Good morning and welcome to the February 1st,

2026 meeting of the Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

The time is now 10.02 a.m. and the meeting is called to order.

Will the clerk please call the roll to establish a quorum? Yes, thank you, Chair.

I have Commissioner Ghaffari.

Present.

Okay.

Commissioner Kravitz Ritz?

Here.

Vice Chair Richardson?

Here.

Commissioner Thomas?

Here.

Commissioner Volsi?

Here.

Commissioner Williams?

Here.

And Chair Ruelas Maris?

Help me out with that.

Ruelas Maris, but.

I'll record that.

Ruelas Maris.

Thank you. We have a quorum.

Okay, I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item,

please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on.

After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's Indigenous people and tribal lands.

To the original people of this land, the Nisanan people, the southern Maidu, Valley and Plains

Miwok, Patwin-Wintu 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 the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous

peoples' history, contributions, and lives. Thank you.

So I'm not going to take away anybody's right from doing the Pledge of Allegiance, but I'm

personally going to sit down. So if you guys would like to continue to do that, that's

okay. And then we can continue the meeting. So, yeah.

Yeah.

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

and to the republic for which one nation under God

and to the world with liberty and justice for that someday.

Someday.

Okay.

Our first business today is approval of the consent calendar.

Clerk, are there any members of the public

who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Chair.

We have no speakers for this item.

Okay.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Okay.

I'm seeing none.

So I do wish we had the follow-up log in front of us,

but is that something that is posted with email to us?

It's posted with the agenda, the follow-up log, and any attachments.

But if you want to request that we print it for you in future, we may do so.

I think that would be helpful, yeah, just to have it in front.

I know folks have their laptops too, can easily access that.

But without it in front of me, I mean, and nobody having any questions, is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

Before we do that, is there a way to skip that item since we're not looking at it to see if there actually is something on there that anyone needs to speak on?

Or how does that work?

We'll move that to the end.

There will be a question for the clerk.

I mean, possibly could you guys open it and we could take a minute to look at it now?

And then is it the follow-up log that everybody wants to look at or the minutes as well?

I think mostly the follow-up log.

I would say the follow-up log because I don't want us to approve and move forward if there is something that a commissioner needs to speak on.

And I don't want us to not look at it and say that we looked at it.

Is that cool with everybody?

MS. Yeah, I think we can take a moment. I just I do have so just I guess I should look

at the follow-up log so that I can see where the pending items are that I requested in

the last meeting. Does everybody have that pulled up?

MS. Yeah, I can pull up.

MS. I can pull up and I have it up for you.

MS. Do you mind sharing Commissioner Kravitz-Wertz what?

MS. Yeah, so there's a couple of related it seems like pending items all of which

are very similar around prioritizing funding goals, which I think is maybe one of our agenda

items for today or something we will start the discussion about. I'm not really sure

if there's anything different. There's requests from myself, Commissioner Williams, Commissioner

Thomas and Chair, yeah, Chair Ruelas-Morris all with the same exact information.

I can speak to a few of the items. So I know one of the pending items was a question around

the definition of fiscal sponsor.

And that question did come up.

It's no longer pending.

That's been completed because that question came up in our GBI NOFO Q&A.

And the city attorney looked at it and we expanded the definition.

And so that GBI Q&A has been attached to this follow-up log,

and that's under the complete.

So if you guys would like to look at that definition.

and then on the pending items we still have a request for a presentation from violence prevention on there

which is pending with the office of violence prevention we'll continue to follow up

there was also a request from i believe chair regarding a mapping tool which the city will

continue to work with gis with but really we're pending more information from our quarterly

reporting. And I believe there was also another pending item in regards to a meeting with the

Sacramento Youth Commission, which will be addressed today. We don't have it scheduled,

but we have options. And so we'll be looking at the calendar year and we'll be able to schedule

a meeting with the Sacramento Youth Commission. That was also pending. I don't have it in front

of me if there's another one that anyone has questions about I can speak to.

I'm not sure if anybody has questions. I just want to make a quick correction to the request

that I made because it says AD12 on the follow-up log but what I meant by that was AB12 like the

Assembly bill. Okay I think that was just a typo we understood your intention.

And then the one that I'm I may be just skimming this really quickly but I think

we had also requested a presentation from the off sorry no it's not its own

office now but the violence prevention staff. Correct that item is still

pending. We've requested the presentation, but that office is very busy, and so we just have to

work with them to get a time on the calendar when they can attend and present. Okay. I mean,

if there's anything we can do to help push that along, I think that'd be helpful because we've

been requesting that for like about a year now. Well, they are city staff, so you're welcome to

reach out to them as well. There's nothing that

precludes you

from doing so.

Okay. Good to know.

So follow-up log reviewed. Is there

a motion and a second?

Thank you.

A second.

So motion by

Commissioner Ghaffari, second by Vice Chair

Richardson. Clerk,

can you please, or commissioners

Please unmute and then clerk please call the roll for the vote.

Thank you, Chair.

Commissioner Gavari?

What do I say?

Present?

Aye.

Aye.

Right.

Commissioner Cavett-Rutz?

Aye.

Vice Chair Richardson?

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas?

Aye.

Commissioner Voltsy?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Chair Ruelas-Mieres?

Aye.

I'll work on it.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

So we switched up the order for the roll call.

I know.

I know.

I can't hear it.

I can't hear it.

I can't hear it.

I can't hear it.

I can't hear it.

His brain doesn't even work.

Okay.

So you go.

We was a little confused.

I'm not going to lie.

We're training at one step.

We're like, what?

We're still in it.

In the order.

In the order.

Yeah, I know.

I know.

We're both just reading things as they're listed here.

I think there's a little bit of typos for sure.

I don't mind starting, but I just have to get used to it.

Welcome to the Children's Fund.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we will now proceed with today's agenda.

I did want to take a moment to make a statement.

I find it really important in the state of the world that we're in now to just sort of address, you know, what we're here dealing with.

And, you know, obviously we're here to talk about the state of our community, specifically our children and our families.

And so if it's okay with you all, I would just like to kind of like set the tone for that today.

so I wanted to begin my statement by thanking the city council for unanimously passing the

sanctuary city policy last Tuesday January 27th and I want to specifically thank my council member

Maya Ving for her leadership on this issue and for her support and support of her colleagues

vice mayor Talamantes and council member Eric Guerra I want to state that what I'm going to

say in my statement is my own personal opinion and doesn't reflect the thoughts and opinions

of anyone on this commission or my council member specifically.

I do feel, however, that resolutions without real enforceable policies to ensure compliance

and accountability are not necessarily enough in this moment to protect our children and

families from being forcibly abducted on our streets, taken from their homes without judicial

warrants, or even killed at protests.

It is important that we make these statements as a city, but it is even more important to

me that my city representatives do everything in their power to ensure the safety and well-being

of all the community members in Sacramento regardless of their immigration status, period.

I am and have always been a proud daughter of Mexican immigrants. I want it to be clearly

stated that the work we did at SAC Kids First in collaboration with the youth leaders, adult allies,

and youth serving organizations in Sacramento over the past decade to establish a children's

Fund in our city was and will always be the legacy of kids of immigrants.

As I was thinking about what kind of statement I wanted to make, I struggled to identify

the tone with which I wanted to present my thoughts to you all today.

This is an issue that is deeply personal for me, and it is often difficult for me to manage

my emotions as I speak about this topic.

I am angry at the lack of empathy for human life as masked and unarmed federal agents harass and kidnap our neighbors based on the color of their skin and the tone of their accents and tackle and shoot at and murder protesters in broad daylight who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

I have grown to be resentful of the history of this country that was built by humans forcibly

removed from their lands, forcibly enslaved, underpaid, undervalued, and always treated less

than. I am grieving the loss of life at the hands of the federal government whose powers continue

to go unchecked after they bend and break the rules that were never meant to protect

black, brown, and indigenous folks in the first place.

but more important than my personal feelings is the concern we should collectively have for our

children and the youth of this generation witnessing what is happening in our country

and in our community many of those who took to the streets last friday for an organized walkout

in solidarity with the people of minnesota and the collective call for ice to get out of our

communities you're probably wondering why this should matter at a local commission meeting at

the city level. But I challenge you to think about how this is impacting your neighbors,

community members, the youth in our community, and your own kids, and everyday people who you

come across in your professional and personal lives. I, for one, am one of those people.

And we are here in this meeting, after all, to discuss the current state of issues that impact

our children and youth. And if you haven't noticed, Sacramento youth are the ones telling

us what they want. They are taking to the streets because they want us to pay attention to what is

happening in the country and do something about it. They want ICE out of Sacramento and they want

ICE out of our country. Let me be clear when I say that ICE is beyond reform and it does need to

be abolished. That is my personal belief. Today I would like our discussion to be productive and

focus on the task at hand and also be rooted in the real-time issues that are going on in the

lives of our children and families. We should ask ourselves, how are we as

commissioners positioning ourselves to meet the moment? How are we working with

our elected leaders to stand up for all of our community members? And how do we

do what we can in this moment with the resources that we have to make a

difference? And let us not be afraid to say that a certain framework isn't

working anymore, to pivot from business as usual, and to acknowledge the damage

that has been caused from the current system

and begin building something new

that does work for us and our kids.

After all, I think in this moment,

particularly hope and optimism for the future

is really what is uniting us here today.

So thank you.

And I just want us to continue

and have a productive meeting.

So with that,

I believe that we have a staff presentation.

Oh, Commissioner Wolsey.

Chair, I first want to thank you for your bravery, your leadership, for standing up here today and for standing on what you believe.

as a Haitian

I'm talking about a person

literally from Haiti

not someone who's from the States

who's saying I'm Haitian

I came to this country

when I was like 12 years old

and we've seen things

nothing like we're seeing

today

as of recently

350,000 Haitians

were just waiting to figure out

if they were going to become illegalized in this country

just because someone said so.

And, you know, after the judge decided, you know,

that TPS was going to stay

and those Haitians were going to go to Haiti,

I saw how these people were celebrating,

how happy they were because they don't have a home to go back to, right?

And the violence out here being committed by ICE is the worst we've ever seen.

And, you know, we're at a point where if some say that we're living in Nazi Germany,

they wouldn't be too far off, you know, because what's happening on the streets, that's how it started.

And I'm here with you, sister, and I want to fight with you,

because this fight, we probably don't like the two immigrants here, right?

The fight is a real one, and it's not one that we get to talk about

or we get to sit on here and say, hey, we did something, right?

That's beautiful.

But what we need is people like you, myself, and everyone here, right,

standing shoulder to shoulder and getting into this fight

because I guarantee you it's getting worse.

It's going to get worse.

And my sister here can't be alone.

You know, I stood for the pledge

because those 350,000 Haitians,

they don't want to go back to Haiti, right?

So I understand the land that I stand on

providing an opportunity for them, right?

But at the same time, we have so much work to do, and whatever you need on this front, you have my number.

Please just call me, and I want to be there with you because your pain is mine.

So thank you for standing up.

Thank you so much.

Julie, I know you're probably wondering how to think your presentation is up next.

Oh, it's my turn?

Okay, sorry.

I was waiting for a call or something.

All right.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners, and any public watching today's meeting.

Welcome to the first Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission meeting

of 2026. Today we'll be presenting an implementation update and reviewing the Sacramento Children's

Fund timeline, the SIP third year review, and a potential editing process. This is a

discussion item. And after the presentation, the commission will have the opportunity to

discuss the potential topics, amendments, or edits they would like to revisit as part

of the third year review.

The commission will also have the opportunity to potentially appoint ad hoc committees to

conduct research and make any recommendations or dive into review topics as part of the

third year review.

So starting with an implementation update, the Sacramento Children's Fund grantees have

recently submitted their second quarter programmatic and financial reporting, and Sacramento Children's

Fund staff are in the process of reviewing and approving all invoices and reports.

Many CBO grantees have begun programming and most are still working to spend down the advance payment as of the quarter to invoice.

The City of Sacramento projects have been issued funding after council approval in December of 2025.

And the city and the school districts continue in contract negotiations.

So that would be the awards for SCOE and SCUSD.

We will continue working with grantees to complete the reporting, and we also aim to have a progress report summary for you all at the next meeting in May.

Just as a little information, the next meeting at May we will also have the auditor's office presenting on the CBOT at that meeting.

The Sacramento Children's Fund also closed its RFP for evaluation services in December of 2025.

we received 14 applications.

After a review panel scored the applications,

we selected the top three applicants for interview.

Harder & Company was selected as the evaluator

of the Sacramento Children's Fund

for a period of up to five years

and an agreement in the amount not to exceed $750,000.

Staff will be taking the agreement to City Council

for approval on February 24th, 2025.

As well, we also have the Guaranteed Basic Income NOFO, which closes on Monday, February

9, 2026.

The city is on track to meet the proposed GBI timeline of starting funding July 1, 2026.

And we do have a full panel.

However, we have additional space for one more panelist if anybody on the commission

would like to serve.

we do have a Sacramento Youth Commissioner serving on the panel.

Just to go over, go back to Harder and Company Community Research,

who is the consultant that was chosen for the agreement for evaluation of the Sacramento Children's Fund.

A little bit about their scope.

As I noted, we'll be going to council at the end of this month,

so their agreement is still technically not executed.

but I'll share with you that we have planned to contract with them for five years from 2026 through 2030

with the intention to have them design and implement a multi-year evaluation learning and capacity building initiative

to strengthen grantee performance, community engagement, and shared learning for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

fund. Some of their deliverables are to establish and refine a monitoring, evaluation and learning

or MLE framework for the children's fund to build grantee capacity through training,

coaching and peer learning. That also involves them meeting in person and conducting trainings

with the grantees. We have asked them to facilitate data driven reflection and continuous improvement

of the fund and also to create public facing deliverables such as dashboards, reports and

briefs and to help us engage stakeholders and to produce, help us produce performance

and evaluation reports that are outlined in measure L. Okay. That was a little bit about

our implementation updates. I'm going to shift now to the Sacramento Children's Fund timeline

And we're going to start to talk about the third year review as well as the potential to possibly edit the SIP.

So I know this is kind of hard to read and on the next slide I have an easier table.

But I did want to point out that on the side here on the right of the slide you can see that I have the timeline for the strategic investment plan.

So those are the five years, the fiscal five years of the plan.

and that's always a good reference as we're talking about the you know how we'll roll out

all of our RFPs and such so we are currently more than halfway through year two of the strategic

investment plan with year three beginning on July 1st 2026 per measure L the commission has the

power and duty to review the strategic investment plan before the end of the third year and the

commission has the option to make recommendations to city council based off of their review of not

only the strategic investment plan but any reports that they receive. So based off of some of the

feedback I've received from you all over the past meetings, the commission seems to have expressed

interest in reviewing the strategic investment plan and making certain edits, changes, or

deletions prior to the next round of the RFP. The rest of this presentation will center

around our potential approach to that and any also hoping to address any topics that

you all might want to revisit. So taking you to this easier to read key dates. This table

outlines key dates for the third year review and editing of the strategic investment plan.

Please note the third year review should be completed by the commission. However, editing

and changing the strategic investment plan is completely optional. So we did have, we

did draft a five-year plan that was adopted by city council. So making changes to the

plan is an option of the Commission. However, it's not mandatory. But the review of the

plan for the third year is. So I just want to note that any proposed edits and changes,

if you do decide to make them, will also need to be taken to City Council and adopted by

City Council, which means just that they do have the power to make any of their own edits

or changes or adjustments. If the commission completes edits and the strategic investment

plan is approved by the city council, the updated edited strategic investment plan will impact

one round of open grant funding. The RFP would be for a two-year period and we have approximately

which we are still waiting all the numbers for the rest of the strategic investment plan

but approximately $13 to $14 million to be released in that two-year grant period.

So as you can see, the third year review, which we plan to embark on hopefully starting this meeting,

would need to be complete by June 30, 2027, which seems like a lot of time,

but if you consider I've included with you guys in your packets this presentation,

but also a calendar that we have pretty much five to six meetings before the end of this year.

And so the commission would potentially review the strategic investment plan between February this meeting and next February of 2027.

Edits, amendments, and deletions to the strategic investment plan made as a result of the third year review

would be incorporated into a final revised SIP and that should be completed if the commission

chooses to do so by May 2027 with a final revised SIP taken to city council for adoption

in summer 2027 so that the city may meet their deadlines and release an RFP for open grants with

a two-year grant period in fall or winter of 2028. So as you can see I'm trying to work backwards at

the timeline of we have to complete the review, the third year review by June 2027, but we

also want to align, if you all are planning to make changes, that with the next round

of funding and the RFP release date.

Okay.

I also wanted to note that the commission will then begin the next round of strategic

planning in early 2028 for the next strategic investment plan.

And that will be with the assistance of a hired consultant.

Whereas this review and editing, we do not have a hired consultant to conduct that.

I do want to be pretty straightforward with staff perspective.

That it makes sense to make high-level edits to the SIP at this third-year review mark.

However, I would consider that we will be going through this process very soon, starting in 2028.

So one example that we can give is based off of the last RFP and other children's fund,

if you all wanted to look at, for example, adding funding percentages to the fund goals,

which I've heard spoken about here, that could be something that we visit during the

third year review. I just think that conducting a complete overhaul

of an adopted strategic investment plan at this point would take significant staff time

and capacity without the added resource of a consultant.

Okay. So I did include here in this slide just your powers and duties as per the SIP

which outlines the review, the third year review as well as the power and duty to make recommendations

to City Council as a result of that review. I think I've covered all of the timeline,

but again, understanding that we do want to complete the third year review by June 30th,

2027. And then if you choose to make any edits, we would want those edits to be completed

by May of 2027 so that we could meet our RFP deadline.

Okay. So now we come to a little bit about the proposed process which is this is just

a proposal. And if you all have alternative ideas those are welcome.

So I did send an email out earlier in the week inviting commissioners to consider potential

review topics that they might like to visit.

Considering our timeline we propose that during today's discussion we discuss what topics

we want to revisit as part of the third year review.

We are all taking a lot of notes.

And the commission also has the option of appointing ad hocs at today's meeting to begin

in this review work and research considering that our next meeting is not until May. That

may be something you wish to start today or you might not be ready.

In addition to the SCF meetings that we have, we do have a few options for a joint SYC SCF

meeting with potential dates beginning in June. So we can consider holding a joint meeting

June and onwards with the Sacramento Youth Commission.

So the proposed process would begin today as part of this item discussion with the Commission

deciding on topics to revisit or edit. The next optional step which could also happen

today is to decide is to assign ad hocs by topic. The ad hocs would be tasked with working

on researching the topics and bringing back information and recommendations to the entire

Commission at a later meeting date, including in May, June, August, October, or November.

So and then in early May 2027, the edits, if there are any, to the strategic investment plan

are completed based off of the decisions made by the Commission in 2026. So essentially,

the process would be today and maybe at the next meeting you guys discuss topics that you want to

revisit as part of the third year review. And then we have ad hocs. And those ad hocs can go out

and do research and bring back to the commission their research, their recommendations. And in

those joint, in those, sorry, meetings, public meetings, you all may then decide how you want

to react to those recommendations and that research and if you want to make any changes based off of

that. So it would be a full table discussion there. The idea being that some of the research

is done outside of the meetings to save time and we don't get caught up waiting, waiting,

waiting for things when we only have five to six meetings.

And then obviously as I stated that after we make decisions about potential edits the

The Commission and staff would bring the updated SIPP to City Council for approval in summer

2027 and the city would then draft the RFP based off of the revised adopted strategic

investment plan and release the RFP for the second round of grants.

I would just present one alternative is if you all feel like you only have a few topics

you want to address in the review, we could schedule those out over the next meetings

in May, June, August, and November without the use of ad hocs, and you could all discuss

in the public meetings as a group.

So I know that was a lot of information.

But you all, you may all wish to discuss the process.

But again, reminding you that our next meeting is not until May.

So it would be great today if we could also discuss potential topics you'd like to revisit

so that we can work amongst ourselves and staff can help assist between now and May

to prepare for those discussion items.

And I'll now stay down here and wait for any questions.

Thank you so much, Julie.

Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any members who wish to speak or public comments.

Okay.

Are there any commissioners who have comments, questions, feedback?

Vice Chair?

Good morning, Julie.

I have quite a few questions, actually, just because I do want us to make sure that we do this,

as we're going to call it, an update in decency and order.

And I know that you mentioned quite a few times of staff.

Of course, we want to make sure that we're being cognizant of staff time.

Do y'all have a recommended way of how y'all would like to see this go?

Just because I know we have the timelines, but outside of the timelines,

when we're giving these updates, when we're making these edits,

is there like any recommendations that y'all would like to give us

so that we're working within confined lines?

or is it just y'all have from this time frame,

we're just going to figure it out as we go.

So I just wanted to kind of understand that

so that way we can discuss what that would look like as well.

Yeah, well, I'll be really frank with you all.

I'm here to work with you whatever you decide,

but in my experience, and that's not,

there may be other examples,

but a strategic investment plan adopted for five years

is for five years,

and asking staff to then reinvent the wheel

in the middle is a lot of work that we would be doing without a hired consultant. So in

our perspective, keeping the strategic investment plan for five years would be ideal. However,

I can foresee high-level edits being like if you do choose to edit it, that's your choice

and I'll support you all the way. We will. But it would make sense for it to be high-level

and like okay this is a high level edit based on an emerging need like the topic that was

spoken about today or just maybe not going extremely redoing the whole strategic investment

plan when you're going to start that process in 2028. So that would be my very frank suggestion

as staff. So thank you for that response. So high level

in addition to research. So if there's something that we need to add and it requires some type

of research would it be best if we had whatever our research is that we got

that from to give to y'all along with that so that's part of the idea of the

ad hocs that instead of like you all can sort of go out and fish for yourselves

at the same token instead of and it's also for timeliness so if you appoint

an ad hoc to research for I'm you know I'm not sure what topics you want to

revisit. But if you appointed an ad hoc, you could then meet within yourselves in that

ad hoc, do the research and bring that research back to the entire commission without then

asking the staff to do that for you on follow-up logs that then we can't respond to until that

next meeting that may be three months out. So it's just an idea of how it might work.

And then it's all of you bringing back the recommendations instead of and you working

together instead of staff working. It's not that staff doesn't want to work but it's the

idea that the commission is here to create the strategic investment plan and we're here

to assist you in that. So I hope I'm explaining that well enough.

Oh you did. I just wanted to ask about that so that way we have clarifications and I'm

sure commissioners are going to ask their own questions. Thank you though.

Commissioner Williams.

Hi, thank you for that.

I don't know if this is a question, but this is just some thoughts.

I think that, to your point, we sort of set out a five-year plan.

And I think if we look at the report and who was funded, in my mind, there are some things

that we could sort of correct on, like you said, top level.

I'm also really excited about thinking

about the next five years about maybe a different strategy,

but to your point, I think changing midstream

now doesn't make sense.

I think that the chair brought up a really important issue

that is sort of what we're living in now.

And this commission is to address poverty,

violence and trauma of our youth and children.

And so I think we can think now in this next iteration

how best to do that and meet this moment

and what our children and youth need.

So again, I think doing maybe a very top line

and addressing the emergent issues

and then the next five years doing sort of a deep dive

with a consultant.

Thank you.

Thank you, okay.

I just have a clarifying question

and I feel like this was probably addressed

in your presentation,

but I was also taking notes on things

that I wanted to mention.

If we do make edits to the plan

that would go into effect in 2027,

that would be for the next RFP cycle,

not for the one that folks are currently getting.

Correct.

So the folks who are currently getting funds

have guaranteed for three years?

Three and a half.

Three and a half, okay.

So, and then they have the opportunity to apply

to renew or they would have to apply to the like a different RFP?

So it will be an entirely new RFP and there's nothing right now written into your strategic

investment plan that precludes prior funded agencies from reapplying but it is a completely

separate contract. So there's actually two rounds of open grant funding. We're in a current three

and a half year period with the grantees that were awarded as part of the first RFP built

off of the adopted strategic plan. And now we're looking at this RFP that we're going

to release in, you know, we'll say January 2028. And so as part of this third year review,

if you make edits to the strategic investment plan during the third year review and have

them approved by council, I've set up the timeline so that we would have time to incorporate

those edits into the next RFP for a two-year funding period. And those applicants would

then apply for that RFP and be funded. And it would be a separate grant portfolio.

Got it.

It does make sense, but I think I'm getting sort of like conflicting messages around we

want to discuss some edits that we want to make, but we also don't want to, we also would

like to continue with at least the five-year plan.

So I feel like those are kind of two conflicting things.

I'm not sure how to.

What were you suggesting, Commissioner Williams?

Well, again, these are just thoughts.

But I think that we can do it two different ways.

We can completely rethink, for example, we have five funding areas.

And we can say we can tweak it so we can get more of a spread of the types of programming.

Or if we wanted to redo a strategy, we could do something like we want to just focus on

this area or we could do other types of thinking about that.

But I think right now we have this sort of equitable call for programming along the five

areas plus the guaranteed income.

So I think, I don't know if you all want to mess with that, but for example, when I look

at the number of CBOs that were funded under mental health, which again, they're all fantastic.

There's so much need out there.

But I think the mental health bucket was the big bucket, right, that was easy for a lot

of people to, or organizations to fit into.

And I think that I don't know what your all reaction is that I would like to see some

of the other areas also covered.

So we could put some sort of guardrails around that to say a certain percentage of funding

would do that.

One of the things I think for the next iteration I have a lot of thoughts about how to do it

in a more strategic way that in a sense I feel like we've done a lot of really good

work here but it's a bit scattershot and so the next iteration maybe we can think about

a more integrated approach where we're building sustainability and we're building sort of

infrastructure for children and youth. But I don't want to get into that because I think

that is a whole different concept for the strategy. But so that's what I was thinking.

That's really helpful. Vice chair.

No, I was going to say I completely agree with Commissioner Williams, but also I feel like I also agree with y'all when we're looking at this since the January 2028 RFP would still include folks who are a part of this current RFP cycle who have funding.

If we change something too much, then we knock those folks out, possibly by changing too much. Correct, Julie?

No. So there will be no changes to the awarded folks. They have been awarded their funding and they will get three and a half years per the RFP we released and per the agreements that we've made.

Nobody is getting kicked out. The way that you all drafted the strategic investment plan, you asked us to do two rounds of open grant funding.

And so we split that into three and a half years and two years.

And so we've organized our five-year strategic investment plan, like, internally to do two rounds of open grant funding and two RFPs.

And so that RFP, the second RFP, is not going to impact the first grantees at all unless they decide to reapply and get funded again.

It's not bumping them.

It's not changing them.

This is a whole new RFP and a whole new set of grant funds.

So there's two within the five-year plan.

And so what we're talking about is before we put out that RFP, are you, as part of the third-year review, going to make edits to the SIP?

If you make edits to the SIP and they're approved by city council, then we would draft our new RFP based off of the new strategic investment plan.

So that and that's all encompassed within your five-year current plan.

I think we should not think about the next five years except to consider that you're

going to start drafting that in 2028 but just consider this next chunk of time including

the second RFP of open grants which is encompassed in the five years.

I'm sorry.

I know it's confusing and I'm not sure if I'm making it better.

But it is to say that the first round of grantees has been assigned their money, and unless

they go outside, they are out of compliance or something along those lines, they have

received their funding and they're not losing it.

Okay, so now, does that make sense to everyone?

Because it's like I've needed lots of clarification on that just to make sure that it made sense

to me.

With that information, going back to what you said, Commissioner Williams, I wouldn't

mind the next RFP cycle having the revisions of the percentages because that was my original

what I wanted our first meeting but that's okay I'm not going back to the old stuff but

I wouldn't mind that but of course it's all up to us as to if we decide that we want to really get

into changing and adding the specifics to make it more integrated as you as you mentioned

so that we can have those percentages and show what actually is going towards what,

because there was a lot in the mental health bucket, great organizations.

But if we can specify it down a little bit more so that we can really see who's doing what out of all of our fun goes,

I feel like that would be a little bit better.

But I did need that clarification that you just said.

It is a bit confusing, but I needed that.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thomas.

So, you know, I'm a very, throughout this time, I've been very big on mental health.

It's something that's really important to me and precious to me.

But, you know, when we reflect upon our kind of first round of, you know, grantees, there was an overwhelming amount in the mental health bucket.

So I think moving forward, I would prefer to just do a 20% split amongst all of our fund goals.

I think that would be a good recommendation for the city council.

I would like to push them again to try to give us like 60% of the bucket for CBOs and 40% for like non-CBOs, if that's something we can discuss as well.

The sheer amount of CBOs and groups that were applying versus our public agencies that were applying for funding, I think, was extremely telling.

So I did want to put that on our radar as well.

And, you know, it was interesting.

Love our elected leaders.

but you know I feel like when we went to two different council meetings like

there's definitely a level of oh we forgot what we did a year ago type of

situation and I think that was something that I was frustrating coming to some of

the city council meetings my last thought is on the mental health thing so

one yes I would like to see like 20% for each fund goal but I'm also curious

because I feel like I want to go look back at the applications and then the

grantees but everyone was saying like mental health and sometimes it felt just

a little too broad so I'm kind of curious if maybe there is a way as you

know you know Commissioner Richardson was talking about like maybe you know

really specify how we are defining mental health in the in the strategic

investment plan because it did feel a little brock a catch-all like yours this

is the easy thing we'll put mental health little blah and it's like mmm it kind of

felt like a stretch sometimes and so I think my thing my three things would be

you know 20% for each of our funding goals and really kind of pushing that

and then trying to see we can have a larger bucket for our CBOs because I

really wasn't a fan of how much they had to fight for that little funding and

then maybe having a specific definition of mental health for our strategic

investment plan and it may be a greater definition than what we have currently

because the DCMICA kind of catch-all for the previous fund I felt like that

wasn't really fair to the other fund goals and other applicants as well other

Other than that, I'll leave it there. Thank you.

MS. Did you say 60-40?

MR. Yes, 60% for CBOs and 40% for the non-CBOs. That was absolutely ridiculous, the difference in applications when I saw that in City Hall.

MS. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Gufari.

COMMISSIONER GUFARI. I just want to start by thanking Commissioner Volsi and Chair Rolus-Marris for your comments to open the meeting.

So with that, talking about editing the SIPP, I want us to keep in mind our time and resources and value what we do have in place and all the really hard work that we did.

But also acknowledging the current state of affairs and how this affects our Sacramento youth because things are really hard for some of our youth right now.

So, Shannon, what you were saying earlier about, you know, really highlighting that somehow I think is really important because, unfortunately, I'm not sure that this is going to be stopping anytime soon.

And then to Commissioner Thomas's point about redefining mental health.

I'm a therapist, LMFT.

Clearly, you know, this is something that I advocate for.

However, if we can be more focused on what that definition means, if it means social

workers and therapists on site, I just think that we could be more intentional about these

definitions and then that way just have a better idea of how we're approaching giving

the money.

Thank you.

Commissioner Kravitz-Wurz.

Um first thanks. I don't Julia are you meant to stay up? I feel like you're having to stand through all of this

Is this just our open discussion or do you know just all well we have questions on the presentation? It's fine

I don't welcome to sit unless somebody yeah, you're just joining you all at the dais. Yeah. Yeah, yeah

Thank you

invite you back so so yeah I think I think I have written down sort of four

kind of big buckets that I'm hoping that we as a commission can sort of revisit

as part of this reevaluation of the SIP.

And so in my mind, these four are first,

the city public entity CBO split.

And I'll just say from my point of view,

I would like us to start at least from a point of discussion

where we had originally started as this commission,

which is much more in the 90% CBO, 10% city split,

and come down, and I know that'll be a point of,

great discussion amongst ourselves, but I wouldn't automatically start back where we had, as the

commission, landed in the SIP, which was the 60-40 split, and then the city council changed it. So that

was one bucket. The second bucket was, as everyone, I think, has noted, the fund goal-specific

allocations, and I would encourage us, again, to think through how we want to meet this particular

moment and if there are particular fund goals where we want to sort of

concentrate effort then that might not amount to an equal 20% split across the

five goals and so I would just like us to have that discussion as well. Third I

think I would encourage us to revisit the the populations that we would like to

tailor some of the RFP asks and then our services to and think really intentionally and deliberately

about who really is most affected by what's going on currently by poverty, trauma, and violence and

ensure that we are not diluting our potential effort by spreading the very good work too thin.

and then fourth and this is sort of I think a less critical point for us or

bucket for us to discuss but I would be interested in thinking through as it

relates to some of what others have already said the specific strategies that

we list in each of the fund goals in the SIPP there's usually four or five

specific strategies that are listed and I'm not sure that we leveraged through

the RFP process or the review process,

those specific strategies,

and they may or may not end up staying exactly

as the strategies are currently written,

but I think they do offer a little bit more specificity

around, for example, what is meant by mental health services

or violence prevention services.

So those are my four buckets that I'm hoping

that we as a commission can revisit as part of this,

part of this as part of the next couple months. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner Volsi.

Thank you. Well, I will first say like Commissioner Williams, I agree with everything you said.

I think we have a plan sort of. Yeah, we can make provision to it, but I would love to see it kind

like stay pretty much I mean not the same but if it's going to um as for like

staff time or bringing a consult a consultant for it I think we're pretty

much have a plan and just seeing it through but my question though was

around the implementation update so you all have been receiving I guess the

reports already right like some report some reporting already is there a way

for us to see like any of the programmatic report?

I mean, I don't really care.

I mean, I do care for the financial report,

but like what the work that's actually being done

and how it's being measured?

Sure.

So I think at the last meeting we attached the reporting templates,

and we can send those out via email again just so you can see what data

we're actually collecting on a quarterly basis.

And then we do plan to bring a progress report overview to your next meeting in May with some basically programmatic numbers to date for the funded grantees.

Awesome. Thank you.

Okay. So in addition to everything that has been mentioned, I did want to ask City Attorney, is it Gil or Jill?

Gill. City Attorney Jill, who's joining us, and I think we were introduced to at our last meeting.

If you could provide an update for the request on the Prop 209 research. Yes, of course. Hi,

good morning, everyone. My name is Harbin Gill, and I'm with the City Attorney's Office, and I'm

your new support person from the Attorney's Office. I'm so excited to be here and support all of you.

as our chair mentioned we are doing some legal research and analysis on prop 209 as many of you

know that is a ballot measure that was passed in like the late 90s here in california that states

that local agencies cannot use preferential treatment when it comes to race sex color

national origin and i know that that affects some of the work that we are considering here at the

Commission so our office is doing they have begun of course the legal research and analysis and

drafting that legal memo so I hope to get that to you within the next couple weeks thank you

and so what I'll mention thank you so much City Attorney Gill what I'll mention around that was

the you know request you know we all saw that there are some gaps in who was funded you know

all really great programs currently,

but there are some gaps in terms of specifically

the native youth population.

And we know that youth population specifically

has been very underserved and really not even considered

in a lot of grant opportunities.

And so that is why the request came.

And so I just wanted to remind folks about that

because that is something that I would be interested

seeing added to language being added to the next iteration of the strategic investment plan because

if we do want to get very specific with our target populations it is going to be helpful for us to

have that legal memo and research. Vice Chair. I'm going to I'm not going to speak at this time. I'm

I'm going to wait.

Thanks.

I guess it goes without saying that I did agree with, you know, what was previously said.

I think we should revisit the CBO city split, the look into how we want to allocate funds to specific goals,

and then see if we want to concentrate those efforts given the current state of our country, of our community,

and then revisit language around target populations, you know, waiting on, you know, the memo for Prop 209 and using that to inform our language around target populations and then also revisiting the specific strategies for each fund goal.

and I do so I want to bring up something that Julie mentioned because I believe

Oakland currently has their you know other cities in California as well as

the country have children's funds not all of them but some of them do and so

we can look to some of those examples Oakland being one of them as you know

just maybe something they have their plan set up in a different way that we

do that you know they have a couple years on us and have seen sort of the

benefits of their strategic investment plan and how it's been implemented and

adopted and so I think it would be helpful for us to learn a little bit

from other cities that have been doing this work. Commissioner Thomas.

Julie I'm curious if you know you want us to be mindful of not doing maybe too

much without a consultant is anything that we've mentioned so far too much of

like a drastic request at all or no?

No.

I think those are high level.

I think it's depending on the process you want to take.

And that's sort of my next question.

I'm not forcing you into that discussion.

Please finish the topics discussion.

But I would like to hear how you would like to approach these discussions.

You guys know we didn't have the option of ad hocs when we did this the first time.

And that was with a consultant.

and now we do have ad hocs, but we don't have a consultant.

And so we just want to be able to facilitate as best we can.

And so when you're done sort of discussing ad hocs,

I think maybe also discussing how you'd like to approach it would be helpful.

When you're done discussing topics, then the approach.

Vice Chair?

Yes. Commissioner Cravers-Werch, can you tell us those buckets again

so that way we can organize how we like go through these again yeah sure so I

had the 50 50 split that's currently in place between city and public agencies

versus CBOs I had the fun goal specific percentage allocations I had the topic

of how we want to target populations specifically and then I had specific

strategies for each fun goal and then just adding to that strengthening the

mental health definition and then the prop 209 research and which is tied into

the target populations okay so I write slow I guess I should have typed I'm at

target strategies the third one can you say the fourth one again I had target

so that the at-risk or targeted populations definition and then the

specific strategies for the fun goals which I think could be related to how

we're defining kind of issues the specific strategies of the fun goes okay

okay I wanted to ask that so that way we can have that written down regarding

the split is that something that we can talk about here like you know commit

some of Commissioner Thomas just gave his updated split of what he would like

to see are we going to go through these like I just I want to know are we going

to go through these like one by one we can kind of give our because we have to

talk in public versus where we can talk in public but the ad hoc of course

they'll be able to take all this information but do we want to discuss

this here how do we want to do that so I think that's what Julie is asking is

how we want to go about actually in so I think what was proposed was that we

create ad hocs that each discuss these topics however I don't know if that's

the best strategy mostly because there is a at least five if not six you know

topics that we want to potentially edit and so I don't I'm just saying that

because I don't necessarily have an idea of how we should approach it but those

are discussions that regardless if they go to ad hoc committees will be brought

back to the Commission for a full discussion and I would think a vote but

I don't know if we're doing votes or you know how to go about that.

If you wish to, we may add motions, I believe.

Harvey?

No, this is just a discussion item, so there wouldn't be any motions for this.

If we want to do an ad hoc, those would be done through the chair,

either at this time or at the end of the meeting for other thoughts,

but there wouldn't be a vote or a motion for this specific item.

Okay, but I think our question is more along the lines of

If, for example, at our next May meeting, we have a discussion item on the agenda that is the 50-50 split,

and we write into the agenda item a motion, could we then have a motion at the end of that discussion to say,

I'm not sure what the motion would be, but essentially the commission will have a motion to approve the split

as an edit to the strategic investment plan in future meetings?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you, Julie.

Yes, thank you.

I think what we would have to be clear about setting up is like pretty much all of the things we just stated would be future motions for meetings, but come ready to discuss the options that we would like to move forward with.

Were you on cue?

Well, no, so I guess to the point, I was, well, to the vice chair, I think I was just more of like, well, we can't discuss a 50-50 split now.

What does it have to make?

Yeah, we don't have to make a motion.

I'm just going to say that we're not going to discuss that now because we have other, you know, things on the discussion calendar.

And I know that that is a big topic that we will want to come prepared to discuss more intentionally.

So I would not like to have that discussion today.

I second that.

Yeah.

Don't be stressing Lillian out.

I will say, I will slightly disagree with that.

I don't know, the selection of the chair and vice chair,

I do budget my calendar from 10 to one,

and we don't have to do that for the commission,

but how long exactly is the chair and vice chair discussion

going to take for us to not be able to discuss anything

we just mentioned?

Well, I think before discussing the 50-50 split,

we have to determine how we want to go about all of the,

how we want to go about the discussion of like editing the SIPP.

We have to kind of like create the structure

for how we're going to edit it.

Okay, because we don't one we don't have a consultant to that effect. I do have a quick question

And I don't know if this is for you Julia or for a city attorney for the ad hoc

Say it's like maybe two members of the Commission or three

can we bring in like a

community expert somebody like say for example, we just

Somebody from the cat that works at the county that you know, maybe an expert in this issue area and

To join our meeting and give us

you know that's a really good question because i my understanding of the city ad hoc policy is that

city staff cannot be at the ad hoc meetings but if it's like an outside person i'm not quite sure

so let me look into that and i can send you all an email by the end of the week

and see if that's allowable okay i think that would be helpful because as we're having discussions

around strategies i mean if we're going to be talking about target populations i would want

to talk to folks, you know, that are Native folks leading Native youth organizations.

I would want to talk to folks that are working with other populations within that target,

you know.

You know, Chair, I'm sorry.

I spoke too early.

I have the ad hoc policy in front of me, and it says ad hoc members may use outside resources

and individuals for research.

So, yes, you are available to use that.

That's a win.

Okay.

That's great.

And so, oh, okay.

Thank you for that.

So I do want to use part of the rest of this discussion

for this agenda item to either bring up ideas

on how we should go about editing the SIP.

Julie presented the option of doing ad hoc committees.

I don't know if folks have any other ideas,

but we should land on something either today.

If not, we are going to have to wait until May,

which is not ideal,

but I think that if it takes us that long to identify a good strategy to move forward, I'm okay with that.

Vice Chair.

Thank you.

I agree that we should come up with something.

I do have a proposal of how we go through that.

I think that as we just went through the buckets, we just all heard what those buckets are.

If there's another proposal of another bucket that we should analyze, we add that to there.

I would love for us to take our meeting time and spend 20 minutes on that particular item.

So the split the fun goal percentages all of the different buckets that we want to do so that we can go through

Next meeting after everyone knows what those buckets are and we can contribute what it is the edit and or change

Revision if it has to our why whatever

Add that in there so that way we can have that inhabit recorded so that way we can know what that is

I don't know if we can have like a note

Well, we can of course we have like a note taker so we can have what all those revisions are that we're we're wanting to do

and actually hear each other's opinions of what that item is.

And if we use our time wisely, we research that, we take time frames to do that,

I feel like we can really get through this pretty quickly.

Are you saying that we should, we obviously have noted down the specific areas that we want to edit

to then bring them to the next meeting in May?

Absolutely.

And have that May meeting be a discussion about each item?

Absolutely.

So, and the reason why I say that is because me and Commissioner Thomas are ready to talk about the split.

I already have the split in mind that I'm ready to go for, boom, right?

If we're talking about the split, we're all going to have our different opinions and our whys on that.

We can come to some type of, maybe, we can come to some type of decision of where we're kind of, where we feel safe with, what we feel good with.

We know we don't feel good with the 50-50 because of what happened.

Boom, we take care of the split.

We got that one.

We go to the fund goal percentage idea.

Do we want the fund goals to be in percentages?

We hear what everybody says.

Then we move on to, all right, we came to a consensus that this is what we want to do.

Because that way we're able to get them all knocked out.

We're able to talk about it in the public forum.

I mean, using our time wisely instead of outside.

We can use some outside time too.

But as long as we can get, for the most part, what it is that we would like to do and take care of the majority of that here,

I figure 20 minutes per item of that, that's what, 24, I mean, so what's that? Not even two hours.

So if we use that and if we conduct it in a way where we go through each one of us so that we can have that and bring all of our information, use our time wisely, I really feel like we can get through what the revisions look like.

because they're high level, because we're not doing anything that's too small, like wording type thing.

Like we're not doing anything that's too integral.

We're doing high level edits for this upcoming one.

So it shouldn't take us super long to do that.

And using our time here wisely for that, using our meeting time, feels like the best time to do that.

I agree just with some additional comments.

Commissioner Williams.

I want to piggyback on Vice Chair Richardson.

I think if we can come up to with, if we can start the conversation with some options,

I feel like if we can make it concrete and respond to that, I feel like that will advance

our conversation a little bit more.

So I don't know if the chair and the vice chair want to do that or if that's an ad hoc

type of function.

But I would be, yeah, I like that idea of just going through it.

and not getting into the document and the wordsmithing, because I think we'll get lost.

Commissioner Kravitz-Wortz?

Yeah, I agree, and I like the idea of being very intentional about deciding ahead of time

which of the buckets of things we're going to talk about

and really trying to rein ourselves in with limiting the amount of discussion we have.

We're reasonable.

I would say, well, two things.

one I have a hard stop so I'll I don't and I don't know if it affects quorum

today at noon so I'll say that but more broadly I do think there could be value

particularly for some of and maybe for all of the items up for discussion of

potentially having some ad hoc work done before the meeting knowing ahead of time

coming in that these are the things that we're going to talk about just because

it allows anybody who might be interested in collaborating on some of the research I think

chair has like sort of alluded to about I mean even for like a 50-50 split or whatever split

like we could look through like what else what are other cities doing like that have done this

for a while how is that working what does that look like and actually come to us with like a

little bit of a mini presentation almost and then that would kind of allow folks to have a baseline

to discuss from and build on so I still I do like so not having all ad hoc

committees necessarily run simultaneously so that you know we'd

come to the next meeting with like 20 different things to discuss I like

having yeah a plan like that in advance so I think do you have any proposed so

I'm writing down again the what we mentioned is there a specific ad hoc

that you want to discuss to start today between now and then I think one way we

could if we wanted to be a little bit strategic about it I think we could look

at how much time we have in between each meeting so like the ones that we think

you know might require a little bit more time and research and bringing in

external people like the places where we have like two or so months in between I

think we could maybe front load those whereas like we don't have we only have

we have meetings back to back in May and June so like maybe that's an easier one

so maybe that's the 50-50 split for example or something as opposed to like

the target proper that most impacted populations one so I don't know some of

these I think just require a little might require a little bit more time

advance time and so I would front load those either now and or in between the

like June and August meetings for example yeah maybe we can start to think

about which ones would fall in which meetings and I I think that's a good

place to start I do have a quick question though um would it be possible

to I guess request your guys's assistance at the city to do some of the

research and present it? Like, for example, what do other cities do when allocating fund goals, percentages?

Certainly to a certain extent, we could definitely provide, like, for example, I know we mentioned it already,

but Oakland did just do a new strategic investment plan in RFP, and their strategic investment plan has percentage allocations.

so we could send out other examples but I would just encourage that that is the point of the ad

hocs is for you all to do your own research and bring it back but that's not to say we're not here

to help so it just it depends on sort of like how deep is the dive we're not going to do a landscape

analysis but we could absolutely provide examples yeah I'm thinking because I feel like that's pretty

within the wheelhouse, right, of doing, like, just seeing what other cities are doing,

and maybe you guys are already looking at that.

And so maybe that would be helpful to, in our next meeting, have

just an overview of, like, maybe, I don't know,

three or four cities that have children's funds in California.

What are they doing, and how are they allocating their fund goals?

That would be something that's really good to add to the follow-up log because then it gives us a concrete way to respond, a concrete ask and a concrete way to respond and then be accountable for the response.

Okay.

Is that helpful?

I don't know.

I'm just kind of thinking of how do we share time and capacity because it would be kind of a lot, I think, to ask.

I mean obviously whoever wants to be on a ad hoc and spend their time and do this research like please you know just state that and then we can create the ad hoc now and you know the work can be done in the next two months but if we're not ready to say like I'm committed to in the next two months doing this research to bring back to the next meeting like obviously you know if nobody's ready to do that then we're not going to get there today.

Commissioner Ghaffari.

And then yeah I just want to note that we I do want to move us at 11.

It's probably not going to take that long.

But at 1130, let's try to ballpark move to the next item.

So I just wanted to, I guess now's a good time, mention that Vice Chair, my brain is like totally mush right now,

Vice Chair Richardson and I met about the community engagement ad hoc.

And we talked about wanting to do a focus group with the CBOs who are already accepting the money.

and gather information about how the money is being used,

and this could be a potential edits in this SIP as well to get their ideas.

So, yeah, just wanted to add that.

Did you want to add anything?

That's great.

Did you want to, Vice Chair?

Yeah, we want to do that, and that's our plan on doing that,

especially for these edits, and we think that that would be great.

I wanted to also just bring to everyone's attention,

I'm a person, and I know I'm not everyone, and it's a bunch of us, and we all have to make decisions here, but I don't want us to overload ourselves with too much overthinking, because I'm a person who likes to overthink, but not in situations like this.

Sometimes you just have to make the decisions.

When we first started this, we had so much information regarding how other cities were doing it, what happened, what have you, right?

What I want us to come back to is that we saw the results.

We saw the result of this. We saw the result of the split. We saw what happened.

We know that we wanted something different to have.

So I don't want us to get too hung up on what other cities are doing,

but what we feel like Sacramento needs in our children's fund.

And if it would be beneficial to bring whatever idea it is that we're bringing to the table.

I want us to go there because, and I'm not a researcher though.

So please forgive me. I'm a person, I like an in and out menu.

I like a few things and I can make a decision.

You know, too much is too much.

So I just wanted to just really just reel us in and thinking of that so we don't overthink this.

We've talked a lot about this.

We are very intelligent individuals here.

We have lots of great ideas already outside of the research that will be needed to do on some things.

But I don't want us to get too caught up in too much information.

That's just what I wanted to say.

Yeah, that makes sense.

And I'll just chime in and say that I think we can, I'll go to you, Commissioner Ghaffari, and then we can discuss if anyone wants to create an ad hoc today to work in the next few months.

Commissioner Ghaffari.

Yeah, just wanting to second what Vice Chair Richardson just said, valuing what we already have in place.

And I liked your words, like not overthinking things.

And then did we come up with a timeline for the focus group and like when we would, like I'm wondering if when we did that, like maybe we come to them with some like, oh, like these are our ideas and these categories that we want to, you know.

We said beginning of March or end of March?

Well, maybe it's still like TBD.

Because if we come to them with some of our ideas for these edits, like maybe we could get some feedback too.

Yeah. And this is for when we do the focus group with the CBOs.

CBOs that are already receiving the money. We don't have to decide right now, but something to keep in mind.

Yeah, but I would, so I was leaving that up too since we were working on it, when was it available for you so that way we can get with Julie and staff and we can get all of the CBOs together who received awards so that we can all do, we can do this focus group.

Maybe after our May meeting so that we can have more information to present about what we're doing.

After May.

Yeah.

Okay.

Okay.

Cool with that.

Sounds good.

So I just have a quick rundown of what I think would make sense for as for ad hocs that we could establish today.

So it sounds like community engagement is going on.

And then the other one that I think would be helpful to establish today's target populations,

looking at the language in the SIP and then research around target populations,

which would include working with the city attorney's office on the memo when receiving the memo for Prop 209.

So that would be one, is a target populations ad hoc.

And then the second one I'm thinking is strategies, which would include defining, you know, mental health as well as the other strategies within the fund.

And then I am going to request for the follow-up log for the city to do an overview.

and I know we've done this already so this is probably just something to you know bring back

the same slide is the how the city and CBO split 50-50 ended up looking last time how many entities

applied overall like I think I think we have that already so just bringing that back and like letting

us see exactly how that land yeah and I'll just say I think that would merits a deeper dive because

I think it becomes very confusing the 50-50 split because we often say 50 CBOs 50 city but really

from other perspectives I've heard this isn't a personal opinion people feel like because GBI is

going to potentially a CBO and because the 50-50 to the city was actually included non-city entities

that that idea of what the split is is confusing to a lot of people and so maybe it would be worth

the time for us to bring back a little deeper analysis for you all.

I think that would be helpful for the May meeting.

So a deeper analysis on the city CBO split.

And then also, if possible, just high-level overview of, you know,

three to four funds in California and how they allocate their funding towards their issue areas.

Oakland, San Francisco.

I do this for work, so I should know another one, but I'm blanking.

Richmond, yeah. All in the Bay Area. We love Bay Area. Okay. So ad hoc, target populations,

anyone interested in being on that ad hoc doing that research? Was that going to be

your comment? No.

Oh, okay. So can we establish an ad hoc that looks at target populations and works

with the city attorney's office? And Commissioner Kravis, Wurtz, anyone else? And my name is

myself.

Okay.

Sorry, I'm just going to call the next one if that's okay and then we'll go to your comments.

It might have to do with that.

Oh, okay.

Did you want to?

Yeah.

Well, I was just going to offer potentially if for the May meeting the idea is to come

back and discuss the target populations and potentially what the city brings back in terms

of the 50-50 split. I just wonder if that's sort of enough for that meeting and then the

next, I mean I don't care if that, or it doesn't really matter if the ad hoc is established

now, but I wonder if it might make sense to hold on the other kind of two big buckets

at least until June just so that there's, if, yeah, Julie, you think that like there

There needs to be some in-depth discussion around the 50-50 and stuff.

Yeah, I think our proposed idea, which again it's not in stone,

was to bring back sort of topics one by one so that you might stagger them

so you have more time to discuss.

Because, for example, in May we do also have two presentations

from the city auditor's office that you might all have comments or questions about.

So in the sake of time, that might be a good idea,

but it's up to you all.

Yes, I agree.

And thank you for bringing that up.

Just the target populations ad hoc established today.

Commissioner Williams.

I'm happy to be on that as well.

I don't have a whole lot of time to May,

but I would be happy to have it put another set of eyes on it

if that's helpful.

Okay.

Vice Chair?

I just want to go back since y'all brought up the split.

I wasn't going to go back to it because I know that we want to do the elections.

Because I wanted to bring up for the CBOs, like they all got a percentage of what it is that they asked for.

But all of the city and public entities got the full amount of what they asked for.

So going back to it, saying that it's not a split, when we're coming back with the information,

are we saying why that is?

why city and public entities get the full amount that they asked for and the CBOs only get a percentage?

Is that what we're going to be talking about?

So would you like that? I'm kind of sorry.

You want that to be addressed?

I do.

I would just add it to the follow-up log and then we'll have it.

We can address it.

I think the request is to address it in the presentation.

That one is going to come in May.

And that specific thing what I just said.

Yeah.

Can we address the awards that were granted to CBOs were altered and then the contracts that were giving to city and non-city entities were not?

That's what you brought up.

Some of them shifted, but the majority of them got a lot of money.

Let's just say that.

I would like to know what the why is.

Basically just like a deeper dive on the grant, right?

Okay.

Commissioner Volsi?

Yeah, just to follow up on what Commissioner Richardson just mentioned,

and I just wanted to ask a question here.

Was it because there was a match by the city entities and not the CBOs?

Will that have been a reason?

so the reason why this the city and non-city public entities received a full amount

correct um no that actually wasn't the reason so yes non-city public entities per the measure

wrote uh did provide a match that's just um but apart from that the reason was related to

first of all, the 50-50 split for the open grant funds between CBOs and then the other half going

to non-city public entities and city projects. And so when we looked at the funding and we decided

that per the strategic investment plan, there was a portion that you guys said that you wanted to

uplift small and emerging CBOs. And so in order to do that because none of them had scored high enough,

we decided to do a set aside for small and emerging CBOs. And in order to accomplish that set aside,

we assigned a percentage of funding going to the larger CBOs who scored the highest.

And so that was why we took a percentage off of those top ranking and gave it to the small and emerging so that we could fund more CBOs.

And that was then still in alignment with the 50-50 split.

If we had taken it from the city and non-city public entities and given it to the small and emerging, that would not have been alignment with the 50-50 split, which was part of the adopted strategic investment plan.

So that was the reasoning behind that.

So what I'm hearing is we need to change that.

If we don't want to do emerging needs this time.

Well, so can I just clarify?

Terrifying. So I think I don't and correct me if I'm wrong Julie but I think potentially something might be helpful as we think about this. The 50-50 split is about the amount of money not like number of organizations right. So like we had 5 million to give out 2.5 million went to that one bucket. 2.5 million went to the other bucket. There were a lot less right applicants for the city and public entity group and they still got 2.5 million.

the half like so we're talking about half just as a baseline of money available right so like

I think you know so yeah like if we wanted to ensure that like we allowed for space to have

emerging organizations have an opportunity at these funds then as to maintain that 50-50 split

of just the money stuff had to still only come out of that one bucket which is why potentially

the discussion about adjusting the amount of basic split is where I think is useful

because that puts more money just to begin with into the bucket where there are a lot

more orgs to do the work potentially.

Okay.

So obviously there's a lot more work to do.

We have an ad hoc established to do some research around target populations.

I do want to move us to the next item

if that's okay

oh okay

okay

so this item is receive and file

and no vote is required we will move on

to the next item item number

two is selection of chair and vice chair

for calendar year 2026

is there a staff presentation

it says your name on it

clerk are there any

members of the public who wish to speak on this

Thank you, Chair. No, we have no members of the public who wish to speak on this.

Okay, so I think the way that we've done this in the past is we just like do nominations, right?

Yeah, if you have a script, that would be great. That's really helpful.

Okay, well, good morning. My name is Rosanna Montesinos. I am from the City Clerk's Office.

All the detailed information is in your staff report, but I have a few important reminders regarding the election of officers.

We will hear nominations and vote for Chair first, then followed by Vice Chair.

The newly elected chair and vice chair will begin their new terms at the next regular meeting.

Commissioners may nominate another commissioner or themselves.

Please remember that a commissioner may serve for no more than two calendar years in either position.

As such, we have Commissioner Rulis-Mars is eligible for chair but can be vice chair.

If you wish to make a nomination, please add your name to the speaker queue.

Thank you.

I think just to clarify, I am not eligible for chair.

Not for chair. Or vice chair. You're still eligible for vice chair but chair you're not.

Okay. So we're going to do nominations for chair first. Did you want to?

Chair? Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, go ahead.

I would like to nominate Vice Chair Richardson for chair. I think she's done a lovely job as vice chair and just being on this commission and, you know,

seeing all the time and effort that she's put forth with a lot of heart and a lot of experience.

And so that's my nomination.

I'll second that nomination.

I think it goes without saying, Vice Chair, that you have been a very dedicated and active commissioner.

And I think what I appreciate the most about you is that you are not afraid to ask questions,

and often questions that I think a lot of people are thinking of,

and that you are also very unapologetic in that.

And I think that's really important

for the work that we have here

and the responsibility that we have

to really ask the hard questions

and get a lot of clarity on what it is,

you know, we're actually here to do.

And so I'm really excited that, you know,

you've continued to sort of show your passion,

but also your dedication to this work.

And I think you'd make a great vice chair.

It was honestly really great working with you

the past year in this capacity.

So.

Okay.

We're going to take a vote.

And I took the liberty to hopefully fix the voting call.

So bear with me.

I try to do it quickly.

So we are nominating chair.

I'm sorry.

We are nominating Commissioner Richardson for chair.

And the first one is Vice Chair Richardson.

Sorry.

We're doing a vote.

I fixed it, so now we can.

I guess.

No, I'm just going to ask.

No, yes, aye, yes.

I want to vote for me.

Commissioner Volsi?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

An enthusiastic aye.

And Chair Rulis Maris.

I'm going to get this right.

Aye.

And Commissioner Thomas?

Absolutely aye.

Commissioner Kafari?

Aye.

Commissioner Kravitz-Ruertz?

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And I just need you to please officially accept.

Yes, I accept.

And I also wanted to say, I'm going to get very teary-eyed up here.

Being someone, when I first stepped in this space with all of y'all, just because y'all have so much knowledge,

y'all come from this space in working, whether it be with your research, whether it be serving on other commissions,

and having all of this knowledge, working with CBOs, leading in the way that you do.

It was a bit intimidating, but I am a white kid.

I do like to ask questions, and I do like to learn.

I do believe that I am a compassionate and empathetic leader, and I lead by understanding others.

And so I'm just super excited that I get a chance to even serve with y'all.

And in moving in as chair, of course, as I accept, I want us to continue to stay engaged in making sure that we're uplifting you voice.

We're uplifting what this commission's responsibility is.

And we're doing the great work that Sacramento needs.

We've been such an amazing, I think, groundbreaking commission, if anything, if I had to say it, just with everything that we've done just from our first meeting on.

And so I am very happy to serve as chair.

And I just want to just say thank you so much to our current chair, just because you have done so much.

You are such a great leader.

Like, you've stepped into this position with so much grace.

You care so much.

You've done a lot to even bring Measure L to even be.

So I just have to just say thank you for your support.

Thank you for always uplifting me and even the teachings that you've been doing with me and watching you as chair.

So thank you to the commission and just thank you, chair, as well.

Now we are going to select Vice Chair.

If any commission would like to nominate themselves or someone else.

Chair Richardson.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Ghaffari.

I've had the pleasure of working with her in so many different aspects of this commission

and now in our community engagement.

And I just think that overall she's such a great leader

and she has a lot of good insight,

even the things that she brings up,

even from when you first started.

And we had already been, had the commission going

and you just started with questions like myself

and things that you wanted to see and wanted to do,

even in your profession, what you speak of in mental health

and just your overall just care.

So I would definitely love to see you as vice chair.

Commissioner Volsi.

I second that nomination.

Commissioner Kufari, you have been amazing all around.

I remember when you first got on this commission and getting a text from you just saying, hey, I'm new and just want to figure it out, like what's going on.

always wanting to reach out to make sure not just you know to figure out like

what's going on here but like even on a personal note around like families and

all that stuff so I thank you for your leadership here but like in the

community know that you do so no better person to serve as vice chair thank you

you want to go ahead take a vote on that yeah okay okay Vice Chair Richardson

Aye.

Commissioner Volsi?

Aye.

Commissioner Williams?

Another enthusiastic aye.

Chair Rolus, Mars?

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas?

Absolutely aye.

Commissioner Gafari?

Aye.

Commissioner Kravitz-Rurts?

Yes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And if I could, a formal acceptance as well.

Okay.

Yes, I absolutely accept.

It has been such an honor to work with each and every one of you and to learn from all of you and your backgrounds and your expertise.

I think this is a really special group here.

And it's just been such a great journey to see how far we've come and the way that we work together, even when we agree, when we disagree, all of the above.

And to still be able to respect each other's opinions.

It's just been a huge learning experience.

I'm really looking forward to continuing our mission as we address Sacramento youth's greatest needs.

So thank you so much.

Okay.

And I just want to say that you're such a rock star, Commissioner Ghaffari,

because you are very, very engaged in the community just outside of this commission.

and I've seen firsthand just all of the work that you do, you know,

in your own community and for the kids of your community

and obviously your little ones who, you know, as your family grows.

And so just really excited to see you in that role and your dedication.

If I can just quickly add, we've seen you now go through two babies.

I think that's really, really fun, actually.

We're talking about the children's fun that she got through two babies

in the three years we've been doing this, two and a half years we've been doing this.

So one shout out to maternity leave, by the way.

Hope we get universal maternity leave in this nation.

So really, really excited for you.

And it's very, very clearly a pressing issue for you and the children.

Baby Cyrus, and this is his newest one as well.

So very excited for the both of you.

This is a truly phenomenal group,

and I couldn't be more ecstatic that we're all here together.

I would wish a council member and a mayor would get two more commissioners on here.

It would be really great to have a full group,

but very excited for y'all so much.

Yes, and just to reiterate that for the public,

not that anybody's, some people are maybe watching.

We have District 2 seats still open

as well as the mayoral seat.

It's taking so long.

Girl, or I don't know.

The next item is community engagement ad hoc report out.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

I think we already got that.

Yeah, we already got that.

We set our report out.

Okay.

We wanted to make sure we were still here to hear about this.

Okay.

That's, yeah.

Can you just summarize?

You said that in May you would come back with an update

around what you guys wanted to do following with your.

What we could do is come up with like some sort of plan draft,

but what we want to do is yeah after May we start like actually start the focus group so.

Okay awesome. So the next item is member comments ideas questions and meeting conference report are

there any commissioners who wish to speak? These are for also log items I think I already

mentioned this but just to reiterate if at the next meeting we could also get a presentation on

A full in-depth overview of city and CBO split.

And then some research on how other cities across California have allocated their funds.

It sounds like we'll get an evaluation overview at the meeting in May.

As well as the CBO update.

»» Sorry.

So I didn't have the evaluation overview on my radar.

Could you expand upon what you're looking for?

»» Oh, okay.

Sorry.

got a sort of bullet point of what the evaluator is going to do. But I'm wondering if we can

also request them to present at a future meeting.

Yeah. That could be on the follow-up log. I'm not sure that it will be in May. And

we can also, like, attach or send out the scope of services for the evaluator once that

contract is executed.

Okay. And then we'll get an update on the business operating tax at that meeting in May?

Correct. That will be presented by the auditor's office.

Okay. And then will we be getting any update on, so I guess the status of the contract with the GBI would still be pending at that point?

Yeah, typically staff does an implementation update at every meeting.

So if you, but it's great to have details of what you would like to see.

So if an update as well on GBI is requested, then we can include that.

Yeah, and then the other thing I would add was that if we can report back for the target populations ad hoc,

like a specific agenda item for that?

Yeah, we can do a ad hoc report out on the agenda.

Okay.

Commissioner Kravitz-Wurts?

Yes, I just said two things.

One was related to that so that we can potentially put the ad hoc.

I don't know if that means having the report out allows for us to have a vote on that.

Is that what that enables?

Yes, that would be a question.

I'm looking at you.

So do we have an ad hoc established or do we need to, what do we need to do to establish that?

I can confirm with our city clerk, but wasn't the ad hoc established during item three of our agenda or discussion item one?

I took notes that the ad hoc was established, but Rosanna, if we want, we can do another formal establishment here in this moment.

I feel like it was established there with the chair as well.

Okay, perfect.

So, yes, we do have an ad hoc, and as our commission member says, we can have a report out on the ad hoc, or depending on how the agenda is made up with staff, there could be a discussion item as well.

Cool.

Awesome.

So I would potentially hope that we could have it as a discussion item so we could actually vote on it and then move on, I think, as a commission to now chair's point about let's not overthink things and work through it.

Cool.

my second thing was just thinking ahead similarly I know Julie and city staff have been reaching out

to the office of violence prevention and I just think like if we could have them come talk to us

before we have a more in-depth discussion and vote on things like the split of the strategies and

even the more specific strategies them like themselves like that would help inform kind of

what else is happening, particularly around one of our core fund goal areas, which is

violence prevention. And if we want to be smart with our funding and not duplicative in our effort,

it would just be really, really beneficial to just have them come talk to us about what they're

doing. So I would just like, maybe we can all sort of double down in the rationale for what we want

and why we want them to come talk to us. It's not just we're sort of, you know, looking forward to

seeing them or anything so thank you

fair Richardson I was just gonna say just to piggyback on where Commissioner

Kravis-Werff said like would it be what if we just came up with some questions

since it appears that I don't want to say that we're not worth the time but

it's been on the log for a minute so is there a way that we can come up with

some questions that we would like asked I know that you said that we can reach

out to city staff but in our time here when we can add those particular items

to the law, we've done so.

And so now, since we haven't heard back,

would it be best for us to come up with questions

that we would like answered

so we can have them answered here on the dais?

You mean when they come to present?

Since they haven't,

because I think it's been on law

for a good amount of time at this point.

So would it be best for us to come up with questions

that we would like to ask

that would help us with focus in our conversation

as we move forward?

Yeah, I think, I mean,

that couldn't hurt and I can certainly present those questions to them.

So I would say as a commission just because I'm just being realistic at this point we're about to start making revisions right we want to get this done and they haven't been able to be available to come present to us.

Do we have some questions right now is that something everyone would like to think about?

what I think might be helpful in this case is if we do that

is if maybe Julie your office can help us with just

because I know we have some rules around

we can't all be in an email thread together but like say if you were to collect

questions from us like you just did

all BCC could we do it that way

I would yeah I would have to publish

I'm looking at city attorney

but any information

that we collect outside of

the dais then I would then have to

publish at the next meeting. It has to be made

public.

So yeah if you all would like

to send your questions for violence prevention

I can collect those and publish them

at the next meeting.

And

include them in the request too.

The timeline of that I feel

like should be within the next month though

and then present them at the next meeting.

Because what we want is to be able to collect the questions

that you can share with the office

so that they can reference what we actually want them to present on

and give them, I guess, a more tangible idea of what questions we have.

Can we just talk about that now?

Because I don't think that's it.

I mean, we can talk about it now.

Yeah, if folks want to come up.

I know you're, yeah.

Do you have questions that you want to bring up,

Commissioner Williams?

Yeah, I'm curious their funding strategy

and what their goals are for,

I know they have a grantee process.

And so I would love to hear their thoughts

about how we can augment that or support that

so the strategies aren't being conducted in silos.

So that's really what I'm curious about.

Yeah, my question would be centered around their budget

and how that is sort of, yeah, how is that split up?

You know, how much is going to,

because I know that for the children's fund we have a set 10% for admin but I

think it would be helpful to kind of understand their budget and sort of this

grant and also the grant budget and like Commissioner Williams said how their

strategies are written and how that in practice shows up in the grants that

they award. And then potentially, you know, I know there are RFPs are public obviously,

but if we could review some of those, I think that would be helpful. Commissioner Carvitz-Werth.

Yeah, I'll just second. I agree about knowing a little bit more about their overarching strategy

for how they're thinking about their RFP process, how they're thinking about allocating potential

new funding streams. I know they put out an RFP in anticipation of potentially getting funding

from the state CalVIP funds.

So I'd be interested in just hearing some of that.

But I'm also interested in hearing more generally about their approach to violence prevention,

how they think about interfacing or not with law enforcement, potentially with immigration

enforcement, how that interfaces with their grantees.

I would just like them to talk through some of that publicly since I think it has been since they are housed within the police department and yet say that they are focused on community based and non punitive approaches.

And so I would just like them to talk through that thinking and their overall approach.

any other comments or questions for the staff to take note of for is it what is it called the office

office of violence prevention okay simple yep I should be P OVP got it um all right well if there

are no questions or additional comments this conclude today this concludes today's agenda

and thank you everyone for your participation.

This meeting is adjourned.

How are you doing that?

No more.

Thank you.