Welcome to the May 7.

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

The time is now 10 03 a.m.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the role to establish quorum?

Yes, thank you, Chair.

Commissioners, if you can please unmute your microphones.

Commissioner Volsey is absent.

Commissioner Williams.

Here.

Commissioner Thomas.

Present.

Vice Chair Gafari.

Present.

Commissioner Kravitzwords.

Here.

Commissioner Ruiz Marez?

Here.

And Chair Richardson.

Here.

Thank you.

We have a quorum.

I would like to remind members of the public in chambers that if you would like to speak on the 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 Indigenous people and tribal lands.

Let me stand up.

To the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Madaw Madu, Valley and Plains, My Walk, Patwin Wentune Peoples, and the people of the Wilton Ranchiera, Sacramento's only federal recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk behind beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the act of practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's Indigenous People's History Contributions and lives.

Thank you.

I thought this is easy.

All right.

Everyone may be seated.

I promise I can read everybody.

Your first time.

No.

We will be skipping the Pledge of Allegiance for this meeting.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Okay.

All right.

Our first business today is going to be approval of the consent calendar.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any members of the public for this item.

Thank you.

Do we have any commissioners who would wish to speak on this item?

Um I'd just like to remind the commission that uh there are several items on the follow-up log that was sent via email.

I've also printed out for you today that includes the draft progress report for grantees that was requested as well as a funding overview split that looks at um a different ways to look at the funding split uh as was also a request on the follow-up blog.

So just you guys uh are welcome to pass the consent calendar.

I believe in our discussion item, we would be able to pull up these items on the overhead if you requested, because they are pertinent to the discussion.

Absolutely.

I do have a point of clarification.

Would this report be the item that we discuss right now?

Uh yeah, you're welcome since that's part of the follow-up blog.

You're welcome to ask any questions.

Okay, so to the commission, good morning.

Uh for the Sacramento Children's Fund draft progress report that was sent out.

Does anyone have any questions or comments regarding the report?

And does everyone have the report?

Okay, just want to make sure.

So I'll give y'all a moment and all right.

All right, first up, we have immediate past chair, Ruiz Mares.

Bro, myself.

No, I just wanted to make a note about some of the requests that were made previously.

So on the follow-up blog, which thank you for pointing that out.

That's really helpful.

I was able to review it for today's meeting too.

So I know the tentative schedule uh for the joint meeting with the youth commission is in October.

And I'm wondering if I don't know, is it helpful to have us kind of you know separately also discuss what we would want to be agendizing in that meeting?

Because I mean, yes, I I enjoy obviously having a joint meeting, but I think there has to be also a purpose to it.

Um, so just want to make that note, and then once we do confirm October 5th, I think it would be important to get that on our calendars.

And then the other note I wanted to make was that uh thank you so much to the city attorney's office because we were, you know, I hope everyone was able to review that legal memo that they sent out.

Um, so just as a note, uh the ad hoc committee has been meeting, um, and we've been discussing sort of tentative recommendations to bring forward in the June meeting um next month already.

So um, yeah, I just want to say thank you to the city attorney's office, uh, you know, our ad hoc reviewed um and we'll be discussing, and we've been meeting um pretty regularly since the last time we all met as a commission, so we'll have more to share in today's meeting preliminarily, but then also um more in depth at the next meeting.

Um, and then the other thing I was gonna mention is that yeah, um I just want to note the dissolution of the community engagement ad hoc.

As um, you know, I don't, you know, obviously that's gonna happen in this meeting, but then like if it comes up later, can we reinstate that ad hoc?

Okay, that isn't it.

Okay, okay, got it, got it.

We have to dissolve for that other year, yeah.

Or a year.

Oh, can y'all hear me?

Okay, we had to dissolve it um after a year, and so we plan on re-establishing today.

So it's gonna be a dissolution, and then we're going to request for a new community engagement ad hoc.

Okay, all right.

So those are all the comments I have.

Would any other commissioners like to speak on our draft progress report?

I'll say this while we're waiting and while you guys are taking a look at it.

So I did get a chance to review it, and so just a couple of questions because I know that currently we have, and of course, they've had the funds a shorter period of time.

We have 20 of the 24 programs that reported out.

We know we were expected to receive information about the other four programs.

Um, in some cases, we've actually received information since this was published because the quarter three progress reports were due on April 15th, and there were several requests for extensions, which we happily granted.

Um, we didn't have all of those reports, and then as well as city projects, if you recall the funding wasn't approved for city projects until December of 2025, and then we had our own financial processes to actually um process those um financial um sorry transfers, and so a lot of the city projects are just beginning to report out.

Um, as you know, we did allow up to six months for both CBOs and cities to begin their projects, and so out of those um 24 projects, three of them are city projects that have not yet begun reporting.

Okay, would that be an update?

And thank you so much uh for that update.

Would that be something once we do have updates from them that will be sent out to the commissioners for our for us to review or something we will bring to our next meeting?

Yeah, sure.

So um if you wouldn't mind if you have that request adding it to the follow-up log as an item, and then um we can either update the progress report and send that out, or just send you an update on the city projects, however, you worded your request.

Okay, so just from commissioners, if I could just get ahead and I just would we like that added to the following I know I would like that added to the follow-up log.

We would like an email, or would we like it discussed in our meeting?

Can I jump in really quick?

So the consent calendar is mainly to pass what's on the consent, but the discussion that you guys are having can be at a later time.

Like for commissioner comments or um approving.

So right now we're just approving what's actually on the consent, if that's okay.

Yeah, no problem.

And then we'll discuss more later.

No problem.

I'll take all the liberties if I you know if I don't know.

Oh, I forgot to do this.

Okay, all right.

So has everyone gotten a chance to take a look at the consent calendar for us to move forward and approve it.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I apologize.

Commissioner Williams.

And so we're talking about the preliminary report, right?

Draft, just I'll make sure.

I just I wanted to kind of lift up one of the sections, and uh that would be sorry.

Um, it's the populations experiencing additional barriers.

So thank you for for giving us this information.

And I realize that this is all preliminary, um, but in terms of uh looking at how this funding is getting to those populations that are most impacted by uh trauma violence and poverty.

Um I'm just looking at some of, for example, there are eight youth transitioning out of foster care, um, eight youth and children that have been involved in the juvenile or criminal legal systems, and so those are sort of those populations that are really impacted a lot.

So I just wanted to flag that.

I don't think you know, we're the data is ongoing.

Uh, programs are getting on board, but um, also youth and children experience exposed to violence.

There's 20.

Um, so that's out of almost 4,000 children that have been served so far.

So again, just kind of raising that to the attention of the commissioners.

So thank you for for producing this.

Appreciate it.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Commissioner Williams.

Commissioner Cravisworth.

Yeah, um I sorry, just before we move on, we just need to pass the consent calendar as it is, and then we can continue to have the discussion in commissioner comments.

So I'm sorry if we led you astray in the beginning, but yeah, we we'll want to do that first, and then if we would like to revisit some of the comments um in regards to the progress report, let's do that in commissioner comments.

So we're in commissioner comments, okay.

Because I just wanted to make sure that we're doing this right.

So we need to pass the consent calendar.

We need to motion for that, and then we can come back to this report.

Yes, and discuss this.

Yes.

Sorry, can I ask a question really quick?

I think that the way our um implementation update discussion item is worded, it's broad enough that this progress report and the funding overview would fit into that discussion.

So if the commission would like to discuss this further during our implementation update, I can broadcast this and you guys can all discuss it during our discussion item of my implementation update, which might serve us all well.

I think that that would be good.

Commissioner Cravis words, is it okay if we move wait for your question?

If I may, sure, uh, motion to pass the consent calendar.

I'll second that.

All right, we have a motion by Commissioner Thomas and a second by Commissioner Williams.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Yes, we can also do um a voice vote.

All in favor, please say aye.

Oh, all right.

Are there any opposed or abstain?

The motion passes, and we do not have any speaker slips for this item.

All right, we will now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item one, city auditors fiscal year 2425 baseline funding verification for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

Is there a staff presentation?

All right, greetings.

There is hello, good morning.

Um, members of the Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

I'm Farisha Arrari, the city auditor.

With me today is Joe Fleming, who was the lead on this project, and the next one you're going to be hearing.

Uh the presentation here is to provide an update on the city auditors' fiscal year 24 25 baseline funding verification for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

Uh, this is our second year auditing um the verification of the baseline funding, and the charter requires that we audit this number annually.

Now I'm going to pass it over to Joe to do the presentation for our fiscal year 25 verification.

Good afternoon, members of the Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

My name is Joe Fleming.

I'm a senior fiscal policy analyst with the Office of the City Auditor.

Per Section 120 of the City Charter subsection E1C, the City Auditor fulfilled its obligation to calculate the baseline funding amount to be $22.9 million.

Each year, the city auditor is required to verify whether the baseline funding amount was expended in the prior fiscal year.

So the scope of this project was city expenditures for fiscal year 24-25, or those made between July 1st, 2024 and June 30th, 2025.

To achieve our objective, we researched programs that departments identified as youth related to confirm that a program qualified towards the baseline funding verification.

We conducted an analysis to verify its compliance with the criteria that were laid out in the city charter.

We reviewed expenditures from those programs for fiscal year 24-25 that were net of program revenues, confirming their source as unrestricted general fund revenue, aligning the program with one or more fund goals, and verifying that the expenditures did not fall into any of the prohibited categories.

Now, in certain situations, the most appropriate method for determining the correct allocation of the youth related expenditures was to rely on the management estimates.

And in specific cases, we employed management's estimations to determine the appropriate distribution of administrative costs among the youth related programs.

Additionally, we depended on management assessments of youth program participation in order to isolate and allocate the youth related portion for those programs that only had a partial youth component.

Now these estimates were based on the available program records, and it is important to note that due to limited time and resources, we did not conduct independent audit procedures to validate the accuracy or completeness or completeness of management estimations.

So after reviewing the city of Sacramento's youth programs and related expenditures for fiscal year 24-25, we have verified that the city expended the baseline funding amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

So this slide summarizes the departments, each department's youth-related programs, the fund goals that were fulfilled by the program operations, and the eligible program expenditures that counted towards the fiscal year 24-25 baseline funding verification, and determining the eligibility of expenditures in accordance with the baseline funding criteria.

Some expenditures from youth related programs were excluded, and some of the common reasons for reducing the amount included as eligible towards the baseline funding verification were uh that there were ineligible funding sources, that expenditures fell into prohibited categories, or these programs had only a partial youth component.

Guidance from last year's presentation to city council dictated that in odd years, the city auditor will publish an analysis of expenditures just up to the baseline funding amount, and in even years, we'll publish a full accounting of the eligible youth related expenditures across all the departments.

As the current analysis is for the odd year of fiscal year 24-25, we publish the relevant eligible youth related expenditures from the departments that were just needed to meet that baseline funding amount.

For that reason, this table doesn't encompass all of the youth programs, all the youth program offerings in the city of Sacramento, nor necessarily all of the youth programs within these listed departments.

The youth parks and uh community enrichment department had the most eligible youth-related programs and the most uh eligible youth uh expenditures in dollars at uh 16 eligible programs and just over 13 million dollars uh respectively.

Uh the Department of Community Response had the second most expenditures at roughly 3.2 million.

That was across uh eight eligible programs.

The Office of Violence Prevention had the third most expenditures across uh just three programs.

Uh the Sacramento Fire Department had roughly 2.2 million expenditures across uh their seven eligible programs.

The Sacramento Police Department had roughly 1.3 million in expenditures across uh four eligible programs.

The Office of Innovation Economic Development had the six months, sixth most expenditures across uh their three eligible programs.

Um, and uh the Office of the City Manager had one eligible program that we reviewed for this year, which was the right-free RT program.

As the city auditors responsibilities established in Measure L require two annual reports.

We have updated our web page as a central location for all interested parties uh for the public to have access to these uh full reports.

And as outlined in the charter, our primary responsibility is to ensure that the baseline funding requirement has been met.

We want to reiterate that there are other expenditures in other departments and within these listed departments that would be considered as eligible towards the baseline funding verification.

Next year's report will include a more thorough analysis of the expenditures uh comprising all the youth programs across all departments and all youth um excuse me, all eligible program expenditures.

Uh thank you for your time.

This concludes my presentation, and I'm available to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speakers for this item.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Do we have any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

We gonna give them a second.

We always have questions.

Yeah, I do.

All right.

Um, thank you so much for your presentation.

I really appreciate getting that overview.

I think my question is more so like um, so kind of early on, we had discussed.

I think the last time we had a presentation on the baseline.

What does the city do to sort of look at the way that they're serving youth through this like an equity lens, and um I think at the time the seed tool was being developed specifically for the city.

So I'm just wondering if there are any plans to use that in the way that we're looking at the youth that are being served through these programs.

Uh for the purposes of our of our analysis in the language of the charter, it didn't have any stipulations for how we looked at um equity.

Um we have certain criteria that we have to look through based on things like uh the age of the individual served, um, whether they um fit uh certain criteria like violence prevention um things like that.

Um so uh things like equity were not listed in the charter, so they that sort of fell outside the scope of the uh the nature of our report.

Um so that's not something that we necessarily looked at in terms of our uh of our analysis of the baseline funding.

We were sort of our task was um in uh reviewing the eligibility of of expenditures um just per those criteria that were listed out in the charter.

Um so um, yeah, and so so equity kind of was not included in that language, and so that um would fall outside the scope of of our analysis.

Yeah, so what I'm getting from this is like you guys are the numbers people, essentially, the sort of sort of broad overview of just the numbers and the amount of dollars that that kind of coincides with.

Right, right?

As um, yeah, so we we would look at um determining the eligibility, so everything sort of um goes through the um the scope of those criteria that were laid out in the charter, and so we're kind of operating within within that framework, so looking at um whether programs are eligible based on those on those charter criteria, and then um if those programs are eligible, what portion um determine what portion within those programs are are going to be eligible towards that baseline funding amount?

That's helpful.

Thank you.

All right, Vice Chair Gafari.

Um yeah, so um thank you for your presentation.

Um really um it was really well organized and um easy to understand, but I do have one clarification.

So uh where is the where's the funding for the CBOs?

Is that just something completely different or um sorry the I think uh commissioner, I may be able to answer that for you.

So this baseline verification is reflective of just city um funded programs, not including Measure L.

So the baseline verification is essentially all programs that are eligible within the charter that the auditor's office um analyzes, it does not include any of our Measure L grantees, even um city projects essentially.

Got it.

Okay, thank you.

I guess a point of clarification for me just because there were programs that were pointed out in the auditor's report.

There are programs, there are CBOs that are funded through these programs that were mentioned.

You're giving us the total dollars amount, but there are programs that were funded.

Okay, correct.

Okay, and letting us know in relation to how they relate to measure L.

So none of the programs that were included were funded by Measure L.

They were all measure U funded essentially.

Okay.

Yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Sorry, I just I feel the need to chime in about like the baseline and kind of understanding what that is in the first place.

So be the baseline is established because measure L, the charter says that it should be supplementing, so like on top of what the city already spends and not supplanting, which would be replacing what the city is spending.

So that's the reason for the baseline.

But I don't know if we're sure if you were gonna say something.

That's that uh actually exactly what I was gonna say that the purpose of the baseline was that any additional uh revenue that was gonna be set aside for measure L is not supposed to replace money we were already spending.

So we looked at fiscal year 23 expenditures to figure out how much the city was already spending on youth services, which is where the 22.9 million came from, and now every year we have to confirm that we're still gonna be spending that amount of money every year outside of measure L.

So measure L is just extra pot of uh funding.

The charter doesn't require us to do any work on the measure L stuff.

Okay, just that unrestricted general fund and measure you fund.

Okay, thank you so much.

Okay, this helps a lot so that we can understand where the where the monies are going and how it relates to the baseline.

So this was good clarification for all of us.

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

Um, and I don't this might be a legal question.

So we know that the city is experiencing uh a budget deficit, and uh one of the areas that is slated to be cut is Yipsi.

So my question is um we would expect that the total budget amount to be spent next year is going to be lower, possibly below the baseline.

What does that mean for the children's fund?

Good morning.

Um so I think in the next presentation we'll be seeing the children's funds um amount, correct?

Yes.

So then um my understanding is that our budget should not affect the children's fund money because the children's fund money is 40% of the CBOT.

But I believe that might be a better question for the auditing team in their next presentation.

Sorry, here comes up our city auditor.

Um yeah, so any sort of budget cuts um can impact our baseline funding verification amount because there is language in the charter that says if there are reductions in the city, uh it allows us to go below the baseline, but again, it doesn't impact the measure L funding per se.

The only time you would get impacted on measure L is if CBOT revenues go up or down.

Um but it's it doesn't affect like the baseline.

So is it basically just to track it?

There's no action items related to the city spending going below the baseline.

Uh yeah, so on a regular year, if there's no like um expected budget cuts, we would have to meet the expenditures of at least 22.9 million.

If in our analysis we find that we did not meet that during the previous fiscal year, we have to add that difference onto the next fiscal year's expenditures.

So if we were below by a million dollars in one year, then the city would have to spend an extra million dollars the following year to make that up.

Um so all of that language is described in the charter on what would happen if we don't meet the baseline.

But if we don't meet the baseline because we cut citywide, uh we can also cut the baseline amount by the same percentage, basically.

Thank you.

So all right.

I feel like I got a lot of clarification from that.

Any additional questions or comments?

All right, we're gonna move on to item two, which is the city auditor's fiscal year 2024-25 audited cannabis business operations tax amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

And you're good to go.

Good afternoon, members of the Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

My name is Joe Fleming, Senior Fiscal Policy Analyst with the Office of the City Auditor.

Um, this presentation is to provide an update on the city auditors fiscal year 2425 audited cannabis business operations tax amount for the Sacramento Children's Fund.

This is our second year auditing CBOT revenue, and the city charter requires that we audit this number annually.

The objective of this project was to fulfill the requirement outlined in section 120 of the Sacramento Children's Fund, um section C2 of the Sacramento City Charter by publishing an audited amount of CBOT for the prior fiscal year.

We determined that um contracting with the city's external auditors would be the most efficient use of resources to complete this audit.

As such, the external auditors completed this audit in accordance with the generally accepted auditing standards and government accounting standards.

The results, excuse me.

Uh, for the audit show that for fiscal year 24-25, CBOT revenue came in at uh 22,609,932.

The general fund equivalent of 40% of the audit amount of the business operations tax is allocated to the children's fund.

During the budget process each year, the city makes an estimate of the CBOT revenues and then budgets an amount equivalent to 40% of the estimated CBOT revenue to then be transferred from the general fund to the children's fund during the fiscal year-end process, the finance department performs a true-up to ensure that the contribution to the children's fund reflects 40% of the actual CBOT revenue for that fiscal year.

So the numbers on the right side of the show uh the right side of the slide show an example of this process for fiscal year 24-25.

The estimated CBOT revenue was approximately 23.3 million, which was actually unchanged from uh fiscal year 2324 budget.

Therefore, approximately 9.3 million in general fund dollars was allocated to the children's fund.

So that's uh the 40 percent.

The audit amount of the CBOT revenue was approximately 22.6 million, as shown in the previous slide, which comes in below estimates.

Therefore, the finance department um did a true up to reduce revenues by approximately 280,000 from the children's fund.

And so the uh total amount contributed to the children's fund for fiscal year 25 was approximately 9.04 million dollars.

Um this concludes my presentation, and I am available to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you for that presentation.

Clerk, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak?

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speakers.

All right.

Do we have any commissioners that would like to speak?

I just have a quick question because I know there was uh some efforts at the and this may not be a question for you actually, Joe, so thank you so much for your presentation, but um, about the cannabis business tax level at the city.

What is that?

And then there was like an effort to lower it, right?

I'm just wondering if if there are any updates on that.

I don't know who that is.

We don't currently have any updates on if that's going through, and I I believe that'd be a council direction on that one, so we can provide updates if it comes back to council, but as of yet it has not.

Yeah.

I just think it would be good to know because that would have implications for the amount of dollars where we would be that the children's fund would have in the future.

Thank you once again for your presentation.

I do have a couple of questions.

They may be directed at you.

I know it's gonna be probably Julie and Renee mostly that's gonna be answering these, um, just to help me to make sure that I'm understanding.

So the nine point, the nine million essentially, nine point zero four million.

Um, that's directed for year 25 through 26.

Correct, for the decrease.

So that is the uh is the 9.04 million.

That would be um if I can go back.

So that is what the uh the total contribution was um in fiscal year 24 25.

Um, when you account for the discrepancy between what was um in the approved budget, um basically like the estimate of what was going to be collected and then what was actually collected.

So because it was lower, they had to re make a reduction in the actual contribution.

And so that 9.4 million is the amount that was like the final amount after they made all the final adjustments at the end of the year.

Okay, so I think that this next question is probably gonna be Julie.

So, with the monies that we're working with, because for some reason I don't know why I thought it was eight points, eight point something million that was going currently.

I guess to give an overview so we can all understand it because I know that there's a lot of numbers.

So the current amounts of what we're working with, because I'm trying to see is the nine million was going into what's coming up to be funded, or this is already in the funding period for the RFP that we're in.

So um, this is already included in the RFP that we've the first three years of funding we projected and included in the current RFP.

The second two final years out of the five-year SIP, we will be using this the two final years of the SIP as the second the funding for the second RFP.

So those are the numbers we don't have.

Those are the numbers we will do.

No, and the way that we project it for um internally is that we use whatever the most current year CBOT number, which now is nine million and forty-four, we use that number and project it out for the following years.

Um, with obviously um, you know, we're watching to see what happens each year, and we'll have to adjust our budgets accordingly.

Got it.

I don't have any additional questions.

Um commissioners, any any questions?

Are we good to go?

We're good to go.

Thank you so much for being here and for your presentation.

Thank you.

All right, we don't have any further action on that item.

All right, we're gonna go ahead and move on to item number three, which is our Sacramento Children's Fund implementation updates.

We have a presentation while Julie is making her way over there.

All right.

Good morning, Vice Chair and Vice Chair and Commission.

Welcome to the Sacramento Children's Fund Implation Udate.

I'm gonna keep this presentation pretty brief because I think we have a robust discussion, but I am available as always for questions and comments.

So first, just to give you some updates on what's um currently been going on.

Um SCF grantees, specifically the community-based organizations have submitted quarter three programmatic and financial reports.

You can see the draft progress report.

As I mentioned, it is a draft, so it doesn't include everything that we collect and/or all of the funded agencies reporting, um, but there is a good amount of data in there.

Um, what is excluded in that report specifically is um uh geographical data, so that's much harder to sort of analyze, and so it'll take us a little more time to get that data in a format that would be easily digestible.

Um also uh good news for the evaluation.

Harder and Company was contracted.

We've executed our contract with Harder and Company for the five-year evaluation of the Sacramento Children's Fund.

Harder and Company has launched their evaluation and they're currently, you know, we've met with them, we've started giving them all of our background documentation, they've been really just information gathering, and they're now in the process of a monitoring evaluation and learning framework planning phase.

We have spoken to them about launching site visits and our community of practice this summer.

Um, but yeah, we're really just in the launching of the evaluation phase at this at this time.

Um, we will plan to bring hard earned company to present to the commission.

However, it's always just this.

I don't think this right now is the ideal time as they're just information gathering and starting to launch the evaluation.

I think it'd be much more meaningful at a later date.

Um great news is that we have officially awarded United Way California Capital Region with up to eight million dollars for a guaranteed basic income for transitional age foster youth program.

Uh, this was approved by City Council on Tuesday night.

Um, if you all were able to watch or if you could tune in, there were some really amazing comments and um just commendations to the commission for bringing this forth.

And um, so we're really happy to be bringing this this program forward.

We're really close to executing the contract with United Way.

We're just doing a little bit of last-minute contract edits, and they are slated to begin July 1st, 2026, which I'm happy to report is on schedule for once.

Um, and so we're really looking forward to this program.

Uh, we also um will be bringing Unite away to present to you all at a later date.

However, again, we would like that presentation to be meaningful, and we're just getting them started.

So I can also just uh if you guys like provide a few um, well, I'm gonna skip that for now.

I'll get to it later.

Let's go here.

So I think what may have come into discussion today is or what we may discuss today is sort of what the chair may bring around is looking at um now that we've kind of gone through our first round of funding, that's in progress.

We've awarded GVI, that's in progress, and you all are in this phase of the third year review, which is reviewing the strategic investment plan, looking at what recommendations you might want to make, and specifically through the lens of who would we like to be funded in the next round, and perhaps working backwards.

And so I wanted to give you all a little bit of information about what that second round of open grant funding might look like.

So tentatively, um, the second round or second RFP for this five-year SIP will be released in fall of winter 2027 with a funding start date of January 1st, 2028.

I say tentative because there's every possibility that if we may be able to release that sooner if we know what should be in the RFP, right?

So we're willing to work with you all on that.

The second round of open grant funding is to tentatively run for two years from January 1, 2028 through December 31st, 2029.

Again, tentative those dates could move forward.

If the CBOT remains steady at the fiscal year 25 amount, the RFP may be released for approximately 13.8 million dollars.

Again, we have to see how the money falls, but we can uh release an RFP for approximately that amount.

We would then write language into the contracts that says contingent upon performance review and funding availability.

Say if the CBOT goes down a lot, then we might have to reduce the second year amount, for example.

But all things considered at this point, this is what we're looking at.

With the current split, that would be approximately 6.9 million dollars in open grants for CBOs and 6.9 million dollars for the city of Sacramento and non-city public entities.

And then just a reminder that the full five-year SIP amount of up to $8 million, or that 20% of the SIP that was going to be awarded to GBI has been awarded to United Way for GBI, and so we won't be having a second round of GBI funding during the SIP, this SIP cycle.

They're taking the full five years.

Okay, and then I just wanted to put this up here.

I think it's sort of helpful.

You can see the 2025 audited C bond amount of nine million dollars and some change, and how we've carried it through as a projection for 26, 27, 28, and the total, and so you're seeing how these will line up for the full five years.

Okay, and that really is my presentation for today.

As I did mention, we do have the funding overview that was requested and the progress report that I could display up here for you all if you like, but I'm open to questions and/or your discussion.

Thank you so much, Julie.

I'm trying to see which one would be best to have up for this discussion.

Um, we can rotate documents.

Yeah, that's we can rotate documents.

Do we have any members of the public who would like to speak on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speakers.

All right, commissioners.

What say you for this item?

Is this discussion?

All right, Commissioner Kravis words.

Um, so this is this is the discussion, or this is the time for discussion about the progress report.

Cool, awesome.

Um, so I'll just pick up where Commissioner Williams um or from where she left off because I was curious to looking at that same table in the progress report, which is the populations experiencing additional barriers, which essentially reflects the priority.

Commissioner Grapperswork, can you speak into your mic?

So I can hear you.

There we go.

Which is essentially the priority populations that we identify in the SIP and in the RFP.

And I was just kind of curious, um, because the total number of um served is only about 60% of the total um young people served overall.

So I'm curious if that then indicates that about 40% of the kids being served then are not in our priority population categories, if I'm interpreting that correctly.

Oh, sorry, hold on, let me put display it here for you.

Is this the portion that you're looking at?

Yes, that top table.

Just so that for the public too.

Um, I it certainly could be interpreted as that.

It's also, I would also take into consideration that our CBOs are new to this reporting.

Um, we're still trying to teach them and walk through, and so they might not be uh we haven't mandated that they collect this data, and so it is a little spotty, like not everyone is going to be collecting these indicators or asking to use these questions when they enroll them in their programming.

So I would certainly keep that in mind when you're looking at the data that this is what we could collect.

That doesn't mean that the people being served um either meet that category or not meet that category.

We might just not have asked them that question.

So I think you can interpret it that way, but I would just keep in mind that there is missing sort of data based on the CVOs just starting and us um not mandating that they uh or requiring them to ask these questions.

Okay, totally understand about missing data.

Just clarifying on then what you just said about these questions are all asked and people can choose not to answer, or these aren't even asked of all of the CBOs.

So we provided them with the reporting template, and we said, please do your best to collect all of this data, with the caveat that we're bringing on an evaluator and our progress reports might change.

So it's the answer is yes to both.

Yeah, okay, got it.

Thank you.

And I I was really asking that question because I think it relates to some of the work that the ad hoc committee is is doing and will come up in the report out in a bit.

I just wanted to add on you know what I'm gonna wait.

Commissioner Williams, just piggybacking on this conversation.

I mean, again, this is just a comment because I think this is probably what the evaluators have to tackle, but a lot of these are pretty sensitive topics, and so um being able to be you know provide trauma-informed care and also being very sensitive to it.

So I I'm just sort of curious.

Yeah, how will you know?

Maybe it is, yeah, I don't I don't know how to how to get at this in a way that's both trauma informed but also meets our needs.

So again, just flagging that.

I wanted to just add on to that just because I feel like the conversations that we've been having since our inception, uh, we've wanted that data.

We've wanted to understand who it is that we're serving so that way we're able to report that out.

So I do believe thank thank you both uh for bringing that up.

I know um Julie that you said um I guess the question it hasn't been mandated, it's been requested.

I guess what I would like to know, and I'm sure the commissioners would like to know as well.

Is there a way that we can make sure that we're collecting as much data as possible?

So I don't and also want to be sensitive to the programs that are serving the the youth.

So I want to see can we collect that data?

Just because I feel like the more data we have, it tells the story better, and we're able to tell the story better of what measure ill is doing for the community, and so is there a way to mandate or require that type of data just because we do want to make sure that we're reporting as accurately as possible, but I don't know, so I want to ask to see if that's something you do.

I'm just gonna say I think that's a big uh goal for our evaluator to try to ensure that we are being consistent across our data gathering while also keeping in mind that there are five very different fund goals that we are collecting data from, right?

So that that also goes into consideration when we're looking at these numbers.

Some of the programs that we funded, these questions may or may not be relevant to what they're doing.

Um I think there's also a balance in as you all know, and in dating reporting requirements, right?

And trying to get as much as we could can and make sure we're having an impact at an equity level, you know, while also balancing the fact that you know they're on boots on the ground doing this work.

So that's definitely one of our biggest goals for our evaluator to create a reporting um process to where we're balancing those factors.

Absolutely.

Thank you for that clarification.

Alright, Commissioner Cravis works.

Yeah, um, so just and understood that these are these these indicators are likely to evolve as um the evaluator comes more on board.

Um, and so I'll I'm mainly just saying this um out loud in um in that spirit.

So the plan the the table six, which is still up there, the planned indicators, I think a lot of these relate somewhat indirectly to like the violence prevention goal, but I'm not sure that any of them quite hit on like perceptions or feelings of safety.

And I'm so I'm just wondering if that's an area, a dimension of the indicators that we can plan to include moving forward.

Yeah, absolutely.

And we would happily take the commission's suggestion on indicators and or priorities in the evaluation.

Commissioner Thomas.

Will this be appropriate time to discuss that memo we're again sent by the city attorney's office or no?

Hi, good morning.

I asked that we don't discuss specific attorney client privilege or advice that was given, as that could be considered to be violating the um privilege and confidentiality that we share.

So you just um not advise or I'm advising to not discuss specifics.

Of course, you can discuss um some of the outcomes that came from that memo or some of the suggestions, but no specific legal advice, please.

But another way to frame that too is um Commissioner Thomas, if you wanted to discuss approaches, um in and consider the information that you received in that memo and discuss the approaches as a result of that.

That's an appropriate discussion if that helps, might not help.

Yeah, a little sidebar really quickly.

Uh thank you.

Um I will give me 30 seconds.

All right, while they're reviewing that, is there any more questions?

Are there?

I apologize.

Are there any more additional commissioner questions, comments?

I want to fill the time since we have it.

Um I know Julia, you mentioned also the geographic um uh data and the and the indicators um and that's to come.

Uh can you remind me at what level of aggregation we're talking about when we're talking about geographic indicators?

Are we thinking like zip code level?

Are we thinking census track?

Are we thinking about then mapping like which one like what level of data?

Yeah, so currently we're only collecting zip codes and district level.

Um it gets really complicated the deeper you go.

We may be able to look into a deeper level of census track with our GIS team, but as when you start to try to ask participants census track data, it just it doesn't usually go well, yeah.

So for right now, it's zip code district level.

Yeah, cool.

I mean, I don't I I don't know my census tracked ID number, so um totally get that.

Thanks.

Hi, I'm back.

Uh thank you to city attorney.

Uh a few things.

One, I want to um uplift something that Commissioner Williams had mentioned, which was that you know, youth transition, uh foster curves only eight folks.

Does it bring you any comfort knowing that that number will probably increase as we get through with the GBI, or are you still having concerns about the fact they're not being served outside of it?

Um I think I mean I this is this is preliminary data, but I think when you look at who are the most vulnerable, vulnerable in our communities, there are systems impacted children.

So children who are in the CBS protective services or justice system.

So I think that when we continue on this conversation about how do we reach those children and youth that are with the most need, I think we'll want to continue looking at them.

Um, because I think I'm you know, excited about the GBI project, but I think there are still other children who are not going to be reached.

Um, it may not be in foster care, but may also be systems impacted.

And I think the other thing while I have the mic, um, I just again, I'm just curious, I don't have any thoughts about it.

Um, that most of the uh age group that's being uh served are six to twelve, um, and then the youth and the zero to five are much less.

So I just think that's an interesting distribution just to look at when we look at the serving.

I appreciate it.

And I think for me, I would hope that down the line we get to work with United Way a little bit more, so even the folks who aren't getting touched by the GBI can still be really connected to the resources that we have, like going on here through the children's funds.

That's one thing.

Uh, two, you know, the I I don't remember where we left off on this conversation.

I know I talked to Lillian about it last time about you know mental health and how like liberal the definition of of it was previously, and I'm thinking maybe is that a conversation we can have from their June meeting, um kind of talking about the next you know iteration of like how liberal that definition was too many people I think was very um redundant in the the grant review process for me when people were saying mental health.

I was like, well, I don't know if this really applies mental health, but it's a very broad definition.

So I wonder if we can definitely mark that as a conversation for next time for sure.

Sure.

So I would just ask, because I think it's helpful during Commissioner Commons.

If you say we would like to agendize an item for this, and maybe that could be a broader discussion linked to how do you want to look at the fund goals in the next RFP?

Do you want to say we, you know, for example, you could say we want this definition of mental health or we want this specific programming for mental health.

So I think that conversation could also evolve.

But it I really appreciate when you guys add it to the follow-up blog, and then it's easy for us to agendize and bring to chair, hey, these were the requests.

What are you prioritizing, etc.?

Okay, I'll make sure to make a note of that.

Um, I'm also, you know, it was brought up to us um throughout this entire process, the lack of American Indian indigenous orgs that receive any funding, and and so I'm very mindful of that.

And I'm I would like also like to recommend probably you know, a grant writing consultant to help out with smaller CBOs and emerging groups.

I think would be very helpful for them down the line.

Um, I'm sure if that's considered administrative cost or not, but the grant writing world is not easy whatsoever.

And obviously, we know larger organizations have a lot more access to grant writers who could do it professionally.

So I think definitely probably trying to hire a grant writer would be a very good suggestion down the line as well.

Um I think another thing that's on the top of my head, I will love because I'm looking at these numbers that we were presented to us.

I would love to say that I will prefer the commission to push again for the majority of the funding to go to CBOs and not have this 50-50 split with the city, because I did not like how many CBOs applied and then just didn't get any funding down the line.

So I'm kind of curious how the commission feels about that.

Um, first that 50-50 split, 60-40, so on and so forth.

I think we should probably make a note of that as a conversation as well.

Um I think I'll leave that there for now.

I might come back for later thoughts, but I'll leave it there.

Sorry to interrupt.

Um, just wanted to note that also included the follow-up log was a funding overview that was requested by you all that shows all the funding splits in in different analyses, including GBI.

Um, and I wanted to bring that to your attention because I think that certainly the city council might have a different perception of what that split looks like, and I think it's important for you all to carry that knowledge in your decision making.

So I just want to share that that's included and for you all to look at it.

No, no, and and to be to be clear, yes, they their view most likely is the the GBI is included in that, and they do not see it as 50-50 the way that we do.

I recognize that.

Also recognize with everybody in a budget deficit and any type of government that they probably don't want that split to get any smaller moving forward.

So I do recognize that, so I appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner Thomas and Media Pass Chair.

Um, I think one of the things that I wanted to bring up on this uh categories of youth and participants served is also um the number of children and youth who have been involved in juvenile criminal legal systems because we are in other uh departments in the city investing making these investments in youth.

So if you go back to the auditor's report too, I think it was like the right underneath the Ipsy, it's like the um police department, the fire department, like all these.

So I I think when I look at this number, and it's you know, for me, it's obviously cause for concern because this fund is supposed to meet sort of or serve the youth who are most impacted.

Um, and that would be one of the groups, but then I'm also thinking about how in other spaces the city is saying that it's investing in this area, and so even for more reason.

Um, I think you know, part of our homework is to look at these other grants making uh bodies within the city that are investing in youth violence prevention and sort of get a bigger overview of like you know, are we really like not meeting the need of what we can do with the children's fund?

Is that potentially being met elsewhere and sort of like prioritize um from there essentially?

Um, and I just I know want to know that we're it says we're not gonna get a presentation then from the office or from the it's not the office of violence prevention.

Oh, yeah, yeah, we're not gonna get a presentation then.

Uh yeah, it is the Office of Violence Prevention.

We'll continue to work um with them to to bring them forward to provide you more information, but I think what we can do on RN aside from providing just the initial um like CalVIP uh information, we'll try to get some more information to you about their GPIT program and about the violence interruption program because I know that was a large discussion at council this week, and we'll provide updates on how that goes if they you know restore that funding and where the gaps may be in some of those services, just so you have it in mind as you're having these discussions of identifying um populations for violence prevention, maybe involved in the juvenile system.

Okay, got it, and then just one other uh question uh for the idea that Commissioner Thomas brought up about a grant writer to maybe support some of these smaller emerging community-based organizations.

Would that if that were to be something we wanted to implement or include in the next SIP, would that go through the admin funds, or would that be we would have to look at it internally?

I mean, we we've discussed having perhaps city staff doing workshops, um, uh, with grantees.

There's nothing that would prohibit us from doing that.

So we would just have to look at it and see what made the most sense and come back to you all.

Yes, um, thank you.

Um chair, just I always want to call you by first same gene, Chair Richardson.

Um, so uh I'd like to second what commissioner um Rawlis Myers said about um about the the population of children and youth who have been involved in juvenile or criminal legal systems and how that number is so low because um as we know um that population um you know can lead to a lot of the other outcomes that we work with or that we're focusing on here in terms of substance use, um, unhoused.

Um so I just um I really want to you know put a stars on on that one and just hope that we can um see how we can do some community outreach, even um to that population.

Um I'd also like to second um what we've been talking about here with uh with getting a grant writer because um I think that that would be really helpful.

So, thank you, Vice Chair.

So there's quite a few things.

I want to say thank you so much to all the commissioners for all of your comments, all of your thoughtful comments and recommendations as we're moving forward.

A few things I did get a chance.

Well, I'm gonna I'm gonna leave that one for right now.

Moving forward, we do need to see.

So from this implementation plan that Julie presented to us, we need to see and recommend what changes we're gonna make.

And Julie, this is just for clarification for everyone, just because we all have some things that we've suggested.

So instead of changing the verbiage of the SIP, we can change the language in the RFP so that we can make sure the people that we would like to see funded are funded.

Is that correct?

You can make recommendations to staff for the RFP.

Um, there are, however, limitations to that, right?

So we cannot change the split because that's city, that's city council adopted, and I'm looking at city attorney because there's a gray area there, and I don't want to mislead you all, right?

Um, so you can make recommendations and say we want to make these changes, we want to do XYZ.

There are a list of sort of recommendations in the memo and any other ideas you may have.

Um, but there is there may come a time where there are certain things that are contained in the SIP that we cannot just change and put into the RFP if it goes against the SIP.

Okay, does that make sense?

So there's several paths forward, and I would also just note that if you have all these discussions and get further down the line, and you decide in October that no, you don't want to do the just change the RFP, you actually want to change make recommendations to city council on the strategic investment plan.

That is in your powers and duties, and you may always do that, okay.

So I just want to be yes, you can absolutely make recommendations, and city staff will then implement that in the RFP.

Um, but there is always going to be, and you know, that would be Harveen or sorry, city attorney's um responsibility to tell us, like, no, we can't do that, or yes, we can't.

Okay.

So let me give you an example.

So as I look at our progress report, um, as many of you have looked at our progress report and seeing the categories and our fund goals, so substance abuse falling at 0.3% of funding, youth violence falling at 3.4%, and then also youth homelessness falling at 12.2.

I'm gonna also include children zero to five.

I'm gonna say that so far we really haven't pointed out those funding mechanism or those organizations that can really make an impact in this particular area.

If the commission said we would like to change verbiage in our RFP so that way we are able to impact and uplift children zero to five, youth homelessness, youth violence, and substance abuse, especially since that one's so low.

Is that a possibility?

City attorney.

I'll just say I would recommend when we have this deeper discussion maybe in June to bring those specific suggestions, say you want a percentage split between the fund goals.

We will take those recommendations, we will work with our city attorney, and then we'll come back to you and say, hey, this is what we can do, and this is what's gonna have to go back to council through the CIP.

Um, or you know, through the solicitation itself.

Um, so I'm not gonna say no, that's gonna make it harder for us to stay on track, but that's why we're starting the conversation now.

So we can't have those conversations and work through all of those options for you.

Okay, and I asked that just to put it on the minds of all the commissioners, um, just because percentages is something that we've discussed.

It was an earlier on conversation, and I will I do believe that that can be something that can help us to serve those other percent, those other fund goals more effectively.

Uh, mental health, of course, we know is very broad and of course very important, so don't want to discount that, but adding percentages could help us in reviewing um the strategic investment plans for Oakland, San Francisco, and Richmond, seeing that majority of them use those percentage methods.

I would encourage y'all, if you haven't taken a look at those reports.

Um, me and good old ChatGPT had a good time deciphering them, and yes, a lot of good percentages in there.

So, and so um moving forward with that.

I did uh take a look at the Office of Violence Prevention's um recent presentation that they did for city council.

It actually was really good.

I did want to give y'all just a few um highlights.

I think that it's unfortunate just because we did want to hear from them earlier because they it looks like they're doing a lot of good work in the Office of Violence Prevention and the funding that they're putting out there through the through the program.

So, just in case if y'all are unaware, um, it looks like GPIT gang prevention and intervention task force, it was funded at 1.4 million.

Um, disruption response intervention and prevention drip funded at 1 million.

Um, they have about 6,147 participants, ages 10 to 24.

Um, they put in a lot of service hours, the percentage that they pointed out, they serve 76% black African American or Hispanic.

Um, a lot of good information in those reports.

Um, and they funded.

I may have this number wrong, so please don't quote me on this.

I believe 20 um community-based organizations were funded through their program.

I may have that incorrect, but I wanted to let y'all know just because I know our numbers are reflecting low, but just to see that the city is serving in that capacity was something good to see.

So I did want to just say that.

So commissioners, I definitely would encourage you to take a look at that on the reporting side, just because I know that the commission would still like to see that.

I would love for the commission to be able to see that.

Is that something that can be emailed if their report can be emailed to the commissioners?

Would that be a follow-up log item?

Yes.

So we've actually been in communication with the Office of Violence Prevention, and they were actually going to provide an updated report, which uh we should have really soon and plan to send out to the commission.

Okay.

Because I think that that would be good to help.

Um, so with all of that information being said, because we've said a lot, the split there's information that's been brought up where we we want edits to the SIP and/or language.

Are we now in the place where we're having the conversation as to what the commission would like to do?

Is that where I just want to see where we're where I can lead to, just to make sure that I'm on one to ask for that.

I think that's your decision, Chair.

Got it.

All right.

I would like to have a discussion amongst because I believe this is something we need to discuss so that we can move forward, I believe, in our next meeting.

As to do we want to just edit the language that's in our RFP.

I'm sorry, edit the language for the RFP that's coming up for the next funding cycle, or do we want to make changes to this to the SIP?

So I want to open it up for that.

All right, media pass chair.

Um, so one of the things that comes up for me is um what commissioner Thomas mentioned about the mental health definition, and I don't know if that's some so that to me would be also a point of um discussion among us where I don't know if you were uh offering to work on that, Commissioner Thomas, and then bring bring forth uh like a recommendation at the next meeting.

Because I think that's essentially what we're doing is we're identifying sort of the pieces of the SIP or the RFP that we're wanting to like take a closer look at and/or edit, similarly to how we have been doing with the ad hoc committee with target populations.

Like we met, we kind of discussed, you know, recommendations that we're gonna bring forward to you all in June.

So I'm wondering if that's something that you want to do with the mental health definition.

Just because that's another component of the SIP or and plan.

So just for clarification, if we edit the mental health definition, is that an edit to the SIP, or is that just for RFP purposes?

I think that would be the it's sorry, guys.

It is a little bit of a gray area, and I know we've been looking at the current RFP with the city attorney, and she's trying to decipher where that line is.

Um, but I think we could, for example, and I look at in the RFP, we laid out um like each of the five fund goals, and then under those fund goals, we put like examples, right?

I think that we would be able to per your recommendations write out um either uh an edited definition and or examples of programming that you would really like to see, and you could make that prescriptive.

That's one way that I see moving forward with the RFP that would be very um easy for us to incorporate without changing the set.

If I'm interpreting that correctly, your ask.

So, would you like to work on that with me?

That's yeah.

Okay, yeah, I do we need like an ad hoc to do that.

Probably so.

No, you would not okay.

Okay, yeah, I I have no problem working with the vice chair on that.

I I think my thoughts were just that it was too broad, but then if we get too specific to for example of saying no therapist and like you know, social workers, then is that just you know, too expensive for even the smaller nonprofits and advocate?

So I think trying to have that conversation about what how we find that middle ground, I think is really important.

So I guess it's also me kind of combining this with the follow-up log, which I'll reiterate stuff later.

But yes, I'll have no problem working with vice chair on this.

I I definitely want to address that issue.

I also personally am at this point now where I feel comfortable saying I'd rather split our five fund goals 20% each.

Um I think the results of with mental health being kind of lopsided.

I I'd left poor taste in my mouth and kind of the lack of investment, the other fun goals.

So I personally would just like a 20% split for the five, um, and then work from there.

If people are thinking one may one's 30%, one's 15%, also fine.

But I think we have to start somewhere, and how we the results of the previous round definitely was not um what I preferred.

So I think 20% for each fund goal is where my head's at.

Um, and then I think I'll leave it there for now.

All right.

Thank you for those comments.

Commissioner Thomas, Vice Chair Gaffari, did you still want to speak?

Um, just that um, yes, I I'd be happy to work on the definition of of mental health.

Um, and then um uh in terms of the percentages, is that in the for each goal?

Is that what we're talking about today?

Or because I would just feel like I need to think about it too.

But I'm open to changing things though, but but and that would be for the RFP or for the SIP, or we're not sure.

So there is a motion embedded into your staff report that basically states uh a point of decision where you can decide whether you want to start having these conversations um in the future uh regarding this solicitation or RFP versus the SIP.

Uh once again, you could also continue it and say we need to have another discussion whether that's the course that we want to take um alternatively.

So, and and with that, um I do want to say that I think that we have put so much time and energy into working on the SIP that we already have.

I'm really for changing things for the RFP, not so much for changing things for the SIP because with our time and energy, it's like we're still learning these lessons and what we could do differently.

And I'm all into implementing changes to the SIP for the next, you know, go around when we when it's time for that.

And um, because we're still like absorbing, you know, what's going on, what's working, how who we need to reach, and and if we start editing here, then we're gonna edit there.

And so um, I'm just more for making changes to the RFP.

So I just want to make one note that hope that's helpful that also if if these questions come up, like are we discussing this today?

You can we can also agendize those for full discussion items at future meetings.

If we want to dive into a subject, and that is part of the third year review, and so simultaneously as we're doing a third year review, we're also looking at what are the things we want to change, um, and then and a separate sort of topic is are we changing them in the RFP or the SIP?

But either way, we're probably gonna dive into the same topics.

So if you have something you're interested in discussing, you can say can we agendize that and then we can bring it back as a full discussion and it'll be a dedicated discussion.

Okay.

So, can I can I say one more thing?

Um, is there anything that that we need else that we need to do?

Like, should we agendize the new proposed definition of mental health like for the next meeting, or can we mean Devon just to present it next meeting or if you wanted to have a full discussion with the commission, it should be an agenda item.

Um or we could possibly make one discussion item for multiple with multiple topics, for example, target population and mental health.

But absolutely, if you what guys want to bring it back, the next meeting is in four weeks in June.

Um, so you could request added June or at a future agenda.

Okay.

I would like for us to work on definition by the June meeting, actually.

Um, and then if we feel like the commission has supportive thoughts or they're kind of more, you know, like let's change this, we keep it for the next one.

But I think we should make this an agendized conversation for the next meeting.

I think.

Can you restate that for us in commissioner comments during the follow-up?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Of course, of course.

Commissioner Williams.

I don't know if this is too premature, but I was going to strongly suggest that we just decide we're not changing the SIP and that we're going to make these changes in the RFP just so we can move the conversation forward.

I was just can I just say what because I think it's related to that, which is I think maybe I'm restating something everyone is already um thinking through, but like if we change the SIP, we have to go back to city council.

If we change the RFP, we don't.

So that's the big, I think.

Um, at least for me, that's kind of a big decision point.

If I can quickly respond to that, I still think I'm confused on when we talk about these changes, which are directly going to the CIP and which are to the RFP.

I I don't think it's clear to me right now in the moment when we talk about some of these changes, which are a part of.

Well, I think that my understanding is that we can make these changes specific to this RFP, and then when we go back to the SIP, we can integrate those changes into the SIP.

But I think we're looking back now.

If we make changes, we're looking back and we're opening up that whole can of worms, but we can still do sort of strategic changes in how we request request for things in the RFP.

For example, we could weight certain things more heavily than others, and we can structure the RFP in a way, um, that gets the same results.

Okay, but then would we wouldn't have to do the SIP discussion till like a much later times that you're saying?

Right.

And that's after we integrate it with the RFP, then kind of go from okay.

That makes sense, yes.

Is that Julie?

Does that make sense?

Is that yeah, and I will say that's part of the process that we're gonna go through.

If there are recommendations that you very, you know, you feel very strongly about that you want to include in the solicitation, and our city attorney tells us this might um this may mean that we're gonna have to now take the solicitation to city council because it is a large change.

We'll give you that guidance.

Okay, and we'll say you like give us all the recommendations, give us all the ideas that you want, and we'll work in the background with the city attorney and come back to you all and say, A through C, you're good to go, D through F, we're gonna have to go back to council, even if it's a change in the solicitation, but at least you know, you know, and then at least you can make decisions from there, which I think is gonna be the best way to go about this process.

Um, but like I said, there is a motion on on the staff report.

You know, anyone is welcome to to make a motion to to move forward with focusing on the solicitation at this time.

I mean, I'll make that one.

You can make the just real quick, uh just point of clarification.

You can make the motion.

I would like discussion after that because I do have something that I want to say just to make sure we're all clear before we vote on SID motion, okay?

Before that, a media vice chair.

I mean immediate chair, media past year.

Is it because you don't want to say my last name?

I'm not giving you respect.

I want to give you the respect.

Thanks.

Thanks, Chair.

Um so the only thing I was gonna mention was that I found it really helpful when Commissioner Williams kind of talked about the SIP as a historical document.

So if you think about kind of like the the RFP is implementing the what is in the strategic investment plan, so when I think about it that way, that in that way they're separate, right?

The SIP is a historical document.

The RFP is actually, you know, it's creating also the rubric that uh these uh applications are being scored on.

And I feel like if uh you know the mental health definition changes there, then that'll get us to where we want to go without having to go back and change the SIP because we know after three years we're gonna do that process anyways.

Um so it's just avoiding having to go through that process redundantly and like spend all that time and energy again, like you know, going through the council for the adoption of the SIP when that's already a part of what the timeline, anyways.

Does that kind of help and make sense?

I don't know.

I just found it helpful when you mentioned that a couple meetings ago, Commissioner Williams.

So I wanted to say that.

Yeah, exactly.

Yeah, but it does help.

I love analogy, so that's that's really good.

I do want to get verification that yes, in change in definition, we can do that with moving forward in our RFP.

Can we also change percentages where it doesn't throw off what we already do for GBI?

Uh GBI is set, so that won't be touched overall.

If that's the question you're asking, um, for the first part of that question will work with our with the city attorney as you guys are bringing those recommendations in to give you clarity at this time.

You know, we're unsure.

Okay.

Because just full um just so that the commission knows, because I had a different, I know other commissioner Thomas just said uh what uh percentages that he recommended.

I was looking for a 30, 25, 20, 15, 10 percent percentage in coming up, and I don't mind sharing exactly what I want those to be.

I was ahead, tell me which one.

30% I was looking for zero to five, twenty-five percent youth violence, just because of what uh I saw from the Office of Violent Prevention's report and how the city is already serving in youth violence.

So I did 25% there, 20% for substance abuse to uplift that one since that one is getting the least amount of love currently.

Right now, 15% for foster youth, and 10% for mental health.

So can I just clarify a point on the foster youth?

So um so the the the measure all has five goals, and um foster youth are included in the uh charter amendment as a target population, but it's not one of the goals.

Yes, does that make sense?

So the goals are mental health, uh preventing and reducing youth homelessness, preventing and reducing youth violence, preventing reducing youth substance abuse, and then supporting the healthy development of children zero to five.

I can't believe I remembered that.

I apologize.

That's crazy.

And foster youth is ideally built into the homelessness, right?

Because we kind of understand the point in time count.

Foster youth transitioning out are you know heavily among that population that are vulnerable to becoming homeless.

So yeah, just just to clarify on that point, because if you look at the yeah, the the page, the overview that we got, um, all the categories technically.

I mean, yes, we we understand that we're investing heavily in that youth homelessness foster youth bucket through the GBI, but I wouldn't separate those.

I actually was gonna make that point earlier, so thanks for for bringing that up.

I wouldn't separate those because it's not a separate goal, okay.

Um in the charter, yeah.

There's no percentages.

So uh when the charter is written, it's just the identified goals, and then the idea is that the commission would make the recommendations on percentages, however, I will state that we do have uh other historical, you know, children's funds across California that um we also you had shared with us, I think Julie, the uh San Francisco, Oakland.

Um they also don't have percentages prescribed in their charter amendment because that's like the policy, right?

But then in the implementation is when folks are identifying, these are the percentages we want to put, and those cities do actually have recommended percentages uh for their goal areas.

Which is something we discussed initially, we just didn't move forward with it, but we do want to.

I thought that that was something that we would look in to move forward in.

I just wanted to verify that we can the percentages would be something that we will be able to move forward with without changing the SIP.

We will confirm that after we look at it on the back end.

Okay, yeah.

So we've noted that that's one thing you want us to look at, and we'll continue to discuss.

Okay, all right.

Well, we're good.

Will someone like the motion?

I think Williams already.

Oh, the motion is already on the floor.

We were discussing.

I apologize.

Any more discussion over the motion?

The motion to clarify is to make changes to the RFP and not the SIP.

Okay.

Everybody give me a second.

Okay.

All right, since the motion has been passed, are we doing a physical vote?

Just want to make sure.

We can.

Okay.

Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Wilson Williams.

Did you have any other comments or uh I had a comment, but it was only just to clarify.

I know we're talking about the GBI and foster children.

I just want to make sure we know that there's a whole segment of foster kids that are not eligible for GBI because those are the youth that are transitioning out.

So that still is a category.

I don't hate to say category, but it's still a population we're wanting to serve.

So I don't just so we don't say, oh, they're taken care of because the GBI.

I just wanted to point that out.

And then so should I say aye?

We'll do a roll call vote for this one.

Okay.

I'm just trying to we have a motion by Commissioner Williams and a second by Vice Chair Gaflari.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Volsey is absent.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas.

Aye.

Or Vice Chair Gaffari?

Aye.

Commissioner Kravitzwords?

Aye.

Commissioner Rulis Marez?

Aye.

And Chair Richardson.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Before we move on, should we continue to vote past the two hours?

Or do you guys think we will be done by 12?

There's no rush.

We do we can make some motion, but I don't want to interrupt since we're we're kind of out of pause.

Okay.

So what's left on the agenda is the target populations, Commissioner comments, um public comment, and then because even if we go past, even if we go past 10 minutes, we would still have to make sure that we so do we want to vote that in now?

Let's vote it in now.

Okay, so if I can get a motion in a second to extend the meeting past two hours.

I make a motion to extend the meeting past two hours.

I'll second.

Thank you.

Commissioners, please unmute.

Commissioner Volsey is absent.

Commissioner Williams?

Aye.

Commissioner Thomas?

Aye.

Vice Chair Kaffore?

Aye.

Commissioner Kravitzwords?

Aye.

Commissioner Rules Marez?

Aye.

Chair Richardson.

Aye.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

We can continue.

And just to keep note, we've passed that, but we don't have to, so you know, as we keep this concise, we we can we'll be good, but we just have it in place.

All right.

I wanted to also just go back, Commissioner Williams, uh, with what you mentioned.

Thank you so much for bringing that to the attention.

Um, just going back to since we can edit the language in the RFP, we can make sure that the language um reflects that uh targeted community, that population that isn't being taken care of by GBI.

Okay.

All right, y'all.

So now we are gonna move on to our targeted populations ad hoc uh updates.

Okay, am I on deck?

Good, okay.

So um I'm going to read the report out summary that our ad hoc, which included myself, uh Commissioner Williams, and Commissioner uh Ruales Maras.

And um we've been meeting over the past two or so months, and so this reflects our work from that time.

So the ad hoc subcommittee met to revisit the children's fund priority populations framework and discuss ways that the RFP process could move, could more strongly ensure that funded programs are truly reaching children and youth most impacted by poverty trauma and violence.

Overall, the uh subcommittee felt that the current RFP already provides a strong equity-centered foundation through its identification of priority populations and emphasis on access and youth development.

However, we also identified several opportunities to strengthen how these priorities are translated into application requirements, meaning the um proposals that are submitted, as well as the scoring criteria.

So discussion focused largely on how to better distinguish between programs that only generally serve priority populations and programs that are intentionally and effectively reaching youth who face the greatest barriers to support and opportunity, including youth disconnected from traditional systems and services.

Examples of the recommendations that we discussed included creating a more explicit RFP scoring category tied to priority populations and access, strengthening expectations around outreach to quote unquote hard to reach youth, and asking applicants to more clearly demonstrate how they will expand access beyond existing referral pipelines and service networks, and including that as a scored RFP category as well.

The subcommittee also discussed the importance of placing greater emphasis on youth experiencing multiple overlapping risks and forms of service system involvement, such as co-occurring homelessness, justice involvement, violence exposure, foster care involvement, behavioral health needs, and school disconnection, recognizing that these youth are often among those with the highest levels of need, but may be the least likely to access traditional services without intentional engagement strategies.

So rather than upscoring applications that serve only one of the priority populations, we discussed that maybe we should instead be scoring more highly those applications that serve children and youth characterized by or who are experiencing multiple of the priority population categories at the same time.

And that's my summary.

Y'all did some good work.

I really it sounds really good.

Or we'll present at the next meeting, by the way.

So we had a we had a we had more to share, and it just was not the meeting on which it was agenda.

So we'll do that next time.

Y'all did a great job.

So thank you so much for the work that y'all have put into that sounds really good.

I would like to see it as well.

Um do we have any commission?

Is that have any additional comments?

Uh I'll just add on that.

Uh so at our next meeting, we'll present and one of the things that I think I just want to make clear and uplift is that uh we did also discuss with City Staff that this will be likely changes to the RFP.

So that was already preliminarily discussed as well.

Um the other thing is that I mean, this is all coming after the first CIP and the first RFP cycle, right?

And we wouldn't have known until then, like some of the gap areas that we had.

So I just want to acknowledge that also as a commission.

I think we're doing the best that we can to get the target populations.

At the same time, I think it's important to note, given you know, the uh memo that the city attorney's office provided, is that we are, I think to the best of our ability, going to make those recommendations, but cannot necessarily uh call out or you know, specifically race or immigration status based uh language.

Um, but I think to the best of our ability, the recommendations that we have is you know, it's grounded in um in research.

There's you know, we'll also provide sort of the sources that we looked into for that.

Thank you to Nicole for uh sorry, Commissioner Kravitz words.

Um, so yeah, just wanted to make those those points and um thank you also, Commissioner Williams, and um, because I think we've had sort of this discussion around well, how do we, you know, we felt like we missed the mark on the last uh grant cycle with some of the missing opportunities to invest in smaller community-based organizations, those that are specifically supporting indigenous youth or servicing indigenous youth.

And I I do know that we're we're gonna try our best, right?

Um to get those populations in the next cycle, because we know that that's a really huge need for our community.

Thank you so much for sharing it.

Um Commissioner Cravis words.

Yeah, just one other thing that I'll add as folks are thinking about this um before our next meeting and in light of the potential conversation around the percentage split.

Um, one of the things that we talked about and that is already in the SIP as well as reflected in the RFP, is this idea of ensuring that we are reaching youth who are not already connected to conventional systems and conventional referral pipelines, and I think we need to be really um intentional about how we're thinking about that, because I think in part the fact that we are splitting the 50 50, the overall amount across 50 50 means that half of the money is going to essentially traditional systems in many cases, and so that's just one way to I think we need to be really intentional then about how we're reaching that population and be very um clear about how we score and potentially prioritize scoring around those groups that are actually reaching the kids that that aren't through those maybe traditional city or school pipelines.

Thank you so much.

Uh thank you so much for all of the reporting that y'all did just because I think that your report was very intentional in making sure that it calls out the language and the scoring, and like it's been said, we didn't know what we did know, and now that we know we can be more intentional.

I guess um, and this has been the thing I've been saying throughout, um, ensuring that we can do that, and if we can be intentional, and if we can um incorporate what was said in our ad hoc report in our upcoming RFP and the scoring uh methods, so is that something that we can include?

I would just want to make sure that we can include that, or we need to come back to that, or it needs to be follow-up logs.

We'll come back to that, but if you'd like to have a larger discussion as a commission about it as well, um add it to the follow-up log as an agenda item.

Okay, and so I'm hearing we would like to add that to the follow-up log.

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

Um, but I just wanted to point out so the ad hoc committee, thank you so much for all of the hard work and your research and all of the work that you do for this commission, so that way we can make it the best and serve the communities that we are intended to serve.

All right, so I believe next we are moving on to member comments, ideas, questions, and commissioner comments are all in this.

Do we do we have any members of the public?

Is this where the public will speak?

I just want to make sure I'm following that.

Not on this item.

Okay, so do we have any commissioners, any comments, questions, ideas that we would like to share or comment on Commissioner Thomas?

Thank you.

Um yeah, so one, I think for the follow-up log, I think just agendizing the mental health conversation for the next meeting.

Lily and I will bring back some working kind of definition that we can kind of build upon as a commission.

I think that's one.

I think two, I think you just chair you discussed the the percentages of the fund goals that you already agendized that as well.

Um, and then also um want to kind of put on the follow-up log a conversation about grant writing workshops for the smaller CBOs, whether that's hiring somebody or the city or the city doing that, reaching out to folks.

I think those are probably my three follow-ups uh for us moving forward.

I think that's a good starting point for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Kravis words.

Yeah, I think just formalizing, I think what we just said, which was um and may already be on it.

So agendizing the priority populations discussion as an item on the agenda for June, um, which I think covers all of what we were just talking about, including the um the piece about whether or not this is included in the um can be changes made in the RFP.

I think any additional Commissioner Williams.

Uh I was wondering in addition to this conversation of having a grant writer, I wonder what our flexibility is.

Um if our goal is to reach more sort of grassroots smaller CBOs, is there a way that we could have different um like a proposal requirements?

So instead of saying we need the same uh proposal from small CBOs.

Could we have maybe a different RFP?

Or, I can see your face, you're like, oh gosh.

No, we could certainly there's a lot we could do there actually.

So we could again, you guys could all dictate a set-aside of funding for small organizations, yeah.

Um, you could also, we could have different application requirements.

Okay.

Um, like say small CBOs only have to answer questions one through five.

I'm just giving a random example, but something along those lines.

Um, or we could look at doing a separate RFP.

Those are all options.

Okay.

Um, because I know I think I've shared them before, there a lot of uh state entities and local entities have been looking at this issue of how to engage CBOs.

So there are some best practices in terms of how to make funding more accessible.

I think some of it has to do with uh the city's uh risk tolerance as well.

Um, but maybe we can have a discussion about that along with the grant writer discussion.

All right.

Commissioner Cravis words.

Yeah, this just this conversation just reminded me also, um, Julie, something you mentioned earlier about the timeline for the release of the RFP.

Um, and maybe just as a commission as we're all thinking about this, ideally, I think it would be great if we could push up, make earlier um the release of the RFP such that and provide a little bit more time.

I think this first round um applicants had like a month over the December holiday period essentially, and it would be great to allow for more time for folks, and so if we as a commission can facilitate that, I think that would be great.

So I'm curious.

Oh sorry, I'm just jumping right out of here, but as like trying to be conscious of the timeline, it would be helpful to know what we have to, like where do we have to go and and what do we have to decide upon in the next meeting to move it forward?

Because sometimes it feels like it we sort of leave things open-ended.

So, do you have a sense of where we should have sort of our recommendations finalize for you to start working on the RFP?

Well, I mean, if we were living in an ideal world at the end of the discussion at the end of the item, you guys would make a decision and say we want to incorporate this into the RFP, and then we could sort of log that and move on to the way I have sort of envisioned it, it doesn't have to go this way, but is we will have a like say we have 10 topics that you guys want to address for the next RFP.

We look at that over this next six months to a year, and you guys at each discussion item make a decision, and or you could say we need to come back to that one, and then you direct us or make those recommendations, and then once we have our list of recommendations, we can then work that into our draft RFP.

We wouldn't start that until we have sort of your full set of recommendations.

So it's two parts.

It's basically, I think as a commission, you need to decide what topics do you want to revisit, and then we have to agendize those, revisit them, and ideally at the end of those agenda items, you provide a direction.

And then when, so when would um when would how much time do you need to do the RFP development process?

I'm just trying to plan backwards.

Well, it just depends.

Like, are we doing two RFPs?

Are we doing three?

Is it, I mean, how complex is it?

How um prescriptive are your recommendations?

But I would leave you know, we would need at least, I would say two to three months to develop a solid RFP, and then if there are significant changes that perhaps we have to bring that RFP or at least brief counsel on it, that would could take an additional 30 days.

Right.

So it's I'm sorry to not give you a very clear answer, but it just really depends on the complexity.

Right.

I'll just say, Commissioner Williams.

What we can do is kind of put together a draft timeline like we've done in the past.

Uh I would personally say if we could have a majority of our recommendations done by February or early of 2027, that would really give us a good amount of time, especially if we are doing a smaller org solicitation in advance, just to give us about three months to develop it and finalize it, and then release, give people, you know, a month, maybe six 45 to 60 days to complete, and also give our panelists another 45 to 60 days to score, as we had a very large volume of uh grantees, and I anticipate we will have a similar uh volume of grantees, and we'll probably rework how we do the panel to make it a little bit more equitable across the board for all.

So, yeah, I would I would say early 2027.

If we can get some of this work done, that would be ideal.

All right, thank you.

I had uh a few things that I just wanted to address, and thank you so much to all the commissioners with all of your comments.

And so um Commissioner Williams brought up a good point with moving things forward, I believe, just so everyone knows our next meeting is June 4th, after that is August 6.

So as we're thinking of all of the things that we want to add, I think that it would be good for us to make sure that we're bringing those things to the attention because we may can have some things together sooner than later in moving things forward.

I wanted to also go back to what was said regarding our the smaller CBOs and grassroots uh CBOs because there were a few smaller CBOs that were awarded in this grant cycle.

I do want to also point to, and y'all would know this best.

I'm still new in the CBO world, when we're looking at smaller and grassroots organizations, also making sure that they're able to manage and being able to sustain, because we did have a smaller organization that had to give funds back because they weren't able to sustain.

So we do want to make sure that we're keeping that in mind while uplifting those organizations.

We want to make sure we're keeping that in mind so we're not losing funding or losing steam, and we're able to still give funds out.

And so when we're talking about intentionality, um, are we as a commission looking at are we glad that we gave it out to at least one?

Do we are there a certain number that we're looking for?

I want us to think about that so that way we don't get caught up in we didn't give it to enough because we never put a number, we just said we wanted to make sure that they were awarded.

So I wanted to make sure that I brought that up just because there were some smaller organizations when I know very personally, so but I do want us to keep that in mind and intentionality as we're moving forward, and I think that we're doing really good now, especially um loved hearing everything uh with the ad hoc committees um recommendations and how we move forward with scoring and what it is that we do with language.

I think that we've covered quite a bit.

Um before we close out.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

We have another comment.

And so, mine is just really quick.

Uh, because on the report it says 20 out of the 24 programs are reporting, and I think I heard you make a comment earlier, Julie.

That um what programs are those, and are they just not running right now?

Are they just what what's going on with those?

Um, I don't have the exact list or the names.

Um, but there's multiple city projects that um are just beginning to report because city projects we prioritized funding CBOs first, so all those contracts went out first.

So city projects were delayed in receiving funds.

Um, and so we're just beginning to get those reports, and so um the the that's not all incorporated, not all of the city projects are incorporated into this progress report.

Okay, yeah, because for me, I just out of curiosity, I would want to see um you know the investments that were made specifically at the parks, like how we're measuring like which youth are being served there, because we're we're looking at all these with the same evaluation, right?

Well, we are we're trying to find shared measurement, correct?

Yeah, but for example, the parks projects for the CIP projects um in particular.

Uh, for reporting right now, we're looking at how much money is spent has been spent, um, have the projects broken ground.

We don't have data, they're not serving youth yet because they're projects, they're building projects, and so we can't collect, they don't have data to provide on youth being served when it's uh construction project.

So across the board, we're looking at what can the CBOs or and city projects produce?

What data can they produce, collecting that and incorporating into our reporting.

And the evaluator is gonna help us identify shared measurement across all the projects.

Okay, yep.

Definitely curious to see what that's about in the future.

I do have a follow up on that.

I think I've harped on that enough in past meetings, and so um, because they are capital projects, construction projects, that data I'm assuming is going to be very different from a program that's serving youth in an actual program.

So when that data comes to us, because I guess what I'm asking is are we really gonna see an impact report on that?

Or is that just like a goodwill project?

So I'll just speak to that a little bit.

When it came to the baseline verification and identifying what that looked like over the course of the last couple years, we're trying to do a better job of looking at um accessibility to our parks and how do we actually do a count per se of how many youth and families are accessing these parks.

We can provide some background information around how parks do contribute to our communities and how they do contribute to the public safety, you know, and overall enrichment to our families.

If that's helpful to see, you know, how parks and pools and community centers all interact um with our ecosystem of serving our youth and families.

So we can come back to you with that information, and I think that will also be included in the reports.

I will say, don't necessarily expect a progress report every single time because it takes quite a bit of staff time to do that, and you will have an annual report coming to you by September.

So we will continue to update you on these projects.

Um, but I'm not gonna say that every single meeting we're gonna provide a progress report.

For the record, I don't I don't think anyone's ever doubted the impact of our parks.

I just I just know when this ballot measure passed, I don't think any of us were expecting it to go on anything construction related.

I think that was it, but we love our parks.

That's never any doubt though.

I concur.

You said goodwill project.

I was dying.

I concur.

I just it was the way the language came out.

Very real, sorry.

Um, I think that that would be helpful just for you know, people to understand.

I I think just because it's not gonna be measured the way that we're measuring the other programs, and I think that is valid to mention, especially when we're talking about all the CBOs that did apply that weren't funded in making sure that we have you know that information there, so thank you with that.

Um, before we go, um I I know we do need to reestablish our community engagement ad hoc.

Um, I know that we also need to take uh member comments I sorry, we need to take any comments from the public.

We don't have any speakers at this time, okay.

So we don't have any speakers.

So in reestablishing our ad hoc, what is the protocol and how we do that?

Do I just ask remote?

Uh so you just to clarify, you don't have to reestablish the ad hoc.

It's only if you want to, if you have a purpose right now, but you could do that.

Yeah, you could do establish an ad hoc at any meeting.

So that's not a requirement, it's an option to do so at any meeting.

I sure let's talk about that because we can do it at the next meeting.

Yeah, let's do it at because it expires, so if we don't have anything, so we don't have to do that right now.

And then also to clarify when you do make the ad hoc at the next meeting, um, commissioner commons would be the appropriate time, and no motions needed.

So you guys can just direct whoever got it, would be on the ad hoc.

Okay, all right.

Um looks like we've gotten through everything.

Just want to do a bunch of thank yous.

Um, first, want to thank the commission so much for all of your time, your talents, everything that you put into this commission, all of the knowledge and the research that you do to make us what we are.

Um, I truly love that about us.

I really do believe that we're a bunch of diverse voices and people, and we bring so much to this commission, so just wanted to say thank you so much for your time.

Also to city staff, we do appreciate all of the things that you do, all of the reporting, all of the research that you've been sending us to keep us abreast of all of the things that we need to stay on before we get to our meetings.

Thank you so much.

City attorney, thank you so much for all of the legal things, legalese that we need to know so that we can know the guardrails that we need to stay within and um to members of the public.

We do appreciate you for being at our meeting, and so if we don't have any additional comments or items or things like that, I believe it's 11 56 I could talk for four more minutes I'm just playing.

I'm just playing yes I know right I know well this concludes today's agenda thank you so much to everyone for your participation.

And that's it.

Meeting is meeting adjourned