Arts and Culture Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, everyone. It's a pleasure to be back. I just wanted to welcome you all to the 04/02/2026 meeting, which is a hybrid meeting. I think last time was also a hybrid meeting, I believe. This is the second hybrid meeting of the year for us.

And it's a regular meeting of the Cupertino Parks and Recreation Commission, and this meeting is being recorded. For members of the publish public wishing to address the Parks and Recreation Commission on Zoom, the Zoom application will notify you that this meeting is being recorded. Please continue please press continue on the Zoom application to stay on the meeting. Use the raise hand feature in Zoom when you would like to speak on an item and to also lower your hand when you're finished speaking. Please unmute while in call to speak, and then mute yourself when you are done speaking.

If you are calling in by phone, please identify yourself by name before speaking on an item. Press 9 on your phone to raise and lower your hand. Press 6 if you're participating by phone to unmute. Speakers are limited to three minutes. So thank you very much for joining. Those who might join us in person and to all of you who are joining us. I'm Seema Swamy, the chair. I declare the meeting open. And I'd like to say that last time I was supposed to join over Zoom like the rest of you as I was sick, but I got pulled into the hospital because of Okay. Breathing distress.

So, hence, I couldn't make the meeting. Therefore, I'm glad to be back. That was my first and only meeting that I have missed as a chair. So it's a pleasure to be back. So I would like the staff to start the process with a roll call, please.

Mister Barako?

Right here.

Commissioner Srivankind?

Present.

Commissioner Sanand? Here. Vice Chair Bono?

Here.

Chair Swamy?

I'm here. Thank you very much. Thank you, staff. Let's move to the first item of business. This is going to be the approval of minutes for the 12/04/2025 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. Last time, I believe, we did not have a quarter. So we are recommending the action to review and approve the meeting minutes. Do I have anyone to make the motion? I'll make a motion

and move to the recommended action, which is approved the 12/04/2025 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting minutes.

Thank you very much. I did not say anything.

I second

that. Thank you. Alright. Staff, are you

going to do the roll call, or should I go ahead? Commissioner Tamarapan?

Yes.

Commissioner Serkan? Yes. I'm sorry. This is for December? Yes.

Were

Last meeting, because you did not have the forum for this. Right. I understand.

Commissioner, you at that meeting?

Yeah. But he could have watched it.

I thought the minutes said that you were not there.

Oh, this was at December.

December. December.

My bad.

But, Kalisha, no one had the had the opportunity to

No. I understand that, but, yeah, I would like Then you're eligible?

I would

like to abstain on that.

Okay. Got for finding out.

Yeah. But you're saying about the last Anyone can. For example, I can approve last month because I watched them.

Well, yeah. I didn't I I didn't fully. So I Yes. I want to be abstained. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks. Commissioner Srikin? Yes. Commissioner Sanib? Thanks. Vice chair Bono?

Yes.

Chair Swamy? Yes. I approve. And I would like to ask if there are any clarifying questions or amendments to the meetings which I should have asked before we do call? I'm assuming since we all it is fast, we don't have to do that. I think it was written in a incorrect order, but that's okay. Alright. Right. I will now open public comment on the items. Staff, do we have any speaker cards or hands raised

Because on the the meeting minutes were not approved.

We all approved it. Right?

We approved for summer.

For December, we still have But till March 5.

The March 1.

The March 5. Oh, it's not going to March. Alright. I'm following you with the tea or at least the my handout doesn't seem to have it. Alright. Let's actually go and move. We need to review and approve the March 2026 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting minutes. Do I have anyone to make the motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the March with Parks and Recreation Commission meeting minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Stanley. Staff, do you want me to do the noncom?

Would you like to take any comments?

Yes. Are there any comments, questions, amendments?

No problem. Right.

We have no speakers share.

Okay. And we can move.

I mean, I think you need okay. Great. I think if

you don't have any amendments and we

don't have any speakers from the public, I suppose the next point is to do a roll call in terms of approval of the minutes.

Commissioner Kumarpa?

Yes.

Commissioner Srikin? Yes. Commissioner Stanik? Yes. Vice chair Bono? Yes. Chair Swamy? Yes. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you very much. Alright. Let's do the sorry. Because we took the next stage. Thank you, sir. I overlooked that. You were right. So now that we have done that, let's do the do we have any postponements, sir?

We do not.

Do we

have any forward communications?

We have no speakers, Chair.

Alright. Okay. Do

we have any old business? We do not. So we have a number of new businesses. As, you know, as I mentioned last time, we deferred the action of the chair of the commission and the vice chair. They are now marked as two separate action items. We start with the chair selection. So so, Sarah, can you please provide an overview of the process for this item?

Thank you. All of us have recently attended a training and refresher on how to go about this process. But because we're reviewing it and this will be recorded and for the public to refer back to it. If you use your time, I'm just gonna go over it briefly on how process, should take place tonight. So first of all, chair, you introduced the item. So that part is already complete. If there are any questions related to the item on the

we would take

those next. That would be followed by any public comment. Thank you so much. Sorry. It's a little loud in the room.

Thank you.

We would take any public comment on the item. At that point, after public comment is closed, it would be appropriate to make a motion and theoretically receive a second. That would be followed by any commission discussion and a vote. And then at that point, as chair, you would announce next chair is. And at that point, we'll do a little bit of musical chairs, and we will provide whomever is elected the new chair with a meeting script for tonight and have them carry us through the balance of our agenda. Does anybody have any questions about the process? Okay. I'll hand it back to you, chair.

Alright. Do we ask for public comment now or after the

If there are no clarifying questions to what we are gonna be discussing, then absolutely.

We don't have any public online that is asking any questions or needs any hand to ask any questions at this.

We have no speakers, chair.

We have no speakers. I have to ask this. Alright. Would anyone like to entertain a motion to nominate a parks and recreation commission chair? Yes.

I would like

one of

Yeah. And the last so I would like you to continue as a chair. And last it was last year, month was a little different. So I like you to be the chair. That's what I'm gonna

Do you want me to check it?

Yeah.

I'll second myself. I can second myself too. Mhmm. And I and I accept thank you for the nomination. Alright.

Can I ask Yeah? Yeah. Go ahead. Are

we allowed to have the chair continue for a second? We are.

I'm now opening to the commissioners for any discussion on the motion.

I would like to formally ask as a Cupertino resident, someone that has served as vice chair, why, would we need the need to have a chair chairing a second time as I'm sure that was expected of the question, as if I'm not sure the vice chair didn't do a good job this year. It feels like at any commission, there's a regular succession, where hard work, being present and, again, I remind everybody that current and future commissioners are watching this. So I don't want anybody to be this completely don't want to apply for commissions because they don't want to maybe see that there's a certain group acting one way or not. So just going by council directives, code of ethics, and commissioner handbook. So just asking that question, I'm not sure that I'm gonna have an answer.

An answer because, Nava, I see that there was some kind of a I don't see it's an issue of ethics in the first place because there's no ethical rule that says someone cannot get it. I would also like to point out that I this is the sixth year I have as a commissioner of Parks and Recreation.

The what? Sixth year. Sixty years?

This is the sixth year Oh. That I am serving as the as the commissioner of parks and recreation. And there is in in the past first of all, I think last time, the staff one of the Cupertino staff members, Sonia, had made a very firm con point that no aspersions or any indication of aspersions should be cast because it is against Deborah. It is also a violation of the Rosenfeld. So it is not an ethical violation to stand for election again.

And in the first four years, I'd like to remind and just put it out there that I was neither the vice chair nor the chair for the first four years that I served. This is the sixth year, and I think I have done a really good job of really bringing this team together, and we have all served admirably.

Oh, I'm not saying otherwise, and I'll continue my comments.

Yes.

Commissioner, can I go make a comment on that, like, check? Please. So I think one of the reasons why I really wanted I last month, I think I was proposed to, but I think I have, again, a lot of things going on. So I don't know whether I will fulfill this duty fully because I'm here to travel or whatnot. So that's one.

The second reason I put in is that Based on the things she Simande, worked on the chair and I worked on on the senior center ones. And I watched a lot of great analytical things she has done it and worked with them. So I thought it'll be an opportunity to go and implement it. And and she had a good thing. That's one of the reasons I wanted to really make sure that she gets an opportunity to do that again. So that's the only reason. Nothing. I just want to put it there. There's nothing I'm violating on that once I saw her create analytical work, and I wanted her to really put that in action and then prove. That's the only reason. So you can it's again, that's my reason, and I don't want to go and say why not and kind of. So

Can I say something? I agree with commissioner Bono that rotating is good. So last last month, you expressed interest, and you said you would be more available this year as well. Yeah. And I've seen commissioner Kumarapan, you know, attending all the events. He's on top of everything. All the parks and recs events I've seen him. Wherever I've gone, he's going and taking picture. He's more involved, So that is why I nominated him to be the chair. Even now, I'm Yeah. To nominate. I don't know if that can happen now or only after we

I think there'll be a substitute motion, I do. Let's say.

After we vote on commissioner Swamy.

If you want to propose a substitute motion

Uh-huh.

Then how could we go about this? I have no comments. Yes. Go ahead.

Thank you. I will not be voting would not be voting for Commissioner Swamy to be

Kathy, that you should reserve when you are actually going well.

Okay. Well, I'm making my comment about why why I'm gonna vote the way I am.

Okay. I'm gonna vote.

I think that's appropriate. Thank you. So there are just numerous times when I felt that the commission has gotten off track. There have been times where even last month, we didn't know if you were gonna be here or being able to attend. I remember at the last minute, they were asking vice chair Bono if he could share the meeting. We were waiting. There was another time. You said that was the only time you weren't available. There was a time where we had to cancel a meeting because we didn't have a form, and you were unable to attend. That was October, I wanna say. When I No. It was

not October. We had the October meeting. It was the February. It was the February meeting of this year.

Whichever month it was. We had to cancel, so that was another time because we didn't have a quorum. When I was asked to sit in on a mayor's meeting, which happens every two months, I guess, on your behalf because you couldn't be there, I think there were other commissioners who were asked that were also not available. I went to that meeting. And the expectation at that meeting is the chair brings an update from their commission and provides that.

And when I got to and I was asked at the last minute, so, of course, I did not have an opportunity to to see any of that. When I got there, you are presented with the printed updates from every chair of every commission, and every chair had an update except Parks and Rec because it hadn't been submitted. And I believe that the mayor said, oh, the chair said that she would do it at the meeting. So what it means is that the people who are coming don't have the opportunity to prepare. And I was embarrassed at that meeting on behalf of our commission.

And that's just an example that I'll say, I think we can do better. And I think we should give someone else an opportunity. And I know that you've come a long way, and I will admit that. I did not vote for you for chair last year, and I really appreciate what you've done. But I think that we

can do better. Alright. I will respond to that because it was a direct statement about me. I was a chair. I get to respond first about it.

When you look at the chair per se in the past, I believe you have served as a chair of the parks and recreation in the past as well. And I you were not able to manage at that particular point in time a decorum issue where another commissioner just stood up and started screaming that she felt attacked physically, and it was totally false. So what I'm saying is there are issues, but what we do as a commission is we come together. Here's the thing. Two issues that you brought up.

Right? One is I was having some technical issues and I was traveling at that time. And this time, I informed the staff that I was going to extend my stay in India by a week, and therefore, I would I would call in remotely. But I just had a brief had bronchitis. I was still going to call in, but I just had a breathing issue to an extent they had to just put an oxygen mask, which is why.

And these are contingencies of human nature that one cannot say is anything but what it is. Correct? Therefore, I would actually like to say that every single meeting that I have shared, it has started on time. We have actually looked at a number of issues like senior citizens forum. We have formed a subcommittee.

We have really gone all out. It has been very collegiate, and I've really made sure everybody gets a voice. Particularly, I'm actually very pleased even with vice chair, Bono, with everybody, with the commissioner Kumar Gatman. It was such a pleasure to serve with him and commissioner Sheila Sri Khan as well. So I would like to say that, listen.

If I would like to take that work forward because the senior citizens, there's there's a whole lot of work to be done, but also a lot of liaison issues between the team as well as the center. There have been a number of activities throughout last year. The meeting was only one meeting. Of the multiple meetings that we have, we have all the activities that we have, I've attended every one of them. Even though people who have signed up have not shown up, including you, you couldn't make it to the press awards meeting, unfortunately, which is fine.

It's not finger pointing. It is that things happen. People are allowed to take time off, and that should not be fed against them. There are human contingencies. With that, I leave the floor to vice chair, Bombardier.

I just wanna say this. This is my third year. Yes. I am not a person that looks at the past and reacts upon what happened in the past. I strongly believe in the change of commands because it always brings new blood. It's a continuity that we're doing to, you know, it's nothing. I think you did a wonderful job.

Last year, vice chair. But I did chair

it twice. I did chair it twice. Not once. Got it. Twice. I did chair the commission twice. Oh, you did? Once. Yes. I did. Excellent. I'm just saying Go ahead. Appreciate it. It's I'm sure you were excellent. I believe others to respond. I'm not gonna send myself flowers. But at the at the end of this year, it's just to be constructive Yes. And and positive, and I I think everyone deserve a chance. And This is also my last year, and I'm very thankful you were able to do six year, but this is my last year as well. On this term, I've been three years in a row with not a single day that I missed constant consistently.

And I travel the world, and I put my life around parks and recreation commissions. I'm just saying, I wanna be sensitive to the kind of message we're sending out tonight. It's not about continuing to to a work because as a body, we can continue that work together. It's about giving the opportunity to someone to do good as well, to experience it, and continue as a body. I respect all of you.

I would She knows.

Yeah. Commissioner. Yeah. First first

of all, thank you, commissioner, chair Swamy, for all your services. Nobody needs to justify for their absence. It's all within your limit. If you if you are not if it's not going to be within your limits, you will you will be anyways out of the commission. So if you are in the commission, that means you have you have taken time off within the limit.

So no need to explain your personal difficulties for not attending for this thing. I I just feel that, know, you have done a great job. I don't know the history, whatever has happened. But at the same time, I feel that it should be rotated for to give opportunity to others. The reason I chose last month, Commissioner Manapan, is that he's committed to be more present, you know, the the again, abs going 25% absent is is Within the groups.

Within the the. So, otherwise, I see that he does a lot of homework. He puts in a lot of efforts. He's present, and he comes with everything prepared, notes and everything. And every event I see him, that is the one reason I

Thank you.

Thought we should rotate and bring some Commissioner,

Sheena, I I agree with your comments with regard to commissioner Kumarapan. He is just I this is not the first time I'm serving. This is the second time I'm serving two separates in this previous session as well, and I've seen his amazing work. So I know we need to go through the motions, so why don't I just take my chair acceptance back? And I'd like to make a motion to nominate Commissioner Kumar Arun as a chair then.

I I second that. Accept. Oh, you have that set.

You have that set. Yes.

Yeah. Or no. Perfect. Yeah.

Thank you for agreeing to serve. Not serve. I mean, agreeing to stand. What is the next order of business?

So we need to vote on that substitute motion.

Oh, no. Did. This is a substitute. That also requires a discussion.

I'm not sure I heard a response.

Sorry. He said, are you accepting it?

Yeah. I accept.

Okay. Sorry. I didn't hear you. So can you clarify, Lindsay, the motion on the floor so

that way?

Absolutely. So we nominated Kumarapan as chair, and that motion was made by Swamy and seconded by Commissioner Srikin. Correct. Yes.

Yes. Commissioner Stanick, you may. Thank you, chair.

I've seen Oak Mall P chair, and I think he's been a very good chair in the past. And I really appreciate his contributions. I just heard his hesitancy just now about his capital schedule and his ability to be here. And I think that we do have another option. Vice chair Bono has has done has been here.

He's done all of these that I know that that you said you valued in in commissioner Kumar Pan. I think vice chair Bono has has also done. And and I think that commissioner Kamarupan, I understand you have a lot on your plate. Like, you will be on the commission for longer. Hopefully, once you get through those things, there will still be an opportunity for you. And for that reason, I would like to make a substitute motion to nominate Vice Chavonna.

I'd like to make a comment. The whole reason why we have a chair and a vice chair is the vice chair, like, vice chair Bono. Very capable to go over last time, and I really appreciate that. And if whenever the chair is unable to fulfill and you have with all your contingencies worked amazingly well with me, I admire and I I absolutely appreciate the work that you have done. And I just wanna call out that the whole reason why we have, as commissioner Trifant was saying, that beyond 25% absence, you're automatically disqualified and have to step down anyway.

And as someone who has worked so well with me in the past, I would really I I don't think that should be a disqualify. Yes. Commissioner, vice chair Bono.

It's not about disqualifying, but what you're saying is that the vice chair, not in one year, but two years in a row, does not get the title. And, also, it's not about the title, the position doing the chair sometime twice this year, the chair. Uh-huh. But you're we're before the first Once. Motion Twice. No. You didn't That was last weekend, months ago. I promise you that. I'm aware of it.

I did it.

The report should show that I attended

I'd like to continue. So my so I I know I know what I'm doing.

Alright. Please go.

But second of all, minutes ago, he voted for you to be chair because he's not able to do so. So to ask me again Yeah. Why is the work when you know that he has an opportunity next year? I'm still no one has answered my question. Why Bono is not listed here among you? And, we're keeping on talking about the past, about your work together, serving together, being happy together in in creating whatever needs to be done for Parks and Recreation. Okay. I'm not from the past, but I've been serving with you honorably No. You for the past two years and a half.

With me in the past, commissioner, vice chair Bono. And even in those let's actually not talk about the past, present, future. There is

a But you guys are talking about the past. That's why this motion is up.

Absolutely. So if the past is is prologue, draft is prologue. As I said, I was in that commission for four years.

You're right.

And I was not made the vice chair or the chair, and someone who just came on board with one year. So there is a precedent. We're talking about precedents. The vice president. A precedent. You were part of that meeting too when you voted for another commissioner who had just been there for one year. So what what I'm saying is let's not talk about past, present, future. Let's talk about the rules. Right. So here's what I would propose.

She she has a

Yes.

Yeah. Isn't it the process once she nominates the the before commenting, there should

be Someone has to accept.

There is a substitution.

The motion. Right?

He has to accept.

Yeah. It's not common time. Right? They have to Okay.

So we did the opposite. That is true. We did the conversation before The

comments are ended. Commissioner Stanik has nominated you for chair as a substitute motion. And who's seconding it?

As expected. Don't look at me. Look at at

the Alright. If we have no second, then we have to go with the primary motion. There's no second, then there's only one motion that has primary and second.

One second.

Second. Oh, second. I

didn't know what it was.

I second myself. Alright. Okay. We have

a motion and a second for the substitute motion to nominate Vice Chair Bono. Yes.

So I think the staff runs the roll call Yes. Voting for the voting.

If there's no more discussion, that is correct.

I think it's I think the discussions are done at this point. Everything that needs to be said has been said.

Okay. So the first substitute measure we have is to nominate Vice Chair Bono as Chair. Commissioner Kamarupan? No. Commissioner Sriyans? No. Commissioner Sanik? Yes. Vice Chair Bono?

Yes.

Chair Swamy? No. The motion fails with Commissioner Stanick and Vice Chair Bono voting yes.

I think it's on the record. So now we go back to the

Okay. So chair, we go back to the original motion. Can you clarify what that is?

So we would go back to the next substitute motion, which would be for Commissioner Kumar Pon as chair. So should we go to a vote? We have a motion, and we have a second.

I think the motion was made and seconded. I missed the motion and Commissioner Shikha seconded.

Yes. Do. We have a motion and a second, so we can

go to a vote. Please.

Commissioner Kumarapam? Hold on really quick. Did you have your hand down?

No. No. I second. Okay. Yeah.

Sorry. Okay. Commissioner Kumarapan?

Yes.

Commissioner Srikin? Commissioner Sanik? No. Vice Chair Bono? Chair Swamy? Yes. The motion carries with Commissioner Sanik and Vice Chair Bono voting no.

Congratulations.

Congratulations. And let's face Chairs. Chairs, please. Right. Yes. Absolutely. You're carrying on the next motion for the election of the vice chair.

One second.

Yeah. So we do She has a screen. Right? I ran another copy. So, actually,

this is

where we left. Awesome. So you'll see. Okay. Yeah.

Thank you, Jane. So let's go to the item four. The subject is wise check selection, and the recommended action is conduct the selection of the wise check. As for this, I need to go Yes. Read through with this. Oh, that's a news. Staff, can you please provide an overview of the task for this item?

So similar to the last item, would you like for me to repeat the process, or do we feel like we're okay with moving forward?

Yeah. Probably moving forward.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you for providing me the opportunity, but, obviously, we've just done it. So feel free to move forward with the script.

Excellent. Do any commissioners have any client, any questions on the process? No.

No. We got it. We already had it

there now. Thank you. I will now open to public. I'm non distance. So do we have anybody

I don't believe anyone on the public?

We have no speakers, chair.

Thank you. Signal speakers, let I'll close the public comment and invite a motion for the voice chair position. Any motion for the vice chair position, commissioners?

For Commissioner Street, I was seconded.

I have. Yeah.

If don't accept it, that is good. That's a different matter.

Okay.

I'll accept it. Excellent.

Any open to the commission for any discussion on this. Okay. Then I think staff can help us to get the quote.

Okay. Just checking there are no substitute motions. Nobody wants to make a substitute motion? Okay. Commissioner Sri Kim?

Yes.

Commissioner Sanik? Yes. Commissioner Swamy? Yes. Vice Chair Bono? Yes. Chair Kumarapan?

Yes.

Motion carries unanimously. That's fine.

Now you can accept the handshake.

Okay. Thank you all.

That's Sounds fast.

That's pretty fast. Thank you. Congratulations. So let's move on to the the next item on the agenda, which is the fiscal year twenty twenty six and twenty seven community funding application valuation recommendation to city council. The recommended action, what we have on the table is receive staff report, follow for clarifying questions, open the public comment period, receive commissioner's story, review and then cancel the application evaluations, and then provide a funding recommendation to the city council for the fiscal year twenty twenty six, twenty seven community funding applications.

Thank you.

So the process yeah.

Absolutely. And everybody has met Jacinta on several occasions. She will be doing the staff presentation on this item and answering questions.

Right. Thank you.

Please.

Good evening, chair. Vice chair of. It's nice to see you all. Yep. For the second item of the share process.

And tonight, the patient evaluation discussion, we will go over the 27 and

on the eligibility and evaluation process.

This is you.

Neither slides from our position. And from the initial review, it was concluded that 17 application was met eligibility requirements, while the remaining five applications still require further review by the commission to determine eligibility. And final eligibility of the application will be determined by commission

Correct, please.

K. And then during this meeting, the

commission will facilitate the evaluation process and provide a funding recommendation to city council.

And the commissioners, you should

have prepared your preliminary scoring for the organizations prior to this meeting using the or the commissioner evaluation form, which is

attachment c in the staff report agenda. And after, the

will have an opportunity to discuss organization eligibility and questions.

And then after those meeting public comment, Eric will update for providing the totals for. And I will share a screen, like, previously. And I'll see the results

of each submission, and we'll compile that into

the worksheet and select you know if it's something you're discussing

and then the accordingly. The department's currently no pending recommendation.

So

first, you should ask for a public employee right now since

Well, can we ask clarifying questions?

Yeah. First is clarifying questions on. Yes.

May I? First, please, ma'am.

Yeah. Please.

I want to know, especially because I wanted to understand what the confusion was for the staff that and specifically, were the issues that these are have questionable eligibility? And what are the issues that you would recommend we take into consideration as or as we are evaluating it in terms of eligibility so that that guidance will be certainly very helpful?

So this was discussed during March's meeting. It was provided during a staff presentation, and then the commissioners had the opportunity to ask clarifying questions to their organizations. So So a number of organizations, some of their project dates were unclear in their application. Sure. So they had the clarifying questions for the organizations, and they had the opportunity to answer. Some of the organizations, their benefit wasn't clear for the community. And then we had one applicant, and they submitted Yeah. After this kind of one.

So That one was

an easy one, the other ones. Yes. Thank you. I really appreciate. Thank you.

Any other question? I'm just trying to

Thank you.

Are we in addition to the raw scores, are you also going to be normalizing with the ranking, like one two three four, like we did last year? Yes. Okay. Thank you. And so with that, yeah, we wanna make sure that we don't have same score different.

Okay. Gotcha.

I just want to add for future ones that most of all, the five zero one c three and nineteen we saw, I don't think it's fair for a commissioner to find out if they're in good standing with the state. Okay. It should be done automatically so that they are officially vetted. We may have We would have someone that is still not in good standing where might consider give them money. I I don't think it's right.

As a five zero one c three that I've seen many times, I that's important. It should be part of the questionnaire that the city should source to make sure that they're in good standing and even maybe provide a certificate of good standing. That's why I think it would be make life easier for any future commissioner, to be honest.

I would agree. We would all we are all invited to agreement. Okay.

You want? But I I just need to comment on the board, you know, Absolutely. Because as a advisory board here to we are we are analyzing the data and doing it. But if they are to go into the homework of how outstanding and what it is, I think it's beyond the preview of the commissioners where we do it. I think definitely going forward, I would recommend too as well as a fair discussion on this one with you on how this process has to change, and then we'll bring it back. So I think this is the one that totally agree with the function going on evaluating on that particular standing portion.

Your comment's been noted, so thank you.

Thank you. So now the clarification over, we can go for a public comment. Right? If there are any

Yeah.

We have no speakers. Sure. Oh, shoot. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Excellent. Thank you. So now what does he want? Sorry.

I have one clarifying question. If we are going to start giving numbers, should we talk about the eligibility first?

Yeah. So I'm going there right now. So that's what I'm

That was my question.

That's all. Yeah. So before we evaluate, now we need to bring them or not into the bucket of overall. So we need to really go through each one of them that are fine. And we need to I think we can first have a can you help us? Can you help me? So we are fine. We can bring them one by one on the screen, and we know what that is. And we can have a discussion on each commissioner's input, how they feel it and why it's eligible or not. Then based on that, I think we will make a call that pull them into the bucket, original Thank

you.

And then we will go through the because I assume that every commissioner assuming that they will be eligible, we might have done this course. Now we will go and see it whether we need to improve them or not. That's all.

Yeah.

Was that okay?

Yeah. I have just one additional comment to that is there is one other one that was not marked as maybe didn't qualify, and I would like to bring that up for discussion.

Okay. In that case, Safa, since we we thought only five

Yes.

Just to start the buyer. Think our decision. Yeah. So now, I'm sure the commission's stand up found out something one other one. So I would like to bring that first because whether that falls into the five plus one six or not, I would like to bring that one to have a discussion on it. Would that be the right approach?

It's up to you.

Excellent. And I think when commissioner's turnout, it's floor is on you, and you can bring what that particular organization and what the rationale behind your decision or your recommendation.

So is it not part of this coalition?

Within the within the eligible group one, which the staff

So it was not identified as pending eligibility.

Oh. But I have a question of Please.

Yeah. Maybe it shouldn't be. And maybe there's others that you found that you think are questionable from an eligibility perspective So as the one that I had a question on was Sunflower Magic. Okay? And and the proposal that was presented in written form was driving seniors to visit places. And the presentation that we got was a completely different proposal. And I didn't feel like I could evaluate that because what the organization submitted and what they told us were two entirely different things.

Okay. Thank you. Then now we can now we can have a clarification with our discussions directly. Right? So,

I completely agree with that.

I'm just down. On

Yeah. Exactly. Same thing. It it was there was a complete misalignment in her presentation. Even the material doesn't have enough justification. It it just said we want to we want funding for driving the citizens. And but the cause said it is for dance and so it it was all mixed up. It it was there's no clear goal with that

cause. Yeah.

Correct. Thank you. Question, I

went by what she said verbally mostly, which they were partnering with the senior center. They were driving seniors. They only serve nine Cupertino resident. And then it's all about cardio aerobics and timing exercise and and so the older population. When I saw the dance and the picture, was like I the big expensive watch, I was like, okay. That doesn't make any sense. But I hear and I validate what you're saying. But at the end of the day, we are seeing if we want to assist the 501 c three that assist older ladies to become to remain independent. That's the subject for tonight, but it's only nine So so so gonna answer.

Yeah. So well, thank you, Krishna. Do you have any

I I do. I just feel as well. I also want to actually maybe this is why I didn't just kicked in the question of how many brand rates and divvy up the money because some people are asking for a lot of money. Some people are asking for a very little. But if you go by our ratings, ranking because we may if someone's asking 20,000, I may think it's a just cost, but I don't even want to give them the maximum we agree on. Right? I may just think that we should just give thousand or something. They're had the same feeling about this. Because especially for the friction part, they said they're going to be driving around seniors, and a thousand dollars doesn't seem excessive for such

Yeah. I think maybe sorry. I understood. So

question came up

with that.

So I'm not I'm not trying to debate, but I want to add an additional point. So

with that input Yes. I'm just bringing back to the stack. Right? So I hear Christian stand next one and in general. So there's a mismatch. So when the staff approve now, we'll because if we we give it back to the with this input, will staff will still disqualify this? Because we have to

make a call out.

Yeah.

Right? We will make a call. I just wanted to have a question with the staff before because Salve they already made it as eligible, and I don't want

to worry about Yes. Until

otherwise I

don't wanna take the blame.

Yeah. Yeah. No.

Hang on.

May I make a suggestion? Because the staff, if it comes to us, it's a recommendation. We can always choose and start disqualifying them.

Yeah.

We could always choose not to fund them.

Yeah. So the sorry. Yeah. Was the question?

Anyways, we are going to rank them. That that process at the lowest last on the rank. So as the commissioner Swamy said, if we go and rank, then we can prioritize whom we want to allocate funds. By the time we come to the lowest rank, we may not even have funds. So we don't need to necessarily disqualify Yes. At our end. Yes.

Go by ranking. By ranking.

Yeah. Can I I know most of all the applicants are listening tonight? Again, I just want to make sure everyone understand that a $167,000 and a $120 was asked, but we only have 32,500. We have the discretion of the council to provide, like last year, another 2,500, which closed the gap to 35, but we don't know. We're only here to advise. Sorry if we cannot give money to everybody, but we'll do the very best to make everybody happy.

And yeah.

Okay. So okay.

Gonna answer.

So I agree we can definitely rank these low, rank that one very low, and you will see Yes. If we rank them again.

What do

we do? I just think it's a little odd that we would go ahead and send to counsel these applications, but they don't see the presentations. And so they don't know that you know, I don't I don't know what we would be even ranking there. And I think we should highlight at least the council because they can make a different decision. Right? But they're gonna be looking at the the paper application, which is something different. We can

send them. Yeah. Like, we can

we cannot just give them any money, which is No.

That's fine. But as I have a caveat, if may I?

Please.

I can somehow, in the future, see where when I'm applying when an organization applies, they might apply for one thing. And later on during the presentation, I might say, maybe we can do a little bit more than that. And they probably expand on it. That's not just driving. We'll also teach them dancing and give them fun. Right. I don't want that to come across as a disqualifier if they're expanding services per se. No. I I

may I finish this? I think last year, we did a great job, and I think we're gonna do the same tonight. I I don't think even if we list someone at the very bottom, that doesn't mean we have made up our mind. Let's start with the of what we think. Yeah. We can start from the beginning or the last, however you wanna do, and then we'll then have that as a bucket, and then we can decide and yeah. I

so Yeah.

We are serving only nine forty residents. Even if it is on the list, I think the the the council will, you know, understand why we put them on the lower on the back. That's fine. Yeah.

But thank thanks, commissions, for the input, and I just wanna make one comment. So I think the the commission decision of let's be with them, not disqualify it. We will really put our scores accordingly so that we know that. Right? So the reason I I think that's the right approach is, for example, a couple of organization haven't even presented. Right? Couple of them didn't show up. So what happens if they didn't present at all? They just went with the return application. We might have still had them, scored them with that nine participants only and whatnot.

But assuming that what they stated was the right approach. Right? No. I mean, so that means we will be know how to ramp down with Right. Related ranking with others. Right? That's what we are going to do. So I would thank you, Stanik, to bring it up at the disconnect. Yeah. Going forward, I think when the presentation comes to, maybe it's another input to start that if there is a presentation, this has a complete one eighty degree disconnect, then we can take a look at it and say, hey, it doesn't gel at all with what you have been asked for. At this point, we are going to include that as an eligible.

Yes.

And that we will accordingly score based on this disconnect. Everyone has it, so we will score accordingly. So can we move on to those Eligible. Ineligible organization one by one? And I would like to go through every commissioners to get why they still appear it's ineligible or not. So, Carrie, the first one is, I think, the blue leaf.

I think.

So any maybe one by one, you can go closer to the

second. Yeah.

Commissioner, let's go. Do you wanna input? So, Commissioner, we start with you?

And on this one, what was

the basically,

depending on this one.

So we weren't clear on the direct impact. So they were doing the science research and then providing the results to the community.

And then also the Oh, the communities. Yeah.

I'm I'm okay.

Commissioner Buona, you're important.

I second it. Sorry. No. I agree. It's an ongoing research with a multiple year as described. And, again, I don't it says that a 60 Cupertino resident benefits it. I don't know how. So, yeah, I know the it's $7.50. It's not much at all, but I would like to I don't mind excluding it at this time.

K. Voice chair, Shriqa. Is it No. No.

She should go to the okay. All the Sorry. Yeah.

I'm learning.

No. The Blue Leaf Labs, it's an interesting one. And I like like commissioner Borje pointed out, the amount is not a whole lot. It's 750. And this is where I was thinking that the number 60 seems a little it little less or more, one cannot say because he's talking about a project that will actually have huge ramifications. My concern is primarily he's a single person. Is it viable for a long period of time? I don't know. I'd like to see some proof of concept going forward. So hence, I would like to join with the other two and say that maybe not at this time.

But I'm not sure if I would disqualify, but I might say eligible, but I probably might just give a 100 or $200 from my side. But I'm not I am on the fence. Yeah. I I wanted to explain why.

Yeah. I will reserve my hand for the last. Thank you, Akansham. Voice chair.

I I have in my on my lower rank as well.

But for my eligibility, eligibility wise,

there any Okay. Tell me.

Based on your perspective because they couldn't the staff couldn't decide whether they really be eligible or not. But the other commissioner said, yeah, they don't they wanna exclude it, so you were input on that.

Okay. I'm not sure about the eligibility or not not eligible or not eligible part because mainly he's a single student. He's trying to make some change and add some credit to his probably college application. At the same time, I I cannot even say, like, how much impact it's going to do on the city and the residents. So I put this cost on the lower on my right. So if we have any leftover, maybe a couple of 100, we can still be able to file it. Okay.

We are not not saying ineligible. Yeah.

Because you both are not saying ineligible.

We can rank keep them keeping one ranking, but maybe lower at the rank. Because I I don't know about the eligibility. I don't

think it's ineligible for that reason, I believe.

So not necessarily. So is that okay? If you're done, I'll

Yes, please. Comments on this one.

Right? So if there is no direct Cupertino benefits in general. Right? Because that's one of the general plan requirements on what it is. If it's not, it's not.

But it is. Right?

Yeah. So the that's what even you've gone through the application, if it's not at all justifiable for you So there are two parts in it. Right? That's how I see it Right. From my side. For example, we just talked about the previous organization. Right? We talked about so there there there are also only nine Coperino residents are getting benefit. Right? The previous

For a thousand.

That's a that's a

So if you just do an apple to apple comparison, that's a a nine community community members are getting benefited. In this case, it's 60.

Actually, it's lot

That's also done by one person.

Yeah. But that is what we are saying. So we

are asking It's also done by one person.

That that yeah.

So I don't I think we should not make a call on where it's done by one person. The capital of that one person or the team of the team to really doing it on. Right? I don't think that we as a commissioner should use that as because there are many things comes as a one. They may have a backup support and whatnot.

Yeah.

But I my thing is that or really, when I went through application too, is it really attainable, reachable? So not even going into the community. Yeah. But I don't know. Is this one really aligns with the plan and then impact where we can fund. Right? Correct. That's what I see

too

personally on my input. So I'm yeah. Sorry. That's why let me

Once you're done.

So yeah. And then also, I don't see as a huge thing from my perspective because the staff were at that confusion, right, is really on it. And I have the same one. So I'll give the bank note down to the staff because they are they are doing it for years and years on this one, and they have gone through so many organization. So when they were confused on this and they are, and we are at least more than two and myself including, I'm really not completely convinced. That's why I'm I'm joining. And for my person, I think we should exclude it. That's my

That's fine. I have can I change my mind?

Please.

Yeah. Yeah.

I'm not

gonna waste it.

I changed.

For me, it is I'm I'm Uh-huh. Really not for funding it as much only because I need some proof of concept, But I don't think it should be on the basis of eligibility or non eligibility because that's a different scale.

So I

think he

is eligible, but I would not be giving money at this stage till I see a proof of concept.

Okay. That's fine. We each should come should have your own. So they're not going to

Yes.

Become a fabulous thing. Thing on.

Absolutely. Yeah.

So based on this stuff, I think just a discussion. I don't think that we are gonna take a vote on that. Right? Because it's a discussion we already

Session or voting? I think it's a

for it? It's a voting.

No? Vote on this one to become I

don't think so. To be honest, I think I in order to save an hour and a half of our time, you know what we should do? We should put the list on a bucket, those we wanna keep collectively. I agree. Then the last one, we can discuss the last one. We will see immediately in a way who are the top 15. Boom.

I mean, here's the thing. Sorry. That's I think I believe. I don't know. I'm I'm sorry. I ask

the question function of one of three

instead of going through each and every single one whether they're eligible or not, I think we kinda have already an idea of the first 10. Let's go with the first 10. Leave me Let me No. No. No. No. I'm saying the opposite. Let's Those that we keep, and then we can we can start

We can

make Yeah.

I No. No. No. No.

Let me let me go through the Right? So the reason I wanted to do is elimination. Right? Correct. We need to because we once we look into the bucket, we have no idea how it is. So we all assume that these organizations are eligible and they rank accordingly. That's 1¢. But if it is not eligible, at least we should have a less thing to really otherwise, it's it's gonna be confusing at the end. Do we really know go to go through this four or not? Because the 10 top 10 commissioner born in your list, only a different of 10

I They might be the same.

So I put

They may not.

We don't know. I think it's not a long but fine. Yes. What we have done already Yes. So we can just go through quickly and just Yeah. It out. So that we have a IT

We have an easy one, chair.

No. I would like to go through the all the time. I sent it so it's easy for it. So based on this one, we don't have to have the floor. This particular one based on majority of the

commission support,

we can make it as yes. Whatever the staff initially call pending ineligible. Is that hybrid?

Best pending eligibility and then later No.

No. Not

eligible. There's not eligible? No. Yeah.

Staff are initial doubt on it and informed by the consumers. Can we remove it? And then can we move on to the second? Sorry. The question.

Yeah. So are you the need to start fine with these pending eligible items? Only the yeah. Yeah. Okay.

That is

When we are redoing, we we all would have done the homework. We just say yes or no and move past it. We have majority, that means it's gone. Yeah.

Yeah. Just say that why you said no. But that Yeah. Like, commissioner standard said, because we want to know what the rationale behind you say no or yes. That's a one line, then we can move forward. Okay. Yeah. But I have

a problem with eligibility and not eligible eligibility. Because, again, for me, eligibility is whether they are good with the state. Whether they are the other one, we are not inspectors of the five zero one c three. We don't know what and and it's a legal issue of saying the word eligible or not eligible. So that's where I'm getting a little bit like, I would say I would change the word ineligible to we're not gonna give. And it doesn't do we have to say the word ineligible? Absolutely. I hear you that.

I hear you, Commissioner Bono, so I'm gonna direct the question to staff. Right? We had the process, and you, in general, the staff, when I say you the staff defines there to meet specific criteria. If not, they are not eligible. Right? You have the criteria. You are very clearly defined, and it is published. Everyone knows. So that's why there is an eligibility can be called out, and I don't I don't think that anything is based on five one three c. If that is the case, then staff might have already put it in the different bucket.

I think the if I understand correctly, the the confusion is their goal, their vision, and how it really directly touches the Cupertino's plan and the impact. That's where the they were confused and they stopped there and say, we feel it's not eligible, but you make a call. Right? So that's why I said that it's nothing to do with their good standing. As per my

understanding No. No. I wasn't saying that. I'm saying that it the the eligible or ineligible, it it drives more within the organization itself compared to

the application process.

No. It's complicated. But the application is 5,000 pages. So I'm just saying all combined. I'm just saying it I think it's complicated to do it that way of the word in a is

a problem.

Cheti Kumar, are there any of our staff, is are there any of these applications where they're not in good standing with the No.

No. So let me not let's so my my understanding again, let me go back and focus on. Right?

Yeah.

None of these applications are being called out by the staff that it is not in a good standing.

Okay. Then

And that's why they are not Yeah. Very eligible. That's not it.

Okay.

As staff, just she pointed out

Yeah.

There is a confusion, and she's going to tell for every organization why they felt that this is not So well, let's just focus only on that. Yeah. No peripheral things should be done. So let's move on. I think this particular one moved on to goes with what the initial recommendation of staff where they felt it is pending. It may not be eligible for getting into this application process. It's okay. We assume we all agree. Not all. Four of the commissions agreed. So let's put on the bucket. So now let's go to the second one.

So the second one is food lifts. Yeah.

Food lifts. Yeah.

And this one is the the food recovery program. Farmers market.

Farmers market. And

Yes. And then they listed a three to

four year program. It's an ongoing program. And then per the community planning policy,

the funds should be for specific needs, not ongoing and operational costs.

And, this applicant listed, like, website and domain fees, van rentals, tracking, and data marketing stuff, and we kinda see that as ongoing operational. So

this Okay.

Okay. Okay. So this particular organization, because they asked for ongoing one not for the one year, what we are looking at.

There's ongoing

Ongoing operation. Three to four year. Four year process. So that's great. So with that rationale, that's what staff assumes. So let's open up for a discussion. Is there any commissioners have any different opinion? Or

I agree a 100%.

It's it's a tough one. And I did I

love this. I love

what they're doing. Don't get me wrong.

But it doesn't fit our program. We have rules we're supposed to follow, and that's Okay. What I

think we're supposed to do. For the one year 2026 and '27. If that is the case. Yeah. Okay.

So I was saying $1,500 goes to material, $800 in U Haul, 1,500 in safety gear, and $50 in website. That that indeed is operational cost, but it's it's they're fighting food waste and food insecurity. Yeah. And they're recovering over 500 pounds of produce for West Valley Community Service. So I'm just saying, it's great. And and and it's it this is not about, in this case, administration cost. It's the those who are food insecure get the food, and it's wonderful for a young kid to even do that. Yeah. And it has helped 1,500 Cupertino resident.

Yes. Yeah. So I

thought I would like

to just to kinda just respond to it before. I think I I've gone through that too. I think the every application, again, I just wanna make sure that the topic probably as well as the folks who have submitted and we are putting in a different bucket too. We are not questioning or validating whether they are doing the right thing or not. It is about when they submit application, maybe this particular applicant will go through this and submit it next year in a in a way that that's for 2026.

This is what I need and I'm going to do this one. Not for the four years kind of. I think they will learn it. That because the application guidelines, staff put this specific to 2026, what you're going to do, how it is, because you need to return report back on what the money you got it and how it has been spent. Right? This particular person will be in difficult portion because it's for a three to four year program. There's nothing for that one year. So it is not narrowed down. It's a four year, five year. That's how we are debating on it. Nothing to do with it. I totally agree. I look through it. Phenomenal effort. I'm sure that this particular person will come back with a much more things on.

Okay. Now I learned it. This is all the city application process and what their funding is. I will come back with the twenty twenty six, twenty seven, whatever. How do I do it? Right?

Yeah.

So absolutely, please, whoever we do, we are not invalidating their vision and what they wanted to do, their mission, and how they are they are and especially they are a student, I know. So they have the fire in it. I absolutely support. But I wanna put the guardrails of the application process and they that's why I I just that's my comment on it.

Yeah. One.

Oh, can we just do oh, sorry. Commissioner Swamy and then voice chat.

Okay. Must say I actually am so aligned with commissioner Bono on this one. Because here's the thing. Are we going to invalidate somebody just because they did not see, everything a lot of them are operational costs. And we have funded lot of things that actually are operational in some way.

How they actually framed it is a different matter. They asked for $2,500. If they've said it for three years, we can say, okay, divide that by one third for this year because and, you know, that's the ask because we can't find three years out. So let's divide 2,400 to about, you know, whatever it comes up to. I have to do the quick math, $800, 800 change, something like that, because should we punish somebody who's doing such amazing job? Because food waste is America is known for food waste. They throw huge amounts of it. And it's just a matter of picking and dropping that it will be operational. How can we say just because it's operational, it is invalidated? I have

So sorry. Sorry. Like No. I think before we come to commission, again, I just wanna clarify this. We didn't this quality or we didn't put it as ineligible state for now for discussion is not because it's only operation. It is a three to four years along operational expenses are, like, setting up website and all the track and all of them. So we don't know how it is going to help on the first year and how we are going to fund it for that one year narrow. That's the reason. So I don't think that the staff put in there. So I just wanted to

do want to disagree with you on that because a website, if I'm putting it this year, I may not change it for five years. So how do you say

that just because I'm not the website. It should not be fixed.

On it. I'm just clarifying the staff's position on it.

So No. No. I understand. That's That's what the staff gave it to us.

And I

think we should not inelig make them ineligible entirely. We can cut it. Yeah. We'll move on

this side. Yeah. I think

our recommendation. Yeah. Question.

So yeah. I think we

should put

it at the lower the rank, but I feel that that there is a goal for the there is a mission for this grant, Cooper University grant. There are certain criteria that people should meet, and it has to be for a specific project for that year, not operational cost for a few houses.

500 That

doesn't matter. With their the amount of they are doing a great class. Everyone agrees to that. They are not evaluating You said

their values. Two fifty residents. They are 500. Yeah.

So, like, can can I just finish? So what I'm saying is we are not evaluating the values of the cause itself of what we are seeing is, you know, whether they qualify for this grant application. And, clearly, it looks like it's not because they are asking for operational cost. This is something educator for them as well. Next year, they would come up with a project in mind saying this year, this farmers market we are going to attack. For that, we need money. Then definitely, we would do 100% to them. It's our

Yeah. I agree. I agree.

Good. So sorry. One last thing finish to this.

Just to be honest with you, when an other every nonprofit or any people that request for funds, if anyone says that it's not going to operational cost Yeah. It seems to me the structure that your chair has just established through the because we didn't raise that last year Yes. It means that nobody will be eligible. That's exactly That was I don't think it's makes sense. No. It's fine. I again,

I'm because no one's just saying

and then you you all have a majority of them wanting to add into it. Yeah. So that's, like, what I'm hearing based on that. But think

Yeah.

You're good to go and add them into it. What do you think for them? Or how do They

should hold them. I don't think they they would be you know, they can put them at the lower price, but I don't think they qualify for this because of the application.

Okay. I'll try to May I ask

the clarifying question of the staff?

Yes or no? If they're eligible. Yeah. That's all. We just already know. Okay. No. Yes. Yeah.

Yes. No. No. Yes. Absolutely. Because everyone's using it for operational. Yeah.

And you

Whether they say it or not.