eliminated in any way? >> we have the history of how fema works, which is, as some point, they will declare an emergency over, and the program will end. i don't pretend to know when that will be, so i just want to characterize that as a major risk here and something that the board needs to consider when they're asking their questions. unlike the rest of the emergency here, which the federal government has declared in perpetuity given notice that it's ending, this notice has come from the government for noncongregate options by the end of the year. our expectation is they will extend that month by month by month, that the federal government is leaving us on a very short leash here for the federal reimbursement program.

>> supervisor preston: they told us in september it was going to expire in october; they told us in august auguit going to expire in september. i understand in your role as controller, you have to acknowledge that we haven't gotten any sign from the federal government, and all we have is a new administration that's looking to look far more favorably on the homeless than the current. is that right? >> i concur, it's an unknown, and there's a risk.

we don't know whether the fema reimbursement for this program will end next july or a year from now. i guess the point that i would make is simply that fema reimbursement will end at some point, and in the process of shifting people in to other alternatives will begin, and that those other alternatives, permanent supportive housing is roughly half the cost of the s.i.p. hotels. we could buy twice as many u us of -- many units of permanent supportive housing as s.i.p. units. >> supervisor preston: i agree, but there's nothing i've heard in this committee of the whole hearing -- there's nothing that i've heard there's any loss of reimbursement that's more

likely that we're going to lose now than three or four months ago. the issue is, are we going to, when we place people in permanent supportive housing, are we going to close the s.i.p. hotel? and that's where i'm pushing back, and just to get back to the cost here, we have people in the streets. where are they going to go? if they go to a safe sleeping village -- which many of us on this board support, as well -- we don't get fema reimbursement, and we are paying about the same amount, and we don't get any fema reimbursement. is that correct? is. >> that's correct. >> supervisor preston: and i don't know if your office has estimated the cost of services for people being on the streets, is that something that

you've estimated? >> it's not a question that we've got. can i briefly comment? >> supervisor preston: sure. >> from my perspective, the fundamental question here is how quickly can we lineup housing programs underneath the s.i.p. hotels to inloo up people from hotels to house -- to lineup people from hotels to housing. my sense in talking to members of this board of supervisors and the mayor is the city's goal is to lineup housing alternatives underneath the s.i.p. program as quickly as can we can to lineup housing programs with the s.i.p. goals.

how quickly can p.s.h. units be developed? we do have several hundred units of existing have a can't permanent support -- vacant permanent supportive housing. i don't -- at least i haven't viewed this as a financial question of closing the s.i.p. hotels because we've run out of the budget. it's more of a question does the budget need to bend until we have options? >> supervisor preston: thank you for that clarification. i think the question has been presented to us, not by you, mr. controller, but as a need to close the s.i.p. hotels purely because of budget reasons, but that's certainly been my push back. so i will just make final comment, thank you, president yee, for all the time, and i know other colleagues have comments. i just want to say that i

really think we need to be doing both, both exiting people to permanent supportive housing and sticking with a model that works, and with -- i look forward to getting the more detailed numbers, but i will say that my sense of the cost here that we're not talking about is that if we continue to move homeless weeks into s.i.p. hotels and we have a commitment to house them in permanent support h supportive housing, but that's exsp expensive, but we need to do that. i wonder if we're undermining our own success. we have chances to have people move into s.i.p. hotels as a transitional moment to then move into -- into have a vant

supportive housing and other exit options -- like, we have an actual system that offers a real comprehensive solution, and until i see numbers that convince me otherwise, the idea of winding down s.i.p. hotels amidst that makes no sense to me. thank you. >> president yee: thank you. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you. i want going to ask a lot of those questions, but provider preston nailed it. when mayor lee was alive, he was a proponent of creating the office of homelessness and supportive housing, and it's a relatively new department. it's brought together many different functions that were

stylized, all that, before the pandemic. the pandemic obviously exacerbated all of that, and then, we had an unprecedented opportunity, as every hotel in san francisco was havevacant, that became the place where many of our unhoused people went. i think i was the first of many of us to go out on the street and take a cell phone video of a gentleman whose name i probably shouldn't, as a matter of hipaa law say his name who is now housed in one of those hotels. supervisor ronen did that, provider preston did that, provider waltl -- supervisor preston did that, supervisor walton did that. the delta here to relative reimbursement is between the age of 60 and 65 if those

people do not have underlyingtiunderlying conditions, and most of those people who ahave underlying conditions, so most of them are eligible for fema reimbursement. mr. rosenfield, i believe your protections go to the end of this fiscal year. is that correct, ben? >> that's correct, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: and then, to miss stewart kahn, i have to say, i do agree that, at some point, there will be some need to trip people from s.i.p. hotels, and maybe now is the time that it should start, but you and i had a very candid conversation, and i apologize for divulging it publicly, but i believe that you said to me if you could have another month

or another couple of three months to put together a more solid plan for that transition, you would -- you'd prefer that. is that true and correct? >> president yee: i think that's a question to the director. >> supervisor peskin: yes, that's to miss security kahn. >> thank you, president -- miss stewart can. >> thank you, president yee. so i think what i was trying to say was during a pandemic, we never have as much time as we would like, and yes, we need to start planning for housing now, and yes, i wish i had more time to answer all of these questions and all of the data answered. but with housing available now, i'm not understanding why we wouldn't move forward, and i don't hear this board asking that either. so i think to clarify the conversation that you and i had, i would like to have higher-up take a coordinated

assessment data, certainly. i'm really pleased that we now understand how to kind of bring urgency to that, to supervisor preston's questions, and so we are going to have to keep moving. [please stand by]