rafael manldsleman. our clerk is ms. linda wong. i'd like to thank sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting. madame clerk, do we have any announcements? >> yes. due to covid-19 health emergency, city employees and the public and the board of supervisor and legislative chamber are [inaudible], however members will be participating in the meeting. this precaution is pursuant to the local state and federal orders. committee members will attend the meeting via video conference and participating in a meeting to the same extent as if they are physically present. public comments will be available on each item on this agenda, both channel 26, and sfgovtv.org. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during public comment period are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001.

meeting i.d., 1463472890 and then press pound twice. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussion, but you will be muted and in listen mode only. when your item of interest comes up, press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternative, you may submit comment in the following way at [inaudible]. i will be forwarded to the supervise source and will be include as the official file. finally, items today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda of january 5, 2021, unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much, madame clerk. i would just like to make an

announcement that this is the last budget meeting of 2020. and it is the last budget meeting that they make with these members. it is my last year in office and i just want to say to my committee members, it has been an honour and pleasure to swerve you during the most challenge budget year in san francisco's sort of recent history. i wanted to thank the extended committee of our budgets and appropriatations committee that includes also president ye and supervisor ronan and to say congratulations on a great budget process this year. it has been an honour to serve with all of you. madame clerk, can you call item number one?

>> item number one, hearing to consider the release of reserved funds of the office of early care and education for all, placed on the budgets and finance committee reserve by ordinance number 165-20 in the amount of $42 million to fund the early education economic recovery grant and loan programme, subsidy outlays to provide additional access to child care, supplementing the cares 2.0 teacher stipend, community response in collaboration with the family resource centres and staffing for the office of early care and education to support the work of implementings the 5-year spending plan. >> thank you very much, madame clerk. i want to recognize president yee who has joined us today in committee and allow an opportunity to make some opening statements, president.

>> all three of you have worked very, very hard and long hours like a lot of our [inaudible] and as we all recognize it has been a tough year but you held it down, chair fewer, and was able to get us through the process of making sure that there was going to be a balanced budget. i know that it is unbalanced right now. but that is not due to a deliberation during the budget process.

and eventually the full board will have its last meeting of my presidency. hopefully soon. ok. let me open r remarks about the release of this fund and budget [inaudible]. as you know, and i might be repeating myself, but as you know, this is from funding that we were able to collect because people voted to support prop-c in 2018. that focused on early education. this is not general fund money that we're talking about. it's funding or money or revenues for specific purposes. and i'm bringing that up because it's really tempting in

a down year. and we'll start looking at how it could be used as not what the ballot measure says. and it's important for me, and it is important for all the supervisors to be checking balance in all this and i'm seeing at least two of the members here on this company right now will be here next year and it's important that you have the history and that background to be really scrutinizing this fund. this type of funding is there and we're facing a pandemic. in many ways, there is -- i'm going to be honest with you, there's some questions later

and question of what these line item expenses are and what's it for. how's it related to what the ballot measure said. and at the same time, trying to show some flexibility because of what we're facing. i want to make sure that we're being a little bit flexible and doesn't get repeated over and over and over again. the biggest line item for this >> you've heard about what this is for already as we pass the ordinance that sort of

structures and the whole city and the whole country is facing economic issues and it's not only specific to a portion of our urban education system that is [inaudible]. and like many of our other expenses that we've had recently to say they support certain things, it's only for specific people or -- it's a tax base for the city and so we help businesses all time. we will continue to help businesses, using funding from the city. and this is -- this is about

all the businesses, whether they're doing nonprofit or for profit that's out there, that's suffering. that many -- most of them did not get any relief from the federal government. so i want to make it real clear that the intent of this the programme is not to only serve a portion of our license child care programmes. and it's to be sure that the grant program is not only for a portion. it's -- the grant programme should be considered for all license and i sported out already from when we passed the ordinance. and we have to pay attention to

that. because these are programmes that are not necessary and par of the officer e.e.e. system. so, they have to do additional outreach to make sure they get reached. so that's really important and i'll just leave it at that. at least from the board of supervisors review of what this $25 million is meant for. it's meant to shore up the whole dam for san francisco. what i'd like the do, if you don't mind, chair, i believe director [inaudible]?

>> hello. i'm the director for the san francisco office of early care and education. and today is an historic moment, i think, in san francisco and also in the nation as we look at this reserve, which was fought very very much by our early care and education field ands the programmes that support children and families throughout the city and also parents. they are very proud to be able to present to you our ask for the prop-c spending plan and with me today includes part of the presentation is the director for first five san

francisco, teresa figueroa who will be dealing with questions around some of the allocations that we have proposed in our spending plan. we recognize that this is an unprecedented time and so our request does also represent that. you know, no other programmes in the nation have benefited so much from the resources that san francisco has been able to provide and even with the resources that the city provides, they're still struggling. i'm not sure if i can process question if i can share my screen.

because part of the -- there we go. thank you. whoever's doing that magically, thank you so much. s so what i'm going to do is just going to go briefly through the request as you have the report from the b.l.a. as well as our details ask. but this is more for the public and the breakdown of how it happened and what we're requesting. so f you can go to the next slide, please. they have produced legislation to establish an economic recovery fund. i wanded to give a little bit more context and background, although most of you probably have heard this information already. i can't stress enough how many of our programmes across the city are actually the nofk

helping san francisco's [inaudible] be able to operate and that is through child care. if families don't have access to child care, then parents really can't go to work. and what this fund helps is the abilities to be able to maintain that infrastructure during the time that we're currently in. where it is not object shelter in place, but with the public health guidelines. there is an additional cost to operating and that doesn't include just restaurants and small businesses. it actually spans across all the early care and education sites. the public health guidelines are intended and rightfully so to mitigate the spread of covid. and because of this, child care programmes are not necessarily equipped to be able to put in public health guidelines at least to this degree. through this economic recovery fund, what we are proposing to do is provide grants and loans to programmes across the city,

making it accessible to all the programmes in the city but, of course, always prioritizing populations and neighbourhoods who are actually affected the most. en so the $25 million would go across the city, approximately over 500 sites would be eligible. this includes family child care homes as well as nonprofit centre-based programmes and for-profit programmes. we have a criteria that actually [inaudible] and in case there are any questions about that, i'd be happy to answer them. but pretty much that's what the $25 million would serve. we would be closely monitoring this funding because the idea behind it is that, again, we preserve and we maintain our early care in education infrastructure. otherwise, parents can't go to work if they don't have child kaifrment and we have to help out, just like we do with the restaurants and help out our

very micro businesses and micro enterprises which are child care centres across the city. >> ok. next slide. and similarly, for child care programmes across the city, they are reporting vacancies. and part of this is because there's lots of families who can't pay tuition. and so the city has been able to provide the ability to start reducing our wait list for children who are subsidy eligible. what we're proposing is to set aside $10 million so we can shore up our system and also create access. one of the things that may not be well known across the city is that, because of the public health guidance, the number of students that are ahowed in a child care centre are pretty much half to be able to the

provide in-service supports or in-service instructional services. with that, that means that we values to open up more classrooms so more children can actually attend high-quality preschool or child care. and this amount of funding would actually help aleve two things. one is the number of children who are on the wait list who are subsidy eligible and the other is also be able to fund services for those programmes that have been able to expand into additional classrooms so they can provide more in-person instructional programming. next slide, please. and, of course, we wouldn't be able to do any of this if we don't have teachers. one of the things that the early care and education field really stepped up from the very beginning, even with shelter in

place, because they are an essential service, 100% -- well, i should rephrase that -- 99% of all the city-funded programmes are actually open and operating with the exception of the is school district. -- of the school district. everyone stepped up. all the schools are open, teachers have returned to work and because of, again, the leadership of president yee and supporters, we have a programme that's called cares. which is a very long act anymore. it is an acronym for a very long title but really what it stands for is a teacher stipend. it is to be able to compensate people who do really, really tough job, but really don't get paid very well. and so with -- through funding initially through e-wrap dollars, we've been able to provide 2400 teachers across the city to be able to have a

$6,000 [inaudible]. this year, we actually had 220 more applications and what that does is because we have a pool of funds, every time someone applies, the stipend amount gets a little bit less. and so what we're doing with this reserve is being able to augment the pool so everyone gets the same amount, especially for the new applicants that we received this year and part of that is because, again, with the having to open up more classrooms so we can provide more in-person instructional services, we actually have more teachers come in to the pipeline, which also speaks to the attraction and the retention of teachers that this compensation strategy, although short-term, has really proven. so when you pay people just a little bit more and a bit of a more of a decent wage, people really are able to the stay in their jobs, especially for

teachers. obviously this was a short term strategy. what we're looking sat more long-term. so, with the ability to be able to have the prop-c reserve, we're currently in development of a larger and more sustainable way of increasing wages across our system. and so we'll be giving, for this year, ours care stipend over 2700 teachers this year. we are looking for ways of being able to do this through a grant programme that helps organisations be able to continue to be able to increase wages over time. and that won't be released until later on in the spring in the form of an r.f.p. next slide?

and so part of our work also includes shoring up the early childhood system which also includes our family resource centres. they also a vital service of our birth to 5 for people who live in really vulnerable communities and i'm going allow -- i shouldn't. but if you allow for teresa to speak on the following, around the family resource centres. >> thank you, all. good morning, president yee and supervise source and thank you for your leadership on this important initiative. i'm here to the give you a little more information about the $3 million allocation to family resource centres that have been incorporated in this proposal.

the stu's early care and education programmes are vitally important. and i am thrilled that this infusion of funds will be directed just as the director described and we also know that xhirn do not show up to early care programmes on their own. whether they arrive having slept safely and well, whether they've had dinner and breakfast , whether they show up at all is dependent on what is happening in their homes and their families. and family's daily routines, their general well-being and access to the most basic necessities has been entirely upended by this pandemic. food pantry demand, new client enrollment, referrals from community partner, including from our own covid command centre for families with very young children, birth to 5, has been doubling and is now tripling what it used to be. in a given typical year, f.r.c.s reached 10,000 families of children, 0 to 5.

and these are the same families that are in early care and education centres. next slide, please. on allocation of prop funds will enable to shore up information and referrals, basic needsesens the and case management services, suring that they have sufficient capacity to receive referrals from child care centres and other community partners. these funds will help families reconnect to child care, benefits, employment opportunities and other systems of care that lay the foundation for their own rekoifrz and the economic recovery of the whole city. and i do just want to take a moment to go into a little bit more detail of how we're envisioning use of these funds for family resource centres since they are short term through this allocation. so, we have 26 family resource centres. this allocation would work out to be about 100,000 per family

resource centre and we would look towards things like concrete supports, such as diapers, formula, some emergency food to get families in between food pantries. we also are hearing more and more that technology for families to support distance learning continues to be an issue. and when i say distance learning, that also includes from birth to the 5, many of whom are doing distance learning. because our early care and education centres can earn their enrollment through some portion of distance learning and so supporting family's technologies is an ongoing difficultty to support their early care and educational experience. also in some cases, we have our f.r.c.s are able and this demand is increasing as well to provide some short term, brief and rental assistance to ensure that they can stay in their homes. because far lot of our families, from the city

moratorium end up in the same [inaudible] so they are very much still strug until this regard. it would support some creative coordination across f.r.c.s and through some staffing support, family navigators, how it can look to the share some staff across f.r.c.s, how we can look to bring in some resources to support what has been massive efforts in this distribution of food and emergency supplies that is just overwhelming our family resource centres. this is not the business they are typically in, distribution of supplies and this much food and this much emergency assistance. so they're drowning in it. and some coordination help would greatly alleviate the burden on them and ensure much more effectively and efficiently that these important resources get directly to our birth to 5

families in closing, we have always known that early care and education and family support go hand in hand for a child's success in school and in life. now when combined together, these services mean the difference between keeping your job, having food on the table and a warm bed to sleep in. in short, our children need us more than ever to shore up and bolster all the supports in their life as much as we possibly can. thank you for your time and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. fewer, when i start getting into questions, do you mind if we just go ahead and take public comment first? >> ok. i don't mind -- oh, would you mind, president yee, if we heard the b.l.a. report first? >> oh, i'm sorry. >> and then after the b.l.a. report, i'd like to invite

supervisor safaiyeh. >> yes. there was previously appropriated funds into fiscal 2021 budget. these are funds generated by the commercial rent tax. on page three of four of our report, we summarize the programmes and we've also been hearing presentations to the departments. page four shows the spending plans for these funds are the one thing i will point out is that this is only a portion of the amount placed on reserve. the actual reserve is $273 million. so, $42 million is approved for release, the amount remaining on reserve is $241 million and we recommend approval. and i'm available for questions if you have any. >> thank you very much.

would you like to make any remarks? >> yeah. thank you, chair fewer. i just wanted to the say briefly this is a historic day. i know that president yee has dead indicate his entire career to this work. i think it is very fitting that this will be one of the last things that he does on his way, wrapping up his term. i have worked closely with him and the community. i'm very proud to represent the highest number of concentration of family child care providers in the city. we have one of the highest -- we have the same or equal to children living in poverty, 0 to 5, as the mission. and this type of care, this type of educational assistance and family support so vital to our city, particularly vital to my district in particular. i just wanted to say briefly that i wanted to the thank president yee and let him know that he can fasz the

-- he can pass the torch to me and anyone else who wants to work on this. this is such an important, ewe and i want to thank the director and all the family child care providers and child care providers in the city that put in all the work to come up with this funding bucket. it is very well laid out. as with stated so many of our child care providers are in danger of closing their doors if this money was not able to come in, which then would have a ripple effect from people not being able to go to work. it couldn't come at a better time and i'm here to continue this good work and thank everyone that has been involved in this. thank you, chair fewer. >> thank you very much. with that, let's open this up for public comment. madame clerk, could you please call public comment for item number 1? >> yes, madame claire. -- chairman i'm checking to see

if there are any callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have to be added. >> operator: we currently have 11 callers in the queue. >> ok. let's hear our callers. >> caller: yes, hi. good morning. i'm name is april and i'm a member of parents voices san francisco. i'm an essential worker providing care for disabled seniors. i've been on the waiting list for four long years and struggling with consistent care for my child and i'm doing the best that i can to support my family. somedays i have to take my daughter to work. others i can leave with a family or friend. but with the covid crisis, it has been much harder trying to find stable care.

with the stress of the world right now, the last thing a parent should have to think about is where their child will be who are working. we need this funding. our livelihoods are depend on it. our children are growing and deserve access to child care and will provide safe and nurturing environment that will allow them to grow into happy, healthy and strong humans. we want to build strong families and help with economic resilience and independence. we support the child care subsidy. we're asking the board to honour the funding for prop-c. thank you. >> thank you for the comments. next speaker, please. >> good morning. my name is marina, i'm a parent leader and i'm calling today to share my story. i have two children. i wanted to go to school and i want to work part time but

there was no child care available for my kids in san francisco. i was not able to afford the high cost of child care so my kids stayed with me all the time. i took one class per semester and also sometimes i take them with me to class. my life was really hard. every child deserves to go to care when he or she needs it. we can't keep them waiting. early education is very important. we need it more than ever now. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, nay name is lourdes.

i'm going to volunteer my services for child care at this point because the family that i'm providing has been disqualified and they both are -- the mom and dad are working part-time jobs, but they are disqualified for any subsidies so i'm just doing a volunteer, providing child care for two children and i have to the say that [inaudible] and exempt child care providers need to be considered and many families have been disqualified, especially the spanish-speaking families.

many of them are essential workers and the income they do, they disqualified them from [inaudible] at the centre or other type of systemic culture. so i'm inquiring you to put more funding into the exempt and further more, acknowledge the prop c -- the prop c funding and please more than because [inaudible] i wish you happy holidays, president norman yee. he has been an advocate made sure that during this pandemic, many families have been disqualified and still struggling to find child care services. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, plea. pray >> caller: hi, good morning.

my name is maria. i'm the organizer of [inaudible] and i thank all the parents who have spoken so far. we work hard to pass prop c and prop f. we wanted to get children off the waiting list for child care. as we understand it, this request for use of funds by the oece is not exclusives and it is just as first request for funds for this year. the subsidies are [inaudible] only about 3,000 children waiting for care. this will only serve 500 [inaudible] considered [inaudible]. if you are limiting on an e.l.f. capacity, then we're doing a service [inaudible]. considering that oece has not expanded the list of o.e.s. providers. our children cannot wait. and the top officials see this [inaudible] to fund child care.

it includes funding. i support the f.r.c. it should continue to be funded and not by prop c. [inaudible] through the years and [inaudible]. opening the door to other programmes outside of child care will subvert other programmes. please seriously consider funding other programmes outside proposition c or from the general fund when it is outside prop c per view. we support the f.r.c.s, but not [inaudible]. we look at prop-c as funding security for child care that should be in a lock box and can only be open when [inaudible] in the prop c funding priorities. release the funds accordingly to meet current needs.

thank you very much, supervisor yee. we wish you a happier holiday and thank you for being a champion for our families. [bell ringing] >> thank you for your commentsments next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. my name is diana. i'm the public policies communications director, the children's council and members of the advocacy coalition. oh, sorry. [inaudible]. especially in the pandemic. e.r.c.ses are much needed by all, educators providing services and this must include [inaudible].

[audio cut out] grants will be needed, programmes will not be able to retain loans that is currently being proposed by oece. to access the advocacy coalition primarily services with regard to prop c is ensuring the intents of prop c. it follows only con sent on forming subgroups. clears the child care wait list and raise educator's pay. financial income for middle incomes and invest in quality support. however, we see funds [inaudible] resort centre and discretionary rebalancing. [inaudible] while the advocacy coalition supports getting the economic recovery fund out the door quickly, they look forward to working with the board of supervisors to maintain community oversight over the spending. the community knows best how these funds will help educators

and communities throughout san francisco. we want to thank president yee for all of his work to advance early care and education in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. can i be heard? >> yes, we can hear you. >> caller: my name is lindsey. my goal here today is just to show a little bit of my personal experience and to encourage the are leasing of funds for the e.s c. economic recovery programme. so, my centre, we are in our 47th year of service to the community and, of course, we're one of the many programmes beginning to buckle underneath the financial strain of operating during this covid-19 pandemic.

thank you, president yee, for all of your work around this. and just [inaudible] and it would be an understatement. we followed the lead of oesc and [inaudible]. we exhausted every single option at habit. we applied for as many things as we could. [inaudible] given this still completely ravaged hour, financial resources and now we're staring down the barrel of financial collapse. my programme is not a part of

e.l.s. or any type of other government subsidy program. we received no additional funds outside of tuitions and fundraisers. and we're trying our hardest not to put this burden on the back of our families. by increasing tuition or increasing fees and we also can't, you know, enroll more families. we're trying to abide by the current guidelines and trying to keep everyone safe. but it's simply not possible to do so at the rate things are going and we serve nurses and firefighters and law enforcement and our biggest fear is that we're going to close down and these folks will have nowhere to put their children -- [bell ringing] >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is gabriella. we are a spanish immersion programme with two locations.

we were founded in 2013. we serve a total of 55 families and employ 12 native spanish eke spaoers, 11 are san francisco residents. for many of our employees, the wage they earn as professionals crucial for their families. thank you especially, president yee, for your leadership on this issue as well as the bill's co-sponsors and i want to speak on behalf of this legislation to provide funds for e.c. providers. we are a private school. we provide financial afraid our pockets. and our teach thers and families depend on us as they would at any school and i'd like the echo lucy's comments that we serve a lot of essential providers in our apparent community. we also shut down completely for shelter in place. of course we could not collect from our families during this time. we did obtain federal p.p.e.

funds to cover payroll but that is one part of our cost. most providers are suffering a really big double bind of higher costs to operate right now. and lower income. due to the limit and means of complying with the necessary health requirements right now. so covid has had a huge hit on most providers. we have to hire more teach thers. we definitely have to perditional supply and i'd like to emphasize that grant funds rather than additional loan commitments are the most useful to recuperate lost income. child care is an industry that runs on thin margins. our private programmes are struggling to re-open and recover and continue. so, grant funds would definitely go a long way to restabilizing our programmes and we believe we are serving a critical nunsing our society.

early childhood education from birth through age 5 -- [bell ringing] >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is pat sullivan. i'm the director of the family child care association of san francisco and i wanted to thank president yee and the board of supervisors. the funding for prop c was intended for the workforce and we are a little alarmed that some of the funds are being allocated for family resource centres, although we understand the necessity of family resource centres to serve the city and share the same community. they were not part of the original allocations and we're sure this is the first step in

many to come for the supervisors to the find other reasonss to dip into what we're supposed to be funds specifically for early childhood education. the cares programme was really great. we appreciate the funding. but the $. 6,000 that each provider received came out to be roughly about $2.88 a day. so 40% of family child care has already closed down in the city, maybe forever. and we really encourage the funding for prop c [inaudible] exclusively. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is kim garcia. i'm director of [speaking in spanish] a large capacity family shelter.

i received supervisor ye irk's news letter and legislation to establish a much need economic recovery programme supporting early education providers. during this crisis, i increased teacher salaries, again offering health concerns, benefits and continue their entire fund and [inaudible] social economic and racial diversity of school community and [inaudible] awarded $18200 out of our budget. this year accepting [inaudible] has cost us close to $14,000 in order to bridge the gap [inaudible]. this problem is exacerbated by the structure of [inaudible]. i'm sure this we're going to

make san francisco's monumental problem [inaudible] catastrophically worse. [inaudible]. to cover actual costs and [inaudible] [muffled] through quality care and education. i hope that s.f. finds a way to leverage [inaudible], established by prop c, to help specifically and only all sectors in child care while incentivizing [inaudible] vouchers. we need funding we can count on to bring the vouchers off to market standards. i also want to say thank you, supervisor yee, for your incredible leadership for quality child care and families. i wish you the happiest of holidays. i thank you very much. >> thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> hi, good morning. i'm a [inaudible]. [muffled] i'm calling to express my [inaudible] [muffled] many other families are on the wait list and [inaudible] thank

you very much, supervisors. and [inaudible] happy holidays. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. currently there are 12 speakers in the queue. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm a parent leader of parent voices here in san francisco and i was a former [inaudible] advocate for san francisco head start and i see the need for

families all the time for child care and [inaudible] got to go. as a mom back in 2004, i was often on the wait list. by the time i advocated for myself, with my own resources that i have, i just ran and found my own child care. by the time i received a call from the wait list, my child was then [inaudible]. and support the funding for teachers to earn more because i see that the teachers are earning less and less and less and all these teachers that i work with, they are all -- they all love their jobs. however, how can they keep their family financed together when they don't earn enough? and some of them leave to work

in [inaudible] grocery store but they're earning more as a ka their person. -- cashier person or they could help our families take care of our kids. so please, thank you. thank you for all the years that we worked together and i really happy that with all the props, prop c and prop f that we fought for, as current voices leaders and we see it -- we want to see it really help the families in san francisco. thank you. and happy holidays. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, supervisors fewer,

walton, mandelman and yee. i'm just going to echo some of earlier sentiments. i want to really appreciate all the hard work that went into passing prop c and prop f and now accessing this important funding to shore up early care and education for a younger children and thanks to each of you who played a crucial role in making this happen. these funds couldn't have become available at a more important time, for depleted funding and the very supervise purposes of the funds are for the highest need and supporting essential workers and our families is at the top of our list. ensuring programmes that are out there for low and extending to middle income parents are among the top of our list. and making sure that they have subsidies and the programming -- the programme supports they need. the 25s million and the economic recovery legislation will support those funds as well as the 10 million of

direct [inaudible] to families. also ensuring that their funds to support the compensation of our early care and education is essential and fits well within prop c's intent and the cares money as well as the economic recovery subsidies will help with that. i want to go on record here that, while all the fund requests are worthy, the requests directed to the f.r.c.s and new balancing are outside of the [inaudible] for prop c. i asked the board to work with the office and community to identify other funds for these important services. they are equally important. but going forward, they asked that we make sure this is one time that we direct future funds to the great needs to direct early care and education services that prop c was designed to serve. thank you to each of you and wicker you a happy and very safe holiday break. >> thank you for your comments. i believe there is one more

speaker in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please wait until the system has indicated you have been unmuted. next speaker, please. >> yes. my name is mary thomas. i'm a child care provider. i've been in child care for over 40 years. prop c is a very important proposition because it helps family child care, providers and educators in san francisco. there is a lot of people not making the funds to continue to be in child care. we're here to support families, we're here to support educators. prop c is already written. you don't need to change anything. we just need stay with what we work hard for.

we thank you, president yee and all the supervise source for your support. we're in district 11, but we're all over. we deal with all children from all over san francisco. we thank you for the time that you put into this and have a wonderful and blessed holiday. thank you. >> thank you for those comments r. there any additional speakers? >> caller: hi. good morning. i'm caitlin mcna marry ra, a support so fars services director at the family resource centre there is a network of 26f.r.c.s in san francisco who are a [inaudible] early childhood system, working alongside edge kays toer and early childhood education system to support the child and family well-being at home [inaudible] and provide the needs of the most vulnerable and underserved in our community and resource centres are becoming newly inundated with referrals and requests for

assistance [inaudible] community partners including child care centres and developmenttal assessment supports and resources. food pantries and case management needs have doubled and tripled. f.r.c. are working harlds but struggling to meet the acute need such as support groups and parentsing classes, parent child developmenttal groups and trying to get timely and up-to-date information in appropriate languages to all families for basic need resources. now more than ever, family support is a kind greed yenlz abit is successful early care and education system and that investment of a portion of these dollars in child and family well being will ensure that they will greatly enhance the effectiveness of early learning experiences. this critical support that f.r.c.s provide can serve as hope for our community's future. we look forward to collaborate rating with the board of

supervises and partners. happy holidays. >> next speaker, please. >> good morning. i'm representing the staff at [inaudible] children's school as the executive director and cpac as the current chairperson. we 2k50e7ly appreciate your meeting today on the critical issue of significant financial relief for the early care and learning community in san francisco through the early care and education economic recovery programme. we know that you, the supervise source and mayor breen, have been instrumental in keeping early care and warning programmes and services at the forefront of priorities for the city and working families. with great om mi., we know that the city is on the verge of opening back up again

economically and socially with the add vent of truly more vaccines becoming available and distributeedd nationwide. however, over the last eight months, and currently, our programme and others in the city have been dramatically impacted. it cost us significantly more per child to operate our programs with the introduction of medical level safety conditions and fewer source of revenue. for example, the programme that i manage at c5 and other programmes in the city are serving less than half of the children and families than they were as a virus outbreak. we've had to lay off over 50% of our highly professional staff members and their exhausting carefully accumulating reserve over 18 years to [inaudible] families and staff being served. we'll do everything we can to

survive, persist and to sustain the high caliber of child care and learning that san francisco has come to expect. chair fewer, i'm here today to mostly forward our gratitude to your committee and to say that we eagerly appreciate your special efforts with this funding. [bell ringing] thank you and happy holidays. >> thank you for your comments. are there any other callers in the queue? >> operator: madame chair, that completes the queue. >> thank you very much. public comment is now closed. colleagues, are there any comments or questions for the b.l.a. or for ing rid or toronto sa or even for our president yee. i see president yee's hand is up. president yee? >> thank you, chair fewer. and thank you for the public comments. so i'm going to quickly go

through the items that the request for the $2 million is for. i probably have one or two questions for each one of these items. so if you could bear with me, for clarification. some of it i know. i think it should be clear to the public also. so, for the $25 million and i stated at the beginning of this hearing, that it should be -- it's meant for the entire system in san francisco. but i heard from some people that it was stated in public and i just want to have clarification that the funding for the grants would be only

for e.l.s. and others will only get a loan. is that correct? >> we will have the option for two thing. one is the loans that the are very similar to what is already being offered through the city, through the san francisco help programme, which is for small businesses. it pretty much aligns to that same programme, which is for basically a loan for five years, 0%. depending on the organizations that apply and the number of children that they serve, the loan amount will be based on that. we are preparing already for loans to be up to $50,000 and it could go a little bit higher, but it also depends on the number of applications we receive, who was applying and

how we -- and how quickly we can distribute that funding. we had set aside a small amount for grants, for programmes that are city funded and that is because we have -- the office of early care and education is a funder. or a public funder. just like [inaudible]. so the relationships we have are with our grantees. with organizations who are going to be applying for the loans, even they're early care and education programmes f we don't have relationships with them, that means that we have to have other accountability measures to be able to ensure that the funds -- these public funds that are being provided are meeting all of those accountability standards. for grantees that we've had long-term relationships with, that's -- it adds -- we already have an established way of

being able to account for that -- for those public dollars versus programmes that we have no relationship with. so, yes, there's two types of programmes. someone a loan for programmes that are not city funded, that we know very little other than they were licensed and in san francisco. and the other is for grantees that we've had long-term relationships with. >> [inaudible]. [garbled] it is something that people have to pay back? >> they'll have over five years. yes. very similar to the s.f. health programme. >> i'm sorry. i'm going to disagree with this. this is not what the money or the programme that we just passed was intended to do. it was intended to do grants as much as possible for all licensed [inaudible]. this is not unusual for san francisco.

we do this for the business community all the time. it's not like they had contracts with them. applied for certain things and then we have a system to check [inaudible] and two are distributed with it. and the grant is clearly a grant to keep these programmes afloat. to ask programmes that are already closed down and to say, hey, you know like just loan me some money, and knowing that they'll never be able to make it up [inaudible]. so i -- we need rethink this in terms of. what we do for the funding. so if you're going to go to the

letter of the tee of what we just passed with the board of supervisors, we need to not make this a loan programme for those that are already suffering out there. so i'd like to the hear your response. >> we do have -- we do have a criteria. and part of that criteria includes being able to assess the financial status of many of these programmes. we're hoping we can convert a lot of them into grants based on the relationship and there was a caller actually that made the comment about how we're not expanding to more sites. well, having the ability to access this funding will allow us to expand to more sites across the city. but, again, we have to build -- we have to establish a relationship with a lot of these programmes.

and we also have to put in accountability measures and i understand what you're saying in terms of being able to give out grants. but it becomes a little bit difficult to just give out grants to programmes that we have very little-to-no information other than their license. basically that they're operating in san francisco. and whether they would be willing to be able to also serve our priority population. >> again, the thinking is maybe little bit difference from your thinking when we created the programme. the thinking is to save these, whether they are in the system or not in the system. the capacity of san francisco, once upon time we had very little capacity, actually. basically we had a lot of

people fighting, even to pay for tuition fee and slot because they weren't enough. we start losing a quarter of our slots, regardless of the assistance or not. even having a lot more parents again, not being able to find a [inaudible] really [inaudible] our economic recovery scheme. this is not about just those that we serve right now. it's about surveying the city. this is a city's tax base. and we need to save these programmes. because in the long run, everything we lose in the city, we lose a quarter of our capacity, it is going to put a lot of long suffering for not only the parents, but the children that will be able to have access. and then we have people that will have more resources and compete with those limited

slots in which then there's fewer slotses for those that don't have the resources. if the office cannot do this, then we need to allocate the money to another department to get this done. i'm sorry. we have systems in the city that do these things that give grants. if you need different departments, then we will find one. >> we'll review the criteria once more. >> excuse me? >> i said we'll review the criteria once more. >> when would you come back and let us know what happened when you review? because we're going to release funding. it's not really based on what you just told me.

>> probably within the next couple of days. >> so, president yee, i see also supervisor mandelman in the queue. but it seems as though this is an issue and a very large issue of disagreement. around this funding. whether or not it's loans or it's grants. i mean, that is, i think, $25 million of this allocation is in this sort of issue of discrepancy. i know that there is -- people are anxious to get this out of committee so we can actually disperse the funds and there is a sense of urgency here. i'm happy to revisit this item in another meeting or we could have the new budget committee do it. but i know that since you're leaving, therefore, you know,

i'm happy to also hold a budget committee meeting before now and our next board meeting where we can approve this at the full board. it is up to you. i want to give deference also to you, president yee, because i think you and all the stakeholders, this was a vision. and thank goodness that the voters of san francisco agreed with this vision and i think we are, one, very fortunate to have this at this time. it is very timely. and i understand that when you have discussions before, we were not in the midst of covid and also that impact that covid has had on the small child care providers. so i just want you to -- i'll listen to the comments of my colleagues, but i just wanted to put them in your mind as an option. if you'd liberiaing to revisit this, i'd perhaps like to get our committee together to hold

at least a quorum to hold this item again, to have it heard again. i don't think that you are actually coming to sort of an agreement or setting right with you at this moment. and i looks like it may not be -- have more clarification until a couple of days. so i just wanted to put that out there. >> i appreciate that, chair fewer, and i hate to do this to community members. i'm more than willing to [inaudible] if necessary. like i said, i apologize to the committee itself that we didn't have enough time to straighten this out. but, yes. i don't feel comfortable with this. if we're going to do that, should i continue asking the questions on items now?

>> yes. and then after you, i have supervisor mandelman and supervisor walton is in the queue. we have a list now we're starting. you have disagreement about the economic recovery grants or loans that is $25 million. so why don't we make a list because these are things that i think ing rid will have to reto or we'll ask her to respond to if we convene again. [inaudible]? >> yes. and i just want to point out that in the legislation that was introduced, to establish the fund, it actually gave the flexibility of both loan and a grant. so, you know, based on that legislation, that's how we cruxed the ask, especially again like i said, for this tape of programing to be effective, we also need to have a criteria to be a i believe to

[inaudible] the need of many private programmes that are not funded by the city. >> sure. i think that proxy [inaudible] was thought of and passed before covid. and i'll just say that i think this is an intendseration of where the money should go at this time. and we have never experienced something like this. thank goodness we have these funds and so there is some discrepancy that cannot be resold today at this committee meeting. president yee, do you have other issues you'd like to bring forward? >> yes. and just to be clear, i was the author of the legislation that we passed so i know my intendseration of it. and just to be clear, it was

[inaudible] a piece of it was in addition to the grant programme so that the grant [inaudible] then it could also have an additional loan programme to aply for and wish to do that. so that was my intent when i put this together. let me quickly ask. so with regard to access to child care, [inaudible] to pay for the child care itself? >> yes. >> ok. and so i think you kind of answered it. the 1.3 is additional funding

to be able to serve their teachers that are aplying and [inaudible] close to what we've been getting in the past year. >> cex. >> so that is pretty clear. in regards to the staffing capacity, if i could justify [inaudible] is that to hire new staff? or what is it for? >> caller: yes. so, currently we are very understaffed. severely, i would say. i've become a sort of jack of all trades because of that. which doesn't make the departments very effective, especially as we're talking about additional funding and having to put out that additional funding through r.f.p.s and contracts and add ministering these public

dollars. so we're sort of between a rock and a hard place here is where, you know, we twaoblts put the money out. but yet we don't have the infrastructure to be able to do it. we need to be able to strengthen our infrastructure. >> because there was a hiring freeze, there was [inaudible] there and is this to -- would the hiring freeze impact [inaudible] ability to hire or are you using this funding to just replace the funding that was lost? >> it would do a little bit of both. and, yes, we have a hiring freeze. but in the last five years

since the department has -- well, the office has been created, we haven't asked for any new staff. but yet the departments funding has been increasing every year to be able to give out to community grants. i mean, and we're a lean, mean well-oiled machine. but it is going to the break. [laughter] >> what a tough initiative to be dealing with more resources. and ok. i really hope that [inaudible] to hire additional staff rather than just to use [inaudible] to hire the staff numbers they should have had in the first place because of the hiring freeze. so be careful how you do that. i'm going to take -- this is a question for ashley. are you there?

>> the mayor's budget director? >> yes, i'm sorry. yes. >> ashley, are you on? >> i'm here. >> i wanted to ask this question along with discretionary funding rebalancing of .9. and maybe par of the questions i have for the family resource centre, also something i'd like to ask of you. i know part of the answer is coming from the director and director siguera. and actually, what -- you know, we actually -- this is

something that we added from the board of supervisors budgets and, again, i think all of us want to be flexible going through a pandemic. and this is one that we're careful with because i seems like now we have [inaudible] and the system has funding now and using the funding to rebalance. and these are things [inaudible] and it's not a one time only and it is ongoing. so is this going to be something where the cities, the general funds is going to keep on using the prop-c funding for what should have been general funding expenses? >> that is a great question. thank you for the question.

$900,000 was added as ongoing add-back from the board of supervise sourcen what that means that when it's added ongoing, it becomes part of our baseline budget. where we start from once it's a miscurrent years and in the next fiscal year. that money, that general fund money will be part of the base budget and i think you make a really important point about being flexible, which is why, you know, as we're rebalancing a $116 million current year shortfall, we're looking for where is our opportunity to be flexible in this current year to ensure that we can be flexible with our sources, but not, you know, sacrifice programming to the extent possible. so, what we have -- what you have before you today is just, you know, we're just speaking to the current fiscal year. it doesn't look us in to make that swap ongoing.

obviously the general fund will have challenges in the upcoming budget year and years beyond. the decision today to be flexible with those funds does not lock us into that decision ongoing. >> this is a slippery slope to me. and i think what you said is this is a one-time only and we'll come back next year and say, by the way, -- it just won't cut it next year. when, in fact, it should have been $900,000 to pay for even next year. so we have to make that clear.

related to that is also the family resource funds. and in terms of would this be added to 1.5. i'm trying to be flexible in my mind. this is an emergency. and hopefully out of this pretty soon. so, does this have -- does the 1.5 add to the baseline at all? or how does it work? >> if i can answer that and ingrid can speak to more programme-specific. so this wouldn't aed to the baseline. this is truly a one-time allocation. if the mayor and the board decide to fund this out of the allocation on an ongoing basis,

that would be determined during the regular budgets process and budget deliberations. and would not lock you into that going forward. >> i can speak as well if you want more information. >> yes, please, please, go ahead. >> yeah. i might be helpful to know that the [inaudible]. i accidently muteseded myself. [laughter] the selection of the area of concrete support management information and referral is very intentional, not only because that is the area we're seeing the largest spike but also the area where that staff are most likely and early care and early education and learning as home. as was mentioned through not only technology but translation of materials, learning kits, books for children and families.

and the early distance learn having a family support component written in in their guidelines so they're partnering with f.r.c.s on that. the other reason it was intentionally is because of this spike now because of the situation we're in. we do expect that it will decline back down to the level of which we were seeing prior to this. we can't anticipate exactly how long that will take, but we certainly can anticipate that this will not last for long duration. we hope not. thirdly, this particular area is an area knowing that there will bawls a fair amount of need. it may last beyond six months, a year, two years and knowing that for side revenues declining and that current joint funders of initiative, unlikely that they have more to bring to the table. although we have those discussions all time. this area of information and

referral and case management is an area that we currently launched a project to review and to work. it has been predicted as being very likely and we're launching this now to see whether we can add additional funds through the medi-cal funding source. that is a federal safety net programme that f.r.c.s are largely not wrapped into. it would be a great avenue for the longer term sustainability and it's not the kl*eng cal aspect of medical, the administrative aspect which allow us for more flexibility. so, that project is launching and predicted and focuses very much on this area of case management information and referral and it is predicted that it may be able to draw down two to four million as it continues to roll out. and expand in the next year, two years and onward.

?*k a normal year, i probablying wouldn't support this. and i love family resource centres just like [inaudible] and i always said [inaudible] distribute funding into this. knowing that [inaudible] funds are [inaudible] reserves at this point. and why isn't the children's fund helping with this since one-third of -- you know, increase the number of dollars for children's fund. and when we suffer years ago,

we told the public that there's two big needs, and the fact that [inaudible] children's fund. it is something that i think the city should look at closely. i'm done asking my questions and i would love to entertain moving this to another meeting. could we have clarification? >> sure. before that, president yee, let me call on my colleagues. supervisor manldsleman. i see you in the queue. >> thank you, chair fewer. when i put my name in the queue, i thought this was going to be a love fest and saying all sorts of gushing and i thank president yee for all of his work on this and what a great place we are. i'm happy to come a committee meeting next week. so happy to continue that conversation.

and then i guess i think for both this item and some of the d.p.h. and s.h.h. requests of big c funding later, there is a challenge of our current economic predicament and fiscal challenges on the one hand and our real strong desire and real commitment to not seeing the funding sources just get used to cover things that get taken away or are at risk because of the bad economic times. baby c in june and big c in november were supposed to bring dedicated, new funding that was going to be new thing and expand on work that was supposed to continue. we know these are conversations that we'll have and i think it

would be nice for the departments and for the mayor's office to think about how to do something more than just, you know, sort of say that we're going to, of course, be flexible and as time allows move funding back from the general fund because i think we all know that once this stuff starts getting funded out of these new funds, i could go on like that forever. and if that is way to think about these special, gosh, this is an emergency year, next year might be an emergency year, too. we'll treat these things as loans that need to be paid back autoof these funds and i know that is sort of a function fiction within the city's budget but if there was a way to sign in blood or something, that we're treeing these funds as like essentially a loan.

we have a fund where we'll use these funds and expect that money to get paid back to big c. if it's not like squarely within and intended by the sponsors and voters when they enacted these. it is just a thought. but something for people to think about over the next however many days before we come back. and i guess i'm super new to this issue. if we think about the grants versus loans question, and i apologize if this was presented, there's some notion of how much of that $25 million was likely to be grands and how much was likely to be loans? how much of the 25s million goes to loans and how much goes

to the grants? >> go ahead. i'm sorry. [both talking] >> the way that we estimate it -- and this is all based on information that we have because we have a couple sources that backed us up, but who applies is going to be, you know, a whole other thing. but out of the $25 million, we actually had set aside only $8 million for loans. so the super majority is actually for grants. >> and what is sort of your envisioning of a situation where a loan would be more appropriate than a grant? are those real loans or forgivable loans? >> they can become forgivable loans. and this is where i was talking

about the criteria. for one is, you know, we do want to maintain the license capacity hold to the degree that we can. but we have to be realistic around some programme, especially private programmes and we're going to have a bit of a differing of opinion here. may not necessarily need a grant. they may just need something that sort of floats them for a couple of mo*fms. they're a tuition -- they're parade paid programmes that don't necessarily provide access to our priority population and our priority population includes children who are black and brown, who mostly live on the eastern side of the city or typically don't have access to these types of programmes. so, giving them an outright grant to sustain these operations, i have a little bit of a challenge with that.

so, how do we engage them? we can engage them first with offering a loan and hoping they can become part of the city's infrastructure so they could actually involve children from our wait list and this would eventually become a forgivable loan. but there has to be a way of being able to establish a relationship with programmes that we know very little about. >> ok. sounds like you have some work to do with your sponsor. so we'll see where everybody is by the time we come back. and then i think those were my points. i am sympathetic to the need for additional staffing. as president yee points out, i don't think we want to be using the c to see pay for staffing that was taken away and that doesn't today what was going on before.

so, again, maybe it is a loan concept or -- but just so there is a tally added up so that this doesn't get perm nnltsly sucked out of thee funds and not go to what it was intended for. maybe. i don't know if that is satisfactory to anybody. but that is something that i've been thinking action. and i'll save my gushing about president ye irk's early childhood education for next time. >> oak. thank you, supervisor. supervisor walton. >> thank you so much, chair fewer. first i want to thank you, president yee, and everyone who work sod hard to get it passed. as we all know our early education workers and just the whole network is underfunded. and obviously our most precious beings are young people at the hands of our earlichildhood edge kays toer and early care network. i just want to say that i

probabliser you for helping to make this possible so we can get some form of parity. i did just want to chime in in terms of the grants versus loan discussion. we always go through this, even if you remember when we were fighting to give resources to mitigate the businesses going through construction. i think it is same thing for child care centres. because obviously with the loss of revenue and the loss of resources needed for them to be sustain thable, grants will provide them the most support and the best opportunity for them to stay afloat. and as far as our family resource network centre goes, president yee and i know both

directors understand that the family resource network is really the backbone that the helps sustain our families and so it is a necessity to make sure that we provide support for f.r.c.s and with prop 10 reductions that have revenue reductions that have steady decline. our resource centres have always taken hits. to your point earlier, president yee, i'm pretty sure that there is some children's fund money that does go to f.r.c. network and there will be more conversations about how we can do things differently in the future. but this piece of making sure that family resource centres and child care centres going hand in hand in terms of supporting the family network and allowing families to go to work and have an opportunity to meet basic needs. i do see that as a valuable part of this work and i am

thankful that our first five and just all of our folks working together tuns importance of the f.r.c. network. i think this is the start of something very positive. i support having further discussion, president yee, and just want to say that i do appreciate both drexs toer and everyone for working hard on this. our earlichild hood network depends on these resources. >> thank you, supervisor. so i think we've heard a lot today and i think we learned a lot about the first release of these funds. i just wanted to emphasize that the prop c funds on budget and finance committee reserve total $273 million and fiscal year 2021f this proposed release of funds were to be approved, $241

million would still remain on the budget and finance committee reserve for fiscal year 20-2021. and going forward, the controller says that it will be $871 million in fiscal 2020-2021 and [inaudible] in fiscal year 2021-2022 and in 2022-2023. >> so, i wanted to also thank president yee for bringing this -- seeing the issue of subplanting, i think, to the forefront of this conversation. what i'm hearing from the mayor's budgets director, it sounds as though there's been some subplantsing going on. i think when voters voted for prop c, they voted not just for our programme of early education, but was really to supplement, to add more

services, to add more relief, to add more aid and not actually to be used as a slush fund hard times. i think that issue of early education has been underfunded for many years. it is very true about our family resource centres. that now they're in every neighbourhood. they are trusted. i think institutions in all of our neighbourhoods and as we have heard today that those services are actually more in demand and they're being asked to be more than they have ever done in the past. and this is actually a response for the situation that we're in with covid. and i want to mentionle thats our early child care providers, they are small businesses. like all small businesses in san francisco, they have been hit very, very hard. and i think that to this relief comes at a very timely time for us during this pandemic.

but also we have to be somewhat cautious that this is a lot of money and we see pots of money. when there is pots of money, everyone comes to the trough. and this is what you're seeing, i think, a little bit of the subplanting to bridge the year, a hard year this year. but i think i agree with president yee that this should not be an ongoing practice. our city controller is joining us. mr. rosenfield. do you have knowing add to this fresh? >> i was going to be very brief, chair. thank you. i just wanted to add for those watching that both [inaudible] on the calendar here today, they do have a nonsubplantsing legal protection measure. in both cases a baseline of

city spending is established based on base year and that level of spending can be diminished going forward. so there is a protection in bottom of these. when the city is funding and above that baseline level, there is choices for the mayor and the board. but i did just want to mention that there is a fundamental protection in both measures for subplantsing. >> now we'll continue this item and i wanted to ask our clerk whether or not the clerk's office would be about the accommodate a meeting perhaps next week. so madame clerk -- and i was also remiss in my early comments not to the say thank you to our wonderful clerks that i think this year has been

really put to the test with, you know, 10 hours of public comment. so ms. linda wong who is our main clerk here who actually guides us all the way and mixes sure that we're doing everything right. but everyone behind the scenes, too, trying to do this remotely. ms. wong, would you be able to accommodate a meeting with the clerk, a meeting next week of the budgets and finance committee? >> yes. thank you, madame chair. certainly we can accommodate a special budget meeting next week or during recess. and off line we can discuss when you would like to the hold this special meeting. i just wanted to mention that we need a memo from the president to hold this special meeting. >> ok. so, i'm sure the president will

acome date us and let us make that motion then that i need to make a notion continue this item to the call of the chair. could i have a role call vote? >> on the motion -- [roll call] >> thank you. madame clerk, could you please call item number two? >> thank you very much, everybody. >> thank you. thank you very much. can you please call item number 2? >> yes. resolution approving the sheriff's office home detention and electronic monitoring programme rules and regulations and approving evidence of financial responsibility demonstrated by programme administrator sendle offender services l.l.c. for fiscal year 2020-2021. members of the public who wish

to provide public comment on this item should call the line with the i.d. and then press star 3. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> thank you very much. callers, you may remember that this is an item that we have had come back. i can't count how many times -- i think many times and this last week that the public defender and the sheriff's department actually have been in conversation and, as you may remember, there was three recommendations that the public defender had made and i believe they are working toward common language to come to an agreement around the language of the three items. i think we have skebs on one or maybe two.

if we don't reach agreement today, i was going to continue this item. but i want to give the parties involved an opportunity to continue the conversation while we're having our meeting and, therefore, i'd like them to field this item until later in the meeting to allow the two parties another opportunity to actually come together and i think they're very close. i'm hoping we can come to an agreement. it has been on the advice of our city attorney that, although this hearing does not necessarily need to be approved by the full board, that she is aed vising that this is brought to the full board. so we need to continue this item before we can introduce it to the full board. i'm hoping that everyone can come to an agreement and that we will not have to continue this item and pass it out of committee and vote on this item at one of our meetings of the full board.

and just be done with it. i'm going refer this item until later in the meeting when i perhaps give the two parties time to collaborate. can you call item number three? >> yes. resolution of aeding number two to the agreement between cross country staffing inc. and the departments of public health for as-needed registry personnel to the maintain mandated staffing levels to increase the agreement by $31.3 million for a new not to exceed amount of $41.2 million to commence following board aprove al and to extend the term three and a half years from january 1, 2021 if ar total agreement term of july 1, 2019 through june 30, 2024. call the number on your screen and give the meeting i.d. and then press pound twice.

if you have not already done so, please press star 3. and you may begin your comment. >> thank you very much. for those not friending on this team, item number three f you could turn off your camera, that would be great. today we have with our michelle lovells. the floor is yours. >> thank you. i appreciate it. and i really appreciate that you are able to put us on this calendar. this contract is before you at a very critical point in time where access to temporary nursing across the united states is crucial to our covid-19 response is in deep demand and highly competitive so this sct more important than ever and cross-country staffing has been an invaluable partner.

even critical right now during covid and it is because we have this contract that we were able to resfonlds all the unanticipated needs and staffing gaps, particularly right now during covid. we have a hay rate of [inaudible] as people may become affected and in quarantine nurses. we have changing requirements in the hospitals because of covid staffing raich yoes and back filling. temporary absences and then to respond to the covid-19 locations, this has been valuable for being able to help out and shelter in place. so we're -- i think the report

prepared by the provided to you. but we have the chief nursing officer and our nursing director and then karen hill who is the director of staffing from d.p.h. human resources. so, hopefully that covers any questions you might have. but otherwise we're obviously in complete agreement with the b.l.a. report which is recommend approval. >> let's hear from the b.l.a. item number three approved the second amendment to an existing agreement between d.p.h. and cross country staffing for temporary nursing services. the announcement increases the agreement amount by $31.

million from the current amount of $9.8 million from a total amount of $41.2 million and extends the agreement terms through june of 2024. we sum prize expend chures in the table on page nine of our report. as we note in the report, the current agreement is $9.8 million through the term of 1.3 million. this has been accounted for as part of a contingency in the proposed second amendment. if this level is noted, we recommend approval of this contract. >> thank you very much. any colleagues, comments or questions? i think that supervisor safayieh, have you joined us? >> yes, i have. thank you, chair. >> would you like to comment? >> i just have -- i reviewed the the report. i saw the memo that was written and i think the main thesis of the argument, listen, first and foremost, i think are nurses in the hospital have done a tremendous job in this time of crisis.

but the [inaudible] of the argument that they're asking to go from $9 million and add an additional 30-plus million to get up to $42 sm*l we've had a surge in this covid crisis and that we need to continue to have traveling nurses. what concerns me is at the beginning of this pandemic, we worked really hard with human resources to make a declarative statement that we'd hire full-time nurses ands that five-year request based on the argument of covid. [inaudible] [garbling] and come back and take a different analysis or look and update on in terms of staffing.

[garbling] and really filling the full-time staffing positions. we've done a good job. we've hired positions in the last nine months. we were able to remove the barriers and was taking an average of nine months to hire full-time staff. i'd like to hear about [inaudible] [garbling] so i would ask the chair. i know we had a lot of conversations over the last

nine months. maybe you can give us an update on your full-time staffing and why the reliance on traveling nurses. >> absolutely. can you hear me? >> yes. >> one of reasons we're down to less than 3% vacancy rate on nurses, our collaboration with h.r. and rapidly hired all of our vacancies. through attrition, we've had vacancies. plus we have a 14 -- with attrition, what are you back to? >> we're -- >> how many positions does that translate to, 3%? >> translates into 29 positions.

and that is the entire departments >> yes. >> not including laguna honda or other places. this is just for sfgh? >> >> it's for the domestic and primarily used at laguna honda and sfgh and -- >> right. so you're only citing numbers that apply to sfgh. but what are the vacancies at laguna honda, in terms of full-time staffing? >> i can answer that question. hi. this is the director of staffing. our total vacancy, we have about 49 vacancies across d.p.h., out of 49, 29 i believe

of those belong to -- [rustling in microphone] but going back through the chair and going back to ms. terry, again, the requests increase and is having the argue for traveling nurses. i don't see the argument for the past three years. with covid, our nurses are getting sick and need to a how them to have time off as well.

we're not using nurses as much as we were because of covid. it causes thome train them right now so we're fearful that there will be some sort of nursing shortage because the schools aren't able to complete education at this point. we're commited to filling you are vacancies and dlaib rate very closely with h.r. so we won't get into bind. but we need to be realistic that the nursing workforce and students may not be producing as quickly the nurses we need as the nurses retire or move on. >> sounds like you wouldn't necessarily be opposed to coming fwhak two years and giving us an update rather than having the full contracted amount over a five-year period.

>> i know you have your p103s -- [garbling] and using that the lils to hire those into more permanent positions. can you talk about that a little bit and how that played into the decision-making here? >> all of our p103s were invited to take a perpendicular innocent position. and so we have those on per diem, permanent positions, those whon't whated them.

>> got it. so, madame chair, i don't have any other questions. at this particular moment. but it sounds like to me, based on the presentation here, that they would rather not be as heavily reliant on traveling nurses, that they want -- that this is based on the surge and that the need for the [inaudible] is justifiable based on the covid crisis and pandemic and how it's affected staffing and people calling in sick. i see that argument for the next two years. but after that the period, respectfully my recommendation would be to have d.p.h. come back and give us an update. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> my concern is that how we

structure this is we have some of the contingency right now and we have to figure that out and it's hard to know what is going to happen, what's the next surge, if it's going down. so i would hate to be in position again where we don't have enough money to pay the super critical vendor. so i wonder then -- >> so what i'm -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i was just going to suggest maybe we adjust the funding upward in those two years. and shorten the terl. -- term. >> i'm fearful of not being able to get new grants and people in nursing schools.

so as our workforce ages and want to retire, i want to be able to hire. and if we're not, i want to ensure we're maintaining staffing ratios and levels while we're getting our permanent staff hired. >> it makes sense to make a slight adjustment for two and three and not have a year four and five approved at this particular moment. it would make sense to have additional money, to your point. >> if you don't mind, supervisor, i think i'll move. i see supervisor walton in the queue. did i hear you call for the b.l.a. report? >> no, madame chair. >> supervisor fewer: okay. if you don't mind, let's hear the b.l.a. report.

>> okay. i thought i had provided it already. >> she has on the report. sorry. supervisor walton, i see you in the queue. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. i was going to say i was supportive of supervisor safai's logic. i'm trying to understand why we adjust years two and three at all because the purpose would be to fund for the next -- the next two years and we have time for you to come back to let us know if there are any concerns or issues budgetary moving forward. >> the contract is laid out the way that you're approving us, but it also includes your approval of the total not to exceed amount. and so if we -- if the surge is great, if we have unanticipated

or anticipated spending and we need to tap into this contract and -- or into the out years in order to support it, it's hard to estimate exactly what we're going to need. we've already eaten into the contingency, so we can readjust that based on the new numbers. so the issue really is that we don't want to run out of money in the next two years. and so we're reducing money by eliminating the time. >> and it would take two whole years to figure out if we were overspending to know what the spending trends are? we wouldn't be able to figure that out in the next six months or the next year and come back and say to the board of supervisors this is going to be a problem and we need to release more funds? >> i would say that -- yes, we

can come back. but right now we're in the midst of covid and it's hard to know how much to change it. i'm also wondering how -- like how do we amend this. the department of public health isn't feeling a big crunch to get this approved and paid, and i'm wondering, because then it has to go back again then, right, as an amendment? come back in january? >> supervisor fewer: what i'm going to suggest is that what supervisor safai suggested was about a time thing. we can also put monies onto the budget, so then you just come back to release more money. and it's easier to come back to the committee and then you just need more money and we put it

reserve for you. instead of first year, second year, we can put funds on reserve. i'm going to ask our budget analyst, hearing this conversation about a recommendation that you might make, many of these recommendations have been made before for us, about putting certain amounts of money on reserve, madame b.l.a., can you give us a recommendation hearing this conversation about the amount you might take to put on verve and for what period of time and what are the conditions? >> i might recommend a slightly different approach because this is not an appropriation, it's a contract amount. so you would want to do something different. if you want -- so i would recommend if you want to end the contract -- exercise the option to extend, because this contract actually has option through 2024, you can exercise the -- amend the resolution to exercise

the option to extend to 2022 and change the not to exceed increase amount to -- as i understand it now it would be $12 million over the next four months adding on the $1.3 million that has already been, that would be 11% contingency and addressing the concern about adequate spending authority, you might want to add on another 11 or 12% contingency on top of that to account for prior spending. so you could get this in a resolution today if the department agrees and goes back to the contractor. i don't believe it's needs another legislative action. i think that action can be taken today and approved at the next board meeting. >> supervisor fewer: okay. madame b.l.a., would you be able to draft that recommendation for us today?

in a form that we can actually approve? and madame city attorney, can you let us know whether or not it's feasible to do today to add an amendment, i think, on to this item that actually as recommended by the b.l.a.? >> deputy city attorney. so as you know, the committee's authority with respect to contracts is to approve them or to reject them and not to impose any amendments to the krotz. -- contracts. that said, if you're looking to change some aspect to the contract, you can give your intention to reject the contract unless the changes are agreed to by the department. it's not clear if the amendments proposed to the contract are ones that d.p.h. feel are feasible and whether they need to go back to the contractor to

have a conversation whether they can readjust the contract in the way you're suggesting. that is a question for d.p.h., whether this is a fundamental change that they would have it give some thought to. >> i hate so sound whiney, but we need the contract approved in order to pay the vendor who is not interested in providing services unpaid. that's on us that we could not get everything together, plan for the pandemic, estimate and get here before they overspent what we're able to pay them. but i'm very cognizant of that concern, that we owe them a lot of money and they've been a very

good partner. i think we could -- i would prefer that something that doesn't require an amendment to put the money on reserve and then we can come back, or change -- change it later. >> may i make a recommendation? in understanding what the city attorney has to say, but also the long-term practice of this board, it is correct that the board cannot change a contract, about you the board does and budget committees have amended the resolution to basically say they want -- because what you're -- >> the action before you now is to extend the existing contract. you can actually amend the resolution to exercise the options through july of 2022, and then to set the not to

exceed tt amount. a quick calculation around maybe an additional $15 million. increasing it to $15 million. that contract is still in place. so the action would be that the department would have to go through the contractor and agree with it. as i understand it, exercising the option to extend and increasing the agreement amount is at the discretion of the city, if i'm correct. they could go back to the contractor and say this is what we're doing. i do not think that requires another legislative action other than what you're doing today. >> supervisor fewer: madame city attorney, are we able to do that? >> again, i'm not familiar with the terms of the contract and so i would defer to d.p.h. to weigh in as to whether these changes to the contract are feasible and whether they can be agreed to between the parties. i'm not in a position to answer

that question. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. michele, i think the ball is in your court whether or not you were to go back to the contractor and explain and if that is agreeable to the contractor. is that something that i think d.p.h. is willing to do? >> yeah. i mean d.p.h. can go back to the contractor and see. they were selected to a bid process, right. solicitation. i think my overriding concern is that this is not continued in a way that doesn't allow as to have enough authority approved next monday. and i can't speak -- i don't know, i haven't been in the direct negotiations for a contract development with this vendor. so we would go back obviously. >> so madame b.l.a., i think

what you're proposing would give her the protection that she needs about the funding, because it allows for that funding to be released. actually to go into contract to extend to, i think, participate in the extension of the contract. and you're recommending that we would extend it until 2022 time line. >> yes. >> supervisor fewer: the contract, we would take the option to extend the contract until 2022, we would add in additional $15 million to cover the costs. is that what i'm hearing as a buffer? it would be until 2022. so, michele, are you gathering this sort of information that we've been discussing because you're going to have to go back to the contractor? i'm -- i am -- i see supervisor

mandelman. let me give him an option to speak. opportunity. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm just trying to get clarity in terms of d.p.h. and potentially with legal counsel being able to figure out what their options are. this is something we need to forward to the full board for action. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. >> supervisor mandelman: no action is going to be taken on this until january. is that right? >> supervisor fewer: yes and i think you needed the funds to be released, michele? >> yes. no, no. we have it timed. it goes to the full board hopefully, gets approved and then we get the ask request for a rush on the 10-day period for the signing and have the contract going at the same time. so we have it trying to get it then paid before the end of december. >> supervisor mandelman: how can that happen, there are no board

-- is this added to the special board meeting? >> i thought there was a board meeting monday. tuesday. >> supervisor fewer: tuesday. >> supervisor mandelman: there is a board meeting that is happening for one reason, but not for this contract. conceivably, this could be forwarded, but i don't know if this -- have we set this up to be forwarded on tuesday? >> no. >> supervisor mandelman: so i don't think this is moving as quickly as the department wants anyway. it certainly could come back to the committee next week. or we could take it up later on in the meeting after d.p.h. figures out what its doing. i'm sure that we need to rush this in this particular moment and i'm not sure we need to rush it before next week. >> supervisor fewer: i think supervisor mandelman brings up a

good point. so this board will have a meeting, a special meeting of the full board next tuesday to review one particular item that we had a lot of conversation about last night. then we are going to forward that to the full board meeting on january 5th. if we were to pass it out of committee today, then it would go to the january 5th meeting for the first reading, but it wouldn't be heard by the full board until the new board is sworn and actually probably the second week of january would you be going -- >> resolution. >> supervisor fewer: oh, it's a resolution? >> it would happen on the 5th. >> okay. >> if you pass it out of committee today. if we pass it out of committee monday, when they have the budget meeting next week, we can get it on the agenda for the

5th. i don't know why i'm doing this, but i'm feeling -- i kind of thought this was my last budget meeting and i made this whole speech and everything. so, because of supervisor safai, i think -- i'm blaming him now -- we have questions that need to be answered, but we cannot get the answers now. so i think we should actually continue this item to the call of the chair when we have their next budget meeting and we'll be in close contact with you about what data is going to be to give you enough time to actually have a conversation with the contractor. >> supervisor walton: and we'll make sure supervisor safai is back when this happens. >> supervisor fewer: yes, we'll make sure he is here. and for clarification, the

b.l.a. also can also explain to you exactly what this board has just discussed. but i see supervisor safai has a hand up? >> supervisor safai: yes. thank you, chair. i just wanted to -- because i wasn't 100% if i heard from ms. ruggels if she felt confident based on what the b.l.a. proposed as amendments, if we did that today, if that would be sufficient in terms of the $15 million? that's one thing. but the reason this jumped on my radar, i've been working on this time last year. i want to say that the cutoff for me was important because i think there has been too much to -- at d.p.h., practice of hiring traveling nurses, relying heavily on traveling nurses, heavily relying on per diem and not putting the time, energy and effort -- other than these last

six months -- to really deal with permanent staffing issues at s.f.d.p.h. when it comes to nurses. so when i see a contract that goes five years out anticipating a consistent practice, we need to change that. we need to shift the priority back to saving the taxpayer money overall in the long-term and investing in more permanent positions. because i think that creates stability. it creates continuity. it creates knowledge. and i understand every hospital is going to have to rely on traveling nurses. i'm not saying that is going to be completely eliminated. it's too reliant on a practice that may have become part of the norm. that's what i wanted to end with. i would like to hear from ms. ruggels if we did make those amendments based on what the b.l.a. proposed and we were able to do it today, would that --

and during this meeting, would that be sufficient? or do you still need to go back to the contractor? >> we might be able to do it if we go back, leave and come back before this committee is over. i don't have -- greg wagner, our chief operating officer, is waiting in the lobby and i don't know how to let him in. i think he wanted to comment. >> supervisor fewer: madame clerk, here he is. welcome to the meeting. >> hi. i am here. i'm sorry i just joined. i was on another call. so i'm just coming in to check in on this. i know that we had these conversations about the registry contracts periodically. i think we are really in a different place right now.

and you may have already discussed this previously than we have in the past, but the nurse-hiring program is really ramped up. we've hired over 300r.n.s in the last nine months. and made a lot of progress on our vacant. i heard your comment, supervisor safai, about getting to a point where we have a sustainable permanent base of staffing. that is our shared goal. and right now what we are up against is between the leaves due to covid, a large number of staff on leave and we're trying to plug the staff, and we're ramping up for the surge activity, and that includes hospital staffing, staffing our alternative care sites, which requires us to boost our staffing level above the permanent steady state in the

short-term. and plugging those gaps now. that is why we're bringing this to you. we do absolutely understand and agree that permanent staffing is our goal. and we want to get to that point where we have those -- the gap between positions and filled positions closed and we are working very hard on that and have made a lot of progress. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor, you're on mute. >> sorry, madame chair. so michele made those points. great. underscored it. i think we all agree on that. the problem we have is this is projecting five years out. you know, god forbid this surge and this pandemic last that long and its impact on the hospital, so the recommendation was, or the suggestion was to have it be

for two years and then have you all come back and ask for additional amendment or give us update on the staffing at that time. that's where we left it and i think the b.l.a. made good suggestions on how to amend the resolution, so we were waiting to hear from your side, if we made that amendment, which would be around -- roughly around $15 million i heard, including contingency, would that be sufficient based on the contract and then you all could come back and give us further updates as we proceed during this pandemic and crisis. >> okay. sorry i covered old ground. as michele said, why don't we have a conversation offline and see if we can come back to you during this hearing. is that a possibility? >> may i make a recommendation when they come back.

i did go back and read the contract just to clarify, the exercise of the option to extend are at the sole discretion of the city. so i think the question is not so much about the contract, but is that what d.p.h. decides is feasible in terms of meeting their staffing needs and what the costs would be? but the board could amend the resolution to exercise the options to extend through june of 2022 consistent with the contract and the amount of the increase -- my back of the envelope compilation was $15 million, but i think it could be resolved today. >> supervisor mandelman: i just want to thank supervisor safai for barging in here like this. i think it was a good reason to barge in. [laughter] i think this is clearly an issue that the whole board cares about. and we have been kind of beside ourselves about hiring issues

generally in the city, but particularly in d.p.h. with nursing it feels like good work has been do to get understands hired -- nurses hired, but it calls for continued reliance on traveling nurses well into the future. and so i think good catch, supervisor safai. >> supervisor fewer: yeah, thanks for joining us. >> supervisor safai: [laughter] >> supervisor fewer: having said that, let's break from this item. return back to this item at the end of the hearing to give d.p.h. an opportunity to discuss it among themselves. i'm hoping to resolve this today, then we can forward it to the full board and it will make the schedule for you. >> okay. >> thank you.

madame chair. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: having said that, madame clerk. can you please -- trying to get rid of the items off the agenda and we keep postponing. could you please call item 4? >> yes. item 4, ordinance waiving certain license fees originally due on march 31, 2020 and march 31, 2021, business registration fees for the fiscal years beginning july 1, 2020 and july 1, 2021 and payroll expense taxes for the tax year beginning january 1, 2020 for businesses with no more than $20 million in san francisco gross receipts holding a place of entertainment permit, waiving certain license fees originally due on march 31, 2020, beginning july 1 and payroll for the tax year beginning january 1, 2020 for businesses with no more than 750,000 in san francisco gross receipts holding a restaurant permit, refunding any waived

amounts paid to the city, extending the deadline to pay the license fees originally due on march 31, 2020 and march 31, 2021 to november 1, 2021, extending the deadline to pay business registration fees originally due on june 1, 2020 to april 30, and extending the deadline to pay and file returns for certain businesses taxes for the 2020 tax year to april 30, 2021. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, please call 1-415-655-0001. meeting i.d. on your screen. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, dial star 3. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates you've been unmuted and you can begin your comments. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, madame chair.

colleagues, covid-19 has been devastating for the local economy and especially for our small businesses and we all know that. many businesses have been stuck on a merry-go-round, reopening, new closures, and others haven't been able to operate at all. this latest round of restrictions has come as some businesses were just getting back on their feet. it's heartbreaking. i think we're seeing this in all of the districts and this latest lockdown means the end for even more. we've looked for ways to support our businesses. unlike the federal government, we do not have the ability to print money, but we have found a modicum of relief through a moratorium, fee relief and deferrals. the ordinance address the last

of these. deferring fees for small businesses while targeting entertainment businesses and smaller restaurants which have been particularly hard hit. this will provide $5 million in fee relief to entertainment businesses and restaurants with gross receipts less than $750,000 with an estimated savings of $1754 per restaurant and $6998 for entertainment business. here's what the ordinance will do. it will waive the following for each qualified entertainment business. all licensed fees otherwise due and payable to the tax collector on march 31, 2020 and march 31, 2021 without regard to extension. these are waivers. two, business registrations fee for the fiscal years commencing july 1, 2020 and july 1, 2021.

and payroll expense taxes for the 2020 calendar year. and four, all penalties associated with these taxes and fees. so that's waivers for qualified entertainment businesses. the ordinance would waive the following for each restaurant business. those smaller restaurants with gross receipts less than $750,000 in 2019. one, it would waive all license fees due to the tax collector on march 31, 2020 without regard to any extensions. two, business registration fees for the fiscal year commencing july 1, 2020 and, three, payroll tax expenses for the 2020 calendar year. and, four, all penalties associated with the taxes and fees. the ordinance also would refund any waived taxes fees and penalties paid to the city under

the qualified entertainment business or restaurant business filed one year later than the tax fee or december 31, 2021. for businesses not subject to the waiver, the ordinance would further extend the deadline to pay annual license fees due on march 31, 2020, and would extend the deadline to pay annual license fees due march 31, 2021 to november 1, 2021. the deadline for businesses to renew the registration fee for july 1, extended to march 2021, would be further extended to april 30, 2021. the deadline for all businesses to file and pay the expense taxes, early care tax and homeless tax for the 2020 tax year, would be extended to april 30, 2021. the relief measures in this ordinance should not be the end

of the city's efforts to relieve the cost burdens put on small businesses, but they're part of our ongoing measure to create an environment where businesses can stabilize, regrow and flourish. i want to thank mayor breed and her staff, especially sophia kitler. i want to thank the treasurer's office and my office for all their work on this legislation. i want to thank cosponsors, supervisor mar, stefani, walton and ronen as well. we have joachim who has his own presentation. >> supervisor fewer: before director torres, i see supervisor walton. >> supervisor walton: i wanted to say i stand 100% behind this fee and tax relief for our businesses. we all know that our businesses

have really suffered during this pandemic particularly with the most recent stay-at-home order in place. we want to do everything we can to provide relief for businesses and help them stay afloat during this hard time and want them to know this is one way that we are supporting them and we're going to continue to work on ways to support our businesses through this pandemic. i want to thank supervisor mandelman and the mayors office for bringing this forward and making it happen. >> supervisor fewer: with that, director torres is here with us from oe.w.d. >> i just want to say to all of you, i don't think there is anything to add from that concise, eloquent and detailed overview of this layer of focused relief for small businesses that supervisor mandelman provided, but i want to say to all of you and your colleagues, thank you so much

for your continued advocates advocacy on behalf ott small business communities. for the phone calls in support of the constituencies and the small businesses that can benefit from this relief. we're grateful for the layer of support. in details, we want to receive from the state, around additional funding, can be made available to the small businesses and of course waiting to see what happens at the federal level in terms of that level of relief that can be more robust in supporting the diversity of industries among small businesses in san francisco. with that, i'm happy to answer questions together with amanda faried, but thank you for the continued support. we're glad to do everything we can to move this forward. public, private, federal, state, local funds, to make that possible. it will take all of us and every single dollar matters. i want to highlight that again.

that every single dollar matters. especially as we move that the holidays, when you're making media presentations or comments, just to reinforce, to truly support your small businesses and your restaurants during this time. focus on those that have not been able to operate with these new restrictions. they really do need your support to thrive. those local places that are selling other items beyond food wares, think about them during this time. we said it before the pandemic began, don't let convenience drive your activity. even more so these days. think about focused investment in your communities, it makes a different. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. wise words. let's hear from the b.l.a., please. >> the proposed ordinance as

described previously waived license fees registration fees and payroll tax for restaurants with gross receipts up to $750,000 and entertainment businesses receipts up to $20 million. these are a one-time waiver. the actual details of the waivers are shown on page 14 of our report. and then on page 15 we show the expected cost over three fiscal years to the city of the revenues of that $5 million. we are recommending approval because we believe the benefit to businesses exceeds the revenue reduction to the city. i'm available for questions. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. madame clerk, let's open this for public comment, please. >> operation is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you haven't already done so, please press star 3 to enter the queue. let us know if there are callers

who wish to comment on item number 4? >> we have no callers in the queue. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public comment is now closed. i'd like to make a motion to move this to the board with a positive recommendation and please add me as a cosponsor. can you give us a roll call vote. >> on the motion, supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: aye. >> supervisor mandelman: aye. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> thank you very much and please everyone as director torres said, shop local. support our businesses .

>> item number 5, hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to department of public health placed on budget and finance committee reserve by ordinance to support the most vulnerable. item 6 is hearing to consider the release of reserved funds to the department of homelessness and supportive housing in the amount of $64.2 million to fund the implementation of the city's homelessness recovery plan. members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 1-415-655-0001, meeting i.d. on the screen, and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, dial star 3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. >> supervisor fewe

>> supervisor fewer: apology. i had to answer my front door. apology. can we hear the b.l.a. report for item 5 and 6, please? >> -- >> supervisor fewer: excuse me. supervisor walton, can you fill me in about what is going on here? >> supervisor walton: i'm trying to figure it out myself. >> supervisor fewer: is the b.l.a. here? >> supervisor walton: maybe she stepped away for a minute. >> supervisor fewer: maybe she's having technical difficulties. we've called items 5 and 6, let's start with the speakers. the first speaker is the

department of public health. are you available? >> we are available. >> supervisor fewer: you have report i'm assuming. >> right. and can my slides be projected? >> supervisor fewer: yes. did you give the slides to the clerk's office? make it available to the clerk? >> i believe we did. jenny, are you able to share? >> yes, i can try to pull them up. right now.

>> supervisor fewer: in the meantime, can someone check on the b.l.a. to -- there she is. >> my apologies, i was only away for a moment. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so while you're getting your screen-sharing together, let's hear from the b.l.a. on items number 5 and item number 6. >> yes, chair fewer, members of the committee, these two items together would release from reserve $94.5 million that were placed in the budget in d.p.h. and h.s.a. for 2021. these are prop c money for homeless services. we summarize the programs that are proposed for funding on page 18 and 20 of our report. and then on page 21 of the report, describe the spending plan. i do want to point out this is

the spending plan provided to us by the respective departments. and is not what was being proposed or recommended or discussed by our city our home committee, which may be different than this. the other thing i would like to point out, the total amount of funds placed on reserve in 2021, $390 million, so release of these funds would still leave $300 million on committee reserve for the current fiscal year. we recommend approval based on the plan provided to us and i'm available for questions if you have any. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. public health, i believe you're next. are you able to share your screen? >> yes. >> good afternoon, supervisor fewer, chair fewer and members of the committee. i'm director of ambulatory care

for the department of public health and joined by our budget director and acting chief financial officer for the department of public health. thanks very much for the opportunity to present to you today. i will present a brief overview of our proposal for the prop c funding release from reserves which reflect our immediate needs that we've identified to the department of public health. and just to start, i want to say that this is an incredibly exciting, but also really challenging time in public health and in san francisco. as you all know, we started administering vaccines against covid yesterday, but we're in the middle of a terrible pandemic and a really serious surge in cases in hospitalizations. but we also are working hard to address other longstanding

health issues for san franciscans and specifically the mental health crisis that we have in san francisco and so our proposals that we'll share with you today reflect the work that we've embarked on well over a year ago to really transform the behavioral health care in san francisco to address the ongoing public health crisis. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> this has been work that we've really been prioritizing in the department of public health over the last five years, but really especially in the last year. the target population of mental health san francisco, as you know, is the 4,000 san franciscans facing homelessness, substance use disorder, and serious mental health issues, so it aligns a very well, with, we think, the proposition c funding. this slide just shows generally the principles that we are using to approach this request for allocation of funds in this fiscal year.

next slide. so these are the -- these three programatic buckets are meeting people where they are, making it easier to access care, and providing more locations for treatment and respite. the request of relief of funds for 2021 is because these are areas where we are really prepared to move forward right away on the different programs spelled out in the mental health san francisco legislation. we also know that mental health san francisco implementation working group just convened this week. that was an exciting milestone in the -- in our ability to really move forward on the intentions and the specific programs of mental health san

francisco. the implementation work group kicked off this week, and we expect that within the next few months, the work group will be appraised of the specifics of the legislation introduced to the different programatic areas, and then, we'll begin to make specific programatic recommendations specific to these areas, but i do just want to make sure that our proposals today for release of funds in 2021 are in order for us to move forward in these specific areas which are specifically called out in the legislation and will continue to evolve and develop as we get more input

from community stakeholders as well as the working group. so next slide, please. first, i'll talk about this big bucket programatic area, which is meeting people where they are. so we are really excited to -- we are really excited that we have actually been able to kick off the street crisis response team initiative, which is a huge milestone, and i think an accomplish. it's a collaboration between the fire department, public health, department of emergency management, and -- and i think it is the mental health s.f. project which excites us with a goal to form a trauma centered

person response and connecting people that are experiencing a crisis on the street, connected them to agoing care and services with the goal of also removing the need for a law enforcement response when people are having a mental health crisis on the street. we launched at the end of november and are already seeing, really, the benefits of this model that we've developed with partners and parting to see, really, the impact on individuals and our ability to get people the care that they need as well as mental health professionals on the scene to help deescalate crises. coupled with mental health response, we need a place to take people for health care, so we proposed to expand the

mental health crisis services. we've also started piloting telehealth in the form of telepsychiatry. the covid pandemic has really hammered home the need for us to think of innovative ways to provide care which keeps people safe during a respiratory pandemic, and i think it's been a huge benefit for us, and i think there's a lot more of what we can do in the field of telepsychiatry, and especially meeting people on the streets, in shelters, in hotels, and providing psychiatric assessment and prescribing and beginning to problems using telepsychiatry. next slide, please. so the next big bucket is making it easier to access care. this important piece of our --

of mental health san francisco work is for us to develop a -- our workforce of people who provide case management and care coordination services. this -- again, this work with focus, really, on people experiencing homelessness and with code 15 mental health -- serious mental health issues and substance use disorder. also, those with severe behavioral health needs and the other target populations of mental health s.f., including people leaving the jails. we have a really serious staffing gap in the department of public health, and release of these funds will allow us to move forward on hiring behavioral health clinicians who can provide this much needed case management and care

coordination support at different levels of intensity depending on the needs of the people we're serving. next slide, please. this next bucket, making it easier to access care, this is really at the heart of our behavioral health transformation work, which is really working with the -- the community working with people we serve, working with other invested stakeholders in this transformational work to really figure out how we provide care which is accessible, where people can walk in, where we can meet people in crisis where they are and connect them to care most expediently and this's person cancered that understands the -- centered

that understands the needs of the population we're serving and get them to care right away. this funding, the $1.89 million this year, would allow us to expand hours of our behavioral health access center and behavioral health pharmacy as well as begin renovations of the behavioral health pharmacy to make that space much more user friendly, hipaa compliant, and really, a place where people will feel welcomed and which we can use as the core service, one of the core sites for our low barrier low threshold b threshold bupenorphine program, so that's a slide of our

requests for this next fiscal year. next slide. and then finally, we are funding reserves to provide or capacity of mental health and substance use treatment beds and other programs which will allow us to expand our services -- for people experiencing homelessness who are also suffering from severe mental health and/or substance use issues. we -- this slide lists different areas where we've identified needs.

dr. antwo antwon nigusa-bland assessment [inaudible] on this and [inaudible] and it is to support the programatic areas spelled out in the mental health san francisco legislation where we feel that we can move quickly, where we start to have a meaningful impact, and where we can begin to do things like procuring

beds, hiring our behavioral health clinician workforce, developing our street crisis workforce model, and expanding that, and those things, we really need to get moving on, and that's why we've requested these in this release of reserves proposal. so i'll stop there, and we are available to answer questions. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i see supervisor ronen in the queue. >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you so much, and thank you, dr. hemmer, for that presentation. i may have some additional questions for you after we hear from the our city, our home oversight committee, but i wanted to ask one question

first, which is given that we don't know yet whether or not the mental health s.f. -- the 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week will be located in the mental health center or the program designs that will be a major sort of first job of the implementation working group to figure out what that on-site program design will look like, do you still think it's worth investing $8.5 million in the capital needs of the pharmacy at the bhag? in other words, if that doesn't become the final mental health s.f. service center, will that money have been wasted, if you understand the question? >> yeah, thank you. that's a great question.

we think that 1380 access center as well as the behavioral health pharmacy is likely to be the site of the behavioral health farmpharmacy the foreseeable future. there's been a lot of talk about whether the area that our behavioral health access center is right now is the right site for our mental health resource center that we envision as a 24-hour full spectrum resource center. i think that's still on the table, but we do need to renovate the pharmacy and also improve bhac, you know, in some ways to scale back in order for us to have a work i can't

believe place until we identify a new side if that's what we're going to do for the -- for the 24-7 resource center. so in answer to your question, yes, and also included in that funding for this year and subsequent years is staff -- staffing costs for expanding hours of both bhac and the pharmacy. >> supervisor ronen: i see. and so then even though the mental health s.f. service center requires a pharmacy on-site, even though it's an alternative location, you imagine the d.p.h. would keep open the pharmacy at 1380 howard? >> i think so, for the -- for the near term, meaning at least the next couple years.

the behavioral health pharmacy serves providers all over the see, and really, it's not just low barrier view, and i think in terms of the mental health service center was in another site, and there was some dispensing operations there, it would not be the full service behavioral health site. we would need a large site, and that would be a large undertaking as we're setting up the mental health service center. so i would imagine it would be more something like a satellite, but our main behavioral health pharmacy, i don't see that running right away. we can consult our behavioral

health pharmacy director and see whether or not that's feasible, but i don't see that they need to be colocated, and -- and i do think we have -- you know, we have a pharmacy there. we can do some really good improvements that we have there around the client and patient areas, so the waiting room, the service rooms, restaurants, and things like that, and those are where the biggest needs are. >> chair fewer: supervisor. is that it? okay -- yes, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: i have a feeling i'll have more questions after hearing from our next presenters, but for now, that's great. >> chair fewer: okay. colleagues, any other comments in the queue? okay. seeing none, we're now going to

hear from h.s.h. h.s.h., you have the floor. >> good afternoon, chair fewer. just confirming you can hear me? >> chair fewer: yes, we can. >> that's good. never want to get started and can't hear myself. that's happen good morning. good afternoon, supervisors. we're here before you today to request the release of budget and finance reserve in the amount of $64.2 million for fiscal year 2021 appropriated for the implementation of the city's budgeted spending plan. yesterday, the committee met

and discussed and voted on this spending plan. next slide, please. the h.s.h. proposed prop c spending plan is allocated among three program areas which align to the prop c buckets. these are affordable housing, shelter and hygiene, and homelessness prevention. the adopted fiscal year 2021 h.s.h. budget includes $295.6 million of prop c funds that are currently on budget and finance reserve. we are here before you to request the release of $64.2 million of this total appropriate $295.6 million which are designed to meet the immediate needs particularly in housing and covid response, and we'll continue the conversations with the covid committee. dive deeper in the proposal,

the proposed spending plan for the affordable housing bucket of prop c totals 34.8 million for the service costs associated. provides for five 24-month adult housing subsidies. expands the plexible housing subsidy pool which is an initiative we're all extremely excited about and speaks to the needs of our seniors in the s.i.p. hotels. this is a 600-unit expansion, representing costs for this year of $12 million. expands. it a.y. rapid rehousing. this is a medium term subsidy to include one 36-month subsidies in the amount of $2.2 million, and housing

provider bonus pay, and the housing provider bonus pay is divided into each of these categories in our initial spending plan, and it's really targeted towards low wage frontline workers who have been putting their lives and safety at risk during the pandemic. finally, h.s.h. operating costs in the amount of $400,000. next slide, please. thank you. in the shelter and hygiene bucket, using the language, the h.s.h. ask is $25.9 million, which includes continued operation of the covid-19 center. this is the emergency shelter at moscone west as well as the sites in the bayview. this hotel is considered a s.i.p. placement because it is noncongregate in the bayview. that requires $5.9 million in that case, the city owns the

trailers and needs ongoing resources for services. the extension of the safe sleeping villages which were begun under covid. beyond what we have now in hand extends them to march 2021. $500 million would extend these to the end of the fiscal year, and the end of the shelter in place hotels which allows for the slower wind-down period provided in our proposed updates site pl updates site -- updated site mobilization plan. next slide, please. thank you. the h.s.h. -- finally in our prevention bucket, the h.s.h. ask includes $5.7 million. members of the board will remember we've spoken about

this idea extensively. during the pandemic, we want to ensure that people have a stable exit that are in the s.i.p. hotels that are not covid vulnerable, and this diversion plus approach goes beyond our standard problem solving and provides for emergency rental assistance in the amount of $15,000 per client in rental assistance for those not covid vulnerable and provides the wage bonus for low wage frontline covid workers. next slide, please. i would like to thank all of the members of the our city, our home oversight committee for their thoughtful suggestions during this process and for the many hours this dedicated committee spend reviewing and discussing and pushing and asking wonderful questions about the homelessness response system and h.s.h. needs in such a

short period of time. i'd also like to thank the controller's office staff, especially laura marshall and mary hahm. we know there is more ground to cover with these funds, and we look forward to continuing our work and coming back to the budget and finance committee in the new year to address funding recommendations that are beyond those in front of you today. yesterday, the h.s.h. and the our city, our home committee were able to reach alignment on many different strategies and investment using prop c funds for the city's outreach and emergency rehousing plans. these agree that there are many needs that need to be addressed through the use of reserves, which i just went through, agreements to fund phase one and phase two for the s.i.p. housing referral. our city our home voted on

recommendations to fully fund phase one and phase two, and these costs are reflected in the controller's revised proposal. i do want to make note that even within this fiscal year, we would not have funding for exits in phase three, and i know that the rehousing commitments are incredibly important to the board and the city, so we will be back very quickly around phase three. we also agreed with the committee to move 150 of our original proposed 500 rapid rehousing slots into ongoing subsidies, and we agreed with and really welcomed the additional workforce resources. we know these resources will be essential to our success. we also welcome additional resources for non-s.i.p. clients for families and people experiencing homelessness in the bayview. i just want to note, supervisors, that not including this wasn't simply an oversight in our department's part. we have capacity issues in the

implementation of all of these funds, and we work to be as limited as possible in the requests for our urgent needs with the committee. y. we also have $1.8 million allocated by the board for h.s.h. budget in these matters. where we did not reach agreement was in a if you otfe areas. there's a $5.9 million gap in our alignment with the ocoh committee recommendations. we heard and respect the request from ocoh to conduct additional due diligence on potential other funding sources. though we're not aware of other funding sources, we do understand the intent of the committee and are committing ourselves to this due diligence. however, i must note we expect that we will need to return to you in january with this

request so that operationally we aren't in the position of having to stop placements to these emergency shelters during the winter. it would be incredibly detrimental to have to close the city's covid emergency shelters, and i'm concerned that our outreach teams and hsoc would not be able to make recommendations to these shelters, leaving more people outside. i want to note that the committee discussed this next item yesterday but did not receive sufficient votes to pass this based on their established bylaws. we appreciate the support to fund a portion of this, but again, i'm concerned about the city's budget shortfalls and have heard from many providers time and time again across the system of care, and we agree how important to this for their frontline low wage staff who have been risking their

personal health and safety every day of this pandemic. thank you, supervisors and ocoh committee, for your time and consideration. myself and miss whitley are available to answer questions. >> chair fewer: thank you. colleagues, any questions? seeing none, let's move onto our next presenters. the floor is yours. >> good afternoon. i just want to check to see if you can hear me. >> chair fewer: yes, we can hear you. >> okay. great. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is julie ledbetter, and it's an honor to be here to present the first recommendations of use of prop c our city, our home funds on behalf of the our city, our home committee. we're here because the people of san francisco, housed and unhoused, voted with a resounding vote to end

homelessness. i'm also here thanks to the colleagues of my committee, jennifer friedenbach, and leland moore, work group member, and in partnership with the department of homelessness and housing.

today, we will present you plans to develop a needs assessmentor strategic modelling and investment planning process, and we're also here because we recognize the immediate need for these funds prior to having a comprehensive data driven plan in place. the pandemic response has housed over 2,000 neighbors in a matter of months and has demonstrated that a combination of federal, state, and local funds can dramatically move the needle on ending homelessness. the our city, our home committee looks forward to continuing the partnership with

both public and private partner leade leaders to make sure that no one housed during the pandemic returns to the streets. today the beginning of a long-term partnership ahead to collectively steward these life saving and historic funds. so i'll talk a little bit about our funds, our community process, for data driven process, and turn it over to jennifer for our recommendations.

we cannot achieve our goal set out in prop c without a comprehensive data driven strategic investment and implementation plan. to do this will develop a coordinated plan across agencies and stakeholders to achieve this goal, align various agencies instead of having various programs and plans that are silos of goals. we'll fund activities and interventions that are most effective in reaching our goals, and on an ongoing manner, we'll track and measure progress against these goals. so just to share with you a little bit what we've done so and what our struck sur is going to be moving forward, we started hearing in november, and we elected our leadership, shanell williams, and data

officer cynthia nagendra. that's a unique role intending to align data across multiple departments. we've heard from everybody that this is a really important role, and we're very grateful to have the opportunity to create that, and that cynthia nagendra has stepped nook thin. we created the creative needs group, and that is absolutely in response to the moment that we find ourselves in where we need to allocate funds prior to our strategic planning process. we've also created the systems modelling and creative investment group, and cynthia nagendra is also the data

collect for that. we'll have a collective impact committee, which really invites the community at large to continue the work that's been in place. this is an all-hands-on-deck approach and is really going to make the work effective. we'll have a housing work group that will address problems towards obtaining housing during the pandemic.

between december 15 and december 31, the our city, our home reviewed and made recommendations, and we also have starts the first two subcommittee -- started the first two subcommittees that i laid out. we also understand that stratjistra strategic -- we don't have years to create a comprehensive plan. we know that we need to release funds again as part of our immediate needs, and we offers to get a plan in place for your future and consideration. [inaudible] we'll create a strategic investment plan for

the our city, our home fund for all people experiencing homelessness, create intervention needs and assessments for the people living in s.i.p. rooms, trailers, and other people experiencing homeless. ideally, we'll learn from phases one and two of the plan to develop phases three and four, and we'll develop data plans for phases three and four in the housing plan. i'm going to pass it over to jennifer friedenbach now, and thank you very much for your

time. jennifer, we can't hear you. >> chair fewer: i think you're on mute, jennie. >> sorry about. th that. you guys missed all these nuggets that i just said. >> so much lost wisdom. >> so hi. jennifer freeden bomb, coalition on homelessness. can't see the mute button when the presentation mode is going. all these things to learn in the pandemic. so executive director of the coalition on homelessness and was one of the main kind of architects on prop c along with a lot of other folks who got

that to pass, and i also am an immediate needs over sight liaison, as julie mentioned. we were responding to the d.p.h. and homeless department recommendation, and we got those, tried to kind of simplify them, and get them out to large numbers of community members really quickly and gather input, and then, you know, pull it together, brought those recommendations back, and we got -- you know, we're able to get input from the emergency service provider association, the treatment on demand coalition, the s.i.p. hotel coalition, which was a very large group that kind of came up very quickly after the plan to close down the s.i.p. hotel. the coalition on housing justice, which is a group of unhoused individuals working towards housing and is actually

the work group where the whole notion of prop c was born. the our city, our home coalition and just gave some examples, like united council, s.f.q., and other board members and so forth. so united states wionce we gat information, brought it to the over night body, it was modified with individual input from the oversight members and voted on yesterday from -- pretty much all day. so the first thing that we're recommended, which is sounds like the homeless committee is recommending, which is great, is only funding the housing exit in year one. what we're talking about here are the subsidies, for example,

that prop c would be paying for. so there are x number of seniors in the phase one hotels, and they would get those subsidies. [please stand by]

we're also really pushing that we don't forget the rest of the folks outside of hotels. we're naming things here. folks that are in the safe sleeping villages. folks in need of storage. folks that are document-ready and coordinated entry and have

been waiting there and everything is ready and they haven't been offered a unit. so these are kind of broader policy recommendations there. the last piece is around the behavioral health. and this piece -- we're fundamentally asking for more time on the behavioral health. it's important to remember that the funding for this year is smaller, but it's not like we're going to lay off people at the end of the year, so the amount of money we're locking into the fund rises dramatically. it's about $60 million if we were it fund the whole request, which is about 67% of the fund. we really want to look at, can we buy some boarding care

facilities? can we really expand the number of co-ops and other kinds of housing models. we want to dig down deep into the proposal and we're noting that of the funding requests, only about a third of the money, less than a third of the money was for actual beds. what we're recommending is that we release the funding for the beds and we ask for more time to do that strategical analysis we were talking about to figure out where the best use of funding is, where we can leverage other resources, where we can move forward. there is different bodies that are -- that are still developing recommendations that have not been completed yet. we haven't had a chance to do our own work internally. and we do know that absolutely like the beds, this will get

people off the streets. this is going to move people and that's in the spirit of prop c trying to end homelessness. we have a very active body, so this has been a moving target today on this presentation as it's taking time and other folks on the staff. i wanted to tie a ribbon around it. we were charged with moving the needle on homelessness. we want to make sure that every dime we spend is moving people off the streets. that's the recommendations you have. it's housing a thousand people immediately, but we also need to make smart decisions. we're committed to this data-driven approach that moves the issue upstream, that ensures equity and addresses hidden homelessness alongside visible homelessness. we want to make sure that happens, but we need time.

one of the issues with the homeless system, we have not done this. our homeless system in so many ways is failing. we haven't done this kind of modelling that needs to happen, that julie laid out that we've seen in other communities that has resulted in significant reductions in homelessness. so we are respectfully asking you to accept the committee's recommendations. thank you so much for giving us the time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. thank you very much. i see supervisors in the queue. >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i do have a question and is it h.o.h. or oversight committee team that can answer, i want to make sure, because i got from the h.s.h. presentation that one aspect of nonagreement was the funding for the muscone rv site,

but after listening to jennifer, it seems like there may be alignment, at least for funding for one year? am i correct on that? >> i think abigail -- this is the first -- we haven't had a chance to get together since 5:00 last night to see whether h.s.h. aligned or not. >> so thank you. i was trying to advise the budget and finance committee of and perhaps ashley can speak to this. these will be urgently needed to the new year if those funds are not found elsewhere in the city's budget. >> let me ask a different question. from what you're proposing

today, director, if we didn't approve it, is muscone and the rv site going to suffer, or are you saying we're going to find the money? >> i say we commit to looking for it and if we can't find it, we will be back by january. >> supervisor walton: got it. jennifer, your belief is if we don't find the resources somewhere else, the oversight committee would be supportive of funding these two sites? >> correct. >> supervisor walton: thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. i think that particular item, we can actually remove from today's discussion because there is a commitment for them to work on this in january. so i think that we can actually sever this one item out and it can come back in january after the city has looked for fund to

actually pay for this out of other funds versus the big c fund. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. i just wanted to clarify from dr. hammer, they said we're looking at $60 million, but you're asking for today is $30 million from us? is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and did you want to explain that discrepancy? >> yeah. well, so the programs that would get funded are for a partial year. so once we annualize them, that's where the cost goes up. as you're releasing funds today, i think the assumption is we

would be continuing those programs. it's not like we would lay off the workers or close the programs come july 1st. we're looking at this from the committee, when we're committing to these in an ongoing basis, even though technically you're releasing the fund for one year, we could say, we're only going to fund the beds for the rest of the year and we come back next year and say, okay, we're not going to fund the beds, we're. that's not the reality. we're going to assume the costs in an ongoing way that is going to be a higher amount because it's annualized next year. >> supervisor ronen: that's helpful. thank you for that. so as my colleagues well know, this board of supervisors passed unanimously mental health s.f. together with the mayor's office and after working on it

collectively for over a year and a half, it is the city's vision for how we will provide mental health services and substance use services to primarily the homeless population in the city in a systematic way so that individuals no longer fall through the cracks and go from the street to general health services back to the street in that sort of hampster-wheel that we have, that is the reality for many, many people today. and you know, in an ideal world, if covid hadn't hit, our city, our home implementation working group would have been up and running prior to this committee's -- well, actually the extended version of this

committee had allocated funding to implement mental health s.f. but because of the delay and those committees getting up and running, that wasn't the case. so i for one think this committee did a really great job working with c.p.h. in order to fund mental health s.f. so that people that are in crisis in our streets today, exiting jailed house services today, exiting p.e.s. today that don't have case managers today, are attended to in much better ways. having said that, i did ask d.ph. to look at the budget that they had presented us and if there were any ways in which they could continue to do the work of implementing mental health s.f., but to take in the

advice of and suggestions of the our city our home oversight committee. and perhaps re-look at the budget and see if there is any room to move. and i'm wondering, dr. hammer, if you are able to do that in this short period of time. i know this is happening last-minute and if you had any suggested changes to what you've presented us so far? >> we do. yeah, taking -- i'm going to hand it over to jenny, but after our three meetings with our city, our home committee, we did go back and look and see where we could reduce some of the budget, so jenny is going to talk about that. >> through the chair, acting financial officer, thank you for

the question, supervisor. this is something we've been considering in the recent days. in the last two weeks, dr. hammer, i and other staff have participated in the our city, our home committee meetings in the entirety. we heard the comments and concerns. and we're working with dr. hammer, there are two areas we can reduce the request without impeding our current-year efforts. the first is really around our assumption about our operating implementation costs which we estimated at 20%. these are true support services that we need to effectively implement our proposed programs, including services for real estate, for site acquisition, development of contracts, human resources, data analytics, support, making informed decisions. we originally stilt systemed that at 20% to be more squint

with our own contracts that we've provided 12% allocation versus operating support. we would request that we reduce our initial request to $5 million in the current year. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> chair fewer: we lost you. >> okay. apologies. >> supervisor mandelman: we heard about the expansion, and then, you fell off. >> okay. let me see if i can switch to my phone. >> or i can take -- or jennie, i can take over. >> okay. great. >> so in addition to the reduction in implementation of overhead costs, we would slow down the expansion of the mental health service -- services center, really scale back that plan. i think that's an naarea wheree

would like more recommendation from the working group and others so that the alignment site all really align with the needs and -- yeah, the needs of the population that we're serving, so that would be a reduction of $4.6 million that we would take out. so that -- just in answer to your question, supervisor ronen, where we could reduce based on the feedback that we've gotten, we would reduce about 7.7 million. and what that -- sorry. what would leave, out of the 150 beds, it would led to some expansion of hours and the bhac and the behavioral health pharmacy and improvements -- capital improvements in the behavioral health pharmacy,

launching the office of coordinated care starting our hiring process for behavioral health clinicians and care coordinators, and then expansion of our street crisis response team efforts, so we're now just, as you know, just one team -- we're having a lot of success, and so this would allow us to expand powers and the number of team active at all times. >> chair fewer: [inaudible] with these reductions, are you asking for less from the big c funds or are you redirecting the funds to something else? >> with that reduction, again,

taking the feedback inputs from the our city, our home committee -- cynthia, i think you're on now but not muted. we would -- i think at the urging of the committee, i think we really need to move into looking at site acquisition and leasing sites so that we can expand the number of beds; that we could move that over to acquisitions, if that's how we're directed to move. >> chair fewer: so when you say acquisitions, do you mean acquiring more beds. i think we heard from our city,

our homes, so is moving these funds actually acquiring actually homes or whatever we're to abrequire now? i think that the goal of the commit -- acquire now? i think that the goal of the committee right now is stable permanent housing. so would $7.7 million be rediverted then to actually secure more permanent stable housing beds? >> i don't think we're ready to say exactly what we'd purchase. i know we heard from the committee that we're interested in expanding the number of r.c.f. and r.c.e. beds. i know the committee, we have been looking at a number of different sites that are available for purchase or lease

that could house some of both of the new programs, such as managed alcohol in a permanent supportive housing site, programs that we're really excited about pursuing, but we don't have any definite -- we don't have anything definite to put on the table right now. >> supervisor ronen: can i ask a question, through the chair? i thought there were two boarding facilities that you had identified that were potentially really -- to be very positive purchases for the city. that was my understanding. was i mistaken? >> jen, if you want to speak to that, whether those funds would be put into that? >> actually, i can jump in.

that is greg wagner, d.p.h. yeah, there are at least two boarding care sites that we've been looking at, and we've also been looking at other properties. we've been looking at other properties and identifying properties that would be good candidates for beds, and so all of those would be potential solutions for permanent homes in what we're requesting in type of release reserves for your package. as you know, what we heard at the our city, our home committee over the last several years, it's become apparent that we have some vulnerabilities due to fluctuations in the market, whereas when the stock market

fluctuates, it puts pressure on the providers. so what we're looking at is opportunities to either purchase or lock in long-term sites through your partners and probably, most likely a combination of those two that would give us a permanent home for the beds that we're adding. and i think that gives us the knowledge or the opportunity to act on those to use for the other types of beds that dr. hammer discussed, including potentially drug sobering residential treatments, other psych lists, etc. >> chair fewer: and so how much would a boarding care home

cost? we are talking about $7.7 million here. so you mentioned two boarding care homes. i mean, how much would those cost do you think? >> there is a wide range, depending on the type of site. we have one site that we've been engaged with for quite sometime that is undergraeth that $7 mill -- underneath that $7 million value. some sites we've been looking at are larger. and in those cases, we would come back to the board for the approval of those transactions. but for those larger sites, we would certainly require an increase larger than the $7 million. what the $7 million would do is allow us to move forward on a smaller site or a short-term lease or do the work that we

need to, for example, if one of these larger sites would require tenant improvements and capital improvement. it would allow us to do that work and determine the cost and scale of those improvements. >> chair fewer: would it make sense to reduce the amount that you're requesting by $7.7 million, to put it back -- leave it back into the reserves, and after they bring a whole proposal to the committee about the acquisition of boarding care facilities, and because you -- i think you mentioned that it may cost more than $7 million, if you're looking at two or three sites? would that make sense? i'm just wondering, you have identified $7.7 million in savings from the $30 million ask. you don't really have a

definite plan. you would have to come back to the board with the plan on how to spend that $7.7 million. i am wondering, does it make sense to reduce the amount released by $7.7 million and develop a plan and come back to the committee to help fund its whole plan for the acquisition of more boarding care and housing acquisition sites? does that make sense. i also want to get feedback from supervisor ronen who is sort of actively involved in this conversation. supervisor, any thoughts about that? >> supervisor ronen: i am wondering -- you read my mind. i'm wondering the exact same thing that you're wondering. i'm texting my ledgislative aide. i'm wondering, if we did that, instead of sort of redirecting money from admin and oversight costs and the mental health

s.f. service center and instead put that money into the bed expansion pot, so that's option number one. number two is we don't release the $7.7 million. we leave it in the prop c pot, and that's to be determined. so i'm just wondering if there's any impacts if we do one or the other that we should be aware of it? >> thank you, supervisor. i would say, you know, we will -- you know, we're open to the willing of the committee on this, and it's a choice. i think we're shall did--- to response to supervisor fewer's request, i think it's more aligned with the our city, our home group, and that would be a great place to do it. the impact, we can certainly and we will come back to the board as we look at these

acquisitions. if we have these portions of the dollars released today, it would give us a little more opportunity to move aggressively through the process. it would, as i said, give us the advantage of being able to say we have the blessing of the board's budget and finance committee and give us the opportunity to kind of push forward with those, but we certainly can move forward either way as the committee wishes, but it's not the type of thing that is a make-or-break our -- >> supervisor ronen: could i just ask one more question through the chair on that? >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman in the cue, i juqueu.

i just wanted to say i see you. >> supervisor ronen: i'll let you have the microphone back after i speak. so our city, our home was very clear that their priority is permanent bed expansion, and so if we moved the $7.7 million into that bucket of permanent expansion, and an opportunity arose to get, let's say, a board and care facility that was in good shape and needs all of these goals, would you be able to have a better chance of acquiring that facility if this money was already appropriated? i mean, does this basically maximize your ability to act fast? >> it does, yes, because it would -- it would simply reduce one of the steps in the process, which would be if we find a great opportunity that we want to move on the process of coming back for the release

of reserve and it would buy us that additional period of time. the other example would be on some of these sites that would have 100-plus bed sites, to be able to do that evaluation of building systems, of tenant improvements, do that work to evaluate the condition of the building so that we can make a timely decision on coming back to you for a larger acquisition ask and financial wisdom of that. so that would be, supervisor, the advantage of having it from earlier. you are. >> chair fewer: got it. i just want to say, before i call on supervisor mandelman, i think what we acknowledged here today is that we started on a pathway of release of funding -- we brought a proposal before the our city,

our home committee, and so it's an anomaly this time. it just -- the funding and what happened and blah, blah, blah, and it was late to get the committee together, and so i'm wondering if it's more prudent to go to the committee first and putting together a presentation about funding for homes and an amount of money set aside for this purpose and, in the meantime, looking for it, as they are considering it, and we get that confirmation that this bucket of money should be held in this suggestion? so that's it, and in the meantime, i'm calling on supervisor mandelman.

>> supervisor mandelman: i guess i definitely -- i want to thank d.p.h. for their thinking about this -- thinking about the proposal and its evolution since -- when we were talking in the summer about the budget. i think -- i would be leery of lumping that together.

>> supervisor mandelman: -- that the only real option for their preservation -- we need to -- perhaps the city can provide some subsidies for some. we've put in place interim zoning controls to at least require a conditional use permit for the changes, but really, the solution is probably to get these into public or nonprofit ownership to the greatest extent that we can. and so carving out category of r.c.f. -- of residential care facility acquisitions seems like a good use of these funds and probably a little different

from just, you know, throwing more money into the beds category. that may be a distinction without a difference, but it's a thought. the other thing that i think, and i mentioned this earlier in connection with baby c, and i feel this way about both these investments and some of the h.s.h. investments, which is that just because something will be of benefit to unhoused people doesn't mean that it will ultimate will -- needs to be ultimately funded by prop c. i think there's not another source for the work on the office of coordinated care and the case management, but ultimately, i'm not sure that,

you know, going forward, those should be 100% prop c costs. and, you know, i asked earlier in the context of baby c if there's some way for us to kind of put a pin into the idea that these are funds transfers or these are loans that are being made out of particular funds that, as we identify other funds, might be able to get payba payback. for example, the overpaid c.e.o. tax will start getting some money, and maybe using that for some of these projects would make sense. b but -- maybe that's ultimately

not fully a prop c cost. that's just, you know, a thought -- i don't know how my colleagues feel about that, but that would be something worth considering. lastly, i feel that most acutely, actually, about the pharmacy. which, again, i understand the need is great, and we -- and we have 700 overdoses this year, and having a facility to get more buprenorphine out to people is critically needed, and i get all that, and i want us to move forward on that, but 70% of the people that are overdosi overdosing are housed. so some of our -- i'm not sure that ultimately ought to be fully a prop c cost either. and i wonder, in the same way, if we could try to make the prop c funds whole all the time, or if i wonder, in this

exigency, that we would have to use others. it's ultimately just a thought. >> chair fewer: thank you, supervisor mandelman. -- oh, does someone want to respond? >> i just wanted to say -- thank you for that point, supervisor mandelman. i just want to answer the first one. we do have the preexisting problem of stabilizing our existing sites, but when we're talking about site acquisition, it would be a permanent home for what we're proposing to add through the proxy funds. >> supervisor mandelman: i just want to make sure -- i don't

want us to do a lot of buys in the next few months, and we've acquired no locked secure beds, and all of the sort of things that are needed to get people out of jail, out of the psych unit at the hospital, that we haven't bought those beds. so i believe in buying up resident care facilities. i just want to make sure that we're doing the different things that we need to do. if it's all part of the same fund, i'm fine, but any way. >> absolutely. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: thank you, colleagues. i'm going to sort of make my argument now and my statement for what i hope the committee will do, if that's okay.

services include a large expansion and the number of residential treatment beds where people experiencing homelessness can rest and recover, brand-new crisis response teams that can immediately respond and provide support to unhoused individuals experiencing mental distress or psychiatric crisis on the streets instead of having police officers respond that often escalates the situation, an expanded s.f. service seen with expanded mental health capacity to see, treat, and diagnose individuals on the spot, and a new expanded pool of intensive case managers who can provide one-on-one support in navigating our clients without letting them fall through the cracks of our

complicat complicated behavioral health system. these are all services that our neighbors will be able to tangibly feel, and by treating their mental health issues, these services will assist these individuals in being able to secure and maintain stable housing. each of the mental health s.f. programs are consistent with the letter of the our city, our home legislation that were approved by voters in 2018. if you go to their website, the very first bullet on their plan states that these plans will be vossed to provide tensive mental health care and drug addiction services for over 4500 severely impaired individuals, which is the entire point of mental health s.f. every program is directly related to getting people off the streets and improving their

well-being enough so that they can permanently access homelessness. none of this is being used to backfill old programs. these are all brand-new and expanded services. right now, we are facing an urgent need to release these reserves for mental health s.f. there is a raging drug and overdose crisis. in november, we launched the

very first mental health s.f. crisis response team and are currently on track to have all six budgets teams up and running by march of next year. delaying these preserves will completely disrupt services providing to our unhoused neighbors. this would delay d.p.h.s ability to identify residential treatment beds that fill gaps in our existing substance abuse and mental health treatment beds. delays would also affect our on boarded case managers which are desperately needed to help coordinate care for people on the streets or that are in our

jails. if you only have additional beds available but no street outreach to help bring people indoors, and no case management to make sure clients are being atiffly being provided treatment in care, then we are not addressing clients'under lying mental health reasons which may be the reason that they fell into homelessness in the first place. again, right now, the budget committee is only voting on whether we -- to release reserves for fiscal year 2021. we will be coming back to the our city, our home committee in upcoming fiscal years. there will allow us to gather

more data, meet with other groups, and engage in thoughtful analysis with the our city, our home committee regarding future prop c plans. we also can use that time to identify other funding sources, as supervisor mandelman stated. the board in fact, not this week, but the prior week, passed a resolution indicating our intent unanimously to leverage c.e.o. tax revenues to support staffing needs and mental health s.f. however, to avoid derailing all of the planning and progress that has been made in will roing out mental health s.f., we are depending on the budget committee to authorize the release of the reserves, lastly, i really want to thank d.p.h., you know, for making an effort to accommodate the feedback from the our city, our home committee and make changes

to our original request. i would ask that the budget committee allocate that $7.7 million that we've reduced from the mental health s.f. service and their admin costs to potential site acquisition. i do think it will make it easier to act fast, and we do know we needed those beds always, and that having the opportunity for d.p.h. to act fast is a huge advantage. but then, i'd also like d.p.h. to come back to the budget committee in january or february with a proposal for releasing additional reserve funds to be used for capital acquisition developed in consultation with the our city, our home committee. this is a primary focus of the our city, our home committee and would allow the budget committee to consider a dollar amount for what is an immediate

and full pipeline for acquisition. and so if i could ask a committee member to make a motion to adopt this budget request but moving the money, as dr. hammer laid out, moving $2 million from operating to the -- to capital acquisition or site acquisition and moving 4.6 million from the mental health s.f. service center to site acquisitions, i would be so appreciative. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i see supervisor walton in the queue. and supervisor ronen, thank you. i actually just wanted to say that i think what we should do before we make a motion is actually to take public comment, and also, if there's anyone else in our panel here that would like to say

anything, i'd just like to hear all the comments first, take it to public comment, and then, we can move on because i think that we have a proposal for expenditures for mental health. so let's look at where things are, and then, we can make a total request. so supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i actually wanted to say that i actually echo supervisor mandelman's comments, and i think the way he framed it was perfect in terms of the thoughts around what prop c is intended for and not being 100% sure that prop c should be funding certain aspects of what services we're looking at here. and i just wanted to also say

the pharmacy is -- is really bothering me sitting on -- on this -- in this budget request. but i want to appreciate your framing, supervisor mandelman, because i agree with you 100%, and i also appreciate you identifying additional resources, like supervisor ronen discussed, as well, with the c.e.o. tax. so i just want to -- definitely waiting to hear public comment, but i think it's time most appropriately. >> chair fewer: just because you mentioned the pharmacy, is there someone that can speak to the mental health pharmacy and the funds that are going to the pharmacy? >> supervisor walton: and i'm not just saying with the pharmacy, i'm just saying with this pot of money.

>> chair fewer: oh, excuse me, supervisor walton. i thought it was using some of these funds to help compensate for the pharmacy, i thought you were a little uneasy. just wanted a clarification for the funds being used for the pharmacy for your benefit, but if you don't want it -- >> supervisor walton: no. i'm not against pharmacies, but i just don't think this particular pot of money should be going to fund this. >> chair fewer: sure. >> supervisors, it's jennie all lewis. can you hear me now? >> chair fewer: yes. >> about $2.7 million of those dollars would be directly related to pharmacy staffing to expand to evenings and weekends. about $1.5 million additional will be related to the

expansion of the bhac hours to expand, also, to evenings and weekends, and also would support additional clinical support within -- within the bhac to allow for prescribing. and then, we do have approximately $4.2 million of the capital costs that we believe would be related only in the behavioral health pharmacy and not to bhac to increase our capacity to be more hipaa compliant and a more patient-centered location. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you. so on that, i see no one in the queue. is there anyone else that would like to speak? seeing nobody with their hands up, supervisor ronen, i wanted to ask, and other supervisors here, what would you feel about

the c.e.o. tax money backfillng the funding for mean tall health s.f., those funds? >> supervisor ronen: so just to be clear, the c.e.o. money won't come on-line until fiscal year 23, so that's something to take into consideration. i am totally open to that. what i about will say is mental health s.f. is the vision and the system that the city is implementing to address our behavioral health system in san francisco. 25% of prop c money, which you can see, it's all, like, laid

out on their website, is to be used to address mental health and substance use medical care of people suffering from mental illness and substance abuse. and again, i completely agree with what jennie friedenbach says. it has to be additive. it's not to be used to backfill a system that's already existing. we're talking about hiring hundreds of new case managers, by acquiring hundreds of new beds in the system, creating a brand-new 24-7 alternative to psych emergency services where people will be treated with dignity and know that they can get help if they're experiencing a mental health crisis. so all of this is, i believe, absolutely in line with our

city, our home, and so i don't know that it has to be the exclusive source of funding for mental health s.f. implementations, and that's where the c.e.o. tax money comes in, but i think those are the discussions that are going to be had collectively as a city with this board, with our city, our home commission, with the mental health s.f. implementation and recommendation group, and thanks goodness we will have the time and space to do that because these bodies are now up and running after being very sadly delayed by the covid crisis. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. i see jennie friedenbach's hand up, and i see your hands up, supervisors, but i'd like to give miss friedenbach the opportunity to speak after those comments. >> yeah, thank you so much. i just wanted to clarify

that -- that our city, our home oversight body is recommending funding of the beds, and so there was a proergs of the proposal the -- portion of the proposal in there to pay for beds. we are recommending that that would happen, and it would fully fund dr. nigusse bland's recommendation. mental health s.f. is about having a thriving and wonderful mental health system. so there's some places where things can intersect, and then, there's some things, places where we need to think about other ways to fund it. we're not arguing about the validity of the items in mental health s.f. what we were attempting to do was to pull the item out that

we felt was most in line with the vision of pulling people off the streets immediately, and that was an item that the department identified, as supervisor ronen mentioned, that could slow down the process. so if we put the money now, then we can move forward on getting the beds. and then, we were asking for a little bit of breathing room so we can think about acquisitions and think about having that layout and a data driven system about what's going to be, you know, the best way to pull people off of the beds and be able to stabilize. so i think i just wanted to clarify because i think that the conversation sort of made it seem like we were not recommending the funding of the beds, but we are recommending the funding of the beds. and i think really looking at

the right sides of those things, and how much do we need to invest in that are going to stabilize people off the streets, and that was what we were asking for was a little bit of breathing room on that. but, you know, we made our recommendations, and i just wanted to clarify that those were our recommendations, and -- and why, because that's really, you know, you could hear a theme in the presentation really going forward. it's really about trying to go forward and maximize the use of the our city, our home funds. we know that people on the streets are not going to recover on their own. the other thing i forgot to

mention is on the streets, there's some 24-hour capacity, sobering centers and those types of things where people could go in the middle of the night, so that is included in the recommendation there. so thank you so much. just wanted to clarify that. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i guess -- and i have a couple of thoughts, and so one thing is, you know -- and i was peripheral to the crafting of mental health s.f., but i did sign on on the end, and i think the thing that brought the sponsors around mental health s.f. and the mental health s.f. that i signed onto that does prioritize and put first the needs of our mental health

population. i would not have signed off on that if it was legislation leading with the unhoused. i did not craft problem c. i supported prop c, but i will say that prop c was it was going to be exits of numerous kinds, and then, this little tiny bit of shelter -- not tiny. 10% of $300 million is actually quite a lot. i take jennifer's point, and i

think it's worth keeping in our heads -- i intend to make the motion, unless chair fewer wants to make it, the motion that supervisor ronen has proposed. but i think that we should think about, going forward, using prop c funds for places and spaces that get people off the streets. there's a range of supports for folks, and there's a range of places, and i think that should be the priority of our spending of prop c. i am comfortable right now with the release of funds right now that d.p.h. -- the modified proposal that d.p.h. has come

forward with and what supervisor ronen is asking us to do because i think that is, you know, largely reflective of super important priorities that we talked about over the summer, and i do think that we should think about backfillnin . >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor ronen? oh, you're on mute. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. thank you for that.

okay. a couple of things. i slightly disagree with you, supervisor mandelman, because just like it's impossible to stabilize and get healthy if you're unhoused and have a mental illness or a severe substance use addiction, i think sometimes in many cases it's difficult to remain housed if you have mental health problems or need addiction treatment. i'm just going to read this. first of all, it's the number one bullet point on the ten-point plan on the website. and then, it says mental health and substance use disorder

services, and it's expanded explanation of how the many is going to be used. our vision is a system of care that is centered on and connected to the individual suffering from addiction or mental illness, and where care is integrated and wait time for care is eliminated. right now, we have a fragmented system where over 1780 homeless people each year are hospitalized in psychiatric emergency services and then released without care, where our case management programs have no opens, and individuals drift from one closed-door program to the next, where programs are all full. rarely can people get care when they are seeking it, and too often, our only entry level into care is the back of a police car or another ambulance ride. eliminating waits is critical, especially for those with addiction, and i could go on.

but my point is that what we told voters was that we are going to -- we have a broken mental health system; that that is part of the broken care and system that we have for our homeless people in san francisco. it's -- it's an intersected problem, and that prop c is -- is designed very carefully to look at each part of the system, with the bulk of the money going to acquisition for permanent housing, but with a recognition that there is a need much smaller for short-term shelter and a need for a behavioral health system that actually serves individuals. so i'm just reading from what i thought i was supporting when i voted and campaigned and helped

write prop c. so i just don't know why there's confusion around that now, but i really appreciate you making the motion, supervisor mandelman, very much. >> chair fewer: okay. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yes. we could spend more than 25% on treatment beds and still need treatment care. i'm not saying that the treatment and outreach investments, some of it, maybe a lot of it shouldn't come out of prop c. i'm just saying there's

competing needs for the physical spaces and the operational costs of the treatment beds, that that also needs to get paid for, and to the extent we can find other funds for the sort of rehabilitation of behavioral health services within the department of public health which will have -- it's critical. we have to fund it, we have to do it. if we can do not all of that on the back of prop c, i think that would be the right thing. >> supervisor ronen: agreed. yes. i agree. that's great. >> chair fewer: okay. so we have been talking about public health, and we haven't centered our conversation on the h.s.h. allocation ask.

when we vote on this issue, that there's a release of funds, that we would actually not include the release of funds for moscone and also for the r.b. site as staff has made a commitment to go back and look at in january. that amount would be about $15 million, is that correct, ben, for the moscone west? >> if it's helpful, madam chair, i know our city, our home committee talked about what our recommendations were. if helpful, i can talk through a very quick summary of the h.s.h. proposal that would affect the numbers here.

it's a little more complex than the public health. >> chair fewer: okay. so let me do this. i see supervisor walton in the queue. let me call on the supervisor first. supervisor, you have the floor. >> supervisor walton: thank you, chair fewer. i would prefer we keep the allotment for the treatment center at moscone west until we have a different treatment plan in place. if there's an alternate source of review knee, they be th-- r can come back and review that at another time. >> chair fewer: okay.

and how much would that amount be, miss -- oh, and i think, ben, you were going to show us a list of [inaudible] so the reason i'm doing this, colleagues, is because i want to take public comment on both items, and so in order to call public comment on both items, i thought we should have a thorough comment on both topics and both pots of money. [please stand by]

(clapping) >> are you a parents that's unemployed and struggling to pay child support we have teamed up

and positions ourself to offer an opportunity for permanent employment. for more information call >> be able to listen to the public comments that are given by the public here. so, why don't we go back to public comment and