Human Relations Commission backs CDBG plan, instructs staff to consider reallocation and reduces We Care allocation

Palo Alto — The Human Relations Commission voted on Thursday to recommend City Council approve the city’s draft five‑year consolidated plan and the fiscal year 2025–26 annual action plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, while directing staff to explore reallocating some funds away from a for‑profit technical assistance pilot toward locally eligible housing and public‑facility projects.

What the commission recommended: Commissioners approved the staff-recommended CDBG allocations with one change — a 25% reduction in the recommended economic-development award to Upwards/We Care (the “Boost” family child‑care support pilot) and direction that staff consider using the resulting funds for uncapped projects, with special emphasis on additional funding for the Alma Garden rehabilitation project.

Why it matters: Palo Alto receives approximately $500,000 annually from HUD for CDBG, plus roughly $100,000 in program income. The program has a 15% cap on public‑service spending and a 20% cap on planning and administration; the cap limits how much the city can allocate for social‑service organizations even when demand is high, commissioners were told.

Key details presented to the commission

Program background and outreach

Robert Fain, housing planner in the city’s planning and development services department, and Sherry Coulter of Root Policy Research outlined the consolidated-plan process (countywide data, a market analysis appendix and a strategic plan for CDBG‑eligible goals). The countywide outreach included an online survey and three stakeholder workshops; Palo Alto had smaller direct resident survey participation but robust stakeholder engagement.

Available dollars and caps

Staff said the entitlement allocation from HUD for FY2025–26 was expected to be near $500,000; program income from prior loan repayments was estimated at about $100,000. HUD rules cap public‑service spending at 15% of entitlement and program income and cap planning/administration at 20%.

Recommended awards and priorities

Staff and the selection committee recommended allocations across public services, housing rehabilitation, public facilities and economic development. Representative items discussed: - Public services (15% cap): life‑stabilizing programs such as housing case management at the Opportunity Center, fair‑housing counseling and advocacy for long‑term care residents. The amount available for public‑service awards was approximately $95,000 under the cap. - Economic development: Staff recommended $120,000 for We Care / Upwards (Boost pilot), a program offering business‑support, training and a child‑care management system for family child‑care providers. - Housing and facilities: Rebuilding Together Peninsula was recommended for $70,000 for “safe‑at‑home” repairs for low‑income seniors and people with disabilities. Alma Garden rehabilitation — an existing affordable housing project that previously received CDBG funds — was recommended for an additional ~$120,000 to address laundry‑room upgrades and other interior scope increases. - Administration: Staff estimated about $120,000 would be used for administration and planning (within the 20% cap).

Public comment and applicant responses

Rebuilding Together Peninsula and the Silicon Valley Independent Living Center described how CDBG-funded home repairs, accessibility upgrades and housing navigation services directly help very‑low‑income seniors and residents with disabilities remain housed. Upwards/We Care representatives explained the Boost pilot is offered to providers at no charge, that the program provides mentorship and a curriculum library and that the pilot reported a 40% average increase in revenue for participating family child‑care providers in Palo Alto during the pilot year.

Commission discussion and final motion

Commissioners debated the merits of funding a for‑profit vendor in an economic‑development slot versus directing more funds to uncapped housing and rehabilitation projects. The commission ultimately approved a motion to forward the draft consolidated and annual action plans to City Council with a recommendation to: (1) approve staff allocations; (2) direct staff to implement the contingency plan as presented; and (3) reduce the We Care/Upwards allocation by 25% with the remaining funds to be reallocated among uncapped projects, prioritizing additional support for the Alma Garden rehabilitation scope.

Formal action and vote

Commissioner Don Barr moved the final recommendation to forward the draft plans and the funding adjustments to City Council. The motion passed 6–1: Ayes — Barr, Causey, Eberly, Shea, Karnam and Vice Chair Krause; No — Chair Stimler. (No abstentions were recorded in the meeting transcript.)

Next steps

Staff told the commission H U D would release the final entitlement amount and staff would finalize the budget and incorporate the commission’s recommendations into the materials sent to City Council for the June hearing. Staff recommended the contingency plan in the staff report be used if HUD’s final allocation varies. Commissioners asked staff to confirm the proposed reallocation process and to return with final figures once HUD posts the official FY2025–26 CDBG award.