Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you çevir.

Chair staff was made when you are.

Good morning, everyone.

I'm like, where did I go?

Welcome to the February 6, 2025 meeting of the Sacramento Children's Fund planning and

the commission.

The time is now 10-07 and the meeting is now called to order.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Richardson?

Commissioner Volsey?

Is absent.

Commissioner Thomas?

Present.

Commissioner Caffari?

Present.

Commissioner Kravitz-Words?

Here.

And Chair Rulas-Murras.

Present.

Thank you, Avocorn.

I would like to remind members of the public in 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 and after the first speaker,

we will no longer accept speaker slips and we will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous People

and Tribal lands.

The original people of this land, the Nissan on people, the southern I do, valley in place,

New York, Patlin, two peoples, and the people of the Volta, Rancheria.

Sacramento is 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 the active practice of

acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous Peoples, history, contributions,

and lives.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for

which it stands when we should under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay.

First and foremost, happy black history month.

Everyone who is February.

Our first business today is approval of the consent calendar.

So please review the consent calendar items and make sure that you are okay to approve

them.

So on the consent calendar, we have the approval of the oversight commission meeting minutes

and the follow-up log.

Does anybody have any comments, questions, commissioners?

About that.

Okay.

I do have a quick comment.

So I actually want to pull the auditor's report.

I feel like we would need an actual presentation.

I know they did that presentation to the budget and audit committee about a week ago.

So I think it would be appropriate for us as a commission to get that same presentation

and be able to ask more pointed questions about what that baseline looked like.

Did we meet it?

What did we meet it with?

And just get kind of a more thorough look at what that baseline report is.

So if I could just pull that items for a future meeting for a presentation, I think that

would be appreciated.

Okay.

I'm hearing, I'm seeing, you know, René, does that mean that we can?

Oh, yeah, we'll add it to the follow-up log.

Okay.

Thank you.

So given that I want to pull it for a presentation, does that mean we still have to approve it?

Or sorry, move it forward?

Yeah, that would just be a follow-up log item.

So it's just a request to receive a presentation from auditor's office.

So it won't impact.

It'll be a new item on the follow-up log from you.

Okay.

Commissioner Richardson?

I just wanted a little more detail on what you just mentioned.

You said that there was an auditor's report of, can you give a little bit more?

Yeah.

So in the consent calendar, it was included the baseline report.

If you remember, the baseline is essentially shows us all of the services and youth programming

that the city currently does.

And then, you know, we set that as the baseline and all of measure L money would be supplementing

that, not supplanting it.

So it's important for us to know the baseline and, you know, what it's, you know, if it's

met and then how we move forward with that considering the new applications and the new

programs and services that might be awarded through measure L.

Yeah.

Does do any of the staff want to comment on that in terms of the auditor's report?

Now it's just, it's calculated every year.

They have a deadline of like January 15th to get that in.

That sets the baseline for the next year of what the expectation is for youth specific

services and what we can spend above and beyond or put in for via measure L funds.

But the projects may change year by year, right?

It sets the amount but not the projects or programs specifically.

Yeah.

So was there, there weren't any changes.

I didn't, so I didn't look at the report and that's something that I can make sure that

I go back and look.

Yeah, I would look at last year's and this year's probably to see what the differences

may be.

But our goal is staff or city staff is to reach that baseline every year.

Okay.

Yeah, I just want, so we'll have, ensure that the log reflex that we want a presentation

for that.

Okay.

So we can move forward with approving the consent calendar.

That's the case.

I believe we have to call the role.

Yes.

Or does someone make a motion for the consent calendar?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

Okay.

Motion by Commissioner Thomas, second by Commissioner Richardson.

Clerk, can you please call the role?

Thank you, Chair.

And just for the record, we have no speaker slips on this item.

Commissioner Richardson.

Aye.

Commissioner Volsey is absent.

Commissioner Thomas.

Aye.

Commissioner Grafari.

Aye.

Commissioner Cravitz words.

Aye.

And Chair, we will ask Morris.

Yes.

Thank you, and the motion passes.

Okay.

So I actually would like for us to take Commissioner comments, ideas and questions first before

we do the discussion calendar.

And I think we can be pretty quick with this because we have other items that we want to

get to in limited time.

So if in between, you know, the last time we met and now, if folks have any questions around

the RFP, I think, you know, this is a good time to kind of discuss your questions.

And then at a future meeting, we can get into a more robust discussion around that.

Commissioner Grafari.

Clerk's office.

Before we do that, do we have to make a motion to change the order of city attorney?

I was just going to offer that we do have a fund implementation update item on the regular

agenda, which would also be an appropriate place to talk about questions about the RFP

and probably a more appropriate place to talk about questions about the RFP unless I'm

misunderstanding the nature of the item.

As opposed to, if you want to get into more detailed conversations, you know, Commissioner

comments, ideas and questions is usually for things that aren't on the agenda already.

Yeah.

I would like to still discuss some comments and ideas and questions before we get started.

Is that okay?

Do we have to make a motion for that?

No.

Okay.

I don't believe so.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Grafari.

Hello, everybody.

Am I am?

You can hear me?

Okay.

Good.

It's good to be here.

So, I am on the review panel for the Children's Fund applications.

And I saw that there was 23 applications.

When I signed up, I was under the impression there would be 15 to 20.

I have a super volunteer heart and, you know, that's okay.

I'm wondering, like, if I was being a little overwhelmed by the amount, if other people

are feeling that way too.

So I was hoping that maybe we could come up with solutions, maybe not right now, but

maybe we need more panelists or maybe I'm the only one on the review panel because I know

Gina was and she wasn't, so did I get more?

Or so I was just kind of wanting to bring that up for discussion.

Yeah.

I can briefly speak to that.

We try our best to get within 15 to 20.

We are going through quite a robust conflicts review and it's been challenging.

We've had to dismiss quite a few people from the panel.

So of the maybe 25 to 30 that we reviewed, we currently have many less than that.

So if you need an adjustment in time period, we're more than happy to be flexible on that.

We are still recruiting panelists as people drop.

We are still trying to get people on that was going to be one of the comments I made today.

And we are looking for another commissioner panelist.

I think email was sent out.

So if you are interested, then please let us know as soon as possible so we can start that

conflicts process which takes about a week to two weeks minimum.

But yeah, we hear you on that.

It's been a challenge trying to ensure that we have a balanced equitable panel for sure.

Okay.

That's really helpful.

Just to tell you guys will help work with me.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right.

That's it.

So just to clarify for Commissioner Gafari is since there's still other potential grant reviewers

to be accepted should she begin that process?

But she'll be notified by city staff.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

And if she has any further questions after today's meeting, she could just bless you.

Yeah.

Feel free to reach out to us.

Yeah.

All right.

Other than that, does anyone have any questions, comments about?

Yeah.

Okay.

Commissioner Carver's words.

Well, I just had a follow up question on that.

And if it's better to hold it until the implementation update, that's fine.

But it's related to the recruitment.

And I was just curious if we could hear a little bit more about like what are those recruitment

efforts looking like?

I saw the email internally amongst the commissioners, but I hadn't seen a broader call yet.

And that could just be, you know, I haven't seen it.

So I'm just curious if you can give us an update on sort of what that looked like.

Yeah.

We definitely didn't do a broad call out, but we did a pretty targeted, we worked with

the group that we did committee engagement with.

So anybody that we had information for that we interacted with, we pretty much sent it

out to all of them.

We utilized third plateau in their contacts that they reached out to as well.

We already had some interest from other cities that we did outreach to prior to the commission

even being set.

And then obviously we had a few city employees as well.

We had some county.

We had a pretty robust group.

I will say, I don't think our Barry was not having enough people interested.

I think it's just the conflict.

So we try to get some people outside of city Sacramento to, you know, provide review perception,

I guess, that's just going to be more related to the fun goal specifically.

Because as you can imagine, the people that are interested in reviewing are probably

also interested in many other things and involved in many other things across the city of Sacramento.

So it was a balance.

I think we had enough.

I think just as conflicts were coming through, we were like, oh wow, almost 30 to 40% of

our potential panel has some type of conflict.

But yeah, so we definitely didn't do like a broad general public.

We try to keep it targeted to the different fun goals in the different areas and the geographic

areas of the city that, you know, yeah.

Yeah, that makes sense.

If you're still recruiting, would it be at all helpful for the commission to share with

our networks?

Do you have a thing that we could share?

Like that?

Yeah, we'll send out another follow up just like kind of with our panel info, registration

and stuff like that.

Great.

Commissioner Richardson.

I'll keep it brief.

As y'all know that I did want to be a part of the panel.

I did have conflicts.

I did sit here and ask Jennifer once again.

I'm like, are we sure, you know, like, is it really a conflict conflict?

Or, you know, can I still look at some of them?

Because I really did want to be a part of this process, but I did want to make sure that

y'all know that I'm unable to.

Thank you, Commissioner Richardson.

And that kind of begs my question is, what?

Are we, do you mean, like, I guess this is more for UCD attorney, Gour, happy new year?

Good to see you.

So my understanding would be that, this is just the way I'm thinking about it, but if Gina

had a conflict with maybe like one organization, she'd still be able to review others because

she doesn't have conflicts with theirs.

But what are you guys looking at?

Because to me, also, the way that I understood it, and we did all these trainings ahead of

being on the commission as well, is if folks don't aren't hired under or have a financial

relationship with, or that sort of like legal formal relationship with an organization, then

they shouldn't be rendered a conflict of interest.

So there are a number of laws that relate to this.

It's not just me making up with some sort of conflict, right?

So there's the political reform act, which has a whole section of statute and then regulations

that the FPPC has implemented that talk to what is considered a legal conflict and what's

not.

And it's a like eight step analysis.

It's not a simple analysis.

And then in addition, there is the government code section 1090 that also is under the

purview of the attorney general and their attorney general opinions as to what are conflicts

of interest.

And so it can be somebody's spouse.

It can be so a number of things have come up.

So for instance, if somebody is on a board of an agency that applied, they may not be reviewing

we may structure so they're not reviewing that agency's application, but it can still

impedes their participation because then, okay, well, I want my agency to do well so

maybe I don't score everyone else as well.

So there are, so that's how the rules work.

They just can't participate in the process period.

It's not that they can't review the one party for which they have a conflict.

It's that they can't participate at all is how those statutes are written.

Okay.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

Thank you for that clarification.

Yeah.

No, it's unfortunate.

I mean, we have had to disqualify a number of people, unfortunately.

Okay.

So other than the review panel, the other comment I wanted to make was around the RFP timeline

because it sounds like it's getting delayed, which I think we all kind of understood.

It's part of the process, but I think an updated timeline would be nice to have if City

Staff could, if that will be presenting it.

Okay.

I just didn't see it in the, I got the survey results, but I didn't see it timeline.

So yeah, I think that would be appropriate to share.

And my other question would be, have you all been in contact with the applicants just

about how the process is going?

I mean, yeah, like letting them know it's delayed and things like that.

Yeah.

Okay.

I think have been, had applied in December and I think it would be good inappropriate

to share with them that the process is delayed so they don't expect to be awarded in the

next month or anything like that.

Commissioner Crabbertsworths.

Sorry.

So just, they have been notified because I've gotten questions just as a commissioner

about that and so I'm there.

Yeah.

We have, we just had a conversation yesterday, some of our staff that aren't involved in

the contract, we have to have a conversation and hopefully, you know, we have some

requirementsduction for the applicants to take a break.

So we have some kind of general verbiage that we can provide to you all as well as you're

getting questions, which I assume you'll continue to get.

But yeah, I believe, and I can look specifically, but we sent them an update like some time mid to late January, probably.

So it's probably about time to send another one generally to all the applicants.

But yeah.

Yeah.

That would be great just to be able to provide something other than like, I don't know

So this isn't actually about this item.

About the agenda as a whole.

If we do have this implementation implementation update and I assume it's going to take more than 20 minutes and commission to go far.

I still leave it to 45.

Do we want to move our chair and vice chair election prior to that update?

Yes, I was going to do that.

Okay, very good.

Thank you for checking.

Was that it?

That was it.

Okay.

I did want to make another comment though about

I know I already requested that the auditor come and do a presentation.

You know, they do really good work and I think it's going to be appropriate for us to kind of like look at that very thoroughly.

But one of the things that came up from the report was that they hired a outside firm to look at the canvas business operating tax for 2324.

And that came back higher than was initially estimated right because the way that the city budget works is that they asked they do the estimates ahead of time.

But the actual numbers for the cannabis business operating tax came in higher.

Therefore, the Sacramento children's events should be around 9.3 million from the general fund.

And then that would kind of bump up all the numbers for the grants that are available, the administrative funds and things like that.

So I just want to make sure that we're getting that update as well.

Because you know, in addition to being a planning commission, we're also an oversight commission.

And I think having those accurate numbers is would be appropriate.

So I just want to share that with other commissioners.

If you haven't had the chance to read that the budget and audit committee did their presentation about a week ago.

Sorry, the auditor did their presentation to the budget and audit committee.

And that came up during that meeting.

And so there's more money for the Sacramento Children's Fund, which is exciting.

But we just want to make sure we get those numbers and it's, you know, a transparent process.

So yeah, I just wanted to make that comment.

If there are no other comments, welcome commissioner, we'll see.

But if they're we're doing just to get you up to speed, we're doing comments, questions, and ideas right now.

And then we're going to move to the discussion calendar.

But if there are no more comments, questions, and ideas, I think we can move to the next agenda item.

Which will be the discussion calendar.

And I would like to move the election of chair and vice chair ahead of the implementation update.

So we can get that done.

And then yeah.

Okay, go ahead.

Good morning. This is Saf Arzon from the City Clerk's Office.

We do not have a presentation on this item.

As all the detail information is in your staff report.

However, I would like to remind the commissioners of a few things.

Nominations will be heard first for the chair position and then followed by the vice chair position.

The newly elected chair and vice chair will start their term at the next regular meeting.

Commissioners may nominate another commissioner or themselves for the chair or vice chair position.

A commissioner may serve as the chair or vice chair for no more than two calendar years.

As of the current roster, all commissioners are eligible to serve as chair and vice chair for the calendar year.

2025. Thank you.

All right. So with that, if folks are interested in like nominating themselves or nominating other commissioner, please put yourselves on the queue.

Commissioner Gaffari and commissioner Richardson.

Can we nominate one for each?

I think we do.

We do chair and vice chair.

I'd like to nominate Monica for chair or sorry commissioner well as Morris and for vice chair.

I'd like to nominate commissioner Richardson.

Thank you.

I would like to nominate.

I'm sorry to make sure I say it correctly too.

I would like to nominate our current chair.

Monica, let me say your name right.

Relez.

Maris.

Yeah.

I'll read.

Yes.

Chair.

I would also like to nominate myself for co-chair.

Okay.

Do what do we do next?

I just want to clarify.

You wanted to second the nomination.

So of both.

I'm assuming.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

I'm assuming we do.

Then we would vote on the chair nomination.

And then we would vote separately on the after that.

Then we would take the motion on the vice chair.

Okay.

Can I just I want to say a few.

A few words.

I was about to say the same thing.

If I wanted to say some words.

So can I redo that?

Let's redo that.

Everybody rewind.

All right.

I would like to second being nominated for chair.

Gay group members will vote on their appearance for if i

regret hearing you next keynote.

Now.

I happen to represent.

She will be.

I think money for chair members will fall into this.

My decision now includes an honored.

I mean.

I think the chair members to feel like they're.

It's a step forward.

They're very passionate.

We'll see what he says.

Okay.

I just have to say thank you.

Thank you very much.

That's how we綺st her.

Okay.

This is a woman Walla.

Thank you.

I think her was very considerate.

No.

with the same energy and dedication ever since.

As chair Monica has guided us and taken a more hands on role

in shaping Sacramento's strategic investment plan.

She has worked closely with commissioners to ensure

we stay on track and meet our goals while also making

it a priority to gather youth input and elevate their voices.

She's been in the community actively listening

and building trust with those we serve

because she understands that real change with youth

starts by meeting them where they are.

One thing I really appreciate about Monica

is her willingness to check in with us as a commission.

She takes the time to see where we are,

where we may disagree and work to find common ground

so that we can keep pushing the mission forward.

That collaborative mindset is crucial,

especially when the stakes are as high

as they've been with us on this commission.

Monica's ambition and care for our city's most vulnerable youth

are evident in everything she does.

Even when we've had our differences and yes,

we've had our differences.

One thing has always been clear,

we share the same commitment to seeing Sacramento's youth

thrive through a comprehensive plan

that serves their best interests.

I've always respected her for that

and keeping that mission forefront no matter what

and for those reasons or the reason why

I'm nominating you as chair.

Thank you.

Can I say something as well?

Is that appropriate?

So, I thank you, Commissioner Hurterson.

I appreciate that.

I'm taking it in.

I'm trying to, you know, be better

about taking nice words and compliments.

I appreciate that.

I do also want to share that I would be really honored

and to work with you in this capacity as vice chair

so that we can move the work forward.

And I also prepared some words I wanted to say

about you, Commissioner Hurterson.

So I remember the first thing that we met.

It was December 11, 2023.

So if that sounds familiar or like a long time ago

was our first meeting as a commission.

And I think we all were,

when one excited about being on this commission

but also maybe like nervous about the process

and not really sure how things were gonna go.

But on that first day, Commissioner Hurterson,

your energy was super bold.

It was bright and confident

and it was just infectious in that way.

You've always brought that spirit to our meetings

and have made them enjoyable.

Also with jokes and things like that.

I think it's really nice to be able to have somebody

on the commission that grounds us in that way

but also like ask the right questions.

You always have been very vocal from the get-go

about wanting to make sure that we understood

everything that was going on.

And that's so important on a commission

because for many of us, including myself,

having it be our first experience,

sometimes we have no idea like what this process is like.

And if we can ask questions or who we should ask.

And so you've had that same introduce since the beginning.

And I really appreciate you for speaking up.

I believe in your capacity to be a great vice chair

because of your demonstrated leadership and commitment,

especially advocating for single moms in Sacramento

and wider than that.

underserved youth and families in your district

and pushing for continued community engagement

in this process.

Last year you led our community engagement efforts

and that's no easy task.

I think we all agreed that we're one of the hardest

working commissions and we had a daunting task last year

with creating this five year strategic investment plan

such a short amount of time with multiple special meetings.

But you showed up.

You made sure that community was being engaged.

And that and you were out there.

You were literally representing the commission

out there in the community and being our liaison

and people were coming to you for questions

and being able to have that voice on the commission

that goes out and really reaches out to the community.

I think it's pivotal for how people perceive us

and really are commitment to them

to serving the families and the youth.

And so I'm really excited to be supporting you

for Vice Chair today.

To clarify of course, I think one of the things

that we really respect about each other is

even if we disagree, we always give each other that respect

and the decency of a conversation,

of a transparency, of looking at each other

and being like, hey, you know, at the end of the day,

we're cool, though we may not agree on everything.

And so I really appreciate that because it's really important

for us to move the goal and the mission forward

of the commission without kind of letting other things

get in the way.

But I believe we would make a great team

and it would be an honor to work with you in this capacity

and that's why I would love to have you

as Vice Chair as well.

Good evening.

Okay, great.

Just to make it clean for Clerk's office,

since I know we're gonna do chair election first

and then Vice Chair, it sounds like we had a motion

from Lillian to elect Chair Rulizmars' chair

once again with the second from Commissioner Richardson.

So if we can go ahead and pass that motion first

and then I apologize, Commissioner Goffari,

but then if you wanna repeat your Vice Chair election

and then see if we have a second and move on from there

and allow people to make comments as they so choose,

that'll probably be the cleanest way to do it.

So if there's a chair if you wanna see if there's a motion

or if we wanna vote on Chair, then we can do that.

Okay, so motion was by Commissioner Goffari

and then second was by Commissioner Richardson.

Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

And just for the record, we have no speaker slips on this item.

Commissioner Richardson.

Aye.

Commissioner Volsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas.

Aye.

Commissioner Goffari.

Aye.

Commissioner Cravitz-Words.

Aye.

And Chair Rulizmars.

Aye.

Thank you and the motion passes.

Thank you.

So we have Commissioner Goffari

who made a motion for Commissioner Richardson as Vice Chair.

Is there a second?

Because I know you, Commissioner Richardson's second, right?

You seconded that.

Okay, so Commissioner Richardson seconds

for Commissioner Richardson as Vice Chair.

Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Richardson.

Of course.

Commissioner Volsey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas.

Aye.

Commissioner Goffari.

Aye.

Commissioner Cravitz-Words.

Aye.

And Chair Rulizmars.

Absolutely, yes.

Thank you and the motion passes.

Okay, all right.

Well, congratulations, Vice Chair.

Will she be sitting there still or closer?

I'm sitting there still.

Oh, dang it.

Okay.

I was gonna say, unfortunately, I want to sit in my seat.

Okay.

This is our D1C.

I love this.

Okay.

All right.

So the next item on the agenda is

the Sacramento Children's Fund Implementation Update.

Is there staff presentation?

I believe there is,

because I see Renee walking down there.

That was a long way to walk now.

She's kidding.

You made it.

It's a lot of work.

It does, yeah.

I'm not going to say that.

That's okay.

I just forgot to grab the clicker before.

All right.

Welcome.

Nice to see you all again.

My name is Renee Cosson.

I'm the YouTube Outman Program Manager for Yipsey.

And I oversee the Sacramento Children's Fund team.

That's been hard at work over the last couple of months.

We don't have Julie here today.

She's on so much deserve off time,

but we have Tamara and Sarah helping us out.

All right.

So congratulations on passing the first Sacramento Children's

Fund Strategic Investment Plan,

one of your big accomplishments for last year.

Staff have witnessed the time and effort

this commission put in to get to this point.

And we would like to acknowledge this accomplishment

that you all completed.

Every commissioner here was appointed to the commission

based on their expertise.

And that was illustrated in passion, advocacy,

and professional work

through the product this commission brought forward.

Throughout the process of the development

of the Strategic Investment Plan,

also known as SIP, presentation to council.

And the SIP was unanimously adopted with some edits.

And now we are looking forward towards next steps

for the city and the commission.

This presentation will provide some implementation updates.

We did conduct a RFP survey report.

So we'll give some details on how we did that,

why we did that, and also a timeline update.

And there you go.

Okay, so we had our Sacramento Children's Fund

request for proposals that ran from November 6, 2024

through December 6, 2024 for the term of January 1, 2025

through January 30, 20, 28 for our agreements.

That's what the applications put forward.

Budget-wise, program-wise, we did have them do it for,

you know, three and a half years.

We held a virtual bidders conference

in a commissioner-led information session

at Oak Park Community Center.

So thank you to Chair Willis Mones and Commissioner Richardson

who participated and led that effort in partnership with the city.

We had 121 applications received

from community-based organizations, collaborative applicants,

non-city public entities, and the city of Sacramento.

Over 70% of the applications served the seed and COI

identified opportunity neighborhoods.

So if you did have an opportunity to review the RFP,

you saw that we had like some priority points

for people that were able to show thoroughly

that they can achieve services within that seed and COI area

that we set forth through your strategic investment plan.

So the Sacramento Children's Fund financial overview,

we received, as I said, 121 proposals

that were eligible for review.

The total funds requested from each of those proposals

as we had a $500,000 max was $125.3 million dollars.

And I think we have about 50 to 60 estimated

for the five years of this Sacramento Children's Fund overall.

And the total funds available for this three and a half years

or so is about 17.9 million.

Just based off of our first year estimates,

as Chair had mentioned, it is a little bit higher this year.

So that could be increased.

So number of applications broken down by our fun goals.

What we had our applicants do was identify their primary goal.

So the one that they're most focused on,

but then they also have the opportunity to say,

we may be doing mental health,

but it also touches on our youth impacted by violence as well.

So as you can see, a majority, 77 applicants

chose mental health as their primary goal.

And then from there, 17 violence prevention,

15 children, zero to five, homelessness, youth homelessness

as eight and then substance abuse or substance prevention

programming for three applicants.

Here's our breakdown of applicant types, as we called them.

So we had a pretty large number of community-based organizations

that reflected our applicant types

for this round of the Sacramento Children's Fund.

The highest being 80 for our CBOs.

And then we had our city applicants

about 11 projects or programs that were,

that applied three collaborative joint effort groups

to non-city public entities that could either be,

just to remind you like a library or a county entity

or a school district,

and then four grassroots local grassroots movements.

I will just note that our team evaluated

all of the applicants for eligibility.

And although four identified themselves as grassroots,

we did find that there was approximately 15 to 17

that did also fall under the grassroots organization

that had a budget under 200,000.

So it's a little bit higher than that four,

but that's their self-reported identification for that one.

And so this is what we have per district as well.

So the highest district represented

for our applicants was district four.

And then I think we follow a district two, five, six,

three, seven, one, and eight.

And we did have 44 outside districts.

So this could mean one of two things.

It could mean that their office location,

that they provided, was right outside of city limits.

So we couldn't identify it for a district.

But like I said, a majority of our applicants

were able to show and got the priority points

for their service areas specifically.

But we know we like to see a per district kind of what,

what we're looking at so far.

So that's probably gonna change a little bit

as we have better data,

but that's kind of what it's looking like right now.

So the Grant Advisory Review Panel,

we will have five panels with a diverse set of panelists

from different disciplines, as I mentioned earlier.

We do have some Sacramento youth and commissioners

and Sacramento Children's Fund commissioners

represented on this panel.

We're looking for maybe one more.

So let us know.

And then our conflict review has been conducted

by our city attorney.

Panel recommendations are goals

to have them present at a city council by late March.

So our request for proposal survey report,

Sacramento Children's Fund proposals, as I said,

were open for about a month.

The RFP survey was open from December 9th through January 10th.

We had 60 respondents and several interviews,

one-to-one interviews conducted with those respondents.

Just to caveat this a little bit,

the survey wasn't just sent to the people

who applied and were eligible for funds.

It was sent to our entire list serve

that the original grant management system

notified essentially.

So I think it's upwards of like 300 people.

So this could include people that did not apply.

It could include people that didn't finish their application,

people that did complete their applications,

and just notified eligible organizations in general.

So we did have 60 respondents, which is great.

I think this is one of the first times

we've done a request for proposal survey report.

And we got some interesting information,

and obviously tons of feedback that is reflected

in the report that you received.

But these are just some big picture overviews.

About 92% believe the grant opportunity

would strengthen their programs.

76% said they have not received funding

from the City of Sacramento's youth administration services

or the youth development team specifically.

About 75% found the grant difficult to complete.

65% of respondents did submit an application.

63% believe the application process

reflected the intent of measure O.

62% believe the information sessions were helpful.

59% believe the grant making practices

encouraged them to apply, and about 56%

believe the application requirements encourage them

to apply.

This is some general feedback that we kind of compiled

together.

You have some more specifics.

So in the survey report that you received,

I'm just to clarify how it's written out.

Those are pretty much our open response.

Feedback that we received, the number that you see

in parentheses next to it is the amount of people.

So we want to be transparent and share,

like what people said for Baydom, obviously,

but it was a pretty small percentage.

So three out of the 60 people,

one of the 120 or 300 notified people,

it's not a huge amount, but we did want to reflect that

and be transparent about that.

So in the first category of grant making protocols,

small CBOs found it difficult to apply due to the financial

requirements such as the audit, which we heard a lot about.

The 501C3 status requirement and other financial requirements.

For the logistics of applications,

respondents said they needed more time and space

to complete the sections and list documents

to review and refer to.

Recommendations, stream lines, simplify the application,

narrow the scope of the funds investment.

So outcomes can be attributed to the fund

with the more tangible solution than scale up.

Reconsider how small CBOs can support the fund efforts.

And then as you'll see, we also had some good feedback.

And they really enjoyed the opportunities.

Some people really enjoyed the information sessions

and the fact that we offered one virtually and one in person.

Obviously we had many applicants.

We had more than just 121 that were eligible,

that we reviewed.

So, you know, we're not small in the number of applicants,

but obviously we recognize there are some improvements

as this is the first time that, you know,

we've done this for Sacramento Children's Fund.

And, you know, we're moving quite quickly.

So we're definitely going to take in that feedback

and any of your feedback for the next time we put an RFP out

and how we can improve that process.

But yeah, so this is what we received this far.

For implementation timeline update,

so we went to City Council September 24th,

requests for proposals went out in November 2024.

Application review process were currently in.

We do have panels going right now.

For February of 2025, recommended awardees selected,

given that it gets passed City Council by late March.

Council approval and contract negotiations starting in March.

As you can imagine, based off of, you know, people responding to us,

us responding to them, it does take a little bit of time.

And then by spring late spring of 2025,

we want to have our guaranteed basic income RFP out as well.

Don't forget about that one.

And our year one evaluation report is due September 26th, 2026.

What can you expect from that?

Probably a deeper breakdown in the applicants

and the process that we've gone through for implementation at that point.

Maybe a quarterly report, our first quarterly report from our grantees.

Maybe available by that year when evaluation report,

but it's probably going to be more of an evaluation of the implementation

we conducted up to that point.

All right, and that's all I have for you right now.

If you have any questions, you know, just now's the time.

I just want to say a quick thank you to you and your team Renee.

I think this was really appreciated by many of us in terms of the being able

to get feedback from your applicants and the wider community commissioner comes.

I know I initially had toge that I wasn't going to be on the grant review panel.

I think the privilege of being 26 and not, you know, having too many commitments.

I probably don't have too many conflicts in the community either.

So if you do need an extra commissioner to serve as a grant review panelist,

I'll be more than happy to do so.

I will also just to check in.

There's not too many meetings during the day for the grant review panel, correct?

Correct. Yeah. Okay, great.

That sounds good. I'll do it then.

Thanks. Great.

Of course.

Okay, Commissioner Richardson.

You know, as having the privilege of just turning 40, you know,

I'm just playing.

Yeah, I did just turn 40 though.

I do want to say to you Renee, Renee and staff, Julie's not here.

I just want to just thank you all so much just for all of the hard work that y'all put into

creating all of this feedback, creating all of this information to bring back to the commission,

all of the work that you've been doing on this.

I know that this has been an extensive process from when we first met in December of last year,

not knowing, you know, what these timelines could look like.

I know a lot of people have come up to the diets and said, we wish that this can go a little faster,

but ensuring and making sure that we're doing right, I am appreciative that we are taking our time

to make sure that things are right.

And we can get, we can get everything out to the public in the means, in the matter

is that we've been able to do.

And this doesn't seem like it's been easy to do at all.

So I do want to just say thank you to you and staff for all of this.

Also, third plateau, all the work that they've put into it.

And of course, my lovely commission here.

I just had a comment.

I know that we've had these timelines and I know that we've been wanting to hit and

hit every marker, but being a part of this and seeing all of the

the hiccups or things that have come up along the way, just because this is public,

I'm just going to ask that everyone be patient with us during this time, especially just seeing

the timeline, seeing how far we have to go, seeing what's happened during the RFP process.

So my thing is just to say I just want to have grace during this time frame.

And I am looking forward to the guaranteed income portion of the RFP.

Thank you. Commissioner Crabbit-Tworz?

Yeah, thanks. So I just want to second what's already been said.

I think this is, I was really pleased to see the survey go out to get the responses

and sort of feedback from the community itself.

And so there were just a couple of things that I wanted to sort of underscore and what I saw

in some of the findings. And then sort of ask a follow-up question about how we as a commission

with you and city staff Renee can sort of think about how to improve in the future on that.

And so and what that process might look like. And so my first just sort of I wanted to highlight

some things around the fiscal sort of sponsorship issue kind of being a barrier to at least from

what I heard from from community organizations, many of them smaller from being able and

prevented them from being able to apply the financial audit piece I heard. So I just wanted to

lift that one up as well in terms of sort of it being a barrier. And then the reimbursement

piece which I'm not maybe is in here but I might have missed. But something that I think a number

of us heard was just the the amount of money that was offered sort of for upfront as opposed

to as opposed to through reimbursement process was a little lower than I think some some

especially smaller community based organizations could you know handle. And so just again,

I wanted to lift those at least those three up but then also just sort of see if there is a plan

or a process that we can put together to think about how to improve that for the future RF piece.

Yeah.

I too had a couple of comments regarding the feedback that we received and you know just

understanding I do also if we can go back to the timeline slide. Are these going to be sent to us

because I don't think I got it. Oh yeah, we'll send the presentation after. Okay. Yeah, that would

be super helpful. I think all of the information that you shared today was super helpful in

understanding kind of like the pool of applicants, you know what the priority areas are. And I think

we've established that as a commission we're not necessarily you know making those recommendations

but it's good to see you know where we stand in terms of the community and what they think it's

important for you know programming. My question is also around just anticipating and that grace

that vice chair Richard's mentioned. So application review process we are already in the month of

February. You're still working on kind of like that grant review getting enough grant review

urge to be able to review all of the grants is and then recommend the awards selected. How would

that work considering that you're making the recommendations for the awards but then the guaranteed

basic income comes out in the spring would it just be like a replica of the process because

that guaranteed basic income RFP would still have to come to the council wouldn't it.

It may have to but the guaranteed basic income RF is going to be more targeted so I don't

anticipate that we'll have 120 one applicants you know we'll probably have one panel instead of

five panels so the process will be expedited a little bit and also given that we've just come

through it quite recently. There's no conflict between us taking this first set of applicants

to council and then taking our guaranteed basic income potential applicants to council as well

for review. I think when city council gave that direction it was intended for this first set of

applicants not for the guaranteed basic income so we should be able to just move forward with

our normal normal RFP processes it will have to go to council the ultimate agreement with whoever

is our grantee at that point we'll have to go to council because it's above our 250,000 threshold

but we're currently operating under that understanding city attorney correct me if I'm wrong

but I don't believe we'll have to take that guaranteed basic income to council prior to us trying

to put a agreement together. Okay yeah because that kind of begs another question for me is

do we know so the recommendations are going to come from the grant review committee they're going

to go to council and then council has the authority to approve it as a package and or take some of

the recommended applications out do we know what that looks like. I think our goals to provide a

recommendation to where they review we take it to them saying this is what we recommend based off

the process that we followed over the course of the last few months right. I don't know if they

have the authority to pick and choose per se I don't believe they do but I guess they could

potentially say we should focus on this area or that area but I'll defer to our city attorney

on how far that can go. Yeah so as Renee said you know I think we'll have scores from the panelists

on each application so we'll have scoring that we can provide to the council and then I think

what they expressed an interest in during that meeting was maybe wanting to focus in certain

you know goal areas over other goal areas and so you know there will probably be some options

in terms of how they could how they could hit $9.3 million if they did certain things but you know

I don't anticipate that they would be able to pick a that they would just be able to look at

unless they focus in one group or focus on geographic areas or something like that as a basis

for their decision I think they still have to look at the scores and use that as a basis since it's

a open competitive process but it's going to be a tricky conversation. Yeah because I guess my

question is like once the grant review makes their recommendations is that something that's public

because yeah so it is going to be when it comes to council right like the names of the organizations

how much and all that it's going to be public okay yeah we'll have to put in the staff report you

know we'll probably have multiple we'll probably lay it out many ways like this is the recommendation

that we received by score you know and equitably across our seat or COI areas and then you know

we'll probably have to show our CBO versus city split right because that's part of it as well

so it's all that's all going to be taken into consideration and that will all be put in the

staff report that will have to provide you know two weeks in advance to city council yeah that's

a lot of detail commissioner Richardson or vice chair Richardson thank you appreciate it

question so I'm super excited and I believe the council was excited about the guaranteed

guaranteed basic income portion of our CIP so we didn't have anyone that was applying for any of

the guaranteed income portion of the grants in our current RFP process correct correct okay so

I don't have more on this but I'm really excited about this what I was going to say was just going

back to you chair I feel like just because we've already established what the parameters are in

the CIP and what has been approved I feel like once we do put together all of the organizations that

are selected from the recommendations I'm going to say probably the only thing that's probably

going to have like a bit of questioning is going to be the split because there were only there were

11 city but 80 CBOs and it looks like 3 2 4 so roughly about 90 organizations more so I'm sorry

not 90 almost 90 more on the CBO side and only 11 so that's probably going to be our only point

of contingency is looking at that because we do have that split but I feel like everything else

should probably fall with where it needs to fall I'm more so I'm more so on the guaranteed basic

income how much for because this is the 3 1 1 2 1 half portion how much is going to be on this RFP

I'm sorry available it'll be maybe tomorrow can do some quick math but I think we had like 1.2

20% with like 1.2 or 1.3 of what we had left okay so if we're going to go by an estimate and be

around 5 million or so that's going to go for the 3 1 1 half year okay so 3 1 1 1 3 okay thank you so

much and just to speak to the point of contingency with the CBO amount I mean I think we're really

aware that we did want to provide opportunities to our smaller and larger CBOs I will say a lot of

them as you can imagine put in for the maximum out so that'll impact you know I don't think I

think it's safe to assume they're not all going to get the maximum not everybody's going to get

funded obviously so we are also taking that into consideration to ensure that it's equitable

across the board all right I was just got a note because I saw that everybody applied for a lot

you said 125 million was what was requested correct yeah yeah

everybody need money can you go back to that slide actually yeah

because we don't yeah we don't have this in front of us but oh actually go to that one the

district one I think a point of clarification for this one too is I know you mentioned the 44

outside of the district probably within the county line like within you know just not within

the city limits but I'm also wondering because you know we did that sort of assessment around equity

the equity-based assessment with the COI tool and the seed tool and I think you know we see some

of the districts that are you know definitely in need like district eight district five are not

as have as many applicants but I think I just want to acknowledge that like what you said Renee

is that their offices in like the application the address of the application that may have been used

is in this district but that doesn't mean that it's so the 27 applicants for district four are

only serving you know the district four you there whatnot so I think you know because it's a

public meeting folks may be watching the afterwards I just want to make that clarification because

yeah 44 outside of the district people are going to be like well it's not within the city but

you know there are a lot of folks within the county that have their offices in the county that

are serving youth in the city of Sacramento because as you know young people are not just with

confined within their districts or within the city limits they're moving out and about so

yeah I just wanted to make that comment and then if you could go to the the slide that we were

talking about this one is I sorry the next one was it the down yeah that one it's fine

nope sorry we don't have these in print of us so I don't know what number it is either but I

think this is actually pretty telling because wow mental health but I think as a commission we've

kind of discussed that like mental health is one of those umbrella you know issues that just

are interconnected with so much of these other priority areas so I'm not surprised to see mental

health is the highest but it does beg the question you know are when I look at these Renee I guess

my question is when you guys identified the distribution of application across schools are they

overlapping in the sense that if somebody applied say as a mental health like program but they

also said that they're also violence prevention and they're also substance abuse prevention

how is that reflected here like if they did across multiple goals yeah they were able to check

off like their secondary maybe even tertiary goals as well and in the scoring rubric for the

panelists it's also outlined like if you chose multiple and they had to show that they really were

going to be able to achieve those goals through the narrative questioning so as our panelists are

going through it that's something they'll take into consideration because we didn't want to run

into the situation where people were checking as many as possible thinking that would give them a

leg up you know so it's more quality over quantity when it really comes down to it because as you

said and we can probably pull for next time and show you the secondary goals that people chose

in addition to the first ones just to see where the overlap was for some of them but the way we

did the scoring rubric it's it's going to ensure that they're looking at the full scope of the service

that they're providing not just that they checked off that they're going to do three of the five you

know gotcha yeah okay that makes sense um all right commissioner Thomas so maybe this is more

of a question we can talk about offline as a grant review panelists but what's your assessment

of only three applying for substance abuse I'm not sure that's that's a that's what they chose as

their primary right so they could be a mental health or you know serving organization that has a

component of their programming as substance abuse I obviously I came from a substance abuse non-profit

that's why I started actually so I know what's the big issue among youth I know we're in an opioid

epidemic currently so I'm not sure I don't I don't have any insight into the number being a

little lower than maybe expected but my assumption is that people that are serving

substance use programs intervention prevention you know etc have a mental health as a component

as the main component and that's another component of it so we can we'll try to pull that secondary

information to see if we have some more that are focused in that area and I appreciate it I know

as the chair mentioned the mental health is obviously very you know very encompassing you know

type of topic but I think now we're thinking as a review panelist I'm wondering you know

how many these applications are just requesting the same thing to do the same thing right and so now

I have to think about okay it was 77 of you and you let maybe 75% of you all went to the exact same

thing for various amounts of you know my did you request it so now my my brain's now going straight

to how do you decipher and make that decision as a grant review panelist so that's that's so

maybe there's too many mental health applications but definitely a worthy challenge

to tackle thank you vice chair Richardson thank you commission and Thomas for bringing it up

because I too was sitting here wondering when I saw the substance abuse like while I'm excited to

see violence prevention and children zero to five got the number that they did I would have liked

to see that a little bit higher especially with measure L having a big focus on violence prevention

substance abuse and homelessness those numbers happen to be the lowest out of the the main

focuses I too am wondering how many of those 77 are all doing the same thing but to your point

Renee maybe there is a component of the others in their mental health just because when you think

of mental health as a whole all of those things can fall in there so yeah this is going to be

interesting I'll just I want to make a quick comment on the concern maybe that you brought up

vice chair and commissioner Thomas around folks doing the same thing I think you know it's important

to acknowledge that I think some that one a young person like not one organization is going to be

able to serve every young person and that's exactly why there are multiple like entities and

CBOs doing work with like youth in high school youth in middle school youth of color because it's

sometimes even though they're doing mental health maybe it's like they're targeting like black youth

they're targeting let you know they're targeting LGBTQ youth so I think you know as a grant review

panelist that's also something to take into consideration because we all you know as a commission we

also discuss the equity piece like who are the most underserved youth in the community of Sacramento

and where are they at and what are the identities identity markers that that may allow us to see like

these youth have not been served by any Sacramento serve city of Sacramento services and so yeah

I would probably assume that like even though people put mental health as their first maybe because

they also think that's like the big sort of like umbrella of what they do but many of those

organizations in that 707 are probably doing like really targeted work for underserved youth in

the community so hopefully that comes through you know in the applications and people made it

apparent that you know they're serving youth in very you know very specific backgrounds and

those things so yeah I just wanted to make that comment because yes folks are doing similar work but

not one organization is going to serve every young person and some young people gravitate towards

the institutions right they want to be involved in like city programs and then some young people

gravitate towards community-based peer-to-peer programs and so I think that's just a testament to like

it's an ecosystem right it has to be city and community services that are engaging young people

Commissioner Thomas can we quickly go back to the slide that had

okay thank you

Commissioner Richards

to your point here thank you for bringing that perspective and I will say especially

as someone who has two teenagers I do know that mental health is very important especially amongst our

youth 25 and younger and I would just say during this oversight time of our commission I would love

to know when those when those CBOs those entities are selected that be a part of their report to us

so that we can know and we can express that and we can make sure that that's clear and stated

through the strategic investment plan our initial entities were able to do this type of work

although it was a higher like say if there's a higher number of mental health institutions picked

I would love to target in on the actual work that they're doing so that way that can that can really

speak to this is what we did with measure L if that makes sense if I'm making sense with that

yeah you're just talking about when we are reporting in general to ensure that we're showing like

individualized right so yeah so not just mental health right you know who are those you because

I really would like for and I think we brought this up during our commission during our first year

would like to know who who are the youth that are being impacted if that is youth of color if that

is LGBTQ plus if that's homeless you if that's youthful suffer with substance abuse so that way

it can make it more the reports more fuller as we're reporting out the successes and reporting out

who we've actually been able to assist with measure L with the funds so that Sacramento can see

okay this is what you're with this is what the money went towards and this is who was being in fact

that through this so yeah thank you Vicer I just have a quick comment so

I think it would have also been helpful to see so we know that around 125 million was what was

requested across all I think it would have also been helpful to see under kind of it split under

the different types of applicants just to see kind of like the need across the board of you know

the different types of applicants and what that might look like in terms of how then the money

rolled out and split up but that was just a quick comment yeah commissioner Wolsey thank you chair

I have a questions around the local grassroots movements um what does that mean exactly so those

were our entities that chose that their organizational budget was under 200,000 so they had less

financial requirements that they had to provide I didn't find themselves as a smaller CBO

so that was just one of the options that they could choose in the application itself and then I had

mentioned there was about 15 or 17 15 to 17 that didn't identify themselves as a grassroots

organization but we would we would put them in the grassroots organization area

and so far for the city applicant it said 11 um does that mean 11 different applications came from

the city yes from the city of Sacramento yes so just across city wide got it

vice chair oh thank you thank you commissioner Wolsey vice chair Richardson

last question I promise for a collaborative were those organizations who were applying as like

is it called joint is it a fiscal sponsor no so it was just a joint collaborative applicant

not a fiscal yeah okay fiscal sponsors were allowed through this process or not allowed

they were not not allowed yeah and that's per charter language not per like the strategic investment

plan or city implementation process interpretation of charter language but I just have a quick

question on the evaluation piece so we're going to get a report in September 2026 yes

um do we um know as a part of the application process were the applicants were they shared

with like what were the what information or data they would have to collect in order to be

you know in their contract it will outline like what information that we'd be collecting from them

for the most part but there's usually an area in the agreement that says reporting and then

outlines the reporting that they will have to provide gotcha so the reporting wouldn't necessarily

be a part of the RP application it's small component like this which you should expect to provide

but when we get into contract negotiations it'll be outlined more clearly yeah I think

it is that something that we could see as a commission but the uh we could I could add it to the

follow-up log and then we can assess to what extent we can bring it to you all that probably

will be something that will want your feedback on in the future before September 2026 right you

guys will have two meetings before then so I think that would be really helpful because we have

some evaluation you know experts on the commission but also because um it will allow us to later on

down the line be like well what did we hold these applicants accountable to in terms of the

populations that they're serving the ages that they're serving how the quantity and quantity of

youth that they're serving so um I think that would be something that we should definitely see

in the near future and that's all I have no folks have any other comments I think you might be

good Renee right come back up here thank you

all right so we already took member comments ideas questions and um as a part of this meeting

but I did just want to share something really quick and I don't mean to be this person but I

think it was you know what you said do we talk about I think we have some did we because we had

a lot of special meetings last year but we had I think there might be a delay in the payment for

like three of them or something like that for our commissioning so um I'm not sure I did

I did receive and we can go through and I don't know if this is the time or place but you know

I'm an extra forgiveness type of person I did receive a check so I received something I think it

was this week I I got mine so I'm not sure everybody has um their full compensation all right well

if anybody has any concerns I'm sure you could probably ask or just make that a note

exor expensive everything is expensive and I'm sure people would appreciate that but that's

all I have for you all today um and then what is what's the next thing that we have to do

okay public comment um so we are moving to the last item which is public comments matters not on

the agenda clerk are there any members of the public who should speak thank you chair I have no

speaker slips on this item all right so this concludes today's agenda thank you everyone for your

participation and your patience I did not forget how to you know uh run a meeting but I needed some oh

yes I was just gonna say we want to make a comment yeah and then we're does that we're gonna

that's what I was gonna reference and I don't know if if we can and if if it's okay for us to take

public comment yeah well that's what can we yeah we do that um yeah we just have her fill out

a sp or sorry have them fill out a speaker slip yeah have them fill out a speaker slip I think

it's appropriate I mean sometimes folks come in and aren't really you know don't know how to do the

oh thank you yeah I'm over here like this

um okay I was so excited this is my first time ever doing something like this my name is

Zamorian Sherman I'm representing project optimism I don't know if you guys are familiar with

them our money easily he's the best my mentor big brother um I don't know if I'm able to ask a

question or kind of clarify I think earlier you were asking what a grassroots was was that because

you don't know what like that means or in the context of this conversation okay because I was okay

because I just want to clarify like what a grassroots was if that wasn't um clear um but yeah

that's all I wanted to say you're welcome to still share if you want yeah you can still share

I don't have oh okay well yeah because sometimes people watch these meetings I don't know what it

means or you know okay what I've been taught from our money is just basically and you guys kind

of clear from me too it's just like people who started from the bottom and like really community

based right so like I met you at this event oh you're cool I met you here blah blah we all

gonna link up and let's just make it happen and I feel like even through my journey of working with

project optimism all the people who are at the top like leadership they all knew each other back

in college or at this random meeting or like who I saw you on Instagram and now I want us to connect

and now they've built this whole organization where we're serving the youth you know what I mean

and we're serving a very um what would you say a very special demographic and I feel like that

not to brag on project optimism but I feel like that's why our our our organization is so

dope because we're serving fourth fifth and sixth and not a lot of organizations are like touching

the youth in that way and I feel like our organization also does so many things beyond just the after

school program you know what I mean like our mentors are like busting their rears to like go to

different schools every day so Tuesday Wednesday Thursday we're in the art and area and by the grace

of God we just do I have a time limit oh I have 12 seconds left okay by the grace of God it's crazy

this is my 30 year working with them we now work in the district I used to go to school at so I

feel like that was God telling me girl you to stay here because I was about to leave them but it's

project optimism for life thank you all so much thank you thank you for your comment chair

I have a no more speaker slips and church just for the record we had no speaker slips for item three

okay oh yep okay this is a plan all right so this concludes today's agenda thank you everyone

for your participation our meeting is adjourned I don't have my gavel but I'm just gonna smack the

desk slam the desk okay all right thanks everyone