiday Inn Huntsville Research Park’s publicly accessible business center and confirmed that the posting requirements were met. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that there were no changes, additions, or deletions to the agenda. In compliance with new state regulations, the Committee will offer an opportunity for remote public comment on items not on the agenda at the end of the meeting. In-Person Public Comment Staff received no requests to speak. Action Items 1. Office of the City Auditor Presentation of the Junior Museum & Zoo Audit. CEQA Status – Not a project. City Auditor Kate Murdock presented the results of the Junior Museum & Zoo (JMZ) audit. The audit objective was to determine whether the JMZ operates effectively and efficiently to fulfill its mission. The audit examined various aspects of JMZ operations, including educational activities, financial and program data, staffing and administrative processes, guest services, animal care, emergency preparedness, safety, and compliance. Overall, the audit concluded that the JMZ provides highly valued, mission-driven services with strong community demand. It SUMMARY MINUTES Page 2 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 identified opportunities to improve performance measurement, manage the growing education program, and document safety and compliance activities. The JMZ reopened in November 2021 after a major renovation. The zoo is home to more than 65 species and approximately 85 animals. Its education program features about 20 educators and instructors who deliver more than 2,700 science lessons across 168 schools and community centers, reaching more than 24,000 students annually. The Friends of the JMZ is an important partner. The JMZ earned AZA accreditation in 2025. Finding 1: JMZ delivers high-demand, mission-driven programs; however, there is an opportunity to further develop a formal performance measurement framework to assess impact, demand, and operational results. According to staff, the museum sells out nearly every weekend, indicating strong demand. Implementation of the ACME ticketing system has reportedly reduced staff time for daily entrance duties by about 30 percent. While JMZ collects useful operational information, it is not organized into a recurring framework that provides management with a comprehensive view of demand, customer experience, revenues and costs, program demand, staffing, and administrative workload. Recommendation: Management should consolidate existing information into a performance framework that JMZ and Community Services leadership review quarterly to more efficiently and consistently identify trends and inform operational, staffing, and budget decisions. Finding 2: Educational program offerings continue to increase but staffing challenges and budget constraints limit the program's ability to meet demand. In FY25, the education program delivered more than 2,700 lessons, served over 24,000 students, and generated more than $1 million in revenue. From 2024 to 2025, the number of programs increased by about 8 percent, the number of students served rose by approximately 6 percent, and revenue grew by around 7 percent; however, staffing, supplies, financial reporting, and program evaluation have not kept pace with this growth. The program experiences high turnover among part-time staff. The supply budget has increased only modestly, even as participation has more than doubled. Program and financial reporting are not aligned, making it difficult to connect program activity with costs and revenues. Recommendation: Develop an integrated education management framework that links program activities to staffing, supplies, program costs, revenues, funding commitments, and evaluation results. This framework will provide management with better information to determine how to sustainably support further growth. Finding 3: JMZ has strengthened its animal care and regulatory compliance systems but some areas related to safety, animal welfare, and documentation controls could be improved. JMZ has made significant progress by earning AZA accreditation, a major accomplishment. JMZ has strengthened veterinary coverage and daily animal care reporting; however, documentation and controls could be more consistent in several areas. These include completing and documenting emergency drills, formalizing expectations for animal transport and vehicle safety, and centralizing compliance documentation within a more organized tracking process. Recommendation: Establish centralized safety and compliance tracking. Identify required activities, responsible staff, documentation completion dates, review, and corrective actions. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 3 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Since the audit, management has implemented an emergency drill review checklist and is now completing the required drills. Management has agreed with the 3 recommendations. Public Comment: Staff received no requests to speak. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether City Auditor Murdock had reviewed the staff's proposed actions and whether those actions would adequately address the report's recommendations. City Auditor Murdock confirmed that she agreed with the staff's proposed actions and noted that follow-up work would ensure the recommendations are implemented. Councilmember Reckdahl asked the following questions: How were entrance duties reduced by 30 percent? How many no-shows do we have? If we expect no-shows, should we consider overbooking the museum? Are no-shows resulting in revenue loss? Do we still reach maximum attendance despite no-shows? Is new software needed to achieve uniform recordkeeping or do we simply lack common databases among the various groups? How will activities be linked to revenue? What does the semi-open elevator transport? Part-time staff are being used to avoid high pension costs; however, high turnover can also be expensive, especially since it takes about 6 months for new hires to reach full efficiency. What are the thoughts on converting some part-time positions to full-time to help address the turnover issue? City Auditor Murdock replied that implementing the ACME ticketing system has reduced staff time spent on daily entrance activities by about 30 percent. Amanda Deml, Assistant Director for Community Services and Interim Executive Director of the Junior Museum and Zoo, said the ACME ticketing system has reduced administrative work, allowing staff to operate more effectively and efficiently. Much of the previous workload involved checking in guests and processing memberships and ticket sales, which was very labor- intensive. The new software has reduced processing time and improved efficiency. Barcode scanners at the entrance have sped up check-in. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml said about 20 percent of guests are no-shows but she could get back to Councilmember Reckdahl with a specific number. Staff implemented new processes to address no-shows. The JMZ did not overbook the spots for members and the general public because safety is a high priority, especially given the facility's live animals and many child visitors. The JMZ tries to resell tickets as quickly as possible. No-shows might be a revenue loss for that particular day or time period but overall revenues are overperforming. City Auditor Murdock visited the JMZ 2 months after ACME's implementation. ACME can provide statistics on visitor experience and no-shows. Data conflicts with the financial information because it is difficult to reconcile data across different software systems. More timely, accurate systems will be put in place to better connect activity to revenue, and staff will continue to refine the plan as needed. For example, checks are collected at the end of a school year and posted in the SAP financial software the following fiscal year, so staff will better track them in their manual spreadsheets. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml clarified that a lift is different from an elevator. The lift is safe and has had no incidents. Because the lift was mentioned in the audit report, staff will SUMMARY MINUTES Page 4 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 follow up and conduct any necessary due diligence. The lift is half-open and provides access to the treehouse’s second level, making it ADA compliant so individuals with disabilities can fully participate in the exhibit. Converting some part-time positions to full-time is always under consideration. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml will examine this possibility and propose any changes during the budget season, taking into account the City’s financial situation. One notable improvement since City Auditor Murdock's visit is the introduction of human resource liaisons (HRLs) within the department, which has significantly expedited the hiring process of part-time staff. Chair Lythcott-Haims inquired about the definition of a no-show. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked to what extent staff anticipated the issues identified by Baker Tilly or whether those were areas staff had not recognized as needing improvement. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml explained that the public and members can reserve and purchase tickets up to 8 weeks in advance. The JMZ highly encouraged people to buy tickets in advance because tickets are often sold out during peak times, especially in the morning. Ticket holders who do not show up receive reminder emails and are given the option to rebook. Allowing rebooking has significantly reduced no-shows by encouraging people to reschedule rather than simply not show up without consequences. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml believed JMZ was not losing money due to no-shows but she will double-check that. Systems were not scaled to match JMZ’s rapid growth. Many of the audit recommendations aligned with what staff already knew needed to be addressed. Baker Tilly provided a framework and language that facilitate the implementation of these recommendations. Staff is now receiving the report from Baker Tilly’s visit last March. Many of the suggested actions are already underway. JMZ Interim Executive Director Deml viewed the audit positively; she agreed with its findings and found it very helpful. Nothing was particularly surprising; rather, it was the push they needed to ensure they get these things done. Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines highlighted that before the JMZ was redeveloped, it served as a free community resource for many years. As the new center was built, staff gradually implemented new systems. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines noted that the systems have been in place for only a couple of years and that staff has done a great job while continuing to make improvements. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines recommended that the Committee send the audit to the Council for approval on consent. MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Chair Lythcott-Haims, to recommend that the City Council accept the results of the Junior Museum & Zoo Audit. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 2. Recommend that City Council approve the HSRAP Grant Program Expansion SUMMARY MINUTES Page 5 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Lupita Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase 1 pilot launched in FY 2026 to address nonprofit requests made during the budget adoption process. Due to budgetary constraints and other factors, the Phase 1 grant process was suspended for FY 2027. Instead, the City Council provided direct allocations to a select few nonprofits and directed the Policy and Services Committee (P&S) to consider expanding the Human Services Resource Allocation Process (HSRAP) to manage grant requests that do not meet the program's criteria or priority of needs. The staff report outlined the proposed HSRAP+ model. The original HSRAP process and funding formula will remain unchanged, and award recommendations will continue to align with the priority of needs. The proposed HSRAP expansion includes a limited additional funding pathway for nonprofit programs addressing community needs identified in the needs assessment but not included in the established HSRAP priority categories. This approach ensures that all nonprofit requests are handled through a transparent and predictable process, rather than during the budget adoption process. The existing guiding principles and best practices for reviewing and evaluating grant proposals under the HSRAP include demonstrating that the program or service: responds to an identified community need, meets established evaluation criteria, does not duplicate existing City-funded programs, has clear public value, has a broad reach, and increases equity. Proposals must include a clear scope of work, a realistic budget, a feasible timeline, measurable outcomes, and organizational readiness. The HSRAP process begins with a needs survey to identify Palo Alto's top 4 or 5 service priorities. The survey is currently underway. The Human Relations Commission (HRC) reviews and adopts these priorities, which then serve as the criteria for evaluating funding applications. Eligible human service providers submit applications, and the HRC evaluates them against the adopted priorities and additional criteria. The Finance Committee reviews the HRC’s funding allocation recommendations and forwards them to the City Council for final consideration, typically during budget adoption. The Council expressed interest in evaluating whether to modify HSRAP funding levels. Staff recommended maintaining the current HSRAP funding methodology. Over the past 5 funding cycles, the City has funded an average of approximately 78 percent of HSRAP funding requests. Additionally, the City will allocate around $6 million for nonprofit grants and contracts in FY27. HSRAP funding levels increase annually based on CPI adjustments. The Emerging Needs Fund provides an additional $50,000 annually. Staff recommends allocating between $100,000 and $200,000 to the expanded HSRAP+ program. This proposed funding range aligns with the level of eligible but unfunded demand identified in the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase 1 pilot. The original HSRAP funding allocation for the priority of needs and methodology will remain unchanged. The HSRAP+ program is manageable for existing staff without additional hiring. The HSRAP+ timeline includes a joint P&S and HRC meeting proposed for September 2026. Staff will return to the City Council in October to seek approval of the funding levels, which staff will then communicate to nonprofit organizations. Previously, the HRC submitted its award recommendations to the Finance Committee but staff proposes that P&S review the HRC’s recommendations, as directed by the Council. The Council is expected to approve HSRAP+ awards in June. To prepare the joint P&S and HRC meeting agenda, staff requested Committee feedback on the proposed SUMMARY MINUTES Page 6 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 expansion model, funding range, and implementation approach, as well as what they would like to learn from the HRC. Staff recommendation: The Policy & Services Committee recommends that the City Council approve the HSRAP grant program expansion. Public Comment: 1. Sheryl M., founder and CEO of the Musical Memories Foundation, spoke in support of HSRAP+. As a recipient of a Phase 1 Workplan Grant, the Musical Memories Foundation served 935 experienced-in-life adults with varying levels of acuity in Palo Alto through 15 Musical Memories programs, all at no cost to participants. The City’s willingness to invest in a new organization meant a great deal, as the Musical Memories Foundation is 1 of the 4 nonprofits that did not fit into traditional HSRAP funding yet greatly benefited from the opportunity to serve the Palo Alto senior community. The Musical Memories Foundation addresses the epidemic of loneliness and isolation through music-based programming that evokes memories and enhances seniors' lives through connection and joy, while also creating economic opportunities for professional musicians and facilitators. Their work complements the direct services that HSRAP has long supported. In just over 1½ years, the Musical Memories Foundation served 4,068 seniors through 116 programs. HSRAP+ would enable them to continue serving the Palo Alto senior community, expand their presence and partnerships, and provide high-value live music experiences and opportunities for social, emotional, physical, and cognitive connections for experienced-in-life adults. Sheryl M. thanked the City for its partnership and support. 2. Elmer S., the Director of Community Engagement and Public Affairs at LifeMoves, expressed gratitude for the longstanding partnership with the City regarding their work at the Opportunity Center. Elmer S. is excited to see this partnership evolve with the opening of the Homekey site along San Antonio Road. Elmer S. supports the expansion of the City’s HSRAP grants. Addressing emerging needs and sustaining supports such as the Opportunity Center through these new funds could be transformative for LifeMoves and other nonprofit partners, especially as traditional state and federal funding sources are shrinking or becoming more complicated due to new requirements. Elmer S. appreciates the City’s efforts to support the nonprofit community in Palo Alto and its pursuit of new strategic ways to expand this support to address the challenges faced by our most vulnerable neighbors. After Phase 1 ended, some recipients were integrated into various departments, including Magical Bridge, YCS, UNAFF, Cal Ave., and Neighbors Abroad. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether those organizations will remain in the budget or whether we expect them to apply for HSRAP+, how human services are defined, who will qualify for the regular HSRAP, who will fall into the "others" category, how the community will complete the needs survey, whether the survey is available online only, how the survey results will be tallied, and whether staff or HRC will review the survey results and designate the priorities. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 7 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, stated that the Council provided direct allocations to Magical Bridge, Cal Ave., and UNAFF, and requested that YCS, YCI, Neighbors Abroad, and Environmental Volunteers remain in the operations budget. The needs survey identifies the top 3 or 4 categories eligible for funding. Staff proposed that the HSRAP expansion cover categories outside the priority of needs. The survey has been updated to include new categories such as arts/culture and climate action/environment. If a nonprofit received HSRAP funding in a previous cycle but did not fall within a selected priority category this time, it will not receive funding. Human Services Manager Sophie Pigman explained that 2 surveys are distributed to the community. One survey is available on the Human Services website, and the other is emailed to the HRC and our partner service providers, including those who applied for the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan. The survey includes a ranking system that staff uses, in combination with constituent feedback, to determine the top 5 and 10 priorities. If a nonprofit previously received HSRAP funding but its category was not selected as a priority, it would be eligible for HSRAP+. Staff will present a report on the survey results to the HRC. Councilmember Lythcott-Haims asked how often the top-priority categories change and whether they vary significantly from year to year. Manager Pigman said the City, in collaboration with other organizations, conducts the survey every 2 years. The top priorities have remained largely consistent and are generally focused on vulnerable populations. If a nonprofit is in a top-priority category but does not meet the criteria outlined in the HRC recommendations, it will not be considered under the Other Proposals category, which is designated for nonprofits that do not fall within the top priorities. Councilmember Reckdahl asked who would determine the funding amount within the $100,000 to $200,000 range and why the HSRAP+ timeline on the slide included P&S but not the Finance Committee. Councilmember Reckdahl suggested that it might be better to present to the full Council, since both P&S and Finance believe this falls under their respective jurisdictions. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, clarified that the right column in the timeline highlights changes to key dates for the proposed HSRAP+ program. The Finance Committee is not excluded from this process; it reviews all recommendations during its budget hearings, including the HSRAP+ amounts. The HSRAP+ funding amount, between $100,000 and $200,000, will be presented to the City Council for its decision in October. City Attorney Christopher Jensen warned that if there is a potential jurisdictional overlap between Policy & Services and Finance, it should be prevented to avoid a Brown Act violation. Vice Mayor Stone appreciated the 3-tier structure and expressed support for the HSRAP+ name, branding, and process. Vice Mayor Stone asked whether the HRC has reviewed this proposal yet and whether the Emerging Needs Fund will disappear and become part of HSRAP+. Once HSRAP recipients receive funding, the HRC and the Council generally find it difficult to stop providing those funds, making it challenging for new nonprofits to obtain City support. Vice Mayor Stone SUMMARY MINUTES Page 8 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 sought clarification on the timeline, which appeared to show that HSRAP continues along its usual approval path to City Council, while HSRAP+ goes to the P&S Committee before going to the Council. Manager Pigman said that staff wanted direction from the P&S during tonight's meeting before submitting their proposal to the HRC. The Emerging Needs Fund would remain unchanged. Staff aimed to promote the Emerging Needs Fund more effectively to support innovative and new programs, using it as a testing ground to determine whether these programs could later qualify for HSRAP+. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines believed the Emerging Needs Fund total was $50,000 and that the grants are typically smaller. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, explained that staff proposed renaming the HSRAP program to HSRAP+, which will have a single application process. The HRC will review all applications under a single set of criteria based on the identified priority of needs. The HRC will then evaluate the remaining applications using the guidelines and principles presented on the slide. The HRC will make funding recommendations to the P&S for those that meet the priority of needs and for “other proposals” to receive expanded funding. Manager Pigman noted that the change will be a P&S review rather than a Finance Committee review. To avoid confusion between HSRAP and HSRAP+, Chair Lythcott-Haims recommended that the staff retain the name HSRAP despite the additional funding and other changes. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines reiterated staff’s recommendation that P&S review HRC award recommendations instead of the Finance Committee. Vice Mayor Stone agreed that P&S is the appropriate committee to review the HRC's award recommendations because the Finance Committee seemed to focus more on the dollar amount than on the needs being addressed. Vice Mayor Stone wanted to hear the HRC's feedback on the process at the joint meeting and whether they anticipate any implementation challenges. Vice Mayor Stone emphasized that the more funding allocated to this initiative, the better, and he preferred to see funding at the higher end of the $100,000 to $200,000 range. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that P&S will provide policy direction and oversight for the program, while the Finance Committee will continue to have input on the overall allocation during the annual budget review. Chair Lythcott-Haims emphasized the importance of staff clearly communicating that the Finance Committee is not being overlooked. As an additional step, P&S will now review allocations from a policy perspective before they go to the Finance Committee. Chair Lythcott-Haims emphasized that the new timeline should clearly demonstrate the through line to the Finance Committee. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 9 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Chair Lythcott-Haims supported allocating funding toward the higher end of the $100,000 to $200,000 range. Chair Lythcott-Haims recalled from her time on the Finance Committee that HSRAP had not received a funding increase for a number of years, which led to an additional $200,000 allocation at that time. According to the staff report, the HSRAP expansion closely aligned with the demonstrated level of eligible unfunded demand identified through the Nonprofit Partnership Workplan Phase 1. However, $500,000 did not cover all Phase 1 applications, and funding could now be cut by up to 80 percent. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that if both the $500,000 Phase 1 funding and the $100,000 to $200,000 in unmet needs were addressed, the total would be between $600,000 and $700,000. Chair Lythcott-Haims requested further clarification on why 4 organizations that received Phase 1 funding did not qualify for HSRAP and whether that was due to the category they fall under. Chair Lythcott- Haims asked how many Priority of Need surveys were completed. Chair Lythcott-Haims found the number and scope of funding baskets confusing. Chair Lythcott-Haims wondered why certain nonprofits deviated from the usual process and were added at the last minute during the Finance Committee discussions in June. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed hope that this effort would lead to greater coherence, fewer processes, and greater clarity moving forward. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked whether Magical Bridge, Cal Ave., UNAFF, Environmental Volunteers, YCS, YCI, and Neighbors Abroad would be included in HSRAP+ and why they would be included or excluded. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked whether Cal Ave. met human services’ needs. Ms. Alamos, Assistant to the City Manager, clarified that many organizations funded through Phase 1 also received HSRAP. Unfunded needs (excluding HSRAP recipients) totaled approximately $100,000 to $200,000. Some HSRAP recipients applied for Phase 1 with additional programming proposals, while others requested funding for items not covered in their original HSRAP requests. Some Phase 1 recipients were not in the priority-of-needs categories, and others missed the HSRAP application period. Human services is a broad field; for example, JobTrain qualifies as a human services need but was not identified as a priority category in the current cycle. At the Council’s direction, Environmental Volunteers, Neighbors Abroad, and YCS were considered operational and included in the department budgets. The Council provided direct allocations to Magical Bridge, Cal Ave., and UNAFF; those 3 organizations will need to apply for HSRAP funding in the future. Manager Pigman explained that many areas fall under human services but the priority of needs is determined by what Palo Alto residents express as needs. An organization may not qualify for HSRAP if it does not clearly demonstrate how its services relate to a top priority. Manager Pigman would need to look up the number of surveys received from the most recent survey conducted in 2024. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines stated that both service providers and individuals complete surveys. Manager Pigman said Cal Ave. can argue in its application that it primarily provides free services to potentially vulnerable populations in Palo Alto. Cal Ave.'s application would be reviewed and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 10 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 evaluated for its relevance to the priority of needs identified in the survey and to the other HSRAP criteria. Councilmember Reckdahl thought the process seemed more complicated than necessary. Everything could be divided into 2 categories: those that help vulnerable individuals and those that benefit the entire community. For example, Cal Ave. benefits the community, while JobTrain and homeless services help vulnerable people. Councilmember Reckdahl questioned the value of the survey effort relative to the amount of staff work, asking what new insights we have gained from the survey in previous years that we did not already know. Given the variety of needs that arise year to year, Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines believed the survey's purpose was to ensure we do not simply assume that all needs will be focused on housing, homelessness, or jobs. The survey allows us to gather insights from providers and people on the ground about the specific needs they are observing. For instance, we expect the needs assessment to show some variation given the current federal funding climate. This will help us identify whether the City needs to step in to fill gaps in funding that was previously available from other sources but is no longer accessible. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that those involved in the Cal Ave. revitalization and related activities do not describe their purpose as serving or benefiting vulnerable populations. While we are proud of UNAFF’s incredible film festival, which benefits our community and the surrounding region, it does not fall under the category of serving vulnerable populations. Chair Lythcott-Haims did not like one-off allocations made at the end of the year during a Finance meeting. Chair Lythcott-Haims agreed with Councilmember Reckdahl that some organizations benefit vulnerable populations, while others benefit the community more broadly. Chair Lythcott-Haims encouraged staff to identify what we are funding that benefits the community and to consider whether those efforts should be part of ongoing departmental budgets. Chair Lythcott-Haims wanted to ensure that we do not neglect to fund UNAFF or Cal Ave; however, we have not yet identified the appropriate place in the budget for those 2 examples, and there may be others. Manager Pigman clarified that HSRAP includes not only vulnerable populations but also any services Palo Altans identify as a need. Manager Pigman acknowledged the Committee’s request for categories and said staff can look into it. At the joint meeting of P&S and HRC, Chair Lythcott-Haims wanted to hear the HRC's feedback on the dollar amount allocated to HSRAP+ and the definition of expanded eligibility. During their study session on the Work Plan outcomes, Council Members learned that recent research by a national organization indicated that nonprofits require multiyear grants for fiscal stability. The manner and timing of funding were crucial. To effectively support nonprofits, it is beneficial to provide multiyear funding and release funds upfront rather than reimburse expenses after they are incurred. It is important to clarify what is included and excluded in the role of P&S. Chair Lythcott-Haims recalled that a couple of years ago, HRC felt hurt by certain Council actions. Chair Lythcott-Haims wondered whether the timeline provided P&S enough time to SUMMARY MINUTES Page 11 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 fulfill its responsibilities. HSRAP occurs every 2 years, and Chair Lythcott-Haims inquired whether the proposed funding range of $100,000 to $200,000 was intended for the 2-year process or for each year. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines stated that although the funding allocation may not be as large as Committee Members had hoped, it provides a reasonable amount to try out the new process. Staff needed to clarify whether the proposed funding range of $100,000 to $200,000 was intended for the overall 2-year process or for each year. The joint meeting between P&S and HRC will be the first time the HRC hears about this proposal, so the meeting will include an explanation of the proposal, clarification of Council's recommendations to staff, and address the questions raised during tonight’s discussion. Chair Lythcott-Haims invited the HRC Chair to share her brief comments. Chair Lythcott-Haims wanted the September joint meeting between the HRC and P&S to be as productive and fruitful as possible. HSRAP+ is being considered for FY28-29, so Chair Lythcott-Haims noted there was time to determine where the funding would come from to provide a higher allocation. Michelle Kraus, Chair of the Human Relations Commission, described the proposal as an ambitious attempt to streamline a process that has been inconsistent outside of HSRAP. HRC Chair Kraus stated that staff was aware of her questions. HRC Chair Kraus expressed concern about the funding shortfall at a time when federal and state funding is being cut for many NGOs that serve the region's most vulnerable populations. For Phase 1, $500,000 was allocated to 16 NGOs, 4 of which were new, making the process more innovative. However, funding for HSRAP+ was reduced to between $100,000 and $200,000. HRC Chair Kraus found it difficult to understand how $200,000 can cover needs that previously required $500,000. Given the City’s financial challenges, HRC Chair Kraus is grateful that the HSRAP budget has not been proportionally reduced but she remains concerned about the risk of leaving some organizations out. Having participated in the evaluation of numerous NGOs and witnessed the City Council’s recommended changes, HRC Chair Kraus is usually the dissenting vote. HRC Chair Kraus emphasized the problem of having too many needs for a smaller pot of funding. Overall, HRC Chair Kraus believed HSRAP has been effective, and she hopes that the additional funding and new candidates will help achieve the positive outcomes we need. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines asked whether the Committee recommended a minimum of $200,000 per year. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that Phase 1 allocated $500,000 for additional needs, so she questioned why we would reduce that amount if it was deemed reasonable in the previous fiscal year. Chair Lythcott-Haims sought clarification on how the one-offs that do not fit within HSRAP and are not part of any departmental budget will be funded. Each year, those organizations are uncertain whether they will be included in the budget, leading to last-minute funding requests. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked when the Council will review the proposed HSRAP expansion. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 12 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 In response to the Committee Members’ comments, Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines will determine the high end of the range by subtracting the ongoing operational allotments from $500,000. Ms. Alamos, the Assistant to the City Manager, said this item will be presented to the Council after the joint P&S and HRC meeting. City Attorney Christopher Jensen provided the Committee with the option to postpone voting on any recommendation until after the joint meeting, allowing P&S to vote separately as a body during that meeting. Vice Mayor Stone felt it was too early to recommend approval of the staff’s HSRAP+ proposal. MOTION: Vice Mayor Stone moved, seconded by Chair Lythcott-Haims, to request a joint session with the Human Relations Commission at the September Policy & Services Committee meeting to discuss the HSRAP+ proposal. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Lythcott-Haims asked whether the September joint meeting would be scheduled on the same date as the P&S meeting or on another mutually agreed-upon date. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines will coordinate with Manager Pigman to determine whether the joint meeting can be held on the September P&S meeting date. Deputy City Manager Cotton-Gaines was aware that Chair Lythcott-Haims preferred not to hold 2 P&S committee meetings in September. Therefore, the joint meeting will be the only P&S meeting that month. Chair Lythcott-Haims expects the joint meeting to involve an extensive discussion and should be dedicated to this topic. 3. Discuss and Provide Feedback on Housing Element Program 6.5: Alternative Housing Program, Objective B. CEQA Status: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15262. Senior Planner Vishnu Krishnan presented an evaluation of 4 alternative housing models: micro- housing, shared housing, intergenerational housing, and senior housing. The Housing Element, Program 6.5, Objective B, directs staff to explore innovative housing models that meet the needs of aging adults, students, and lower-income individuals. The Housing Element instructs the City to identify appropriate locations for these housing types, meet with stakeholders, hold public hearings, and develop zoning amendments for City Council consideration. Palo Alto’s existing housing stock is predominantly single-family homes and conventional multifamily apartments. Demand for more housing options is driven by housing affordability, demographic changes, an aging population, and shifting household sizes. This program aims to determine whether different housing models and targeted regulatory changes can expand the range of available housing choices in Palo Alto. This effort aligns with the Housing Element’s broader goals related to housing choice, aging in place, affordability, and efficient land use. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 13 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Micro-housing refers to self-contained dwelling units smaller than conventional studio apartments, typically ranging from 250 to 350 square feet and including a private bathroom and kitchenette. Shared housing consists of private rooms or compact units with shared kitchens, dining rooms, and living spaces, such as co-living developments, cohousing communities, and graduate student residences. Intergenerational housing developments accommodate residents from at least 2 age groups and may feature shared amenities and social programming to foster interaction and mutual support among residents. Senior housing is for adults aged 55 and older, and units count toward RHNA. Senior housing developments may include independent living communities and offer amenities such as community gathering spaces, wellness programming, transportation assistance, meals, and recreational activities. Congregate care, such as memory care and nursing care, is excluded from the senior housing category and does not count toward RHNA. HCD uses the census definition of a housing unit, which includes a house, apartment, mobile home, group of rooms, or a single room intended to be occupied as a separate living quarter. Individual micro-units within qualifying shared housing developments count toward RHNA. Intergenerational housing can count toward RHNA when the development contains individual dwelling units that meet HCD's definition of a housing unit. RHNA eligibility is based on the characteristics of the dwelling unit. Potential state changes aim to modify RHNA eligibility for group quarters and for shared or cohousing arrangements. The City is evaluating various housing models that may provide additional housing options while contributing to the City’s housing production goals. Staff reviewed the following state and regional policies: AB 130 expands streamlining measures and environmental review exemptions for qualifying infill housing projects. AB 2097 eliminates minimum parking requirements for qualifying projects near major transit stops. SB 79 requires jurisdictions to allow increased residential development intensity within designated transit- oriented development areas. The State Density Bonus Law provides additional development capacity and regulatory concessions for qualifying projects, including certain affordable and senior housing developments. The MTC Transit-Oriented Communities Policy establishes regional expectations for station-area density, parking, access, and housing. The staff report highlighted the PTC’s recommendation for micro-housing in transit-accessible, amenity-rich locations, where reduced parking demand, walkability, and access to services can support these housing models. Potential implementation approaches for micro-housing include: (1) Comprehensive citywide zoning amendments. Define micro-housing as a specific use and integrate it into appropriate zoning districts. Amend relevant development standards. Establish design criteria and objective design standards tailored to this housing type. (2) Targeted amendments near areas with existing amenities and services. Amend development standards in selected areas, such as FAR, parking requirements, minimum usable open space, and maximum site coverage. (3) Focus on key development standards in coordination with state legislation. Amend development standards for parcels in TOD areas and for Housing Opportunity Sites located near TOD areas. The staff report outlined 2 implementation approaches used in other jurisdictions: fixed overlays in Lafayette and San Mateo, and floating overlays in Foster City and Menlo Park. (1) SUMMARY MINUTES Page 14 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Fixed senior housing overlay: Identify and map specific locations where senior housing is encouraged, providing greater predictability for property owners and the community by clearly indicating in advance where the overlay applies. The City would establish clear geographic boundaries, streamline project reviews, and tailor development standards and incentives for these designated areas. (2) Floating senior housing overlay: An applicant can request an overlay for a particular site, and the City will evaluate whether the site meets established criteria. This approach requires a site-specific review of individual proposals and offers less certainty about where senior housing can be developed. Potential implementation tools were categorized into 3 areas: (1) Development standards: Modify parking standards, adjust the FAR and maximum site coverage, offer flexible open space requirements, and establish minimum and maximum unit-size standards for micro-housing. (2) Process improvements: Streamline the permit review process and implement Transportation Demand Management measures, such as a transit pass program. (3) Financial incentives: Evaluate the appropriateness of fee reductions or waivers, particularly for deed-restricted affordable housing projects. Staff does not recommend offering financial incentives for all market-rate projects. Financial incentives would generally be considered for projects that demonstrate a public benefit. Areas and districts under consideration for alternative models include South of Forest Avenue, San Antonio Road, the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented Development Combining District, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, the ROLM focus area, and TOD- eligible areas around Caltrain stations. Staff did not intend to finalize a list of locations tonight. Instead, staff sought the Committee's feedback on appropriate locations and on what staff should study further. Feedback from the PTC to staff during the study session on April 8 included: Micro-housing and senior housing are the preferred alternative housing models. Prioritize locations near existing high-quality transit. Staff identified parcels near University Avenue, California Avenue, and San Antonio Road Caltrain Stations. Consider proximity to existing services and community amenities, including parks, grocery stores, libraries, community centers, and healthcare facilities. Staff requested feedback from P&S on the following: Confirm that micro-housing and senior housing should remain the preferred alternative housing models for implementation under Program 6.5, Objective B. Confirm that implementation efforts should prioritize locations with existing high-quality transit, neighborhood-serving commercial uses, and community amenities. Whether to use a fixed or floating overlay type for senior housing and the applicability of incentives for market-rate senior housing development. Direction on the next steps for developing zoning amendments for micro-housing, as well as development standards such as parking, FAR, site coverage, usable open space, and objective design standards; and which development standards, process improvements, or incentives should be evaluated further before drafting zoning amendments. Staff will develop the preferred implementation strategy for senior housing and begin drafting zoning amendments for Housing Element Program 6.5. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 15 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 Staff will present the proposed zoning amendments to the Architectural Review Board and the Planning and Transportation Commission for review and recommendations. Staff will then return to the City Council. The public will have opportunities to provide feedback. Public Comment: Staff received no requests to speak. Councilmember Reckdahl noted that micro-units are very small and suggested that a microwave would be sufficient and could free up space for other, more valuable uses for the tenant. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether anything was preventing us from building micro-units now, whether state law requires a stove and an oven in the kitchen, and, if so, whether we could waive that regulation. Senior Planner Krishnan said state law requires a stove and an oven in the kitchen of micro- units. The City had no restrictions on micro-units. Projects were proposed in the past but were never built because they were not feasible. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services, stated that state regulations require a minimum of 150 square feet of floor area per unit; however, he was unsure how or if state law defines a kitchen. We are not discussing efficiency units. Our local code defines a kitchen as a space for cooking or preparing food. Director Lait was not looking for a full kitchen buildout but he did not believe a microwave alone qualifies as a kitchen. The City has approved portable induction stoves as part of an ADU. Staff is putting programs into the Housing Element and responding to the state's request to identify alternative housing opportunities in Palo Alto. Many of the uses under discussion are already allowed in some form in the city but our zoning code lacks definitions, parameters, regulatory standards, and processes for these uses. You could do micro-units now. The parking chapter might reference micro-units. SROs and efficiency units are mentioned in the parking chapter. Someone looking to develop an alternative housing project would not find much guidance in our zoning code. This effort will clarify and define the housing typologies we are interested in, specify where we want them geographically, and outline an implementation process. Some of our development standards, such as open space and parking requirements, may discourage building efficiency units. The PTC recommended the TOD areas. Parking is a financial cost to developers. Under AB 2097, no parking is required in TOD areas, and this serves as a tool to incentivize housing development. Councilmember Reckdahl agreed that locations near train stations would be good. Councilmember Reckdahl recalled hearing during a previous Housing Element discussion that shared housing, such as dormitories, was illegal in Palo Alto. Councilmember Reckdahl raised the following questions: Is a PHZ needed to build micro-units on an RM-40 lot? How would shared housing be evaluated for unit density under RM-40 zoning regulations? Would a 40- room dormitory be considered 1 unit? How is senior housing different from regular apartments, and is it legal? Have we studied additional zoning changes we want to make beyond the state changes for senior housing? Staff has limited time. If senior housing is already allowed, does it merit more staff time? Councilmember Reckdahl preferred a variety of housing options, and SUMMARY MINUTES Page 16 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 shared housing could be a unique type that may serve a population that is not currently served. Councilmember Reckdahl shared that his parents downsized to independent living and enjoy it. Director Lait stated that micro-units are currently treated as a multifamily development. If developers wish to exceed the RM-40 density standard of 40 units per acre, they could provide inclusionary deed-restricted units as part of the development, allowing them to take advantage of the State Density Bonus Law. We could consider allowing higher density for micro-units if we want to encourage them. Director Lait believed shared housing would be treated as group housing. When he attended school, dorms did not have kitchen facilities or cooking spaces. A dorm with shared restrooms and cooking facilities fits the definition of shared housing, which is permitted under both local and state laws. We do not receive the same RHNA credit for shared housing. Our local laws changed within the last 5 years to align with changes in state law to allow shared housing but Director Lait will need to confirm this. Staff could study how shared housing would be evaluated for unit density under the RM-40 zoning; this would involve working with the City’s Attorney’s Office. The state defines a unit. Locally, we define a unit as a self-contained dwelling unit with cooking facilities. Along with density, the City’s zoning regulations may also limit a development's size based on floor area and height. Director Lait said housing law has 2 carve-outs for senior housing: one for individuals aged 55 and older and another for those 62 and older. Senior housing can be located anywhere in the city where multifamily housing is allowed. Codes and state law encourage affordable senior housing through concessions and density bonuses. Initially, staff did not include senior housing in its efforts to explore alternative housing options; however, it was added because it is currently underrepresented in our zoning code. The questions for consideration are whether we should define senior housing, whether we want to promote senior housing in our code as an obvious alternative for property owners considering various land uses, and whether we want to offer additional development incentives beyond those provided by the state because we believe senior housing is a needed housing typology. A market-rate senior housing development can receive a 20 percent density bonus and waivers. The City needs to complete Housing Element Program 6.5. Staff has not seen much shared housing. Hotel California has at times functioned as an SRO development, a hotel, and rental housing. Otherwise, Palo Alto lacks a history of shared housing, raising the question of whether that is due to other land uses for properties or because we have not promoted this type of land use or established regulations for it. Whether staff should devote more time to exploring shared housing is a question for P&S, given that the current code does not address it. Senior Planner Krishnan said shared units count as 1 unit each. Currently, the RM-40 zone allows 40 units. Senior Planner Krishnan said there were no zoning changes as part of this process because the Housing Element Program does not call for any zoning changes. Director Lait clarified that staff would not present any proposed zoning changes tonight. The question was how much we want to lean into alternative housing and how our existing standards, which are more tailored to traditional apartments or multifamily housing developments, might discourage certain alternative housing types. If staff receives feedback SUMMARY MINUTES Page 17 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 from the Committee indicating interest, staff will consider how to promote these alternative housing types through local regulations. Staff may return with proposals for additional density, reduced setbacks, or changes to parking standards. Shared housing and micro-housing are unique options that Councilmember Reckdahl believes could attract Stanford students and individuals who may not be able to afford a full apartment. While Councilmember Reckdahl is not against senior housing, he considers it less unique and notes that it can be developed today, so he suggested staff devote less effort to it. Downtowns and areas near train stations are the preferred housing locations because they address transit and parking issues. Regarding the overlay, Councilmember Reckdahl wanted to maintain the current zoning but perhaps offer bonuses to accommodate those housing types. Councilmember Reckdahl preferred streamlining unnecessary processes rather than granting waivers, because waivers mean the City is subsidizing these projects. Councilmember Reckdahl was concerned about overlooking things when streamlining, so it is crucial to exercise good judgment. Chair Lythcott-Haims agreed on prioritizing micro-unit locations in downtown areas, near existing high-quality transit, and in areas with area plans. A properly functioning city has an ecosystem that supports people of all ages. Chair Lythcott-Haims recommended considering the through line: Individuals who grew up in Palo Alto need a small apartment after graduating from high school or college. As they enter relationships and start families, they will need larger spaces. When children move out, they need to downsize. Eventually, they need senior housing and potentially care. We should ask ourselves whether our housing inventory provides the right mix to support these different life stages, including senior housing. Seniors need incentives to leave their single-family homes, as California's tax laws make it appealing to remain in those properties. Incentivizing seniors to downsize will help free up inventory of older homes. Chair Lythcott-Haims was excited about intergenerational living. Research shows that when youth and seniors are housed together, it benefits the mental health of both groups. Youth aging out of foster care typically lack a family safety net, leaving them uncertain about where to live. Chair Lythcott-Haims shared a conversation with Felix from Midpeninsula Housing, who told her that Assemblymember Rivas’s state law allows 15 percent of a certain type of housing to be allocated for transition-age youth. Affordable senior housing developments could designate 15 percent of those units for youth transitioning out of foster care, benefiting 2 needy populations. An example of this approach is the Treehouse Foundation in Boston, which comprises 80 percent low-income seniors and 20 percent youth transitioning from foster care. Research indicates that as these young people aged, they avoided the typical issues faced by former foster youth. An organization in the Bay Area, Fostering Promise, focuses on intergenerational combinations. As we consider who should live in affordable housing built on City-owned parking lots, seniors could be paired with young adults transitioning out of foster care. Chair Lythcott-Haims expressed a preference for SROs or shared housing for young adults coming out of high school, college, or graduate school. Private bedrooms with shared living, SUMMARY MINUTES Page 18 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 dining, and kitchen areas would be a more affordable option to build. A communal environment might appeal to this demographic, in which residents share tasks such as cooking, dining, and laundry. Instead of making assumptions, Chair Lythcott-Haims suggested surveying young people to determine their housing preferences. Similar to the streamlined process for ADUs, Chair Lythcott-Haims was in favor of promoting the alternative housing program, its definition, what is allowed, the considerations, and the process. Chair Lythcott-Haims liked the idea that we might become a city where people can count on developing micro-units and shared housing in transit-oriented areas, and she encouraged staff to continue their efforts. Vice Mayor Stone supported the PTC’s recommended locations, the focus on micro-housing, and senior housing under Option 1 with incentives for affordable senior housing. Increasing senior housing, especially affordable senior housing, has been a challenge in our community. Vice Mayor Stone wondered whether there are ways to incentivize affordable senior housing with additional services, such as memory care, especially given the rising demand due to increases in diseases such as Alzheimer's and dementia, and the difficulty of finding these services without significant financial strain or whether government incentives are available. Option 1 for senior housing provides greater predictability for developers. Streamlining the process reduces the load on staff, as developers would have a clearer understanding of what is allowed. While Vice Mayor Stone is not opposed to intergenerational housing, he was unsure whether it would be worth the effort at this time. We need to determine the most effective use of our time. Single-room occupancy units and micro-housing are already allowed. Vice Mayor Stone inquired whether an efficiency unit includes in-unit cooking facilities and a bathroom. Director Lait noted that the report defines single-room occupancy (SRO) as bedrooms that may or may not include bath or kitchen facilities. An SRO with shared facilities does not receive a 1:1 RHNA credit. Our parking chapter describes micro-units as 450 square feet or less but more than 150 square feet, according to state standards. The report discusses micro-units between 250 and 350 square feet. A micro-unit counts as a 1:1 RHNA credit because it includes a kitchen and bathroom. State law does not use the term "single-room occupancy"; these units are now referred to as efficiency units. An efficiency unit is 150 square feet or more, is typically within the micro-unit range, and includes a kitchen and bathroom. Hence, efficiency units fit within the micro-unit concept we are discussing. Senior Planner Krishnan added that our code allows single-room occupancy, referred to as efficiency units. Greg Goodfellow, a consultant from PlaceWorks, explained that the City has adopted definitions for shared units, student housing, and efficiency units in the zoning code. The State Density Bonus Law, which he believed was AB 684, integrates those types of units. Consultant Goodfellow encouraged the Committee to refer to the original Opportunities and Challenges Report, which provides detailed definitions for these alternative housing units based on state law, HUD federal law, and local regulations. According to the International Building Code, efficiency dwelling units must include a living area of at least 190 square feet, a separate closet, a kitchen sink, a cooking appliance (a microwave is acceptable), and a separate bathroom SUMMARY MINUTES Page 19 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 equipped with a water closet, a lavatory, and either a bathtub or a shower. For his report, Consultant Goodfellow researched micro-units in other cities, reviewed recommendations from the Urban Land Institute, and conducted stakeholder interviews with architects, which led him to the 250 to 350 square feet range; however, no formal state or federal definition of a micro- unit exists. Vice Mayor Stone said that 150 square feet feels too much like warehousing but he would like to see what they look like and learn more about them in the future. The PTC recommendation for micro-housing is a good starting point for assessing developer interest and community demand. If that proves successful, we can explore efficiency units. Director Lait acknowledged P&S’s support for the PTC recommendation as a baseline with shared housing as another option to explore. Intergenerational housing would require more effort to develop new regulations; however, it could be done, and models are available for staff. Director Lait reassured the Committee that they should not be concerned about staff time for implementation. Director Lait sought the Committee's policy guidance on whether staff should proceed with intergenerational housing. Vice Mayor Stone stated that if intergenerational housing was not a big lift, he sees no reason to oppose it. Intergenerational housing creates opportunities that currently do not exist, especially as we begin to see an aging population that may need to downsize with a younger family member or caregiver, and it would be interesting to address some of the ongoing trends and problems. Whether intergenerational housing is part of this Housing Element Program or something we keep in mind as we develop affordable housing on City lots, Chair Lythcott-Haims believed that we should learn more about it, understand the research, and potentially champion it. The report focused on seniors as a demographic, whereas the preamble mentioned students and young professionals, and the recommendations were on micro-units or senior housing. Chair Lythcott-Haims wanted to ensure that we also consider other populations. Young adults are increasingly living in their nuclear family homes because they cannot afford rent or a mortgage. If we focus only on seniors, we leave out the younger population. Therefore, Chair Lythcott- Haims suggested a two-pronged approach to address housing needs. Councilmember Reckdahl thought intergenerational housing was a good idea and that implementing it on a City parking lot would be a good program to examine but he was skeptical about whether many market-rate developers would be interested. Councilmember Reckdahl believed the other 2 housing types were more feasible. Director Lait stated that staff will focus on the regulatory landscape for micro, senior, and shared housing. While staff may not fully develop the regulatory landscape for intergenerational housing, they will explore opportunities and what it might look like if there is interest in piloting it as a City project. Staff will present this information without conducting an in-depth analysis of something that may not provide immediate benefits. SUMMARY MINUTES Page 20 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 MOTION: Chair Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to focus on developing Housing Program 6.5 with attention toward micro-housing, shared housing, and senior housing, with a focus on transit-oriented areas in the Downtown area, California Avenue, and San Antonio Area Plan; and bring back additional information relating to intergenerational housing and opportunities where that can be implemented in the city. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 4. Discuss and Recommend Approval of Scope of Work for State and Federal Legislative Advocacy and Grant Consulting and Compliance Services Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines stated that the City had a legislative services contract with Townsend Public Affairs for state and federal advocacy, as well as support in finding and applying for grants. This fiscal year, federal advocacy funding was eliminated, so we currently have only state advocacy and grant assistance. The City issued an RFP approximately 5 years ago, and we are now entering the final year of our contract with Townsend. The Committee was asked to provide input on the scope of work for the new state and federal advocacy and grant services support contract, which will then be presented to the full Council for approval on consent. If federal advocacy funding is restored in the future, staff will have clear guidance from the Committee on the desired scope of work. During the previous RFP process, the City Council expressed interest in reviewing the scope before issuing the bid to ensure nothing was left out. The packet includes the scope of work from the current contract, reflecting changes the City Council made when approving the Townsend Public Affairs contract. Public Comment: Staff received no requests to speak. Vice Mayor Stone is pleased with Townsend's work and has nothing to add to the scope of services. Vice Mayor Stone hopes we can identify funds in the budget for federal advocacy, especially given the federal government's actions and inaction on grants and other matters affecting Palo Alto. Councilmember Reckdahl inquired whether the budget was reduced and whether we had re- scoped the contract to exclude federal advocacy. The tasks staff presented appeared reasonable. Last year, we sometimes had outdated information. At its meeting, the PRC received information that was 1 or 2 weeks old, and it was even older by the time it reached the Council. Councilmember Reckdahl asked whether there is a better, faster way to communicate what was happening in Sacramento on bills. The memo contained outdated information, and there is a lag in publishing the memo. Therefore, Councilmember Reckdahl would like the scope to include rapid updates. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines stated that during the FY27 budget process, the City Manager’s Office proposed eliminating federal advocacy services, and the Council accepted the proposal. Of the 3 service types (state, federal, and grants), the City used federal services the SUMMARY MINUTES Page 21 of 21 Policy & Services Committee Meeting Summary Minutes: 08/11/2026 least. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines can add information to the scope about the timeliness of the updates we receive. Christine Prior and Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines have discussed ways to continue engaging subject matter experts within departments internally. When we hear of bills that may concern departments, we can convey information sooner. Chair Lythcott-Haims was surprised to learn of the elimination of federal advocacy work, as she did not recall seeing this change; however, it seemed justified upon hearing that we utilize federal services the least. The estimated cost for state advocacy is $10,800 per month, totaling $129,600 annually. Chair Lythcott-Haims asked what the additional cost for federal advocacy was. Chair Lythcott-Haims noted that now is not the time to take our eye off what the federal government is doing. Chair Lythcott-Haims is interested in ensuring that our ability to advocate is not hampered by removing this item from the budget. Chair Lythcott-Haims believed that the scope of work for the consultant contract for state and grant work appeared appropriate. Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines referred to an old invoice listing the rates for all 3 services. When the City put the contract out for bid, consultants could bid on 1, 2, or all 3 services. Townsend submitted a bid for all 3 services, offering a discount for selecting all 3, and won the contract. We are saving $6,000 per month by eliminating federal services. Townsend graciously did not remove their discount, even though we reduced the scope of services. MOTION: Chair Lythcott-Haims moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Stone, to recommend the City Council approve the scope of work for state legislative advocacy, grant support services, compliance services, and federal legislative advocacy to the extent the budget allows in a future fiscal year. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Virtual Public Comment Staff received no requests to speak. Future Meetings and Agendas Deputy City Manager Chantal Cotton Gaines will coordinate a joint P&S and HRC meeting. There may be 1 additional agenda item; if so, Deputy City Manager Cotton Gaines will notify the chair. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:51 p.m.