happy to answer any questions you have. supervisor chu: thank you. >> the controller just reference the increase in property taxes on a residence in san francisco being $82.52. this calculation is made by the comptroller. we recommend it. supervisor chu: let's open these items up for public comment. do any members of the public which to speak on this item? >> ♪ tax rate now, do you need to slow the tax rate down, tax rate property, oslo that tax

rate down, writing all over town slow the tax rate and bring it down ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would wish to speak on these items? >> i have a question. this means that someone was living within the property? supervisor chu: your question? >> who does it apply to? supervisor chu: 10 instead paid to property owners.

some of these measures to allow for certain amounts to be passed between property owner and tenant. it depends on which ballot measures they were. if that is the specific question, jamie might be able to help answer. >> questions 17, 18, 19, kindle da did these apply to the unit? supervisor chu: they would, but if i could these are public comments, we do not generally answer questions. but if you could step to the side, we will point you to the right people to answer questions.

setting what those rates should be based on the general obligation bonds for property tax estimates, incentivizing every single leader, that is generally what these items are. >> i thought to myself, my goodness, they're going to raise taxes on the units. if it is per unit, they should not raise the taxes for anyone there from before 1978. supervisor chu: we will go through this exchange in just a moment. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on these items? seeing no one, public comment is closed. these items will be sent forward

with recommendation, without objection. if we could take a five minute recess, given that we do not have a full complement? thank you.

supervisor chu: we are going to come back to session. if we can call item no. 20? >> item number 20. resolution approving the execution and delivery of not to exceed $110,000,000 aggregate principal amount of refunding certificates of participation no bonds issued by the redevelopment agency; approving a property lease, project lease, escrow agreements, and a trust agreement; providing for the manner of sale of refunding

certificates of participation, whether by competitive or negotiated sale; approving the form of the official notice of sale and the notice of intention to sell for the refunding certificates of participation; directing the publication of the notice of intention to sell for participation; approving the form of the certificate purchase contract; approving the form of the official statement in preliminary and final form; approving the form of the continuing disclosure certificate; authorizing the acceptance by the city of certain property in connection with the execution and delivery of the refunding certificates of participation; authorizing the payment of cost of issuance; authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith; and related matters. supervisor chu: thank you very much. for this item we have anthony. >> good morning, members of the committee. i am here on behalf of our office for the resolution before you to approve the funding certificate of participation within the san francisco redevelopment agency in the 2002-2004 bond.

approved by the voters are in 1976 and 1988, with propositions moving north. for services to the city, we currently expect, based on market initiatives, to achieve $5.9 million within five% of the funded partner. -- 5% of the funded partner. to the extent that they were able to achieve this on the funding, those revenues were for other purposes. a clothing transaction in october through november with market conditions broad review approval of the resolution.

accompanying this are several documents including trust agreements that are pretty customary, based on the company of police structured cop's. in addition, it forms the preliminary appendix described as a security credit features and a financial condition. the last time that it was approved by the board was in april, in connection with the city's annual equipment lease program. the city's staff is currently updating documents for the budget. the adopted budget controls revenue and maintain it as more up-to-date.

there are other documents approved by the legislature. describing the city's obligation under the market conditions. supervisor chu: thank you. i know that the report mentioned the fact that the redevelopment agency could not be issued within? >> as you know, there are certain questions that have to do with whether the redevelopment agency is actually able to issue bonds. given the nature of repayment on prior bombs, it was felt that extra revenues, other than the resolution, which would be a january, the earliest, this

recommendation for funding involves achieving those with more certainty within the transition. supervisor chu: let's go to the budget analyst report. >> table 3, page 5 of our report, based on information provided, the current estimated certificates to be issued are $97,910,000 out of the requested authorization for the approval of $110 million. which is to say that it explains the excessive amount as revised sufficiently for mortgage fluctuations between the time

that the board approves the legislation and the anticipated issuance. at the bottom of page six, we point out that the estimated savings based on information provided would be $5,535,892. this is because the bonds to be funded are higher than the proposed refunding seal. finally, on page eight, we do recommend approval. supervisor chu: let's open this up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like to speak? thank you, public comment is

closed. on this item, if i could ask anthony to get back to us on this? i am supportive. if there is an association with this transaction within the budget, i wonder if market conditions change, at what point do we say that we will not go through with the transaction? >> at a minimum of 8% savings, we are well above that, probably exceeding 5% at the moment. that is just a general rule of thumb. supervisor chu: thank you. that answers my question. we have done public comment and we have the recommendation, moving forward without objection. thank you very much. can you call items 21 through

23? >> item number 21. ordinance amending ordinance no. 146-11 (annual salary ordinance fy2011-2012) to reflect the addition of 34 positions (22.84 fte) in various job classes for assembly bill 109 public safety realignment consisting of adding 30 positions (19.92 fte) in adult probation, 2 positions (1.50 fte) in public defender, and 2 positions (1.42 fte) in district attorney. item number 22. ordinance appropriating $5,787,176 of assembly bill 109 public safety realignment revenue to support related expenditures at adult probation, district attorney, public defender, and sheriff for fy2011-2012. item number 23. resolution approving the city and county of san francisco 2011 public safety realignment plan. supervisor chu: thank you very much. for this item, we have the

chief from the adult probation department. chief stills? >> [whispering] i know. but technical ability is not that great, but i will do my best. >> thank you very much, madam chair and supervisor mirkarimi for being able to present to you today on the public safety realignment plan. ok, sorry. i am the chief with adult probation. 8109 created a statute change

and realigned the criminal justice population. it was implemented as a state budget initiative to reduce overall prison costs. in essence, it shifts low-level population, non-serious, non-a violent coup would have spent their time at state prison, and it goes to the local level, to spend their time incarcerated locally. it creates a new category of. those that iran current non- serious, non-violent commitments that are released from state prison will become under post release custody supervision by an adult probation. it also requires that a community correctional partnership be created, an executive one of which the chief probation officer is the chair. the implementation time line is october 1, a very short time line. the legislation was not passed until june with an october 1 at realignment.

the local community partnership has been meeting for months in anticipation of that. as such, san francisco's public safety realignment plan was the first county plan that was completed in the entire state and has been used as a model for many counties throughout the state. each county is required to establish a partnership. the voting members consist of the two -- chief probation officer, district police, attorney, public defender, presiding judge, and director of health. supervisor chu: with regards to the passage of the plan, our local jurisdictions in driven by a deadline to pass the plan before october 1? >> thank you for asking that. the critical need for that is the resources that will be needed by the various agencies that will be impacted. adult probation will be impacted first. i am already having workload coming from state corrections.

we are getting pre-release packages for those who would have been parolees who are now going to be under post-release supervision by an adult probation. the urgency is two-fold. it is one, because the need of resources to supervise the population, and it is also because there are elements of the law going through the public safety committee in terms of ordinance changes that are required. so, yes, there is an urgency. the post-release supervision population that is going to be coming back locally, while the college non-serious, non- reviling, non-sex offender, those are anticipated to be offenses that would have been up to 36 months in state prisons. but they can spin logger times, and the sheriff's office is here. if they have concurrent sentences, their timing could certainly go beyond three years. the post released custody

supervision cases, while they are currently non-serious and non-filing, mainly drug officials, they can be strikers. the first case i got across my desk, the individual was a light current present commitment for a drug offense, but they had second-degree robbery, automatic weapons, and a long history of criminal convictions. that is what i anticipate this population is going to look like. but as it is, another element of the law is that parole violators and post-release community supervision cases, they can no longer be violated to go back to state prison. it used to be that they would be violated in the state prison would be responsible for their time. they may spend time in local counties, but the state would foot the bill. but now no offenders can go back to state prison with the exception of those in for life. that is going to impact the sheriff's population with the

violators, both those that are serious and violent parolees as low as those better on post release community supervision. the law also gives adult probation the ability to sanction up to 10 days of incarceration under my authority. so we're actively working together with our partners to create a process and to implement it. in addition to that, they estimate that the total population that will be sentenced locally is 164. the sheriff and in our criminal- justice partners agree that we believe the numbers are wholly underestimated. that statement is throughout our plan. if we just accepted the state's numbers as they are, it would result in approximately 646 offenders locally, with the majority of those on post community release supervision. those that are serving their time locally, the judges have

another option. that option is to create a split sentence. they may be sentenced to spend time locally, under the sheriff's supervision, but in addition to that, they could have part of their sentence under community supervision a probation term. and that is a new type of sentence structure, and no one can predict how the judges are going to actually be sentencing. we think our universe of annualized is approximately 700. supervisor chu: i have a quick question on the populations. 421 in post-release community individuals that you have here. would these be people who would now be under the jurisdiction of our adult probation department immediately, as of october 1, or would that be phased in? >> it would be phased in over time. what we're getting now is we're supposed to get the case is 180 days prior to release. but because the legislation was

so late in passing, the cases are coming to as a daily. so there is going to be this massive catch up to get to the point where we're dealing with cases six months ahead. as part of our design, we have to do pre-release case work, planning, the individual treatment and rehabilitation plans, risk assessment. so we have a ramp up for the supervision, but we have a six- month backlog of work load to do in the pre release planning and developing the individual treatment and rehab plans. staff will focus on getting caught up as the state gets us the information, and then we will start supervising the cases as of october 1. i anticipate that it will take until at least january to catch up with the backlog, because they did not give us 180 days ahead of time. the date -- part of the pre- release planning is not only to plan for their reentry back into. we have to review every case and

determine whether or not there are additional terms and conditions of probation supervision that we want to have basically impose before they are released from state prison to our supervision. so that is before they ever get to us. supervisor chu: in terms of the 180 days, the idea is not be implemented well at this moment. but the idea is going further down the line. we should know six months ahead of time what our new cases are coming into the city. >> absolutely. we have an overall estimated annual number. but they're supposed to provide the actual packet and information related to each case that is coming to us, so we can do a case assessment and determine whether or not we are going to put additional terms on. they have not given us any of that time. they are trying to catch up also with the law that has just been enacted. but by law, they're supposed to give us this information six months ahead of time. supervisor chu: and we do not

expect all 421's to drop in our laps on october 1 but over time? >> yes. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, chief. we have talked about this in the public safety committee. we have had three hearings. but with each week, there's new information coming out. i appreciate that we finally graduated from public safety to the budget committee. it is the obvious that we are preparing for their reality is that we're about ready to confront in san francisco. on the question of kansas assessments, how much time would week -- on the question of case assessment, how much time would we need to use that time to thoroughly evaluate? he said a six-month advance is what the law provides, but what is our internal process? >> it should be that we get the case, and we're reviewing it. the first review we are going to do is going to be, do we need to put an additional terms and put an additional terms and conditions of their probation?