Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ipf Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community callers urge more technical assistance and transparency for unfunded IPF applicants
Summary
Several public commenters at the PAC urged the commission to provide technical assistance to smaller, rural community‑based organizations and to consider ways to prioritize or provide feedback to applicants who were not funded in round one. Commenters also raised county support‑letter requirements as a potential barrier.
During the public comment segment tied to the IPF presentation, multiple commenters asked the commission to ease barriers for smaller organizations and to increase transparency for unfunded applicants. Carla Koller asked whether regions that applied but were not awarded in round one could be prioritized in round two. Candy asked whether applicants could see their scores to improve future applications. Lisa Kugler of Shatterproof requested aggregate information on the primary areas represented in unfunded applications.
"Is there a list that is public?" Commissioner Baer asked during the Q&A; staff responded that the commission does not publish a list of unfunded projects as standard practice but will consider how to respond to stakeholder requests and invited email inquiries to the program inbox. Public commenters from Humboldt, Imperial County and other regions urged the commission to offer more technical assistance to rural and small community organizations and to reconsider whether a required county support letter creates an unnecessary barrier.
Brenda (staff) directed stakeholders to the program inbox (BHSOAC@BHSOAC.ca.gov) for follow up and indicated staff would consider whether additional public summaries or supports are feasible.
No formal action was taken; the remarks were recorded as public comment and will inform staff outreach and planning.
