>> afternoon, everyone. the meeting will come to order.

this is a may 22nd, 2019 regular meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisors catherine stefani, rafael mandelman, norman yee, and hillary ronen. i would like to thank san francisco government t.v. for broadcasting this meeting. are there any announcements? >> silence all cell phones and electronic devices. completed skid beaker cards and copies of any documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the june 4th, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. can you please call item number 1? >> hearing on the 2018, 2019 nine-month budget status report and requesting the controller to report. >> thank you very much. here we have mr. controller here to present for us. >> our director of budget analysis, we welcome to the nine-month report today. >> thank you very much.

>> good afternoon, committee members. i have a few slides to walk you through our most recent projections. you should have a copy at your desk. our report is projecting an improvement in the current year ending balance of just over $55 million from our prior protect -- projection. this brings the shortfall that we projected in our fire forecast down to $100 million and i would say the improvement is due to a small handful of things, largely patient revenue at san francisco regional hospital to talk about and improve revenue and expenditure savings in the human services agency, more than offsetting some of the clients in property

tax revenue that we are seeing overall. we are projecting that we will meet in the current year our target of 10% of general fund revenue and our rainy day budget stabilization reserve. to the extent that we actually hit or exceed that target, any additional revenue would flow into a one-time reserve that would be available for one-time purposes. just to look high-level at our tax revenues, these are revenues that aren't generated by a specific operating agency. i mentioned we have a slightly higher level of property tax refunds, and a slightly lower level of prior-year supplemental revenue in the current year than we had projected at the last point in time. still, overall revenue, if you

look at the bottom line versus our budget, very strong $250 million with a slight decline for the lost time. we projected revenues for you. the change i think it's all in property tax revenue. there is a slight notch up in sales tax revenue and a lot of that is really prior year revenue that we are recognizing in the current year. the state agency that collects these revenues implemented in the tax system. they couldn't allocate revenues from some of the biggest permit holders until around december. we are getting that revenue now. you will see that flow through in some of the sales tax revenue that we get from the state, and it comes to the human services agency and d.p.h. as well. it is listing all of our sales tax. as you know, voters have approved allocations of our discretionary revenue for specific purposes.

the net increase compared to budget, because our discretionary revenue is increasing overall, it is about a 31 million-dollar increase to these requirements that we will be making. i would like to make a note that you will see there is no additional increases to children 's baseline or the transitional eighties -- age use baseline because the supplemental appropriation of the excess revenue that you approved in march, the uses that were appropriated in there, many of them are eligible to be counted towards these baselines, and so now the budget exceeds the required level of funding for those. that is why we are not rejecting additional spending needed beyond what you have already appropriated. i should say that this is our last projection of revenue for

the current year. we are finalizing projections for the proposed budget that will be coming to you very shortly. you will see in there, some slight changes that we have made on our side to the business tax and transfer tax, moderate growth in both of those, it on the business tax side, really refracting -- reflecting i.p.o.s that have happened in this city. revenue generated from that will be expected over the next two years as well as faster than expected job growth. the federal bureau of labor statistics recast some of the employment data that they had earlier published and the growth rate was higher than we had rejected before. on the department side, you'll see that the good news in the

departments is more than offsetting some of the weaknesses that we were seeing in the property tax at a citywide level, and it is really in the department and public health and human services for each of those. it is marginally the state sales tax, the 1991 realignment which is sales tax revenue that comes to those operating departments. a little piece of it is that, but the big story is in public health, and within public health , it is largely san francisco general hospital. the higher than anticipated census, which has been an issue that we had last year and this year as well. more patients at the hospital than were anticipated in the budget, as well as more payments under the maddock -- medi-cal waiver. they are pay for performance kind of programs where it is the hospital meets the performance

targets in terms of preventive care and patient outcomes and patient satisfaction that may become eligible to receive money from the school. the hospital has just been better on the metrics than they anticipated they would, and they were able to drive more of that revenue. that is what is really driving the revenue increase in public health, which is really the other, the biggest news that we have in this report. human services, there are expenditure statements. a lot of it is caseloads being lower than they anticipated, under spending on contracts, and a couple of other things, and just the third item i would note is the war memorial. this is an unusual surplus for them. they have sold transferable development rights to a product developer that means that they have the rights to develop higher than they actually are going to build, and they can fill the rights to develop.

it happens a lot in the private sector for the past couple of decades. it is rare for the government to be selling because we don't have many opportunities to do it, but this is one of our opportunities in the war memorial is selling those. that is generating $8 million then in the current year. that is a pretty volatile revenue. it is hard to predict because it is hard -- the timing of any kind of deal, and the value, the market value is hard to know much in advance. this is revenue that we have actually realized, so we are working now. i would make a couple of other -- >> where did it go? >> who bought them? i don't know. we can find out.

just a couple of highlights to make on this slide here, as you know, the board has board has approved several large general funds supplementals this year. the annual overtime supplemental is the first one. also, loan to federal employees that are affected by it shut down, should one occur, and most importantly, the appropriation of unbudgeted property tax revenue that the city is getting in the form of access, for a number of purposes. those are all reflected in part of the revised budget now. we are projecting reserve deposits to increase by $9 million, that is mostly in our rainy day reserves, which get spread between the city's economic stabilization reserve, the school's economic stabilization reserve, and a one-time city reserve, so

combined among those three, about a 9 million-dollar increase, and one final point that i will make is on 16, 17, -- in the current year we are recognizing the extra property tax revenue that was earned in fiscal years 18 and 19, we also submitted revised reports to the state so we could kind of get our foot in the door. if we think we are owed for 16 and 17, -- we don't get notification did -- they notify is the amount they will allocate so that is when we will know for sure, the last week of june. that is when they are stating what they will allocate to the school district, that we can therefore take back, but the governors may revise -- they actually called out and expense on the stateside, of $149 million for 16, 17 eraf

sources for san francisco. that does make it seem certain that by the end of the june -- end of june, it is quite likely that we can expect that we will be able to receive that revenue, at the very most, the last week of the fiscal year. a lot of that would be dedicated to reserve deposits under our formulas. about $60 million would be available in that reserve and baseline allocation. that is all i have prepared, but i would be happy to answer questions. >> colleagues? any questions or comments? yes, supervisor model men? >> i think it is worth noting --

they have brought his good news around the budget and i know this has not always been the case, that d.b.h., in years past , has actually been a drain in many years, and i think it is certainly a priority for the power director, and for the current director, as well to get a handle on rumour -- reimbursements, and medi-cal, and all sorts of issues related to their budget. that seems to be bearing fruit here, so i personally am grateful for that. i want to express gratitude to the folks at d.b.h. who have made this happen. >> any other comments or questions? i would just like to say that i think this is very good news and that it looks like our deficit is now down to 100 million, which is, after these years of working with advocates and other organizations, we are always monitoring the deficit. this is actually -- i know

100 million sounds like a lot of people, but in terms of a city budget, it is very, very, very good news. i think our economy is strong, and i think -- i want to thank the office for doing such a diligent job, and i think this is really good news as we go into the fiscal year and the following fiscal year, too. any other comments or questions? let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on item number 1? mr. wright? >> if you remember, just last friday at the board meeting, i demonstrated that the analysis represented -- representative of the employees calculated nearly 649 million dollars would be in

debt with the spending and the way that you take care of business, if you continue doing what you are doing. i just saw in the newspaper, s.f. viewer, that all you supervisors just got a 12% salary increase, and supervisor and allows for comparison and contrast, and you got bigger increases then the other counties, as far as the board of supervisors is concerned. the person that is in charge of that commission, who granted this salary increase says that the supervisors should be in a position to get the salary increase in order to keep up with the cost of living, and they deserve this income increase, but yet, when it comes to the low income bracket people , the people who are homeless on the street, who are not having their incomes

increased because they have a stable, permanent income that doesn't get increased, and retired people, or senior citizens who are on fixed income , you use a different type of philosophy. that is in another example of differential treatment, and constitutional laws being violated pertaining to do process and equal protection under the law. if you are focusing in on income increases in order for the board of supervisors to live here, you should be doing the same type of philosophy to the people who were born and raised in san francisco, and these are the very people who you claim that you want to help, when you are campaigning for people to get the position that you are in. and then again, you are turning your back on them -- >> thank you, mr. wright. >> i was going to say your

salaries might be tied to tax production, it sounds as if they are, however that is not incompatible with the public accountability. what i wanted to discuss is san francisco is using 70 million gallons -- gallons of water and 24 hours. if we lose 7 million gallons over the same period -- period, and if waters presently sold at 7 cents per gallon, then we may be losing seventh hundred and $90,000 slipping through the cracks every day. it would cost the equivalent amount on a daily basis to replace 1,000 linear feet of pipes sustained over four and a half year period in order to divest ourselves of the 20% of pipe representing 240 miles, which has been most impacted by corrosion for an annual total cost of $186 million, and that would be a total cost of $840 million. you might want a walkable ground

penetrating radar in the process to safely achieve that pace. it is a matter of best practices and public safety. if instead you choose to issue a 30 year bond to seismically upgrade the fire station, at a cost of $540 million, for example, will it benefit the firefighters if they lack sufficient water resources? during the 2006 earthquake, all of the water mains broke and they fought fires with their axes. i believe the public can afford a special assessment paid over seven years so that that does not -- that service does not drain public finances. i selflessly ask the retiring head of the fire department to fill one of two vacant seats on the san francisco water board, whether she obliges or not is anyone's guess, last year, a group of seismic specialists ran a monte carlo simulation --

>> thank you, very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. i make a motion to file this item. could i have a second, please? thank you very much. i take that without objection. thank you, thank you very much. please call item two. >> item two is an ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the affordable housing production and preservation fund receive appropriated excess education revenue all been -- augmentation funds for the purpose of funding and acquisition, and production of new 100% affordable housing and acquisition and preservation of existing housing to make that housing permanently available -- i'm sorry, affordable. >> thank you very much. colleagues, today i am proud to inform this legislation to crate and affordable housing production and preservation fund from ongoing access eraf funds

that the city receives from the state. san francisco is on track to exceed our goals from market rate housing. we are now falling well short of our goals for very low, low, and moderate income housing. as of last year, the city has already produced 96% of the market rate units needed to meet goals for above moderate income housing by the year 2022. however, we have only produced 30 1% affordable units needed to meet our 2022 goals for very low , low, and moderate income housing. in 2014, voters passed prop k., with the goal in of ensuring that 32% of new units in san francisco are affordable. according to the housing balance report, only 25% of new units produce -- produced in the last ten years have been affordable. the housing production show us falling even further from our goal with only 22% of new units projected to be affordable. to make matters worse, for every 12 to units of affordable housing, the city created -- we

lost more than one unit of existing housing to ellis act evictions or demolitions, or condo conversions. when you factor in this loss, less than 18% of net units produced in the last ten years have been affordable. this data illustrates why it is so critical that the city invests more in production and preservation of affordable housing or to increase affordable housing stock so we no longer are taking two steps forward and one step back. if we are serious about meeting our housing balance goals and addressing our affordability crisis, we cannot continue to rely on market rate developer fees to fund our affordable housing. let's begin by putting 50%, or future eraf funds towards a production and preservation of affordable housing so our ability to continue adding to affordable housing stock is not tied to the volatility of the market. i'm excited about the prospect

of the voters passing a 500 million-dollar housing bond, but with only $30 million being dedicated for preservation, we need to substantially grow the pie. this legislation gives us the opportunity to do exactly that. the board of supervisors understands that addressing the affordability crisis by reducing or producing more for it will housing should be our top priority. this is opportunity to put our money where the arm or mouth is. i would like to thank the supervisors for signing on as cosponsors, and the many conversations -- after many conversations with the marriage 's office. i have some amendments that i'll be introducing today that i hope you will all support. i would like to thank kelly could patrick and sophia kittler from the mayor's office for working so diligently with my staff to crack these amendments. the amendments i am introducing today should be in front of you. they respond to a number of suggestions from other supervisors and the mayor, and

will do the following. one, clarified that it is intent of the board to appropriate at least 50% of all access revenues in each fiscal year to one time uses, and to make such appropriations on an annual basis. two, add -- mohcd will consult with the board of supervisors with potential uses of money of the funds in order to strive for geographical balance. three, altered the funding allocations up to 60% of the money appropriated to the fund shall be used for projection, and 40% should be used for preservation rather then a 5050 split, requires mohcd to cement a report to the board of supervisors every two years evaluating and analysing the uses of money so that the board and the mayor can consider altering target funding allocations in order to meet new and ongoing needs for affordable housing. supervisor ronen? >> yes, thank you.

i just wanted to clarify, i'm also a cosponsor of the legislation. >> yes, i didn't call your name, i'm so sorry. >> no problem. i also just really wanted to thank you for your leadership on this, supervisor fewer. we have never had an ongoing stable source of funding for the small sights program, and it is a very important part of the puzzle of our affordable housing crisis in this city. it is a way that we prevent people from becoming newly homeless, it is a way that we preserve rent control housing that we are losing in droves, and we get a teeny bit from the housing fund for this purpose, but it is used up in two seconds , and when all of these additional really heart-wrenching opportunities come up of people, seniors, families, who have lived in their houses for decades, but are at threat of eviction, and when the building goes on the

market, we don't have any funds in the program to stabilize those units. so i think this is, without a doubt, a priority. it is not only a priority in and of itself, we are way out of whack in our housing balance, and it is a priority to have that balance so the city can continue to be functioning, so we can continue to have a workforce that is able to staff us at all areas of the economy. but also, all of the most pressing issues in our city, somehow intersect with housing at this point. whether it is a mental health crisis, whether it is having enough teachers in our classrooms, whatever the other issue is, it always has housing as a major component of it. by prioritizing 50% of eraf funds now and in the future for this purpose, we are recognizing that housing is linked to all of the major crises in our city

right now, and we are taking action to do something. again, supervisor fewer, thank you so much for your leadership in this area and i am very proud to be cosponsoring this with you >> thank you so much for your support. any other comments? if not, let's open this up for public comment. i have some speaker cards here. winston parsons, mr. wright, if you like to come up that is fine , myakka, louisa, laura thomas, caroline, fernando, alexander. please come on up. everyone has two minutes. >> you are on the right track taking care of this problem, but you have to be sure to incorporate laws that you already have on the books. that is supposed to be used on each and every brand-new apartment building complex that

comes out of the mayor's office on housing. for example, this mission rock apartment building complex. it is 1,500 apartment buildings -- apartment units. it is being overlooked by the giants baseball team. and supervisor jane kim. there is a big pamphlet of instructions pertaining to their instructions. sixteen -- section 14-point to of the instructions pertaining -- expands on detail as follows. in accordance with subdivision b. of section 33413 of the community development law, and these 15% of all the rehabilitated dwellings and are developed within the planned area by public or private entities or persons other than the agency shall be available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of very low

and low and moderate income. not less than 40% of the dwelling units required to be available for affordable housing costs for families a very low and low, and moderate income shall be available as affordable housing to very low income households. every unit that comes out of this housing -- the mayor's office of housing is violating these instructions. that's why have so many people on the god damn street. and then you claim you want to help. fifteen% of 1,500 units, at that mission rock apartment building complex means that 225 of those apartments are supposed to be for very low, and low income bracket people. if you want to demonstrate that you are doing in good faith and want to you want to agree on this matter -- [indiscernible]. >> madame chair, the speaker's

time has concluded. >> good afternoon. my name is maja, i am speaking on behalf of the council of community housing organization. i'm here to speak in support of this legislation to dedicate half of any future eraf revenue to go toward the affordable housing and preservation fund. in order to address the scale of the affordability crisis in san francisco, we cannot continue to solely rely on inclusionary and commercial linkage fees to fund our affordable housing needs. san francisco cannot continue to only rely on construction and market rate housing to produce affordable housing. the housing balance report shows that seven out of 11 supervisor districts have a negative housing imbalance, with an

emphasis on westside and outer neighborhoods. san francisco's voters indoors proposition k., which as a city policy, set a goal to construct or rehabilitate at least 30,000 homes by 2020, at least 33% of which will be -- should be affordable to low and moderate income households. production streams of market rate versus affordable is extremely imbalanced, and not only close to meeting our regional arena goals. setting aside a fund from future eraf for the affordable housing and preservation fund is a critical opportunity to add another source of funding that isn't strictly tied to the volatility of the market. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is winston. i also work in the richmond

district. i'm here supporting this legislation. recently, one of my graduate school classes had a speaker that said that a budget is a statement on our values. if we care about something, we fund it, and we fund it consistently. which is why i'm glad to see we are allocating the money for things like small sites acquisition and affordable housing production. i work at a senior center a few weeks ago and we had a gentleman who was about 77 years old who has been sleeping in his car four years. still looking for housing. with the fact that our fastest growing demographic by age is seniors, i worry that if we don't do more funding sources like this, we'll see more folks like him, our elders on the street. i urge you to support this legislation. thank you for offering it, and i asked you consider finding other sources of funding said -- to supplement it in the future. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i've spoken to many of the supervisors on the budget committee about the importance of preservation work as we know in solving the affordable housing crisis. production is very important, but when we see the amount of displacement happening in communities, we know in five years, we're building new housing and it will not get our families today to be able to stay in their homes. being able to set aside a portion of money as a permanent source of financing is really important. what you also may know is that in the last three years, we have been able to purchase 177 homes to keep 177 households in san francisco, particularly in d11 and d11 -- d9. what you may not know, in the course of this time, we were able to purchase 11 buildings in 2018 -- 2017, but not in 2018. we were only able to purchase four buildings. we did not have permanent sources of housing -- permanent source of funding for this type of housing. i'm really excited that we have this as a possible source to

continue to preserve housing both in our most important neighborhood that are losing families rapidly, like in the mission, as well as expanding into the west side. thank you very much for your leadership on this. >> next speaker. >> hi, supervisors. [indiscernible] [indiscernible] >> last two months i have been walking from the city to sacramento. i got invited to houston, texas.

i am homeless. every time i come from sacramento -- [indiscernible] >> it doesn't bother me. i take it. i'm not the only one who won't be on the street that night. it is 1,700 that will be with me that night. as supervisor ronen said, it is not about housing in san francisco. i'm 60 plus, i thought by now i should have paradise come to me, i will retire to mexico or miami , no, i am homeless. we need -- [indiscernible] thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is fernando with the council of community housing organization. first of all, thank you to supervisor fewer and the cosponsors for putting forth this legislation. it is very important as we look forward for those opportunities that we have to increase funds and to look at our priorities, and to understand housing, both production and preservation as a priority. you all just came from item number 1, which was looking at the nine month budget update. if you look at that update, housing does not show up as an item within your budget update. so this is one of the few opportunities that we, the public, three u., our representatives, have of influencing those budget decisions around housing and those budget priorities. speakers before us have said there are -- it is extremely important to look both that preservation, at people where they are, in the places that they are, before they are

displaced, before they become homeless, and it is important to look at our homeless population and how we provide new housing for them. i think that is one of the things that is critical about this legislation. it does both one of the things of the previous speaker mentioned, his how do we apply this to other new, and expected funding sources, and i thank you all had the opportunity, looking forward to 2020, and the possibility that we might actually win real change around prop 13, to take this approach and say, what would it mean if prop 13 becomes a split role in the city of san francisco, and we see an infusion of $700 to $900 million a year that we are not expecting? thank you very much. please support this legislation. >> next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is alexandra. i'm from the tenderloin neighborhood to veltman corporation. we are here to support the allocation of these funds for affordable housing. we really want to thank

supervisor fewer for your leadership around this issue and the rest of the supervisors, as well. particularly in regards to acquisition and preservation of existing housing, which we think is a real priority in the city. so in carrying out this strategy , we do think that scale matters to some extent. we can -- using the same amount of resources, preserve nearly twice as many units if we can find something suitable to buy. even though acquiring these larger properties shifts focus, we do shift opportunity through -- seek opportunity throughout the entire city to acquire properties. and we understand geographic equity matters, and that some neighborhoods do not have these large properties to buy. we are also willing to help support building the capacity of organizations to acquire these properties. we're also really glad that this one provides an opportunity to really put some power behind the legislation, which passed a

month or two ago. we are very enthusiastic about these opportunities to keep san franciscans house and in place, and thank you all for supporting this. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. and with the council of the community housing organization. during my colleagues earlier. we have an affordable housing crisis, you hear about it every day. the crisis is a crisis that we don't have enough funding to address our affordable housing crisis. so your proposal here, with all these cosponsors to set aside a portion of the eraf surplus is good and smart policy. this will help add to the funding that we have now. we are in an unusual situation. i think it was alluded to earlier. our affordable housing funding does not come through the board for the most part. it is dedicated funding that goes directly to the mirror's office of housing, and they have a whole set of priorities, and they will make the proposals. you have an opportunity as the board in allocating this annual

surplus to give priority to the mirror's office of housing. for that reason, i would caution you all, and i would like to thank the legislation is good now, it is not overly prescriptive, it sets aside big buckets for eligible, allowable uses, but it does not try to micro allocate those things, believes it to the budget process. i know the coalition is behind us, and they have very strong priorities right now for housing needs, and i think we should honour that, but you know you will get a lot of very strong needs brought to you in the budget process, and it will be part of sorting it out. then you get the chance to give the mayor's office of housing your priorities. it is a good and unusual situation, but again, be cautious. we are in an unusual situation because, for the most part, all of the housing programs are done by our members. will not tell you which one it is part of that. inner-city neighborhoods are

outer neighborhoods are all important. we encourage you to try to spread the love as best you can in each budget cycle. this is good policy. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. >> hi, jennifer from the coalition on homelessness. this eraf gives a command is opportunity to use this money now to address some really critical needs. we have been talking a lot at this committee in the last couple monday rules about all the folks that are drying on the streets. -- all the folks that are dying on the street. this is a good way to address that. the controller's office has been interpreting this as a loan. i think would be great if you put this as an immediate need, and not something that is a loan to be paid back out of funds later on down the line from prop see. what we did at the our city, our home coalition, as we looked at the gaps in the system in the and the gaps in eraf. it was tremendously helpful, but we missed key areas. we looked at one time capital

needs to go beyond the priorities that we can fund in the regular budget process such as prevention, first, the gap that we identified, youth and family, they were dramatically underserved in comparison to what the real need is. about 40 % of homeless people in san francisco who are members of intact families. for example, only 7% of our housing for homeless people go towards families and members of intact families. we have 50% of the homeless population becoming homeless before the age of 25. second gap identified, community behavioral health. we know this has been made abundantly clear in this committee at the behavioral health hearings that took place earlier, we are in desperate need of innovative, new programs of increased capacity, and so we haven't 84 million-dollar proposal which has housing for these populations, and also has those innovative behavioral health treatment programs that will bridge us towards prop see.

this fits really nicely with both ronen's and fewer's proposals, we believe, so please consider it. thank you so much. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. and with the drug policy alliance. drug policy alliance is on board with the full our city, our home proposal for this funding. we know that you are all -- you were all here on the board and you are acutely aware of the challenges that we are facing around ensuring capacity for behavioral health services, both people who use drugs, people with mental health challenges, and certainly with both. we feel like this goes some ways towards addressing some of those very urgent and desperate needs, and while we certainly need housing for everyone, we also need to make sure we are taking care of them until we can get them in permanent, supportive housing, and in particular, i

want to highlight, not surprisingly for me, the supervised consumption services, funding in here. we feel like this is a unique opportunity to be able to use these dollars to do the build out, and start up, as well as funding it for the first few years to get it on board the state bill. it will be voted on in the assembly floor this week or next , and i also want to let you know that last night, the oakland city council voted unanimously to both support the supervised consumption services and ask that oakland be added to the bill. i think we will have some across bay coordination of these services, and so we feel that the funding is uniquely suited to help pay for those services and get them up and running, and keep them going for the first few years while we wait for the prop see work, but overall, all of these services are going to

meet particular needs in the community that currently aren't being met. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> good afternoon, my name is alex. i'm a resident of the valley. i am a research -- a researcher. i have been conducting research around drug use in san francisco for 26 years, and i think what supervisor ronen was saying earlier this morning early this afternoon about how these services will pay for other things and other kinds of places as well, i think is quite true, you know, obviously homes -- we need homes, there is no question about that. but also, the supervised injection sites are an important component as well. we conducted a study last year that we published a peer review medical journal where we found

that for every dollar that is spent in san francisco on -- invested in supervised injection sites, we have $2.33%. so whereas this does cost us some money, and would be great to be part of the budget, we will see those savings. both at -- in many other aspects of the city. obviously the most important part is to save lives, to help people in many ways, but research also shows it would be a savings for the city, as well. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am from compass family services. i'm here to voice our unequivocal support for this incredible piece of legislation, and i also wanted to raise a point that while we were very appreciative of the fact that homeless services were prioritized in the last round of eraf funding, unfortunately,

they weren't specific investments made that targeted homeless children, youth, and families, so now that we have been blessed with this additional opportunity to have an infusion of eraf dollars, we want to make the case that children, youth, and families who are experiencing lack of stability should be prioritizing how we allocate these resources. as part of the our city, our home coalition budget proposal, we are asking for a specific investment of $11 million to support the construction of 30 units of supportive housing for transitional aged youth. we already have the site identified. it has been vacant, and it just needs funding to allow for construction to take place. a second investment in families that we are wanting to prioritize will support in the expansion of housing towards vouchers for homeless families. as jenny pointed out earlier, about 50% of our homeless adult population are individuals who experience homelessness as children. this is really investing in upstream resolutions that are preventive in a really -- and are caring about the whole person here in our city.

thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> hi, i'm from community housing partnership. our mission is to provide affordable housing and help residents were formerly homeless to achieve self-sufficiency. it is really important that we prioritize the self-sufficiency of formerly homeless people and we prioritize supporting people in supportive housing environments. i think it is also, as a beneficiary of our city's interventions around homelessness, and supportive housing, i also feel it is important that we prioritize supportive housing environments that are outside of our concentrations of poverty and high density. i think it is important that we prioritize our youth in supportive environments because as you have heard today, we are talking about a lot of different components of solving the homeless situation. what we're really trying to do is break that wheel of the cycle of poverty.

everything from supportive housing environments to treatment access for people with addictions, mental health, these asks here are part of a bigger picture that we can break this cycle of poverty and homelessness. thank you. >> thank you. >> jordan davis, our city, our home coalition. while this is great legislation, i say we need to grow the pie and, of course, the coalition is recommending that $84.3 million be used for prop see funding, and the one thing i want to talk about right now is to find $11 million to begin construction of 30 units of supportive housing for transitional aged youth because let's face it, a lot of youth are lgbt, and therefore, they can't find anything in the city, so we really need this, and that is all i really wanted to say. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, my name is erica, i live in san francisco. we applaud and appreciate the city's commitment to crate more housing for those experiencing or at risk of homelessness in san francisco with the first round of eraf funds. we believe the funding should be allocated in accordance to the budget. i want to highlight recent statistic -- specific suggestions of how the fund should be allocated. first, replace existing treatment on treasure island that will be lost during the island demolition, second, to invest in transition navigators who will engage in repatriating people back into treatment after an episode at psychiatric -- we thank supervisor ronen for advocating to improve the substance use treatment program. where 100 -- hundreds of struggling people are released into unstable living conditions. we found there is a growing demand for specialized residential treatment for small

a small subset of people with high needs of methamphetamine use. please find these intensive care facilities with substance use disorder and co- occurring mental health needs who say symptoms cannot be managed. these dollars -- otherwise our work is done and feign, which no one in this room would ever want thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> i am a nurse practitioner, and i just sent someone to joe healy today. we will have 28 days of sobriety , then after that we will be back on the street. we can probably improve when you look at the budget, but because

i'm not a numbers guy. the sober living environments, supportive housing, and boarding care. there is a real bottleneck where we are putting this. if you could help us do that, that would be great. >> thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is -- i am a mother of three, and we have experienced homelessness for nine years. we recently received housing, which had been amazing, but i wish there was funding for other families. we -- i'm sorry, who are also homeless. the our city, our home budget proposal includes housing, and i'm here to ask you to fund that and the our city, our home budget. thank you. >> thank you very much. next speaker.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm with community housing partnership. we are a supportive housing provider. we provide housing for formerly homeless folks. we absolutely support supervisor fewer's proposal for the housing fund, but we are also here because we are members of the treatment on demand coalition and we have a great concern for treatment access issues, and so we wanted to speak in support for the eraf proposal because if you look through it, it provides funding, greatly needed funding for a number of treatment programs, and for supportive housing. all the things that are so very much needed in our city during the housing crisis, and during this increasing homelessness crisis. the voters work pretty clear -- were pretty clear on what they wanted, which is exactly these type of services, as was expressed by their passing of prop see. unfortunately, we do not have access to that funding, and we

can't get those programs off the ground until we do. here is a way to actually enact the will of the voters by using these funds to get these services to happen now rather than waiting for later. also, i have been involved as a member of the treatment on demand collision, that a number of hearings, a number of meetings, a number of precedents , et cetera, where people are talking about mental health reform and mental health issues, and how to get more access to services, how to get faster treatment, et cetera, and we're talking about a lot of big picture stuff right now. stand by mac -- [please stand by]