this tiny little key here, it would tell us some of these routes you might propose to eliminate them. but they are not eliminated on this map. this is the same map. >> right. right. we didn't have -- we weren't able to get a second map. but we will. >> is this available somewhere online so we could actually read it? >> we can put it only online. we can also give you a large print version or an electronic version. we'll email a version. >> can you email me? can you email this presentation to us? >> yes. >> thank you. >> so the first -- so the first -- >> sorry. just to complete that. can't tell what color these are. for rooftop, which is the k-8, would still not have attendance area. >> no. but what -- what we said in the -- when we talked about one of

the objectives is to make sure that ctip one neighborhoods -- >> i understand that. but what you would be saying is the two roofs that you would be keeping are -- don't tell me what color they are. because i have no idea. >> ok. >> the one that seems to come from the bayview and then fly over the rooftop, is that correct? and also the one that snakes through the mission? is that correct? >> what we're saying in the first baseline that we created, it was very crude baseline. this may not -- >> it might not be these two. but basically -- i understand. but basically what -- you're sort of saying the baseline is -- excuse me. on not having routes. even this, a citywide school that comes from the north or the west. is that correct? >> correct. >> anybody have any more clarifying questions about this? thank you. >> so the first -- so the first major implication was that this would be a major shift in services.

the second would be since the objectives that -- the student assignment policy objectives don't specifically talk about after school programs. it may significantly reduce transportation to after school programs. so currently, like i said before, we currently transport approximately 950 students from elementary schools to after-school programs. so sfusd and nonsfusd after school programs, if we were to go with a very specific baseline that is only linked to these -- to these two objectives, then the majority of currently riders would lose this service. so we have a map that shows the programs, the afterschool programs that currently receive afterschool transportation.

>> if i may, at some -- is the information available that would tell us where the bus stops are? we see that people go to these afterschool programs. we don't know where they're coming from. >> we have -- we have a grid that would provide you with what schools, i believe. and what programs. but it's -- it was a lot of lines. >> i would like to request that. i would like to see the list of schools, what programs they're sending kids to and an approximate count. because, you know, i mean -- >> absolutely. >> i can see what the proposal is going to be. i just want to know where it comes from. >> we can definitely do that. and the third implication is budgetary considerations. we heard at the last ad hoc meeting that the board clearly

stated as a goal to reduce the budget for general education transportation. so based on those three implications, we actually have come up with recommended adjustments. the first is that we add a new goal and objective. the goal is to support the district's vision for after school programs with the objective being support access to sfusd after school programs where the -- where afterschool is not available at the elementary school. the second adjustment is to reduce our general education transportation for elementary school students from the current level of 44 buses to a fleet of 25. and the third is to phase out services over three years of our current route over three

years, starting with the 11-12 school years with full implementation by 2013-14. so that we wouldn't go from 44 buses to 25. but what we would do is we would slowly -- that we would slow reduce over these three years to 25 buses. one of the things that dennis garden had explained to us when he talked about the -- our history of transportation policy and transportation changes is when we made the switch from i believe of it the horseshoe design to the redesign, we completely had everyone in the school district reassigned that school year. in the policy that we adopted,

with this new student assignment policy, we are not necessarily starting off. we are actually making a student assignment change at the transitional years. kinder six and nine. so there's a phase-in of student assignments. as opposed to a wholesale. it is true that all families in our -- could request, even if they're in a different grade, not in a transitional grade, to be -- to participate in the enrollment process. but we are focusing in on kinder six and nine. so in doing that, we're thinking -- we're recommending a three-year phaseout. ok. so then what the revised goals and objectives would -- would then look like is instead of having two goals, we would have

three goals for transportation. to support the use of choice as a tactic for an integrated learning environment to support equitable access to the range of opportunities offered to students, and to support the district's vision for afterschool. and then the next slide shows what -- our recommended reduction by 2013. from 44 buses to 25. >> can i ask a question? >> sure. >> mr. lee, could you tell us the cost of each bus? i understand it's not likely to be the same in 2015 as it is now but just for our own -- >> currently, it's between $90,000 and $100,000. >> thank you. >> and that's per year. and that's not for -- for each

route. it's for each bus in the fleet. >> thank you. >> and because, just to make -- i think commissioner wynns -- the reason why it's not -- it's per bus, it's because a bus might run multiple routes, is that right? >> and in almost all cases they do, right. >> we might need to be thinking about the number of buses and not so much the number of kids or even the number of routes. except the routes as related to the number of buses but the cost isn't a per pupil cost. it's a per bus cost. >> ask a related question. >> commissioner yee. commissioner yee: i'm just -- in terms of the buses, and if we know that for student transportation, and at the end of the day, i think we also use

it for field trips also. and i don't know how it works. but it seems like -- the schools seem to be committing. we have fewer opportunities to go on field trims. >> i suspect you're right that because we do offer field trips right now during the day, does have to do with -- to some extent the time for a given bus that is in between the morning and the afternoon pickup so the time during the middle part of the day when they aren't otherwise operating a run or a

route, so right now, there are some free field trips that are available on -- i would have to give you a report later about the specific ways that we allocate those two schools. i think there's a combination of some first come, first served and other mechanisms for allocating the number of free trips throughout the year. but i think it stands to reason that if we had a smaller fleet, that we probably would have some reduction in the number of field trips that are available. but we could look at that more closely. in a year or two. >> i would appreciate if you do look at it closely. a former teacher and i know other teachers, you know, and this is such a big deal to have access to buses. so even though we might be reducing our fleet, i would like us to also maybe explore whether -- what those same -- with the same company.

whether or not we can do some other -- create some other situation to allow for us not to reduce our opportunities for kids to go on field trips. >> so what we're -- in thinking about -- in thinking about trying to deal with budgetary considerations and reducing the fleet, as well as thinking about the way that student assignments -- our new student assignment policy is being phased in, we try to create a sample illustration of how we might think about phasing out old -- our current routes. and phasing in the new routes

that align with our current -- our new student assignment policy and goals. and new transportation goals. so this chart tries to show that in 11-12, it might be a combination of current routes as well as new routes that align with our new transportation policy. and 12-13 it would be fewer of the current routes and maybe slightly more the new routes. and then by 2013-14 we would completely be in our new routes. that's not to say that some of the stops that are part of our current routes couldn't also be stops in our new infrastructure . it's just that we have to go in and do the analysis to see how

-- how that matches with our objectives and goals as student assignment and where students live in our analysis of enrollment patterns. so our approach to building bus routes are to first use the objective of the student policy and our transportation policy and determine transportation routes and stops that should be in place by 2013 and 2014. and then to develop a three-year phase-out plan for our current routes and stops that will -- that will not exist by 2013 and 2014. >> in terms of a time line of what we would do next and get to a point where we both have -- and you -- new

transportation policy and also a new transportation infrastructure with routes, we're very conscious of the fact that our enrollment cycle for 11-12 is going to kick off in november. and that before families submit their choices they will want foff a sense of what -- want to have a sense of what kind of transportation will be available. so we're very conscious of that. and we're also conscious of the fact that this is a major shift. we're not just talking about a reduction. but we're also talking about a realignment. so not only will there be fewer buses, but there will also be a different strategy and set of goals and objectives around which the rides and stops will be developed. and we recognize that that is something we want to make sure we take time to do and that we get feedback from the public as we're doing it. so with that in mind, we are hoping that beginning tonight, actually, we're sharing some goals and object and i was we'll get your feedback and tomorrow, we have a meeting with p.a.c. and p.p.s. and some

other groups that are very supportive and thoughtful about this issue to start thinking about what our communication strategy, our public engagement strategy should be for october, november, and the beginning of december. and the goals are that during that process that we would sharare and the goals for transportation, and that we would get feedback on the objectives and the approach. and from the community and from -- and the community includes district community as well as the broader public community. so we want to make sure we have conversations with the principals, administrators, superintendents, cabinet, and as well as parent organizations and to gather that feedback. and at the same time, we would be -- based on the feedback we get from you tonight, mr. garden and others, would begin to start developing more specific information about what a potential infrastructure might look like given the goals and objectives.

and that we would bring that more specific information back to the board at the november 8 ad hoc committee meeting. and that we would submit a substitute motion for second reading and board action on december 14. and that would be for the policy. not for the routes. but based on the feedback we would get from the community and the board and the discussions about the goals and objectives, we would want to make sure that that was reflected in the student assignment policy. so, for example, tonight, we recommended some specific adjustments. like the afterschool. and the phaseout. we would want to incorporate language into the policy that reflected that. and there might be other pieces of feedback that we get from the board or through the community conversation that is we think should be reflected in the policy itself. the routes obviously and the work that would guide the development of the routes. so we imagine it would be an amended policy that would come back for second reading reflect ing all the feedback we receive. in january we're hoping to share details of the proposed

infrastructure for the 2011-12 school year. that won't be stop specific. it won't have addresses. but it would basically say something to the effect of from, and it would say a neighborhood like the mission. there will be transportation to. and it would name the schools. but it wouldn't have the street address. and that we would have all of that information finalized by the -- by july. the actual route information. as well as the three-year implementation plan. so by july we would be able to say in 11-12 this is where the routes are but for 2012-13 it would look like this and for 2013-14 it would look like this. as parents make decisions they will be able to see across three years how they -- how the transportation infrastructure would either change or provide opportunities that weren't in place before. and that that could be a factor for family planning purposes. so it's not easy to make such sweeping changes. we want to do it in a way that's transparent, that

provides opportunity for feedback. but that also moves quickly enough that parents can actually start to make decisions. and before they submit their applications. the deadline for applications is in february. so if we come back in november -- on november 8, that's actually before the enrollment fair. so whatever information the more specific information we have for the board on november 8, we would incorporate your feedback at the enrollment fair on november 13. and then continue to share out additional information as it became available. so that's the time line that we're proposing. so our goals are to tonight gather feedback and we have four questions. but, you know, obviously these may not be the only questions and you may have other questions or suggestions. but in general, we wanted to get a sense of your thoughts about the goals and objectives. do you think these are the correct goals and objectives for us to build a transportation infrastructure around?

and what your thoughts are about the recommended adjustments and -- in terms of the afterschool and the phased-in approach and the reduction approach over a three-year period of 57% reduction in the yellow bus service for elementary. and if if you have any specific amendments to our approach and time line, our -- and if you have any specific questions, you would like us to explore with the community, as we launch a community engagement process, if there was anything in particular thaw -- that you wanted to make sure we got feedback on. and starting with the conversation tomorrow to start fleshing out and begin the community engagement process and again, if we're thinking that this community engagement process is having conversations with community based organizations, parent groups, administrators, district staff, as opposed to thinking about communicating directly with individual parents who are currently using a route to say

what it would look like. because we don't have that information yet. the ones -- so once we have more information in january we could do more target information with families who might be impacted by any changes. but this would be kind of a broader, a different type of conversation over the next couple of months. and that we would begin designing the transportation infrastructure based on the feedback. so we could start getting more specific. >> commissioner. >> i'm sorry. i have to speak first because i have to leave early and i can't hear the other board members' comments and i would love to hear them. i missed -- i haven't been on budget committee for the last year and a half so i've missed some of the conversations since when i was on budget committee and we first started looking at the transportation budget. and so i may be a little bit out of that loop. but some of my memory in terms of why the board wanted to reduce transportation budget was not necessarily to reduce services but to explore other ways to counter some of the

costs. so one was whether parents would be interested in paying a fee. to help offset some of these costs. based on a sliding scale. and i know that there are a couple comments from parents, well, if you send us a school really far away, it's not really fair. i get that. that's a question i would like us to engage our families on. so versus reducing from 44 to 25 buses, would there be an interest in paying a small fee. and i didn't know exactly how to calculate it. but roughly there's 4,000 students. you think the general -- i'm sure some of them take twice more than once but it roughly comes out to $1,000 per school year. so i know that was a conversation piece. i would be interested in hearing about that. for me, the larger concern was not general ed transportation. that wasn't the area that i was looking to cut. i was interested in how we could cut special ed transportation. without of course hurting the

specific needs that our special ed students have. but the amount of money we spent per student is ridiculous to me. like i don't understand how we can spend anywhere from $4,000 to $7,000 a student. as much as we get from the state just to transport our special ed students. and i still don't have a really clear understanding. and i know i talked to commissioners about -- the -- i still don't -- i still don't understand it. and that's -- what do other districts do? that's the $15 million of special ed. general ed is only $5 million. even if we reduced it, we save $2 million which is great. we need all the revenue that we can get. but that to me is where we should be focusing and how we can save but still effectively serve our special ed community. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. i did like the goals, though. i think that it's great to have it in alignment with the student a signment process. in terms of -- targeting --

isolated neighborhood. and also ensuring that all of our students have access to afterschool programs. i think that those schools are great, and it makes sense for us to really be aligning our transportation priorities to our student assignment priorities. that to me i really like. >> ok. commissioner kim has to leave which is why we went straight to her comments. but that conversation about just the financial implications of transportation is going to be ongoing in the budget committee. and i think here our purpose is to really talk about aligning our transportation policy with our student assignment policy. and everything. through this committee. the implication, all the implications of the student assignment system and policy. >> except that we still have not had our conversation about

students of special ed. which is very, very knitted together with special ed transportation. so i think your point's well taken, commissioner kim. we have -- we have to have that discussion at some point. >> so -- contrary to what we have on our agenda, i think that we need to separate the board discussion, some of which we've already started about this item, from the second item. and i don't think that we want -- i think we're -- i think we are going to be confused. i don't know about everybody else if we try to have the other presentation and then talk about both of those things. so i would like us to have our discussion about the transportation issues and i think we need to take public testimony on transportation. and the presentation that you just heard, if there's any member of the public that would like to testify on that specific issue, the transportation proposal, or ideas, that have been floated here or presented to us, please come to the podium. identify yourself. for the record, you'll have two minutes to speak.

>> good evening commissioners, danny robinson harris, chair of the child development committee. just two points. in thinking about the transportation process, please keep in mind the issues. i've been working in the bayview community for over 20 years. and i know that the parents of the community truly depend on transportation to get their children back and forth to school. the second thing is i want to bring it to your attention if you have -- if you haven't, the governor recently signed the bill for a newly enrolled day for kindergarten. and the implication for that is -- and please keep an open mind that in the next three years, we will have another group of children, 200 to 400 children, that will not be able to go to kindergarten that will be in the transitional kindergarten

program. and will that impact transportation? thank you. >> thank you. is there anybody else that wants to testify on this? ok. >> you can testify at the end also. >> most on the other item. -- mostly on the other item. commissioner norton. commissioner mendoza. commissioner mendoza: thank you. so i had a couple of questions on page 11. when you were doing the kind of -- talking a little bit about lakeshore. and those routes. so if the buses -- if the routes go through particular neighborhoods, so, for example, buses that come through bayview and go through bernall because families that live in bernall go -- or even to glen park, go to lakeshore, will those routes continue or are we just trying to eliminate routes that -- for

families who may not necessarily need the routes versus those that need them and if it along the way, are those routes going to stay intact, i'm trying to sort out what we're trying to do here in terms of shortening some of the routes but if they're long the way are we still going to do those routes? >> we -- i think what we're starting with is looking at the objectives and then building -- starting to build routes based on the objectives. and we'll have to analyze that route to look at the length of time, whether we can -- whether we can make that route and then i do think that there are -- after that, possibilities to look at is are there

opportunities to add stops. >> yeah. i think we wanted to evaluate all of the stops. i mean, a lot of our stops are at schools. so we're picking children up from one school and driving them to another school. so we also want to think about the location of all the stops. leak how many stops are near public housing? or near shelters, homeless shelters? but there are considerations like is there space for a bus to pull over? we just haven't had that level of detailed conversation in a very long time. i think as a dribblingt. -- as a district. so we're going to start at a high level and build a baseline, what would the vision of the future be and analyze each stop in relation to the objective. and as long as susan was pointing out, it doesn't have an impact on the total amount of time a child spends on a bus, and we also have to be congress any zant of the fact

that -- congress any zant of the fact that every time we leave a stop, it might impede our ability to maintain a coherent kind of efficient infrastructure. so we'll take that into consideration, too. >> thank you. i just want to caution making sure we have some criteria set up for that. so that as we make decisions across town, that they're falling into place in that regard. on page 17, the -- the three major implications and the afterschool programming, i want to make sure that this coincides with our objective to have afterschool for all. and to make sure that we have after school on site. and the idea that we have so many -- i didn't realize that we had so many offsite after school programs. i thought it was maybe a handful. and we were just kind of accommodating folks because it was on our way. so -- and didn't realize how many we had on site. so i just want to make sure that that a