The Human Services Commission heard the city's Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) for fiscal 2024'25 on Sept. 2, a HUD-required year-end report that documents how Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were used and how many low-income residents were served. Steve Hernandez, housing manager for the City of Pleasanton, told commissioners the CAPER covers the July 1, 2024–June 30, 2025 reporting period and that CDBG-funded agencies reported client counts and project completions to meet HUD requirements.

The CAPER matters because it is required for continued CDBG funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and because it aggregates outcomes from locally funded nonprofit partners, showing the scale of services delivered to low-income Pleasanton residents.

Hernandez opened the item with the CAPER's basic totals, saying the city's housing and human-services partners served more than 4,900 Pleasanton residents in the year, that 93% of those served were low-income and that 69% were extremely low-income (under 30% of area median income). The CAPER materials referenced CDBG-funded nonprofits including Open Heart Kitchen, Spectrum Community Services and Tri Valley Haven, plus Tri Valley REACH capital activity.

Commissioners then heard short presentations from nearly two dozen nonprofit grantees summarizing program activity, client counts and near-term needs. Presenters ranged from organizations serving survivors of domestic violence and operating confidential shelters to meal-delivery and senior programs, legal aid, housing navigation and disability services; several presenters described unmet need or growth in demand.

At the meeting's end commissioners discussed the human-services grant program timeline and the city's budget decisions. Michelle (staff member) and Hernandez told commissioners the City Council later approved a constrained funding plan that allocated $100,000 for the city's community human-services grants for the coming fiscal year and a similar $100,000 the following year. Staff said the council's action, together with uncertainties in federal funding streams (CDBG/HOME), prompted an ad hoc review of commissions and the grant process to decide how the city should allocate limited dollars going forward.

Staff described options under consideration, including a different procurement approach such as a request-for-qualifications (RFQ) that would ask nonprofits to propose specific services tied to city priorities rather than the broader, competitive grant application used previously. Commissioners were told the ad hoc committee of council members will evaluate the work program for commissions and return recommendations; in the meantime the commission's schedule is likely to be limited to essential meetings.

Commissioners and staff emphasized that many presented nonprofits did receive some funding from a mix of city sources (general fund, HOME and CDBG) but that awards were smaller than requested. Staff said they will circulate the City Council staff report and funding table to commission members for review and invited commissioners to contact funded organizations directly to offer volunteer support, fundraising or other help.

The meeting included a routine vote to approve the March 5 minutes; a Commissioner present at the meeting abstained because they were not part of the March 5 meeting, and staff recorded the minutes approval as passed.

Going forward staff told the commission they must reconcile a compressed calendar (city budget and HUD reporting timelines) with the ad hoc committee's review; commissioners asked staff to circulate the July 15 staff report and to share the ad hoc committee's membership and schedule when available.