Palo Alto committee recommends FY2026 nonprofit awards after hours of public testimony and debate

The Policy & Services Committee on June 4 voted to recommend a schedule of FY2026 Nonprofit Partnership Work Plan Phase 1 awards to the full City Council, after three hours of public comment and committee deliberations that repeatedly returned to a single constraint: Palo Alto has far less money than nonprofits requested.

The committee’s recommendation — transmitted to council as the committee’s formal advice during the upcoming budget adoption process — follows staff’s presentation that 22 proposals requested a combined $819,089 while the Finance Committee had recommended roughly $396,000 be available for Phase 1 awards. "In attachment A of the staff report, [staff] summarizes the 22 proposals received, totaling $819,089 in funding requests," staff member Lupita Alamos said during the meeting.

Why it matters: Committee members said the Phase 1 awards are meant to create a predictable, transparent annual pathway for the city to partner with local nonprofits. "This is the best and the worst council assignment that we could have," Chair Vinkar told colleagues as the committee began the item, noting the difficulty of funding many high-quality requests.

Committee discussion and public comment

Committee members spent the meeting balancing three objectives the city faces at once: (1) money is scarce (staff described a multi-year general-fund savings target and a plan to present $6 million of savings to council); (2) many nonprofits presented programs the committee described as valuable to Palo Alto residents; and (3) council previously asked staff and committees to be deliberate in the transition to a new annual nonprofit funding process.

Dozens of representatives of applicant organizations described services they say are used by Palo Alto residents. JobTrain government-affairs liaison Larry Moody described JobTrain’s workforce programs and told the committee, "We are a nonprofit organization that helps train individuals in a wide range of areas" and asked the city to consider local hiring pipelines for graduates.

MidPen Media executive director Brianna Kovik asked the committee to underwrite community access to the nonprofit’s TV and podcast studios, saying MidPen already "subsidizes 80% of the production" and would use city support to eliminate the modest fees residents now pay.

UNAF founder Yasmina Voyz said the nonprofit’s free screening series and an 11-day film festival depend on continued city support: "Without your support ... we won't be able to continue to have all these programs and all these programs are for free," she said.

Speakers representing DreamCatchers, Peninsula Healthcare Connection, Magical Bridge Foundation, Neighbors Abroad, Third Thursdays (the Chamber-led event), ADAS Café and other applicants described programs ranging from out-of-school youth supports to inclusive recreation, drop-in health and outreach to unhoused residents. Peninsula Healthcare Connection director Andrew Navarro described direct, street-level services and intake work at the organization’s resource center on Sherman Avenue and said additional case-management hours would allow more one-on-one work with residents in crisis: "We do VI-SPDAT ... we can do that anywhere for our clients," Navarro said, describing how immediate intake and enrollment (Medi-Cal, CalFresh) are delivered.

How the committee decided

Committee members inspected the staff spreadsheet proposal line by line, flagged items they believed were duplicative of other city- or county-funded programs, and discussed whether awards should be full, partial or declined. Several members said they wanted the Phase 1 awards to be a transitional, learning-year step toward a more formal Phase 2 process in FY26.

The committee recorded a motion to forward the proposed award amounts to the City Council along with notes where committee members had different preferred amounts for several applicants. The motion was seconded and the committee voted unanimously to transmit the recommendation to council for consideration in the FY2026 budget process. The committee’s packet and staff presentation show the working budget context: roughly $396,000 recommended by the Finance Committee vs. $819,089 in requests.

What the awards will mean and next steps

Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the committee’s action is only a recommendation to the full City Council, which will adopt the city’s operating budget. Chair Vinkar and staff noted Phase 2 will begin next year with a review of learnings from this transition, potential policy adjustments and changes to the application and evaluation process.

The committee and staff also asked applicants to provide additional budget detail where applications were unclear (for example, to separate program subsidies from capital purchases such as patio furniture) and flagged the need for better mapping between grant line items and measurable outcomes.

The council is scheduled to consider the recommended awards as part of the FY2026 operating budget process during June budget hearings; committee members said they will expect staff to provide a revised recommendation and a clear service agreement for each award the council approves.

Ending

The committee concluded after more than three hours with the motion to forward the proposed Phase 1 awards — including the committee’s notes on where members had differing preferences — and asked staff to prepare the formal report for the June council budget meeting.

(For a list of organizations that presented, the application-requested amounts, and the committee’s recommended placeholders and ranges, see the committee packet and staff spreadsheet included in the City Council budget materials.)