$110,592. total recommended reductions for general fund is a $111,800. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: i have a question. i know it is hard to anticipate, but you have been one of the primary representatives in talking with the state on a prisoner realignment. in this budget that is before us, it is a little bit of an enigma as to what we can anticipate in terms of how to prepare for what might be coming down from the state, since the funding is supposed to escort the prisoners that come down. i am curious if any part of this budget is in anticipation of that infusion of inmate population? >> the current mayor's budget anticipates some funding for the

sheriff's population for the anticipated increase. adult probations budget does not anticipate any. we do have cost estimates. we have a realignment plan that we have been crafting. fortunately, because we have been meeting so frequently and working with all the realignment partners, we will be prepared to come forward startin. starting july 5, we will release a plan for public input on july 12. the funding specifics are blank for what we're going to put out publicly, because we're waiting to hear from the state. what i can tell you is that the revenue will not match what the anticipated expenditures are. i anticipate there could be upwards of a 50% in difference between the two figures. for adult probation, we anticipate a significant impact. we will have up to 700 realigned prisoners under our nauert post-

custody release supervision. murder -- under our now post- custody police supervision. supervisor mirkarimi: ultimately, the adult probation is really the backstop in helping process and to manage these significant portion, if not everybody, that has spent realigned back to us. since the state now has a green light by the governor to sign the budget and they're still waiting to see how funding is materialized based on tax extensions or whatever the funding mechanism is, are you anticipating a supplemental by the adult probation department come mid-year? >> yes, i anticipate a supplemental. the governor's budget has funded a realignment as it was originally intended. there is a slight difference in the vehicle license fee money. there's money for additional court security. there is separate set aside for public defender for representation. also, the district attorney's

office. i have a recap relative to what is known right now and what is not known. there are several bills to be passed that will impact the nature in which we are managing the population. but bottom line is that we really think that the probation department will be the first apartment impacted. the reason being is, as of october 1 when this law becomes effective, cdcr will release prisoners that are non-serious, non-a violent, but they have serious and violent prior convictions to our supervision. effective october 1, the court will begin changing their sentencing, but that will take a while for those court dates to come. so we know the estimated state's population is 412 immediately to us, and then building up to 700. supervisor mirkarimi: what would be your projected -- i know it is a guess right now, but what a supplemental would look like by

adult probation? >> i anticipate we will be impacted to probably, when it is fully implemented, and it will only be a partial year, i would say probably $4 million to $5 million. supervisor mirkarimi: so it is literally 10% of your budget. ok. >> i am the mayor's budget director. i would agree with everything that she said. our plan is, and we have been working with the probation department -- i think we all understand that the probation department is going to be one at the core parts of this realignment strategy, and they are really at the center of the changes that are going to happen, but operationally and financially. our goal is to, now that we actually had a state budget that is giving us some details, is to start getting the numbers ready, both for the probation

department and for the other public safety departments and come to you with a plan and a funding proposal that would be part of the larger state budget discussion, where we make a determination about how we allocate out the state budget reserve and how we're going to implement some of the other proposals in the state budget. so we will fold that conversation together and bring that to the board probably within the next couple of months. the timing is still a little bit uncertain, but this fall, to have bought the policy discussion and financial discussion about what the impacts are on operations. supervisor mirkarimi: now that some of the blanks are being filled in, because the state appears to be arriving at a budget resolution, there will be another meeting, and we have already hit -- already had two on this. we can begin to round out what we expect to win with the first infusion be?

january or sooner? -- when will the first infusion be? >> likely, october 2. when they release on october 1, they released into our custody for probation supervision. the court commitments will take a little bit longer. one thing i would like to say is that as we're building this realignment plan, alternatives to sentencing will be key. so the judges are going to have a core component on how the sheriff's budget and population is infected, as well as a probation. we have been working with the district attorney's office and public defender's office and having this conversation. part of the realignment plan will also be focused on creating these alternative sentences to try and mitigate a large impact to the shares population. supervisor mirkarimi: but there will be a risk assessment based on the population that is returning here. so the community that is also critical is the reentry community. >> absolutely. that is why we felt it was so

important to get out in front of it as quickly as possible and to talk to the committee and to the reentry council. we will unveil a draft plan in terms of what the components consist of on a july 12 at a hearing. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you for those questions. it is a good segue. i intended to ask the mayor's budget office to provide an update on the state budget for us. perhaps he can let us know where there might be some questions and where we might have some clarity. >> absolutely, madam chair. mayor's budget director. it looks like there is an agreement on the state budget, but as always, the fact that items have been adopted it does not give us complete clarity on where things stand. my office, the departments are going through the proposal right now and trying to assess what

the impact would be. i would say the two biggest pieces that are going to provide us some uncertainty are the proposal on redevelopment. right now, it looks like there will be a significant financial impact on the city as a result of the redevelopment proposal. there are a number outstanding legal questions about how that is actually going to be implemented. it is probably going to take as a little while to comb through what that means for us. but it does look like the proposal is either we can allow our agency to be eliminated, or if we choose not to do so, we would be obligated to pay a significant sum to the state. it will have a financial impact on the city. i am confident it will take us a little while to sort out exactly what that means. the other part is realignment, and as we have just discussed, we will be working on finalizing

our numbers for that item. there is still some uncertainty on exactly what the state budget will look like over the course of the next half a year or so. the governors and legislatures proposal includes an assumption of revenue. it includes an assumption about what will happen if those revenues are not realized. essentially, there is about $4 billion of new revenues as soon, and there are cuts that would be implemented if the revenue does not come in to certain trigger levels. those cuts would significantly affect some of the educational institutions, but there are also cuts that would affect the city government. depending on what kind of news we are seeing in the economy, there'll probably be some level of uncertainty about the impacts of the state budget on our local government program medically and financially over the course of the next half of the year -- programatically and financially

over the course of the next half of year. supervisor chu: thank you. just to clarify, we have talked a lot about realignment. i know that supervisor mirkarimi will be calling that item to the public safety committee to have a better vetting of what that might mean. with regard to redevelopment, it is intriguing what you have said. that the current proposal, as is laid out, is that potentially we have the ability to continue our redevelopment agency at the local level, but that would require a payout to the state in this year. >> that is correct. essentially, the original proposal, back in january of this year from the governor's office, was to eliminate redevelopment agencies and is essentially no longer have that option for local governments. the newer proposal, and again,

there are significant outstanding legal and technical questions about how this thing will look and how it will be implemented, but essentially, the centerpiece of it is that local redevelopment agencies have the option of remaining in existence but would be required to make a payment to the state. the total value of that payment to the state is about $1.7 billion from each of the local redevelopment agencies. we are calculating the impact call on the final legislation and on what that will mean for san francisco. but it is probably in the $20 million to $30 million range. in future years, there would be an ongoing payment, but the ongoing payments would be at a lower level. there would be a one-time larger payment required by the city in the current fiscal year. and then that would drop down. there would be a one-time hit

and then a smaller ongoing series of payments that will occur over the long term or in perpetuity. supervisor chu: conceptually, we would expect that if you wanted to maintain our redeveloper at agency, it is likely that san francisco would have to pay some kind of lump-sum payment, a onetime payment in this coming fiscal year, and perhaps an ongoing payment in years out that will not be as large? >> that is correct. one of the issues that is going to prison for us financially is -- it will probably put some strain on us financially in the current year, meaning that the size of our reserve currently budgeted at $15 million is less than the total value of the payment for the current year. although, of course, we have a sales-tax measure submitted to the board which with add to that reserve. but that will put some strain on us in the budget year and fiscal

year 2011-2012. but hopefully, depending on what else happens with every development agencies, that will be a one-time expenditure. a portion of that will be a one- time expenditure, rather than a large ongoing payment. so there would be a one-time impact to our budget in fiscal year 2011-2012. but it looks like the ongoing impact will be less than that. supervisor chu: one final question one of the department coming up later on is the children and families commission. i know that part of the state plans originally had anticipated taking the number, or significant amount of the reserves, from first fives. is that off the table? >> the final budget proposal -- and they are not sleeping the balance from a first 5 at the level that was contemplated in the budget proposal that was vetoed by the governor a week or

two ago. and it had been challenged in the court, and that with the governors logic, you did not want to include that in the budget given the legal uncertainty. so the impact on first five will be less than contemplated under previous budget proposals. supervisor chu: ok, thank you. we left off with the adult probation department presentation. the department is in agreement. did we do the budget analyst response yet? we did, ok. colleagues, if we can, given that there is agreement to take the project closeout balance of $1,208 and also take the cuts worth $110,592. we can take that without objection? thank you. the next department is the asian art museum.

>> good morning. we're pleased to confirm. asian art museum, chief operating officer and cfo. we are in agreement with mr. rose's office and are prepared to accept the $53,465 cut to our general fund budget. the reason that we are able to take this cut is we are in an unusual situation, with several positions that are open. this cut really is reflective of the timescale for hiring those positions in the first several months of the year. with the caveat that we would hope to work with the mayor's office next year to restore funds sufficient to be able to cover the minimum staffing levels at the museum, that is the situation that we face and

we are able to take a cut for the current year. we wish to thank the supervisors and mr. rose's office. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose. >> the agreed upon recommendations of $53,465, which are general fund reductions. supervisor chu: thank you. given that the department is in agreement, can we take this without objection? that will be the case. thank you very much. next, we did not have recommendations, but i believe there are questions with regard to the arts commission. one of the questions i had was whether there was any ability to further fund some of the programs to deal with the graffiti abatement efforts the arts commission has been working on.

>> thank you for the opportunity to come back and address some of the questions raised at the last budget hearing. there are two presentations documents in front of you. i would like to start whistling the recommendations raised by supervisor carmen chu. yet a question about the 10 staff members at the arts commission associated with the public art program. in this presentation, we walk you through the responsibilities and workload these 10 individuals are involved with and differentiate the fact s seven of them are really working on the public art part and two are associated with the civic art collection with

administratively, we have that all together. one is doing the financial work, the reporting work for that program. there are six project managers handling a workload between 60 and 70 works of art, public art projects. supervisor chu: each of the staff members are managing 10 projects a year? >> it has actually averaged a little bit higher than that. there were additional slides that demonstrate how the amount of public art projects has ballooned in the last three years. three years ago, the total number of contracts was about 842,000. for the last two fiscal years, including this fiscal year, you

see they are above $3 million. running through a summary of the projects but are involved with, central subway has 11 public art projects, general hospital has 14, recreation and parks has 13, public utilities commission has five, trans day has 5, the public library has three, the public safety building has three, the airport currently has two but we just completed five projects. other public our programs are five. you get a sense of the workload currently underway. with the other capital investments the city is expected to make its infrastructure in the next few years, there will be new public arts projects that will be coming forward. that is why we say the workload

is between 60 and 70 projects per year that are ongoing. going forward and looking at what the collection activities do, there are two slides said detail work associated with that. jumping ahead a little bit, you raised some questions about how some of these public art projects might want to have impact in their surrounding neighborhoods. we decided to highlight a few things done in the last year- and-a-half that talk about how these public art projects in packed the streetscape. a longstanding project of the embarcadero was one of them. the installation of the language of the birds in one of the most traffic tourism sight of this city, the intersection of broadway and columbus. it has been a phenomenally

successful works that bridges the cultures of north beach was chinatown. leland avenue generated a fabulous project called street life. the valencia streetscape improvements has generated a work of art. one of the largest and most impressive outdoor improvements was to the plaza where we used an artist to use colored pavement to impact the plaza. if anyone has a chance to see that, it's quite a phenomenal change to the streetscape. but -- upcoming projects include the surrounding area of general hospital, soma west and the

public safety building. going to the question you started out with, how will we try to change and improve the street smart program, we are going to be talking with the department of public works, which is our partner in this effort. we're going to change our memorandum of understanding so we will incorporate more communication between the property owners and surrounding neighbors. that will be more labor- intensive, but your point was well taken. as you astutely, given your financing background, urged us to do more with less. we've been able to allocate an additional $20,000 by shifting administrative costs and by

funding 10 more murals and the program for the next upcoming fiscal year, that will bring the total number of minerals to 30. we will continue to raise money through community challenge grants and seek outside funding for the program. i believe that addresses the questions. if i can now shift -- do you have any follow-up on that? supervisor chu: i just want to thank you for taking the time to do that and we appreciate being able to free up the additional allocation to work on some of the murals that deals with the three problems. -- with the graffiti problems. i also want to thank you for the change with reaching out to the local community before we install these are works. that will be an improvement in the process and i look forward

to hearing your update. >> if i can draw your attention to the second presentation which addresses the questions raised by president chiu, who does the arts commission commission to do all these public arts projects? where do they reside? we start on the third page with a summary slide that provides a five-year overview. this is a cumulative average. we see out of a total of 115 contracts, 55 of them or 48% went to san francisco resident artists. if we look at the bay area which includes san francisco, the number shoots up to 86

contracts and a 75% of the artists. in terms of dollar amounts, it's a good break down as well. in the terms of total dollars spent in the san francisco area, you've got a little over $4 million. that represents 44%. for the purpose of thoroughness, we provide you with several slides which i will not go through. there are several slides covering the five years, summarizing a particular page. are there any questions before i move on to the final question? supervisor chiu: the issue raised last year -- and was trying to understand why so few artists contracts were being awarded to san francisco

artists. i appreciate the jump we've seen, but i'm shocked at the numbers -- only 22% of contracts went to san francisco -- people from san francisco. this year, 62% going to local artists. tell me how the arts commission -- was happening before and why after some public pressure to we see more contracts being awarded to local artists? >> with all due respect, it has not been a response to political pressure. this program has hovered at about 75% bay area artists being commissioned by the arts commission over 30 years. the process the arts commission uses -- supervisor chiu: you said 75% over the past 30 years?

>> that is what staff has informed me over the long term. the bay area artists, which include san francisco, was hovering at about 75%. supervisor chiu: why has that dropped significantly in the last decade? >> it has not dropped in the last decade. the years you are planning to, want to show you what we use in selecting artists. it's a very competitive process and is driven by a community- based feedback. whenever projects we undertake always includes a component of community feedback and planned participation. supervisor chiu: can you explain that? i hear the exact opposite from the local artists' community. they feel shut out.

>> what that means is we have the composition of a selection panel. these are people w will look at the large pool of artists who look at the proposals. the composition of that panel includes the client agency where the work is originated from -- being commissioned from. then the surrounding community, whatever the appropriate surrounding community involvement is, and the number of arts professionals. these panels are the ones who select the artists. the arts commission also makes an effort to make a very wide call, an open call to get artists to submit to these open competitions. on an annual basis, every time we have one of these commissions, we put out the word. one of the things when we

started to look at this in greater detail, we wanted to make sure our open poll and in recent years, it is also going out in multiple languages. one of the things we are starting to see is a greater response from ethnic communities that are coming forward, being put into the pool to compete and being viewed by the panels and being selected. i think that is one of the improvements that might account for the bump you are talking about. but the process is very competitive and we are proud to say that in san francisco, there are a lot of very talented artists that have been part of the program. supervisor chiu: you are saying the reason we have moved from 22% in 2008 and 2009 to 62% this past year has been a result of