includes about $50.1 million investment to shelter for approximately 600 families and with plans to house over 450 families through new investment and existing turnover. exiting turnover. of the total investment, $47.2 million is from our city our home fund. this funding for the proposal includes allocating family housing fund plans as proposed in the department phase of the budget and reallocate $17.6 million in prop c incrust revenue towards family housing and emergency shelter authorities. the $17.6 million represents additional projected interest revenue for 23-24 and 24-25 on top of what was reallocated during last year's budget process. the family expansion also increases the

number of rehousing slots funding in prop c requiring legislative approval to lift the cap on short-term rental subsidies. in addition to investment to families we have critical investment in young adults. the budget includes a new $32.5 million investment over two years to provide housing subsidies for 285 young adult households. besides new investment in family housing and shelter and housing, all other programs are maintained as existing levels with the budget adjusted to reflect updated costs. what are these investments and families we are making? in total the investment covers 215 new rental subsidies for families,

including 130 rapid rehousing subsidies, 50 specifically forte headed families and 35 shallow rental subsidies. all subsidies funded for 2 years and include extension up to 3 additional years. funding for these subsidies include the subsidy amount, housing location assistance, case management, ramp up cost for cbo, administrative costs and additional services including money managealment and legal services. the mayor safer family proposal includes $8.7 million in funding for 80 new urgent accommodation vouchers for families, meant to address the increased demand for family shelter. in total, the safer family froposal funds 115 new urgent accommodation vouchers to serve over 600 families in the next 18 months.

next we jump into the fund budget detail of what all those sux subsidy numbers look like from a doctor perspective. the family housing funds for 165 rapid rehousing and shally subsidy families included here. you can see these dollars have been loaded in budget in fy24-25, which is why there is a change in our overall use plan between the two years of the budget cycle. this slide shows you a comparison between the prop c committee recommendation and the hsh proposal presented to you in march and the mayor's budget proposal.

the mayor's budge increase the number of rapid rehousing subsidies from 85 to 130 for $23.8 million and added 35 shally rental subsidies for $4.8 million. there is additional $8.7 million for 80 new urgent accommodation vouchers. moving on to shelter. there is slide adjustments made to shelter and hygiene authority in order to add the new 80 urgent accommodation vouchers i was speaking of previously. that adjustment can be seen here. we are fully funding those vouchers with the proposed interest revenue reallocation i spoke to and so that expansion has no impact on the overall deficit for the shelter authority because we are reallocating interest to

match investment over the next two years. this slide walks through the components of our tay investments included in the update to our ocoh budget in total the investment covers 235 rapid rehousing sunsdies for young adults, $24.5 million. this includes 160 rapid rehousing subsidies for young adults lasting 2 to 3 years. 60 subsidies for young adults exiting transitional housing and 15 rapid rehousing subsidies for young adults impacted by violence and these subsidies are three years. funding include families, housing location assistance, case manmment, ramp up cost, administratesive cost and funding for additional services, including money managealment and legal services.

we also have an additional $3 million budgeted for 50 permanent flex pool subsidies for young adults and $5 million towards the acquisition of a new housing site for justice involved young adults. all the investments being made with tay are using tay housing fund balance that was appropriated in prior years. here is the number break-out of all those subsidies we just spoke to. as you can see in and similar to the family structure, all of the revenue is budged in year 1 of the budget, so you see a spike in use plan going from $85.7 million to $34.7 million in the next year because of the one time fund balance we are using to balance investment in the first year of the budget , even though we anticipate the subsidies will be rolled out over 2 to

3 years. this slide compares the committee tay spend ing recommendation with the hsh proposal and the mayor's budget proposal. since we last presented the hsh budget in march we added $5 million for acquisition of housing site for justice involved tay, and additionally we added $19.1 million during the mayor's phase of the budget to support 160 rapid rehousing slites slots for 2 to 3 years. if you have any questions. >> do we have committee questions? >> yes. >> member friedenbach. >> okay. thank you so much for this presentation. lots of exciting stuff happening. i just want to note, i believe you have a error under the family

presentation, in that, what we were told by hsh leadership and mayor office is that, the 20million that was already in our recommendation and in our budget that was 5 years was just being included in the press release and not being changed. so, that's supposed to be a 5 year subsidy, not 2 to 5 year subsidy. the $20 million of those dollars. so, i just want to note that, because that's--we have a lot of concerns around the short-term subsidies. i think people-many people probably notice the piece in the standard recently about the disproportionate percentage of african americans pushed out of town with the rapid rehousing subsidy, and we have a lot of our members that return into

homelessness after and nationally the conver sation and conversations we have been having with h is rks h leadership et cetera is moving towards a 5 year model, because of the difficulty basically the way it works is, when the short-term subsidy ends you have to pay the full market rate rent. it is hard to do this. mostly this is single. the ability to take over market rate is really challenging and then maybe they do successfully but a while later some other catastrophe happens and they lose their housing and they return to homelessness. so, it is harder to get landlords to rent in san francisco, so we push more people out disproportionately african americans, which is a trend we are trying to go in the opposite direction. and then creates a whole lot of

stress. just wanted to if we could do maybe follow-up with you know, to make sure that's the case. i don't know if during this meeting you could get conformation on that, but that is a really big deal. yeah. >> i'm not sure-what do you need me to confirm? >> the $20 million in our--so, originally we had $25 million for 5 year subsidies that serve 125 families. >> correct. that was the committee proposal. >> that was committee proposal and hsh reduced that down because of the short fall in the fund to $20 million, and those were for 5 years. and then, what the mayor's office was supposed to be doing is adding more money on top that using interest and the money on top that was 2 to 5 years. they were not supposed to mess with what we were already doing and

so, reducing those years down, so this was a very complicated set of negotiations that took place that looks like now is saying something different, so i want to make sure that we are honoring what was said in the press releases, what was said to us in meetings and what was said to us in writing of what would happen here. >> okay. >> yeah. and then the other piece of it for the interest piece, which is the hotel interest is paying for hotel rooms and the additional short-term subsidies, those were the ones that were 2 to 5, and that piece also has to go to the board of supervisors for to list we have in the language 12 percent cap on short-term subsidies so the board has a ordinance parallel to the budget that lifts that cap.

one thing i just want to--i plan making a motion later, but what we are hearing from families what they are really asking for and a lot is back and forth with large numbers of homeless families we were communicating with is, they want to make sure there is transparency that the subsidy is from 2 to 5 years, and that's for a number of reasons. they think it is 2 years the stress level that occurs is really high, and what we see happening is, once families--families are getting into total mode of like the thought of returning to homelessness and how stressful that is, things tend to fall apart quickly. we know it isn't exsended for everybody but if families knowing going into this, if they are at risk of returning to homelessness they will get extended out to 5 years, that will also

really decrease the amount of trauma and just stress they are facing instead of it being not transparent and what happens a lot of times is, they have no idea they could have requested a subsidy, so they end moving out of the housing and return to homelessness, and they wouldn't have had to do that and we have-hsh told if you have families that need extension tell us. we met so many families that said i had the short-term subsidy and couldn't pay rent so moved out. did you ask for a extension? no. they had no idea that was possible. we want to make sure that dudant happen and this is really big deal to the family. that is my other piece pushing that way. i do have some questions on the youth piece though. so, at our last meeting, we had

extra operating money and there was the idea, the motion that we wanted to get that site, the youth site going and that would-we would be able to put in operating money for that. on the side by side comparison here, i am not seeing funding for the-i see the money no changes to allocation of tay acquisition, but i dont see anywhere the money for the operating for that tay acquisition, which we reduced down to 1.4. it was a higher amount before, so i wanted to see if that was included, assumed. >> we don't have ongoing operating funds for that acquisition site so that is still not included. >> but we had it last month. what happened? yeah, when we were presented

with the funds, we had-even back in march, we had $56.8 million in tay housing money, and that $39 million was one time and remainder ongoing. what gigi said is that, if we reduced the acquisition-the operating amount down, there would be enough money in there to do ongoing operating. and so that was our megz motion to reduce down. i think it was at 3.something million and reduced it to 1.4. >> so, i can follow-up on exactly what happened during that conversation and what changed since then. i know that our current proposal allocates out all the one time and allocating balance, so with the current

plan in place for the subsidies that i just spoke through, and the new acquisition of the housing site for justice involved young adults, that really leads us to zero in fund balance after that and we don't have additional ongoing funds, but i can look into it and see where i might be missing something. >> the justice involved--the acquisition for new housing sites for justice involved is different from-isn't that the same acquisition? the tay acquisition? there is two acquisitions on here? >> i don't have in my notes every single thing we talked to at the last meeting so having a hard time doing the side by side of the granular detail. >> okay. >> at the same time you are, but i can try to follow-up on that while we are here. >> okay.

so, okay. so, we have a acquisition but no operating. and then, so it could have been if that--is the acquisition for justice involved something that happened since our liaison meeting? >> yes. >> okay. so, that means that was where the operating went. >> just going to flag again, if we talk about that category, we need to recuse member jackson. >> okay. on the- >> justice involved. >> justice involved. okay. okay. >> i think-we just would like clarity about what happened between the lie aiz ahn meeting and this to make sure we

understand how things were allocated. >> yeah. those were my questions. >> any other questions? >> my bad. different category. so, we can keep talking about housing. i apologize. that's on me. >> i was confused about that, thank you. >> thanks to laura for checking me on that. i apologize. we can keep talking about the housing category, but if this comes in shelter, we'll need to follow recusal process. >> member friedenbach, basically you are just seeking clarity to make sure we know what happened with the funds that we thought would go to operating for the one acquisition and are now we see this new justice involved acquisition plus operating and

want to see if that's where it went? >> yeah. it seems like it did. >> i know, but we want certain. >> yeah. and i think maybe--i mean, i am thinking about--i mean, i really want this acquisition to go forward. i dont know much about justice involved and sure it amazing but maybe make recommendation trying to-because we can also-right now during the budget process it is at the board of supervisors and so we can make recommendation as a body to say, we urge the board of supervisors to find money for operating for this or something like that, so that could be a possible thing, but think i'm obviously-this acquisition was really important and hard to do without operating. >> right.

and it speaks to the challenge we will face in future years when we may have further short falls so great to clarify that. let's hold off-i think you are crafting thoughts about motions, but let's go on with anybody else have questions? >> hi. thanks for the presentation. i did have a couple questions. so, on the suspending 12 percent cap on short-term rental subsidies for the next few budget cycles which is before the board, is there a projected amount of what the expenedture would be short-term if the cap is lift snd >> it is hard to align with the budget, because as i kind of said, but sure itp wasn't completely clear, we loaded all investment plan in year one of the budget, so it is falsely inflating the 24-25 year and saying we are

over the cap. it is because it is multiyear spending plan that is being loaded in fy24-25 of the budget, about we anticipate those actual expenditures to hit over 2 to 5 years, so we know we'll be over the cap based on the program rolling out, but at this point in time, we dont know how much. i think we have a multi-year spending plan for what that will look like, and that will kind of determine how much over the cap we are and i think we could bring that in future meetings. we dont have that right now. >> thanks for that. i think that would be helpful when the cap is listed what it is actually at, so determine whether or not the 12 percent cap maybe needs to change in a more permanent basis, but we won't have that information so we left the cap and see how it is utilized. and then, so obviously my first meeting so wasn't around for previous conversation but to jennifer's

point about the subsidy for rapid rehousing and hsh proposal 5 years and the mayor proposal is for 2 to 5 years, so i guess understanding anybody that needs to stay on it 5 years can but there is anticipation some won't need it 5 years and why the 2 was put in there. it is helpful to understand what the 2 to 5 means. echoing that question a little bit. and then again, as someone who previously worked on the expansion of the shelter in san francisco thinking long-term operation and echoing similar concerns that have been raised about ongoing operating budget for the site but that is a question for every site every year, so and the city usually man ages to find a way so i have full faith and confidence, and it is nice to have a little more certainty where

possible about what that source-if we acquire a site and that budget cycle, what the immediate operating source would be. and also, i don't know if there is a idea about how many folks would be served in the tay justice impacted site or target for that, because i didn't see a number of beds. >> i don't have that number in my notes, so can't speak to the number right now. i do--about like the 2 to 5 year subsidies that are kind of in question, we used our data to kind of project the number of households that would need a one year extension and then we kind of used the number of extensions we have administrated to really project out and so we projected 50 percent received one year extension and we used the modeling of the data we have to come up

with the multi-year projections of how many would need 3 to 4 to 5 years. there is obviously flexibility in that, but we were using the data available to us from within the system. >> thanks. >> to that point, this is not so much a question, but a point of clarity, page 7 of the slides you talk about the new subsidies and percentage for two years. those percentages are confusing because you say everybody gets 2 years. i prefer what you said, based on your estimates we assume that up to 50 percent will get two years, or up to two years, 10 percent need up to three years and 25 percent- >> noted. >> because otherwise it doesn't add to hundred percent and it is confusing. >> that makes since, it is very

confusing and to explain without giant spreadsheets. >> i say that not to diminish member friedenbach's concern compared to what was proposed, but i would like clarity in how it is presented, so i wanted to interject that. any other questions? >> one more, sorry. >> yes. >> so, i also have looked a the preliminary data and participate in the pit count and looking forward seeing the full report. at the same time, i'm sure--a lot of us care about the issue deeply have-there has been a lot in the news lateby about the work dr. [indiscernible] has done around increasing age of folks experiencing homelessness and how it is starting to skew up and i know that it

is the same problem. we have limited pie and try toog do a lot of different things and lot of people and don't know if this is necessarily a question that you can best answer as the budget director, but thinking about some you know, stories and i was just at a presentation last friday where dr. cashell went through data showing the population of folks experiencing homelessness in california and the bay is tending to skew to older and also those folks tend to have more medically frail issues, so i don't know necessarily if it is a question but maybe just to think about as we have more data about from the pit count about making sure we are targeting the population or the programs are targeting the populations we are seeing. >> yeah. i think that's a really interesting point and one thing i think you notice as part of the spending plan

investment are in part reason we can make that investment is not only because of what we saw in the pit count and what we know is happening in san francisco, but it suls a where we have available fund balance. my first slide showed we had a deficit of $17 million in the second year of the budget, that's our general housing bucket, we are not balanced there and that's where the adult and general population is served based on the current authorities within this fund. so-- >> i have question about that, because the last meeting or when this was presented, at the meeting where this information was presented, you guys were going to go to the mayor's office to try to get in the second year budget a back-fill of the $17 million shortfall for general housing, so are you saying that was not awarded?

okay. >> we don't have a back fill for the gap in the second year of the budget. >> okay, so that is something we are going to have to find funding for next year. >> i think at the end of the budget year we will have a better idea of what current fund balance and under spend we have. now we balanced around the current year projections. once we close out the fiscal year, we'll have a better idea how close our projections were and the true gap. some september, i think we'll know what we look like going into 25-26 and where additional savings could exist within our current year budget to help reduce the gap in the second year. >> okay. thank you. >> one last sort of summary and that is, it seems like it would be helpful for us to get cost of acquisition for the tay program, operating cost

and proposed numbers served and the same information for the justice involved tay, because we are trying to compare what we thought and what has come through and we just want to be clear we understand. if we could get that back to us, that would be appreciated. >> yeah. maybe within the budget process. yeah. >> so, thank you. what we'll do now is take any public comment on this and then we can continue our discussion and see if there is any motions the committee wants to make. proceed to coordinate public comment, please. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment in person, please line up at the podium now. members of the public who wish to provide public comment over the phone, please call 415-655-0001 enter

access code 26609901641 then press pound and pound again. dial star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. please note each person will have two minutes to speak. interpretation services are available in spanish and cantonese. if you require interpretation please request when it is your turn to speak and pause every few sentences to allow time for turpitation and note you will have four minutes to speak. we will begin with in person public comment fallowed by pub lic comment over the phone. at this time, we will have our interpreter read this section and then take our public comment. thank you.

apologies for the delay. >> no worries. >> interpreters if you are able, please unmute yourself.

[interpreter explaining public comment process]

>> thank you. >> thank you. and if we have our spanish interpreter, if you are able, please interpret. it looks like we are unfortunately having technical difficulties with our

spanish interpretation, but we will continue to work on that in case anyone needs it. so, we can move ahead with the public comment. >> thank you. dpood afternoon members of the committee. my name is salina here with coalition on homelessness. here today to advocate for full allocation of hundred permanent flexble subsidies for day. rather then 50 subsidies proposed. the recommendation of hundred subsidies is not a statistics, it represents essential support for young individuals striving to transition from homelessness to stability reduce the number to 50 undermines the foundation of support tay desperately needs. the recent pit count revealed a doubling in family homelessness. this alarming trend can not be ignored. it is imperative to have it the $3.3 million for 60 families. these subsidies provide immediate

relief and long-term stability for families who are in desperate need of support. i appreciate the mayor budget included rapid rehousing subsidies, but there is no permanent subsidies for families. i hope the department here today can urge the board of supervisors to insure that there is permanent subsidies for both youth and families. furthermore, i want to emphasize member friedenbach point t is crucial the language around the 5 year subsidies include a provision informing families to extend the subsidies. the transparence empower families giving more time to be more secure and stable to plan for their future without the constant fear of losing support. i urge the department and members of this committee echo these needs to the board of supervisors, soit so it can be added to this year's budget. thank you. >> good afternoon everyone. my name is jessica hernandez to ask for

the full allocation of flexible subsidies for families and youth. we have seen high increase of family homelessness due to increase of rent, and we think temporary solution like shelter and temporary housing is the permanent solution. it isn't a solution, it is just a band aid. we need more permanent stuff for families to remain housed. i have met a lot of families in shelters who have been there years and families waiting to go inside a shelter, so if we want families to thrive and be successful and get out of the trauma, we need more permanent solutions and i urge you guys to urge other members and other people who are in the [indiscernible] can make this decisions for them that families need housing, not only families individuals, there is a lot of people who now have a job, but can't afford to pay rent because it is really high.

$3 thousand, $4 thousand for two bedroom is too much. not even a family or couple with mom and dad can afford to pay all that money. not i can afford to pay all the money, so let's think straight and get the more permanent solutions out. thank you. >> at this time, we will take public comment over the phone. moderator, please unmute the first caller. there is no longer anyone in line for public comment. that concludes our public comment section for this agenda item. >> thank you. so, now returning to the

committee for any discussion or further comments, questions. >> i like to-i got several motions i like to make. if you indulge me. >> of course. >> so, the-for the new members, i'm kind of a motion queen. but, yeah, oen the first piece around department of public health, i will read my motion and we have discussion. we recommend that additional $3 million for heart be removed from the behavioral health budget as it does not fit within behavioral goals or use in the prop c fund given the primary work of heart consist of clearing unhoused people for ada sidewalk violation and instead move the dollars to treatment bed category. and the reason i'm saying move to the

treatment bed category is because, if you look that breakdown proportioninally we have a lot of non-bed stuff in that category. i know it may not be possible for them to expand treatment within the next year, and they could look into it and if they don't, i think that we still have this looming $40 million deficit and so, it would just be kind of used as part of the savings to bridge the short fall, but i do think it is really important for us to prioritize you know, that piece of it where we got $18 million in outreach, 12 $12 million in case management, $4 million in drop-in et cetera et cetera and very little on the bed category. $30 million is the largest category, but out of the $78 million, proportionally i think it is

the most important part. we have done stuff with the dollars around having step down housing. okay, yeah, sorry you have to leave the room while i'm talking. >> just to reiterate in the treatment beds category, and mental health bucket, that's where west side community services gets ocoh funding. >> qu will wait on on the discussion till later and pause. i'll do this at the very end and then you can walk out and then i'll do that motion at that point. thank you, sorry about that. >> i appreciate that, but two thingz. one, what i like to do is suggest a motion, see if there is a second before we move into discussion and then, two, by the fact we now have-- >> we cant do that. >> i understand, but also by the fact we now have seven members, we must have five people to vote, and so if

somebody-since we are only 5 too, if somebody recuses themselves we can't take vote on a measure. our policy change last month, if there are 3 or more vacancies we can go to 4 people to pass something, but right now we only have 2 vacancies. so, unfortunately i am not saying it isn't something we should address, but unfortunately we have to hold to the next meeting which is only two weeks away. >> as of right now, our next meeting is canceled. >> okay. that's a problem. >> budget process will be effectively wrapped up, but yes, we cannot take any action that includes treatment beds. >> okay. >> we can take action- >> on the housing category. okay. alright. >> but that's not to say the motion isn't something that should be requested to be addressed and as a individual pursue that i think. i just want us to make sure we

are following these new procedures. >> yeah, that's good. i still want to make sure we do the city attorney thing, which i'll follow up by e-mail afterwards. >> thank you. did you have--sorry. >> i just have a question. so, are we going to be able to take action on that motion? >> no. >> i believe you can still vote on ocoh using heart, but you can't say where it goes. it can't go to treatment. >> i see. so your motion if you want to alter your motion to speak about what it shouldn't be spent on, then--and just use the term, but should be reallocated to other purposes, then i think- >> if i amend the motion i can still make the motion now. ? okay. i amend the motion now. brilliant. thank you. >> make your motion, let's see if there is a second, then we can get

into the reasoning discussion and so forth just so we are processed. >> do you have to take a second? what if there are questions about the only time you can talk about the motion, like for added information would be after you have a second? or can we talk about-- >> typically you do a second and then have discussion and- >> okay. >> so, i will repeat my motion. recommend the additional 3 mill dollar heart be removed flaum behavioral health budget given the primary work of the group consist of clearing unhoused people for ada sidewalk violations. >> is there a second?

>> i will make a second. >> thank you member haddix. now, we can discuss--are there questions? >> yeah. jennifer, have we had a presentation on the heart program? >> no. >> because this is the first-i am not familiar with it, and if it truly is a de-escalation program, i do think behavioral health would be involved. >> well, it is through the department of emergency management, not through department of health first of all. >> is there behavioral helt on this team? >> no. >> is that why behavioral health will be funding this? >> no, there is no behavioral specialist on the team. it is basically a complaint

driven thing where there is codes that go out through dispatch and dispatched through 911 and 311 and they have guys that go out and basically it is to reduce the police officers workload, because before police officers were taking those calls, and it is switching them over to this heart team. >> but, the assumption i would think, if you are not sending police out, you would have someone who-it is being brought--yeah, i guess i want to know if they are funding out of behavioral health, does that mean it implies to me that there is a behavioral health component to the team. >> well, frankly i think the mayor superimposed this on department of public health. this didabout go through the

liaison process and this is highly inappropriate. we have a budget process that goes through the department, goes to us, woo ehave a chance to ask questions and then we make recommendations and then the department you know, they are supposed to be-it is supposed to go from you know, us to the commission, to the mayor, to the board of supervisors, but it is really not-the mayor can do this of course, but it is really inappropriate from process perspective to just kind of throw something random on at the last minute that is a new initiative we haven't had a chance to vet which is another reason i say why we shouldn't be doing this. >> one thing you were thinking about getting the city attorney take whether- >> this is the only thij. thing. >> i think with member preston's comments, i am having a hard

time forming a opinion about your motion partly because you are sharing analysis you have done that we haven't seen and we also have not had a department presentation on this component, which i think we need, so i'm--and the city attorney component, so i'm just not feeling like we shouldn't address this, but feeling a little [indiscernible] about trying to vote today personally when i like to see the analysis youver done, i like to hear back-i like to use the process that engages communication with data more directly. >> i have a--since our person from the department of behavioral health is here, do you know what the behavioral health component of the heart team is? >> kelly kurt patrick.

member friedenbach is right, this is a program that is operated by department of emergency management. i believe the connection to our overall street response, which dph plays a critical role with street crisis response team and overdose team, this is a really valued and cost effective part of our entire coordinated street response. the members of the organization who do this work do engage and de-escalate with folks with complex needs people experiencing homelessness, i and believe the intection is they are to link people experiencing homelessness to shelter or services when appropriate. it is a along the continuum of street response, alternative to police and they are working with people experiencing homelessness who may have behavioral health needs.

>> okay, but my question is, is there a social worker? >> i do not believe there are social workers. >> okay. >> we can work with dem and mayor office to get response, but i don't have it in this moment. >> i know this program really really intimately. you may or may not trust me but i went through every dispatch that they did and i found one mental health reference because it writes out what--none of the staff i read their proposal, i know exactly how they are staffed, i met with management, i interviewed, we have done probably 15 to 20 outreach on the street asking homeless people about the program and what they think about it and i tell you, it has nothing to do with behavioral health, literally nothing. i'm sorry, but this is thrown at the last minute. we wait, we are not able to be able to weigh in on this. this is significant amount of money, which is behavioral health dollars.

the thing we need more like so desperately right now, so they do not have social workers. they are not trained in social work, they are literally the-the majority of the calls result in gone on arrival, the second one is clearing for ada. what they do is take out a ruler and if the homeless person is blocking more then the amount legally required they ask them to move. that is what they are doing. so, i can't--i know you are in a position here, but yeah. >> i guess i ask the department is there a pitch you would like to make from a behavioral health perspective that this is something that should be funded out of behavioral health money? >> thought i attempted to make that pitch earlier, but as i was sharing, it is part of the continuum of non police response to folks often experiencing homelessness on the streets. they do serve a de-escalation

role and trained to support people experiencing homelessness who may have behavioral health needs and really it is part that continuum of which dph plays a critical role, street crisis response team and street overdose team and this is part of the continuum to support people experiencing homelessness in a non-police function. >> can you tell me that the department of behavioral health trains the people on these teams how to deal with someone-you are saying these are complex people. i will assume that generally complex i guess you can have a physical complex where it is like physically they can't move, but i will think if it is applied as you are saying to complex people with complex needs it is going to involve behavioral health. is there any component that

involves like, you guys, the department training the team? >> i don't know the answer to that question but i assume folks dealing with people on daily basis experiencing homelessness and may have behavioral health needs would have appropriate train toog de-escalate appropriately, but i don't know direct involvement of the training with this program in this moment. >> okay. that's really helpful. thank you so much. >> yeah. i just want to flag that, we have to end the meeting in 8 minutes, so i know time is limited. >> that was helpful. thank you. >> any other comments, questions? >> that's it. i'm spazing out about this. really upset about it. >> we should take public comment. >> we did. >> we already did, so therefore we are to a position where we can take a vote,

and would you-that's roll call , right? >> can you repeat the motion? >> we recommend that the additional $3 million for heart be removed from the budget as it does not fit within behavioral health goals or use in the prop c fund given the primary work of the group is clearing unhoused people for ada sidewalk violations. >> member friedenbach, yes. member haddix, yes. member jackson, abstain. member preston, yes. member walton, no. >> i suggest we try to save 2

minutes to deal with upcoming issues because it seems there is a lot to address on this. do you have another motion, jennifer? >> yeah, just i want-just couple more motions that are just kind of more kind of policy stuff. so, i like to move to urge the board of supervisors to fund $1 million for operating the tay acquisition. >> the operating funds for tay acquisition? >> yeah. >> is there a second for that motion? >> jennifer, can you-we have to second it. >> i'll second to discuss. >> for clarity, you are talking about the not the justice involved youth, but the original tay acquisition. [ >> 8.5 for acquisition. >> did you have a question? >> that's what i wanted to see.

so, in our original recommendation, did it have that? >> yeah. it had 1.4. i brought it down to $1 million because the providererize -providers are saying they can go lower. >> any other questions or comments about this? >> i'll make a comment. acquisitions and construction are the easy part, because that is one time funding and people get excited and it is ongoing operations that are difficult and ongoing. i also say, i have been on the other side of the budgets, where it is--the money usually comes through if there is a plan to open a site then at some point the money has to show up to operate the site if people are moving in, so i don't know--i also

wasn't around for previous discussion about how much money was necessarily in operating budget, so it seems a little strange there is money in budget for acquisition and no money for the operation of the site, but i also i guess have maybe faith that it will appear at some point in order for people to move in and be served at the site. >> jennifer, just to be clear your motion is request board of supervisors consider other funding because it isn't in the ocoh budget? >> yeah, because we don't have it in the ocoh budget urging the board of supervisors to fund. >> in response, the issue is we have one time money from the delay of starting this and slow beginnings of various programs and that is separate from the overall budget with certain allocations. any other comments or questions? and can we-why don't you restate the motion and take a vote.

>> we urge the board of supervisors to fund $1 million in operating funds for the tay acquisition. >> great. >> i also just want to quickly flag that revisiting the bylaws you can't abstain unless you are recused, so everyone has to vote yes or no on this. >> because the reason i abstained because i didn't have enough knowledge to vote on it. >> i appreciate that. we do have to follow bylaws, so going forward. >> sorry. [laughter] >> going forward if you feel there is more knowledge, state that, but also vote no. >> got you. >> did we get a second? >> mr. haddix. >> member friedenbach, yes. member haddix, yes. member jackson, no. member preston, yes.

member walton, yes. >> it did not pass because we have to have five. it is majority of our seats, but again, these are things we can revisit again and again. you had another? >> yeah, just this was the transparency. we urge full transparency to families that the subsidy is 2 to 5 years if there is risk of homelessness. >> second. >> second from member haddix. any discussion? i like to just rather then along with the word transparency, i like to suggest it includes that it be incorporated into implementation that families are informed from the beginning. >> friendly amendment accepted. >> thank you. any other discussion?

can we do the vote? >> member friedenbach, yes. member haddix, yes. member jackson, yes. member preston, yes. member walton, yes. motion pass. >> passes. >> i have one last one. we urge the board of supervisors to fund additional permanent subsidies forte and family. given dramatic increase in youth and families experiencing homelessness and that the mayor's-augmentation in the budget were for one time or short-term and emergency shelter. >> second it. >> second from haddix. could you state it one more time, please? >> we urge the board of supervisors to fund additional permanent subsidies for tay and families given increase

in tay and family in the pit count, and given the mayor's augmentation included temporary initiatives. >> thank you. any discussion? >> i have a question. so can you define permanent? >> those are typically the flex pool subsidies that is what we call them, but they are basically a local section 8, so they-you pay 30 percent of your income and get supportive service but run in the private market and if you income goes above-you only get the subsidy while eligible, so if you--permanent, meaning it is- >> [multiple speakers] >> hard and fast deadline i mean hard and fast end time. >> any other discussion? >> so, let's say the family moves