We're ready when you are.

All right.

All right.

Good morning and welcome to the June 4th 2026 meeting of the Sacramento Children's Fund Planning and Oversight Commission.

The time is now 10.07 a.m.

The meeting is now called to order.

Will the clerk please call the role to establish our quorum for today?

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 Rulis Marez.

Present.

And Chair Richardson.

Here.

Thank you.

We have quorum.

All right.

I would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you are called on after the first speaker.

We will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda.

Everyone, please rise for the opening acknowledgments in honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

All right.

So the original people of this land, the Nissan people, the Southern Madu Valley and Plains, Miwok, Pat Wynn, Wintune peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous people history, contributions, and lives.

Thank you.

All right.

We will be skipping our pledge of allegiance so everyone can please have a seat.

All right.

Good morning, Commission.

Just wanted to say good morning to y'all once again and everyone who is present.

Thank you so much for being here today.

All right.

Our first business today is the approval of the consent calendar.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We do not have any speaker slips for the consent.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

All right.

Seeing that we have none, I will need a motion and a second for us to approve the consent calendar.

Oh, I make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Okay.

Also, saw you in speaker, so I know if you want us to speak just in case.

Okay.

Okay.

So we have a motion by vice chair.

I'll second.

All right.

So we have our motion and second.

Let's see.

Will the current clerk please call the uh the roll for the vote?

Yes, and we'll just do a voice voice vote.

Uh, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or stained?

The motion passes.

Good deal.

All right.

We will now proceed to the discussion calendar.

Item one, we are talking about our targeted populations.

Is there a staff presentation for this?

Or a commissioner presentation for this?

Yeah.

You can go down to the diaspora stay.

It's your choice.

I think I prefer to stay up here if that's good.

We have a quicker.

Where's our presentation?

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, all right.

So, as you all know, um, several of us have um been thinking about the priority populations and how to ensure that uh we are reaching the youth most impacted by um poverty, trauma, and violence.

Um, and so we put together a very quick uh slide presentation just to help ground the conversation for all of us.

So they're perfect.

So as we've we've talked about at the last commission meeting, our intent is likely to suggest potential changes to the RFP rather than to the CIP itself.

And so that's what these slides present.

So as we all know, the goal here is to and with the funds is to fund programs that serve youth most impacted by poverty trauma and violence.

In the RFP, there's a very clearly defined list of what priority populations are on page 17 for those who happen to have the RFP up in front of you, but more just for reference.

There's also in the RFP an explicit expectation that we try to reach youth not otherwise connected to programs or services.

And so really the key question, I think, for us moving forward is are the current structures, the current RFP setup sufficient to ensure that we are in fact reaching these youth.

So this really raises an issue, but also a real opportunity for us, I think, as a commission.

And so what we have are a clearly a clearly defined list of priority populations that's already embedded within the broader scoring categories.

However, the this idea is not independently scored as part of the process.

And so potentially an implication of that is that how services are delivered are weighted more than who is actually reached.

And this can result in programs scoring highly without demonstrating meaningful reach to those most impacted.

An additional potential gap is that access to services is referenced in the RFP, but it's not formally operationalized in the scoring or the proposal itself.

And so the RFP, like I said earlier, requires reaching those not otherwise connected to programs or services, but there's not a criteria necessarily for what counts as not connected, how to demonstrate this, or how it's evaluated in the scoring.

So this really does leave room for a broad interpretation and potentially minimal differentiation across proposals.

So here's where we get into a couple of considerations that the ad hoc subcommittee talked through, but really what we're interested in having more discussion as a full commission about.

So nothing here is by any means set in stone.

This is really just jumping off points for further conversation.

So one idea could be to create a dedicated priority population scoring criteria, which is separate from the program design, which is where it is embedded currently, and assigning a meaningful kind of weight or score to that priority populations category.

And this would sort of help us evaluate the depth of engagement with priority populations.

Applicants would probably be required to provide evidence of serving these highest needs subgroups.

And we might also, as we'll talk about in a minute, consider intersection intersectionality here.

So not just a single priority population category, but sort of groups that cross multiple.

So in that vein, we could consider building on existing language that's already in the RFP by requiring demonstrated reach to what some people in the literature and across the field have called crossover youth or multiple service using using youth.

And these are youth who are facing multiple co-occurring challenges across various life domains, their needs span several sectors, and they often require integrated support.

And this would shift the focus from eligible populations to populations facing structural barriers to access.

And this is very sort of early on in kind of development and may or may not be doable per se, but one idea to kind of operationalize that in the RFP could be to ask applicants to demonstrate that they are addressing the needs of at least one of the following priority populations from each of the categories in these kind of three domains.

These are already the priority categories that are included in the SIP and in the RFP, but sort of broken down across kind of domains.

And so one idea would be like you can't just say that you're serving children and youth in families who are LGBTQ plus.

Like you have to be serving them, those kids who are also low income and who are also in families who are unhoused kind of thing.

That's the sort of idea with that.

And that would require us to have applicants demonstrate, you know, not just general outro outreach, but specific outreach strategies, things like non-traditional entry points, community-based engagement, trusted messengers, and they have to sort of talk about how they're not just doing the status quo, but really going outside up and you know above and beyond in terms of reaching youth not otherwise connected to services.

Umilarly, we could move beyond just sort of a binary yes-no, you are reaching these youth or serving priority populations to more of a tiered evaluation and scoring uh process where you know you sort of have you go from sort of a very early like generic general access to more targeted to really deep engagement with the quote-unquote hardest-to-reach youth, um, and and would be scored accordingly, and this would potentially help improve some of the reviewer consistency and the precision in funding.

And so ultimately, this all of these things, um, the the goal here is to really help um strengthen not only um what we're looking for in the applications, um, but ensure that we really are identifying who is not being reached, um, and that applicants are um demonstrating that they're really able to reach those young people through things like boots on the ground outreach, um, the use of peer and credible messengers, really community-based entry points, um, and that they have past success and measurable strategies to reach those disconnected youth.

And that's all we got.

And then we have some proof that we've we've done some research to back this up.

Um Commissioner Williams, uh Ruas Maris, anything that I missed that you all want to add from our conversations.

I just want to quickly shout you out, Nicole.

Um, or uh Commissioner Kravitz's words, um, as well as Commissioner Williams.

It was such a pleasure to work alongside you all um in preparing sort of the well, you prepared the presentation, Nicole.

So definitely want to shout you out for that.

Um, but just being able to talk through this.

I know we've had multiple conversations as a commission about you know how we wanted to approach target populations and to be able to see it in this way.

Hopefully, you know, that brings up a lot of questions and curiosity of like how we can make the next RFP better.

Um, but really, I mean, in my opinion, I think um, you know, this is the start of the conversation, and so as uh Doc or Dr.

Crow's words, Commissioner Kravitzwards mentioned, um, really wanting you to all kind of sit with this today and like ask questions, have a dialogue about it, um, but with the understanding that we're we know that the resources are limited, obviously you want to have like an abundance mindset, but because the resources are limited for the Sacramento Children's Fund, um it's really about you know how do we maximize the impact of those resources to really reach those kids who you know wouldn't otherwise be reached.

Um, and this is that start of sort of getting more down to the point, and I just also want us to have grace for ourselves.

Like we wouldn't have known uh what the you know initial funding um was gonna look like until it went out, right?

Until uh funding was awarded, and uh every time we can just get more and more and more close to that goal of reaching those kids that you know have not been reached by the city services or um services in the past.

Like there we go.

First, I just wanted to say just listening um to the presentation, um, Commissioner Cravis Worse, Immedia Past Chair, uh Ruiz Mares, uh Commissioner Williams, thank you for putting this together, all of your hard work, your research.

Y'all have always been um based in research and bringing a lot of great information to the commission, and just want to thank you just for the talents that you bring and your knowledge that you bring to the commission so that we can make this informed decision.

Um, a lot of great information.

I did want to ask, based on your research, your knowledge and your studies of this, what would be your recommendation to the commission of the consideration that you think that we should move forward with?

Just I want to hear your recommendation, and of course, we can discuss this item as well, but just wanted to know what your recommendation would be to us through your research.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I think probably, or am I?

Am I good?

Um so I think um before talking specifically about some of the specific considerations.

I think one of the the sort of overarching um wrecks that we would have, we, I think I think it's a we, but at least I would I would lift up for the commission is the idea that we um purposely and intentionally have the priority populations as a scored component within within um the RFP and within the application process.

Um, and then I think where there's a lot of room for discussion in terms of what that actually then looks like in terms of how we're scoring that and what we're scoring on is where this this discussion will be really helpful.

These are, and we can get into you know some of probably you know this slide and maybe some of the others, but um I think that's the overarching recommendation that it's an independently scored piece of the RFP.

Got it.

And I want to make sure I didn't, and just in case if anybody else took this, I was taking in a lot of information, the considerations were for the recommendation.

Yeah, yes, yeah, yeah.

And to clarify for the RFP through our RFP, and I like that because I like uh what y'all said uh regarding closing that gap and having that independently scored and not just showing oh, we assist this one population, but in addition to we do all of these other things to make sure that it's all wrapped around together, um, just to make sure that I'm still keeping everything in order.

But uh Commissioner Williams, did you have anything to add, say anything?

I don't think I have any.

I don't think I have the I don't have the microphones.

I don't think I have anything to ask specifically.

Um I think I'm really curious uh to hear from the commissioners that did some of the scoring.

I'm I'm really curious to to hear from those of you who did the scoring and reviewed the grant applications to see how you know what are your thoughts about how this would add to the process.

That was good.

Okay.

Okay, yeah, sorry.

Yeah, so this is um what I wanted to say was that um so going back to like the original goal of to reach the most vulnerable youth, um, I think that that should be our guiding compass through all of this, and I think that um what you came left with um really touches on you know the with the intersectionalities, and so um, if we're looking at intersectionalities, you know, there's they're you know, even more at risk, you know.

So that's a really good uh target point.

And then for um the strategies to find uh the these youth, I think it's uh really important that we that we focus on that because um, and I'm gonna go into this in the mental health presentation, but if we're looking at you know the three types of uh prevention programs, you have prevention, the the first, the secondary, and the tertiary, the youth who are in the tertiary, the ones who are actively in crisis, um, they're not gonna be showing up in prevention programs on that first level.

Um, so we're gonna need the strategies that you talked about to go and find them.

Um, so I think that again, going back to our goal to reach the most vulnerable youth, the ones who are actively, you know, in crisis, uh, or having, you know, repeated uh situations and um unhoused and that sort of thing, um, maybe uh you know, having depression symptoms, anxiety, PTSD, who knows?

Um, but to really hone in on the strategies to find these youth, because again, they're not going to be showing up in um the that first tier of uh prevention programs.

So I think this was um very focused and very and endpoint with you know what we're gonna be talking about too.

So yeah, all right, good deal.

I may have gone backwards, so I think I'm doing commissioner comment right now, and I think I do need to go back.

Do I need to go back to if there's any speakers on this item?

Okay, um, but to clarify, we do not have any speaker slips for this item.

Okay, so we can't uh continue.

So for commissioner comment, still in commissioner comment time frame.

Are there any more thoughts?

I actually, if uh Julie, is it possible?

Do you want to comment on because I know we had a couple conversations with city staff, um, you know, ultimately came to the conclusion that we would uh think about this in the frame of the RFP and not the strategic investment plan.

We mentioned this at the last meeting where you know we want to see the the strategic investment plan as more of that historic document where you know at the five year mark is when we're you know talking about um, you know, yeah, like structural change for the strategic investment plan.

But because we have an RFP cycle coming up, what is it, 2027?

So that's already next year.

I don't know if you can make a just comments on like how this like our conversations have landed with you all, what you're thinking um on that front.

Yeah, um thank you.

I think uh excellent work.

I I think from the city's perspective, we're looking.

Of course, we have to toggle between um uh, you know, with stay within the bounds of Prop 209, so that's always our consideration.

Um, and so looking at those uh strategies that were proposed and are any of them, you know, going too far basically.

Unfortunately, that's always what the perspective we have to take.

Um, but they look like great strategies, and I think they're doable.

Um I think to uh Shannon Williams' point, what our job ends up being is writing the RFP and adding the scoring, and then you have people that come in and they're individuals, so they also interpret that a different way.

And so I'm just really focused on like what does that actually translate to into the RFP and how can we make sure that the scoring criteria we add is going to produce those results, and or um, you know, what is it gonna look like for the applicants?

So, for example, we say if we want if we want to get this, like the in my mind I'm thinking um, you know, we're gonna have to ask them for data and data on who they've served in the past in order to prove that they um are reaching these people or they or they have established systems um entryways, for example.

I'm just thinking of some examples.

Um, and I and I think that could work, but I also think that that might be um uplifting some of the larger CBOs that have more funding that have the experience that have the data.

Um, and so just understanding that that might also impact the small and emerging CBOs who are applying.

Um, so that's my initial thoughts.

I think I have to sit with it a little bit and kind of workshop with you all and collaborate with you all what that would actually look like in the RFP to make it effective.

Um, but the strategies looked really good and promising.

The only other thing I would say is how would that interact with the other components that you're going to then request to be put into the RFP because it how does it all work together, sort of, if that helps.

Thank you, Julie.

Commissioner Gravis Words.

Yeah, and I to I think that's exactly right, Julian.

Yeah, I think have starting the conversation of like what is this actually then look like in practice if we all sort of generally are on some of the same pages in terms of what the basic recommendation um is in terms of these priority populations.

And yeah, to your point, I do think it's a good point and definitely worth us considering about the burden we'd be placing on applicants to sort of demonstrate some of these things.

And that's where I think yeah, we want to be we want to allow for some flexibility, not that they need to have collected data per se, but they have sort of clear strategy, at least can like talk through some of their strategies for reaching young people in a way that um you know is through some of the mechanisms that we like lift up in some of these these sort of non-traditional kind of entry points, the community-based stuff, the trusted messengers, yeah, sort of more of those, you know, these boots on the ground outreach stuff, which I do think um, you know, maybe caters more to some of the smaller orgs, um, and yes, we'd want to create a scoring um rubric, I think for reviewers that really sort of hits on what we mean by that, um, and that it doesn't necessarily have to be like you know, a long track record of data, but it has to be at least like a demonstrated strategy written out kind of stuff.

I think that's at least where that's where my mind went from from some of that.

Um, and then yeah, I I do think one of the things in terms of intersectionality, I do I am curious to hear if others um, you know, how others feel and or Julie, you and the city feel about like these are the same priority populations that were already in the RFP, but sort of yeah, broken out across domains, and if we think like is the way to get at intersectionality by asking um applicants potentially to say that they are hitting on youth that are dually impacted across all three domains kind of thing.

Is that a way that we think is is um operationally um useful to for the RFP or yeah, I guess I'm I'm curious to hear from others how how folks feel about that.

I have a quick question.

Yeah.

Um so this table, um, like did you cut come up with this table or so I I put them into categories and we talked about it, but um these are the same bullet points that are in the those are the priority populations that were from the SIP and in the um RFP.

Got it.

Okay, so you pulled from that information.

Yeah, this is a great table, and I I think that yeah, that idea is awesome.

Yeah, so the language was pulled directly from the RFP, but it's just uh categorize um, you know, the identities obviously as people identify self-identify, but then you have the socially complex needs, which are you know determined by mostly like place-based, you know, um social factors, and then the hard-to-reach, which I think we can all agree, you know, the um groups that are included in there, right?

Commissioner Williams.

Thank you.

I'm thinking about how this is going to play out, and I really, you know, we've talked about this.

I really like these three categories.

Um I think one of the strongest reasons for using it is it going it's going to demonstrate to people who are or the organizations applying what we're talking about about intersectionality.

Um, because I know a lot of the grants, uh the grantees mention that they serve um lower income uh children, which and so I think that in addition to that, we're looking at other children who are experiencing trauma traumatic trauma and violence.

So I'm just thinking about a program.

They're not going to say, are you part of these three categories, right?

They're that's not going to be a criteria for enrollment in a program, but more so, as you all are saying, a strategy for the organizations to do outreach.

So maybe we can make there's sort of a subtle difference there, and maybe I'm just I think I'm just thinking out loud right now, but how do we put that to Julie's point in a concrete way where we're not saying you know, every kid's got to tick one of these boxes, but it's it's more of a strategy or outreach approach?

I agree.

Um, I think that y'all really have given us a lot to think about.

I'm gonna say a lot of things out loud too that we may have covered already, but I like to make sure that I'm I'm following the conversation.

I like what Commissioner Kravitzworth said about demonstrated strategies.

So I know that when we're talking about scoring and when we're looking at the RFP, I think that there's like a couple of things and questions I wanted to ask from um city attorney Gill's uh perspective in listening to the conversation that we're having and the pieces that we're considering adding to the RFP, are I'm trying to make sure we're not going too far.

We're still within our bounds of what we would be able to do in this upcoming RFP uh session when we put the RFP out.

Hi, good morning, everyone.

Um, I'm taking notes on all of the comments that you are making and all of your ideas and discussions.

Um, and so what my plan is is to take all of this back and work with Julie and our other Yip C staff to make sure that we are um one, making sure there's no contradiction with our SIP, but then also making sure we're within the bounds of um our existing legal laws and framework.

Um the work that you all are doing is really important, and these conversations are really important, so I just want to make sure I'm not like stepping in in this moment and inhibiting those conversations.

So I'm just taking notes and then making sure um we can find a way to get to your d desired outcomes.

So for example, I don't know if we would be able to do certain preference points for um target populations that are related to like race and ethnicity, for example, but perhaps there are other things that Julie and I can brainstorm and think about and then bring back to you as a commission.

Um so those are just the type of notes I'm taking right now, Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Um, which is good information.

So for example, if we did do preference points, I want to go back to what Commissioner Cravisworth said.

So demonstrated strategy in XYZ, something along those lines that doesn't um discriminate against race or I think all of all of the discriminator bounds that we can't go out the lines on, we would still be able to do something along those lines and say that if we did have a preference point.

Yeah, so like for example, um, I don't see off, you know, this is just shooting from my hip.

I don't see any issues with like children and youth with disabilities that if you wanted to add preference points with that, that would be okay.

That's um wouldn't be it wouldn't fall within the confines of Prop 209.

Um if you want to for the first bullet point, perhaps like another option would be like show your experience with like um target populations as outlined in our SIP, that could be a workaround.

So I think there are ways that we could um come on the back end to really support your goals and how to move forward in a way that works for you guys.

Thank you for the insight.

All right, so with that said, any additional commissioner comments on our targeted population conversation.

Commissioner Cravitz words.

Um yeah, so I guess um I I guess I'm just curious like what do we want our next steps to be like with this?

Yeah, yeah, I definitely would like for us to have something that we could at least move forward with.

Can we put it back on the screen so that way we can see just so that we can go go through and if you could start from the beginning for me?

Um and if there was a certain page that everyone would like to see, um, and while we're getting that up, immediate past shares Ruiz Mars.

Did you have some?

Um, I'm wondering, and this is just you know, my initial thought on what the next step could be.

Um, what I was gonna say originally, which now I feel like I mentally processed probably doesn't make sense, but what I was gonna say originally was uh I guess Julie, at some point, maybe this is not the immediate next step, but at some point I think having you all draft what that would look like as a part of the RFP, and then we would vote on that, but maybe that's the like there's another there's another step we take before that.

Um, because we have, when's our next meeting?

August?

Yes.

August.

Yeah.

Um I don't think that's gonna respectfully, I don't think that's gonna be possible in the sense of us bringing back portions of the RFP.

Oh, right.

Um, but I I really think the way this is well, I think another important piece to bring up, which sorry, I was like, when do I insert this?

But the city is really looking at pushing up the uh RFP to release it sooner, which I think we discussed at last meeting.

Seems like there was ample commission support.

Um, and that's gonna impact our timeline for all of this.

Um, so we would really like to be releasing funds by July 2027, which is still pretty much within the timeline, but it's gonna give us less meetings in 2027 to sort of work out your recommendations.

But since we're no longer planning to take an entire edited SIP to council, it seems appropriate.

Um, there's multiple reasons why that is um our recommendation to release the RFP sooner and then have the funds out by that time.

Um, but going back to your original question, I I think that the best process would be for you all to ruminate on these questions and then just directly make recommendations to staff in the meetings, um, and we'll workshop um those and and put them into the RFP, and then maybe at our um later meetings later this year or the early meetings in 2027, we can bring back like um everything that were you've recommended, and this is what we think it will look like and discuss it and make alterations at that point.

Um, but we won't be able to bring back the RFP to the commission before it's published.

Yeah, and that's July 2027 is a year from now, basically.

And we won't have a meeting a month.

We won't be having a meeting a month between now and then because our meetings are like once every other month.

So I'm thinking that probably sorry, you know, other folks are wanting to chime in.

Um we can still meet as an ad hoc, right?

Or ad hoc is still absolutely.

You would have to create ad hocs, but then you can meet as ad hocs as often as you'd like.

But I think ours is still going.

Oh, yes, yours is still continuing.

Yes, I meant if you wanted additional ad hocs to support the work outside of the meetings.

So I guess my question would then be to the other commissioners of like what would you all want to see in our next meeting since it's two months from now that would give you more I don't know, more confidence and like being able to move forward with um some of the recommendations that we had here today?

Like I would and real quick, um, if we could look through these and kind of hone down on something today, I think that that would be great if we're able to.

I know for for myself, um, I don't mind.

I love this.

The first consider that was the one that I wrote down um initially um during the presentation.

Like, do we need to go through the because the considerations are just for the overall point, which was what I asked earlier.

So if we can move, if we how I would love to know how everyone feels, how do we feel about moving forward with the considerations that have been made from the report?

What do we want to keep so that way we can let Julian staff know today so that way we can have that and move forward with the next thing we need to think about?

It probably to me is like a vote of like you know, just like confidence of like yes, you guys are headed in the right direction, like keep going, and then we can with what we have come up with something that's more of like what would obviously this is not what the city would use, but like um like a sample of what that could look like within within a future RFP.

Absolutely.

Um before I say anything else, Commissioner Williams.

I was just gonna ask, I think this is a consensus, but are we all in agreement that we want to have unique scoring for these elements?

I think we decided that yes.

Just to see, are we all in consensus with what commissioner Williams does that?

Okay, yes, yeah, and I am as well.

Can we go back?

I believe, was it the boxes that you created, Commissioner Cravisworth?

So that way we can see, and if you could restate, because I know that we just went through all of the information, if we can restate what it is that we are adding and what we would like for staff to consider and put in there so that way we can make sure consensusly we all feel good and we can move forward on our targeted populations.

Does that make sense for everybody?

Okay.

I bet.

Oh Commissioner Craver's words.

Oh, so I wasn't checked.

That was directed at me.

Yeah.

Um, so with the potential asterisks from City Attorney and sort of the particularly I think around the multiple identities domain, um, I think the idea here is that we would somehow be uniquely scoring how well applicants are able to reach young people who are multi who are affected by all three potentially of these domains.

Maybe two?

I could that was one.

So the reason some of those the the sort of that middle box is grayed out is like we could be saying you have to be in at least two of these versus in all three of these.

So there's I think there's a couple different options to to kind of play around with, but the idea is that somehow in the RFP, we would be asking applicants about the strategies they use to reach, make sure that they are reaching young people across all at least um two or three of these domains and the strategies that they use, like they would need to describe that and they would get a score for how well we think they are meeting that idea.

And is this a general score or preference score?

Oh, what?

Sorry.

So you know how you have your regular general scores for a rubric, would this be an additional score for preference, or would this be a general score?

I think it would be I I mean, my my personal um uh recommendation would be that it would be part of not a priority sort of additional extras.

So general extra, but a general got it.

All right, I like that.

I like that.

So, and just to make sure everybody um so thinking of like when I'm thinking of a rubric, I wasn't in the scoring of our past um RFP.

You have your general questions, and remember we have preference points last time.

I can't remember exactly what do we have what were the preference points for?

Was it location?

Yeah, so we have preference for location.

So we would be adding, so everyone's considering we will be adding this as a general question in the RFP coming moving forward for targeted populations.

Okay, I think there are parts of it that are general, right?

And then other parts that we might recommend as preference of this table, you mean yeah.

I I think if it maybe, what do you yeah, what do you think?

We probably still have to talk about it.

Yeah, but um, because so to me, preference would be um where we would have to consider not you know tapping into the race and you know prop 209 stuff, um, but there's sort of a general baseline of like youth and target populations that we want to reach, but the preference to me would would be within that socially complex, hard to reach um categories.

That's just off top, but I was what I was gonna say is would it be possible for us to meet with or for you to be a part of our meetings, uh city attorney in the next like our ad hoc meetings?

Yeah, happy to do that.

Okay, that would be great.

I think that'll be super helpful for us.

Okay, all right, Commissioner Thomas.

Um Julie can go first.

Okay, Julie.

You should always go first.

Um I think I just wanted to sort of again frame it to the RFP and and what you're all saying in the general scoring.

So the way that would translate, and I'm sure you all know this, but it's helpful, I think, is just that.

So we would literally have like a scoring rubric, and this is the rubric that's published with the RFP, and it would say that we could even include this table in it, but then we would literally maybe have a section that said, you know, applicants address these needs or something, and then we would have in the actual application that grantees fill out, there would be questions, and they would need to respond to those questions, and so they would have to explain this in a question, and then that question would be scored by um the individuals, and that would be the impact on the RFP.

And and then I just wanted to bring, I know maybe this is another huge conversation, but just to note that the preference points we did have in the last RFP were based on the seed tool, which had a lot of indicators, including some of those things up there.

What I will say is that um like ninety-eight percent of the applicants received the preference points for the seed tool.

There is a way that we could rework that and make the requirements to uh receive those preference points a little more stringent, and that might also hit on the priority population.

And so I think that's a consideration that if you guys are interested, we could look at that.

We were um a little bit lenient on grantees and not preference points in the first RFP, and in retrospect, as a lesson learned, that could be something that we improve upon in the next round that would also um help with this address this.

All right, good information.

Commissioner Thomas.

Uh yeah, so I'm it's it feels difficult to remember what I was doing a year and a half ago when we were doing the because I was one of the two people on the commission that was looking over the applications.

Um, but we were lenient in a lot of ways when it came to I feel like looking at the scoring for the CBOs who got some of the funding.

Um, so I think I'm very excited to kind of see what it looks like when we're a lot more clear about this.

I think to your point about trying to redo the seed tool, because I didn't realize it was 98% had gotten the extra points.

That's that's very high.

Kind of feels like a moot point, just a little, not a moot point, but uh just definitely was a lot of.

I didn't really realize how much that would be.

Um, so yeah, I think this is definitely a good step.

I appreciate what the committee has done thus far.

Um, I think someone as someone who reviews applications, I think this would be a I I'm trying to find the right words.

I think this would be a very clear guide for the folks who are viewing applications as per the previous um experience.

So I think this would I would, you know, I would actually look be excited to re do this again.

Because I said I wouldn't do it again.

I said I wouldn't do it again.

However, with with even more clear guidelines like these, I think I would actually be very excited to actually get back to the nitty-gritty and actually do it again.

So I think that from someone who reviewed applications, I think this is very effective.

Um process that you guys are putting in front of us.

So thank you.

On the record now.

Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

Commissioner Cravers works.

Yeah, just one thing, um, I'm I'm thinking I appreciate the um the note about the seed um and child opportunity index mapping piece and the the preference points, and I do think maybe that's something we can talk about or include in our conversation um with this priority populations piece because I do think um there's ways that we again can be more um we can narrow like who might be included in that.

We had some of those conversations um the first round, and I and I think um we broadened how wide um you know some of those the bounds were um on some of the indicators, and it's pretty easy to kind of play around with where we want those kind of bounds to be.

And so we can maybe wrap that into our ad hoc conversation too.

If that sounds okay, Julie, if that makes sense as part of this conversation.

Absolutely, Julie.

Yes, uh, I sorry, I just want to make a clarifying point too about the um the seed tool.

So um the when I say that the grantees qualified for it, what I mean by that is that um the seed tool, the what like the decisions you made about the percentages that you all wanted to land on, um, that didn't necessarily I mean that's not what I want to say.

What then we required of the grantees to submit as proof for that is where we were lenient, and so what my suggestion is is that the city looks at um, you know, we had them fill out for example a it was like um an exhibit to the RFP, and they had to list like the zip codes that they served and like basically a test that they then served those neighborhoods.

We could then require more proof basically that they are serving those than what we had originally asked for, and then that could translate into maybe actually receiving um, you know, maybe the preference points being a little more true to form.

Yeah, and I think that aligns nicely then potentially with this conversation that we would be having as part of the ad hoc to bring back about strategies.

Like, what are you actually doing in these particular areas and within these particular domains of um young people?

Alright, immediate bash here Ruiz Maris.

Julie, can you remind me if the seed tool was um if we were using that for uh where the not the necess not necessarily the offices or the the address of where the entity was located, but it was like the populations they served.

Um so it was like we allowed them to include service locations, so like if they provided services at a community center, they could include that zip code, and then it was the participants' zip codes as well, were also included.

And um, I believe like their main office if they provided services at that location, but not if it was just like an office for administration.

Okay, okay.

Commissioner Thomas.

So this is either for Julie or uh Commissioner Crabbit's words.

Um, when we talked about uh capacity building, remind me, was it really about the application ability to do all an application, or was it about supporting these CBOs and expanding their scope to do this work?

When we talked about capacity building and like how the commission and administrative staff can help them, try to remember.

Oh, no, I I feel like we had conversations about both.

So I I mean that capacity building is so broad a term it could literally mean both.

So I feel like we definitely had conversations, especially surrounding small and emerging CBOs and how we can help them with the application.

Um, and then we also had did have conversations about capacity building for lifting them up to do the work.

I don't think that um, and from the city's perspective, that's what we were uh really aiming for uh with this RFP.

We actually have um an RFP within our division called the Organizational Resiliency Fund that is currently running with um SCF grantees and applicants who did not receive funds, and that entire grant program is for capacity building, um, and that we've released in alignment with SCF to help build up organizations to be able to do the work, and and also align them to better apply.

So I think for our purposes, it's really capacity building.

Um, I guess it would depend on where you're talking about it, but I think it's more towards the application process.

Okay, I want to double check because I am because the play the devil's advocate, of course.

I think I wanted to make sure because we've had this conversation about how lenient we were, and I don't want us to lean so much other side where it's so strict, or maybe we feel like we're struggling, and CBO's like, oh, I don't have the capacity to do all this, like this is this is more strict than I than I thought a couple years ago, right?

So I I want to try and make sure we're striking the right balance of that.

So that's why I was kind of curious to what the capacity building looked like for some of the CBOs.

Um, so that I appreciate it.

We good conversation on this uh to kind of wrap this uh conversation with a bow so we can end with our next steps.

I did want to go back to what you just said, Commissioner Thomas about capacity building with CBOs.

I did hear from a lot of CBOs that is the application this RFP was really difficult to fill out.

Um it was I believe it was long.

Uh that was these are just some of the words that are coming to my mind.

It was long, it was a bit difficult.

Difficult was just the word that I overwhelmingly heard.

So I do hear you when it does come to when we have this next RFP and whatever this looks like, I don't want it to be harder, but I also want to add that we were thinking for our community community engagements ad hoc that we would have grant, I'm sorry, RFP assistance, so application assistance to help those small and emerging um CBOs so that they know that they have help and assistance with doing this, so that is something that we do have in the works so that way you can have that and know that because we do want those small and emerging CBOs to have that assistance, and we want don't want them to feel that they don't have access or even a chance when it comes to getting uh grant funding in this upcoming RFP um cycle.

I did want to go back to when we talked about the rubric, the overall rubric, because I believe that that's what we're changing, and we asked if we were gonna change the general language so that way we are able to, I don't want to say sway, there's another word that that goes there, but to ensure that the CBOs andor entities that receive funding this upcoming uh term that they are impacting uh Sacramento's most vulnerable youth to make sure that they're doing that, and so in doing so, I want to make sure that we have all of the language and all of the next steps that are needed for city staff and what we're doing next.

So, in regards to our ad hoc, what are next steps there, and what do we need city staff to know as we're moving forward so that way we can wrap the targeted populations conversation up and know where we're going next.

Does that make sense to everybody?

Okay, so let's start with um on the ad hoc side.

Next steps there and what you have for for city staff, so that way we can move forward with that.

Yeah, I think um, to assuming this this sounds okay to to you, Julie.

Um, it sounded like um the idea on the table was for the ad hoc to meet again, um, and take um what we sort of laid out today through the slides and come up with a slightly more specific um and explicit set of like here's what it could look like in the RFP.

Here's like a question, here's how maybe like how it would you know be scored with some of the criteria on which to be scored, and then allow then that to in potentially inform what the city then is able to do and within the confines of yeah, Prop 209 and whatever other kind of city um constraints there might be.

So, and I would say specifically if you want this to be a general question on what everyone is is judged on or scored on, uh, would be the word, or if this is a preference.

Um, I think we were all leaning more towards general question.

So I I think that we probably were there unless it was a way that we needed to add something as a preference, but I think we were all leaning more towards general.

That's what I thought.

I think that's I think that's generally right until and unless there's like some of the caveats about prop two or nine that we would need to work around and could only maybe be preference points versus not, but but yeah, I think no matter what, there would probably still be a general question that hits a little bit more specifically on the priority populations.

Okay, I think we'll probably come to the next meeting with like a couple different scenarios.

Yeah, no more than three, I think more than three would be too much.

Okay, but uh between now and August, we'd probably meet as an ad hoc at least twice.

I want to pull uh city attorney go in with that.

And so then are we good with at the next meeting?

Because we get the information prior to the meeting, so would we all be comfortable when y'all bring that to the commission, us making a choice at that time?

Okay, yeah, and I think um, if I remember correctly, we have to set you the information for that meeting, like weeks in advance, and then it's posted like is it the week before, or so you guys will get an opportunity to review it before the meeting.

Yeah, I think there's um it depends if you want to have like a presentation or a document at the meeting.

You do have a standing agenda item for report out.

That doesn't require, I mean, if you want slides again, then yes, we need a 16-day publishing deadline.

Um, but if you are just coming to report out and or um make a recommendation, then you can verbally do that at the meeting.

Um were you gonna ask about what that would if that would require a vote?

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I guess our question is like, would we be voting or is it just like a you don't have to do a vote, you can all just say we recommend this for the RFP and that is enough for us.

Okay, I think the other I think um, and maybe this is the wrong, not the right time to ask for this.

Um, I think it would we would like it to at least be a discussion item, not just the report out.

Because I think the report out is um doesn't really facilitate as much of a discussion, and I think at least we just had to do that.

Like at least leaving room for that.

I think um might be useful, if that's okay.

Yeah, I'm good with that as well.

All right, this was a great well-rounded conversation.

I need some coffee, actually, but this has been wonderful, and so um, once again, uh, Commissioner Cravis Works, Past Chair Ruiz Mares, uh, Commissioner Williams.

Thank you so much for all of the work that you have been doing on this um on this ad hoc, uh, great information.

We are going to move forward now to our next item.

We will be discussing item two, Sacramento Children's Spawn implement okay, yep, Sacramento Children's Spawn implementation update third year review, and we do have a presentation.

Uh we have Vice Chair Gafari and Commissioner Thomas.

Good morning, everybody.

Um, okay, so Devon and I worked, Dawan and I worked on this um on this presentation, mental health defined, and uh okay, go ahead.

So um, just as we've been talking about, um, really going back to uh where our compass is, what our aim is, and so funded programs will prioritize children and youth most impacted by poverty, violence, and trauma.

So, with that in mind, you know, that's that's what was steering this whole um discussion.

So, considerations.

So, how do we define mental health?

So, um, when we got to thinking, it was uh I was looking up the definitions of mental health, and I was like, okay, so we know this, we know what mental health is, but then it was more about what is what are mental health, the definition of mental health programs and and mental health services.

So, um, so what is on our current RFP and how can we be more specific with mental health?

Also, how do we reach youth most impacted by poverty, violence, and trauma?

Okie dokie, and some of our considerations, right?

When is the average onset of mental health symptoms?

So 50% of all lifetime mental illnesses begins by age 14 and 75% by age 24.

And so study suggests the average delay between the onset of mental health symptoms and treatment is 11 years.

And for youth who are most impacted by poverty, trauma, and violence, this age can be sooner due to severe life stressors.

So when we're thinking about um, again, our aim, we want to think about those youth who are out there experiencing mental health symptoms, depression, psychosis, uh, you know, anxiety, um, and you and and the ones that aren't being reached, the ones that you know don't have that haven't talked to a school counselor, the ones who don't have supporting caregivers to um help guide them to services of some sort.

So um, that's why uh that was really important to see, you know, where is that age group and which ones are the are the ones uh most most vulnerable.

So then we get to the primary, secondary, and tertiary mental health program examples.

So this is a way um that we're thinking that we could really organize um how we're thinking about um how to define mental health services and programs and and how that fits into mental health.

So, um, primary prevention.

So primary prevention involves proactive universal strategies that stop a mental health disorder or crisis from developing in the first place.

The goal is to reduce risk factors and build resilience.

So when uh we were looking through the programs that received the grants, we realized that most of the mental health programs, we're just talking about mental health category, were in this uh in this category.

So um this is where we found an opportunity to get more specific about how to define mental health, because what I'm thinking is that so these are all really great programs, and people, you know, these organizations are doing really great things.

However, if we're going back to our guiding light of going towards the most uh vulnerable youth impacted by poverty violence and trauma, I'm not sure that this is the way to go about it with focusing on primary prevention.

Um, youth who go into uh programs that uh that they're talking about psychoeducation or their um it like it in the in those sort of sort of programs um these youth might already be resilient and be um reaching out for help, and so again, so we want to so I'll I'll get there later.

But so here's an example of a program that uh that we gave funding.

Oh no, wait, did we have okay?

So, an example here is school-based emotional regulation programs, parenting classes, public awareness campaigns on stress management, and community efforts to prevent childhood trauma.

So, again, most of the programs that we funded were in this category.

So, uh Devon, you want to talk about absolutely, and if we go, we'll see our kind of more secondary prevention, so focusing on, oh sorry, make sure we're on the right slide.

So focusing on early detection, rapid intervention, and limiting the duration and severity of a mental health condition once it appears.

The focus here is really to nip it in the bud from preventing it from worsening.

So routine depression screenings and annual physical crisis text lines and brief early interventions for someone experiencing acute stress or grief.

Now, when you go through the kind of annual report and look at the you know groups who got funding, there's even just now you can see there's a clear difference between primary and secondary.

A lot of the funding that we gave were kind of primary programs, and we really want to kind of get into again to Lilia's point about those who are most deeply impacted and really trying to address these issues.

And so the next one is also our tertiary prevention, right?

So this is really stepping in after mental health condition has been diagnosed or an acute crisis has passed.

The goal is to reduce long-term disability, prevent relapse, and help individuals maximize their quality of life.

So examples long-term psychotherapy, psych psychiatric medication management, rehabilitation programs, and ongoing peer support groups.

And a really good example of something that we did or awarded was a SAC LGBTQ Center.

Right.

So the center was going to launch a mental health training program for graduate level mental health training trainees to provide affirming individual and group therapy services to LGBTQ youth ages 13 and 24 in Sacramento under licensed clinical supervision, right?

The program aims to serve 60 clients with nearly 2,000 hours of care while increasing youth engagement and improving outcomes and really building a pipeline for LGBTQ affirming care in our community, right?

And I think we really holding in on the fact that this is an ongoing peer group, and we're also trying to address a you know uh very under-served community, as well as talking about you know, under licensed clinical supervision, I think is also really important, right?

Um, I think you know, the the issue that I think we kind of what we had talked about, I think what the commission has talked about is to be important from earlier, you don't want to be too limiting where every single mental health has to be under, you know, a licensed clinical social worker or therapist, but you also can't be so broad where you feel like everything is being used, and you don't want the mental health you know umbrella to be abused as well, right?

And so you want to finish from the next one.

So, um, can we go back to the secondary uh prevention?

So um, so there were no programs in this category.

Um there was one that we thought maybe could have been.

Um it was uh the it was serving uh refugees.

Um do you remember the um and then uh but then when we're talking about mental health, what this would look like in the secondary prevention category because um because I what we're thinking is this is this might be what we want to focus on secondary prevention programs and tertiary programs.

And so secondary prevention programs would have to say in the RFP, there is uh there is anxiety reported, there's depression reported, there's trauma symptoms reported, there had and and maybe they're not um clinically diagnosed, and that's okay, but at least there has to be some report of these mental health symptoms happening.

And and you know, youth do talk about these things, so as long as we're saying that in the RFP, or we're asking that in the RFP in the mental health section, then we'll get that information.

And then as for um tertiary, um, this, you know, goes to our the, you know, youth who are, you know, let's say they experience trauma, and let's say that they're again like having active psychosis or um and they're also unhoused, and they're you know, they're they're experiencing crises and suicidality, and uh, you know, maybe being hospitalized, and like these are the ones to how you were saying like how do we reach them?

How do we um find the strategies to reach them and which programs um are offering that?

So, and the current uh RFP, so just kind of the goal area one to kind of reiterate, um, you know, our focus is to support youth-driven, culturally affirming and trauma responsive strategies that you know, and I kind of allow folks to read this because I the fact that we've talked about this language quite often.

Um, but one, you know, increasing mental health literacy, so increasing knowledge, understanding of how to develop and maintain positive mental health, developing healthy cultural identities, focusing on culturally grounded protective factors over reduction of risk to help build a sense of belonging while countering a lot of stigmas, and we know a lot of these communities do face stigmas in their mental health care, their experiences with it, and then enhancing social emotional and behavioral learning, providing cognitive behavioral intervention, so teaching skills for emotional regulation, and then reducing access to lethal means as well.

So, folks, you know, securing access to dangerous items such as guns and medications, and that kind of touches violence prevention and substance abuse to some degree as well.

And then you want to go on this one.

Yeah, so then in the current RFP, fund goal-specific program design narrative questions.

So, just to give an example of what is currently on the RFP, um, describe how the program incorporates culturally affirming and trauma responsive strategies, explain how the program incorporates fund goal specific evidence informed strategies listed under funding information, and describe how the services are equitable and accessible so that all young people may participate.

And so, um, we took a look at the city of Richmond their RFP.

So, what I saw here was that they were more specific on what types of programming, and and so where we were talking about kind of like what is mental health, they um they were more specific on programming here, so individual and group counseling therapy sessions, mindfulness and emotional wellness programs, mental health wellness support groups, behavior health positive behavior intervention programs, violence and trauma recovery programs, trauma-informed training for staff, teachers, first responders.

So, um I think that um not like every single bullet here, but um, these programs are um what I see is uh focusing on that secondary and tertiary um categories, and so here is um a good example of um again, that secondary and tertiary uh a program because uh what they're doing is reaching children, adolescents, young adults, and families facing complex challenges such as trauma poverty, foster care, and developmental disabilities.

So they offer community-based, school-based, and visit and visiting therapist programs to youth struggling with severe emotional distress, trauma, or behavioral challenges.

Um, so you're having services in the schools.

Um, I know that that's not the only way, but that is a way, you know, to find some of these youth.

Um, you know, therapists, I'm guessing they probably go out into people's homes, um, wrap around and I'm not sure about that, but I'm guessing with this, um, wraparound programs, um, public and non-public schools to provide full service therapy, um, overcome barriers and protecting academic and social success.

And um, so this is a good um where it seems like their goal is to really find um those youth who are actively experiencing mental health symptoms and reporting that, um, and also um actively in in severe distress and and crises.

And then we have our California Youth Mental Health Corps, so it's this initiative hearing young adults 18 to 24, what schools, community, orgs, and health clinics to serve as peer mental health navigators.

The program addresses the youth mental health crisis while providing participants with professional credentials, higher education credits, and living stipends.

So the role really is members serve to one-to-two-year projects acting as trusted guides, connecting teens.

The focus is for help youth process stressors related to social media, digital overload and emerging technologies, really the benefits of participants earn specialized training, certifications and credits and whatnot.

And so then was there any more?

Um no, that that should be it.

And and I think with these navigators, so you know, there's they're the ones to like doing those strategies to find those youth who are experiencing these mental health symptoms and in distress.

And that is it.

And so also when it comes to those um those three categories, um, that is a way I was talking about it today in terms of mental health, but that can be used in other categories as well, and a good way to really organize um what these youth are experiencing.

So just some thoughts there.

I really want to reiterate before we kind of go on to any more discussion that it is it's really not to dismiss the work that has been done, the money that has been given out to the orgs that are doing great, great work in our community, but we want to be targeted.

We want to treat that first process of learning process, right?

And how do we improve it for the next one and the next one, so on and so forth.

I think really trying to do our best to impact those who are experiencing again the greatest stressors in their community or their mental health, is where we're at.

So well, now we're open to take any feedback questions from the rest of you all.

All right.

I just first want to say thank you so much, um, both to Vice Chair Gafari and Commissioner Thomas uh for your research for giving us some new terms to consider when we're looking at our goal areas um as well.

And just to kind of piggyback on what you said, um, not to dismiss any of the work that's being done currently with um those who have already partaken in the measure ill funding to provide uh services for our most vulnerable youth, but just saying this next time around being um targeted.

And I I don't think that that's you know anything wrong with that, just because that's the reason why measure ill was created.

We want to make sure that we're doing our due diligence as a commission to make sure that we're making those decisions, which is what we're doing right now.

So thank you both um so much.

And so um first, let's see if we have Clark.

Do we have any do we have anyone who wants to speak from the public on this item?

We do not have any speakers, Chair.

Okay.

All right, and so we can go to Commissioner comments.

So I too uh have some things to say, but would love to hear from the commission.

What say you all right, Commissioner Cravis Works?

Yeah, so this is this is helpful, and it's it's made me up and I think it's a minute.

Um so this is really helpful.

I appreciate it.

Thank you both.

Um, yeah, and so it's got me thinking about a bunch of a bunch of things, and I I agree in in the SIP, at least I know we're mainly talking about the RFP, but in the SIP, um, what we lift up are strategies rather than specific programs.

Um, and I think that then translated into the RFP in a way that yeah, may have allowed for a lot more room in what folks are sort of proposing and may or may not have um always been touching those youth that are most impacted by impacted by poverty trauma and violence.

And I think there is a lot of overlap potentially in what we're talking about with the priority populations and some of the um potential um modifications to the RFP that might yeah solve you know some of these same issues um dually.

Um so that's one thing.

So yeah, let's let's continue to kind of um interface on on that.

Um I guess the other P I I would love to hear from from you both sort of what the what your what you see as the like the change to the RFP specifically as a because I'm where I'm struggling, I think a little bit is like without changing the SIP, how can we change the RF?

Like what it what is it in the RFP that we're identifying as being able to change to address some of the programmatic, you know, specificity um, I guess, yeah.

No, I um uh to be honest, I would just have to like look over it again.

So we didn't come here today with any recommendations on how on what to do, but that could be our next homework assignment, so um, because we definitely, you know, if we're all in agreement with this information, and then we could come up with something so.

Thank you for that.

That was really helpful.

Um, and it also got me thinking about a lot of other issues.

Um I and I like that specificity in order to really focus the funding on the intention.

So I was just I pulled up the annual report for last year, the last funding cycle.

So there was 77 mental health grants, and there were only three in reducing substance abuse.

Um, and so I'm wondering how you know, maybe we can think of this as a strategy for all of the different areas, and how do we get a bit of more of a balance in these fund areas?

So it was really more of just a question of moving forward.

I feel like I have comments on that, but not like a concrete answer because I I honestly think that we're a lot of um folks in the field that are supporting youth, like we kind of see mental health as an umbrella term, not um, and then obviously there's the the I think it's the primary, you know, within those groups, it's like if you have psychiatric support or like a therapist, that's like a particular like form of mental health support, but it could be so broad.

So I think that's why most people most folks probably put that as their first, um, because you know, it's a it's a way to signal that you know broadly you're supporting the mental health, and then maybe their second or third choice was what their program actually like focuses on, um, and I don't know how we get in front of that.

Because yeah, if we were to look into those 77, 72, 77, I feel like you know, underlyingly they would be supporting sort of youth violence or like other preventing youth violence, but yeah.

Um, to so to that point is um, one way is that we're making sure that the youth are actively uh reporting that they're having anxiety depression or uh another mental health symptom because some of these programs did like didn't mention that it was like oh there's you know support and wellness, but then it's like okay, so are your youth actually in having mental health symptoms happening?

And maybe they are, but they're not reporting it.

But that's how we could come like organize this more when we're gathering the information to decide who gets um who gets the RFP when it comes to mental health.

Like if people are like gathering and talking about mental health and and wellness, like that's great.

Um, however, that's more of like primary, like what about secondary?

Like, did somebody have a panic attack this morning sort of thing?

Did it you know, and then and then let's make sure we're getting that information, and that's how we decide when it comes to mental health.

So, I just wanted to clarify.

I was looking at the applicants, um, but the actual uh the fund goals, 50% went to mental health, so it was it was a little bit more balanced out.

And I think that continues to bring up the conversation because you mentioned Richmond, and I believe they do have like a structure for their for where it's like each fun each goal gets a certain percentage.

Um yeah, and I I know that's something that we're also as a commission wanting to potentially explore um to continue this conversation.

But yeah, I I don't know if I was on the queue or not.

But anyways, great job.

Like that was a great presentation.

Um thank you so much for your work on that.

We really appreciate it.

Commissioner Graphers Wars.

Um, yeah, so this is actually related.

Um something else that came up for me, um, it may not be possible for the RFP because it may be a SIP thing, but for just for us as a commission to think about more broadly, um, because I remember um those of us who were, you know, somewhat who were working on the SIP had this conversation.

I think um Commissioner Williams, you might remember it too, um, about how to structure things and one of the one of the ways that we had talked about originally, um, rather than um necessarily assigning a percentage of funds to go to each of the fund goals, we could think about the fund goals as um universal, but then percentage of funds going to somewhere along the spectrum of prevention.

And so, you know, you might have, you know, maybe only um ten percent focus more on the upstream primary preventive end.

Um, but then you'd have whatever 50 and um 70 at more in the kind of um secondary and tertiary and so I think that's just one way to also think about and get at kind of some of these dual factors where there are probably elements across all five fund goals that fall within the primary, secondary, tertiary preventative space.

Um, and it's not so and even uh maybe some of the actual um uh programmatic or services that some of the orgs that fell into the mental health category are doing might actually be more in the secondary or tertiary substance use category or violence response category.

And so maybe as we think about this for the future, we don't necessarily need to think only about aligning across the different fund goals, but aligning using, yeah, potentially the spectrum of prevention as um, you know, a means for trying to allocate funds more along some of what you're getting at, anyway.

Good thoughts.

Uh Commissioner Williams.

Oh, um, so I'm looking at some of the the applicants, and again, all doing great work.

Um, but I think that it will really change our profile because I'm looking here.

There are a couple infrastructure projects under mental health.

So the skate park, uh, the granite regional park, um, the SAC news and review building conversion, as well as the technical educational partnership with Sacramento Fire.

So all of these were under mental health and just kind of hitting home the fact that we're really looking at those kids who are experiencing some type of issue.

Sorry, State Park and Mental Health in the same sense.

Yeah, I guess just to give some context why we're having this conversation to those people who are listening, so wanting to make sure that yeah.

Bash yeah, Ruiz Mars.

Um, yeah, because I guess to that point, Commissioner Williams, like um some curiosities around what the reporting for that's gonna look like, and like how we're you know, just acknowledging as a commission, like when we get the report of, you know, how this these infrastructural components um benefited or made the lives of young people specifically in the mental health uh, you know, realm of their lives, like I just have a lot of curiosities around that.

Commissioner Graves words.

Yeah, I and I I appreciate and agree with um a lot of it's already been said I just wanted to say out loud too, um, as someone who comes from a public health background that like I think there's a ton of value in the upstream primary preventative kind of work.

And so I don't want us to totally lose sight of that.

I and so that's actually in part why I was sort of talking about this whole spectrum piece and thinking about our how our various strategies um and funded partners kind of align along that.

Cause I do think there are other places that we really are hitting some of those more primary preventative areas, some like the guaranteed basic income piece is a huge one there.

And so when we're talking about primary prevention, we're also talking about systems level changes, things like providing people with the supports they need to meet like basic needs, and so all of that is extremely important.

So I don't want us to lose sight of that, but I do think we're hitting that in there uh other places and where we may be coming up short is some of them were secondary and tertiary, but yeah, just making sure we still are you know, I think a lot of us agree that there are very structural and systemic sort of roots of a lot of what we see downstream, and so we don't want to lose sight of at least having some of our funded partners um, you know, working up there at that level also.

So to your point from to your point from earlier uh about kind of like the 10% primary and then kind of more for secondary tertiary, that that is more of a SIB conversation than not an RFP one, right?

Yeah, okay.

Okay.

Just curious.

Could be either one, right?

I thought.

I don't think that we'll be able to assign percentages to the fund goals or percentages via levels of prevention in the RFP.

I think that's too substantial of a change um to not have to go back to council with okay also okay um I think we might be able to look at um and it would be a consideration for the commission like either looking at um like we prefer maybe you could give a preference for a level of prevention um by fun goal and that might be allowable in this RFP like we we would like to focus on or give a preference for um without mandating a preference because there's preference points category I mean that potentially potentially yeah and I'd have to work with city attorney on that because there's just like a lot of gray area but I think that's one approach we could take I think we can't mandate certain programming because that deviates from the published SIP a little too much because we already I think there was preventative programs listed in there and then we would be mandating something that contradicts the SIP.

So there's bounds like we could work at looking at preferred levels of prevention and preferred programming or evidence-based practices and or also building that out in like the applications and the specific questions by fun goal um we could dive deeper into there to hit at the levels of prevention and the specific evidence based or promising practices programming.

Oh all of the conversation that we've been having on this has been really good I've taken a lot of notes and I would really love for us uh to consider and first let me go back thank you so much for the terms that y'all put in your report so having the preventative your your levels of prevention so preventative your secondary and tertiary am I saying tertiary correct okay I like that um and also with bringing back up the skate part I've been very vocal in how I feel regarding that and I think that the only way and nothing's wrong with skate parts cake parts are cool I just feel like for what it is and the work that we're doing and with us being the knowledgeable and intelligent folks who sit on this commission and making these decisions to put out there I think that it may be wise for us to consider more secondary prevention focus when it comes to um moving forward with this this new RFP um the secondary and tratiary only because I believe from what commissioner Williams just said our first RFP and our first cycle of focus more on preventative and with that being said would it be more wise for us to look at the secondary prevention focuses so I just kind of you know being a good chat GPT put some things together so on secondary prevention focus so as we were talking about mental health y'all talked about the early signs of emotional behavioral concerns and or going into the things that it went into on the secondary side when we're looking at substance abuse just bringing it up just to talk about secondary early use experimental risk behaviors uh violence prevention exposure to violence gang risk behavioral concerns currently going on so not in the preventative and then also for um early development for zero to five developmental delays already family stressors so if we're looking more in the secondary focus area I feel like as we've been talking about we'll be able to get the programs that we want to see fulfilled through measure does that make sense so I know that uh we have to you know of course come to that decision you all are gonna go back to what it is that you're looking for I did want to find out is that possible so say if the commission decided and this is just me just asking a question if the commission decided you know what we want to focus more on the secondary and tertiary uh prevention levels can we make language like that and and or general language for uh the rubric scoring that would focus in that area and that's the Julie.

I I think so I'll have to work with city attorney.

I think we can uh prep make a preference for it.

I don't think we can mandate it at this point because I think that would go contradict the CIP so I don't think we can mandate that all mental health programming is funded in the next round of RFP are secondary and tertiary prevention levels.

I think we can give a preference for those.

Can it be a high preference?

I'd have to work with city attorney what that looks like if it's points for example or if it's just written into the questions and we make a lot of the questions and the um aimed at that perhaps um that would have more impact in the results.

I think if we um come up with something um with how it would look like in the RFP um that might help kind of steer that right to see if it's okay or not.

Absolutely any specific recommendations are always welcome and even if you wanted to get into questions that you would like to see in the RFP we are accepting of all of your um recommendations and advice.

Okay.

Yeah I think just from the conversation that we've all been having today I think that that would probably be in our best interest just because we can't change the SIP itself lots of good conversation regarding percentages next time what does that look like in all of the preventative areas so if it is uh at the first level versus second or third I think that that'd be good overall when we um update the SIP itself but for right now us focusing on how do we best go to the the preventative level that would speak the most to this cycle that would be best especially knowing in the first cycle it was way more first level preventative than it was second and third okay um so in moving forward so and wrapping this one uh with a bow uh for our mental health ad hoc uh committee if you could let us know what you're going to be doing to kind of bring um to kind of shape what that what you're bringing back to the commission so that we can make that decision in the in our in our next meeting.

Okay yeah if so just to agree just say that we're gonna bring something that um yeah we can look at the RFP and then be creative.

Yeah okay Julie would it be best I know that you said uh specific language and commissioners can add like if there were questions what specifically would you need so so we can know exactly what we're changing or what would you need specifically so that way we can make sure we move forward in the right space.

I think you can be as specific as you want but I guess it would be just a recommendation like we recommend that you that we put a preference for secondary and tertiary prevention on the mental health and these and list these as our preferences for promising or evidence-based practices um and then if you wanted to go in depth as much as in the general scoring rubric or in the application for mental health we would love to see these questions asked that's welcome it's not required um and I think what we'll do maybe for the next meeting meeting is bring back like a general discussion item where um target populations can report out and so can you all on based on recommendations um to city staff surrounding the RFP and then you all will have a chance to present and again if you want slides just let me know ahead of time.

August I'm sorry I don't have the exact date right now August 6th thank you so and just uh to reiterate what Julie just said so it looks like we can have the most impact in the general questions that are going to be asked of all of the applicants so I think that that probably would be best for us like when we're looking at that um to make sure those general questions are reflected in a direction of the programs that we're we're looking for as a commission.

I will ask um how high of a preference I would love to for the commission to know how high of a preference we can score that since we can't change like we can't say specifically secondary tertiary programs but how high of a preference can we give to that so research, whatever, whatever we need to do on research side if that's okay.

Okay.

So you're asking how Max.

Can we do preference points?

Yeah.

And how high would say a preference point could be okay not like oh five points for this.

Like, what does that look like?

Yeah.

Okay, yeah, we'll look into that.

And then I just want to make one comment, which I think is when you're we're talking about like what is the most impact in the RFP.

Preference points definitely is the highest impact for changing the outcome of who gets funded, not the general Rubik.

I because at the end of the day, it's like the they're getting it, they're applying under a general rubric and getting scored.

And yes, that's very I mean, that is the bulk of the points, absolutely, but I think the difference is made in the preference points of who actually scores the highest.

But I just would caution that like adding 500 tiers of preference points would be very complicated.

Correct.

So, just like and one of our lessons learned again, reiterating was to simplify the application because it was really hard and cumbersome across the board for city staff, for applicants, for reviewers, right?

And so let's I just want to like keep that also in mind not to rain on the parade or anything.

Because I think it's great.

And to that point though, I know you mentioned maybe having uh reunderstanding of the C tool.

I think you mentioned briefly.

I guess what was kind of like your surface level vision of what that meant.

I'm I'm kind of looking at all that preference point, it's just kind of one conglomerate now.

Yeah, um I think the seed tool in itself and the use in the RFP, I'm uh I think it was good.

I think it was I mean it's a really powerful tool.

Um I think where we can make it better, is in how for applicants to actually receive those preference points.

I think they need to provide more evidence that they are actually serving the youth identified in the seed tool, and we were just too lenient, and so perhaps it's they need to provide backup data that proves that they're serving these populations, or you know, they need to provide um evidence of programming in these locations.

I mean, I can't I would have to look at like you know, maybe they need to provide an MOU or a license agreement for the community center.

They provide the services or a list of um, you know, participant data that that names their um zip code or something along those lines.

So basically backup evidence, hard evidence that they're actually serving the youth identified in the seed tool versus just basically what we sort of took their word for it.

Okay, thank you.

I think I think that that's good.

All right, good discussion, y'all.

This is this has been really good.

So we're gonna move on to our next item.

So our targeted populations ad hoc report out.

Are there any additional updates that you have that you would like to report out in speak on?

Oh, are we on sorry?

Is it the third year review?

Did we do that already?

Is that the next one?

Next one.

So are we moving on from that discussion?

Oh, I'm so sorry.

I was supposed to say that.

Uh are we good to move on from that item?

We were good.

I think we did all of the wrap up for everything for the last item.

Yeah, I I I feel comfortable.

Yeah, look at how you how you feel about it.

So it was moving on to the so then the next item was our targeted populations ad hoc report out and updates.

So if there's any additional updates or any we just giving y'all that that time just in case there was something else that needed to be covered, so um, that was your time.

Make sure you have your time.

Okay, okay, good deal.

Do we have oh, is this was this where anyone?

Oh, Commissioner Comments, all right.

We are moving on to our next item of uh commissioner comments ideas, questions, what have you?

I guess my question was are we not do we not have the third year review?

Um that so the third the third year review was their presentation.

I just had created it as a very broad item so that we could discuss a lot of different things.

Sorry, yeah, I know it sounds confusing, but it's a broad agenda item in case you all wanted to discuss substance abuse or something else along those lines, and just analogies.

Um I'm like, Julie, your last name is spelled wrong on here.

I just want to acknowledge that.

Whoever can fix that.

It is, it is all right over here.

So you know what, and just to go back just because that was a broad item, and um Julie did do that on purpose so that way we can um talk and and bring up um multiple things in there.

I just wanted to add one more, like I like I just said, when we're looking at mental health, since we've defined it and we're we're making sure we go back to those definitions.

When we're looking at um early edge early developmental uh for zero to five substance abuse and violence prevention, I would love us to be within those secondary uh categories as well, and us for us to I guess do more for those specific goal areas since we weren't able to.

I know we can't put a percentage on it, but if we can if we can do our best in this new RFP and preference points or however we decide to do it, not over saturating it, but finding a way to bring more to our substance abuse violence prevention and our zero to five.

I just wanted to put that out there, Commissioner Thomas.

Did you want to respond to the chair?

No, I was just gonna say I think that's a great idea.

And before we wrap up this item, I would just again consider our shortened timeline and maybe look forward to like what else do you want to bring up to recommend for the RFP maybe in the next meeting so that I could schedule a discussion item.

Do you guys want to look at the other fund goals?

What do you want to what are you wanting to discuss as recommendation-wise?

Because we do have a limited timeline of meetings for that.

So I totally forgot about that.

Thank you so much for bringing that up.

I would like for us to like we've been analyzing our other fund goals, uh substance abuse violence prevention and zero to five.

I would love for us to have a more in-depth conversation of what we're looking for in those areas as well.

Um, since we've made that clear on um targeted population, of course, guides us with with the rest, but we've done that for mental health, but I feel like mental health everybody's gonna always apply to how can we do that with the others?

Yeah, good idea.

Okay, and Commissioner Thomas, did you want to say that?

No, no, no.

Go ahead.

Um, so I'm just wondering on that, because we're kind of limited by what we can do to the RFP versus the SIP.

I'm wondering if the discussion, um, I I'm just curious, like if we need the discussion specifically for each of the fun goals, if or if the discussion becomes more specifically, how do we prior preference point out that the um sort of primary secondary tertiary approaches across the board?

So it does it that it doesn't need to be, or I'm not even sure how we would do it uh within the RFP across the specific fund goals, but to me it sort of sounds like the more um uh likely way that we're going to be able to get at this is through the preference points, and that feels like a one item across the board at how do we do primary secondary tertiary as opposed to trying to differentiate that across the goals.

Um thank you for that clarification.

It's more that what you just said, just because we can't since we can't change the CIP, it is.

So if we can make that into an item, how do we create those preference points um in the secondary and tertiary for the fun goal items?

Can we can we speak on that?

I speak with my hands, I'm sorry y'all gotta make sure.

Yeah, so just to clarify and I think and correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe doing like a discussion item where you all want to look at maybe all the preference points you would recommend, including potentially um intervention or primary, secondary, and tertiary, and also we can add that to the follow-up blog.

So hopefully we we can work with city attorney and respond in the interim between the next meeting, um, about uh maybe like a response to to what's possible.

Um, but uh as far as the discussion item we're proposing, a clarification on that would be great.

I believe so, and and what that needs to look like because I know that you said we can't have too many preference points.

So I guess letting us know how could that look and how can we verbiage that so that way it does speak to the different fund goal areas so that we we gather the programming that we're looking for in this next cycle.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, so we can I can work um with city attorney and staff and hopefully bring something back to you to present, and then maybe y'all can discuss what you recommend based off of my presentation.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think that sounds good.

The other I think just sorry, I know I'm somewhat out of order, but um, I think for our ad hoc committee on the target population side, maybe we can be thinking about it in terms of where yeah, the general versus the preference points and at least one of our scenario recommendations that we can bring back would be in that vein.

I'm wondering too for the mental health group instead of if at least one of the kind of recommendations you bring back is sort of universally applicable across the kind of fun goals.

I mean, I know like you all have been focusing very specifically on mental health, but we know that the spectrum of prevention applies across all services, and so if I'm I'm just wondering for all of us that are doing some of this thinking if part of what we're doing before the next month is then thinking about what that looks like in terms of the preference points, and maybe at least one of them is more in generic than just specific to the mental health goal.

I yeah, I think that's that's a valid concern, Race actually.

I like that.

In addition, um, is there a way can we have, and I don't know if everyone wants this, but I would like it.

Can we have the questions that were asked last time so we can see when we're talking about uh changing questions?

Uh can we see what those questions were so we can see what it is that we could change those to?

Sure.

I can they were published with the RFP, but I can specifically pull that out and send it to you all.

Absolutely.

Do y'all feel that that would be beneficial, especially as we're changing the questions?

Yeah, I mean I had requested, I think Julie, you sent that to me before because I directly requested it from you.

We're talking about the questions in the RFP, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

But I think maybe sending it out to the commission.

Yeah, so we can edit those and uh can that be a part of the conversation?

So if anyone has any changes they want to, is that too much?

No, no, it's fine.

I was just thinking we love it when you request things as like a in the follow-up log.

Yeah, it's just very helpful.

So um, but we can add it to the follow-up log, yes.

Okay, I'm excited for the day when you say yes, it is too much, stop bothering me.

I'm excited for that.

I'll never say that.

Oh my goodness.

Oh, matters not on the agenda.

Yeah, so are we not to cut anybody off, but we will have to extend the meeting if we want to continue the conversation, and that's fine.

Um, but we do have comments for matters not on the agenda plus your commissioner comments.

So just FYI.

Absolutely.

So let's go ahead and get first.

Uh, can I get can we get a motion to extend the meeting?

A motion to extend the meeting.

Okay, a second.

I second, all right.

So we have motion and a second.

Um all in favor, please say aye.

I any opposed or abstain?

Okay, okay.

The motion passes, we can continue.

All right.

And I don't believe that it'd be too because we've we've gotten a big part of the meeting out, but I apologize that we didn't get to matters not on the agenda.

Uh clerk, we have any comments.

So I think you guys went back to discussing a little bit more into depth for item four.

So if you guys are complete with that, then we can move on to commissioner comments and then after that will be matters not on the agenda, which we do have speakers for.

We do have speakers for that.

I apologize.

I'm sitting here just trying to because I know we've we've been talking a lot, and this has been really good conversation.

Are we all wrapped up on uh items that we wanted to add for next meeting, anything additional that we missed?

I forgot what I was gonna say previously, but um now I just wanted to close the loop and mention to the ad hoc um that we'll meet between now and August, I think probably twice, and then in one of those meetings, uh city attorney Gil, is it Gil?

Um pull in to have a broader conversation of like the um specifically for the target populations and how to structure that within a sample RFP that we would bring back to the commission in the August meeting, and having at least two to three options for us to react to and hopefully in August be able to move forward with one.

Excellent.

Sounds really good.

Was that considered your ad hoc update?

Just to clarify, yep.

Okay.

There we go.

Alright, so we are moving forward to public comment.

Matters not on the agenda.

Are you moving that up?

Oh, I'm moving it up.

Commissioners don't have any comments.

Can I go back to commissioner comments?

Yeah, we can do matters not on the agenda first.

Perfect.

We do have three speakers.

Our first speaker is Zeus.

Oh, I should have done that first.

It's okay.

He wanted me to go first, so can we switch the me first and then him?

Yes, are you Carla?

Yeah.

Okay.

So we'll do Carla and then Zeus.

Okay.

Good evening or good afternoon, Chair and Commissioners.

My name is Carla, and I'm asking this commission to publicly agendize and make it a discussion item.

The city of Sacramento's proposed Title 17 cannabis zoning changes.

Staff and council seek to put drugs next to parks and youth centered programs.

This commission exists for one reason to protect children and vulnerable youth in our community.

Yet today the city is considering rolling back long-standing protections that were specifically designed to keep cannabis businesses further away from youth serving spaces, residential neighborhoods, churches, parks, and other sensitive uses.

I understand that the cannabis tax revenue helps fund important youth programs through the children's fund, but I all respectfully ask this commission to separate the funding source from the responsibility to protect children and health and safety.

Please ask yourselves.

Why are we moving highly intoxicated, highly addictive cancer-causing products closer to the very youth this commission was created to serve?

And it's not a theoretical.

Just recently in Sacramento, an armed robbery at a cannabis business turned into a deadly gun battle involving a dispensary security guard and armed suspects exchanging gunfire.

These are the types of public safety risks that come with the industry.

Armed robberies, violence, impaired driving, and dangerous criminal activity.

Children should not be placed closer to these environments.

The commission should have a voice in this discussion before irreversible decisions are made.

I respectfully ask that you add Title 17 to a future agenda.

Publicly discuss the impacts these changes will have on our youth family and formally oppose weakening these protections.

Please stand up for Sacramento's children, neighborhoods, and vulnerable populations.

Also, really quick, I noticed that you guys had um your considerations too.

Multiple marginalized identity, social complex needs, hard to reach, poverty, violence, and trauma.

I would argue that all of these have uh substance abuse and drugs involved.

Thank you for your comments.

Our next speaker is Zeus.

Can you see?

Wait, we're gonna do a start.

Right here.

Hi, Chair and Commission.

My name is Zeus, and I'm nine years old.

I like swimming and playing baseball with my friends at the park.

I know that cannabis is a drug, and drugs make people's brains sick.

I'm asking you to please talk about the city's new cannabis.

Zoning zoning changes at a future meeting.

This commission is supposed to protect kids like me, so I don't understand why the city wants to remove wants to move cannabis businesses closer to places where me and my friends and me and my friends play baseball and where other kids play.

Drugs are harmful for everyone, especially young people because their brains are not fully developed.

Please think these drug stores have been involved in robberies and violence.

Please think about my safety and kids first.

I ask you to please discuss helping protect Sacramento's children and neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

We did have one last speaker, Mercedes, who does not appear to be here any longer.

So we're complete with Commissioner or sorry.

Public comment matters not on the agenda.

I just wanted to say it's Carla and to Zeus.

Thank you so much for your advocacy and also bringing the matters that you brought to the commission today.

We do appreciate it.

And Zeus, thank you for being a little advocate today, because that take that took a lot of courage for you to come up here and to let us know.

So I know you're gonna be a young leader in your community.

So just wanna say thank you.

All right.

All right.

So we're gonna go ahead and move forward to commissioner comments.

And we already have past chair Ruiz Mars.

That warmed my heart because my nephew's the same age and also plays the baseball.

Um, so all uh can we add to the follow-up blog a staff presentation on the zoning changes on those uh because I I have an idea over the you can request to add that to the follow-up blog, and we'll have to do an analysis on whether that's within the purview of this commission.

Yeah, I think that's appropriate.

Just wanted to add that.

Yeah, that was definitely something that I was gonna ask, especially since they were bringing it to the commission and and knowing exactly what's within our purview and not, but definitely, of course, with the relation to uh youth and substance abuse and things of that sort.

I definitely was gonna ask that question of what can we do and what can't we do in regards to the matter that was brought forward today.

Yeah, and even if it's not within our purview and that's not something we talk about in our meeting, is it possible to um get resources from the city staff about learning more about that?

Um I have to defer to City Attorney Gill.

We can discuss outside of this, but uh I'm I think maybe we could uh refer you to the appropriate department to seek more information and certainly you can advocate outside of your role as commissioners with the council on this topic.

You guys emailed us, right?

About this there was a request.

So, member of the public, yes, did request to have this email to the commission, and the city complied with that request and forwarded the email.

Okay, thoughts of thank you.

And I guess um, regardless or not if it's in within our purview or us just being citizens um who care, especially for the work that we do for youth um every single day, getting them to the right people and that can, um, or or whatever, wherever it needs to be advocated so that that way they have the resources that they need, just as it was just stated, so just wanted to throw that out there.

Um, if I may, through the chair, the I believe that the issue that they were discussing will likely go for discussion to city council on um June 16th at 2 p.m.

So we'll have the agenda published along with related staff report.

I'm not familiar with that issue specifically, but I do have it noted that it's going to council on June 16th, um, at two for I believe a first review or first discussion.

Okay, good deal.

All right, or even information, I guess, like I don't know.

I was wondering if I needed to say if that was something that needed to be brought up, like a public comment at uh city council's meeting or something along those lines, but it looks like we're all we're doing the jobs, okay.

Good.

All right.

Let's see.

I think we have concluded our agenda.

I just wanted to just go back.

We've concluded the agenda.

Okay.

Just wanted to make sure because we've talked about a lot.

I just wanted to go back to the conversation that we've had, and I want to say this once again.

Um, the reason why I absolutely love this commission is because we are a working commission, and each of you dedicate a lot of time and research and doing the things that you do to make sure that we're doing the work that Sacramento needs us to do through the Majorel Commission.

And so I just wanted to just say thank you so much for all of the reports that y'all put together today, all of the hard work, um, your time that you've been given um in doing this.

Also, of course, always want to say thank you to Julian staff for everything that y'all do and uh gathering all of the details and research and bringing back to mind things that we may have not thought about because there's a lot of materials.

There's a lot of documents and things that we may have forgot about.

Y'all are always bringing those back into play and assisting us along this journey.

So we definitely want to say thank you to that.

Also want to congratulate uh Commissioner Thomas um on his run for County Board of Education.

Just wanted to just say wow to you, just because that took a lot.

Um, and of course, the votes are not all counted yet, but just wanted to just congratulate you on the courage to even move forward in a public election like in the one that you ran.

So just wanted to make sure that I say that.

You said oh.

You know, what I will say is this, the only reason I've even felt remotely capable of doing that has been all the living and learning on this commission.

I have to say, there's there's been on one too many commissions throughout my life, and this is without a doubt, my favorite one I've been on, and it's been the one that's informed me the most.

I want to be a leader in this community, uh, and so I'm really grateful for that.

And you know, it really really is my mom said it's never a loss but a blessing or a lesson.

I think that is the way I want to navigate my life.

Um, I care too much about this city to let one election define me.

Um, and I care too much about these youth.

So I'm really grateful to be here.

And I told Katie last night, I was like, I'm still gonna be here for four more years now, so y'all are stuck with me.

There we go.

Uh so very excited to be here with all of you and kids, continue to keep pushing the good fight for the children of Sacramento.

So there you go.

So just wanted to just make sure that we made mention of our very own in in even having that courage to even move forward um in that election.

So um, if there is nothing else, if we don't have any other comments or things that are here, um I guess we can conclude the the meeting for today.

So meeting adjourned at noon.

Okay.

Um, uh, uh