DATE: April 1, 2025
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT Community Agency Funding: Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Community Agency Funding Recommendations for Services, Arts & Music, and Economic Development and Infrastructure and Overview of the FY 2026-2029 Five Year Consolidated Plan
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Conducts a work session regarding the FY 2025-2026 Community Agency Funding recommendations prepared by the Community Services Commission;
2. Reviews and comments on the overview of the FY 2026-2029 Five Year Consolidated Plan; and
3. Reviews and comments on proposed changes to the Community Agency Funding process for subsequent fiscal years
SUMMARY
This report provides an overview of the fiscal year(FY) 2025-2026 Community Agency Funding (CAF) process, the Community Services Commission ’s (CSC) proposed funding recommendations to the City of Hayward (City) City Council, and next steps. The funding recommendations are summarized by category in Table 1 and in detail in Attachment II.
The CAF process continues to be highly competitive, as applicants requested over $4.05 million dollars in program funding and the City has only an estimated $1.7 million in available funds for FY 2025-2026. As in prior years, the CSC made recommendations based on staff estimates for the City’s Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) entitlement award. The actual award amount is typically announced by late March; however, potential cuts to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) staff and budget may result in delays receiving the award amount and executing the FY 2025 -2026 award . A summary of the funding recommendations by category is shown in Table 1 and in detail in Attachment II.
Table 1. Summary of Recommended Funding Allocation by Category
Funding Source Category Amount
General Fund Arts & Music $132,000
General Fund Social Services $455,000
CDBG Public Services $197,982
CDBG Economic Development/Infrastructure $547,018
Total ARC Recommended Grants $1,332,000
CDBG HUD-Required Fair Housing Services* $26,302
CDBG Home Rehabilitation & Infrastructure Project Management $375,000 Total Non-Competitive Grants $401,302
GRAND TOTAL FY 2025-2026 RECOMMENDED FUNDING (ALL SOURCES) $1,733,302 * These funds are allocated from the City’s administration and planning set-aside, so they do not impact the HUD-mandated 15% cap on CDBG funds for public services.
This report also provides a summary of the priorities and projects that will be presented as part of the City’s Consolidated Plan for the use of CDBG funding , which HUD requires the City to update every five years. The Consolidated Plan identifies the City’s priority needs for the next five years and establishes how those needs will be addressed in the coming fiscal year. Based on consultation with stakeholders, the plan will focus on the community’s public facilities, infrastructure, housing preservation, public service, and economic development needs.
Finally, this report includes recommendations to make changes to the CAF process that will reduce administrative burden on applicants and increase transparency and objectivity in the decision-making process. Staff recommend that the City Council conduct a work session to discuss the CSC’s funding recommendations , the proposed Consolidated Plan, and the recommended changes to the CAF process.
BACKGROUND
The Community Services Commission (CSC) serves as an advisory body to the Hayward City Council. Through the annual Community Agency Funding (CAF) process, the CSC makes recommendations to City Council for the distribution of Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Developmen t Block Grant (CDBG) and General Fund allocations to programs in the following categories: Infrastructure and Economic Development (CDBG), Public/Social Services (CDBG/General Fund), and Arts and Music (General Fund).
The FY 2025-2026 Community Agency Funding Process
The CAF process opened with the publication of a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on September 27, 2024. The announcement was published in English and Spanish in the Daily Review, posted to the City’s website, emailed the Community Servi ces Division’s interested parties mailing list, and shared on the City’s newsletter. Several broadcast email reminders were also sent in advance of the Mandatory Bidder’s Conference held on October 28, 2024.
The CSC reviews all eligible applications, and the CSC Chairperson appoints three Application Review Committees (ARCs) by funding category to conduct applicant interviews prior to
drafting funding recommendations for City Council review and approval. The three funding categories are:
1. Economic Development and Infrastructure (CDBG): Affordable housing (not including new construction); housing rehabilitation; nonprofit facility improvements; job creation; and micro-enterprise support. Funds must meet one of three national objectives: benefit low- and moderate-income Hayward residents (i.e., those making less than 80% of the area median income); prevent or eliminate slum blight; or meet an urgent need (i.e., disaster).
2. Arts & Music (General Fund): Arts and music programs that benefit Hayward residents to support ongoing art, music, or cultural programs or activities including but not limited to educational assemblies, curriculum development and distribution, and art galleries.
3. Public/Social Services (CDBG/General Fund): Benefit low- and moderate- income Hayward residents through programs to provide food security, health services, homelessness and anti-displacement services, legal services, and youth and education services.
CSC Funding Discussion and Recommendations
On February 19, 2025, the CSC met and reviewed the preliminary draft recommendations made by each ARC. ARC Chairs and committee members summarized the discussion and rationale behind ARC decision-making; received public comments; and initiated a 30 -day public comment period from February 19, 2025, through March 19, 2025, for community members to submit feedback on the recommendations to the City Council and CSC. Staff previewed recommendations for improvements to the CAF process, informed by applicant feedback and benchmarking research into other jurisdictions, with the goal of making the funding process more transparent, objective, and efficient.
On March 19, 2025, the CSC received public comment and individual Commissioner feedback, and closed the public comment period for the draft recommendations.1 Commissioners also provided feedback on staff’s recommendations for improvements to the CAF process. They took action on the CAF funding allocation recommendations and voted to recommend City Council approve the funding allocations outlined in Attachment II. This report summarizes the CSC’s funding recommendations for final approval and submission to City Council, and staff recommended changes to the CAF process which incorporates CSC and agency feedback for City Council’s consideration.
DISCUSSION
FY 2025-2026 Community Agency Funding Process
Annually, the City funds approximately $1.7 million in programs that provide free or low-cost services to low-income Hayward community members through a combination of federally awarded CDBG funds and allocations from the City’s General Fund. The City makes this funding
1 March 19, 2025, Community Services Commission Staff Report and Attachment:
https://hayward.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=1288176&GUID=53D20093-5F7A-4EB4-89FE- AFBD8BA04C01&Options=&Search=
available to eligible community agencies and government entities through the competitive CAF process. As part of the process, t he CSC Chair appoints three ARCs to conduct applicant interviews and make preliminary recommendations for full CSC consideration.
Each application is reviewed by staff and the CSC between December 2024 and January 2025.
The ARCs review eligible applications using a Scoring Rubric and submit any agency-specific questions which are shared with applicants prior to their interview s. During interviews, agencies are given ten minutes to present their projects, then an additional ten minutes to answer questions from the committee. All interviews were held virtually.
Available Funding
The ARCs reviewed FY 2025-2026 funding applications in December 2024 and conducted 52 interviews in January 2025. There were 11 new proposed programs and 10 new applicants.
The majority of applications are reviewed through a competitive process to allocate $587,000 from the General Fund and approximately $1,300,000 from the City’s CDBG entitlement, after the costs of administration and planning are set aside.2 Three projects are funded through a non-competitive process, including City -sponsored home rehabilitation programs , infrastructure project management, and HUD-mandated fair housing services.
The ARCs deliberated and made allocation recommendations using estimates made by staff based on assumed funding from HUD and the City’s General Fund. Staff typically expect to receive notification of the City’s CDBG entitlement award amount from HUD by late March 2025; however, staffing cuts at HUD and delayed Congressional budget decisions may result in delayed award announcements.
In total, applicants requested close to $4.05 million dollars compared to approximately $1.7 million in competitive available funding for FY 202 5-2026. Figure 1 below compares the funding requests and available funding amounts from year to year since FY 2016-2017.
Table 2 shows the number of applicants, funding requests, and available funds broken down by each funding category.
2 Staff estimate this allocation based on previous years’ entitlement awards. The actual award is expected by late March 2025.
Figure 1. Funding Requests and Availability since FY 2017 in Millions3
Table 2. Number of Applications and Amounts Requested and Available, by Category
CATEGORY FUNDING
SOURCE
# OF
APPLICANTS
AMOUNT
REQUESTED
AMOUNT
AVAILABLE
Competitive
Arts and Music Gen. Fund 11 $268,043 $132,000
Social Services Gen. Fund 28 $2,430,130 $455,000
Public Services CDBG 7 $395,513 $197,982
Economic Development CDBG 4 $492,521 $547,018 Infrastructure CDBG 2 $495,000 Totals 52 $4,054,905 $1,332,000
Non-Competitive FUNDING
SOURCE AWARD AMOUNT
HUD Required Fair Housing Services4 CDBG $26,302
Home Rehabilitation & Infrastructure
Project Management CDBG $375,000
Non-Competitive Applications
The CSC and staff recommend t hree projects receive non -competitive funding totaling $401,302. These projects include City-sponsored home rehabilitation programs, infrastructure project management, and HUD-mandated fair housing services.
3 The significant increase in funding requests for FY 2022 are partially driven by $2.3M in requests from three agencies for capital or property acquisition projects.
4 These funds are allocated from the City’s administration and planning set-aside, so they do not impact the HUD- mandated 15% cap on CDBG funds for public services.
1.81 1.93 1.87 1.80
2.51 4.88
3.63 3.70 3.7
4.05 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26
Total Funding Requested Total Funding Available
Competitive Applications
After allocating the non-competitive projects, the remaining funds are made available to eligible applicants. Each ARC was over -subscribed, so the ARCs had to make challenging decisions regarding the allocation of funds for each funding category and funding source. The CSC approaches the CAF process with the intent of using available funds for the greatest impact by providing services needed for the City’s most vulnerable residents. Each ARC’s deliberations resulted in preliminary recommendations, which were reviewed by the CSC at the February 19, 2025, meeting.5
The CSC heard public comments, then the Chairs of each ARC summarized the discussion and decision-making of their ARC during the CSC meeting. The majority of the discussion focused on Services recommendations. The Services category was most competitive, with applicants requesting over four times the amount of funds available. In recent years there were one-time funds available to supplement the Services ARC; however, those one -time funds were not available this year. Commissioners discussed the difficulty of having to prioritize some projects over others due to fewer available funds and an increase in applicants. The Services ARC prioritized funding housing and homelessness, food security, and legal services programs, with an emphasis on agencies that offer services to immigrant and undocumented populations. They evaluated scenarios that included distributing funds across all services applicants but determined that more awards with significantly reduced amounts were not an effective use of resources and may reduce the community impact while increasing the administrative burden on both agencies and City staff. Attachment II details the funding recommendations.
During the February discussion, multiple Commissioners expressed concerns that no education or youth services projects were recommended for funding by the Services ARC. While there was consensus that youth and education services are important for preventing the need for future social services, the CSC also agreed with the Services ARC’s decision to prioritize housing and homelessness, food security, and legal services programs, with an emphasis on agencies that offer services to immigrant and undocumented populations. During the March CSC meeting, the CSC reviewed the initial funding recommendations, took public comment, and asked staff about potential scenarios for if CDBG funding becomes unavailable. No changes were made to the recommended funding and the CSC finalized the funding recommendations.
The CSC’s final recommendations are presented for City Council discussion in this Work Session in Attachment II.
Prioritization of Additional Funds
Additional funding may become available for FY 2025 -2026 after the ARCs complete their deliberations and the CSC makes its recommendations to the City Council. If there are additional funds available, t he ARCs provided general guidance for how additional funds should be allocated. The ARCs recommend allocating additional funds as depicted in Table 3 below.
5 February 19, 2025, Community Services Commission Meeting Staff Report https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=7138343&GUID=A37B8FA7-12C8-4E49-AF69- BF827EBD7BA2&Options=&Search=
Table 3. Methodology of Recommended Allocations for Additional Funding by Category
CATEGORY GUIDING PRINCIPLES
CDBG Public Facilities &
Infrastructure
1. Fund Centro Community Partners up to $50,000
2. Fund Love Never Fails up to $189,224
3. Fund Eden Investments $15,000 to cover parking gate
project costs
4. Fund Downtown Streets, Inc. up to $208,297
CDBG Public Services
1. Fund Covenant House California up to $30,000 as it falls within the priority category of supporting Housing and
Homelessness.
2. Any remaining amount to be distributed evenly to Legal Assistance for Seniors, Spectrum, The Alliance for
Community Wellness, and Ruby’s Place up to the funding
cap and not to exceed their total request.
General Fund Social
Services
1. Fund Bay Area Community Health’s Early Intervention
Services for HIV Care up to 50% of the funding request
within the cap ($25,000).
2. Fund Eden Youth and Family Center’s Clubhouse program up to 50% for the funding request within the cap
($25,000).
Recommendations for Improvements to the Community Agency Funding Process The CSC is committed to refining the CAF process and continually makes changes to ensure that funding recommendations are in alignment with City Council priorities and are responsive to emerging needs. For example, an ad hoc committee of City Council members and Commissioners made recommendations for improvements that were implemented in the FY 2022-2023 funding cycle to better align recommendations to City Council priorities, create a more systematic way to evaluate applications, and promote a more equitable distribution of funding amongst community organizations serving different Hayward populations.6
Staff collects feedback from applicants and the CSC each year to refine the process and promote continuous improvement. This year, staff ha ve also conducted extensive benchmarking research, reviewing similar funding processes in comparable local jurisdictions. Based on applicant feedback from the past four funding cycles and benchmarking research, staff recommend the following improvements to the CAF process:
1. Transition to a two-year funding cycle
During benchmarking research, staff identified that 10 out of 12 cities administer their funding cycles ranging from every 2 to 5 years. While each agency administers their programs differently based on their funding sources, longer funding cycles offer funding recipients more predictability to plan on a longer-term basis and reduces the burden of applying annually while still meeting reporting and performance requireme nts. One respondent to the FY 2024-2025 CAF Feedback Survey shared they have two-year contracts with three different government entities in Alameda County, allowing them to
6 February 15, 2022, Community Services Commission Staff Report and Attachment https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=6021793&GUID=5EFD5D90-DD28-444C-8E84- 3300746EA3BA&Options=&Search=
use more of their time on program quality and strategy, as opposed to the time-intensive application process.
Should additional funding become available during off -cycle years, staff recommend issuing a special notice of funding availability that specifies the eligibility and requirements for that specific funding source. In off-cycle years, the CSC could revisit more engagement with funded agencies, such as site visits.
2. Establish a separate Arts and Music funding process with fewer barriers to applying and reporting
For several years, staff have worked closely with Arts and Music funding recipients to meet the City’s contracting and reporting requirements. Many Arts and Music agencies struggle with reporting individual demographic data, such as race/ethnicity and income level. Additionally, Arts and Music agencies tend to have the highest administrative burden to staff ratio making it especially demanding to meet the same reporting requirements used for economic development, infrastructure, and services projects.
Following the models of the Cities of Alameda and Livermore, staff propose creating a separate, simpler notice of funding availability and decision-making process for Arts & Music awards with input from the CSC.7 The CSC would provide input into developing the new process during a future CSC work session, with opportunities to receive input from current and potential future applicants.
3. Align decision-making with City Council priorities and community need Federal restrictions limit the use of CDBG funds so only 15% of the award is available for public services. This makes Public/Social Services funding especially competitive and requires clear direction on how to prioritize the limited resources for agencies applying for Services funding. Staff anticipate that funding requests will continue to exceed the C ity’s available funding amounts, especially in the Services category , so establishing a prioritization of Services needs is necessary for informing funding decisions.
Staff requests City Council’s feedback on funding priorities based on CSC recommendations. During this funding cycle, t he CSC prioritized housing and homelessness, food security, and legal services with an emphasis on agencies that offer services to immigrant and undocumented populations. The CSC also discussed youth and education projects as important preventative services. The City Council’s feedback will help guide the CSC’s future funding prioritization.
With every new funding cycle, these priorities will be reevaluated to ensure funding allocations meet changing community needs. Community needs will be assessed in a variety of ways, including through CSC and City Council input, resident satisfaction data, and potential future community needs assessments, the most recent of which was conducted in 2018.
7 City of Alameda Arts Funding: https://www.alamedaca.gov/Departments/Base-Reuse-and-Economic- Development/Public-Art-Program/Opportunities-for-Arts-Funding; City of Livermore Arts Projects and Program Grants: https://www.livermoreca.gov/departments/innovation-economic-development/arts/commission-for- the-arts/project-and-program-grants
4. Increase decision-making transparency and objectivity through rubric use and publication of scores
Among neighboring agencies researched, 11 out of 12 make funding decisions based on rubric scores. The CSC implemented use of a scoring rubric in the FY 2022-2023 cycle but has not updated it or consistently used it in funding decision -making. Half of the jurisdictions reviewed incorporate either mandatory or optional interviews in their funding process; however, these jurisdictions still use a rubric to determine funding decisions. Among those that conduct mandatory interviews, all host their interviews and questions during a public meeting. For example, the cities of Fremont, Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton conduct public interviews and update their scores before making final decisions. Livermore, Dublin, and Pleasanton do this together with one joint meeting of the three jurisdictions’ respective commissions. None of the jurisdictions researched conduct their interviews on the weekend and Hayward is the only city that does not c onduct their interviews in a public meeting. Applicants have previously given feedback that weekend interviews are especially burdensome for small non-profits where staff rely on weekends to decompress from intense work weeks.
Based on benchmarking research and feedback from applicants, s taff recommend eliminating the deliberations portion of the funding process. Instead, the CSC would rate applications using the scoring rubrics and applicants would be awarded funding based on those scores. Before ma king this change, staff recommend a CSC work session to review and revise the scoring rubric to ensure it can accurately weight City Council and CSC priorities. Once applications are scored, staff recommend that aggregate scores for each agency are made publicly available to increase transparency and provide agencies with the opportunity to improve their applications for future funding years.
For interviews, s taff propose two options to reduce the burden on applicants and promote transparency and objectivity in the funding process. Note that in each option, deliberations are eliminated, and rubric scores are used as the determining factor for funding, as was the case in all jurisdictions reviewed during staff benchmark ing research:
Option 1: Remove interviews and implement a question period. The question period would allow CSC members to submit their questions to the agency and the agency will respond to those questions before a specific due date. The CSC will finalize their scores after the deadline based on the applications and responses to the questions.
Option 2: The CSC conduct interviews and questions during a CSC meeting .
Interviews are offered to agencies that score above a specific threshold (e.g., the top half or three-fourths of applicants) and application scorers update their scores before submitting for final decisions. Agencies that do not score above the threshold do not interview and are not awarded funding based on their scores.
During the March 19, CSC meeting, CSC members agreed that the four-year old rubric should be updated and recognized the need for objectivity and transparency in decision making, but did not want to lose their discretionary role to build consensus on recommendations.
Staff seek City Council’s input on these staff recommendations to implement in the next community agency funding cycle and will present an updated proposal informed by applicant, CSC, and City Council feedback at the April 22 Public Hearing.
FY 2026-2029 CDBG Five Year Consolidated Plan
HUD requires that the City update its Consolidated Plan, which functions as a framework for identifying housing and community development needs and priorities through community engagement and guides the City’s federal entitlement investment decisions every five years.
The current FY 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan was approved by City Council on June 23, 2020.8
Through the consolidated planning process, the City assesses the housing market, community development needs, and our existing partnerships to make data-driven decisions for investing CDBG funds. To develop the FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan, the City assessed findings from the 2025 Strategic Roadmap, the Resident Satisfaction Survey in 2021, input from the CSC, surveys of local community based organizations, the City’s Housing Element and Climate Action Plan, and the City’s Homelessness Strategic Plan.
Community input gathered during the Consolidated Planning process informed the development of these priority needs and goals. To achieve the City’s goals for its use of CDBG funds, the proposed FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan includes the projects listed in Table 4.
Table 5. FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan Priority Needs and Goals
Priority Needs Goals Sample Activities
Expand & Improve
Public Facilities and
Infrastructure
1A. Expand Facility & Infrastructure
Access & Capacity
Repairs for non-profit facilities
and shelters
Development to improve ADA
compliance for public facilities
Acquisition of real property to
improve capacity of public
facilities
Public Services and
Quality Life
Improvements
2A. Preserve Existing Homeownership
Housing
2B. Facilitate Development of New
Affordable Housing (TBD)
Homelessness outreach
services
Youth and adult education
programming
Employment training
programs
Legal services
Preserve, Protect,
and Produce
Housing Stock
3A Provide Supportive Services for
Residents with Special Needs
3B. Provide vital services to Low- and
Moderate-Income Households
Minor and substantial home
repair grants
Acquisition or rehabilitation of
real property to increase
affordable housing
opportunities
8 June 23, 2020 Staff Report and Attachments:
https://hayward.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4576644&GUID=7D9A237D-8934-4D4A-94FA- CFF24B9589CA&Options=&Search=
Priority Needs Goals Sample Activities
Economic
Development
4A. Provide for Small Business
Assistance
Technical assistance to small
businesses
Grants or loans to small
businesses
Staff will publish a draft of the FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan for public comment on April 4, 2025, with a Public Hearing for comment and City Council recommendation for approval on April 22, 2025. The City’s public comment period will end on May 4, 2025, and staff will submit the report to HUD no later than May 15, 2025.
FISCAL IMPACT
The CDBG Program has a positive impact on the City’s General Fund, as a portion of CDBG funds (up to 20%) may be used to pay for eligible Planning and Administration of the Program , including staff salaries and benefits. The CDBG program remains an administratively complex undertaking requiring enhanced dedication of resources from recipients and subrecipients to meet federal reporting standards. Potential reductions to the City’s CDBG grant size and unpredictable program income will result in equivalent reductions to available funds and to the administrative cap.
There remains some uncertainty as to the continued availability of CDBG funds given the January 27, 2025, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memorandum M-25-13 directing a temporary pause of activities related to obligation or disbursement of Federal funding. While the memorandum was rescinded and the pause challenged in court, it is unclear if CDBG will be affected by future similar actions. Given the unpredictable nature of current federal funding, contracts will include language stating that the agreement is contingent on funding availability.
Additionally, proposed staffing cuts to HUD’s Community Planning and Development (CPD) program, which administers CDBG grants, may result in delayed execution of the FY 2025-2026 award, review of annual plans, and future payment processing. 9 At this time, staff have successfully drawn down and received funds from the City’s CDBG entitlement grant without issue.
Social Services and Arts and Music are funded through the General Fund and subject to City Council discretion. If other General Fund obligations require reductions to this funding, individual grants would be adjusted on a percentage basis accordingly. Historically, City Council has acknowledged Social Services g rants support “safety net” services (i.e. food, housing, support services for low-income people, and information and referral) and has refrained from reducing or eliminating funding based on fiscal impact.
PUBLIC CONTACT
The Public Comment period for the FY 2025-2026 recommended funding allocations and the FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan is in place from April 4, 2025, through May 4, 2025. Public comment on the CAF Process and FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan will be heard at the Public Hearing on April 22, 2025. Additionally, prior to this Work Session item, the public had the
9 Flavelle, C. (2025, February 20). Trump team plans deep cuts at office that funds recovery from big disasters.
New York Times. “https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/20/climate/trump-cuts-hud-disaster-recovery.html”
opportunity to provide public comment during an earlier public comment period and at the CSC’s February 19, 2025, and March 19, 2025, meetings.
The following individuals made public comments at those CSC meetings and through written comment during the public comment period:
Samantha Beckett representing Centro Legal de La Raza Kina Evans representing Bully Talk, Inc.
Kim Olsen representing SOS Meals on Wheels
Robert Bulatao representing Generation Music and Arts Academy Alfred Jenske representing Sun Gallery
Austin Bruckner Carillo
Julie Greenfield, in support of Sun Gallery
Velda Goe representing Fayeth Gardens’ Kwanzaa Project Laura MacInnis representing Family Violence Law Center Andrew Kong Knight, in support of Sun Gallery
Jennifer Dow Rowell representing Safe Alternatives to Violent Environments Frank Goulart, in support of Sun Gallery
Shubbie Aishida in support of the Peace Haven
Christina Antos in support of Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center Aine Minihane Smith in support of Mercy Brown Bag Program Carl Gorringe, in support of Sun Gallery
Grace Kim, in support of Mercy Brown Bag Program
Mark Batenburg, in support of SOS Meals on Wheels
Karen Halfon representing Eden Youth
Dr. Linda Stewart representing Magnolia Women’s Recovery Programs, Inc. Christina Antos representing Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center Dorothy Dominique representing the Creative Arts and Youth Development project Valerie Caveglia representing the Hayward Education Foundation Yuliana Wiser-León representing Eden United Church of Christ Carol Morgan representing the East Bay Youth Orchestra
NEXT STEPS
Next steps include the following:
On Tuesday, April 22, 2025, City Council will hold a Public Hearing and vote on the FY 2025-2026 funding recommendations and the FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan On Monday, May 4, 2025, the City’s public comment period will close Staff will compile public comment and will submit the final draft of the FY 2026-2029 Consolidated Plan to HUD by May 15, 2025.
Staff will begin the contracting process with funded applicants once City Council approves the FY 2025-2026 budget in June. Given the unpredictable nature of current federal funding, contracts will include language stating that the agreement is contingent on funding availability. Contracts will also include language requiring funding recipients to provide documentation of non-profit good standing with the State of California. Staff will continue with existing contracting processes of requiring fiscal audits for funding recipients of over $20,000 and inclusion of Board minutes reflecting election of officers and maintenance of their non-profit status.
Prepared by: Emily Hwang, Management Analyst II
Recommended by: Amy Cole-Bloom, Community Services Manager Regina Youngblood, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:
______________________________________
Dr. Ana M. Alvarez, City Manager