tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 21, 2019 12:00am-1:00am PDT
madam clerk, is there any announcements? [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, can you please call item number two. item one is a hearing on key item two is a resolution adopting the city's ten-year capital expenditure plan for fys 2020-2029, pursuant to administrative code, section 3.20. >> chair fewer: we were here last week for a hearing on this item, but i think one of the supervisors has an amendment. supervisor ronen? >> supervisor ronen: yes. colleagues, i have an amendment that i would like to pass out
today. it will not require another continuance, so we could vote this item out from the committee today, and it involves -- the first, you can see on page four, it documents that we are in the process right now of pretty signature conversation and policies decision around not only juvenile hall, but incarceration and a new juvenile focused space, those changes that intersect with the city's capital plan and assets is reflected on page four,
lines 18 to 25. and then, on page five, lines 3 to 7, i wanted to add to the emerging -- chapter on emerging needs a section on options for people with mental illness to long-term housing. it's a discussion we've been having extensively in the city and pretty much every committee and an inclusion of some capital needs around new boarding care facilities as well as cooperative living apartments. and just to explain in a little bit more detail what these type of cooperative living apartments are, they're -- we have a bunch of them in the city. many of them are run by the progress foundation and provide long-term housing for people with moderate to severe mental
illness. on page two, lines 20 to 23, i just describe in a little bit more detail what i'm talking about when i'm talking about these cooperative apartments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor ronen: should you make a motion? >> chair fewer: let's see if there's any comments. >> supervisor ronen: oh, yes. if i can make a motion -- >> chair fewer: oh, yes, supervisor yee. >> president yee: i just wanted to thank supervisor ronen for bringing this forward. in particular, i wanted to make some comments around your last amendments, i guess, on the small -- additional long-term housing for people with mental health, mental illness, in terms of purchasing places for that.
it's something that certainly fits -- it's a model that fits not just individuals with mental health issues but just anybody, whether seniors or others, and it's all the work that supervisor or chair fewer has done in terms of small site acquisition, making sure that we have funding in there, and also, the more recent vote that we took yesterday on her copa legislation, this all fits right in nicely. so i want to thank you for that. i think that one thing that isn't a piece of the this plan is it's one thing to have a
brick and mortar piece, it doesn't matter if it's for seniors or the elderly or mental health patients, we have to talk about the compatible piece, which is the funding for the subsidies to make it happen. otherwise, you can have a building, but you can't afford to operate it, and that's the study that came out from year ago on rcfes. that's one reason that we've lost so many of our beds in san francisco because basically, nobody can afford to operate it, and the subsidies that the state is providing has not kept pace. and we've tried to accommodate it locally, but we need to have
that discussion. >> chair fewer: i also want to say to supervisor ronen that this is something we have discussed at length with my staff and also constituents also about the need for the city to purchase homes. there are many, many seniors that are chronically homeless on our streets that suffer from mental illness, and we may have to have other solutions for these folks. so supervisor ronen has made an amendment. can we have a second, please? seconded by supervisor stefani. can we take that without objection? [gavel]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. and maybe i can get some guidance from our city administrator, miss campbell. so after looking at the capital plan and after looking at the rec and park section of it, recreation, park, and culture,
i see that it is lacking in some services for seniors and that is the largest emerging population in san francisco. and so when we see that -- for example, i have a golden gate senior center, it is the only rec and park senior center in san francisco, and it serves over 1,000 seniors from all over san francisco, and they are bursting at their seams, and they are in a woefully substandard building, meaning it is very old and cannot accommodate this active group of seniors who go there on a daily basis to repplay bridge, do line dancing. i would like somehow to memorialize the need for this and to put it on the radar and
also have it listed somewhere. could you help me, please. >> yes, supervisor. naomi kelly. it would not be an emerging need because it is a facility that we own and something that we track, so it would be more in our renewal section and modernization. and i don't have the plan in front of me, if it's exactly written in that plan because our information of all our assets are in a database, so it is definitely within our radar. we're tracking it. rec and park has multiple different sources of funds where they track multiple different sources of funds and projects that are coming up, especially in the capital cash programs where they do most of their renewals. and where to put it in the
plan, it's most likely in the renewal section or i can relay directly to the director of rec and park that this is a priority for you and this is something that we will look for both in their capital cash program and their g.o. bond program. >> chair fewer: city administrator, as we pass this out with amendments that we made today, before we pass it onto the full board, could we work together with you on language that could actually fit into one of these categories? >> yes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. okay. so let's take public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to make comment? i see michael and also eileen. please step on up. >> not only is that section as far as recreation concerns about recreation for senior citizens, also, the living conditions in their apartment
buildings is not up to code, not up to standard. just had a board hearing pertaining to the rent stablization board, and numerous tenants were complaining about the living conditions, being harassed, showing numerous pictures of how their apartments is not up to code. i left because i had business to take care of, but i seen the hearing later that evening on the government channel, and i was really surprised about the amount of people that were complaining about conditions in their unit that's not up to codes and violation of health and safety codes. one female tenant was crying out for help and crying that she was speaking, demonstrating the way she's been living, and the owner not taking care of the problems within that building. so all of those people that testified at that hearing pertaining to the rent stablization board is being
violated and not taken care of by the owners of these apartment building contracts. and as far as 7% salary increase, i went to the library and looked up the procedure for salary and rent increases, and you have to have a stipulation in there where you agree to a rent increase once a year. if you stay there over 30 days and you don't have that within your rental lease contract, your rent remains the same. that's part of you being in the rent stablization board in the first place. you need legislation for when the owner tries to take advantage of the tenant that doesn't know their tenants rights and wants to raise their rent up of the tenants that's in the rent stablization program, they have to come to you and justify the increase. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. >> eileen bogan, long time
district four resident, here regarding the amendments to the ten-year capital plan. i believe the expansion is based on using hetch hetchy water in sunset reservoir because putting out fires is not their core mission. awos is their step child, not the primary function. a means of changing the narrative may be to combine the two. this would mean framing an ocean pump station for awos as a dual function with desalination. this would mean an ocean pump station that would desalinate water. a dual system would provide p.u.c. with the option of hetch
hetchy water with desal rather than hetch hetchy with groundwater. there are no specific projects defined in the resolution itself for the 140 million of dedicated funds in the 2020 eser bond. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other speakers that would like to comment on item 2? seeing none, public comment is now closed. >> supervisor ronen: oh, chair, there's one more. >> chair fewer: oh, excuse me. i'd like to open up public comment again. my apologies. >> good afternoon. with regard to the wonderful senior center in golden gate park, 1977, that facility was granted money from when it went
from washington to the senior center, and we installed an elevator there to facilitate the use of that building, and for some years, it was a wonderful place. all of a sudden, it overcrowded and the building was not maintained the way that mayor moscone hoped it would be. but that particular building definitely should be a priority. i worked on that when i was working with the federal government on that program, and -- and that particular senior center was one of the best run of any in the state at that time, and now it's just -- it needs help, and i hope we get it. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you, public speaker. i greatly appreciate that. are there any other members of
the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: i'd like to make a motion to move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. can i have a second? >> president yee: second. >> chair fewer: oh, president yee, thank you. [gavel]. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, can you please call item one. >> clerk: item one is a hearing on key affordable housing and homelessness strategies and programs in the city budget, identifying funding levels, gaps, and opportunities for future spending. >> chair fewer: today is the first of our evidence-based hearings based on amendments by the board of supervisors. next week, we'll have our public safety budget hearing, and the week after is our
public hearing on mental health and substance use. after that, clean and green streets, minimum compensation for worker ordinance and funding. this is to be able to articulate and explore private funding areas during mayor's budget development which is taking place as we speak. once the mayor submits her budget to the board we'll be able to discuss the process for the budget in june. with that, let's move onto our presentations today. before introducing our speakers, i just want to say that we have allotted ten minutes for each department to present, and i'm going to ask this committee to hold our questions until after their
presentations -- presentation is done. madam clerk, can you please set the timer for ten minutes for each of our presenters. thank you very much. i'd first like to have severin campbell, the budget and legislative analyst, to present. thank you. >> good morning, chair fewer, and supervisors. severin campbell from the budget and legislative analysis's office. i just have a brief presentation on the reports we submitted on two of the budget priorities identified by the board, affordable housing and homelessness. and i also want to say from our office, monica and carl are here, who are the ones who
actually wrote these reports. there were actually three main areas that were identified by the board members in terms of their budget priorities. so in terms of affordable housing, there were also some specific requests for information on-site acquisition, displacement -- antidisplacement measures, housing for seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, and workforce housing. abag, association of bay area governments sets housing goals for the region. san francisco was given a seven-year housing goal of 27, almost 28,000 newhousing units. over the first year, the city has permitted about 60 sites of
these houses. but if you look at the chart, here are the goals. our report actually tended to focus on the funds, and we will talk about this as we go through, but there are three main sources of funds that we looked at in terms of the city's ability to acquire sites for housing and to provide gap funding for affordable housing. the housing trust fund is an allocation that was approved by the voters. the affordable housing fund relies a lot on developer impact fees, which we'll talk about later, and then there was 110,000 in g.o. bones that the voters approved. in answer to some of the specific questions, in terms of site acquisition, and a lot of this is the city helping nonprofits purchase sites as well as the city.
there were 34 sites that are purchased or partially purchased between 2014 and 2018 for 830 units, and if you look at this by neighborhood, you'll see that the largest number of units were in hayes valley, western addition, and in the tenderloin. the largest number of properties were in the mission, in bernal heights. housing stablization, these are programs really to prevent displacement of existing tenants. the budget for mayor's office of housing was almost $12 million in 18-19, going towards eviction defense, and rehab of buildings for short-term subsidies. in terms of the city reporting to h.u.d. on achievements in this area, the report said that legal services, services were provided to 4100 individuals,
eviction was prevented for approximately 3200 individuals and rent assistance was given to 460. also, in 2018, this is part of the table we showed before. it just shows the specific units, the 45 units that the city helped to acquire rehab in 2018. so as i said, our report tended to -- but this also just shows the senior housing, veteran housing, middle-income that received gap financing in 2018. [please stand by]
>> if you rook at san francisco in a ten-year period, there was an increase in san francisco. it was not a particular increase between 2015 and 2017 but over a ten-year period there were. but two of the features that stad oustood out in looking at 7 count was the number of people who had been homeless for less than a year or homeless for the first time in 2017. this has significant poly policy implications. there was a plan to address
chronic homelessness. what this account shows is there are some number of people newly homeless and that those need to be addressed. last year, the board submitted a resolution with their budget priorities and we looked at where those are. there was a request for navigation centres that has not yet happened and that would find a site not appropriate for a navigation centre. there was a move towards having problem-solving initiatives. one of the things that we talked about with the department was that they did get a private grant that helped in terms of providing rental assistance and other support services at risk for losing housing. a request for an outreach increase and that expanded in january of this year and then there were increased funding for housing. so going back to where homelessness is and where services are in thecy the city,
was the same as homeless adults which is district 6 as well as 10. and then in terms of gaps in options for budget priorities, one of the discussions that we had with the department was an increase in shelter beds. looking at about 1,000 new shelter beds to address the homeless population. our estimate is about $1 million would buy you 50 new shelter beds. and then some expansion of capacity in terms of the department management systems and resources to implement programmes that have been fund d and we're available for questions if you like. >> thank you very much. colleagues, any comments, questions? president yi? >> thank you for the presentation. can you go to the second or
third slide, the housing site acquisition? >> yes, ok. >> so i'm just curious in terms of affordability for these units. do you have a sense of how many are in which range? like 55%, 80% and are any of these units serving those that are fixing to 30%? >> i'm going have the department answer that specific question. >> good afternoon, supervisors. kate hartley, director of the mayor's house of community development. this list that got to 830 came from the housing inventory report. it's a combination of small sites and 100% affordable housing sites. so there's a full range of
affordability. anything that's 100% affordable is probably at 50 to 60% ami. one of the beauties of it is that it's able to serve a large range of incomes, households with a large income range so that the eligible -- maximum eligible next is 20% of area meeting income but we know from the small sites portfolio that a high number of residents protected through this programme have incomes at 30%. and so there's higher income households are able to provide the operating income so that we can protect the lower income in extremely lower income households. >> do you have a sense of numbers? >> no, i do not. >> is there any way -- it could be five people or 500. so can we get some sense of
that? >> there's about 200 small site units that have been protected and we can look at the average ami of that, yes, and get that to you. >> i guess i'm not as interested about the average. i just want to know how many are in certain ranges, you know, where there's 30. you average out one person or 30 and somebody at the 90% -- it doesn't tell you the numbers. so if you can, it's important for me to know how many are actually in that category. >> we will do our best to get that to you. thank you. >> yes. supervisor ronan. >> hi. director hartley, i wanted to ask you a a follow-up question.
so on that same slide up here, you said these were properties both 100% affordable and small sites? yes. i believe so. this was pulled from the housing inventory so i don't have the 830 total in front of me. this was the bla report, so i'm not exactly sure but i can tell you, for example, i believe that number, the western edition line item would most -- the western edition -- i'm not entirely sure. >> this is only small sites? >> we don't have 830 units of small site acquisitions at this time and i'm looking at the housing inventory report on the bla report and, for example, la golaguna is included and that's
for seniors. so i think it's small site's acquisitions for which we provided loans as well as properties that transferred to long-term ground leases. >> but not the new projects built from scratch. that hasn't come on line, got it. >> yeah. >> so for the 18 properties, 112 units for the mission, burnell heights, that seems very low. and if it's including the lan ld acquisitions and the building is under construction, i'm confuse wad that is. >> i just want to be clear, a report, i summarized it here, we give the addresses in the number of units in the report we submitted to the boards. it's more affordable housing. so h thi this comes out of the
department database. >> i think it would be helpful to provide a list by neighborhood of all of the small site's acquisitions, the 200 units preserved, as well as our pipeline, we have 133 uni 133 un the pipeline and between 2014 and 2018, all parcels that transferred, we'll provide the income information that supervisor yi asked for and we'll reconcile this member from the housing inventory. >> that would be great, thank you. >> happy to do it. >> supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, chair. i guess i have questions about a few of our pages. on the page that is the housing goals for 2015 to 2022.
i would interested to have not just the permitted units but produced units. we probably do somewhere. but i'm wondering if the market rate unit if the percentage of goal is lower if you look at produced units. >> yeah. we could get those, but in the report, we were looking mostly at permitting and the way in which the prospective housing that's been authorized is distributed in terms of those various categories. but i think that information would be available. and we could provide that. >> i think there is a phenomenon of a lot of the permitted -- i don't think this is as true for the affordable projects once the permitted tend to get done, but that the permitted market rate units, there's a phenomenon of them not actually moving forward or getting done and so i'm
curious to better understand that. >> we also, at the back of our report no one of the slides, show the completed unian comple. >> the issue there, though, is that a lot of the funding, the recurrent funding sources outside of the bond, which is nonrecurring, but a lot of the recurring is linked to market rate authorization. so if those are not actually being built, the funding goes down, so what you tend to see is that the private marker goes down and the affordable units continue to be built based on past funding and then they decline. >> i mean, it is whatever the produced number is, it is -- this is a small point. the big point of this slide is we're not permitting or producing anywhere near what we should be in terms of very low,
low and moderate but i'm curious about this side point, as well. and then, i also was interested in the slide about that shows kind of differences in site acquisition in these different neighborhoods. i will look back in the full report because it does seem -- this is definitely not all affordable housing built, for example, in upper market, bu because i think that would include 55 laguna, but it is not small sites because there are probably not that many small site units in the city. >> i have a little more insight. this list of 830, for example, includes 201 turk street which is 174 units. that was an acquisition rehab that was a recent occasion of a tax credit deal. so we will get you a list that more clearly provides the units, the small site's units a opposed
to preservation units that might be a refinancing of a tax credit deal reflected here. i think these all went into the housing inventory report because they were shown as a transfer of the asset because we can clarify noofor you. >> this slide and a number of other slides including the breakdown of permanent supportive housing also underscores a point that i know supervisor fuer and i have been making about -- particularly for district 8, which is the district that has had significant number of predictions and we sort of are in the competition, at least, against district 9 for the highest number of evictions and have the highest number of eventingions and yet, produced relatively low numbers of affordable housing and supportive housing over the last ten years.
looking at ways to create for equity and getting more dollars into district 8. >> supervisor mahr. >> thank you. , chair. i wanted to follow up on that last point around sort of the housing balance report that we've been seeing. most recently i think we were just -- the board was presented a housing balance report and how it is showing, you know, quite a wide range of having balance by district in the city. actually, district 4, my district continues to have the dubious distinction of being number one on negative housing balance. the latest report showed
district 4 having, like, negative 270% housing balance, whatever that figure means. and that was really the result of the loss of rent-controlled units due to evictions in unit 4 and the lack of literally any affordable units created over the last ten years. so i guess i just wanted to ask, maybe, director hartley if you can sort of address how you're taking into account the housing balance report in your -- predicting in the allocation of affordable howing dollars in investments by district in the city. >> well, we like you are very concerned about the housing balance and the fact that we lose so many rent-controlled units to vacancy decontrol. the city has gone to sacramento on more than one occasion with
the hope of changes those rent control laws from the state and we've been unable to do so. so we are in the unfortunate position of losing housing that was formally affordable to households and just through the state law. when we look at -- we have -- we are fortunate to be an affluent city and we devote a very large amount of money to affordable housing development developmente than the other bay area cities. so we're very community in that sense. but the need is so great that resources continue to be scarce. so as we look at opportunities, we want to provide -- we want to use the money as efficiently as possible and provide the most homes that we can. typically what that means is we
will build on larger parcels that allow us to leverage our funds with low income housing tax credits. what that means is soft sites in lower density neighborhoods don't show themselves to be good sites more affordable housing development that require tax credits, funds, state money. so there's a physical obstacle that we want to work with the supervisors to get passed. i think that the small site's programme is a really wonderful programme and has great efficacy in the western neighborhood. we need to build developer capacity. it's just a fact. the city is not a developer. we're not a contractor and we make loans. we rely on affordable developers to go and get those sites under contract and to take our money and to preserve affordable
housing with th. with the eref funds we were able to secure, we are working to make programme changes that will include capacity building and try to overcome some of the obstacles to expand the programme. we may want to look at ways to work with market rate developmenters and think about an inclusionary programme for rehabs, not just reconstruction. so we're very sensitive to the imbalance. we very much want to fix the imbalance and we have to overcome some of the obstacles that i mentioned. >> so colleagues, i would like to remind everyone, miss hartley will come back as a speaker. right now, we are just commenting on the report. so supervisor stephanie.
>> thank you, chair. and i do have a question with regard to the bla report. on page 32 of your report, with regard to problem-solving and homelessness prevention programs, it looks like through a grant of $400,000, we were able to help 400 people from becoming homeless, is that correct? >> that refers to the funding that was received to provide flexible grants and those are grants in a number of different things. say your car breaks down and you're at risk of becoming homeless, the department is able to intervene and support individuals. so it's not yet supported but the funding that they have in order to provide flexible grants. and there's some grants given out but they're still ongoing. >> but it does say the departments secure private funding and expects to support 400 individuals with flexible grants. i'm just wondering, there must be data to support the amount of 400 individuals. what i'm getting at, if we can
help 400 individuals from becoming homeless with $400,000 and if there's, maybe, 800 people, 1600 people that could benefit from that help and we can help that many people, it seems like a very cost-efficient way. so i'm trying to dig a little bit more into that. >> the flexible grants on what need is being met. so in some cases there might be something really small that can be met, say no one case they named -- >> i issues what they do. i'm trying to understand what is the population of people that those grants are trying to help? >> if we can help 400 individuals from becoming homeless with $400,000 through this excellent type of assistance we must offer, i'm just wondering is there a larger population we can double that to 800,000 and help 800 people. >> if i may.
i think supervisor stephanie that, perhaps, jeff kazisky could better answer that question. >> i could hoped off this question. i was just trying to get the information. >> supervisor, would you please hold that question for mr. kazisky because he's much more knowledgeable about those programs. on page 15, this is what we get quite frankly when we depend on developer fees and when there's a dip in developer fees for housing, we're dependent on them and this is what we get in this horrible situation. so i want to say that some of the recommendations, one of the policy considerations is that we would evaluate options to implement new reoccurring revenue services in addition to
fund affordable housing and just to say i have legislation fend pending to sit aside 50% of erat funds to be designated more affordable housing. let's go on to our next speaker, the director of homelessness and supportive housing. >> i want to thank you all for calling this hearing to talk about budget hearings and than
thanking the team for the budget as well as bla. i thought they did an excellent job capturing some of the key policy areas that we should be focusing on. so i'll go through this very quickly because i'm sure you'll have many questions. this is an overview of the homeless delivery system available. as you'll see, we have over 7700 units of permanent supportive housing, as well as approximately 2600 temporary shelter beds and a variety of other services to people experiencing homelessness. you'll see we've served thousands of people and on any given nights, we are providing permanent support ihousing or temporary shelter for approximately 13,000 individuals. again, on any given night, sheltering 13,000 people. so despite the large investments that we have made and the hard
work done by city staff and the nonprofit partners, we still have challenges bending the curve in reducing homelessness in the city. one of the main reasons is despite the fact we help approximately 50 people exit homelessness on any given week, there's a large number of newly homelessness people and the vast majority were housed in san francisco before becoming hopeless but there's 150 newly homeless people in the city each week. in order to try to address many of these problems, the city work on the other hand developing a strategic framework and set very specific goals which are shown here. and some of the key strategies that we are highlighting is the introduction of what's called coordinated entry which is a best practice required by hud. san francisco is years behind a
coordinated entry in which people are assessed through a single assessment tool and then referred to the appropriate services rather than asking people to get in multiple waiting lists. along with that is the single data system trying to merge is a databases the city had previously and the many nonprofit organizations that had their own data systems. also, we talked about briefly, introducing problem-solving, which is known as prevention and diversion in order to provide lower cost interventions to help people quickly exit homelessness. this is a map that was done by the folks who work on the otherr strategic framework. a map that existed previously and this is a map of where we
are trying to drive towards using coordinated entry in which everybody comes into the system is assessed using the same tool as offered prevention and diversion services. if they are not successful, prioritizing people for various interventions that we have. in addition to all of the system's change work we've been doing, of course, we've needed to expand services trying to strategically fill gaps that we identified when we wrote our strategic framework and this is a list of the expansion of our services that have occurred during the past two and a half years, as well as what's in the pipeline, which is, we are working to fulfill the mayor's pledge to open up 1,000 new shelter bed. we've opened up 226 six and working on filling those gaps. there's over 1,000 units of pelter supportive housing in the mayor pipeline as well as three master lease units we're working on opening in the next six months or so.
approximately 8,000 people are newly homelessness in the city on any given year and problem-solving or diversion is a way to address that by providing one-time assistance to individuals that can range from helping somebody get their car fixed so they can get to their work, purchasing a bed, providing security deposits. essentially providing people grants for whatever they need on a one-time basis to get housed. people who are currently employed and lost housing and need help finding assistance. currently we have started this pilot programme. we are willing or able to spend up to $5,000 per person, so it could be as little as -- as few as 80 people serve. so far, the average expenditure
has been 1,000 per person and we have served 150 people that we've helped successfully exit homelessness. this is in addition to homeward bound. this is another tool that we have in our tool kit to help people quickly resolve homelessness, else those who are not in the queue for permanent supportive housing. another challenge has been that we do have a lot of permanent supportive housing in trying to get people to move out as a strategy for expanding the number of people we can house on any given year. given the high cost of rent in the city, that's not feasible without providing financial assistance. in this case, it was a housing choice sounder. voucher. this programme was successful but given the financial challenges with the housing authority this has been on pause
but something we should continue to look at and it's been very well received by residents of permanent supportive housing and the folks that we were able to place so far have been very successful in private marked units without social services. the challenge of unsheltered homelessness continues to be a real and difficult challenge in the city in the county of san francisco despite the fact we've made progress in terms of addressing large tent encantments and improving coordination with other departments and focusing on high need's individuals and working with dph and other partners trying to address those issues.
this is a list of other things, opening up shelter beds, problem-solving, increasing coordination on prevention and honing in on eviction preventi prevention,room trying to focus on homelessness prevention which is slightly different but both are very important. and also just want to talk about ensuring the department has the staffing levels to deploy resources effectively as well as pay contractors in a timely manner and providing our nonprofits with access to training in the capacity that they need to be able to do their jobs effectively. this is just an overview of the 2019 -- the '19-'20 adopted budget. as you know, the mayor requested
that we present a budget with 2.% cuts. we have to new enhancements for the coming fiscal year. however, i think it's important to note that we have made some mid-year enhancements using eraf and other funds and currently adding 200 new navigation centre beds as well as adding 300 new units of housing. so we continue to see an increase in the services that are provided to people experiencing homelessness. and i will conclude my presentation there. thank you. >> wow! supervisor ronan. >> so i wanted to understand if
you haven't expanded your budget for '19-'20, how will you add the 1,000 beds above what you have? or walk me through how you'll add it. >> we have increased the funding in the current-year budget. so i'm sorry, it's not totally accurate to say our budget hasn't been expanded. we're not making any additional requests beyond the mid-year enhancements that have already been -- that i presented previously, the opening up of additional shelter beds or permanent supportive housing. >> so how are you going to meet the goal of the 1,000 new shelter beds, then? >> we have enough funding to achieve the goal. currently in our budget we have enough to achieve the goal of adding 500 beds by the end of 2019. that's including the navigation centre which we have funding for
the gelani transition housing facility for women whore homeless and pregnant as well as the expansion of the existing navigation centres as we presented and the site at the seawall will get us through phase one goal of adding 500 beds before the end of 201. >> 2019. >> what about the new housing units? >> they've been funded with eraf. >> ok. could you give me a sense of how much it costs when someone remains homeless, to the city. >> that's difficult to say. but various studies have been done. i think the one that is the most comprehensive and close evidentn francisco cost $80,000 per person in services such as
medical care, shelter, food and other services and putting someone in supportive housing showing a reduction of costs, depending on the person's medical needs, anywhere between 25 and $50,000 per person, per year, depending on the medical services and how much that is reduced by placing them into housing. >> have you quantified now, you know, sort of the comparison in terms of how many people are seeking housing versus how many people are getting housing and how many people are seeking shelter versus how many people are getting shelter? >> i many, i can extrapolate from data that we currently have. so we know we're able to place between 800 and 1,000 people in supportive housing in any given year. given the turn-over rate of 12%
in the current portfolio and a slow increase of additional units. we know that on any given night there's approximately 7500 people who are experiencing homelessness sheltered and unsheltered. a large number of people who experience the homelessness either self-resolve or end up having to leave the city. so it's difficult to say and we don't keep a waiting list, but one could assume that a significant number of people who are seeking housing are not able to get housed. even if we took the 7500 and assumed 3500 are seeking permanent housing or affordable housing in san francisco, we only have the capacity to play no more than 1,000 a year at this point. we have other types of programmes to individuals and households, temporary rent subsidy. although, that's not effective for families an adults and youth who have really high service needs and need to have on-site pp