vote of the legislature. that is the key things it does at the state level. >> at the local level what prop 26 is requires us to public -- put regulatory fees before the public? mar or a regulatory fee. supervisor mar: commissioner maxwell? supervisor maxwell: give us an excellent? >> alcohol. >> that was passed prior to 2010 and just stays the same. you will be able to leave that on the books. if you increase it or extend it, if it was sunsetted, then

you would have to play by the new rules, requiring a vote of the people. >> one i have wondered about if we were to ever impose a congestion fee impacted by prop 26? would we have to go to the electorate now? >> it could be. you could design the fee and have fight findings and dedicate the revenues. you get outside that and use the fee revenues for other things, it becomes a little more subject to 26. supervisor mar: economicser maxwell? supervisor maxwell: no. >> one last comment is there is a school of thought that the fuel tax swap, either in part or in whole, may be in validated. now a provision in prop 26 that anything that was enacted in

2010 that is in violation of the provisions of the act have a weir from election day to be revalidated, but under the new rules. that is where the new scrutiny is going on in sacramento. on the one side, the statute actually says the tax, the tax that is in violation of prop 26 has to be revalidated. it doesn't say the act. in that case we could have a situation where the sales tax which was eliminateded under the fuel tax swap and replaced with an excise tax, if that is found to be in violation of 26, and we don't get a fwirds vote of the legislature to restore the excise portion of the fuel tax swap, we could lose the equivalent of 17 cents a

gallon. the other professor is the whole fuel tax swap is undone, and we return to a world where we had prop 42 plus the spill 46 over -- spill-over for transit. and the loss of the excise tax. we have had discussions with drafters of this to give us some breathing room to figure it out. this did not draft prop 26 with the fuel tax swap in mind. it is possibly a casual bystander. they don't see the state losing over $1 billion in transportation revenues if they can work it out. that is my record. i will conclude with one update. there were seven of the sb-83 campaigns, the $10 registration

fee. congratulations to you. 51% or approximately, and as well four of the our seven counties were successful. the bay area showed the rest of the state they can pull off a fee increase at a time when the rest of the state was not even willing to put it on the ballot. that is pretty remarkable what you were able to do in this part of 9 country. supervisor mar: thank you, mr. watts. any other questions from colleagues? let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment was closed. this was an informational item. mrs. cheng, are there any other items? >> yes. item number irks, introduction of new items. this is an information item. supervisor mar: seeing none. let's open this up for comment. is there anyone that would like to speak? already seeing none public comment is closed. >> next i'm?

>> public comment. supervisor mar: public comment is closed. >> item number 8, adjustment. supervisor mar: with that, the meeting is adjourned. thank you.

>> what about if the tiebreaker was ranked above the seated one

tie breaker? it was reserved for students that lived in the attendance area. i know it gets kind of confusing after a while. basically, your testing to see if the order of the tiebreakers was shifted, what would the impact be on school composition and also on choice outcomes for parents? that is what we are planning to kind of simulate and provide data about it in the annual report that we generated. the first annual report was january 2012. we want to make sure that we are looking at the actual enrollment of the schools. we wanted to talk a bit about

the researchers and to help with the simulations. we are grateful for the work that they did. they were wonderful to work with to help us think through the tiebreakers we are using in the student assignment system. we spent a lot of time working with them to do an mlu. in exchange for data. as we work to negotiate, we got to a point where the costs were too high for the district. in return for their assistance, they wanted 17 years of data. 10 years of historical data and seven years of data into the future. they wanted to talk about everything from discipline, where they lived, any and all data we collected about students, teachers, and principals and staff. there was also concerned about

liability for the intentional or negligent release of personal data. we are confident that with this team of experts to think through monitoring student assignment, we have the capacity to monitor closely and be very transparent about the outcome and share that information publicly. we are also confident that we can develop the software and also the key features that they talked about. they talked about simplicity -- we should not consider rank. where students listed the choice on application forms should not impact -- everyone would get

tentatively assigned based on whether they lived in the attendance area. they could get tentatively assigned to more than one school based on those tiebreakers and we would go into a cycle of swapping. why not let somebody swap with somebody else and get a higher rank choice if it did not cause harm to anybody else? we are going to be building in the software that process, and that is looking at students in the request order. the school is still up based on the tiebreaker. the second process transfers students to finding other placements for them might have ranked higher. we will provide -- or we can provide to the board and make public the requirements document and everything that will make it really clear what

is happening in the various stages and the software will work for the cycle. that is the presentation we have on the monitoring. i am not sure if the board would like ask questions on that now or move on to the transportation fees. >> i have a couple of brief questions. you mentioned monitoring the characteristic, and i am wondering how we will know what the race and ethnicity of those candidates are? is it based on when students actually arrive in schools and was reported in the student data and student information system? >> the race and ethnicity of a student is not needed for student assignment. however, it is needed for other

reasons and the district. i think it is for federal reasons. we have occurred less racial and ethnic data. those questions are still on the application form so we will be able to use that as part of the analysis. >> i thought we were only going ask for the list of choices and your address on the application. >> that is all we need for student assignment, but there are lots of other elements of the district where they require different types of information for different purposes and want to collect it at the point of entry. a lot of the questions, for example, a question about the military. the question about home language. we need that for english learners. i am happy to forward the draft of it along to you so that you can see there are lots of questions that the district

needs to gather information about even though it is not for student assignment. >> does it say that this information will not be used for student assignment purposes? it does? >> no one has ever believed us. they will continue not to believe it. >> presumably, that will be taken care of by the transparency when we show them how the program runs and how it has made the decisions. and it doesn't consider those things, that will help. that is a good reason and to make sure that they do it. >> i understand the major monitoring report will be available in january 2012. will there be any data released preliminarily or otherwise about the success or outcomes of the system?

the way there will be a question about how things work or how they didn't work. >> we will include that after the fact. >> the other question i wanted to ask was, about the requirements document and the process flows for the new algorithm. are those available now? when did you plan to be able to make those public? >> we will continue building and testing the system. and we will hope to have that information available by february. >commissioner fewer: did we ask about after-school?

i believe that is what impacted telephone surveys and that was a huge consideration for families. if we can get indication of that, i also wanted to know if start times was part of the consideration. if we are going to look at eliminating transportation routes, perhaps we can get on a more uniform the start time for our children. i know that we very start times because of transportation, so i am wondering as we trend, if the district gets more aligned with the things, it is not as difficult for parents to navigate their lives around it. >> we will include that. commissioner yee:

so, it looks like you are going to be asking a lot of questions. one of the missing pieces of you did not mention is the whole pre-k piece. what impact does that have with student assignment? most of the pre-pay programs are subsidized for low-income -- pre-k programs are subsidized for low-income people. the annual report that you will come up with in january of 2012, one of the things that we talked about early on the in the discussion was that as we roll this out the first year, we're probably going to