Okay. Good morning or afternoon and welcome to the Handline and Birthday Henshel Memorial

Fund Commission meeting. Am I on? Yes. No. Yes. The meeting is now called to order. Will

the clerk please read the roll call to establish a quorum?

Thank you, President. Commissioners, please unmute your microphones. Ex officio member

Peter Coletto is absent. Vice President Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Contreras. Here. Commissioner

Brown. Commissioner Stevens. Here. Commissioner Ubeck. Here. Commissioner Beckman. Here.

Commissioner Ruhle. Here. Commissioner Inaosa. Here. President Smith. Here. Thank you. We

have a quorum. Thank you. I would like to remind members of the public and chambers,

if you'd like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a slip. When the item begins, you'll

have two minutes to speak once you're called on and after the first speaker on that item,

we no longer accept speaker slips. We will now proceed with today's agenda. If everyone

would please rise for the land acknowledgement. Acknowledgements are in honor of Sacramento's

indigenous people and tribal lands to the original people of this land, the Nisaynian people,

the southern Maidu, the valley and plains Miwok, the Patwin-Winton peoples, and the people of

the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally 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 active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's

indigenous peoples' history, contributions, and lives. Please remain standing for the pledge

of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the

Republic for which it stands, a nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Before we get started on the new business, I want to welcome four new commissioners to the

An-Line and Birth Ihential Memorial Fund Commission. Alex Brown. Oh, there you are.

Okay. Joseph Contreras. Kim Stevens. And Teresa Ubegg.

The commission has changed to appointments being done by city council seat now. It used to be all

general positions. And so each of these people have been appointed by their city council person

to a four-year term on this commission, which is also a change. There's several on the commission

currently who were appointed to six-year terms. So I want to welcome the new commissioners. We're

very happy to have you here. We look forward to working with you. And later in the meeting,

I'll talk through a little bit of what we do between now and the end of the year and the

November meeting that we have where we decide on who gets what funding.

So our first order of business today is the approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

I have no public comment for this item. Thank you.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item? This is approval of the

Anline and Birth Ihential Memorial Fund Commission meeting minutes, which were published

a few days ago. And the commissioners all got links to these. Are there any

comments or requests for correction for the commission meeting minutes of November 6th?

Okay. Hearing none, is there a motion and second for the consent calendar?

So I'll move. Thank you.

Okay.

Oops. I accidentally just called you.

All right. It has been moved by commissioner Contreras and seconded by commissioner.

There you are. I couldn't remember which hand was raised. I had to look.

That we approve the consent item. Will the clerk please call the roll for a vote?

Yes. Commissioners, please unmute your microphones. Exo official member Peter is absent. Vice

President Ellis. I. Commissioner Contreras. I. Commissioner Brown. I. Commissioner Stevens.

Commissioner Uberg. I. Commissioner Beckman. I. Commissioner Ruhle. I. Commissioner Inaosa. I.

And President Smith. I. Thank you. The motion passes. Okay. The second item on the agenda

is the assignment of 2025 site visits. For the new commissioners, we determine in November who gets

money. And then we issue them the first payment typically in January. And then

part way through the year, each commissioner does two or three or however many is necessary.

Site visits to ask a series of questions that we have to each of these people who we've given

money to. The site visits can be virtual or in person. We used to always do them in person.

During the pandemic, we went to only doing them virtually and now they are done as each

commissioner sees fit. I personally find that in person visits are much more productive. You

learn a lot more about the about the grantees. So we've already granted the money. And so during

the site visit, it's just an introduction to a member of the commission. It's the pattern

questions that we've developed for that meeting. We also give them a chance to add anything they

want to add after we're through with our questions. And then we submit those site visits to the

clerk's office, sorry, to Brian who compiles them. The site visits typically need to be completed

by a certain date. And they need to be completed by that date because they become part of our

meeting materials that we have before we go through the next grant process. So if there are

problems or if we have suggestions or people who are really opposed to something we've done or some

way we've done something, then this gives us a chance to adjust our processes to deal with those

concerns or help the grantees understand why we do things the way we do. So with that understanding,

I just want to go through the list. I think you each have been given a list of grantees. It looks

like this. We will go through and if there are people that want to volunteer for certain ones

because of a specific interest you have or that have been to the current commissioners, if you've

been to a site one or more times and you'd rather not go there, you'd rather go somewhere new,

then that would be good to know as well. So I'd like to just go down the list and see if we have a

volunteer. We need one commissioner to go to each grantee. Is that okay with everybody? Any

questions before we start? Great. Thank you. So the first one is Weave Incorporated, which is a

we give money to their women's shelter that is here in Sacramento. They actually have a couple

different shelters, but we give them funds. Might be interested in going. I would be interested

in going. Okay. Catherine, commissioner, roll. Meals on wheels. Okay. Joseph.

Hi. Sorry. I'm taking notes to make sure we capture this. So if you could just

say I and your name so I can capture it for you, then I just want to make sure we have it on record

with the video as well. Right. Commissioner Contreras was the last one. Thank you so much.

Thank you, commissioner. Okay. St. John's Program for Real Change.

Hi. Beckman. First step housing, first step communities. Hi. Alex. Okay. Alex.

Sorry. Commissioner Brown.

Wind Youth Services.

I, commissioner, Ina Hosa.

Asian Community Center, DBA ACC Senior Services. Hi. Teresa. Okay.

Commissioner Ubeg. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Ubagh. Okay. Thank you.

Next move Sacramento Homeless Services. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Stevens.

Wellspring Women's Center.

I, commissioner, Ina Hosa. Okay. Commissioner Ina Hosa.

Sacramento LGBT Community Center. Hi. Okay. Commissioner Roll.

And one second.

So it looks like we each need to do two, and one person will need to do three.

Okay. The South Sacramento Interfaith Partnership.

Want to duke it out? Okay. No. Commissioner Brown raised his hand as well.

I don't, I don't care. Whoever wants to do it is fine. I'll take it. Okay. All right.

Thank you. Sacramento Regional Justice, Regional Family Justice Center. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Re-imagine Mac Road Foundation. Hi. Beckman. Okay.

Okay.

Repairing the Breach Neighborhood Project.

Commissioner Ellis, you want to take that one?

I can go ahead and take that one. I was trying to wait for the ones that I have not done. A lot of these I have done.

Oh, okay. That's okay. You don't, you don't have to. I can take that one because I haven't taken any either.

So I'll do repairing the breach. Women's Civic Improvement Club.

Hi. Theresa. Okay.

Center for Employment Opportunities.

Hi. That's all right. Okay. Thank you.

I know it's difficult because you have no idea who these organizations are unless you've

experienced them in the, in the community. So you'll learn a lot about them when you do your

state visits. Thank you for that. Sierra Service Project. I'll take that one.

Josh's heart. Hi. Sheila. Okay.

Commissioner Ellis, sorry about that. That's all right.

William CA of Superior, California.

I, Commissioner Ellis. Okay.

Okay. Who doesn't have two? Do we all have two so far? Okay. So now we'll see who's,

who's willing to do, last year we had to do five each. So this is a, this is much easier lift.

Love is the answer, mission ministries.

I'll take that. Okay.

I'm sorry. Who was that? Who was that that just said I'll take that?

Kathy rule. Oh, rule. Thank you.

EGE foundation. I, Commissioner Ellis. Okay. I'm not sure I remember that name.

Okay. All right.

Do you want to look at mine to be sure you've got everybody?

Okay. Assuming you can read my handwriting. Thank you very much.

Okay. So there's no vote required on that. There is a vote. Okay.

Right. Okay. And I didn't see any people in the audience. So I didn't ask for speaker slips.

Yeah. I'll say for the record, there are no speakers on this item. Okay. You need to designate

the date by which commissioners should submit site visit reports to commission staff. Okay.

So I need a motion to approve the list of volunteers that we just came up with. Would

somebody like to make a motion? I make a motion to approve the volunteers for the 2025 site visits.

Okay. It's been moved by commissioner Ellis and seconded by commissioner contraris that we approve

the assignment of site visits for 2025. Will the clerk please call the roll call for vote? Yes.

Commissioners, please unmute your microphones. Ex officio member Peter Coletto is absent.

Vice president Ellis. Aye. Commissioner contraris. Aye.

Aye. Commissioner Brown. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. Commissioner Uberg. Aye.

Commissioner Beckman. Aye. Commissioner Ruhl. Aye. Commissioner Inoosa. Aye. And president Smith.

Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Okay. The next item is setting a date by which these need to be returned. And in the past we've

done as early as June 30th and as late as July 30th. And so I need to know from staff what date

works with you and your schedule of getting things done.

I think you're muted. Yes.

Oh, I can unmute. Thank you. I think July 30th would be the latest depending on how your

schedule works. That way I have time to compile the results and any feedback before our August

meeting. So it's just going to depend on I know that many of you are new. If you have

availability, we want to get it done before the end of the fiscal year. We can do that.

But I can go as late as July 30th.

Was there any comment from the commission? Can you share when is the next meeting August?

What do you have that date? I don't know if that would be helpful as far as June 30th or July 30th.

I believe your next meeting is August 6th. August 6th. Yes. Okay. I think going to July 30th would

be problematic. It would put a lot of pressure on you to get it done in less than a week.

So maybe we could go to the maybe the 10th of July is three weeks enough for you, Brian.

So I have the meeting on August 27th on my calendar. I don't know if Clark can confirm.

But that's why I was a little bit confused because I believe it's at the end of the month.

Can we confirm? But I have it on my calendar as August 27th.

I also have it on August 27th. So do I. Be as well.

One moment, please.

I apologize. I believe Brian's correct. I do a few commissions. So I thought you all were the first

Wednesday, but it looks like you're the last Wednesday of the month. So

Vice President Ellis is correct. And it looks like maybe the 31st of July would be a plausible date

for you all. Okay. So I'll leave it up to

Commissioner Contreras. Do you have something you'd like to say?

No, I just wanted to know the process of how we set up a meeting. So once we agree on this today,

then the city will send you the contact information for the people that you

are assigned to meet with along with the questionnaire. And then you'll use that questionnaire

to guide your discussion with them. You'll just contact them directly, set up a time,

and then you'll go out and do your site visit. Or if you're not able to go out and want to do it by

telephone, that's okay too. And then during the conversation, you just make notes and then you

turn in the final version of that site visit report back to the city staff. So after this meeting,

they will send us out this list of assignments and attached to that will be the form that we use

that we use to send back to them. So it's all done electronically, except the visit, which is done in person.

Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.

Okay. So what works best for you?

Okay.

Let's do the end of July. Okay.

All right. So we'll set July 31st as the due date. Does this require a vote

to approve? Yes. Yes. Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion to set a due date for the site

visits to be turned in of July 31st? I make a motion to set the due date of the 2025 site visits to

July 31st. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Okay.

All right. It's been moved by Commissioner Ellis and seconded by Commissioner Beckman

to set the due date for the site visits to July 31st.

Are there any people in the public that want to speak on this item?

I do not have any public comment on this item. Okay. Are there any other commissioners that wish

to speak on this item? All right. We have a motion and a second. Would the clerk please read the

roll call for the vote? Yes. Thank you. Commissioners please unmute your microphones. Ex officio

member Peter Coletto is absent. Vice President Ellis. Aye. Commissioner Contreras. Aye. Commissioner

Brown. Aye. Commissioner Stevens. Aye. Commissioner Uberg. Aye. Commissioner Beckman. Aye. Commissioner

Rule. Aye. Commissioner Inosa. Aye. President Smith. Aye. Thank you. The motion passes.

Okay. The next agenda item is the semiannual reports for July through December 2024.

I know there is a staff presentation so I will turn it over to Brian Vargas, the City of Sacramento.

Thank you. So I attached the, it's this sheet right here. This is the

summary or overview of the semiannual reports also in your staff report. You should see all of the

individual reports as well. So we received most of the reports from the organizations except for seven.

So that would be Meals on Wheels, My Sister's House, Robert's Family Development Center,

Sierra Service Project, South Sacramento Christian Center, Travelers Aid Emergency Assistance Agency,

and Wyn Youth Services. So those are the seven that are missing. We'll be contacting them to try

to get those reports. When were they due? They were due January 15th, 14th. Has there been any

follow-up with them since we're four months beyond that? Yes. So most four months beyond that.

Many of them are actually grantees this year so there has been communication.

That's still no reports. Okay. The commission has discussed in the past

what to do about organizations that we give $10,000 to that choose not to follow the rules.

And so

is there anyone on the commission that has thoughts about?

I have a quick question. Yes. This is rule. I'm just looking at the list of recipients in the

table, the Excel sheet, and then the list of recipients that we just called out to do site

visits and they don't mesh one-to-one. So I think this might be last year's group.

It's just last year's. They were due in January for the year of 2024. Understood.

But we do have grantees this year that have not submitted their final report for last year.

Understood. I have a question for Brian. As far as communication, has there been phone calls

and emails and are you documenting day and time? So what have you as far as when you have reached

out to them? I'm just trying to get a sense of how many times you have reached out to them.

So usually I try to do a phone call and an email. Some of these grantees are also part of other

grants that I manage. So I'm in constant communication with them. I would have to look at,

pull out the report for which ones I talk to exclusively for this grant and which ones are

part of different grants. Our office manages a few grants and many of these organizations

participate in many of them. So I don't have an exact answer. But there is constant communication

with the organizations. Thank you. Are there any other commissioners that, oh, commissioner

Contreras, did you want to speak? That was from last time. Oh, okay. Thank you.

All right. Are there any other commissioners that have thoughts to share? I'm very concerned that

it's May tomorrow and we have no idea what's going on with these seven people that we've given a big

chunk of money that we don't have dates on which they've been contacted. We don't have copies of

emails they've been sent. I've talked to most of them, in my opinion, is not an appropriate answer

to the what are we doing? Because then we don't have any information on which to base any action we

want to take against these people. And so I'm concerned that the lack of follow-up or the lack

of ability to describe the follow-up is probably a better way to say it. That we, the commission is

without information it needs to conduct our business. Am I the only one that feels that way or are

there other commissioners that have thoughts to share? Okay, commissioner Braun.

I know you said it was discussed, but were there any like prevailing thoughts of what

the commission should do for people that don't turn in? No, we've never, we've always

through lots of follow-ups gotten the final reports from everybody, usually no later than this

meeting. So it's really unusual to have seven people that we have no idea what's going on with them

or no detail about what's going on with them. Just to clarify a little bit, I don't want to put on

record that we don't have an idea. I think we just need to collect that information per your

request today. We didn't have a meeting in January so that put us behind a little bit,

but we'd be more than happy to look back and look at our communication with those seven individuals

and provide an update to the group. We can do that via email, so you don't have to wait until August

to get that information again, but we'll definitely ensure that we're tracking that for you all since

it's something you're interested in to utilize to your decision-making in the future. But yeah,

so we'll definitely get that. We just, we're not going to, you know, we're not going to say, we've

contacted them all three times when maybe some of them we've talked to once, maybe sometimes we've

talked to three times, so we just want to give accurate information. We'll do so, we'll provide

that to you via email. If we do see gaps in communication then we'll be sure to reach out to

them so we can have that information for you in August and it's accurate. Okay, in my seven years

on the commission we've never not had that information, so it's a concern for me.

Commissioner Ellis? Yes, do you know when is a week enough time for you to get that information

to us or do you need more time? Sure, we'll try our best to get it within the next week.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Beckman? So there are three

agencies or organizations that have not turned in their paperwork or their reports that we have

site visits that are going to be occurring before the next meeting and I think it would be appropriate

for us to figure some action or something that the commission would like to find out when those

agencies are visited because I think it does need to be addressed. It could, you know, there might be

extenuating circumstances. There are a lot of issues now with people having a difficult time

with staffing, so it could be that there's something, but I do think that it would be

appropriate for us to at least have some direction for the commissioners that are going to be going

out on site to those three agencies. Right, I think that's why it's important that we get that

update from the city staff, so thank you. I appreciate you raising that. Thank you.

Commissioner Stevens?

Hello, guys. What protocols that we have in place when people are not in compliance?

So the city staff, historically, if they're due on January 15th, if we don't, if they don't have them

a week after that, they send an email to follow up. If they don't get them after that, they make a phone

call and tell them how important it is that we get that report because it is part of the requirements

for them receiving that money and they sign something that says they will comply with these

requirements. So they are out of compliance with the grant. For people that have grants this year,

that could give us a tool to withhold their second payment until we get it,

because the second payments go out in July, and so we could say you're not going to get your second

payment in July if we don't have your last report from last year. We've never had to do that before,

but we certainly could. But they are out of compliance with their grant document that they

signed a testing that they would do this. So I don't know that there's a legal,

any legal consequence for them. I would have to defer to Ms. Gill, our city attorney.

Yes, hi. Good evening, everyone. We would have to review the grant agreements with staff. I believe

that there are provisions included within the grant agreement that allows, I don't know if it's the

timeline where we don't remit a payment if we don't receive the report, but in this last go-around,

we did update our grant guidelines to where the payments would not be provided if the grant

reports are not received. So the timeline was changed a bit to make it easier in these situations.

But in terms of 2024, we'll go back and review the grant agreements and guidelines to see what

processes we have. Okay. So if they are current grantees, we could tell them we're not going to

issue that the second payment on their current grant if they don't close out their prior grant?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure on that. I'll review our 2025 grant agreements to see if there's a

potential clawback provision for 2024 or like a hook to 2024. Okay. And then because those

payments go out in July and we don't have a meeting before the next payments go out,

how do we go about dealing with this this year? So for our 2024 grant recipients who

I'm trying to think, Renee, when we updated our grant agreements, it was for the 2025 grant

agreements, correct? Yeah. So for our 2024 grant recipients, we'd be working off of that grant

termination provision, those grant termination guidelines, and any sort of grant clawback

procedures would be based on that grant agreement. So we'll work internally with staff to see what

remedies that we would have. And we can bring once I think we get a better update of who's

provided their reports, then I think we can have a better idea of how to move forward.

Okay. If our commissioners are scheduling meetings with these folks,

it would be good to know when they if they meet with one of the people who didn't comply with

their grants from last year, what they could or could not say to them or what they should say to them.

So is it possible that you communicate back to us for the, is it three or four that are grantees?

Somebody down there counted. I don't think there's anything that I would caution you

against saying because I don't think that there would be anything that we could say that would

hinder a legal position of ours. Okay.

So we could, as part of the site visit, if they're one of those, is it three or four?

One of you, one of you down here counted. I counted three Meals on Wales,

Sea or Service Project and Wind Youth Services. Okay. So if you have one of those, then we can say,

you know, we didn't get your, didn't get your second report timely. If we haven't gotten it yet

and we don't have it in July, then we may withhold the second part of your grant this year.

I don't know if that is possible for the 2024 grant agreements. We'll have to,

I'll have to go back and check on the grant guidelines to see what our remedy is,

especially now that I believe the payments have already been made.

The July payments? No, for our 2024 grantees. Oh, the final payment. Yeah. This is just

their final report to close out the year. Yes. So yeah, but there needs to be some way,

some consequences. They shouldn't be able to ignore a requirement of the grant and still get

their full amount the following year. Yes. I believe we do have provisions in that grant

agreement. So we'll work on them with staff. Okay. I have a question. Of course. If there's

nothing in the grant provisions, is that something that we can put in the provisions moving forward?

We do have provisions within our 2024 grant guidelines that talk about non-compliance

and what the remedies are for the city in areas of non-compliance. And then when I was discussing

an update to our grant guidelines, that was for 2025. We just made it a little bit more seamless

in case there were non-compliance. Okay. So what you're saying is we don't know if there's

a compliance tool in the 2024 grant? Oh, I'm sorry. There is a compliance tool in the 2024

grant. I'm just not up to date on what that tool is and what that procedure looks like,

but I'll review those grant guidelines and agreements again with our staff and then

we can work with them to see who's provided a report and then the ones who haven't. We can

determine how best to use that mechanism. But there is a provision in our grant guidelines

as well as our newer ones too. Okay. It would be great to have that information,

especially for the commissioners going to those three, those three organizations.

Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'm sorry. And Commissioner Ube also has her request to speak.

Sorry again. Can't speak. So do we have checkpoints for the grantees so they know when they're

approaching the deadline and then are there, is there like assistance if they say, you know what,

we lost staffing, we need help completing. Is there that type of assistance to help the grantees to

submit that report? And then if there are a non-compliance and they're up to get another grant,

then it seems like we are following bad habits. Like what are we doing to circumvent that? What

are we doing to acknowledge, look, we want to provide you this grant, but you must stay in

compliance. And this is what we're willing to do to help. And this is what we need for you to do,

to receive. Right. We actually, this actually is the first time that I can remember that

by this time in the year, we didn't have everybody in compliance. This is Brian's first year. And so

there's learning, everybody has their learning curves, just like all of you will, you know,

figure out your way along serving on this commission. But it's information the commission

really needs to have to do our business. We did discuss the possibility of when we do our funds

this year, if people are not, are historically not in compliance, that can come into our decision

about funding in November. If, for example, in November, they have not submitted their

one that is due in July, their half a year report, the January through June report,

if we come to November and they haven't done it, and we've followed up with them and they

still haven't done it, then as a commission, we could determine that we're not going to fund

them for next year. We didn't have that problem this past year, although we did,

we did have a couple of people that were very late last year, but they were all in by our

November funding meeting. So it's just a matter of the appropriate follow-up and putting the

expectations on them very clearly. Commissioner Eubig.

I'm curious about the report itself. Can we see a sample or what's in the report or what's required

of them? Yeah, so if you check out the agenda and you go to item number three and you click the link,

you'll be able to see all of the staff reports are, all of the reports that were received last year

are attached there. The agendas that you're sent have links that go deep down into all of the

supporting documents. And Commissioner Hinojosa. Yeah, I've got just a few ideas since we should,

I guess, start throwing solutions out. Well, my first thought though is that when we do award

these grants, I think it's made fairly clear the deadlines and such, and I don't think we ask for

a lot with two reports. And I think as a active nonprofit, you're probably used to having to

do these reports. So that's just my first thought on that. And then I know we had talked about a

sort of system where we can take into consideration past discrepancies with the timing. So I had a

couple ideas and I'm not sure about the legality of them or what that all entails, but one would be

a monthly point doc. So if in this 2024 year, you're three months late, you lose three points,

you lose one point on your application for the following year. Again, not sure about the process

of that. Other than that, it could, I also think it could be like a time thing. So, you know, if

you're more than X months late, maybe you have to wait a year again before applying. And that would

be, I'm sure, some more involved conversations. Right. Thank you. If you've looked at the contracts

that we have with these folks, and I have to sign every one of them, so I've looked at them all,

they are very specific about how the money comes to them, what they can spend it for, how they

have to comply with reporting requirements during the process. And so I don't, and these people

get grants from lots of, lots of places were not the only grants that they get. In some cases,

were the only grant that they get for that specific purpose. But we're not the only grants

that they get. And so they're used to compliance reporting. They are also used to doing it at

least twice a year on most grants. So I think it's a matter of just following up with them and being

sure they understand, hey, this was a requirement. You got to get it to us. And it could affect your,

you know, grants and out years. And when we come to reviewing the grants, and this is something that

we would need to take action on based on it being an agenda item on our next meeting, is

to discuss and agree on a method of penalizing, if you will,

grantees who have not met requirements in the prior year. And because we can't vote on any

particular penalty without it being on the published agenda, and it's not on the agenda for this time.

So you make good points. I think we would want that to be an agenda item for next time,

is consequences for not meeting the requirements of the grant.

Is there any other discussion? Commissioner Ellis?

I just have one more suggestion. Maybe at the funding meeting, that we can tell them the importance

of completing the reports, making sure everything is signed. Just a brief overview

of the process. I don't know if that will help or not, but I'm just trying to suggest another way

where we can emphasize that we're doing our due diligence that they know to get these reports in on time.

Right. I don't think that's unreasonable at all. It can be part of the introduction to the funding

meeting for whoever conducts that funding meeting.

Okay, so we, this staff have the agenda item for next meeting? Yes? Okay. Very good. And this

one doesn't require any action. Is that correct? All right.

And just for the record, there are no speaker slips for this item either.

Okay. All right. The last agenda item, well, the next agenda item is selection of President and

Vice President for the calendar year 2025, which will be the August meeting, the November meeting,

and then next year's January meeting because the President and Vice President take over at the next

meeting. Although I'd be willing to serve another term, I've been advised by the city attorney that

because I've done two consecutive terms, I cannot serve a third term. I can serve more later in my

appointment, but not this year. So... Chair Talbot, if I may. So the specific provision of the city

code is section 2.4.170. And I just want to make sure I give you the correct and accurate information.

It says a member may serve as a chairperson or vice chairperson for no more than two calendar years.

So under that provision, you are ineligible to serve as chairperson because you have served for

two calendar years, but you would be eligible to serve as vice chair. That's different than what

you said before. Yes. That's why I wanted to make sure I read this. So we had the accurate information.

Okay. Great. Thank you. So we need to select a new President and Vice President. Is there a staff

presentation on this other than what we just heard from the attorney? There's no staff presentation.

The information is detailed in a staff report. Just a couple of reminders, what was just mentioned.

So there's nominations will be heard for the chair position, then followed by nominations for the

vice chair. Commissioners can nominate another commissioner. You can also nominate yourselves

for chair or vice chair. As was mentioned, you may serve as a chairperson or vice chairperson

for no more than two calendar years. And the newly elected chairperson and vice chairperson

will start their terms at the next regular meeting, which will be August 27th of this year.

And there's no public comment for this item either. Okay. So you can start your nominations.

Okay. Commissioner Contreras.

I would like to make a motion if I can. Okay. I would like to make a motion if I can.

I move to nominate commissioner Alice for chair for the next year.

Okay. Are there any other nominations for chair for next year?

Okay. Hearing no other nominations, do we need to vote if there's only one nomination? I assume we do.

A second and then she would have to accept. Okay. Would somebody like to second that nomination?

I'd like to second that nomination. Commissioner Ruhl seconds.

And commissioner Ellis, do you accept the nomination? I accept. Okay. Thank you.

So if you would call the roll please. Yes. Thank you. Commissioners, please unmute your

microphones. Ex-Visio member Peter Colotto is absent. Vice president Ellis. I. Commissioner

Contreras. I. Commissioner Brown. I. Commissioner Stevens. I. Commissioner Uberg. I. Commissioner

Beckman. I. Commissioner Ruhl. I. Commissioner Unosa. I. President Smith. I. Thank you. The

motion passes. All right. The next item on the agenda is nomination for now. Can I just clarify

this says president, the other information that we were sent out says chair. So can we decide on a title?

If that's what you would like, our code just describes them as chair and vice chair.

Should we go with the new city code then rather than what we've done for the last

however long this 40 years that this commission's been around? It's your preference. If you use

president and vice president, we would assume they're just chair and vice chair under the city code.

Okay. Well, I'll just say vice president for right now and then we can we can decide what we want to

call or they want to call themselves. Are there any nominations for vice chair?

I nominate commissioner Smith for vice chair. I second the nomination.

Are there any other nominations for vice chair?

All right. Clerk would call and I accept the clerk would call the roll.

So the mission just right. Correct was by Ellis seconded by Beckman. Is that correct? Yes. Great.

Um, commissioners please. I'll meet your microphones. Ex officio member Peter Colletto.

Peter Colletto. Excuse me is absent. Vice president Ellis. I. Commissioner Contreras.

Commissioner Brown. I. Commissioner Stevens. I. Commissioner Ubug. I. Commissioner Beckman.

I. Commissioner rule. I. Commissioner Inosa. I. President Smith. I. Thank you. The motion passes.

Okay. The next item on the agenda is just a discussion item. This is a time for commissioner

comments, ideas, questions. Um, I think, uh, if, if everyone will let me have the floor for a minute,

I would like to, um, explain to the new commissioners how we have done this in the past. Um, about

five years ago or six years ago, we, um, had a lot of comments that they, that people felt

that our processes weren't transparent, that they didn't understand how we were rating individual

applicants for grants. Um, and so with a work group that was, um, headed up actually, or one of the

people that was in charge of it was, um, current city council member Maple. Um, and she was, because

she was on the commission at the time, we went to having a more structured application document

and then they developed a rubric or a scoring mechanism that allowed us to evaluate each of

the items that were on their application and give it a score of zero to nine. And then all of the

commissioners reviewed all of the applications, which it's a lot. It's like hundreds and hundreds

of pages, but some of the pages are just there and they don't really need us to look at them. The

city staff just make sure they're, they have their tax documents, they have their city license and all

of those kind of things. But so we basically look at the application and anything that's attached,

that's pertinent to our decision making process. And then we go through that sort of, it's a

spreadsheet and we each assign our scores on each one of the applicants. Um, and there's nine, I think

nine different categories that we score on. Um, there is a scoring guide that says if it, if they

don't comply, you know, it's zero or one, if they barely comply, it's a two or three, all the way up

to, it's clearly, clearly stated and they clearly meet all the requirements of this particular

item that we're reviewing. Um, we are, or we have discussed in the past, following it very closely,

being sure that we are making sure that everything that we give them a point for is actually said

there. It's not based on our feeling of how the people do or our experience with that nonprofit,

but actually how it's been described in the application. Um, and that way the commissioners

are all coming from the same place. Uh, then we all send everything into, in this case, Brian,

who compiles everything for us and prepares it and sends it back to us in preparation for the

November meeting. And then at the November meeting, we each look at the scores, we look at everybody

else's scores. Um, we have an opportunity to, to ask questions of particular grantees. Um,

and then we make our final decision on what the scores are. Once we have the scores for each of

the, the applicants, then we have a sheet that has, uh, everywhere from 100% to zero of, um,

the grant request, and we determine that say the top four or five will get 100%. And then the ones

that are the next sort of block of scores get 80%. And the next block of scores gets 60%. And we

just fill it in and then we see where we are, um, score wise and money wise, based on how much money

we have to allocate that year. And if our scores result in allocations that are,

that don't use up all the money we have, then I think last year we moved the 80s up to 90% and we

moved the 60s up to 75%. Um, and by doing that, then we, um, were able to use the money that we had

available. Um, we always move people up from the top first because our scoring sheet was developed

as a way to evaluate them. And so people with higher scores, we've already decided they're the ones

that deserve more money. So we don't, we don't move people up because we feel sorry for them.

We don't move people up because they're at the bottom and we really want to give them $50 or

whatever, or $500 or whatever. We move people up that are the, that meet our stated goals the best.

And so we tend to have 100% and then 80, 90, 95% is the next group. And so we sort of move people

up who are closest to being the best possible scores. Um, so it's worked pretty well. Um,

in the past we've had, you know, general consensus about the grant process. Last year we actually had,

um, a little bit of leftover money that we didn't allocate because if we had moved up so many people

that really, according to our scores, deserve the money and we didn't feel like we should allocate

the last few, it was just a few thousand dollars, um, to the people who were at the bottom because

they were already getting some money when in prior years they may not have gotten any money because

of the quality of their application. So last year was a very odd year. We had people who were grantees

for 10 years that didn't apply last year or that didn't show up for the meeting. And that was

disappointing because some of them were really traditionally highly funded, um, grantees. So,

anyway, that's the way that we have been doing this for the last few years. We have,

two years ago, I think we decided that we were giving, we had two different columns where we

were giving points and really if you looked at it, they were both for the same things. So we

eliminated one of the rating criteria because it was too similar to the other one.

So at, at this point, I wanted to check and see if there are, if there are any commissioners that

have ideas for improving our rating process. Um,

because if, if we do want to change the rating process, we need to do it at our next meeting.

We won't be able to change the application because the application goes out before our meeting

because the grant applicants have to get their documents and their applications in.

And that, all of that information goes out before our next meeting because we didn't have a meeting

in February. We're a little behind on this. So I think we could change how we score or if there

are certain things we feel like we want to, um, make disqualifying or make them have, uh, to lose

a chunk of points, like, um, Madison's idea, if they, if they have not submitted all their,

their documents for the prior year, um, then we can make that change in our scoring mechanism

because that isn't sent out to the grant applicants. So we can do that next meeting.

But are there any other ideas, um, or questions about either the process or how we could improve

the process from any commissioners? I mean, I guess I like the suggestion about including past

performance essentially as one of the criteria for evaluation. Um, I think that's pretty clear.

And then we can come up perhaps at the next meeting with what those, you know, what those, um,

benchmarks are for various tiers of, of points allocation. Um,

yeah. And I guess the only other thing we were chatting briefly beforehand, and I get, apparently

this is not a common scenario. Um, but the fact that we had, um, you know, more funding than what

was requested, um, and just clarifying, I think it'd be great for all the commissioners to read

what the charter is for the Anne Land and Bertha Henshel commission to make sure that we remember

what their goals were and how the goals of the commission, um, you know, are related to that,

um, overarching, um, objective. I have a question about the applications. Um, when are they sent out?

Let me pull it up to give you the exact date.

Can I piggyback on that question? Why are you looking for that? Sure. Um, I was thinking about

a timeline like applications sent, um, applications due, funding meeting in November,

first payment sent. Um, because that would help me because sometimes I get confused like, oh,

this is the 24 report we're, we're waiting on. So if we can get a timeline

of what was all. A schedule for the grant process? Yes. Okay. Applications due, I mean, sent due,

funding meeting, um, site visits, everything that's involved in this process. I think a timeline would

be very helpful. Like a commission calendar sort of thing? I like the way that sounds, a commission

calendar. However you want to call it. I think it's something that that prior city staff had that

they used, but we've never, we've never been given a calendar saying this is, this is the timeline.

We do this at this month. We do this this month. And I do believe a calendar would be helpful.

Okay.

I have a comment. What I found in scoring the applications is it seems that

the, um, and for those of you that are new, there's a guideline of one to three points means this

and four to six points means that. And thank you. And it seems to me that some of it is a little too

subjective and there are things that cross over. And so when I've been scoring for sometimes it,

you see like, what's the difference between six and seven? Right. Right. And yet that can make

a big difference when you have multiple, um, there are 11 different columns that we're scoring

for each, each, um, grant or application. So I'm just wondering if we could look at that and see

if there's something that would help us to be a little bit more definitive as we're scoring it and

a little bit more objective rather than subjective, because sometimes I don't know about you, but

you want to be really kind. So you score up, but maybe, you know, you don't. And, and obviously there

are some applicants that really fall towards the bottom because they're not meeting the funding

objectives. They're good organizations. They're doing great work, but they're not meeting

then, you know, the funding objectives that we have. And so it'd be nice if some of that would

shift a little bit easier to the bottom than to rise to the top. If that makes sense. And I'd

appreciate anybody else's comment on that. It's a very difficult thing. We tried because I, I was

on the commission at the time we developed all of that, which took more than a year of meeting

and discussing and a subgroup meeting, um, and then bringing recommendations and then discussing and

then voting or, or asking for the recommendations to be changed. There was, um, it's hard to

eliminate all subjectivity because what somebody does as a service, it's kind of in, kind of innately

subjective in certain ways. Um, and it's hard to evaluate because there's large organizations

that have been around for a long time, like St. John's Program for real change, where they

are very specific and they have very, um, well established ways of evaluating what they do.

And then there's other organizations like Travelers Aid that's basically one person.

And so they don't have the same level of internal capability to be able to describe how they,

or how they are able to evaluate the services that they provide. Um, and so it is, it's a

little bit apples and oranges, but it is something that if we want to change how the scoring works,

um, I personally think it's a, it's not a one meeting effort. It's a sitting, having a couple

people volunteer to sit down and look at the rubric that we have, um, and come up with ideas about

ways to improve it, recommendations to bring back to the commission and then have an open

discussion and vote on. Um, that's, that's how we have revised it in the past. Um, I have

request to speak from Mr. Contreras first. Yeah. When we go on any site visits, does the applicant

and or, and or we, do we know how much they're asking for? Well, the site visits are, you'll be

told how much of a grant they got. They got this organization or they're applying for. No, they got

because the site visit is a follow up to the grant. So they were granted $10,000 and then in

May and June and July, we go visit them and talk to them about how it's going, how they're, if they're

using the money for what they asked for it for. Um, and so that's part of the discussion with them,

is to talk about how they're using the money that we've already given them. And at that point,

depending on when you do it, um, they will have at least gotten the first distribution and they,

if you do it in the middle of July, they may have gotten the second distribution. So the question

get to how they're using it. And so that's, does that answer your question?

Yeah, kind of, yeah. Um, and then if they're going to apply again, do they apply for the same

amount or do they get or are they going to apply for whatever they like? Um, the commission made a

decision last year to limit grant requests to $10,000 because we were getting grant requests

for $9,000 and grant requests for $30,000. And

the people that asked for a huge amount of money, we would only give them maybe $10,000, but um,

then there was people that asked for nine that if they knew we would give just up to $10,000,

they might have asked for $10,000. So last year, we added that to the application that the commission

would give each organization a maximum of $10,000. So there's a maximum. Okay. It's described in their

application, I believe. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Uh, Commissioner Ruhl. Yeah. Um, I guess

going back to the scoring, uh, rubric, the two that I had the biggest issue with were, um, the,

um, number of people that they helped because you can, um, have an organization that's helping,

you know, a family and that's very expensive versus passing out water. Excuse me. So I had a bit,

I had a hard time with that particular one. Excuse me. And then, um, the other was the, um,

the regional diversity, the geographic area. Um, also I had some trouble with because, um, in some

cases they really are sort of neighborhood focused organizations as opposed to, you know,

city or county wide. Right. Right. Um, well, it has to just be city. So they're all, they're all in

the city, but I understand what you're saying. Yeah. Um, that's one I struggle with too because

somebody could be giving a carton of milk to 15,000 people and it would cost them $10,000.

Somebody may be keeping six families in their home by paying their utility bills. Um, and how do you

compare those two? It's the same amount of money over the course of a year. How do you compare them?

And that's, that's, that's one that is really always difficult for me is, um, evaluating them on

the number of people they serve. And so I just look at it like, okay, are they serving little

bits or are they serving big bits? And because you can't really say one's more important than the

other. Right. But then I guess it still makes it difficult to evaluate because if the rubric says

more points for more people, um, that's not to say that paying the utility bills for a family is,

that's critical in my mind, but, um, it doesn't hit that, you know, 10,000, you know,

cartons of milk. Right. Anyway, I just think it's something that, um, perhaps we should

think about how best to evaluate those types of scenarios.

Okay. I don't have an answer.

Uh, commissioner Stevens.

So my, so my question, um, is because I'm a new kid on the block, I want to be well informed of

what's going on because we don't, I don't know what the rubric looks like. I have no idea. Um,

um, but for me, problem-solving, right? So let's just be the elephant in the room.

Does it make sense for us to break off and brainstorming sessions, whatever the veterans

identify of areas of concerns that we look at those, identify them and come up with something

to bring back to the commission for us to have a really good conversation. Um, because as I'm

receiving all this information, I don't want to make light of one thing over another because

it's all important, right? And so in order to do our job efficiently, I think it's, it would do us

new kids on the block, some, some, some wealth of knowledge to understand what you've been working

with so that we can have a true discussion on what the fix would be or what it should be or what

it could be. Right, right. Um, I am entirely at home, it will be commissioner Ellis next meeting.

Open to establishing a working group, a subgroup of this, the group has to be less

than a less than a quorum of this group in order to meet as a subcommittee. It needs to be established

through emotion and that sort of thing. And then you could go off and look at what we have

and come back to the commission with ways, recommendations on how to approve it. But that's

something that has to be put on an agenda, um, and published on the agenda. And then we have to

have a discussion about it. We have to open it up to any committee, any community comments.

And then we have to vote to establish that working group. Um, and then once the working

group is established, then you go off and do your work. Um, I'm saying all of this, the bottom line

is it's not going to happen for this year's rating process. Um, because we don't have enough time.

Um, but it's something that we can have on next month, next meetings agenda to discuss and vote

on do we want to establish a working group to her subcommittee to discuss the evaluation process.

I think it's a absolutely great idea because we haven't discussed it in two or three years.

And if you don't keep looking at how you do do things, then you continue to perpetuate issues

or struggles or problems that people have in doing their job.

And just to add in there from city staff, we will provide you a copy of the grant guidelines

that were reviewed last year. Um, in good faith that because they were reviewed last year and you

did make some edits to them, we'll move forward with what we have this far. But if you have some

temporary heartburn over some things and you want to provide staff the feedback directly,

we can incorporate that into the August meeting and send it out as a consent just for you all to

review. Just so you can see like what some of those suggestions may be, which would be, you know,

I think helpful for everyone to be able to see what the application looks like to see what the

matrix looks like on your end and what's being asked of you as commissioners. And then you'll

have, you know, a lot of time to to discuss with us and get more clarity on that one, if that's

helpful. Thank you. I just, I just think it'd be a good use of all of our time if we know page by

page, line by line what we're actually dealing with, what needs to be improved and what is good.

And um, thank you. Yeah, the process of changing anything substantive is painfully long because

of the public meeting requirements that we fall under. And so it's not something that we can have

a few people talk about come back in August and change it because it has to be discussed in public

and then discuss recommendations brought back, then discussed in public again, and then put

together in time for the work that has to be done. Do you have a date for when the request for

grant is going to be sent out? I asked that question like 20 minutes ago. Sorry. No, it was

good discussion. So we don't have a date per se, but the application usually opens in August

and closes in September. The idea this year is to open it like around August 15th or the 12th,

depending on what that Wednesday is, and then close it a month later in September. We have two weeks

for the rest of September to collect any missing items, give grantees like a little bit of extra

time to submit anything that might be missing or updated. And that way you'll have the full month

of October to review applications since our meeting in November is November 5th. Last year,

the application closed a little bit later, giving you a little bit less time to review applications.

So I want to make sure that you do have plenty of time since it is hundreds of pages, as you

mentioned earlier, to take your time. There are new commissioners as well. So it would open before the

August meeting. Okay, so that means we have to go with the same solicitation that we used last

year because it was not put on this agenda for us to make any changes in that solicitation. Is that

true? Right, so we have all of the templates. The only updates that would be made would be dates,

but all the requirements seem to be the same. The issue is we usually discuss

at a meeting, we agendize and discuss at the meeting, do we want the same? We come up with,

these are our focus areas for the year, and we've changed them in the past. So this year we will

not have the ability to change them because it didn't get put on this agenda. Is that a true statement?

Yeah, if we did decide to release the RFP, it's just a timing thing, you know, so either you all

get a little extra time to review the documentation if you want, if you feel really strongly about

changing the priorities and you want to have that opportunity in August, then, you know, we make that

decision and sacrifice of time. I think regarding the scoring matrix, right, we could still technically

bring that to you all to make adjustments because you wouldn't be scoring until after the fact,

although it would still be relevant to the RFP or the application that we put out. So you would

have that ability, but if you want a little extra time to review applications, depending on how many

you get, I would say we probably wouldn't have time to adjust the priorities. If you're okay with

that, then we could bring the priorities back to you all for discussion and approval.

Well, even if we're not okay with it, we don't have time.

You could, it would just be pushed out, right? So you would just have less time to review.

We could send out what we had before, it'll lay out the priorities that you had, right? It'd be

similar to what you did prior, but, and you would use that August meeting to discuss the priorities

and move from there. And then we would just adjust it on our application. But then we would have

two weeks to review the, if we push, if we push the release date out by two or three weeks,

that time comes out of the amount of time we have to do our job of reviewing and scoring.

And I don't know how do other commission, having been through this, I don't want less time because

it's, it takes a lot of time to go through the applications and do the scoring. But are there

other commissioners that have thoughts about that? I just agree. I do agree. It takes too much time.

So I don't want it to be pushed out.

To acknowledge the new commissioners, the priorities that we would be moving forward with,

our food slash nutrition, shelter slash housing, transportation, and social services to support

support basic human needs. What the overall goal is to serve the destitute woman, children, families,

men in the city of Sacramento specifically. And the, on the application, isn't it

food with these, with wraparound services? Is there a reference to wraparound services?

There may be in the application itself. I think it was in the application notice.

Yeah. I'm not seeing it here right at first glance, but it could be in there.

It just says food slash nutrition on here for category, quote unquote, right now.

Is, is that document available somewhere we can look at it?

Yeah, we'll send you a copy of the last application. Okay. Yeah.

Because it seemed to me like we had wraparound services attached to housing last year.

Yes. So it was housing and I believe it was written as basic needs.

And that would include the wraparound services. Also, they can find past documents online, right?

But we'll send them to you. Okay. Well, you're going to send us a link to the SharePoint site.

Everybody here has access to that now. Yeah, we'll either send you a link or we'll

send you a copy just to make sure that you all receive it. Okay. Yeah.

So just to acknowledge this year, we won't be able to make changes like we typically do

because we didn't have the February or end of January, whatever that was meeting.

And it didn't get moved from there onto this agenda. So

that's unfortunate, but it is the way it's going to be. We'll make sure that the new commissioners get

copies of the application and of the rubric that we use. So you can familiarize yourself with it.

If you have questions on that, you can bring them back to our August meeting. And the other

commissioners will, and I will try and help you understand what things mean,

or at least how they've been applied in the past.

Are there other commissioners that have comments to make about this?

I just want to ask one last thing. Can you just send it out to all the commissioners?

Do everyone want it or everyone else is fine? I know I would like a copy of it.

We'll send it to all just to keep it consistent. Okay. And then also to circle back on the timeline.

Yeah. We get that timeline, you know, like I've mentioned, as far as when the applications go

out and so on and so on by the next meeting. Yeah. We can send a tentative timeline with

all of the information requested at one time. Are there any other commissioners?

And then just for clarification, we will have an agenda item on the next meeting

in order to discuss possibly creating a subcommittee to make any changes.

To review the application. Because you have to review the application and the matrix that we

fill out because they are like one for one connected to each other. So it requires a review of both of

them. So be thinking about if you're interested in serving on that group. Because if we're going

to do that, then we need to get it chartered next meeting and then the group can go off and do its

thing. And am I correct? Or ask our council that it needs to be a subgroup that is less than 50%

of the commission? Yes, that is correct. Okay. So I think maybe a four to five person

subcommittee would probably be ideal. I think that's last time it was four people.

But if we had five people that were interested in doing it, we certainly can do that.

Since we have 11 commissioners now, is that right?

What's that? It should be less than six. Okay. So we could have up to five people then.

All right. Are there any other items under commission or comments, ideas, questions?

I have one last thing. And I was thinking about the site visit questions. Those questions have

been the same for I don't know how many years. And I was just wondering if we could work on

updating the questions. Maybe we can keep all of them and add add on.

I don't know that we can. I don't remember if that, if the site visit questions were something

that were voted on by the commission or if they were just kind of drafted by some members of

the commission, we all said okay. I'm not sure that can we change those?

Is there a chance? I mean, the meetings, the site visits can start as early as like next week,

depending on when the city gets the information out. I've used those as sort of a starting point

for discussions and asked if there's anything else that people want to talk about.

And I've found really, gotten really interesting comments.

I've even had people suggest that we make a change in the way we do things, that sort of thing.

And actually some site visit comments are what led to the original development of the new

application and the new question, the new evaluation spreadsheet that we use today.

I think it may be too late to do that this year, although I don't think there's anything wrong

with the commission or asking other questions if they are curious about something. But as far as the,

I've done that and then just included them in the answer to the last question, because the last

question is a little more open-ended. I don't have that questionnaire right in front of me.

Do you have, do you have it? I have some of the questions. I mean like question one is how are

the grant funds spent? Right. And number two is how do you identify the indigent and destitute

population that you serve? I know typically when I go out, there's, you know, if there's a red flag,

you know, and there may be some issues because there is staff turnover. Or if someone requested

money for food and then this has happened to me where I wanted to see, I mean you're requesting,

I want to see the area where the food is. And when I got there, the person couldn't really

show me anything. So sometimes if there's like red flags, I want that to be noted in the report.

And I even ask how many people have you served with the grant money you received thus far to just

get a sense. So I guess we can go and ask, you know, things that we feel like is relevant.

But I just thought that we could add more questions. Or if we just have comments, we just add it on.

But there have been the same questions for years and I'm just wondering how can we capture

more information when we go out. And I know we can't do that for this time around, but

something to look at in the future. Well, and that's something I think we can

put on the agenda. We could even put it on the agenda for August and talk about, because at that

point we will be done with our site visits. We could talk about how did the site visits work.

Are there, now that you've done it, because since we have four people who've never done them before,

now that you've done it, do you have suggestions of what questions might help us better?

And did the grantees have any questions or comments that they made to you? And I think once we have

the four new commissioners go through that process, they may have a whole bunch of new ideas for us

that we haven't even thought about, even though you and I have done dozens of site visits.

These three down here did site visits last year. So I think it would be good to get some

experience under the belts of the new commissioners to allow us a bigger, better picture of how the

questions are working. And then we can certainly put it on the August agenda to discuss the review

and agree on site visit questions for next year and get that taken care of before we get into

the funding meeting and all that. Does that seem reasonable? So can we, can the staff add that to

the agenda for the next meeting? Thank you. Okay. Anyone else on the commission have anything?

All right. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this at this time?

I do not have any speaker slips for this item or for the matters on the agenda.

Okay. If there are no more speakers, then that concludes today's agenda.

Thanks. Thank you, everyone, for your participation. Thank you to the new commissioners for sharing

your thoughts openly and taking part in the discussion. I look forward to working with all of you.

And it's been a pleasure being the president or chair of the commission for the last two years.

I've enjoyed the heck out of it. And I look forward to continuing to serve. I have, after this year,

four more years left on my, on my service because I re-upped a year ago. So anyway,

thank you very much. And the meeting is now adjourned.