together. i don't believe that it is the numbers i've seen are move by move or -- although that could be done too. i think the total cost estimate and rita can help me too is about $480,000. is that correct? $485,000 for the four moves together. and the majority of those costs are funded by the unrestricted general fund and to the extent possible some of those costs are being paid for by capital facilities funds. if commissioners have other questions -- >> i just want to say that qeia is one of the things questioned in the budget. there is a possibility that it will be funded.

bizarre as it is to stop in the middle of a funding section. we should just be aware of it. >> commissioner maufas? commissioner maufas: will a more detailed discussion come to budget with the other three moves? because that just seems that it is substantive enough that it should be in the budget discussion. all of that can happen. all the -- the budget committee and as they trickle forward to the board. we have already been discussed the butt and so we -- budget and we know and wouldn't have to -- i really do want to know more. but i'm not prepared to ask as many questions as i do have about the move as i would ask in the allotted slot on the budget agenda. because i just don't have a clue

about that. the move and the cost and all the other questions i would ask. >> thank you. >> so this -- we're just talking about the code change. role call? >> thank you. [role call vote] >> thank you both. i now call the public hearing to hear public testimony on the receipt of funds for the state categorical program. superintendent, do you want to explain why this public hearing is taking place? >> do you want to come up here? we do this every year just so that you know for the record.

>> good evening. i can read quickly the public hearing document. the subject is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district holds a public hearing to hear public testimony on the receipt of funds for state programs. the enacted state budget chapter 12 is enacted trailer bill. authorizes school districts to use funding received in the state for tier 3 programs to stand permitted under federal law. the ability to use funds is authorized for five years. 2009 to 2013 by education code. it requires that a condition of receipt of the funds the governing board of the school district or board of the county office or education as appropriate at a regularly

scheduled open hearing shall take testimony and disapprove the -- used for funding and explicit for each of the budget items the purposes for which the funds will be used. it reduced funding for education by 8.8 billion. the flexibility of use fund for tier 3 programs for any educational programs as deem necessary and permitted by law. it allows the public to come tonight and give testimony of what they feel about the tier 3 program and what they would like to do. >> thank you. i only have one speaker signed up. don?

>> thank you. in 2009, the legislature effectively ended tier 3 program. since then, the vast majority of districts all over california have been given fubbed funding to support essential services for their general election perhaps but here at ump sfd we continue the -- usfd we continue to use the bulk of -- that was last year's number. i'm not sure about this year to support what are effectively canceled programs and we simultaneously complain about the lack of state funding. if you yuse choose not to flex tier 3 whose fault there there is a thrs not enough funding for school sites? i wanted to site a a

recommendation releas leased in may of this year. entitled california's school funding flexibility recommendation number one. the first challenge is equity. we recommend the state set funding rates. if it continues and the funds within it retains the general purpose designation then there is no longer the compelling rational for differences for people funning it across districts. districts are no longer required to provide these services. the requirement is the equalizeation of general purpose revenues. since flex item funds no longer support prior programs, it is no longer rational to prevents or exclude any schools or districts from receiving this funding equalizing funding rates addresses this inequality.

differences in rates among districts of the same type of diminished in 2009-2010 the statewide range was $22 per pupil. the large variation in flex item funds -- may i? the flex item funds among districts produces in turn large variation of funds and per pupil funding the statewide range increases from $22 per pupil to $696 per pupil in total general purpose revenue and it is even larger. so without attention to this use issue, the inequality will continue. i just want to comment that the vast majority of districts have been using this flex items to distribute funding on a per pupil basis in the spirit of --

and for the purpose of maintaining services. >> thank you. >> ok. >> fufment >> are you going to speak on this or the budget? >> i'm supposed to do both. i'm sorry. >> ok. >> i'm from -- for children in youth. this is kind of i want to show a couple of things. one i've been passing this out. i'm sorry we don't have the capacity to make a whole bunch overp copies but there is a report that the institute or corporation did across the state about what the impact is sweeping the programs and it is very interesting because what they concluded was that it actually supports the -- so it comes as no shock that san francisco is actually widening its achievement gap. i want to call that to your

attention. you created a strategic plan in this district that says this is what your goal is about. closing that achievement gap. we also talk about another gap called the opportunity gap meaning how much opportunity do students across our districts have? a lot of what we have been talking about meaning it has been about what are the strategies that you're using and it seeps really sad that -- when you had the opportunity to address the achievement gap and look at how we're spending these program funding we don't really have any end result. so what have we spent that money on last year? has it gone to keeping teachers in the classroom or keeping programs in the academic schools? i'm really unclear as a community member what did that chunk of money go to spending? why did we sweep it? when is it actually being done?

you have a legal responsibility to make that public. this type of report it would be helpful to say because there is nowhere in the district process available to say we spent this money on xy and z. if you can please do that process and if you can understand how we have widened our gap and how we have a wider gap than we did even four years ago, that would be really helpful because that information is not publicly available. >> thank you. >> i'll leave a copy. >> thank you. >> there are questions from the board. >> i don't believe -- i think i've been through -- anyway, the last couple of budget meetings. we have had a fair amount of discussion about what money we were going to flex when tier 3 first came in. i don't know that we have had that this year so i kind of don't, all i have -- no

materials have been prepared for this hearing. as i gather. what we is a underage the budget book that tells us the tier 3 programs, page 54 and the -- and the amounts of money that we're going to flex and i think the first thing that we need to say is that we are -- our proposal with which i think i concur but i want to know what it is being spent on is that the bulk of our money is targeting block program money. we are proposing to keep almost $35 million of the $38 million so only about 3 1/3 million will be flex of that money. so i was wondering and actually one of the questions i had just based on a lot of testimony we have got is what cuts we're making in target instructional block grant spending.

one of the things that we have heard which i don't know anything about is the cutting of the art and music program for the elementary schools. i don't know what that costs. what else is -- we're proposing to cut. i don't know that we're doing that. i just know that people have said that. it doesn't seem to me in this -- even though this is the hearing, we also of course can scugs discuss this when -- discuss this when we have our budget hearing next week. and when we vote on the budget. that's my question. when we have this hearing is that i don't have -- there is no narrative that explains what we're flexing or why. what we're keeping or not keeping. we have cut a lot of already -- so i don't know what, all i have are numbers. i don't have anything that tells me this is what these numbers represent. these people, these programs. and in fact, i have a reporter call today and ask me about that and i said well, you know, it is

not like we say ok, we're going to take this $1.9 billion and mover it into there. and pull it into the general funds. i need a little flowchart where this money is going for that purpose and how we make that decision. >> my question is very similar. i actually don't -- i don't remember -- maybe i'm just like, i'm in denial or something. i don't remember having these conversations about what we were going to flex and what we were not going to flex and the amount, you know why we decide that we were going to flex 225,000 of the school safety block grant and not 137 -- you know, what cost the $137,000 that we wanted to keep. i would like a little more information about that, how those decisions were made and what priorities they fund and what things didn't get funded when we decided. how do we come up with these

amounts? >> well, actually, i was going to ask -- usually we have the budget committee meeting we go over this kind of thing. i was going to ask actually deputy superintendent to -- at this joint discussion when we look at the total budget because in our budget committee we normally do that and so i thought that's where we would have sort of a deeper discussion about it. so i think that would probably be the appropriate time to do that, also. joe, do you think that is about right? >> yesings i think so. this was more for a public hearing tonight, to spend more time in the meeting on tuesday to discuss this type of item. >> i think if what she said is correct, we need to look at where not only how much we flex

but really who benefited from the flexing and is it going to help us close our achievement and opportunity gap? deputy superintendent lee and i are going to work on the agenda. we'll add that to the agenda for a presentation of that. would that be fine? >> fine. thank you. can i just quickly ask who are -- who is making these decisions? how are these decisions made? >> these are all part of the recommended budget to the board. i mean the superintendent's recommended budget to the board. in as much as the process for any of the budget adoption, the steps and budget adoption involve the superintendent making a recommendation to the board and then the board having discussions in your meetings based on information that we provide etc. that is -- this is

a component, a notable component. it is part of the overall budget adoption process. if i understand the timing that led to this hearing taking place tonight, i think there was a request made or a concern raised by -- i think it was -- actually that last year the public hearing was held on the same evening it is a budget adoption and that raised a concern and so we were -- we received a request to try take the public hearing on a different evening, earlier than the budget adoption was scheduled for so that is why it is scheduled for tonight opposed to the -- >> one is just more of a basic question in terms of who makes decisions because there are funds from various departments. is each department making a recommendation how much is flex pay? or do we just look at all the

categoricals and figure out a formula? there does create the question around what will the impact be for each one of these and the other funding mechanisms that could augment what we're flegsing so that programs don't get dismant. -- dismaptled. >> it is a two-prong thing. the first flexing we did last year because we're really setting up a to-year budget. the board needs to -- two-year budget. remember? the board needs to keep that in mind. on top of that, we have gone back this year and taken more. so i think what we need to do for the board presentation is show you what was taken last year and because everybody wasn't getting -- just to kind of remind everybody, and then on top of that, what has been added

to be taken even more so this year. it refreshes everybody's memory. >> thank you. could you answer my question? >> yes. let me try. i think the -- the best way to describe it is it is sort of a sipt thinks of a number of synthesis of a number of staff conversations. what the budget involves, each of the department heads or managers basically end up proposing a budget but that the budgets they develop are based on targets that at a level we establish. for example, we'll say every department, every central department office should try to cut 45% of their general fund expenses from the base budget and likewise there is a specific

target established for each of the tier 3 programs so each of the administrators were given a mark, a budget mark. it is somewhat similar to the process. those marks are not necessarily across the board. it is based on our collective understanding of how the funds are staffed. priorities underlying the spending plans etc. then there is a discussion, gathering of information trying to figure out what is the -- how high leverage the expenditures that are currently in place. what would be the impact if expenditures are produced? if we can contemplate a smaller flex than in the prior year if the situation demanded it. so there isn't one -- one across the board approach. we basically in our budget team, which includes myself, on

occasion a couple of other people, we're basically the staff team that is interacting with all of our colleagues to bring that information to bear and then synthesize it into the budget. >> thank you. >> to follow up on that, i -- we talked -- when we work ond this last year and did this big proposal to flex all of this money, we had all the programs listed and the people who kind of controlled the money and then they were asked to make cuts and i am supportive of that and as i said, you know, generally speaking, i'm supportive of the idea that we need to spend the bulk of this desegregation money on our equity-related

activities. that is what it is for. that was in mind with our philosophy. which is why we made sure that that funding was protected. but i also think that the process you just described to us, and i raised this issue last year. is still a categorical thinking process that we did not -- we have not considered and i'm not sure i would advocate doing it this year because we did look at this two-year process but in the future, i think we should at least consider and we should -- when it is not budget crunch time think about whether we could significantly change the budget process particularly related to this flexibility and say suppose we did what some other districts have done and just presume that we put all of this money in the general fund and then say what would we do including our equity-related activities but instead of saying here is the program which as we

heard testimony tonight all of the retirements at least temporarily do not exist. yet when we said we're going to flex 50% of that, we're presuming we're going to keep spending the rest of it the way it was intended. will those requirements come back? do we want to entirely erase our ability to operate a categorical program? i don't know but we have not had this discussion. that is the discussion we need to have at some time. this having a hearing which i appreciate on the tier 3 categoricals makes me think that the time to have that is not -- when it is time to pass the budget but rather to look at the -- whole concept of all the money that we have got, what our goals are, how we would spend it. those would include things like what happens to be a high

priority for me. protect the able of -- make budget decisions etc. protect as many jobs as possible. all of those kinds of things. i'm going to suggest that flexibility is an opportunity to look at the resources we have, however meager through a different lens and we may not have maximized that opportunity up until now. >> thank you. any other comments? >> if there is no further comment, we're not vote on anything so we are ending public hearing and we're going to resume our regular meeting. thank you for that. consent calendar resolutions. item sonch a vote on the consent calendar. it was already moved and seconded under item fmp. so i need to -- item f.

i always do this. role call. >> [role call vote] >> item p is the consent calendar resolution sivered for board discussion and immediate action. k-11. >> thank you. the reason i called this is because i'm wondering since we're going to have some other sales coming up or some issues of our real estate, if this doesn't really this real estate thing we have going on, doesn't warrant a full time position of someone who really works at

this, i feel like it is really a huge amount of time, also for mr. golden which -- these are just consultants working with him but perhaps there needs to be a full time staff person dedicated to this with the expertise. if i look at this, it is $75,000, almost the salary of a full time staff person then you could i think have a person full time working for us assisting you on this. that's why i bring it up. i think the consultant we have been working with for a while, i think we're swell with you but i think i would like to have a larger discussion but because we have a lot of surface property and a lot of real estate issues are going to be coming up that we would have someone on full time under the supervision of mr. golden. >> mr. golden? >> good evening, commissioners.

i have had this conversation with the commissioner on several occasions. the history, high cuts at administration levels. the department eliminated a number of high level positions. one was the director of the environmental health and the other was the director of real estate. that position was worth about $150,000 in salary and benefits. we did not know at the time and probably still don't know what our long-term strategy would be, whether that position in fact needs to resurrect itself at some point.

doing surveys and doing negotiations for us. they have a capacity that an in-house staff, even as a whole unit we don't have. i think the long-term strategy i think is still open for discussion. and i think the team of deputy superintendent lee and general council medina, joe, myself and others are working with that strategy will be. and i think it is clear that that whole group including myself took on the more responsibilities. when the director of real estate left.

hopefully it will get more exciting and we'll take it one step at a time. >> commissioner yee? commissioneree: used this for one year now? we're using it presently? >> we have a staff working group which president mendoza is highly interested in those things. we started this group when we had the director and we're continuing to -- when i say group -- >> so we brought them in a couple of years ago. >> the question is -- for this school year. this 2010-2011. what was the amount of the contract? >> for this school year, i think

the contract for not the entire year was $60,000 and they are currently under that. it is an hourly as needed contract. >> this $75,000 is a conservative estimate or -- >> wenl it is a conservative estimate for an entire fiscal year. and it is hard to say, we have some interesting things that are beginning to take shape at various properties and hopefully they will be working hard to our advantage. some of their contract will in fact be rebated back to us. if actual real estate transaction occur, which is a contract. so it is possible if things are highly successful the net cost to us will be zero. >> thank you. >> i have seen