included in the three-year projection, so for next year, 13, 14, we expect and in fact, the mayor's budget includes 5.8 million dollars of the rainy day reserve being appropriated to the district. and the following year, 14, 15, it is 4.4 million dollars and the third year 15, 16 is 3.3 million so those are just the calculations of the balance of the rainy day reserve that would be reduced each year by the amount of the draw to the district. so the district is eligible for 25 percent of whatever the balance is in a given fiscal year and it is eligible for 25 percent, if it is appropriated by the mayor and the supervisors in the following year. so as a drive made in one year,

the balance goes down, and the amount of the 25 percent reduces for the next year. and so that is just the... that is just the amounts. and i think as you know, one of the conditions for receiving rainy day reserve funds is it is pretty broadly stated in the city charter but it does link to layoffs so the language says that if the district has noticed significant layoffs, that is one of two, conditions to be eligible for an appropriation. we have had discussions about whether there are ways to, if that is the condition that must be met for the rainy day reserve, to be appropriated and that is really the requirement then, are there ways of taking steps to meet that requirement

that have a milder impact on the individuals that might be receiving those notifications or even could there be an affidavit or something that says, notifications would be needed? that is, asserted by the superintendent or the board and could that serve as a proxy to meet that requirement. and that is something to meet some conclusions probably from the city's attorney office because that is the entity that would have to be careful with taking that proxy. >> and so we would very much be interested in looking at questions, or options like that. and if that is really the point to meet that requirement, to receive those funds, and this is not meant to say that we that it is a foregone conclusion that we will be laying employees off each year for the next three years, that that has been the case for the

last several years. but it is really just articulation of the amounts that will be available. >> i am supposed to be going now. the differential treatment honestly i don't know what that speakers were referring to, as far as the classified verses the certificated. and so i could stand to be better informed about that. and then the third question, would you... >> i am sorry, i did bring a little hand out today this evening and this is about the reductions or the changes in the site allocation and now this is not included in your packets and i am sorry, i sent

this to miss franklin shortly before the meeting and she did provide me with the question as she mentioned and it is just been hard to keep up with all of the different questions so we got to this today, right before the meeting, and basically this is the summary of the per pupil amounts. >> for the special ed allocation, and which is the point of the testimony that was given. >> it shows for all of the all of the grade levels in the three categories that are used for this purpose. there was a slight change in the categories between 12, 13, 13, 14, and nr is a label

missing, under the 13, 14, column at the top and in 12, 13, that the categories were rfp, severe and non-severe. >> and then rsf, moderate and moderate to severe. >> and the per pupil amounts are similar and they are increasing slightly. not by much. in essence they are similar between the two years. it is shown that the rest of the page miss franklin provided me a list and sort of a sample list that she was noticing some proportionally larger changes sbaoen 12, 13, and 13, 14, so we went back and looked to see what was behind those changes and it is not the per pupil amount and it does not have to do anything with the amount it has to do the accounts and sat

gorries so you can see for each of these seven schools the first four schools are seeing a reduction in their allocation and the last three schools have seen an increase and that is what miss franklin to me. >> and something for the schools to look at and you can see from the schools and it is a total. and within the three category and that just translates to the dollar amounts that are shown on the bottom. what i would recommend that we would do with all of the information is try to distinguish the changes in these allegations that are based on the changes in the student population. so for example, if there are 18 students at harvey milk projected for next year when there were 28 for this year and

that is fairly significant, proportional change in the population. so things like that try to with the student population and verses the changes that might have been reflected in the use of the category and so if we have identified the same students in a different category, in 12, 13, then we are proposing 13, 14, and but the population is not changing it is the categories are changing and then i think that that raises more of a concern as far as you know, holding the students harmless for that to go into effect. and so that is what i would suggest that we do. and we can do this when we look to the revisions of the budgets in the fall. the way that the student form law budget and they are all revised the schools have received the final allocations in september and so we can incorporate this type of a

review in that process. >> and i appreciate that. i just, i appreciate the commitment to look at this and make sure that if the same students are on the ground in the schools, then we are not going to cut the budget. i do wonder if maybe, we used to classify the students in that were fully included as severe or non-severe. and i believe that we don't do that any more. and i believe that we just classified inclusion students as rfps and it is really the stc students whether they are moderate or moderate to severe. ; is that correct?? >> (inaudible). >> yes, it would be on the mic. >> we went back in and encoded

6,000 children before the enrollment and so i don't think that is true what you are asking i could get a list of the coding was here from and she left. and maybe we corrected that and that would not be a problem, and we will use the issue that was coded incorrectly and schools were getting more money than they were entitled to and we have double weighted schools to try a pilot program for two years and they would also see a loss. >> i think that if we see that there are schools. that the certain is how does it feel on the ground. right? so if the school suddenly has the same number of kids and the same kids but they say that their supply budget falls by 3 thirds that is the worry. so even what he said and

notwithstanding, because if the schools were incorrectly encoded and the schools should not have been and we need to fix that and that is just saying that needs to be backed into or explained in a case by case basis. so that a teacher does not show up on the first day of school and say i have the same kids but last year i had twice as much money to buy supplies. >> yes, i also asked when we do the revise in the fall is to avoid setting up a system that creates incentives because it makes the students in categories more severe than necessary. >> i think that it is setting it up and i just don't want to have the reverse facts. >> and then the fourth question has to do with professional development and common core. so i think that the availability of dedicated state funds for implementation of the

common core so we are anticipating i think all of this is articulated in that information that we received. and we are anticipated 10.5 million, i think. that is right. >> and from over two years, for the common core. and for multiple types of expenditures associated with the common core and we are expecting to spend about 6 and a half million of that amount in 13, 14. and we are really pleased that that funding was increased beyond what the government has proposed and then they revised and we were expecting about 8 million or about 8 and a half and so we are able to see an increase by about two million dollars and we expect the bulk of that to be directed towards professional development and so that is one piece of it and

then, in terms of how that would be rolled out and i think that a combination of the staff development days, and that are on the calendar, and we are hoping to be able to restore some of the hours that have also been the budget and that is the next item on the priority list on restoration and so we are looking forward to those conversations. >> yes. if i could just add something to the deputy superintendent lee has said just before mr. reece comes up to answer the last question. i think that opportune to be clear with the public that whatever the governor has allocated towards the common core we should probably quadruple. it is a sea change for the

states in the nation and what i can tell the parents is that what students are learning in school is going to increase, it is going to be deeper and it is going to be much more robust, and it is going to be predicate that the teachers teach in a much different way with a much deeper understanding of the spiraling of learning. so much more than ever before, would a student learns in kindergarten will be built upon in the first grade will be built upon in the second grade and so the students not mastering the subject matter materials and then moving to the next grade will not be detrimental to students it will be the kiss of academic death. i can't put it in stronger terms. and this is a huge deal that we are going to be talking a lot about in terms of really equipping our teachers with the tools to teach in a much different way than no child

left behind quite frankly has mandated that they teach. and so it is a big deal and our core curriculum in the district right now is being informed by multiple development teams of teachers that are writing our core curriculum based on the core, the common core strapped standards and i think that many of the school districts we are ahead of the curve and there is a lot of work to do and i think that the urgency is felt by the educators and we will have more information and this is going to be a sea change in what in terms of what the students will learn, but i will say this, that once the students are able to perform in a true, authentic way on the common core state standards, we will be competitive with the rest of the world in ways that we are currently are not. and so, this is a good thing, but there is going to be growing pains and more to come

with that. but it is a very timely question, dr. murase thank you. >> i think that tom rees,, this is his last board of education meeting before he retires. so, we just, we could not think about not having you address a question mr. reese. so the question was... dr. murase asked a question about in reference to the public comment. >> it was in the public comment earlier by the labor partners and sciu and characterizing the budget as distinguishing between the certificated and classified and that there were moneys in the budget for the certificated but not the classified and i wanted to understand that. perspective better. i hope that you have some

information. but my question is it a tiny issue in terms of when the contract are open and not open is that kind of behind some of that. >> the commissioner murase, thank you, superintendent carranza for the kind words. and again i appreciate the opportunity to serve. especially on the final evening. >> there are factors at play and one is the timing of contracts when the contracts open and when they are closed but in terms of this budget, i think that our deputy superintendent has already told and board and we have higher cost on the classified side. in terms of our mention cost and in terms of what are called the salary driven costs and so the reality is that we are spending more on a percentage basis in terms of those benefit related cost, and now the

calories were neither in the negotiations with sfiu and we have not been able to reach an agreement and we are not in the negotiations with or on salary with our united educators and so neither of those factors are related in the budget but they will be as a settlement to come forward. >> thank you. >> and it is just good to see you for old time sake. >> all right. miss lee you had a question. >> i know that we have gone funding where we categorized the credit recovery as a priority and budgeted $2.4 for this but we will be taking preventive measures towards this issue primarily decreasing class sizes especially for math? and if not, can we allocate funding towards this? >> well, i think that the short

answer is that there are some increases in the school site budgets. and all of those decisions have been made allocations were made in february and the site made there and their decisions in april and all of those staffing plans and priorities have been reflected in each schools's submitted budget and so, i don't have a grasp right now on by on school site how many have directed the site based dollars

towards reducing class size and as one of the double-edged sword with the sight-based decision making and it is better in terms of flexibility for the school site and it is a little less... and it is a little more difficult for the folks in the central office to say we want to see priorities reflecting smaller class sizes or other specific things and have the sites execute on those. there is a little bit of a double edged sword on that. >> the school sites decide

where to put the money, the cartoon that was earlier there is not enough money yet and we are digging ourselves out of a hole. and that being said i know that the direction has gone to the school sites at the secondary and the high school level that one of the bsc, balance score card goals is a school's plan for reducing the number of students that are off track what are you doing to make sure that the students are on track. you will see the information about how they are focusing on it. and one of the things to focus on as well. and it is a priority area and so that conversation continues as the school sites develop their priorities. >> fewer? >> yes. the student delegate, i wanted to let you know that in our moneys there is a category that

says class size reduction grade nine math. and that was 885,000. so we decided not to use that money for that and that is being put back into the fund balance. >> there was an, allocation for us because someone said that we could flex it and we have decided in this budget that it is recommend that had we flex that money and not reduce ninth grade math but we are given $885,000 to do it. >> thanks. >> so at this point, what i would like to do is that we have so much great information here that we could have a rich discussion for several more hours at least. and so what i would like to do is ask commissioners if you have any further questions that are to enhance your

understanding of what you need to ask and we can go ahead with this, but the deeper questions i would lake to ask that we save those for another day. because we already have a list of a number of big topics that we want to address in future meetings. so with that, are there any further items that people need to ask to enhance their understanding or complete their understanding of the budget that we are going to vote on tonight? >> commissioner wynns? >> this is a little bit backwards, so this will be i will not need to do the question with the revolution foods i would like to ask this. in answer to the question about revolution foods or the food contracts in general and about the sand f budget i would like to clarify a few things if i could. so, your answers to the

questions was really complete about the things that contribute and the specific questions that were asked about ordering verses claiming and the unpaid meal charges, some of these things i am not happy with and as i know that you are not either. with them actually going up. and the things that contribute to the need to have support from the unrestricted general fund. but there are just a couple of things that i want to clarify about that. one is that the fair, you will see the assumptions on which the s, and s, budget for the 13, 14, budget is based about the participation and the food costs and things like that, and so there is a 135,366 dollar presumed commodity for the foods and that has been an issue with them that i would like to know more about. and it does not really have to be tonight i just want to put it on the table but it is an issue that is one of the

increased costs for the revolution costs that it does not use our commodities and that even though we may not love the commodity foods in the past but that is a definite increase cost. and i think that we need to from a budgetary point of view explore that further. i would like to know for instance, what that is in relation to what it could be and then we could understand how much that is of the unrestricted general fund support that we could discuss with them or you could tell us, well i understand that they might not want to use the commodities but on the other hand that is the judgment and i am not sure that it is a judgment that we want just them to make but we want to be in on. and so that is the first thing. and as well, i am interested in and i think that it is worth noting here for the public but also for us that there is a

plan to >> it is particularly true in this case because the families not paying for the students' meals is a lack of communication for the student and school and family and just sending it with them and the ones telling them that they have to pay for it in the first place is counter productive. and so that i think we do need to pay attention to how much that costs and what the return on that is because that say big impact on this. and then i just want to, i

think that we need. and i think that i would like to know what is in their contract and what it is that we are paying for? and you know, we just sort of like the commodity and we know that the meals are costing us more. but we don't know what we are getting, that is worth more. necessarily. i mean, that we know, i understand that we know, i know from being there and from the people telling us that the food is much better, but how is gets that way and what the cost is what i think that we would, or i would like to understand in order to understand more about this in the nutrition budget. >> and so those are really my questions about that and i don't know if you want to answer any of them right now. i don't need the answers now. i think that those are the things that we should be thinking about as we vote on these contracts and as we monitor the contract with revolution foods that the bye right with all of proet vieders and the quality of the food and

verses the cost and what it is costing us out of non-, not revenue from those programs and there is one more thing that i did want to ask, i just thought about it is it has to do with the participation rates and the rates for people who are eligible for the subsidized meals. we haven't paid attention to increasing the rates and it is something that is supposed to be part of our evaluation and how they are at getting the free and reduced prized applications and how we are doing on that and what the impact is on the hour and the rates. and so i want to deputy superintendent lee tell you that i appreciate the information about the rainy day fund, eligibility but really it was not a question that asked.

what i want to know and you can tell me now, i will be happy and i will do it off line is how the issue of our revenue that says that we are supposed to be eligible for the rainy day fund if the general fund was one year than it is. and since we know that it is more i need to know how that is calculated. this is only one this tells me that we are presuming that we will be eligible and that the city is. >> did you want to address first before deputy superintendent lee and any of the commissioner wynns questions or how would you prefer to address those. >> i can acknowledge them now and we can have conversation going on throughout the year. but they offer to serve in the commodities that we are in the deep conversations and the fda has come out with a new

guideline and the invoice to families we are not doing that as a strategy, we have concerns about the fact that the guideline is for a family of two if they earn, 28,000 a year they are not eligible for free or reduced we have concerns about having aggressive strategies for having the families pay for meals when we recognize that the families might be earning 30,000 a year and others 3,000 a year. we are going to look at the policies and the regulations to make sure that we can have an approach to it that equitiable and i am happy to follow up with that, you know, the kind of the ingredients behind the contract, and then, the participation rates, just a note on that last year, we got the applications in for 91 percent of the students that was 9 percent that didn't, which i think was remarkable and we will keep those efforts up to get a high percent back

>> thank you. >> superintendent lee? >> i will try to shed a little bit of light and that there is a more technical answer that they are more familiar with than me. but, more than i, but, the calculation for the eligibility and i mentioned earlier in the meeting that there are two conditions for us to receive to be eligible receive funds from the rainy day reserve and one of them has to do with the layoff and the second one is that there is a decrease in inflation adjusted per pupil revenue and that is the, i believe that is the question that you are asking commissioner. >> the crucial phrase being inflation. >> and the methodology, that the controller's office uses is actually based on a very long period of time, dating back 30