protective services. certain mental health services. juvenile probation and incarceration. the proposals are currently still being hashed out. i think that gregg was correct in his response to the supervisors question. our local department has, as well as our lobbyists, be working very closely with the part of finance. state department, as well as the governor's office, and the association of counties to make sure that san francisco has been represented at these negotiations. in the governor's original proposal, for example, the state approved to eliminate the california youth authority entirely. as results with further conversations with county, they have pulled back on that

proposal and are instead going to allow counties to contract with the state. is jurisdictions, and we are not one of them. they would still be able to. another example is -- it relates to who would be -- one of the proposals is to return non- serious offenders back to county jail. some of the crimes included in that pool of crimes, there were serious concerns by the sheriff as well as police chiefs around the state. the governor's office has been open to hearing those concerns and modifying those proposals. i think that the real concern for us is -- what funding will

really be available to provide these services? for example, the proposal assumes between 25% and 75% savings. by virtue of returning the services to the county, it assumes that the county will be able to do this more efficiently. for example 8, of the state assumes a parole violator of spending four months in jail, they would assume that spent -- returning to the county would mean one month in jail. they are getting their savings both on changes in how much money they are spending or would need to spend, but also in the assumptions about where people are spending their time and what kinds of services are being provided. supervisor mirkarimi: i think that this topic deserves a more dedicated hearing. i had been waiting to hear more

of the progress occurring at the state level and municipal level. i would love to have a hearing dedicated to this. we should coordinate with a hearing like that might take place. do we have a range or a number on that? >> it is still being estimated, but the adult probation department has indicated somewhere in the range of 1500 additional to be their responsibility as a result of these changes. the sheriff's department is projecting a range at this point, as it depends on the types of crime that would allow someone to return to county jail.

it is significant. i appreciate your openness to having an additional hearing. it does require a more in-depth conversation. >> in the mainstream we did supervisor mirkarimi: in the mainstream i do not think that people realize what is coming down the pike here. >> that may be true. the other thing for you all to be aware of is that the state does have additional information about funding the dollars associated with the different transfers of responsibility. the maximum received for one individual in county jail for one year would be $25,000 per year. they do not assume that individuals would stay for an entire year.

they assume it maybe six months. our costs here are higher than $25,000 per year. >> -- supervisor chu: they are deciding supervisor mirkarimi: -- they are that -- supervisor mirkarimi: they are making this decision based on original residency? >> that is right. supervisor mirkarimi: this could potentially affect census figures? >> potentially. i do not know. supervisor mirkarimi: previously there was a detention for an increase in population, coming with more money attached and that the shift in population numbers in san francisco. >> we would have to look into that a little more. supervisor chu: could you walked

down the bullet points on chopper services? what you think the impact might be for those? adult probation services, as a result we might be seeing an additional 1500 additional probationers. >> the details of those proposals are still being worked out. i do not have a good answer for you there. it would just become the responsibility of the county. there would not be additional state funding for that function. supervisor chu: court security would revert to county responsibility, generally? >> certain mental health services, details are still being fleshed out at this point.

but there is more to come there. juvenile probation would return up -- in all of the responsibility. the original proposal would eliminate responsibility and allow youths to be sent to you authority but only through contract. the responsibility would be on the county for how to manage those young people. speaking about significant changes to where people would serve their sentences. and what kinds of offenses. supervisor chu: you said that we might see an additional 600? >> 600 to 1000. supervisor chu: for the ones

where we do know whether it is additional probationers, is there a sense of what the associated money might be to come to that local jurisdiction? >> i do not have a $1 figure on that. the number that are most clear at the moment our numbers associated with an annual re for someone being incarcerated, $25,000. super buys locally i believe it is $3,500. things like that. but i do not have numbers. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: if i may, it is also attached to the idea

of effective reentry. hoping that after they are incarcerated that our programs are also adjusted to deal with this increase in population. not just managing be incarcerated, but the afterlife of incarceration. we are hoping they do not repeat the offense. that is what is not entirely clear. what are the resources that escort that increase in numbers from the state? not just on managing? >> the other piece on this is that the state is assuming that many of the young individuals returning to the county or are sentenced to county jail will stay for a short period of time and then go into a community supervision program, a electronic monitoring. there is funding for that but it is significantly less than

$25,000 per year. supervisor mirkarimi: we actually get a better rate of return on the county-driven. recidivism is lower. it will ruin our local statistics if we do not have commensurate resources that deal that increase in population. >> the points that you are raising our why it is so important that there be an adult probation chief, sheriff, police department, and all of our public safety departments. they are working together to figure out how it will play out. what does it mean for individuals who are incarcerated and transferring alabama -- out? i believe the greg mentioned that human services had been at the table to describe how they could play a role.

>> thank you. -- supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. >> there is more to come there. i wanted to talk to you briefly about some of the reductions proposed by and the governor's budget. these are highlights. i thought they were the ones you would be most concerned about. significant reductions proposed. the main way that that plays out is an increased skill set for individuals who are receiving medi-cal services and a reduction in payments to providers. we feel that here in the city's budget, as we are a metical provider. it would be about a $5 million cost. supervisor chu: is that related specifically to the reduction and 10%? >> yes.

cal works, budget proposes to ce new time limits for families. this would limit yet effective july 1 of this year. and also reduce the grant from $694.20 $604 a month. -- $692 to $604 a month. we expect there will be individuals that when they become eligible, we need support from the assistance program. there might be a cost associated with that. there are significant reductions to the support services program that provides a variety of supportive services to elderly and disabled individuals in the

county. that is worth $468 million. because of the way the program is funded, the governor proposes to reduce the available hours by 8.4%. as a result, the county will not pay for the 8.4%. it reduces our need to spend money on ihss. it feels like a savings to the general fund. two other things i'd like to highlight. the governor has proposed a sweeping reserve funds to provide services for children and their families - t- t0 to 5.

and he plans to reduce child care subsidies and child care eligibility. we currently believe that that is approximately $4 million in lost funds to san francisco. there might be more. not all of the funds flow to the city. the one that has been getting the most play in conversation is redevelopment. as i mentioned, the director of the redevelopment agency is here to talk about where we are. i wanted to briefly describe the governor's proposal. he proposes to entirely of lemonade redevelopment agencies statewide. while allowing agencies to complete their existing obligations.

the governor assumes that by eliminating the agencies, he will generate $1.7 billion in general fund relief for his budget. and he proposes funding in the budget year. the proposal would be that all of those funds that previously were used for redevelopment purposes would flow through the existing property tax formulas and would flow to the counties as well as the school district. san francisco worked with mayors throughout the state to come up with an alternative proposal. basically, the proposal would have generated $1.7 billion in funding by increasing the amount

of property tax that will pass through the state. the governor's office has not been particularly interested in that proposal. and so, where we are now is that the governor has made his proposal and the senate budget committee has passed their version of the budget including the $1.7 billion in savings from the redevelopment agency. supervisor chu: both the state and assembly budget committees have approved that? >> they have approved the $1.7 billion. it has approved the gov.'s plan. it did not indicate whether that was from the elimination of redevelopment agency's orders

from an alternative proposal -- or from an alternative proposal. i would like to ask mr. blackwell to come out and provide you a brief update on where things stand today. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am going to go into a bit more detail on things that miss howard raised and give you an update. hold onto your hats. in summary, the proposal basically says 3 1/4 innings. one supposes the -- three or four things. at the same time, it

acknowledges existing commitments that are held by the redevelopment agency'ies and cls for -- calls for creation once they are abolished to carry out those applications. the last piece of the proposal that has not received a lot of attention is an effort to reduce from 2/3 to 55% the amount of voter approval needed to approve things like economic development. that is briefly what the governor's proposal is. both the assembly and budget committees met last week.

the senate committee decided to go along with the governor's proposal. they decided to score $1.7 billion and left room for negotiation. what is happening now, they have formed a conference committee to reconcile the differences between the decisions that were made in the senate and the assembly. they were made without the bill language to a company that governor's proposal. -- a compccompany the governor's proposal. they are expecting to wrap up those deliberations if not this week that early next week -- that early next week.

-- then early next week. the governor needs to wrap up this aspect of the state budget in order to get to the voters. it requires voter approval. as ms. howard said, the city and county of san francisco is part of a coalition of the top 10 largest cities in this state. the mayors as well as the staff of those agencies have been working on alternative proposals. i submitted one last week. there are two pieces of work that went with that. i will go briefly through what is in there. the other thing that the group

did is apply scrutiny to what has been out there. just briefly, the $1.7 billion is in dispute. it reflects the 08-09 state controller's report. this attracted existing debt obligations. this attracted the obligations and as they are paying off that, it would be about $1.7 billion that would go into the general fund and the subsequent years back to local jurisdictions.

they have experienced up to 20% declines in that time. it does not take into account all of the debts that redevelopment agencies have. they take into account obligations that have been taken out by the 08-09 year. taking another pass at what the number might be, they cannot with a figure that was closer to $900 million. that number is important because if you take that into account, the proposal that was put together by the mayors, the

proposal basically suggests that agencies would take on an additional 5% fee. that fee would translate into a revenue stream of about $250 million a year. the revenue stream could be secured and to finance the $1.7 billion. one proposal was an additional 15% pass through on tax increment achieved brought in that would go to counties and schools. it would increase the amount of money that would go to counties and schools long term.

the third dimension of the proposal was a set of programmatic reforms. it would reduce the size and scope of redevelopment by putting a 20% cap on the amount of overall property tax revenue that could go to the development activities. there is a second component that focuses on making sure that the moneys that are dedicated to the production of affordable housing are spent that way. the third dimension of the proposal is a set of recommendations that improves and enhances decision making. we have spent quite a bit of time in sacramento, but gov.'s office. and last friday, there was a

contingent from san francisco that included the mayor lee. just a side note, it is called that because they decided they didn't want to be a part of it. anything that required a constitutional amendment that would allow the state to take local money in order to balance the state budget was something that they wanted to be a part of. supervisor chu: not on the programmatic reforms, but the others, an additional 15% would go to schools? >> 15% of the increases of tax increment from the 08-09 base year would go to counties in schools.

just to summarize, i don't want to go into great detail, the proposal was not very well received from the department of finance. there were probably at least three reasons for that. the prevailing point of view from both of those bodies was that the 5% and 15% increases would violate prop 22. prop 22 was passed by the voters in november, basically prohibiting the state from taking local money in order to balance the state budget. prop 58 does not allow the state to issue debt in order to balance the budget. constitutional issues aside, it was made clear by the staff and

the governor's office that even if those constitutional hurdles weren't there, they are philosophically opposed to issuing debt in order to balance the budget. those are the big issues thatsid the senate budget committees thamet, the language was introdd that goes along with the governor's proposal. i have passed around a summary that highlights the key components. just to hit the high points, what the bill basically does is is t makes good on a proposal to eliminate agencies by july 1.

it also freezes activities after the signing of the bill. assuming that it goes through the legislature, it freezes redevelopment activity so that new commitments can't be made. it creates a successor entities that are designed to wind down the activities of redevelopment agencies that are already in place. what we have been working on a, it has been at our office along with the city attorney's office. the intent that has been expressed by the governor seems to be out of line with the language that has been proposed in the bill.

existing commitments and obligations would be able to move forward. the bill language does not allow that to happen. i can go into a bit of detail on that. for projects like the shipyard, mission bay, trans bay, where we have agreements with developers, we have contractual agreements that require us to issue debt in the future in order to meet those obligations. the language in the bill doesn't completely cover the existing obligations that we have. the language is not clear about whether or not debt can be issued in the future.