weakness from hotel tax. is that simply a reflection from hotel business going down or is it simply that it was not as positive as we thought it would be? >> we had a conservative projection for hotel taxes that was slightly before -- below our conservative projection. $2 million at the level of the total hotel tax, which was budgeted at $157 million for this fiscal year, is not a very sizable -- we will watch it month by month -- that is looking at our actual between july and december. just modestly below the rejecting when you take all the other factors, the voter action from november. supervisor chu: with regard to the transfer tax, one of the large components of revenue good news this year was related to increased level of transfer tax that the city saw. what i have heard is that transfer tax is really related

to folks trying to affect share with the sale of property before the increased rates kick in. so i am wondering -- you probably will be updating for the joint report -- will we expect this high level to continue throughout next year, do expect drop off because people may have tried to quickly to effectuate the transactions in this current year before these rates go into effect? >> we are actually having a briefing with local economists on friday to talk about questions just like that. our municipal financial advisory committee. although that may, indeed, have been a factor, our projections in the report is all the good news from the first six months but does not anticipate for the next. there have been things in the paper about a number of large transaction waiting, some potential revival in the

pressure property market, investment money ready for good properties in san francisco. so that could continue to provide good news for the future, but we will be watching it month by month and letting you know our updates as we periodically. supervisor chu: just a quick note on what we can anticipate coming to the budget committee based on the report. what i have gathered is we will see a number of supplementals coming through. i know the department of public works has already submitted their supplemental request for the $2 million. the other ones, do you necessarily have a timeline, maybe the mayor's office, and when they may be introduced? >> i will hand off to the mayors of the >> spirit madam chair, members of the committee. i think probably the time frame we would be looking at is sometime in march. the actual timing will depend -- there are still some factors that could be moving in these

numbers. we want to get them before you early enough so that you can have time to make a decision, but not so early that we will need to make subsequent adjustments. so i think the time when we are hoping for is to be at this committee in march. supervisor chu: one final question. there is a release of reserve that has been requested for about $44 million in salaries. i know that had been submitted across multiple departments. the criteria was to really take a look at where state revenues, federal revenues would have come in, based on the six month report. would you foresee? do we have enough revenue to release the reserve? i know that will be a further conversation, the base and the report. >> what we called the uncertain revenues at a time when we passed the budget, the comptroller issued the revenue letter, and again in the three month report, were primarily

state and federal revenues, most of which were at the part of public health. at this point in the six month report, we made a final assumptions about what is and what is not coming in. we have assumed a chunk of revenue from the state hospital fee will not be coming in, along with some mental health revenues at the health department. so all the revenues that we had previously been considering uncertain are now considered certain in the six month report. so we think we know what we are getting and what we are not getting, all of the potential bad news that we thought might be coming, we have either had our concerns that alleviated, or we have assumed in the six month report, that those revenues are not coming in. so there are no more pieces of their revenue that we are, as of yet, have a high degree of uncertainty. supervisor chu: thank you.

supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: you answered a few of the questions i was going to ask. i am curious, based on recent reporting on how foreclosures have delayed the impact -- have a delayed impact, especially in san francisco, are those showing up in these figures, with regard to the impact be realized before us, or are those impacts that will also be delayed in the presentation figures a few months from now? >> the appeals we are factoring in were filed through january 14, -- really, september was the deadline last year to give people pause 2010 appeals. as of january 2010, they get their notice and an appeal through september. so we have a full listing of those. we know what has been decided,

what is pending. based on where we think the market was, we have an idea of how much to set aside. so the impact of any sort of foreclosure is now, changes in for their property value will be felt in future years with the volume of appeals we will get next year. so we are reserving manipur feels that might be submitted later. we will be reevaluating that. in our budget planning, we will try to think about how much to budget for those kinds of appeals. that gets into the modeling of what we think will happen to the property market. so we will continue to look at that. that is why we have these financial advisers that we are meeting with on friday. we will decide whether that is substantial enough to increase or whether or not we need to reduce the expected appeals we allowed for next year's budget supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: is it bundled in the concept that

properties that for clothes are all appealed? >> people have the right to say if -- if the foreclosures are reflective or cause a loss of production value, we are aware that others would be aware of where it for close deal was -- the very fact that you have foreclosure does that mean that you can successfully appeal your property tax. supervisor mirkarimi: exactly. so i am wondering what the deduction is from that category from those who have not necessarily undergone the appeal process but are in the queue of foreclosure. that is a suggestion from the larger, that you are speaking to. and i'm talking about commercial as well as private. commercial sectors saw a bit of a sustained delay from the residential sector.

at least from the information coming across our desk, a bit of a delayed hit. i am not sure how much factories of information here before us. >> my guess is most of the high value properties that are going to appeal will appeal. there are consultants out there encouraging them to appeal on the chance they may get an appeal. i do not expect this will bring in a lot of new, major properties that will appeal that would have not otherwise. i think we have seen the kind of scope that is likely. last yeawe sort of know the unif properties and how much they are asking for. we are stunned to see the decisions. it is not just a foreclosure issue but the broader property value issue that we will build met to decide if a connection will be at the same level as there were this year. >> is there a request for your office?

i know the assessor's office would be the key here. but in order to get a better universal understanding of where we are, with both the residential and commercial sector on foreclosures, where we stand and what we can anticipate? more numbers, hard numbers would be helpful. >> the assessor's office -- 2 we wilsupervisor mirkarimi: we will talk to them. supplementals on public health. i am curious, what more is it addressing, the supplementals? >> greg? >> to provided through the chair. there are two main components, need for supplemental at the department of public health. first, as you have seen at this committee over the past couple of years, there has been a pattern with the department, which we are aware of, which we have been aware of when we make

the budget projections, of them overspending salaries, particularly at the hospitals, but also bringing in enough revenue to cover that overspending. so for the past few years, there have been expenditure overruns, but the supplementals are funded with revenues at the hospital. so that is something that we are not surprised by and that the department has been anticipating over the course of the year as a look at what they're spending comes in at. the second piece is what the chair chu asked, some of the revenues in question, in the controller's three month report and revenue letter earlier this year. the biggest one of those is hospital fees, which we had made some assumptions about the level at which we would receive revenue, and also how far back

they would apply retroactively now that we have more information about those assumptions. some of the revenues we had budgeted had not come in. so the supplemental of public health will be a combination of those revenues not coming in and some overspending at the hospitals, which is covered by state and federal. supervisor mirkarimi: is health y san francisco part of the dynamic of extending those who can enlist or enroll in the costs that can be cover that may not have been anticipated? >> i do not think in the supplemental, help the sacramento -- help the san francisco -- healthy san francisco, their primary clinics are at the hospital. so of course, all the economics

of the health-care system are tied together, but the spending issues at the hospitals are an issue, something that we have seen in the health department's budget for the last few years. so i do not think it is attributable to cook the program cost overruns in healthy san francisco, it is the level and frequency of services at hospital is higher than budgeted, and at the same time, it is generating [no audio] care for those people. >> an additional factor we mentioned in the report, security costs that have been higher than budgeted, which is something that has been brought up by the department. supervisor mirkarimi: on the open spaces on the that was mentioned, -- fund that was mentioned, that had been

absorbent considerably in your report. what was the allocation for exactly? >> i do not recall. the $1.6 million that was budgeted from fund balance -- gregg, was set for operations? >> the increase in fund balance is to to -- they have a charter formula for a portion of property tax revenues. since property tax revenues are coming out a little bit higher than budgeted, they will get an additional share into the open space funds. that is why we created the balance. the use of that balance will be a decision that will be made in the budget process. for whsupervisor chu: we are no

longer able to draw down on a certain amount of money from the ring in the reserves. >> that is correct. we have budgeted for 12.3 million. that will remain in the reserve, assuming that these projections come through as projected. the school district drawdown is still in his bid to take place. they are budgeted to draw down six. something million from the reserve. supervisor chu: about $6 million? i think it might be worthwhile, we talked a public health supplemental. we know about the public for supplemental regarding litigation. the sheriff's department's supplemental of 5.1 related to overcrowding? is that related to increased population? >> the sheriff's supplemental is primarily due to -- in the

budget, we have detected a certain level of retirement to each year. we had made some assumptions about the level of retirement that would occur. we have also budgeted to keep the little jail closed throughout this year due to a decline in the population because they'll level of retirement have come in before budgeted, we have a salary overspending issue at the sheriff's department. so we had budgeted some savings to to those retirements. they did not come through, so we projected salary over spending compared to budget. supervisor chu: quickly for the city and ministers office, in particular, the city's response ability -- it might be interesting to [no audio] >> that relates to debt service on the courthouse.

400 mcallister -- mcallister street. that court house will eventually transferred to state ownership while there is debt service still outstanding on certificates of position, the city is responsible for servicing that debt. the city has allowed for that debt service to come from parking fine surcharges and other court fees. it is approximately $4 million a year. those other sources are coming in, more like $3 million. we had originally thought less than that this year, which is why we have a $2.3 million shortfall. with updated projections, about $1 million. that fund has been drawn down in the past. we started the year with just 200,000. we hoped to be able to restructure that debt to lower the debt service cost so that it would be within the revenues. we have been talking with the state administrative office, they have to provide permission on an extension of the debt that

would delay the transfer to the state. they have indicated that they do not want to redo their initial communication with the they will not reluctant to provide communication, but we're in communication -- our debt service actually stepped down from $4 million to 2 million ballots. we talked to them and said if the general fund was up side by a million during the $4 million period, that we would be able to pay ourselves back in the future for anything we advanced from that fund from the revenues coming in. we are hopeful of winning state approval for that. for our books, it will still look like a million dollar cost. we cannot project that savings, but we hope there will be an offsetting revenue stream in the future. we sought to get permission from the state regarding that. supervisor chu: ok. quickly, city administrator offices? litigation as well? >> that is anticipation of

litigation costs around a case before the city. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> good morning, supervisors. my name is douglas yep. i have lived intemperances go for 59 years. i was glad to hear the mention of the department of public health. the facts that were mentioned earlier do not surprise me. for the record, i would like to remind everybody that the board of supervisors has consistently, through different committees, absolutely refused to hold hearings into the department of public health, in regards to suspected misuse of money,

especially metical, at san francisco general hospital, where i worked for 20 years. i would also remind everybody for the record that the comptroller's office, in my opinion, has been uncooperative to push for a follow up financial audit of san francisco general hospital financial practices that was originally issued in 2003. in that report, my own department was faulted numerous times for problems, and i myself, think those problems still exist and we are only shortchanging the needy and helpless people in san francisco by not looking into san francisco general hospital. obviously, i do not have to say anything about laguna honda

hospital, even though, to my amazement, that the district supervisor consistently refuses to issue any written statement in regards to laguna honda hospital. having an asian head will not hide the problems there. supervisor chu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i heard that there is not much money in the controller's budget, i was told all that is left is a band of gold and the memories of the money that was there. i hope that you really care. supervisor chu: seeing none, public comment is closed. -- is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. do we have a motion to file this item? without objection. item to police.

-- two please.>> item 2. resolution authorizing the department of juvenille probation to retroactively accept and expend a grant in the amount of $159,000 from the zellerbach family foundation to support the department of juvenile probation's ongoing efforts in organizational and leadership development, in developing and implementing evidence based practices, and in strengthening partnerships with community based organizations. supervisor chu: thank you. we have allison mickey with the juvenile probation department. >> and good afternoon, supervisors. my name is allison mcgee. i'm here discuss a 100 to $9,000 grant from the cellblock foundation. this is actually the fourth grant awarded by the foundation to our department over the last six years or so for ongoing organizational development efforts. this particular grant has a couple of activities we aren't especially excited about.

one is a comprehensive cost- benefit analysis that will compare the various disposition options for use -- you can compare our system. we will look at log cabin ranch work compared to out of home placements, to identify the true cost and benefits associated with those options. this is it especially important now with the realignment happening with the state. we are excited about that. another large portion of this grant will fund the expansion of a program to improve outcomes for youth returning from out of home placement. it will introduce family therapy to the youth and families. they will commence prior to their return, so they will begin therapy in preparing their return up to three months before they come home to san francisco. other than some training and workshops, that is it. supervisor chu: thank you. i believe we may have a question.

supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i was reading that you see a reduction in jpd. i was wondering what those numbers were. >> we have seen a reduction across the board in terms of bookings and referrals over the last two years. i do not have exact numbers in front of me. i was not expecting the question. i can get those for you. they are pretty significant. we see our average daily population going down to below 100 for the past year, where a year and half ago it was up to 130 or so. we are pleased with that and are hoping that that can continue. supervisor kim: what do you think has contributed to the production? >> a lot of factors. we would like to take full credit for the reductions in terms of our programs, but we know it is not that simple.

we have made deliberate and specific efforts, as it relates to the youth who are detained and when they are detained, in terms of the risk assessment we used to ensure we are detaining them properly at the front door. we have partnered with other city agencies including the department of children and families, dph, to improve our community-based programming so it is much more streamlined and comprehensive. we have programs such as the -- program which is a model program that has been funded by the office of juvenile justice. they are focusing on kids returning from out of home placement. we know the biggest risks for youth are returning to the community after they have been away at log cabin ranch or in a out of home placement. unless there are specific efforts to connect with the youth before their return home -- we have done that and we have

seen some of the reductions accordingly. supervisor kim: with this grant, will jcert be able to serve all youth going back home? >> right now it is only seven out of home youth. it is actually a partnership with a public defender. we estimate 100 a year. in total, on average, about 200 youth year a surge in out of homeless men. supervisor kim: so it is not a selection process to go through that particular do are going to go to the program. it is all you going home after detention. >> the only real exclusions are those who have significant mental health needs we are not able to address through community programs. for the most part, the majority of public defender you are returning after the placement. supervisor kim: do you feel that log cabin has been successful?

>> it is a work in progress. we started the model at log cabin last fiscal year. we brought in the mo. youth services institute, who is the national best practice in terms of operating detention facilities. we have completely revamped the program, focusing on vocational education program, reentry, we have therapeutic program in place, we have extensive training offered to our staff as well as our partners out there. the school district has been a great partner, as has dph. we have 22 kids there now. we only have staff for 24 kids. we are hoping to expand our numbers in the coming fiscal year so that we can continue our growth. the original plan was that we would introduce cohorts each year as we develop the program.

we had our second this year. next year, we wanted to have an additional 12 kids come on. the following year, 48. so we are successful, but there is -- it is still a work in progress. supervisor chu: and you're hoping to have a log cabin grow to 40? >> the state has to write the number of youth that can be served at the facility. right now we are rated for about 50. we have a plan to meet that number over time to ensure that we have adequate programming and staff in place. supervisor kim: how many adults have to we have at log cabin? >> counselors, about 13. supervisor kim: so it is a 2-1 ratio. >> not exactly because it is a 24/7 facility. at least two need to be there at all times. it is a high staff ratio when you look across the board.

supervisor kim: could you talk more about sfpd's partnership with you doing outreach and data analysis with young people out in bayview hunters point? >> that was a grant awarded by the state for this particular partnership which was with the police department, as you mentioned. just to be clear, the program is not funded through this grant we are talking about today. it is totally separate. >> how the measure the success? had you know this was

successful? >> i am not overseeing that grants. >> we can certainly get to that information. supervisor chu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am glad to see this grant. whenever we can do to assist in enhancing the services of the probation department after the reentry programs, is exactly the right step we need to go. i know you do not have the data here, but maybe just to send back to the provision department -- there is once that i am interested in. if, in fact, somebody of youth is now moving into the adult category -- i am trying to shore up that transition period. if their reentry is not calcul