The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-28-2022 Agenda PacketJuly 28, 2022 Dublin Human Services Commission Special Meeting Agenda 1 Council Chamber Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Special Meeting of the DUBLIN HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Thursday, July 28, 2022 Location: Council Chamber Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 Special Meeting 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 3.1 Public Comment At this time, the public is permitted to address the Human Services Commission on non- agendized items. Please step to the podium and clearly state your name for the record. COMMENTS SHOULD NOT EXCEED THREE (3) MINUTES. In accordance with State Law, no action or discussion may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Commission may respond to statements made or questions asked, or may request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter. Any member of the public may contact the Recording Secretary’s Office related to the proper procedure to place an item on a future Human Services Commission agenda. The exceptions under which the Commission MAY discuss and/or take action on items not appearing on the agenda are contained in Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(1)(2)(3). 4. CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Human Services Commission with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Human Services Commission who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Chair to remove the item. 4.1 Approval of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 1 July 28, 2022 Dublin Human Services Commission Special Meeting Agenda 2 The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting. Staff Report Attachment I - Minutes of the March 24 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION 6. PUBLIC HEARING 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 8.1 Review of Human Services Grants Program Process The Commission will review the Human Services Grants Program and make a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to better guide the allocation of grant funds to address critical human service needs in Dublin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the Grants Program process and make a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to the funding criteria and guidelines. Staff Report Attachment 1 - Current City of Dublin Criteria Rating Worksheet Attachment 2 - Tri-Valley Needs Assessment and the Cityâ€™s adopted Mission and Vision Statements Attachment 3 - City of Livermore Criteria Rating Sheet 9. OTHER BUSINESS Brief information only reports from the commission and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by the commission related to meetings attended at City expense (AB1234). 10. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Mission The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion. 2 STAFF REPORT Human Services Commission Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item 4.1 DATE:July 28, 2022 TO:Honorable Chair and Commissioners FROM:Jackie Dwyer,Parks & Community Services Director SUBJECT:Approval of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting MinutesPreparedby:Jennifer Li Marzi,Recreation Technician EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Approve the minutes of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT:None. DESCRIPTION:The Commission will consider approval of the minutes of the March 24, 2022 Regular Meeting. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:The Commission Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS:1)Minutes of the March 24, 2022 Human Services Commission Regular Meeting 3 Attachment 1 MINUTES OF THE HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Regular Meeting: March 24, 2022 Page 1 of 3 A Regular Meeting of the Human Services Commission was held on Thursday, March24, 2022, in the Council Chamber at the Civic Center. The meeting was called to order at 7:03p.m., by Commission Chair Adam Lumia. 1. Call to OrderAttendee Name Title StatusAdam Lumia Commission Chair PresentRegis Harvey Commissioner Vice Chair PresentVacantCommissioner Shawn Costello Commissioner PresentJanet Songey Commissioner Present Rose Hunt Alternate Commissioner PresentBaljeet Sangha Alternate Commissioner Present 2. Pledge of AllegianceThe Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Lumia and recited by the Commission and Staff. 3. Oral Communications 3.1. Public CommentOne comment card was received. It was received from Kerri Olds, Program Managerfrom Meals on Wheels with Spectrum Community Services, and she invited the Commissioners to ride along with the program that services home-bound seniors. 4. Consent Calendar 4.1 Approval of the Minutes of the January 27, 2022 Regular Human Services Commission Meeting.The Commission voted to approve the Consent Calendar. RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY:Shaun Costello, Commissioner SECOND:Regis Harvey, Vice Chair AYES:Harvey, Lumia, Songey, Costello, Alternate Hunt 4 Page 2 of 3 5. Written Communication – None. 6. Public Hearing – None. 7. Unfinished Business – None. 8. New Business 8.1 City of Dublin Fiscal Year 2022-23 Human Services Grant Program Funding RecommendationsJudy Miller, Management Analyst II made a presentation on the Human Services GrantProgram applications and the Fiscal Year 2022-23 funding recommendations. The Commission voted to approve the recommendations as set forth in the Staff Report. They are as follows:Organization Name and Proposal Title Requested Amount Recommended Amount Recommended Source(s)Axis Community Health -Loan Obligation NA $15,300 CDBGCALICO Center -Dublin Child Abuse Prevention $15,000 $14,425 CDBGCentro Legal de la Raza –Fair and Secure Housing Project $25,000 $22,575 CDBGCommunity Resources for Independent Living -Housing and Independent Living Skills $15,000 $14,100 CDBGLegal Assistance for Seniors -Legal Services, Medicare Counseling and Education for Dublin Seniors $10,000 $9,100 CDBGSpectrum Community Services -Meals on Wheels for Dublin's Homebound Elderly $25,000 $23,500 CDBGCDBG TOTAL $90,000 $99,000 CDBGChabot-Las Positas Community College District/Tri-Valley Career Center –Job Support Expansion $18,341 $16,230 ARPAChabot-Las Positas Community College District/Tri-Valley Career Center –EITC Support Program $15,950 $13,580 ARPACity Serve of the Tri-Valley -Homelessness Prevention Family Stabilization $25,000 $24,050 ARPAEaster Seals Bay Area -Kaleidoscope Community Adult Program $25,000 $15,250 General Fund 5 Page 3 of 3 Goodness Village -Tiny Home Community $25,000 $16,230 General FundHively –Family Resource Center $25,000 $22,400 ARPAHively –Busy Bees Learning Lab $12,000 $10,100 General FundHively –Community Engagement Coordinator $25,000 $23,150 ARPAHope Hospice -Grief Support Center and Hospice Volunteer Program $20,000 $17,670 General FundOpen Heart Kitchen -Dublin Senior Meal Program $25,000 $23,900 ARPASenior Support Program of the Tri Valley -Case Management $16,500 $16,150 ARPASunflower Hill -Program Support for Adults with Developmental Disabilities $16,500 $15,400 General FundTri-Valley Haven –Domestic Violence Services $24,000 $23,350 General FundTri-Valley Haven –Homeless Services $24,000 $23,540 ARPAGF/ARPA TOTALS $297,291 $261,000*GRAND TOTALS $387,291 $360,000 RESULT:APPROVED [UNANIMOUS] MOVED BY:Adam Lumia, Chair SECOND:Regis Harvey, Vice Chair AYES:Harvey, Lumia, Songey, Costello, Alternate Hunt 9. Other BusinessStaff and Commissioners gave updates on various projects. 10.AdjournmentThe meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ____________________________________ Human Services Commission Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________ Parks and Community Services Director 6 STAFF REPORT Human Services Commission Page 1 of 3 Agenda Item 8.1 DATE:July 28, 2022 TO:Honorable Chair and Commissioners FROM:Jackie Dwyer, Parks & Community Services Director SUBJECT:Review of Human Services Grants Program ProcessPreparedby:Judy A.Miller,Management Analyst II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:The Commission will review the Human Services Grants Program and make a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to better guide the allocation of grant funds to address critical human service needs in Dublin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Review the Grants Program process and make a recommendation to the City Council on revisions to the funding criteria and guidelines. FINANCIAL IMPACT:The Human Services Grant Program is supported by several funding sources,including the federal Community Development Block Grant program, the City’s General Fund and Affordable Housing Fund, and additional sources as available, such as the American Rescue Plan Act.Each year the City Council receives funding recommendations from the Human Services Commission and approves the grant amounts awarded to the applicants. The total amount is included in the City’s budget for that fiscal year. DESCRIPTION:BackgroundThe City’s Human Services Grants Program provides financial grants to localnon-profit organizations serving the Dublin community. The Human Services Commission was created in November 2013 and plays a key role in the grants award process by evaluating grant applications, receiving applicant presentations, and recommending grant amounts to the City Council.Based on the Commission’s recommendations,the City Council awards annual funding toorganizations that best meet the community’s needs in support of the 14 Areas of Concern as identified in the Tri-Valley Needs Assessment and the City’s adopted Mission and Vision 7 Page 2 of 3 Statements (Attachment 2). Additionally, at its meeting on October 20, 2015, the City Council discussed funding priorities and directed Staff to ensure that the Grants Program emphasizesfunding programs specifically for critical human service needs, such as health care, shelter, food,and nutrition.Overview of Grants Program ProcessThe Human Services Grants Program coincides with the City’s fiscal year calendar, which is July 1-June 30. The Program follows a strict schedule to meet City, Alameda County, and Department of Housing and Urban Development budget deadlines.The application review period typically begins in January, and Commissioners receive access to ZoomGrants, the platform used for grant application submittal. During the application review period, Staff and Commissioners evaluate and score each application according to the rating criteria approved by the City Council (Attachment 1). Applications are submitted via the web-based ZoomGrants application management system. Commissioners can only review applications in that system; all discussions, comments, and funding recommendations must occur during the Commission meeting.In February, each Commissioner submits a completed rating sheet and preliminary funding recommendation for each application.At the March Commission meeting, each applicant makes a brief presentation to the Commission. At this meeting, Commissioners may ask questions of the applicants for clarification purposes or to gather additional information about the organization. After the presentations, the Commission deliberates in open session, reviews the preliminary funding recommendations, and by way of amotion, recommends the final grant funding amounts to the City Council for their consideration.The City Council’s confirmation of grant funding then occurs at a public meeting before July 1.GrantCriteriaAs part of the review process, the Commission uses the rating criteria worksheet approved by the City Council (Attachment 1). Other factors considered are: The number of unduplicated Dublin residents served and cost per participant. Past performance of grantees. Addressing one or more of the 14 key areas of concern identified by the 2011 Tri-Valley Needs Assessment report. Other funding sources leveraged.New Items for ConsiderationSince the Grant Program’s inception, the process has remained relatively unchanged. At its April 19, 2022 meeting, the City Council requested the Human Services Commission review the process and recommend revisions to guide the Program going forward. Specifically, the City Council asked the Commission to consider policies/procedures to address the following: How to handle multiple funding requests from one organization. How to prioritize multiple applications from an organization against organizations with a single application, especially when funding is limited after ARPA funds are unavailable. 8 Page 3 of 3 When multiple applications are received from an organization, ensure the program participants are unduplicated and not repeated on more than one application. Review multiple applications from an organization for any overlap of services. Determine if a reasonable cost per person should be on a per capita basis or a program basis, and how to evaluate when intensive services require more money per capita. Discuss how to make the Program more competitive when the pool of funds is limited. Reach out to non-profits that do not typically receive funds to educate them on the program and give them an opportunity to apply for funding. The Commission will discuss these additional considerations and incorporate them into the criteria and scoring system as appropriate. The process must continue to ensure fairness and consistency in the competitive process to award grant funds. A sample rating sheet used in the City of Livermore is included as a reference (Attachment 3). STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE:None. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH:None. ATTACHMENTS:1. Current City of Dublin Criteria Rating Worksheet2. Tri-Valley Needs Assessment and the City’s adopted Mission and Vision Statements3. City of Livermore Criteria Rating Sheet 9 1 Criteria Rating Sheet CITY OF DUBLIN UNIVERSAL GRANT RATING SHEET Organization:Program: PROPOSAL SCORE Maximum of 15 points RECOMMEND FUNDING Yes  No  FUNDING SOURCE CDBG Comm. Grant Incl. Fund Total Requested Total Recommended IF RECOMMENDING CDBG FUNDING, NOTE THAT CDBG FUNDS MAY ONLY BE USED FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES AS DEFINED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (CHECK ONE). CAPITAL PROJECTS  PUBLIC SERVICE  HOUSING  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT  THE WORD “PROGRAM” IS U SED BELOW ON THIS FORM TO INCLUDE SERVICES, ACTIVITIES OR IMPROVEMENTS. 1.Organization/Management The organization previously received funding from Dublin, and has fully complied with the City’s management procedures, including invoice and report deadlines. The organization, as presented in the application, is able to achieve the stated goals and outcomes. The organization and their staff are qualified and have the capacity to provide for the program. (i.e. non-profit status, resumes for staff, a Board of Directors, information on clients served). The organization has completed all required aspects of the application process. The proposed program has a successful proven track record (not a new program). (Maximum of 5) ______ 2.Needs/Benefit The beneficiaries are an appropriate target group (lower income residents, handicapped, elderly, youth, etc.) The organization provides an activity to Dublin residents that other organizations do not provide. Applicant’s activity: (choose a or b) a. benefits a majority of Dublin residents by meeting the City’s Mission, Vision and Values OR b. meets at least one of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Strategic Goals or Policy Priorities. The organization’s program meets one of the 14 Areas of Concern as identified in the 2011 Eastern Alameda County Needs Assessment Report The organization collaborates with other agencies to enhance services. (Maximum of 5) ______ Attachment 1 10 2 Criteria Rating Sheet 3. Funding/ Budget  The amount of funding requested compared to the number of Dublin residents served is reasonable.  Fiscal responsibility - evaluation of the most current audit does not reveal one or more *material weaknesses* (or equivalent) that could jeopardize other funding.  Program and administrative budget covers the cost to provide for the program.  The organization leverages other funding sources to provide activities/services/improvements.  The organization charges a fee and/or produces other income that may be used to support this program (review submitted fee schedule if applicable). (Max imum of 5) ______ *Standardized accounting audit statements 1. A “Control Deficiency”, which is the lowest of the three deficiencies, exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. 2. A “Significant Deficiency” is a control deficiency or a combination of control deficiencies, that adversely effects the organization’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data in accordance with the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that the likelihood of a misstatement of the organization’s financial statement that is more than inconsequential which will not be prevented or detected by the organization’s established internal controls. 3. A “Material Weakness”, is a significant deficiency or a combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements which will not be prevented or detected by the organization’s established internal controls.  Rating Criteria is subject to change from time to time to reflect the current industry or to address the type of applications received. 11 MISSION The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe and secure environment, fosters new opportunities, provides equity across all programs, and champions a culture of diversity and inclusion. VISION Dublin is a great community to live, work, and raise a family. Dublin values: •Safety – We are dedicated to excellent public safety resources, including police and fire. •Finances – We will strive to be fiscally transparent and balance our budgets annually. •Inclusivity – We will advocate for programs and policies that support inclusive access to housing and cultural opportunities. •Diversity – We will support a wide range of programs and events that reflect and cater to the diversity of our residents. •Equity – We will deliver our services in a way that ensures equitable access to all. •Innovation – We will continue to innovate in every aspect of government and promote innovation within the business community. •Customer Service – We will provide welcoming, excellent customer services to our residents and businesses at all times. •Living an Active Lifestyle – We will continuously promote an active lifestyle through our parks and facilities and encourage participation in local sports. •History – We will honor our history through places and programs that remind people of our beginnings. •Business – We will provide a full spectrum of opportunity by supporting current and prospective businesses through ongoing economic development efforts and helping them grow and thrive locally. •Environmental Sustainability – We will continue to lead in building a well-planned sustainable community and protecting our natural resources. Attachment 2 12 2011Tri ͲValleyNeeds Assessment FindingsbyAreaofConcern* 1 Behavioralhealth(mental healthandsubstanceabuse) 8 Disabilities 2Affordablehousing9Foodandnutrition 3 Healthcare 10 Seniorservices 4 Workforce development 11 Youth services 5 Homelessness 12 Childcare, earlychildhood developmentandeducation 6 Transportationservicesand access 13 Changing demographicsand growingdiversity 7 Domesticviolenceandchild abuse 14 Financialassistance *Page33EasternAlamedaCountyHumanServicesNeedsAssessment Attachment 2 13 City of Livermore Human Services Grants Application Scoring Rubric December 2020 Update NEED - Rank the need for this activity/service: •0-2 (Lowest): Applicant does not articulate a clear need for the project in their application and is unlikely to address that need. •3-5 (Middle): Applicant identifies a clear need but it is not a critical human services need and/or the applicant does not demonstrate a high likelihood of addressing that need. •6-10 (Highest): Applicant identifies a critical human services need in Livermore and demonstrates a high likelihood of addressing that need. BENEFIT - Rank the benefit to low-income Livermore households: •0-2 (Lowest): Applicant demonstrates a low number of low-income Livermore households who will benefit from the project and the application fails to identify any outcomes or ways it will measure project success. •3-5 (Middle): Applicant demonstrates a moderate number of low-income Livermore households who will benefit from the project. Application identifies outcomes, but they are unclear or unlikely to demonstrate project impact. •6-10 (Highest): Applicant demonstrates a high number of low-income Livermore households who will benefit from the project and the application identifies clear and measurable outcomes to demonstrate project impact. ORGANIZATION - Rank the applicant's organizational strength and capacity: •0-2 (Lowest): Applicant submitted an incomplete application with unrealistic goals and clearly lacks the staffing, experience, and organizational capacity to ensure project success. •3-5 (Middle): Applicant has submitted a complete application with realistic goals, but they lack the necessary staffing, partnerships, and/or experience with similar types of grants to make the project successful. •6-10 (Highest): Applicant has submitted a complete application that sets achievable goals and demonstrates that they have the staffing, partnerships, and track record of strong grant performance to ensure project success. Attachment 3 14 Page 2 of 3 FUNDING - Rank the applicant's funding request: • 0-2 (Lowest): Funding Request is unreasonably high given the proposed impact of the project and number of people served; project budget is unrealistic. • 3-5 (Middle): Funding Request is reasonable but does not demonstrate a high impact or cost effectiveness given the proposed number of people served and/or the project budget has significant questions or flaws. • 6-10 (Highest): Funding Request is a reasonable amount that demonstrates high impact and cost effectiveness given the proposed number of people served; project budget is feasible and sound. FUNDING SUSTAINABILITY - Rank the diversification of project’s funding sources: • 0-2 (Lowest): Grant request is the only source of funds for applicant’s proposed project. • 3-5 (Middle): Applicant has identified more than one funding source to support the proposed activity/service but this grant request would be the main source of funds and the long-term sustainability of the project is questionable. • 6-10 (Highest): Applicant has identified multiple funding sources to support the proposed activity/service and ensure sustainability. CITY FUNDING - Rank the necessity of City funding for this project: • 0-2 (Lowest): Project is not an appropriate use for City funds and will not reduce demands on other City resources. • 3-5 (Middle): Project is an appropriate use for City funds, but will not reduce demands on other City resources and/or there are other types of funding sources that would be a better fit for this project. • 6-10 (Highest): City funds are critical to project and funding request is appropriate for City sources and reduces demands for other City resources. CONSISTENCY WITH POLICIES - Rank the proposal’s consistency with the HUD Strategic Goals, HUD Policy Priorities, and City of Livermore 5-Year Consolidated Plan Goals: • 0-2 (Lowest): Proposal does not address any of the HUD Strategic Goals, HUD Policy Priorities, or Consolidated Plan Goals. • 3-5 (Middle): Proposal addresses one of the HUD Strategic Goals, HUD Policy Priorities, or Consolidated Plan Goals • 6-10 (Highest): Proposal helps address multiple HUD Strategic Goals, HUD Policy Priorities, and Consolidated Plan Goals. HSC PRIORITY #1 - Rank the extent to which the project will address one or more of the HSC Priority Needs (Public Health, Housing, Homelessness, and Safety Net Access): • 0-2 (Lowest): Project does not address any of the HSC Priority Needs. • 3-5 (Middle): Project addresses one of the HSC Priority Needs but does not have a high likelihood of doing so effectively. • 6-10 (Highest): Proposal demonstrates a high likelihood of addressing multiple priority needs. City of Livermore Human Services Grants Updated December 2020 Application Scoring Rubric 15 Page 3 of 3 HSC PRIORITY #2 - Rank the proposal regarding the extent to which it addresses one or more of the Service Delivery areas (Coordination/ Collaboration; Prevention; Self- Sufficiency): • 0-2 (Lowest): Project does not address any of the Services Delivery areas. • 3-5 (Middle): Project addresses one of the Service Delivery areas but does not have a high likelihood of doing so effectively. • 6-10 (Highest): Project has a high likelihood of effectively addressing all three Service Delivery areas. INNOVATION – If funds were allocated last year for the same project/activity, rank the extent to which the applicant is adequately responding to changing community conditions. If the proposal is for a new project, rank the extent to which the project uses a new and innovative approach to solve identified problem: • 0-2 (Lowest): Applicant does not demonstrate an ability to adapt project to changing needs or is not using an innovative approach. • 3-5 (Middle): It is unclear how the project will respond to changing community conditions identified in the application or is using an effective but not particularly innovative approach. • 6-10 (Highest): Applicant demonstrates a high likelihood of responding to changing conditions and/or is using an innovative approach. ACCESS- Rank the extent to which project will ensure non-English speakers, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness, seniors, low-income families, and/or youth can access the proposed program or activities: • 0-2 (Lowest): Proposal makes no mention of accessibility concerns and does not describe any ways it will remove barriers or help community members access its services. • 3-5 (Middle): Proposal addresses accessibility concerns but does not identify concrete or impactful ways the project will remove barriers for priority populations. • 6-10 (Highest): Proposal describes concrete and impactful ways applicant will improve language, technology, and/or transportation access for priority populations. City of Livermore Human Services Grants Updated December 2020 Application Scoring Rubric 16