and related to seniors is -- i've asked for another 500,000 to help those seniors that have to really need to go into group housing, and basically, what we're seeing is a loss of those units. 20% decrease of this type over the last few years in san francisco. so we're losing more and more of them because of the cost of running these things. and this past funding is administered by the department of public health, so they have something that has not grown for forever. and the rate that they get pre reimbursed, the providers of these group homes, have not changed in six years. so what i want to do is not keep on bleeding these types of services that are so crucial to

keep our seniors that need a little more assistance stay in san francisco. a lot of them are -- need these type of situations, and they're actually -- especially the ones that are low-income. they're actually being moved out of the city where there are some accommodations. and then, we further isolate them. so there's really, to me, an issue of how do we keep our seniors from being isolated because once you move them out of the city, especially if they're low-income, it's more likely than not that their support structure won't be able to follow them into other counties. so those are the major -- some major asks, and i don't know if -- well, early -- early care and education, i've spoken about that. we were able to get 4 million last year, and i was asking -- advocates asked for another 4 million. i know we have 2 in there

already, and i would love to grow that pot for -- and again, there's -- the 25 -- actually, on may 31, there was 3,341 low-income children waiting for subsidized child care wait list. those same families can't go back to work, so the more we can help, and the quicker we can do this, i just would really appreciate it. again, the two additional million that i'm asking for doesn't really -- it really is a drop in the bucket in terms of the need. that's in we went up to prop c, supervisor kim and myself. so hopefully, that's -- those are my arguments. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. colleagues, are there any -- is there any other member that would like to expand upon -- great, supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think i mentioned some priority lists, but since everyone came in with these

numbers, and i feel like then it's really important for us to voice sort of number wise. i am looking at housing flexibility subsidies for people with disabilities and seniors, a total of 3.2 million over two years, workforce development, 2.8 million over two years for vulnerable residents. need based families, 1.2 million over two years. i think mental health services for families, $1 million over two years. also, i think we should increase, i think, for a.p.i. citywide services, 1.2 million, and i think for workforce development for seniors and people with disabilities, i agree with supervisor yee, should be 1 million. and then, increases for domestic violence services, i would do 1 million.

i would do 1.5 million over two years. supervisor cohen, i hope that you're writing these down. also, i think i would really invest also most heavily in these housing subsidies for families. i think what we heard the most, for families going into homelessness, these subsidies are going to keep them housed and in housing security. when we look at home delivered meals, i would say 1.2 million over one year in congregate meals. >> supervisor cohen: that's great. i was going to ask, how do we want to think about delivered

meals compared to congregate meals as opposed to in home -- home delivered meals. >> supervisor fewer: home delivered meals, 1.2. >> supervisor cohen: okay. home delivered meals, 1.2. >> supervisor fewer: and congregate meals, 300,000. i believe they serve a different population, but they're all about food security. >> supervisor cohen: now you mentioned something about flexible housing subsidies. how do you suggest we split that up? >> yeah. housing subsidies are primarily for seniors and people with disabilities, that we funded them before, and that they were need based, but actually, we have heard repeatedly how these people need funding if they're going to be able to stay in their homes. so i would say we look to

seniors and people with disabilities to give them priority for this funding. >> supervisor cohen: all right. seniors, funding. >> supervisor fewer: and there was something i mentioned about need for families. i think 1 million should go for them, as well. i know that families in the san francisco unified school district immediately find themselves without a job, with children, and this is -- they have -- they need these subsidies in order to stay in their homes, and once they lose their homes, they know they'll be homeless and never be able to return. >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. which subsidy are you talking about? >> supervisor fewer: this is subsidies for families under housing and homelessness? >> supervisor cohen: one more time. i didn't hear you. >> supervisor cohen: yeah. it's need-based subsidies for housing and the homeless.

>> supervisor fewer: i think this homeless workforce development is really important, and i think it's an answer to homelessness. and then i have to say i'd like to see 1.2 million into a.p.i. citywide services. i think the largest population of children that we have in san francisco that are in poverty are asian. and although -- i mean, i feel like many of these services were cut during this dcyf budget cycle, so i'm just looking to enhance that pot a little bit. and then, domestic violence folks, and i think that we made a very good case about how they are the first -- first people, quite frankly, over the police that the community calls because there's such deep trust, and i think there's need

for more money for that. and of course, we did -- >> supervisor cohen: supervisor, before you go on, there's -- there's one thing that i had some questions about -- about some subsidies. how -- how is it taken care of in the rebalancing act? this is specifically for the homeless? >> supervisor fewer: so yeah. the rebalancing act, i think, focused -- this is why i didn't put a lot of k things into my priority list because actually, the rebalancing act covered a lot of the tay act. i think when i look at housing subsidies, these are for seniors and people with disabilities. if i'm not mistaken, the rebalancing act was general housing subsidies for people in general, homeless people in general. >> supervisor cohen: all right. i see emily cohen in the chamber. i'm going to invite her to come up and speak about the rebalancing plan.

yeah, you were talking emily, so i thought i'd bring you on up. supervisor fewer is talking about need-based subsidies for families. it's not exactly in the spending plan, and the reason why it's not, is because i was under the impression that the rebalancing plan was taking care of them, so could you come and talk to us about how it is taking care of it or if it isn't taken care of. >> emily cohen from the department of homelessness and supportive housing. the need-based subsidies for families was funded last year is funded -- the funding is carrying through this year, but it is not -- they funded it in an ongoing way through the rebalancing plan? we have the housing subsidy pool which is a little bit different, so it is not fully covered by the rebalancing plan. >> supervisor cohen: so what is the outstanding balance that's -- that is not covered

by the balancing plan? >> i think it's the whole amount, if i'm correct. i can confirm -- get you that number really quickly. >> supervisor cohen: okay. please. >> yeah. >> supervisor cohen: get us a number because this is a -- that is a priority. we need to know exactly what the figure is. >> supervisor fewer: and then, chair cohen, pretrial diversion, i think every single supervisor is in agreement, that we need to fully fund that at 515,000. >> supervisor cohen: all right. let's get that figure. >> 450,000. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor fewer: each year? >> yeah. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. that's actually really helpful, supervisor fewer. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: just a quick remark that supervisor fewer had on the meals. traditionally, in the past, the

allocations for that has gone about 80% to the home delivered meals and 20% to congregate lunch meals. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor fewer: i just want to mention in my district, the need for congregate lunch meals is expanding and growing, and they turn people away every single day. >> supervisor cohen: how do we plan to split up the housing subsidy. you mentioned it, supervisor fewer. could you tell us what you're thinking about in year one and year two. >> supervisor fewer: sure. the housing plan that i've been talking about is primarily for seniors and people with disabilities. i think we funded this -- it was actually on a pilot program, but it showed there was actually more need than what we had funded it for. i think there's actually a really big need, especially for

people -- i am seeing huge displacement of seniors in my district. they just cannot keep up with the housing market, and their ability to earn higher income is -- it's not there. these are people who retired 25, 30 years ago and all of a sudden find that the rate increases, they can't just keep up with it. i'm trying to keep them in their homes, so this isn't just housing sub -- flexible housing subsidies for everyone, this is for seniors and people with disabilities. >> supervisor cohen: yeah. and the question is how much? >> supervisor fewer: yeah. i think i put 3.2 million over two years. >> supervisor cohen: and how do you propose we split up the workforce money? currently it's allocated at $1 million. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. we had a lot of conversation here at the board about the workforce development for vulnerable populations, and in particular, i would say -- this

is why i'm asking for $2.8 million over two years. we heard also about workforce development for particularly our homeless population, and i see this as public safety, i see this getting people out of homelessness, and so they requested 1.4 million. they came to the podium and asked for that. and actually, i think that is money well spent, and so i would say for the most vulnerable residents to go to oewd and work with homeless populations. >> supervisor cohen: okay. all right. that exhausts the questions that i have. colleagues, i don't know -- oh, supervisor stefani, there was something when you were going over your list about an year ago, and you mentioned something about veterans housing. can you speak a little bit on the record about how this funding works. >> supervisor stefani: it's supportive housing for veterans

through a $250,000 ask. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and is that over two years? >> supervisor stefani: i think that's a one-time. >> supervisor cohen: one-time? okay. >> supervisor stefani: yeah. one time. >> supervisor cohen: okay. fewer fewer umm -- >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> supervisor fewer: i'm so sorry, i forget women's cancer screenings with public health, and i think that should be 600,000 over two years. these are mainly women of clolr in poverty -- >> supervisor cohen: i'm sorry. which area is this? >> supervisor fewer: it's public health. i think these are primarily women of color, and other people have mentioned it on their lists, also. >> supervisor cohen: yes, it was mentioned, but it was mentioned for something like $4 million. >> supervisor fewer: no, i mentioned it for $600,000 over

two years. >> supervisor cohen: all right. we're going to have to take a moment to cleanup these -- cleanup the list and begin to consolidate. i don't know if there's any further discussion, anything to add? all right. let's come back at -- let's come back from recess in one hour, 5:00.

>> good evening ladies and gentlemen. we are coming out of recess. we have taken the feedback that we received earlier when we were in session and we have a new list. i have a few hard copies here. i will just put it up here. also check we are uploading this list to the website so you will also be able to have an electronic copy of it. so for the record check we are at 38 million dollars. at this point, this is the point where we would go in and negotiate with the mayor queenie and to approve -- what is the

exact figure we i can't hear you. they are doing the math. in the meantime, i will also ask for some additional -- several additional dollars. so that we can be fairly robust. also, the highlighted areas are where the changes took place, ladies and gentlemen. the highlight in the town area, are where there are changes. this budget ask reflects district specific priority allocations being $1 million in the first year and $200,000 -- excuse me. 1 million in the first year. that sits. $1 million in the first year.

-- that's it. $1 million in the first year. i also wanted to's beak about -- discuss the funding for the pension program. it traditionally has been funded through the department of children and youth and family. advocates came -- claim that this is an integral aspect of the system for detention alternatives, and that without this core component, other things will begin to no longer complement each other. in the past, the work has been shared by with the public defender's office and the bar association of san francisco and the centre on juvenile and criminal justice. it consists on creating document release plans. long story short, this is something that the supervisors

advocated for. they have been paying attention to it. it is my understanding that there is no additional funding needed for 18 and 19 if they permit the hundred $43,000 that they have in carryforward funds for the program. i just wanted to confirm with miss kelly kirkpatrick if that is accurate. >> yes, that is accurate. >> ok. thank you. what i would like to do is recommend we fund it with $100,000 in 2019-2020 and they will work together to appropriately identify the organizations to work order this allocation. at this particular time, i want to give everyone an opportunity to review the list, ask questions, review the list, and i will go, at this point and speak with the mayors and see if we can get some approval and get

some movement. i believe it will probably take an hour. we will recess for another hour, and come back and discuss. thank you. we will recess. >> good evening, welcome back to the budget and finance committ committee. colleagues, as well as ladies and gentlemen in the chamber. we've all seen the most recent spending plan of $38 million, a small approximation and some change. that amount is a little bit higher than the cuts that we have taken, plus the $5.3 million in revenue. i want to remind everyone, that $5.3 million in revenue still needs to be authorized by the mayor. now, i also want to hire -- highlight something very different we've never seen before, is that i am negotiating

with not one mayor, but two mayors. you see, one mayor signs off on the authorization, and then the other mayor signs the legislation. so it is taking a little bit longer. a little bit more of a tank than i had anticipated. but i think we are close and we are getting there. first, i woul, i would like to t some of the feedback that i've received from a few people. there is a preference. instead of all $300,000 being allocated on line 33, being for congregate mail, that it has been suggested it should be distributed between congregate meals and home delivered meals. ok? we will be adding home delivered meals in this line, line 33. online 14, i understand that

there is a preference to resplit this flexible housing subsidy popped carving up $401,000 specifically for families, and leaving the remainder, the balance for seniors, and people with disabilities. thirdly, line 34. residential care facilities, are by definition, not aging in place. so we need to figure out whether we prefer residential care facilities, or aging in place. for out of school time on the line three, it has been suggested we add quote including homeless youth "-right-double-quote to the program description. and line four should read point appointed mentors. we need to determine how we will deal with the flexible housing subsidy as well as the workforce

development dollars. now i understand that some of the supervisors have a few items on the list that they would like to discuss. i would like to encourage conversation. and you are the vice chair. if you would like to start, we will start with you. >> yes. i think we are really getting close to what we want to see here. but i think there are some needs that are outstanding still. please, jericho and, repeat what you said about homeless family subsidy. >> ok. -- please, chair cohen, please repeat what he said about homeless family subsidies. >> ok. >> i think what i would like to do is add to the pot instead.

and in your original plan here, you did not include the family subsidies. i would like to add $450,000 a year to that. >> all right. please tell us why. >> i think there is an uneven boat that has been mentioned before and i mentioned it before in committee. this particular subset of people are especially vulnerable because they have children. most of them have school-aged children. and so i think that it still needed to have $1 million for the seniors and people with disabilities, and i think because there is this great need, and we have seen that and heard that today and the other days before public testimony, but these family subsidies are so important to keep our families here. as we know, we already have the lowest population of 0-18 age

children in any urban city in the united states. we are trying to keep our families here. families actually are having the hardest time to stay here also because it is really expensive to raise a family here. if you are finding this out without a job, recently or a family illness, families don't actually have the ability to be so flexible to pick up and move to go somewhere else that they are moving their whole families with them, often disrupting educational opportunities. i think this $450,000 annually for each year is actually really needed is a safety net for our most vulnerable families. >> ok. we will add to that. is that it? >> yeah. i would like to add, also to an increase in workforce development for vulnerable populations. adding $200,000 per year, bringing it to 1 million per year. i believe that is on line at number 9. $800,000 allocated is allocated

every year and i would like to up that to $1 million per year, and especially because this workforce development for these vulnerable populations are the hardest populations actually to bring into the workforce. these are the most challenging, you know, individuals to bring back into the workforce. i actually see this as a solution to homelessness. even though $800,000 has already been allocated to it, i firmly think that $200,000 a year should be allocated -- it needs more allocation. and then on youth organizing, i would like to add $25,000 per year. i know it sounds like a really small amount -- >> know, it doesn't. considering we are already at 38 million. everything counts. >> that's right. could this increase would be for three youth groups. it would bring it up to 225,000 per year.

those are the total asks. my total asks our $675,000 per year increase. >> thank you. ok, thank you. >> thank you. i want to thank you for -- >> please not thank me yet, we are not done yet. >> for the list so far and your age. i want to agree with supervisors with their request for the $450,000 for families online 14, and also the youth organizing one as well. in addition, i wanted to look at, on line 25, that domestic violence asked. the violence against women. i think we're even -- we are already at $630,000, the original ask was $1.2 million and i would like to get close to that number as possible since that is split up between 39

organizations. it is very important. i would like to get that up to see how we can get to that number. >> ok. what cuts do you have? not many, ok? >> eventually -- >> i have additions and i have some questions on the original list that we never got a chance to look at. i thank you for acknowledging some of the stuff that is just a matter of changing language. for example, court appointed advocates and mentors on row four of your list. i also would agree with the $450,000 for family subsidies on row 14. and i don't know -- did you

mention, you might have mentioned this on row 27, i just wanted to make sure that we added another word in the description so the word families would be services for homeless families. ok? and then for row ten -- i would like to increase the amount of $300,000 to $600,000 for workforce development for seniors and people with disabilities, and again, the rationale here is that there really is a lack of those services, and as i mentioned in an earlier hearing, we had a

hearing on this particular item ends there were quite a few organizations who came and supported the notion that we really need to pay attention to the seniors and people with disabilities. especially with fixed income and put them back on the workforce. $300,000 is not adequate, to me. .i am asking for $600,000. >> ok. >> did recover -- >> the what? >> row 32 and 33 for the meals? what was your suggestion? >> thirty-two and 33, or 34, you mean?

what i have online 34, residential care facilities are, by definition, excuse me not aging in place facilities. we need to figure out whether we prefer if we want to put money in the policy area of residential care facilities, or aging in place. they are not one and the same. >> right. >> different departments run these different programs. we need to identify where our preference is. and i'm looking to you to guide us on that. >> ok. of course, for me it is always a preference to keep our seniors and people with disabilities in places where they grew up in or are living, currently living, as long as possible. at some point, there is not any way to do that. that is one of the issues. the other issue is what is happening is there are people who are living in these group care homes and they are closing down, basically. because of the cost of operations.

and the funding, there's existing funding that has not increased over the last six years. not only the pot, but also in reimbursement. so i'm trying to catch up so we don't lose -- the last two years we lost 20% of the physical money. >> where do you want the money to go? >> that's where i want it. >> you wanted in residential care facilities? >> yes that is exactly what is listed on there now. >> ok. right. is there anything else? >> thirty-two, 33, the home grocery, that's fine. >> thirty-two was adding home delivered meals. i think you wanted to make another allocation there? >> i know you said something about that. can you repeat that? >> i did not say anything about that but i knew you wanted to bring it up. i was thinking about adding an

additional line of home delivered meals and an allocation similar between three and $400,000 this is for line 32. >> you're suggesting that you would support an additional $300,000? >> yes. >> ok. i support that. >> ok. i think there was an issue of going too broad and not knowing what some of the bigger chunks within the youth services. >> ok. >> at this point, i don't know how much of that would go into youth services.

give me -- i'm actually trying to read it. >> sure. i know the typing is really small. for youth services, is afterschool time and summertime. >> ok, yeah. thank you. >> afterschool time and summertime, perhaps one way we could -- >> there was some asks from the a.p.i. community. >> what we would probably do is -- i checked in with the department head to, and it is suggested that the best policy description would be call it homeless kids. >> homeless kids? >> yeah. that the afterschool time and summertime programming would be targeting homeless kids.

>> that's not what i was asking. i was asking about epi -- a.p.i. >> ok. >> the question is, i don't kn know, i'm lumping everything together, what was the thinking behind the $600,000. >> that's a good question. i don't know. >> as supervisor said earlier, that would determine whether we advocate more or less or nothi nothing. it's a pretty broad category. we can't answer now. it is a question mark in there, ok? >> ok. i don't really understand your question, though. >> i'm trying to -- people have been advocating specifically and broadly and everything else, and people continue to -- is this part of the advocacy?

the $600,000, what does it represent? >> ok. >> what does it really -- what is it meant for? >> i want to remind you the conversation is about policy priorities, not about who we are trying to target. we arwere trying to get away frm specifically targeting -- >> i understand that. is not about particular organizations. just we have a lot of categories. categories. youth is a real broad category. we have categories like homeless seniors. we have seniors, and we have domestic violence. those are all categories of groups of people. >> do you have a suggestion? >> i guess, there were several advocates talked about a.p.i. a. needs and i don't know if i need to add to this. i have no idea how much of this is going to -- what category of

people. >> the way it will work is, you know, it's a policy area of youth services within the subcategory to address out of time school time, specific programs within the budget, afterschool time and summertime programming. this came as a result of the reallocation of the other budget. if you recall, there were several organizations that were excluded, i shouldn't say excluded, but didn't receive funding from the organization. and so i understood this to be a pool of money that folks who did not get the allocation from the data coming -- from the organization would have an opportunity to apply for that's pretty substantial pool of money that we are talking about. $1.2 million over two years.

so that's where we are. if you need more detail, we can get that, but i want to come back to that. >> yes. i just wanted to raise a question. we can move on. you know, we don't really have an answer. and maybe at some point i could get a clear answer. >> sure. we will work on that. in the meantime, is there anything else? >> i believe i mentioned everything that i was supposed to mention. >> ok. that's good. i appreciate that. i have a present for everyone. i will go over to s.f. dove t.v. -- s.f. government t.v. >> chief cohen? chief. [laughter] >> yes supervisor yee.

>> will be have an opportunity to ask questions? >> absolutely. we are here. we are in session and we will have a lot of dialogue. i want to show you on the overhead. i want people to be able -- oh, man. should i pull this up? the subtext is in the way. how do you move that? wait, you are covering up a little bit of the description there. ok.

surprise, everyone. this is a pie graph this is representative of how the spending plan, what it looks like pictorially. i just ignore the little black box in the middle of the screen. it is not blocking anything. i want to walk us through hello -- what we are looking at so far. hold on. part of it is missing at the bottom. ok. underneath this black box, right here, is a four% -- four% allocation for community services. again, this is the second draft of the watch where you're spending allocation for fiscal year 18-19 plaque 19-20. this is what we are considering. i'm doing this, you know, for transparency so we know what we're looking at. as you can see, down here on the bottom, we have seen near and people with disabilities at 12%

derek art at one%, public health at 11%, clean streets at

>> instead of being so haphazard. i would like to see more conversation around policy driven initiative. again, asking department heads to justify the millions of dollars that we are giving to go in to help people. are they really better off in the end. are we moving the needle? i don't know the answer to that. quite frankly, no one is keeping track of the data. they say it all the time. we have tons of data analysts, but never a budget mandate for accountability. accountability specifically to disparity. if we think about it, this pie graph that i showed you is trying to address disparity. i don't know if it's a good idea to keep throwing money at a

problem when we are not really shrinking the problem, or moving the problem. seems like at the list are growing are even larger. think about congregate meals. you think about mail delivery services. the ask isn't to help us to survive. at the ask is we have a growing demand and a growing need. i think that really has to do with the cost of living in san francisco. i don't know why i wanted to inject that here. is on the top of my mind. hopefully a department head is watching and listening. perhaps one or two of our mayors. it is funny to say that, when you think about it. they could be listening and think it's a good idea and want to take it up. or hay, that is not a good idea, so good luck. either way, that is where we are. i am back on.

supervisor you, thank you for allowing me that opportunity. >> all right. -- supervisor yee, thank you for allowing me that opportunity. >> all right. >> there are a couple of issues.

>> they wanted us to allocate $4 million for their fund so that we could begin to create a voting system that was open source -- had an open source data format that would be more transparent and fair when it comes to our elections and preserving the integrity of the voting system. i was negotiating and talking with people and i thought $4 million is a lot of money. i don't think we can get that into this budget season.

how about we -- how about we fund in year one, $660,000, on the reason behind that is because the department of the elections commission, they passed a resolution, we as the board of supervisors took action on this resolution asking for $1 million to be funded so they can start the creation, the thinking, the planning, around creating a fair and clean and transparent election system, but through thick capital planning program, they aleck -- only allocated $340,000. this is the remainder balance of that in year 18-19. and then $595,000 in year 19-20. that is a $1.2 million total ask.

this money will allow us, the city and county of san francisco, to qualify, potentially, for matching state dollars to assist us with the study and the buildout of an open-source voting pilot program. >> ok. i have the three resolutions that we all agreed on. i wasn't too sure where we would settle in on the resolutions in terms of our priorities. >> ok. >> maybe i just need to understand what it means. >> what open-source means? >> you know, i'm old-fashioned. i still use a regular telephone and stuff like that. i just don't know what it is. is this trying to create -- what are we trying to do with this

money exactly? i'm sorry, i just don't know what his is. >> ok. >> maybe somebody else could explain it. >> supervisor sheehy? >> it is not for apartheid -- proprietary software for voting. you have microsoft, and you have organize proprietary systems for its. if you follow operating systems, you have microsoft, you have os 4, and you have others that are open-source. developers can contribute to that. so it is -- the code is available to everybody. developers continuously and independently improve and look for bugs in the software. open-source software is considered to be safer because you have a community of eyes that are on the software. as opposed to proprietary

software which is very habitab habitable. so it is one of those -- one of our, and if people know more, i would definitely wait. it is one of the paradoxes of where we are with information technology. it is something we hold close. it can be broken into and something that is widely available. many people are contributing to its. it is actually safer and more secure because you have a community as our eyes on it as opposed to sitting one bucket. >> one corporate entity owning it. >> exactly. once somebody figures out the key, they may get in. does that make sense? >> it will let me take a stab at it. so you have been on the board when you have heard supervisor kim reject many microsoft contracts. she does it annually. she takes a very principled

position that she wants us to two and all open-source software system for elections. it's supposed to be less packable and more safe. there are several members on the board of supervisors that supports this and unfortunately none of them are in the committee unfortunately, other than supervisor sheehy and supervisor sc 11, and i. in the long run, this is cheaper, sorry. the open-source data, in the long run, is cheaper and more efficient and a more secure way to conduct elections. of course, let's be reminded of how there are several accusations out there. and the secretary of state of sallust -- california says our election system is fairly safe, nonetheless. we are running an election system on 20th century technology, when we should be

pushing to move into the 21st century. but again, i want to give it to -- largely a lot of the arguments has supervisor kim makes when she is pointing out about the microsoft contracts. supervisor stephanie? >> adding to that, i know our delegation is working at the state level to secure about $8 million for the city to work with the nonprofit to develop open-source voting and it would be on us to match it with $4 million. that is part of it. >> it is a modest start. the original ask was for $4 million to help us reach state dollars. >> i still don't understand this. >> you still don't understand? or you have a better understanding? >> yeah. in the resolutions that we supported, did we have something

about public safety? >> you know, i don't have the resolutions in front of me. you seem to have them. why don't you read them to us. i'll read it to you, then. ok. is this the first one you want me to read? >> no. i was looking for something about public safety. at this make sense. this is public safety. >> there's a resolution at a budget priority including pedestrian safety for seniors, workforce development, out of school time for youth and development for strategic funding development in the two your budget. there was a resolution that we passed. also funding for transitional aids to use and issues with chronic mental illness and rapid housing subsidies. and resolutions that we passed to fund specific city light

street claim priorities in the fiscal 18-19 budget including nonprofit funding partnering and purchases. >> so i am more than happy to support this list. >> thank you. >> i was not sure where it came from. nobody mentioned it. and one other question i have, there was another category where i didn't know where it came from. is, something about greening. >> i don't know what you're talking about. we had separate hearings on it at gao on the claims on election campaigning. there was public hearing taken on it.

>> maybe it is line 20? >> yeah. neighborhood clean and green. is that also your priority? i'm not sure where that came from also. >> i don't believe so. >> i haven't heard anyone talk about it. >> neighborhood clean and green? >> i was a little surprise it was in their. >> city wide street cleaning priorities including pitstop expansion programs. so that was resolution file number 18. >> is this for just cleaning street's at dbh? is it greening?