 Good afternoon everyone. I'm Ann Williams-Issum and I'm the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services. As mentioned one week ago in my first briefing, we are again here to provide an update on the humanitarian crisis facing New York City. Today we will take a deeper dive into the financial costs impacting the city to support this humanitarian crisis. As stated before, we have done and will do all we can to support asylum seekers, but we can't do this alone. From the start, let's be clear, we are in no way seeking to end the right to shelter. The city's actions yesterday was a request to get in front of the court to gain clarity from the court and preserve the right to shelter for the tens of thousands of people in our care, both previously unhoused New Yorkers and newly arrived asylum seekers. Given that the city is unable to provide care for an unlimited number of people and is already overextended, it is in the best interest of everyone, including those seeking to come to the United States to be upfront that New York City cannot single-handedly provide care to everyone crossing our border. The city now estimates to have more asylum seekers in care than New Yorkers experiencing homelessness when the administration first came into office. Let me say that again, that we now have more asylum seekers in our care than we did the homeless folks that were in our care when we came in at the administration, which is about 45,000 people. So before we take your questions, joining me today is City Hall's Chief Counsel Brenda McGuire, Jacques Jihad, the Director of the Mayor's Office of Management Budget, and Manny Castro, Commissioner of the Mayor's Office of Immigrant Affairs. Before I turn it over to Jacques though, let me share the latest numbers with you. We currently have more than 44,700 people currently asylum seekers in our care and over 70,000 people who have come through our intake center since the beginning of the crisis last spring. We have opened up more than 150 emergency shelters, including nine humanitarian relief centers. As you can see by the numbers, we continue to see a significant increase in the number of people coming to New York City on a daily basis. This has pushed us to open up additional emergency respite sites and move into more counties of state as part of our voluntary program. I want to now turn it over to Director Jihad to walk us through the financial pieces in more detail. Jacques? Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor Julia Meison. As you said, this is a very costly endeavor for the city to do by itself. As of April 30th, we spent a billion dollars on asylum seekers' needs. As you can see on the chart, we are providing a range of services to those asylum seekers ranging from shelter, medical care, food, and social services. As you can see also, we have eight agencies coordinating all these activities, including DSS, H&H, NISEM, DCAS, HPD, DOHMH, and DDC. So it's a major, major, major effort on the part of the city that consumes a lot of time and energy. Next chart. Now I'm going to show you the calculations because right now, as we said, we spent a billion dollars, we believe, before July 1st, we will spend $1.4 billion and by July of next year, we will spend $2.9 billion for a total of $4.3 billion. Let me quickly work through the calculation. That is the basis for the forecast. The math is straightforward. For fiscal year 23, the average daily census is about 9,751 households. The estimated per GM is $380 a day. So the total cost is straightforward, as I said, is multiplying the number of households by the number of days in a year, which is 365 days, and multiply by the per GM of $380. That gives you $1.4 billion. In other words, once you forecast the number of households, it is straightforward. The same thing is happening with 2024. We are expecting 24,882 households. We have an estimated per GM of $320 a day, that is a drop from the $380 that we use to compute the fiscal year 23. And again, you multiply the number of households by the number of days in a year and by the per GM, and you come up with $2.9 billion. Next slide. This slide gives you a sense of the challenges that we're dealing with. That forecast I just mentioned to you was based on the assumptions that we were getting about 40 households a day. For the month of May, we're looking at 188 households a day. We repeat again, that forecast was based on the assumption that we'd be getting 40 households a day. We are now at 188. So as you could see on the chart, there's a huge divergence between the actual, which is the black line, and the forecast, which is the red line. We don't know if that is going to persist, that's going to sustain over time. We don't know if it's a blip, if it's going to go back through the trend line that we're forecasting. But if that persist, it's going to be a very, very, very expensive proposition to basically cover the cost of caring for the migrants. So we're going to have to update our forecast. As you already know, the city controller came out yesterday with the forecast, and they already think that our forecast is on a low end, and they're already looking at $765 million above our forecast. We haven't made the decision to change our forecast yet, but because we're waiting to see if there is a new trend that will be established, but once we do, we will have to update our forecast going forward. So, again, we are in the midst of a fiscal crisis. We have received very inadequate aid from both the state and the federal government, in particular the federal government. We have received so far 38, not received, we have been awarded $38.5 million from the federal government. FEMA gave us an award of $8 million last December, and of the $800 million that was allocated to localities nationwide, we have received an initial award of $30.5 million. So the $38.5 million barely covers five days of asylum seeker costs at a current spending rate. Regarding the state, the state is providing us $1 billion, which is about 29% of the cost over a two-year period of $1 billion. This aid would probably cover five months of asylum seekers over a two-year period, not over a two-year period, but however, while the governor gave us $1 billion, we also have cuts on our budget of about half a billion dollars a year. So whatever we gain on one hand was taken from us on the other hand. So this is where we are, and because of the inadequate aid that we have received so far, we're looking at a billion-dollar gap that was just opened in the executive budget that we'd have to address at adoption. Again, so this is where we are, we believe we need more assistance from the federal government. And don't forget, we are assuming all this costs in an environment when we're looking at many forecasts predicting like a slowdown of the economy or if not a recession at the end of this year. So you can imagine a combination of a big slowdown in the economy where you have declined your tax revenue base. At the same time, you're looking at the kind of increases we are looking at to spend for the kind of resources that we are looking to spend if that trend were to continue in the future. Anne? Okay. Thank you so much, Director Jihad. We'll take questions in a moment, but before we do that, I'd like to turn it over to Immigration's Affair Commissioner Castro to share some of the updates about ongoing efforts to provide immediate support for the influx of asylum seekers. Thank you so much, Deputy Mayor. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the hundreds of city employees who are working incredibly hard, have been working incredibly hard in support of asylum seekers in New York City. The logistics of caring for so many people is monumental. And I have seen it firsthand at our humanitarian centers, in our shelter system, at our schools. New Yorkers have stepped up and have contributed to this humanitarian crisis like no other city in the country. And I also want to thank Deputy Mayor Anne Williams Isom and Mayor Adams for leading us through this crisis with incredible humanity, with incredible compassion. We have set this over and over again. It is not the asylum seekers that we are seeing a continued crisis, but it is the inaction by our federal government. So today, as we seek additional support, we want to make clear that this is not about whether if we want to help people. We have and continue to help people. We have helped more people than anywhere else in the country. But as has been said before, we are at a breaking point. And without a real comprehensive strategy by the federal government and adequate support to our city, this is just not sustainable. We don't want people to show up at our doorstep and end up in the street, whether it's long time immigrants of which we have millions or nearly arrived asylum seekers. This is the last thing we want to see happen. This is why we need a sensible conversation about what is possible and what is not moving forward. So at this point, we do not have the physical infrastructure to continue to provide the same level of support to an indefinite number of people. I wish we could, but there are realities we must face. And that is why we are here seeking, again, support from the federal government and seeking for others to do more in response to the humanitarian crisis. I also want to voice concerns coming from our longtime immigrant communities, of which I speak with often. Historically, immigrants have arrived to our city and found shelter with their friends, family members, acquaintances from their countries of origin. Seeking shelter in our city system has been always a last resort. But what we are seeing now is significantly different, as you know, with the buses being sent here by Governor Abbott, flights from other localities, and a lack of decompression strategy by the federal government. Long time immigrant communities, New Yorkers, fear this is creating a hostility against all immigrants as a whole. And a perception is developing that immigrants seek to depend on the government, which is simply not true. They want to continue to be here, to work, and contribute back to the city and their country that has provided an opportunity to them all. So this is why we are hearing now from immigrant communities themselves that the current situation cannot continue indefinitely. And we need a comprehensive solution by the federal government, including comprehensive immigration reform. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Commissioner Castro. So in addition to supporting asylum seekers, we do have an unwavering responsibility to continue to provide funding for our schools, for public services, for working families, for our older adults, and essential services for the 8.8 million people who rely on daily us. But we need additional resources. As the mayor has said, this is a national problem, and it requires a national solution. No one city can or should be asked to play a disproportionate role, but that's what's happening absent additional support from federal leadership. We don't see an end in sight. And as we have said, we are at a breaking point. It's not fair that all those in our care, approximately 94,000, if you include the folks that are in our DHS system in all of our emergency centers, that's 94,000 people that are in our care right now, will have to suffer because we have not yet seen a national decompression strategy. With that, we'll now open it up to the floor for questions. I'm going to ask about this piece of the letter that talks about the lack of resources in the city, not having sufficient resources to abide by the right to shelter gone. Mayor Adam was asked about this before and kind of put it off to the court. And I'm guessing there was some internal discussion about this. How does the city expect to quantify what that lack of resources is? I mean, in this situation, you're saying we just kind of reached our limit, but down the road, if such a suspension was put in place, how would the city kind of measure that, I guess? So I'm not going to get into legal strategy given the filing of the letter. I will, though, provide you with the thinking in terms of where we are now. And I think what we're faced with now after there being no change at the federal level after May 11 and the change at the border with respect to Title 42, we're now 12 months into this. The mayor declared a humanitarian crisis in October. We have been beating the drum, as you all know, for quite some time now. And we have now gotten to a point where it is essential and necessary to revisit the Callaghan requirements because the question is, how is the future going to be any different than the past year? And if the future, there is no reason to believe that anyone is riding in with a solution with respect to the numbers. And so the idea here is, as the mayor has said repeatedly, all options have to be on the table. And the goal here to be very clear, to be very clear, the idea here is to obtain clarity and additional flexibility to the extent it is needed. That's the goal. And so you're asking specifics. I appreciate where the question comes from, but there's a legal case that is going to follow from the filing yesterday where that will be addressed. Do you view that clarity as applying just specifically to the migrant thing or just in perpetuity? I don't understand the question. Is it the migrant thing? Yeah. You're seeking clarity on Callaghan from the court. And the question is, is the administration seeking clarity just as it pertains to the migrant crisis or in perpetuity as the law would apply in future situations? So the filing relates to Callaghan as a whole, but it focuses specifically on adults and adult families only. It does not seek any modification with respect to families with children. So it is all intertwined in terms of the Callaghan requirements. Obviously, 40 plus years ago, the judgment did not distinguish between unhoused New Yorkers and asylum seekers. That was obviously a foreign concept back then. And that is one of the real concerns here is that this never contemplated Callaghan and its progeny never contemplated this reality that we're in. So as a result, this is all part of the same issue to respond to your question. But that's why we're going to court. Is it an effort now to seek relief based on this reality that was never foreseen? I want to go off that same line of questioning and that particular paragraph because I'm perplexed or I question the logic of saying that you don't want to change the right to shelter when literally that paragraph legally would give you an out to the right to shelter. And if you were actually if a judge, which has not changed this 40 plus years does decide to side with you and give you that paragraph. Well, then what does it look like? Does that mean that migrants are sleeping on the street? Will you no longer be opening up emergency shelters? What's the end game here? What do you exactly want? So what you want as I go back to it is clarity and flexibility. And so it's important to be precise about what we're talking about here. When things are said like the administration wants to end the right to shelter. That is inaccurate. That's why we're pushing back against it. I think there are many hypotheticals one could try to spin out from this legal filing. I'm not going to get into all of those. What I will say is if you look over the past 12 months, no administration in the history of the city has done more to preserve and ensure the Callahan requirements than this one. It's not even close because no administration has been faced with this number of people who need help. So the idea that a filing designed to obtain clarity and flexibility in a crisis is a should be read as a signal that that the people in this administration, including these folks who've committed themselves to this for the last 12 months, we've suddenly decided, you know what, we're now abandoning all of this is I think completely unfair and distorts what we've done for the last 12 months. The goal here is to again, given that 40 plus years ago, this current reality was not contemplated to understand what how a court will address this situation. As we deal with obviously the other parties to Callahan in an attempt again to get clarity and flexibility in this in this circumstance. For Jacques, yesterday you said that you're going to set up a tracker for migrant costs. When is that going to come out? And then also are you guys going to set up a tracker for how many people are coming in, you know, the daily numbers and what's going on with the office of asylum seeker operations. Yeah, we are currently working on a tracker, like we did for the COVID expenses to give transparency and clarity to folks to see exactly where we're spending in what kind. So the goal is to get it up soon. I can give you an exact date because I know the programmers are working on it, but we will announce it when it's completed. We got in the office, I believe we have somebody. So the work of the office of the asylum seeker is continuing. We said that we really wanted to focus on a legal strategy. We wanted to focus more on exits and resettlement. And so the group of folks at City Hall and in the agencies are focused on that. We did name Molly Shaker as our interim asylum seeker, the head of the office. And I think we really want to make sure that we're picking the right person for that position and have the right operational experience. So we'll keep you posted when that position is filled. But the work of what we think the office is doing is going on every day. That's kind of happening unofficially, but with the team of all these agencies. So how will things change once it's set up? What will that look like? So I think that's my point, Bernadette, like the infrastructure of who's working on legal strategies, who's working on exits, who's working on front door strategies, who's working very closely with the state on resettlement. All of that work is happening and we didn't really want to add so many additional new lines. So we've pulled lines from other people in the administration in the similar way that we did during COVID, right? And so we want to financial considerations are very important to us. So the work is getting done by a group of people who are going to continue to get that work done when we announce who's going to be the permanent person. I'm not sure about that, but I will tell you because we want to make sure that we're appointing the right person to do that. A question for John. You said yesterday the migrant cost could go well past 4.3 billion by next July. Do you have any idea or sense of what that number could be at this point? Because we're looking at the data to see if there's going to be a new trend established over the next two months because that could be simply a blip and goes away and come right back to the trend, in which case we don't have to make major adjustments to the forecast. But if that trend persists, we're going to have to update our forecast sometimes in an upcoming plan. Any project cuts in the future? I don't know at this point in time. I cannot submit the uncertainties. I cannot say one way or another what we're going to do to address it. If I could just get a quick logistical question. How many respite centers are currently open? There are nine humanitarian centers and in terms of the emergency respite centers, we keep on opening them as we need them. So I can get you the exact number, but it changes from day to day. I could just ask what distinctions are currently being drawn between the traditional homeless New Yorker and the new migrant people who are coming in? In terms of the... So we actually have been trying to keep sanctuary sites for folks because there was some conflict at the beginning. So I think people, when they come here, they're scared, they're nervous. They don't know many people staying with their similar community. If we can do that, we've been trying to do. Just a question. So can you guys say you're looking for clarity in this law? No more in there does it say that you guys are looking for clarity. You guys say that you're actually looking to move it, transition it. So just looking for clarity there. And also, do you guys expect if this were to be modified or returned, what sort of guardrails would be in place to keep people from sleeping on the streets? Well, just on the first point. So I mean, the way you see clarity from a court is you make a request of the court. And so we've made a request of the court with respect to the specific language in Callaghan and that's laid out. So that's what we mean by clarity. And that clarity would be designed to provide us with flexibility. In terms of guardrails, again, we don't want to get into speculation here about where the judge may go, where this court case may go. And so that would be part of the further proceedings in the court to work out amongst the parties and with the court to determine, okay, how can we go forward here again given these crisis conditions that were not in existence at the time of Callaghan. Yes. Maybe the Commissioner of Immigration can answer this question. It's like we heard the governor and the mayor saying what can they do to really help these asylum seekers to get their immunization. And Commissioner, I'll just say Leon, there's a long time in grant waiting. Would it not just be easier to just get all the immigrants who get the invoked positions to come out? So, did they all go into all of it? Over the last several months, I've heard loud and clear from all the different immigrant communities that they too want forms of relief. So not just asylum seekers, which is why we have been calling for comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow everyone that needs work authorization to access work authorization. One thing we've requested the federal government to do is use their powers to re-designate TPS for many of the community of the people who arrived in the last year by re-designating TPS to a more recent date, for instance for Venezuelans, that would allow all of these individuals to access work permits quicker and easier and allow them to get to work faster. And this applies to many different communities, including West African communities, which we have also been advocating for. So the work of our federal legislative team is ongoing there in D.C., working really hard, both with our congressional delegation and others in D.C. to try and get something done, because this requires action by the federal government. I've set this over and over. The fate of asylum seekers rests in the hands of the federal government. They're the ones that must act. Thank you. Question for Brendan. I think it's a reasonable question for New Yorkers to want to know your intentions. And of course the judge will ask your intentions as well. It's not really a legal strategy. So the question is whether your plan is to shut the door if you get what you want from the court, or is it to perhaps continue to shelter people, but maybe just not get sued over the specific conditions that you might not be able to guarantee anymore? And then second, have you asked Governor Hocal and the state to join you in this lawsuit and did they decline? So in terms of, I'm not trying to be cute in my answers. I think the intention here is not to obtain, again, when you look at the record of the past year of this administration, the intention here is not to get a court order so that we can shut the door and have thousands of people living on the street. That is not the way this administration thinks about this. We have, regardless of our legal requirements, have gone above and beyond over the last year just from a moral standpoint. And I think the folks who are involved in this with us from the advocate community, again, I think there is a recognition of the effort that we've put in here. So to answer your first question, this is not the intention. Again, back to the point, which is... We don't want to shelter people to the best of your ability and you wouldn't stop trying to shelter migrants. Maybe you just don't want to get sued if you can't do it the way you're supposed to. It's not a question of legal risk. It's a question of the ability that's doing the responsible thing now before the entire system buckles. And it is looking for areas of flexibility where the mayor as the executive branch is not hamstrung unnecessarily by a 40-plus-year-old judicial order to the extent that we can have an action with a court agrees and there can be some flexibility secured. It's to have that flexibility. Do we want to necessarily exercise that in every case, in every way, whatever it may be? Not necessarily. So it's an effort to be responsible here to secure some flexibility now. And about the state joining the litigation considering that they always were a party in the past. I'm not going to get into specific conversations we've had with them about legal strategy, but I will say that we have been coordinating closely with them on a full range of matters as we've said before and continue to do so. Thank you. Just to follow up on that, you know, legal aid actually hasn't sued you so far, right? And they've been, I think, sort of in close communication and there's things that haven't been aligned with the right to shelter all along, right? You know, there's not social services on site. The facilities like Randall's Island were way too big. Like what the law was already more than 200 beds. So I guess my question is what is different now? They've already said we understand you have a crisis. You're doing what you can. Like this seems like another step to wave it all together and to ask for the permission if you don't have a resources or capacity to do this. It seems like sort of you want to close that door. I think this is part of the incremental but responsible approach that we've been taking for a year. And the idea here is let's see what is going to happen. I mean, this is now coming sometime after May 11th. We did not know what the federal government was going to do up to that point. We have waited to see what was coming after that. There is no real change that we're seeing from there. So now the question is what is the next phase of this strategy? And again, you're right. I think that conversations led by the deputy mayor with legal aid along with the corporation council have been very productive. And they will decide to do what they decide to do. We recognize and appreciate the role that they have to play and have played here. And I think that's actually gone a long way in making this effort over the last year as effective as it has been. Just a quick follow up on that. So I think it was controller Brad Lander said the city could have actually gone to the judge and say this right to shelter requirement could apply to the whole state. Why not take that sort of opposite legal tactic? Well, as a legal matter, he's wrong. There is no constitutional right to shelter. So that's the first issue. There's a constitutional provision that allows one that mandates the state and its subdivisions to provide care to the poor. It does not specify a right to shelter. So as a legal matter, you can't do what he's proposing. But secondly, the issue here is what distinguishes the city from the rest of the state. And one of those things historically, as you all know, has been Callaghan. And so we are addressing that now. And again, the idea here is this isn't an effort here to turn our backs on anyone. The past year demonstrates that we're not going to do that. We will not do that. The issue here is flexibility in a crisis. This requires assuming a favorable disposition. The court adopts the language that you have in your letter. And there's a situation where DHS finds that the city lacks resources and capacity. What happens if an adult male or adult family shows up and seeks shelter? Specifically, what happens in that case? I understand the question. And I'm not going to answer it because it's a hypothetical that's based on how the court case plays out. We have not put in filings yet. All we have done is the filing yesterday, which is a request for, as you saw, for a judge to be assigned. And it is the first chapter in this. You're asking what is a fair question, but one that we're not in a position right now to answer. Are you prepared to answer it? Are you prepared to answer it to a judge who asks that very question? When the time comes, there's no question that the law department will be prepared to answer whatever questions the court has. Just to take a slightly different tact upon Melissa's question. Obviously, the city hasn't given mind when they sought the order. And you did actually give some clarity that you don't want this order to give you the right to just shut people out altogether. So I'm wondering if you can talk a little bit more because I think some of the concern about this is the uncertainty here. No one really knows what you're trying to do. So thinking about the flexibility, the clarity before you file the case, not sort of separating that from the legal machinations that will happen. What do you want? What is the clarity and the flexibility that you want specifically? The idea here, Joe, is that there are a set of laws and regulations that govern the way that the homelessness population has to be treated here in the city. And so the idea here is to think responsibly and holistically about what currently governs this crisis. And what can we do to ensure that to the extent there are restrictions that can be revisited that may make it more feasible for us to avoid the system in its entirety from buckling under its own weight. And so when we talk about this, as you see in the filing, it focuses on adults and adult families. And it focuses on the requirements with respect to them under Callahan. And so the idea here is we want to understand, going through the court system, what can be done in light of this current predicament that we find ourselves in. I understand there's a desire for specific answers here, but part of being in a crisis is that what you have to do is look ahead and try to understand without potentially knowing exactly how everything is going to play out, because you never can. What tools, though, can you try to secure today that are going to provide you with the ability to handle the crisis tomorrow? And that's what this is about, more so than any kind of deep, detailed plan that is sketched out, because, as you know, in a crisis, you're not going to be able to predict with certainty where it's headed. Here's what you want, though. Flexibility and clarity on that issue.