Hayward Youth Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. We are calling the meeting to order at

07:01PM. Welcome back.

It looks like it's been longer than a couple

of months. I hope everyone is well. Thank you for joining us. I'm not sure if there's anyone online, but thank you to joining us as well. I do want to acknowledge we have three new commissioners joining us this year. We want to welcome commissioner Elvin Sledge. We also want to welcome commissioner Jay Singh and also commissioner Barbara Mederos. Welcome. Welcome. Thank you.

We will state the pledge of allegiance. Is there anyone who'd like to volunteer to start us

off? Sure.

I will. Thank you, commissioner Madeares. The flag is behind you. It's over there.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you.

Okay. This is me. I'm we this is the point in the meeting where we cover our teleconference notifications and considerations. There were no requests for a Just Cause provision for a remote participation. As a reminder, depend a little bit if you all are together, Just Cause includes something like a caregiving need, any contagious illness, if you've got a disability that's not otherwise accommodated, or if you're

traveling with a potential business. If that's

ever the case with you, please give us as much notice as possible in advance. And just a reminder, anyone who participates remotely does not count towards our quorum. So if we have a quorum if we have six people between here and there, it still doesn't count as a quorum, and we can't meet, which is why we really prioritize seeing your lovely faces in person. There are also no emergency provisions. This is you don't know about it in advance. And when this happens, everybody has to vote on whether or not that person can participate. Nobody requested an emergency participation, so we are all set. Thank you

so very much. May we please have roll call?

Hello, everybody. Commissioner Wheeler? Here. Commissioner Agulo? Here. Commissioner Dow? Commissioner? Here. Commissioner? Here. Commissioner? Here. Commissioner? Commissioner? Commissioner Sled?

Here.

And commissioner Wong?

Here.

Thank you, everybody. Evelyn, may

I clarify? We have two commissioner Singhs now. And so to stay in the first name?

Yes. Okay.

So we can because one of our commissioner Singhs is absent today.

So commissioner Jainra, am I saying it right? Okay. Singh is here. Commissioner Jagdeep Singh is not.

Thank you.

I will read a statement regarding public comments. There will be opportunities for public comment on the items on the agenda as we get to each item. If you have a comment on something that is not on the agenda, now is the time to make those comments. Please note that virtual public comment has been reinstated. For those attending in person, please complete a comment card and give them to miss Oliver.

You will have three minutes to make your comment. Speaker shall not use threatening, profane, or abusive language which disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of a commission meeting. The city is committed to maintaining a workplace free of unlawful harassment and is mindful that cities regularly attend commission meetings. Discriminatory statements or conduct that is hostile, intimidating, oppressive, or abusive are per se disruptive to a meeting will not be tolerated. As a reminder to commenters and my fellow commissioners, commissioners are not permitted to respond directly to or engage with public comments under the Brown Act.

Okay. We shall move to

We have no public. Thank you very much. There's nobody online or in person.

Now we'll move to the approval of our minutes from our 06/18/2025 meeting, which feels like it was so long ago. Does anyone have any revisions or edits or adjustments to the meeting minutes? If none, is there anyone who would like to motion to approve the minutes? Motion to approve the minutes. Thank you. Commissioner Maxey? Second. Thank you, commissioner.

Roll

for the minutes.

Commissioner Wheeler? Yes. Commissioner Ngulo? Yes. Commissioner Gunn?

Abstain.

Commissioner Kimura? Yes. Commissioner Maderos? Abstain. Commissioner Maxeon? Yes. Commissioner Jayandra Singh?

Yep.

Oh, this is a this is a I

abstain. I'm abstain.

Thank you. Commissioner Sledge?

Abstain.

And commissioner Wong?

Yes.

Thank you. That's not enough to pass.

Oh. It's because we have three people next year. Yeah.

Is there anyone not here right now who was here in June? Was Jagdief here in June?

I don't believe he was.

I believe he was. So it may not be possible to pass these minutes Because oh, commissioner Dow was here in June. Mhmm. So I think we just have to Next meeting. Hold these and vote again next meeting. Moore was here, but she's not on the Yeah. Exactly. There's not gonna be oh, you're actually looking at the minutes where the attendance is. That's a rolling part of you. She's so good. That's her chair. Yeah. So commissioner Dao was. So we will try again. Okay. Thank you. So the motion doesn't pass. Leave this to what's the next month? I think

that's my first motion. I've been at any of the commissionings that hasn't Well, you all work together.

That's why you're there.

Alrighty. We are going to have a report on our consolidated annual performance evaluation, also known as the CAPER.

Yes. I have a few oral reports for you all, which are titled up there. These are just quick updates to kind of, like, let you know where we're moving on different federal obligations as well as our funding process. So the first, just FYI, is that the public comment period for this is the consolidated annual performance and evaluation report paper. Our public comment period for that opened on September 5 and goes through September 20.

The CAPER is a required report from HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, as part of the receipt of our community development block grant funds, CDBG. On an annual basis, we have to fill out a report template from HUD. If you look at it and you find that the report is not aesthetically pleasing or that the prompts are odd, that is because we have to follow HUD's template. We do our best to clean it up, but it gets exported out of HUD system. So that is available for public comment.

And what will happen next is we'll submit it to HUD, bill review, accept it. And if they have any concerns, they will let us know, and we will resolve them. In the time that I have been with the city, the questions from HUD have always just been kind of clarifying and fixing, like, small typos. The next update is that the notice of funding availability for our next funding cycle publishes on Friday. And so this is the thirty day notice that so we are publishing the thirty day notice.

So what you're getting right now is a notice of the notice. So the notice will be published, and that has to be up thirty days prior to when the funds are when the application's due. And then the final FYI here is that we are hosting the mandatory bidders conference for the community agency funding process and releasing the RFP, the request for proposals, which has far more information in it than the NOFA does on October 22. It will take place at 10AM. It's virtual on Zoom.

We say mandatory, but we recognize that not everybody can make it to a 10AM on a Wednesday meeting. So for agencies that want to apply to fund for funding who can't make it to that meeting, they're encouraged to reach out to us, and we will make sure they get access to the recording. And then once they confirm with us that they've watched it, we mark them as having met that criteria for funding. The bidders conference is exceptionally important this year because we are making so many changes to the process. So we are really doing a big push with the folks who have applied for us pre with to us previously, as well as all of our normal pathways to let folks folks know.

But we really wanna make sure that the people who are used to getting funding come to that so that they understand the big changes and don't go into the process assuming that it will look the same as last year. Are there any questions on any of these?

I have one. Mhmm. If any commissioner is interested in reviewing the consolidated annual performance evaluation report or even contributing to the public comments, where can they find that to be able to do so?

It is on our website. If you go you probably anybody wanna test this? Can Google city of Hayward Caper? And it should hopefully have good optimization to take you to it. But if not, if you get to the community services division page and you go

to the CDBG from there, it should post it there.

And if it's very hard to find, tell me. Tell like, let me know, and we'll make sure that we make it easier to find.

Any other questions?

Wonderful. Moving on. We're rolling today. Mhmm.

Okay. So I'm gonna keep us going. This next item, this is an informational item. We're framing it as a work session for you all. It's some updates, like, reminder to kinda get us all back on the same page where we left off in June regarding changes to the community agency funding process. And then there's a few pieces where we want kind of final input from you all before we finalize everything for the funding cycle. I'm So gonna turn it over to Emily Huang, who's a management analyst on our team and has been doing so much work related to the community agency funding changes. Emily, take it away, please. Hello. It's nice

to see both faces. It's nice to see new faces. So good evening, commissioners and newly appointed commissioners. Tonight's presentation will provide a brief yet valuable overview of the updates to the community community agency funding process that will take place in the upcoming cycle. Our goal today is to summarize these changes before this year's funding cycle begins for the CSC members, specifically in November when you guys use your application review committees.

And we hope to also gather additional feedback and consensus from the CSC on items that we previous previously discussed in earlier meetings. So before we dive into the details, let's take a step back and look at the bigger picture of how we got here. The community agency funding process or for the newly appointed commissioners, we call this CAF. You're gonna hear that a lot. CAF is consistently reviewed for improvement to ensure it meets the goals and priorities of city council and the CSC and reduces any administrative and systemic barriers for our applicants.

The most recent major up round of updates to the CAF process was implemented in 2021, so we're due for a refresh. Each CAF cycle, staff collects feedback from agencies and the CSC through surveys. And earlier this year, staff also conducted benchmarking research of 12 different government entities that have similar funding programs to better understand regional practices and how they as cities support equitable funding decisions and transparency. So in March, staff synthesized all this research and presented proposed changes to the CAF process to use the CSC for questions and initial feedback. Following that meeting, staff held two listening sessions with 26 former applicants to gather additional input on potential impacts that these changes would have on their organizations from their perspective.

And this feedback was used to refine the recommendations. In May, staff returned to the CSC with some more specific recommendations shaped by both the CSC's feedback and the insights that we gained from the listening sessions. And in June, the CSC and staff collaborated to make specific changes and edits to the scoring. That's sort of like a summary of how we got here, some context. And now we're in September, and we have a list of changes developed through this iterative process.

And looking ahead, Steph will host the annual bidders conference on October 22 to review the details of the funding process. We're also gonna highlight the main changes that we're making as well for the individuals that consistently apply for this this process. And the application will go live on the same day we're gonna have the bidders conference. And yes. So you can see on this slide, we have the changes to the upcoming funding cycle.

One of the bigger changes is that we're transitioning to a two year funding term for contracts. We're also conducting interviews on weekday evenings during the time that we typically have the CSC meetings. We will be screening applicants for services ARC interviews because we get so many applications for the services ARC. We also plan on publicly sharing aggregate applicant scores, and that will be will be posted on the city's web page. We plan to weight the rubric categories and the scoring rubrics.

And lastly, align funding decisions with the CSC's priorities for services. And there are two specific topics among this list that we hope to gather your direct feedback on. One is aligning funding decisions with the CSCs priorities for services and weighted scoring. So due to the high number of applicants and limited funding, last year, the services application review committee or ARC made the tough decision to prioritize housing and homelessness, food security, and legal services, as well as projects that are dedicated to supporting immigrant populations. The CSC as a group approved these funding allocations, and this is how the city funded services projects for fiscal year twenty five, twenty six.

And as we move forward into this upcoming funding cycle because it's already that time, the CSC agreed that the CAF cycle will continue to be just as competitive and agree to align services funding recommendations for services projects with the cities and the CSC's priorities. So in previous meetings, we've received feedback from the CSC that there's still a desire to have some more flexibility in the funding decisions. So staff wanted to present a proposed percentages for services allocations that still highlights the the priority for homelessness and food security and also have some wiggle room to to allocate 15% of the services plot to all other services. And we wanted to present this to you all for feedback. The other thing that we wanted your feedback on as well is the weighted scoring.

So we presented this weighted scoring group worksheet, which you can find at the end of your packet. It's with blue tables. Last time we received your feedback on and we consistently hear the CSU's feedback on specific portions of an application, like program sustainability, performance. These are also things that are that we've heard city council also express as a high priority as well. So we adjusted some of the percent weighted per category in this weighted scoring sheet to reflect the conversations that we had in June and also conversations we've had with city council.

So this is also something for us to look at. For the new commissioners, you'll see under the weighted scoring, this first table, we have rating factors. So that's one through five, and that's each category that's within the scoring rubric. And then on the third column or fourth column, it says percent of total value. That's the score that how we'll prioritize each category.

So for example, community need and impact being 30% weighted score of the individual's points. And we can go through that a little bit in more detail. There's also an example that's in that sheet as well. So with that, we can go on and do public comment, and we can talk about any clarifying questions. And then we'd love to gain your feedback. Public comment is open.

There is still no members of the public online or here in person.

Okey dokey. Public comment disclosed. Does

the commission have any questions for clarification for Emily and Amy? And this is not our discussion portion. This is just questions to understand what was presented. We will have discussion later. Yes. Commissioner Dunn.

And you could also still ask questions later on. This isn't the only chance. But if there's, like, basics to get out of the way. Thank you, Thank

you so much. I was curious of what the formula was for the weighted rating factor score when to how you turn a zero to five into that. What I what what I thought was the formula doesn't work in the example, so I'm just not sure what formula is.

Did we get

it wrong?

The same. Would think it would be four.

What I did was It could be an issue. Divided by five multiplied it by 60 and got point eight, which meant the example you guys gave of 40 would have been 48 with my

48. That's mine then.

Okay. Then I think it's probably the spreadsheet that I may have.

Okay. Okay. And then you just get a total of a 150 points? Yeah.

I was saying

It's a lot more sense. Yeah.

Okay.

I was thinking 40 per points and then the fifth percent of that, but I think it's the same same result. So

Tell me again the calculation that you all did so I can make sure our math is in.

Yep. I did four points divided by five total Mhmm. Which is, like, point eight. Yep. And then I multiplied that by the weighted score of 60. Uh-huh. And I got 48. Got it. Because 30% 60 is already 30%, so I don't need to multiply 30%. It's not included. Yeah. Yes. And then I did that all the way to the bottom, and I got one fifty. And then I got my three points for a total of one fifty three. I was a little nervous. Thank you. I know there's, like, even do new math, and I was afraid. Like you haven't been in a long time, and the math is different now.

So Trust me. Okay. This is when my degree

One and one still is too.

No, ma'am. You know Good to know.

I commissioner Gunn, thank you.

I really

appreciate it.

I was gonna have the same question.

I'm sorry that it's, like, not the first time that you've had to correct our

math in real time. Together. Exactly. But it's been the slash. Back to life.

I keep saying, you know, like, you have to be able to make the mistakes in order to learn

how to go out.

Yeah. You are a good teacher. Great. So, yes, that is an excellent clarifying question. You love it. So disregard the example

Okay.

And focus on the concepts of the no. On the blue Okay. The blue table. Okay. What we're looking for is your feedback on the weights. So that percentage I see. Are you comfortable with basically how the prioritization shakes out that the top two most important or heaviest weighted are the community needed impact and program sustainability. And if you're asking what do those things mean, the previous page has I apologize for the tiny font on what those categories are as a reminder.

No. That's good stuff.

Yeah. And we also have updated the application so that when you are looking at this rubric side by side with the application, it is much more lined up. This section corresponds to this rubric category. So you don't have to try and connect more dots than you need to.

I I have one more question also. Is that will the at the bidders conference, will they be aware of what the new rubric's going to be and the percent allocation so they know if they're in that 50% category that they're not looking at

the whole pot. Correct. Okay.

And there will be an updated example table shared

with them.

I do have one question. When you said 60 something percent would be used for housing and homelessness, my I guess my question is this so I'm 65% for housing and homelessness. And I you we talked about opiate money. Is that included in the housing and homelessness? That's already

in there? This sorry. Commissioner Medeiros got a head start because we had orientation before this. I haven't had the opportunity to share that with the rest of the body, But we'll we'll do it now. This is a pretty new update, which is that in the past, we have allocated opioid settlement.

And so distributors and manufacturers of opioids were sued by different state governments, including California. And as part of the settlement, a lot of money was given back to the state of California. There are multiple settlements with, like, Purdue Pharma and also the distributors of opioids, CVS, Walgreens, Walmart. The city is receiving a several settlements of payment that are allocated over different time frames and for different amounts. So it varies from year to year how much money we're getting, and there is a a date when we will stop getting money.

But we have determined that a portion of the funds will be distributed through the CAF process. In the past, we've done that, but we've done it on the back end where staff have looked at who's applied and said, these are eligible because there there are set eligibility guidelines. It's not like your general fund where we have more flexibility. And we've kind of plugged it in on the back end to make sure that we are, one, making the funds available to as many people for whom are eligible, and two, to make sure we're not making assumptions about what agencies are doing that are that are wrong, and so we're not getting an eligible service in there. We are adding it to this process.

So in the RFP, when we describe the funding sources and when they submit their application, they can self identify and say, my agency does one of the things that can be funded by opioid settlement dollars. So when you all are doing your deliberations, there's gonna be a little extra layer of here are the folks that we can fund with opioid settlement money. This distribution is still it's for all available funds. But if we end up in a situation where we want to adjust it because there aren't enough agencies that are eligible for the opioid money or because we have way more who are eligible, you could probably make some adjustments on the fly. We don't this is our first time doing this.

Oh. And so we don't know what it will look like to apply this framework when there is a pot of money that has more use restrictions. So we're gonna give it a shot. Staff will when we get the applications and see how much folks are asking for and eligible for what, we will kind of make our best guess of what it would look like, and we'll come to you all. We'll plan for it, basically, basically, once we see who comes in through the door for the applications.

And if it looks like it's gonna be we have less than the amount of money available for opioids, then it'd be really easy. Those agencies just get the opioid money. If it's super oversubscribed, we'll talk about what that looks like in delivery. And will those agency have have to already have proven that they've they've provided these service before they applied for these funds? No. They'll they'll have to, in their application, describe their scope of work. Okay. And it will have to there's there will be a separate question Okay. For only those who are looking at opioid money to respond to, which is normal. We do that if you're CDBG, you have to answer specific questions.

Same thing. There's a question for opioid recipients, potential opioid recipients where they describe what they do and how it's eligible. Okay. And we're asking them to say, like, specifically within the attachment from the settlements which one year Nice. Or which or which several. Yeah. We're trying to get them to, like, make it as easy as possible for us to say, yep. That's you. Okay.

Thank you, commissioner. Any other questions? Yes.

Is there a system for, for lack of a better term, checking resumes to make sure these are legitimate requests as opposed to scam maybe too strong a word. But but people who are just covered so they're gaming the system to try and get money. How do we how do you check that?

There are a lot of, checks and balances on that through the application process, and they have to be a five zero one c three in good standing. They have to share outcomes from prior years, so to show this is the number of people we've served with this program before. Our staff reviews their before we get into contract, we review their fiscal audit to make sure that they don't have any massive findings that are concerning. So they have to have a fiscal audit. And if they don't, they can only apply up to $20,000. What else?

What what would you add? The CSE is pretty like, when we go into services Precisely. Like, when we go on interviews, like, there are a lot of questions. But and and in the interview, it's like a face to face. I I mean, you typically, it's online, but CSE typically has some really good questions to ask.

And and how do we do that with first time applicants that we you have not serviced before?

Same thing. They still have to provide all of that backup documentation when they apply. I left off. We also they're required to a lot of this happens after you make your recommendations, but, like, they have to before we get into contract, they have to give us their their board minutes. So we review those to make sure they have a board that's actually meeting. There are the majority of our checks and balances happen when before we get into contract with them. Did anybody on the commission like to answer that question based on your experience?

To Emily's point, this group is pretty involved in the community, pretty sophisticated and savvy in their experience. It's not a very large service community within Hayward, meaning at some point, you've come across the partner before. You've heard the name before. You've met someone who's received their services, or you yourself have visited the site or have seen them out in the community. I can give an example of when there was a trusted name that was applying for funds. They didn't have a physical location in Hayward. They didn't serve many people in Hayward. And this commission is very pro Hayward, very pro support our residents, and immediately lasered in on them and felt like feels like you're trying to sneak in a little backdoor here. I I think it's difficult. We generally trust our providers.

We generally trust our partners, the nonprofit community. We are looking to have a trust based relationship in how we partner. I don't in my experience, this might be my fourth round coming up. That hasn't been a challenge or an issue.

Yeah. And if there's a new applicant, staff does a little additional due diligence to figure out who they are. Both through like, often through our technical assistance because we wanna make sure that if someone's new, we wanna make sure they're supported and can get through. Because in the past, this body has expressed prioritization for bringing in more agencies and be able be able to fund more new folks. So we talked to their EDs. We talked to their development folks. And I can think of one example where an agency was not a nonprofit and we're trying to make an argument for funding staff didn't we didn't advance their application. Like, we didn't let we didn't have the interview. So we do a lot of that due diligence as well before they get to.

Also, typically, when we fund an agency, they also have to meet specific goals and outcomes. So if they aren't meet meeting specific goals, we'll bring that to the CSE's attention when we go into interviews. So this wouldn't happen in the first year, but say we were to fund them again. There's just there is a review of performance, and we also do monitoring as well. Do does the CSC ever go

out to the agencies? Because back in the days, they used to go out to the agencies that were

Yeah. We haven't done that in some time, but part of the proposed change to do that every two years is to revisit ways for you all to become more engaged with the folks that we fund and without creating too much burden on them to play host. But, like, we're we're looking at different ways. In the past, it was like it's very different. Like, the city used to have its own paratransit vehicle, and we'd drive you all around. Like, that vehicle doesn't exist anymore, and it was very hard to get on a business day enough of you folks who have nine fives together to do that. But we are looking at ways to involve you a bit more in, not necessarily performance monitoring, but, like, understanding better what folks are doing. Okay.

Yeah. Any other questions?

I'm sorry. Was wondering if look at so but you're saying we don't go out to the agencies even to just observe?

Not formally as a body, we haven't done that, but we are we are planning around this time next year to have discussions about that. In some places due

to confidentiality, you'd only be

able to go so far. You wouldn't be able to go into where clients are. Mhmm. Because of confidentiality guidelines.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah. That makes sense.

Other questions, thoughts, comments, discussion Loving the engagement.

I think we've got the interactive polling again. I think it's Awesome. Into that as a launching point. Thank you so very much. So

in order to support our staff, they have provided us with these lovely QR codes on the table. They are asking for us to provide them with in the moment feedback on the suggestions that they are proposing for us to consider in the process. So for those who are joining us for the first time this year, it's been explained how throughout the last funding process and probably many a couple before that, we've identified a need to make some changes. There's been lots of feedback from

the community. They had our working session last year,

and they went back and did all this magic and and took our comments and are now presenting it to us again to confirm, does this sound like what we agreed upon? Does this sound like what you thought? They took our comments and added some of their own spin to it. I'm sure. So we'll scan the QR code. And when Amy's ready, she'll let us know. What should happen is we'll get a cute little is it still Mentimeter? Alright. We'll get a cute little Mentimeter. It's like a, I don't know, some swanky survey situation, and we'll just click the response and the answer, and we'll see right away what we're

all believing and thinking, and that will prompt some additional conversation. Commissioner Wong? Yes. One quick question. Are the proposed percentages hard limits or, like, soft? We aim for the ballpark around that percentage?

I would think that they are I'd like to treat them hard because I I think that I would like to approach them as hard limits, like, as, like, caps. But we don't know what the pool of applicants looks like. So if we are looking at a pool of applicants where this distribution like, if we get so, so many food security applicants and you all make a determination that, you know what, it looks like there's a demonstrable need that doesn't align with this, then I think you could consider it. But I would encourage you to be really fixed on these because we're gonna publish them in the RFP. And so if applicants see those percentages and say, you know what?

If only this small percentage of money is available for what I'm doing, my organization's gonna prioritize seeking other funding sources where we're likely to get more money. And then for you for the commission to then decide to change up what that allocation is, then that agency missed out on an opportunity because we changed the last minute. The the goal of these percentages published, it's all getting back to transparency and objectivity while still allowing you all to have some discretion within it. So I would strongly encourage that they stay fixed.

That's helpful. Thank you.

Is anybody having issues getting into the Menti meter?

Nope. I wanna find a way for us to see both of these because we're asking you They're in the staff report. Oh, great. Great. Thank you. Yes.

Yeah. If you go to the page numbers are a little funky because each report has a new set of page numbers, but it's page three of your second staff report of the packet once you get past the minutes. It looks like this except I think mine is green and maybe yours.

Guess green.

Oh, I just printed the off. Your own.

You printed both on each day. Okay.

So that's what we're looking at, the '65, twenty, and fifteen. Right.

Yeah. I'll keep it. So what you'll do is from scale of one to five, you'll say how aligned you are. So if you are not aligned with these percentages and how the services are set to allocate their funding recommendations, we would say not aligned one and then one between five.

Then hit submit? Yes.

Oh, you know, doctor Ming, you got me really thinking. I mean, we had the working meeting last year sort of based off of what we experienced in the funding cycle Mhmm. Assuming the environment, economics, needs would be very similar. Wonder if we're gonna be duped, and then it's kinda like you said Yeah. There's some sort of switch or flip. Anyways, I'm just very curious.

No. I mean, what I have been thinking about is when we look at this distribution is services to the immigrant population in Hayward, you all prioritize that and not happen to fall under legal services. But if we suddenly have more applicants who serve immigrants who aren't doing legal work, that would fall under that smaller bucket. And so that I I've been trying to think, like, what's a big change gonna be that would so fundamentally shake the most recent trends? That is really the one that I am thinking of. But I I would encourage you all to try and think, like, what's the big what could a big shift be? How do we know how many people?

Say, barring another pandemic, think we're probably spot on. Commissioner Wong? Yes. I doubt it will happen, but let's say we had some number of applicants for food security. We award partial bid, and then we decided all the other applicants in the food security were not qualified, and we don't wanna give them money. What's the plan for moving the money around? Is it something we

That's that's a good example then. If you all come to that consensus and there is still a balance of funds available, then, yeah, I think you could then say you wanna give more money to the housing and homelessness agencies that are didn't get their full requests, or you may wanna say this health agency didn't get any money. Let's put a balance there. I think that's a place where your discretion would be reasonable. Okay. Thank you. I was trying to figure out what's an example of that.

Oh, actually, you're gone. Yes.

I came up with one more question. Was that since it is the two year cycle, I'm trying to remember what we said last year. But if it was going to be that we're essentially approving them for the same funding twice this time and then next time. And is does that sound right?

You're approving them for the same proportion of available funds. Gotcha. So check my math. But let's then these are fake numbers. But let's say there's $200,000 available in services and an agency gets 5% of that. If the next year, there's $300,000 in services, that agency would get 5% of that. Okay. There are ways in which things change. An agency could decide they don't want funds, and then that would go back into the pot. There are scenarios in which far less money becomes available for whatever reason, they would still get 5% of that smaller pot.

And if more money shows up between now and the next two year cycle that can't wait for the next two year cycle, we'll do a special NOFA, and you all will have input in that. We may not do the same full CAF process depending on how much money and all of that, but you all will have input into how those funds are distributed if council directs it to come to this place.

Thank you for that. Commissioner Jay Singh, you have a question?

So if the more money comes in, the allocations change?

No. So for so commissioner Gunn's question was about the two year funding cycle. So we will get into a contract that says, this is how much money you're getting in year one. We'll do an amendment in year two. The amount of available funds may change. You will receive the same proportion of the available funding. Yeah. Because the money this general fund allocation typically stays the same, but the community development block grant funding may change

Can

between a thousand and $5,000.

Can it be such that the allocations can be reduced?

Yep. If less money is available, then they are getting the same proportion but of a smaller pot. And we'll make that very clear in the contract. And we are also going to be saying that year two funds are contingent on funding availability and performance. So if they have a poor performing year or if we have concerns, we reserve the right to to end the contract at year before year two.

Commissioner Sledge.

So I see the third category is just all other services, which is obviously quite broad. Is it up to us to pick other categories that would go within that.

Now, Emily, do you wanna summarize kind of off the top of your head what our categories are? They're yeah.

It's been youth youth youth services. We also have Health

health information and referral. We have predetermined categories that staff will file the agencies into.

Oh, I'm sorry. Is it on? It's in the first chart before the proposed total services funding, the table that we're looking at now. That's the typical categories that we see. So you'll see legal services information, referral health, and education, homelessness, food security.

Yeah. I did notice that, like, in the previous type of well, health and youth and education, those two, we're not getting the new one. And

They fall under the all other.

But they fall under the

old Yeah. Ownership. And then you all would have discretion based on who applied and asked for how much in those all other and their rubric rankings within that ranking, how to distribute the funds.

What It all makes sense when we're doing it. I re I recall being honest, I recall being in

your chair. Yeah. Yeah.

And I recall being in the meeting like, what in the world? They were talking all up here and using all these different terms, the arc and the calf and the caper. I am going to ask you all to trust us, to guide us all through the process, and make sure that there is clarity and empowerment when it is happening. It's very difficult at this stage to walk you through what it's like, what it looks like, what it feels like, and not be here for four hours during the evening. But please keep coming with the questions and the inquiry because you're teaching us how to make sure we set the stage well for you all to partner with us when it comes time to review the applications and to do the deliberations.

And if I could just take us back a bit, the reason why we're in this Mentimeter now and why we're making proposed changes and why we're looking at creating percentages and why we ourselves are even still a little unsure of what we decided is because some challenges came up throughout the process. Some of the challenges we'd identified was one, we there was more money being requested than we had to give. And we felt very uncomfortable making decisions about how to distribute it without additional guidelines. And so this is one response to that to help us have better guidelines to know what to do in those instances, which we expect to keep happening of more money requested than we have available. The other thing that was coming up, we got feedback from our staff, from us, from our nonprofit partners applying.

It is a labor intensive process to each year apply for funding. CDBG is coming from our federal government, heavy paperwork, heavy bureaucracy, heavy rules, and a lot of our entities are small, do the best they can, grassroots, and it's requiring a lot of their time and energy to complete these applications yearly. It's also doing the same on our part as well. And the council and the city of Hayward staff team to each year do this as well. So we said, you know what?

Lots of other agencies and philanthropic entities who are providing money do this on a two year cycle. That could help us with some of the efficiencies. We recognize that when we make a change, we're probably gonna create another ripple someplace else, which is what is occurring. And we'd agreed and said, you know what? We'll cross that bridge when we get there to some extent when we have it. The question you asked about site visits. It came up on our discussions. You know, we're gonna kinda to some extent have a year off, if you would, where we're not reviewing applications. What are some things this commission can do to support our nonprofit partners with accessing other monies that we're not able to provide them? We get new applications.

We realize some of them need technical assistance support with just managing the application process. Is there a space for us to help them with that? So those are some of the things that your questions are addressing, kind of what happens in the gap year. You're identifying some of the other ripple effects already. And I just wanna acknowledge all legit, and also acknowledge we've committed to a process of knowing. We're gonna try to put some things in place. Nothing will be perfect or 100%. Hopefully, it will be better and address some of concerns that were raised with prior year applications, such as transparency and how the scoring work. A lot of the reason why we're going what feels like maybe extra, but coming up with numbers and coming up with categories is because our nonprofit partners, it wasn't clear to them how we were making decisions. Right.

And it feels like the right and appropriate thing to do if you're gonna partner with them to explain how are you gonna make the decision. And so that's also part of the reason why, you know, we're going through this process. Keep coming with questions. Keep asking. And then also, I just I don't know. I feel bad with saying we're probably not gonna be able answer a 100% for you because there really is something to the experience, and it clicks. You're like, I get it. I got it.

I warned Amy already. I ask a lot of questions.

That's that's great. We are

better together. Do you have other questions?

No. I think I'm good.

Alright. Commissioner Gunn.

My other question is so this is essentially for services because that's the highest contested one. Besides going to a two year cycle, is there any major changes with, economic development or some music?

The publication of this course will be for everybody. Mhmm. The use of the rubric to determine the ranking of applicants will be for everybody. Okay. The difference in the economic development infrastructure is that you'll have a top to bottom ranking of the applicants, but you won't have this percentage for ED and this percentage for infrastructure. You'll have more discretion within that. But you still have to fund them based on their scores. Is there anything else that you'd call in?

You'll most likely interview if you're in the ED infrastructure. Like, typically, those application review committees review all of the applicants. So Mhmm. That probably won't change.

Yeah.

We'll see how many we get. And if we can kind of apply the same principle of the top proportion from services moving on, we'll do the same thing on ETN infrastructure because we're changing the interview schedule a bit. It may be beneficial to advance some who are scoring so high that they don't need to be interviewed.

And that's gonna be on a Wednesday night, though. Mhmm.

Okay. Still virtual, still Zoom. K? Teams. Mhmm.

Oh, sorry. Teams. Right. You all loved it. I'm manifesting. Not just anything. We love a Zoom account. I know. Okay.

Was there really love it,

by the way.

Oh, thank you. Was there another question before we get back to our Mentimeter? Oh, I Commissioner Kimura? I have a question, but I think it's going to the Q break thing, the scoring question. So I'll I'll wait. Okay. Thanks so very much. We has everyone submitted their response for you to know how we're thinking? I think so. Are we experiencing alignment? Is that what

that's telling us? This is a conversation starter, so just for you all to and if there is more discussion to be had,

up to you. Great. Is that the only thing we're going with? No. You've got one more on the weighted. But

it is faster than normal. Okay. So the next item we wanted to review is weighted scoring, and you can see in your packet as the blue tables. I look at the percent of total values. So it's that fourth column percentages and see if you're aligned with those percentages of importance per for each category. And again, just focus on

the top table because we'll adjust the bottom table to be correct math. And if you need a reminder as to what the rating factors mean, just go to the page before and pull out your magnifying glass. Sorry. I formatted it to be on a big piece

of paper, but I didn't tell you.

Mine has a Maybe

I have to have a refresh.

It hasn't loaded either. You can refresh it.

Refresh? Yeah. You can refresh on your browser.

Mine closed. It did refresh, though. I didn't get

They closed.

Yeah. I have

a Oh, you don't

have the next question? Do you refresh?

It worked. Yeah. Mine was too. You guys must not have androids.

No. I wish I did.

But it worked.

Have that conversation all the time. My husband and go back and forth about iPhones and AirBoost. Is your husband on the iPhone? Yeah.

My god. So you're just Rainy bubble. Relationship. They talk about his weight.

I said wait for the wait to chase this.

A lot

of my friends and I

have gone to what's happened.

I'm trying to get this question.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And they're

really Like, why That was

I think that was I

don't know. No.

No. I went back to Bubble. When you scan it, it

Then you only know where

you're gonna out

the services.

What does

it look like for you?

Oh, it's

you say, where did the scoring come in?

Maybe just And trust me. Oh, yeah.

I get it. What it looks like in your sort of family situation. I get it. I get what you're saying.

I submit.

Yeah. Is everybody the same color? Yeah. See.

Yeah. But it's still, like, a living thing. Well, you know, with key thumbs up is my thing. It's like I get, like,

I only track but people are different color, but not your type of phone. So, like, if my husband says something, can be a trolley, and then I'll be a caller.

So Yeah. Mine is new. I thought I Excellent.

I thought

mine was fine. It's not.

It's not? No. It's weird. No. She don't. But

Yeah. There's too many time for the phone.

That's no. The same thing. It's showing the allocations.

Oh, yeah. Mine is just showing the allocation too.

Because sometimes you need to okay. Yeah.

There we go. There we go. Now we got this. It's okay.

I do it over again. Start over again.

There we go. So that's

back to page.

Oh, no.

Start reviewing results. I

did you gave you

an option to stick the question. Oh. At

the bottom. I thought it was like someone is so aligned that they're like, no skip. It's great.

I was like, is this playing? I don't know.

It is oh, here. I'm sorry. I'm Just me. It's let me see if I can

get the push button. Hang on.

Yeah.

But Eight out of nine.

8%. Do you adjust hours everything in the building? Well, I'm

77 in here, and I just bumped it down.

So we'll see if that works.

No wonder we're warm. That'll help.

I'm just so engaged.

Do we need any further discussion on the weights? It looks like there's high alignment there to me. Alright. We're gonna give it a go. Well,

I don't have a I don't have an issue with the weights. I actually I write the the max score, but I do have a common preference points, which I don't know if we should assess now or after. Yeah. This let's discuss the weight factor or now and then preference after.

I don't think you have us voting on preference points, Steve. Were those the only two questions we were voting on? Those are

the two questions that we wanted specific feedback on that you you know?

We felt Yeah. We felt we had what we needed on the preference point from the last one, but if you that is not like, go ahead.

Let's hear your comment, commissioner. Okay. And, well, I guess for those of us here last time, I brought up that I wanted to include organizations with unionized workforces as a preference point. And so I just wanted to make that argument one more time before this is finalized. And, ultimately, I I want unionized workforces to be included because unions are very much at the front lines of improving our communities through their work.

And so not only do they benefit their members, their nonmembers, but also the communities that their members work within. And sometimes, I think to be part of a union, there's a lot of risk that's involved with its members in terms of their livelihoods. And sometimes when you look back at history, that means I mean, we've seen union leaders being murdered, being brutally tortured, or being imprisoned on false pretense pretenses for having principled stances. And so coming back to our score, I think that if we can't commit to giving something as simple as a preference point to organizations that have unionized workforces, then I'm not quite so sure what we are doing. Because if we're going to give an extra point to woman led organizations or minority led organizations, I don't really see it why we should have such a hard time including a unionized workforce.

I mean, unions were critical allies for those in the civil rights movement. Unions were central union leaders were central to defending some of our most vulnerable, community members thinking back to, for example, farm workers in the Central And Imperial Valleys in the twenties and thirties and into the modern day. And, also, some of the earliest women suffragists actually built their momentum and power by organizing women in work in the workforce. And so I I just think that it's critical and also related to a lot of the reference points that we're already giving. I think that, it should be honestly a question as to adding the United Workforces there.

And I know last time we had a discussion saying that currently we don't have any organizations or service providers with unionized workforces that we're funding. That said, I think we should be incentivizing the organization that we are funding to let their workers unionize. And I think that if one day there was a service provider that was looking to expand elsewhere into another city and they do have a history of letting their workforces unionize, I want Hayward to be a city that stands out to them, and I want them to come to our city. So I just hope that we I personally would want to see, having a unionized workforce as an added preference point along with the risk.

Thank you, commissioner Wong. Commissioner Marderos, did you

Yeah. So so I I agree with them saying that most of the nonprofits that would be applying for funds don't have a unionized workforce. But under the services, when we when people apply, say, organic nonprofit is applying for a new roof. The we use unionized workers too to do that work. We have to.

That's part of the CDBG that they have to meet the prevailing wage requirements and and all of those things. So those are unionized scales of payment that we have to have to those the agencies have to use those organizations to do the work that we're funding them to do. So there is a unionized workforce involved. It's not necessarily a point structure for the nonprofit for the unionized workers. Do you understand what I'm saying? Yeah. Okay. So we are we are there is a there is a part that that benefits unionized workforce. It's just not on the scoring.

And I think that well, I just think that if any organization in through the provision of their services utilizes any workforce that is unionized, I think that we should give that added one point, to them in our scoring.

Any other comments or thoughts in regard to union preference point discussion? Seeing none. I would like to ask staff. I understand we did have the work session last year. We did whittle down at some point.

I feel like we had, like, maybe eight or nine different preference options, and a number of them were whittled down to this five here. We also made the commitment to take a stab at this first run of the changes. The city conducts every year surveys of us, of the providers, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for that question to be on the survey for years moving forward to see if they would agree that, you know, it would incentivize or would make a substantial difference to them. I don't think this is, like, it's one and done in etched in stone, and this never changes again. It was changed just a few years ago. And I I don't know if that would satisfy, but that is a potential option is to move forward with what we'd agreed with this existing funding cycle and then take another look in an evaluation at the next cycle.

Is that

an option to Absolutely.

I mean, it's also I think if there's consensus among the group to add this one, we can also add it now. I don't think there were other ones that weren't on the board that were on the board before that had such vocal Well, I

remember Christian Angulo had one. I don't recall what it was, but there was a prep and I want I don't think it was about language or what was it was I know there

were several others. We consolidated a lot into addressing multiple community needs, I think, was a lot of the That's where the catch how it all kind of a lot of them got consolidated, but

the union one was not. Is there any commission in just making decision on the matter at the moment? Is anyone opposed to taking a but we don't have corn. We can't vote. You? Oh, yeah. We do? How?

You have 11 members now.

Because commissioner and absent came in?

No. There are only 11 members on the CSC. Oh, that was thirty minutes. I had four. It was larger than so many.

That's fair enough. Okay. No.

It was just like we didn't have a majority of the people here voting yes to pass it.

That's right. Because the three commissioners were new who weren't present. Yeah. Thank you for that presentation. Does anybody oppose Take

off the net. To take

in a vote net on whether or not we'd like to add union and you please give me the language, commissioner Wong. You union represented organizations or unionized organizations as a

preference point? In my and I I don't know the best wording, but I said it as organizations with unionized workforce or so I don't know if that would cover the scenario that you put out. So

What about utilizing unionized using your unionized workforce, through contracting or other lines or something like that. I'm trying to think Weird.

Maybe share with you using union label. Use You make it.

We should because

that would cover the agency as well as any of their subcontractors. Is that what you're thinking?

I'll I would think so. I mean, I'll if I sell it, I would think so.

I feel like we need some help with the language on.

I would say it's the prioritization to have because because in that case oh, dude. Oh, Emily makes a really good point about the logistics of this, which is that we have passed the deadline where we can edit the application. So What I The and the application would have we have to add the question. Do you whatever we end up making this language, and we can't make any more edits to the application because our vendor gave us a very hard and fast you can't edit beyond this date.

So does that put the change two years away?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Because this current funding cycle is for two years.

Yeah. And so the things that we're getting your input on tonight are things that can be reflected in the RFP, which can still change. But, Emily, you're absolutely right. We added questions to the application that are, like, yes, no. So that way, we can score them on these preference points, and we would not be able to add it. I'm sorry. Thank you, Emily, for being so practical.

My question was, like, what are the logistics of that? Commissioner Madison? Yeah.

I think if anything, we can ask them in the interviews if that would help. Yeah.

I I think so. And though I guess one of the questions that I had, are the rubrics that I mean, this isn't published yet, this scoring guide.

No. This isn't. But anything that we would need to get, like, the information in the application, we can't add. Because we'll need to vet all the so

I see.

Like, Hayward Bays, we'll need

to vet all of that before it gets to you. We'll know the preference before we even deliberate. Mhmm.

I see. Yeah. And so, like, you could ask the question in the interview, and when you are so let's say it's a services arc, and you're looking at housing and homelessness folks within the ranking, and there are agencies that are ranked the same in the interview. If one of them does use a unionized workforce and the group had consensus, you could fund them slightly more. Or if you're in a place where you are trying to decide how much money to give within those rankings and you wanna give an agency slightly more because they're unionized, you the arc, they make that argument. But you would have to have gotten from the interview, and it wouldn't be a formal preference thing.

But would that

Because then I'm sorry. Because there are people who may skip the interview as well, and you wouldn't be able to get that information because they scored so highly. And I would say part of the port part

of the reason for making adjustments and changes is because our nonprofit partners ask for more transparency in the scoring. And this is in response to that, and I'm not certain we would be able to continue to provide that if we decided to ask different questions in the interviews that weren't asked of all the arcs and that wasn't transparent to them that we were doing. Yeah.

That was all my question. It sounds like that amounts to a surprise question that they may have not been prepared to answer in the interview.

Thank you, commissioner Sledge. At this point, I think that's accurate. Yeah. Commissioner Kumar. Yes. Yes. I have another question about preference points. If you guys can help confirm that. How did we define minority led colonization? Is that based on racially minority or the gender minority? Or this may come up with the

Emily's looking at the exact thing, but we use HUD's definition. The reason yeah. Women led and minority led, we have to report to HUD. We call it the mee de wee bee, the minority business enterprise, and the women business enterprise. And so this is, like, using that exact definition. So we're aligning with how HUD defines the minority Okay. By a business enterprise and how they define a women business enterprise. I can read it. Emily can tell you right from the HUD. Okay.

Yes. So the exact definition is as a business that is at least 51% owned and controlled by one or more minority or socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Generally, these include but not limited to African Americans, Hispanic American, Native American, Asian Pacific Americans. Some documents also cite socially and economically disadvantaged persons whose disadvantage may arise from cultural racial circumstances. That's the we'll double check because it looks

like that's the AI answer. Yeah. Yeah. We'll do that. Yeah. Okay. Good. Great. And it'll be published in the RFP. So when they are submitting their application, they'll see in the RFP the glossary, minority owned business means this. So that way, when they say yes and they sign off on their application, we are assuming that they used that definition. And we'll be really clear in the bidders conference as well because this is a new thing.

Okay. So for to us, it's that that sentence covers a lot of minorities. So that includes the LGBTQ community. That includes the the people with disability. And I don't know. Because it's socially oppressed community meaning that covers all those. That right? Yeah. Mhmm. Yeah? Okay. To further clarify, is the lead was it specific to the, like, the board and the executive? Does, like, the?

Because I know that we we had talked about that in a previous meeting that we wanted to include board as leaders and executive leadership.

Mhmm. Perfect. Thank you. To, I think, summarize the last, I don't know, five, six minutes of conversation. We unfortunately have passed the point of no return in regard to making changes to the application.

However, it is duly noted and on the record that this concept of a union preference or Smith is of interest to the commission, and the staff will make it a point to include that in our surveys or evaluations of the CAF process to our partners and others for the future cycle when we can make an adjustment to the application. It's unfortunate that we decided to make it a two year cycle, and there won't be another chance in the next year to make the change to the application. But I wanna thank you for your passion and for raising it and making sure that we're being fair and equitable to all of our partners, in that regard. And I think that's the way we are sort of boxed into moving forward with regard to that preference point. Okay?

Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions, thoughts as it relates to the changing of rubrics, score, processes connected to the community agency funding process for this upcoming cycle that will begin very shortly. Thank you all for your engagement. We shall move on to our agenda planning calendar if you all are ready to do that. And I understand there need to be changes to that.

Okay. Do you mind if I I was just gonna make

the motion how you said in the email, but

I I just wanna call out for context. So if you flip in your packet to this, the very last page, we did something differently as staff. I I will say there are times where between one meeting to the next, we realize that we need to change the agenda. And, typically, I give the language to the chair, and she makes a motion to add the thing that we said we need to add. I was trying to make it clearer by putting our proposed change in the calendar itself.

So that highlighted piece is our change. So you could pass this adopt this calendar with that change. However, there's another change that we've I remembered even, like, too late. So we still have to do it the way we've previously done it. So I wanted to highlight what the two changes are.

One is the one that's highlighted on the calendar, which is just that we are we'd like to move up the agency performance reviews so that it happens next month instead of in November. This, we think, is fine with the balance of what you have on your agenda, and it also helps with our staff workload as we are in our busiest season right now because we're getting into contract from your last half cycle while starting to the new cast cycle. And the other change that's not on here that someone would need to make a motion and staff are recommending that someone included in their motion is to add an informational item for commissioner biographies. We forgot about this, but you, at commissioner request a few years ago, asked for commissioners to have the option, it's not required, to provide a short written biography for yourself so that you all can get to know each other a little bit better and be a little more informed when you're voting on the elections, which will happen in October. So that way, have a staff report before the meeting where you see everybody's name and if they submitted a biography.

What we will commit to doing sooner than later is sending you all last year's. And so if you were on the commission last year, you can say, just use the same thing again, or you can send us an updated one. And for those of you who are new, you can see what others have written and if you wanna kind of model or do your own thing. But that gives you an idea that it's not like pages and pages, but like just a couple paragraphs. And that is, again, just so you can get to know each other a little bit better. It is a public document. So it'll be published as a staff report on the city's website and available to folks. So please keep that in mind when you're choosing what's to put. And there's no consequence for opting out. You don't have to do one. It's just

for the

benefit of getting to know each other.

I don't believe you gave in does the I don't think the rest of the commission has the second edition. You just No.

It's only up there because I it's too late to make a recommendation. So I think the motion that staff are recommending is that someone moves to adopt the calendar with the revision to add the informational item for commissioner biographies to October. That's the motion that we're recommending.

Commissioner Gunn,

so moved.

So moved. Did you get that? Second.

And second by commissioner Manchin. Thank you all. Take your vote. And

when are when would those biographies be due?

They'd be in the October meeting. So let's say We get an email from our staff team saying, please send us your e biographies by September 15.

I'm trying to give you an idea. So the fifteenth. I would probably be due by October 3 or early the next week so that we can compile it and get it published. So you'd have a couple weeks.

Thank you. Any other questions before we get our vote? Commissioner Jayson, do you have a question? You think about it? Pardon? Do you have a comment or question?

No. Oh, okay. I said

Thought I saw you again. Like I said, okay.

We're ready

for you, gentlemen.

Alrighty. Commissioner Wheeler? Yes. Commissioner Guehler? Yes. Commissioner Guehler?

Yes.

Commissioner Guehler? Commissioner Maderos? Yes. Commissioner Mansion? Yes. Commissioner Jander Singh?

Yes.

Commissioner Sway? Yes. Commissioner Wong? Yes. Thank you, everybody.

Okay. Do we have any announcements from the commissioners? Are there any commissioner announcements? Seeing none. Are there any announcements from our staff?

Yes. It's a reminder of the timeline for the community agency funding process. NoFEL, like Emily said, will be released on Friday. The bidders conference is October 22. Applications are due October 21 before the Thanksgiving holiday.

So that means you all we won't meet in December. You'll have we'll get everything to you by the December so you can review applications in advance of January, and you'll get a hard deadline from us that because of the nature of these changes, we are strongly, strongly going to enforce. So please get your scores done by the date we give you. I don't know what that date is right now, but it won't be there. The other announcement I just wanna call out related to the biography item, we have elections in October. I'm there the clerk sent you all a packet, like, kind of right? Everybody received that, not just the new commissioners. Right? Wait. What?

Did did you guys get an email from the clerk with, like, the welcome packet for New. Commissioners? It's not me. It has the Brown Act and Robert's rules. So that includes the uniform guidance guidelines, guidance for boards and commissions that council adopted. That has information about how elections will work, some key changes. Again, we don't have a parliamentarian anymore. Thank you for your service. And the chair the chair serves a one year term. And so given the timing and how it's working, we are going to start that term counting with this upcoming election.

So, hypothetically, if commissioner Beelert were to be voted chair again, she'd start that one year term with the option to be elected for a second consecutive year, but no chair may serve more than two years in a row. You have to have a year of service on the CSC to be appointed chair. So that's just a heads up as you go into next month and are thinking about potentially running. We don't currently have a vice chair, and we'll vote for a vice chair in October as well. Those are the answers for me.

Any other team announcements? Nope. Okay. Very good. Councilman, you have any announcements, please?

Just welcome to the new commissioners to the CSC, and welcome back to the returning commissioners. We certainly appreciate your service on this important commission.

Thank you so very much. Any announcements? Nope.

Very

good. Hearing up. Okay. We are going to

adjourn at eight seventy one.

Playing a basketball.

But, Mimi, I do have a question about this