Wed, Nov 5, 2025·Sacramento, California·Ann Land and Bertha Henschel Memorial Funds Commission

Ann Land Bertha Hinchel Memorial Fund Commission Meeting (2025-11-05)

Discussion Breakdown

Budget and Finance74%
Homelessness18%
Procedural5%
Community Engagement3%

Summary

Ann Land Bertha Hinchel Memorial Fund Commission Meeting (2025-11-05)

The Commission convened with a quorum, approved prior minutes, and conducted its annual review of grant applications for 2026 allocations. Staff confirmed $190,000 was available, noted scoring limitations for several commissioners (technical access issues, a conflict of interest, and a newly appointed commissioner), and the Commission questioned applicant organizations—frequently emphasizing alignment with the Fund’s priorities (food, shelter with wraparound services, and transportation) and discouraging indirect/administrative costs and non-priority “supplies” requests. After a recess, the Commission adjusted scores, debated a funding cutoff and percentage tiers, and adopted a final allocation package totaling $189,830.

Consent Calendar

  • Approved meeting minutes (motion passed, roll call unanimous among those present).

Discussion Items

  • 2026 Funding Allocations (Grant Application Review and Applicant Q&A)

    • Staff overview: $190,000 available for allocation; prior maximum per grantee had been set at $12,500 (raised from $10,000).
    • Attendance requirement reiterated: applicants without a representative present were disqualified.
    • Common commissioner guidance across multiple applicants (positions):
      • Commissioners repeatedly stated that requests for administrative/indirect costs, outreach, staff/volunteer reimbursement, insurance, and general supplies were typically not funded.
      • Commissioners emphasized that applicants should align budgets and narratives to the Commission’s priorities: food, shelter with wraparound services, and transportation.
      • Commissioners noted they review websites for credibility/verification and encouraged updates where information was missing or outdated.
  • Applicants disqualified for non-attendance (no representative present)

    • Asian Resources
    • Center for Employment Opportunities
    • E.N.C.O.M.P.A.S.S. Housing (listed as “Income encompass housing”)
    • Food Literacy Center
    • Meals on Wheels
    • Next Move Homeless
    • Sacramento Youth Center
    • The Gathering Inn
  • Selected applicant Q&A highlights (positions and clarifications)

    • Classy Inc.: Commissioners questioned “supplies” and service geography; applicant stated supplies were primarily packaging/delivery materials and that they operate at Sacramento locations; applicant stated shelter partners vary year-to-year (not a single consistent shelter partner).
    • Call for Hood: Commissioners expressed concern that only about 15% of the budget was for food and the remainder for other items (school supplies, hygiene kits, etc.); applicant stated funds would go directly to community pop-up services and acknowledged feedback to better align with priorities.
    • Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) of Sacramento County: Commissioners questioned lack of direct food/shelter budget lines; applicant stated volunteer advocates connect foster youth to resources (including food banks/housing help) and discussed considering more direct emergency support (e.g., grocery cards).
    • EGE Foundation: Commissioners asked about controls on food gift cards and gas cards; applicant described forms/limits and the intent to restrict to food needs, plus gas cards and Uber options; commissioners raised website credibility/update concerns.
    • First Step Sacramento Homeless (new applicant): Commissioners questioned budget portions for outreach/supplies and volunteer mileage reimbursement versus direct client food; applicant stated “supplies” were food-service/distribution items and that meals are the core service; commissioner advised focusing on priorities rather than volunteer reimbursement.
    • Love Is The Answer Ministries: Commissioners clarified food line item included purchasing (not just distribution) and discussed rent assistance amounts; commissioner asked about an audit report “other expenses” line item; applicant referenced 2024 expenditures and other grant funding.
    • Sacramento Loaves & Fishes (milk program): Commissioner requested clarification on evaluation; applicant stated they collect monthly data from programs on children/families served and compile quarterly/annually.
    • St. John’s Program for Real Change: Commissioner noted a shift from prior years (historically near-100% food requests) to supplies/insurance; commissioner encouraged future alignment with funding priorities.
    • South Sacramento Interfaith Partnership: Commissioner asked about tracking; applicant stated they use a Sacramento Food Bank-provided database.
    • Youth Services: Commissioners flagged indirect costs as typically not funded.
    • Women of Color on the Move: Commissioner questioned certification signature initials; applicant identified signer; commissioner raised concerns about administrative/training/case management costs and requested clearer staff experience.
    • Women’s Empowerment: Commissioner asked what “and more” meant in housing assistance; applicant stated it could include rental assistance and support like paying past bills to improve credit for housing eligibility.
    • Yancy Outreach International: Commissioner stated the application lacked City-of-Sacramento geographic specificity; commissioners raised concerns about a large share for bedding/hygiene/outreach materials and vague assessment details; applicant described partnerships with transitional housing and stated service across Sacramento County.
    • YMCA: Commissioner noted request was for transportation/camp costs for children in a shelter program and did not provide a food-cost breakdown; commissioner stated those categories were not historically funded.

Key Outcomes

  • Grant allocation methodology discussion

    • Commissioners discussed establishing a score cutoff and applying percentage tiers to requested amounts (funding “upward” to prioritize best-aligned applications).
    • Discussion referenced 70% of total possible score (415 points) as a potential cutoff, and debated cohort/tier approaches and minimum meaningful award sizes.
    • Staff advised staying at/under the available amount for equity/contracting practicality; final package was brought to a total under the cap.
  • Approved 2026 funding allocations

    • Motion: Approve the 2026 funding allocations “as shown on the screen” totaling $189,830.
    • Vote: Passed by roll call (Aye: Coletto, Malik, Brown, Stevens, Ubog, Rule, Vice President Smith, President Ellis; Absent: Contreras, Seymour, Beckman).
    • Staff confirmed final scores/allocations would be published online as a supplemental and emailed/printed for commissioners.
  • Commissioner comments / next steps

    • Commissioners requested a January meeting discussion to consider process improvements, including application requirements (e.g., website information) and training on reviewing financials and application materials.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • No public speaker slips were submitted on the consent calendar or for matters not on the agenda; clerk also confirmed no public speakers on the final allocation vote item.

Meeting Transcript

Good morning and welcome to the Ann Land Bertha Hinchel Memorial Fund Commission meeting. The meeting is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the role to order to establish a quorum? Thank you, President Ellis. Member Contreras is absent. Member Malik? Present. Member Brown? Member Stevens? Member Ubag? Member Seymour? Is absent. Member Beckman is absence. Member Rule. Vice President Smith. And President Ellis. Present. Thank you. We have quorum. I would like to remind members of the public and in the chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins. You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on. After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips. We will now proceed with today's agenda. My apologies, uh city clerk's office. Um we also have ex officio member um uh Peter Coletto here as well. My apologies. No problem. I'm here. Okay. If um if you can stand for the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance. To the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Madhu Valley and Plains Miwok, Pat Wintoon peoples, and to the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federal recognized tribe. May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's History, contributions, and lives. Thank you. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar? Thank you, President Ellis. I have no speaker slips. Thank you. Are there any commissioners who would like to speak on this item? I'll move consent. Is there a motion in a second for the consent calendar to approve the Ann Land Berth and Hinchel Memorial Funds Commission meeting minutes? I'll move consent. And a second by Commissioner Rule. The roll for the vote. Thank you, Chair. Member Coletto? Aye. Member Contreras is absent.