announce that they have ratified. the public disclosure document is submitted for board approval. president kim: thank you. i have no public speakers on this item. any comments from board members? superintendent? roll call. commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: yes. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. >> that is five ayes. commissioner yee: i would like to thank the bargaining teams as well as our local officer. president kim: next is a review and adoption of the five-year report relating to the expenditure development fees.

we have a motion and a second. do we have a reading of the recommendation? >> good evening, commissioners. i am my staff would like to wish president kim the best of luck as she moves on to the next phase of her career. we enjoyed having you on the committee can look forward to somebody equally as talented an exciting as your replacement. as a premier, each year has a new -- as a requirement of the government code, we are required to have the development impact report to this board for review and approval. it is one of the world's most exciting -- excited documents. most of the time the superintendent gives me the eye and says to be extremely brief on this.

last year, the document was so dry, the comments from the commissioners were, what is this? in order to get the order to write more creatively, we try to make this more understandable, but it still will not make the best-seller list. this will document how much money in developer fees we collected in the fiscal year and lays out a guideline and a plan for a five-year expenditure list that is not locked in stone and is not fixed and indicates some desire and ability to appropriateness for the kind of use as they are meant for. one of the things you will notice if you look at this report is the amount of money we collect and last year, which is indicative of the economic times we are in. in a previous year, we have

collected between $6 million and $8 million a year. last year, we collected $1.4 million. that tells you how many developers commercially and residential lee are collecting fees. that number can only go up and hopefully future reports will be better. hopefully, this has no negative findings and will have a detailed report of what we spent our money on. the requested action is that the board of education in the san francisco identified school district review and adopt the impact fee and five-year reports from june 30, 2010. the attached report dated november 19, 2010 relates to the collection and expenditure of development fees with expertise of such report as a requirement

of the government code this report is posted on the public site for public purview. i will be happy to answer questions. president kim: i have no public speakers signed up for this item. any comments from the board? commissioner yee: just one clarification on this. this is basically a balance as we go forward of 18,700,730. there's also an escrow. why do we have a balance? what is the escrow? >> the very simple answer. some years ago, the district was a participant in a class-action lawsuit. it was brought against the district, essentially for our

right to collect developer impact fees. the lawsuit was concluded and the district placed a certain amount of money in an escrow account to which certain developers were entitled to a refund and could collect that within a certain amount of time. when that time has passed, $1.9 million was set aside. the balance of 1.2 was returned to the district from the escrow account. $20,000 were left to clear up some miscellaneous expenditures. >> could i have a follow? at this point, there is no escrow account. >> contains $20,000 to clean up miscellaneous expenditures.

>> the second part of the balance is the developer fee fund is divided into two accounts. one is currently restricted account that contains approximately $10 million. it is dedicated to the school yards. the balance of the count, roughly $7 million, is committed to a full range of projects including the corridor building that we were constructing at o'connell high school. it is an example of what we are doing for the new programs. >> thank you. president kim: roll call, please. commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. thank you.

the next is the california department of education school card establishment for the emerging schools from the 2011- 2012 school year. do we have a motion and a second? they we have a reading of the recommendations by officials? >> although i am not as smooth as him, i would like to express my thanks and well wishes to commissioner kim, especially in your support of alternative schools. the school district approves an application for get away to college to be submitted to the california department of education to establish a state schools code and alternate school of choice. >> i have no public speakers on this item. comments from the board and staff?

vice-president mendoza. vice-president mendoza: i think this is such a great idea, so thank you. president kim: roll call, please. commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. >> i did not hear you. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. thank you. we have already heard the appointment of the board members to the san francisco board of education. we are now at item m, which is discussion of the other a educational issues. we have the consent calendar rules of resolutions. item o, vote on the consent calendar. roll call, please. commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes, except on items nine, 11, 14, 16

-- is that one of the ones? 27, 29, 33, 34, 37, 48, and 49. there was a significant number of resolutions in this packet. commissioner wynns: aye. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. we have a few that a separate tonight. 18 and 36, would you like to take them together or separate?

commissioner wynns: j18 is a resolution for a private school services from a consultant. a different consultant, not the one here mentioned that used to be a member of the school district has pointed out that she does not believe we do the appropriate and required evaluation of principles. i just want to ask that somebody looking into that, that we get a report about the process that we use. i do not think we are purposely doing it. educators think of this as superficial as opposed to

significant and as serious as it should be. that is my only question. i am perfectly happy with this. i recently had some documentation that was sent to me. >> commissioner wynns, i will make sure that you get that report. commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: yes. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. this is on page 199. >> i think this is partners in school renovation. i am very happy with this.

i am more interested in the overarching concept. what i want to know is, i want to know this later, i want to know what do we talked about in our planning? the assessment of what they do that helps schools improve and help our building capacity to do some of this themselves. what are we doing that a system level. not just that they're doing a good job of helping the school. i appreciate that. the whole point of a grant which is to help low performing schools to improve is that we should learn some lessons from that. not just say, we are great, but we cannot do it without them. there are a whole bunch of these

contracts. this is just one. it happens to be one that is an outstanding organization that i am very supportive of. we have not had any discussion in our review of the strategic plan and how we are going to look at the models that we use. even though i have to confess, i did not read it word for word. the review of the proposals does not address that either. >> thank you. i am going to say a few things. you were absolutely right that one of the major points of the grant is to build internal capacity. you will see that we are building school site capacity at the teacher level, at the leadership level at the school site.

also at the instructional cabinet level. this is so that there is coherence and consistency to the work being done. one of the major reasons we are so excited about being to go to -- going to scale with this work is what they have shown in their partnership since 2007. when you look at the schools they have worked in, they have had significant results with our teachers. our teachers have said that the work that they performed has helped them to establish a great level of consistency, a great amount of articulation teams. they are functioning at a very high level. that is one of the indicators that we are looking for. how do we build internal capacity? i do not know if they would like

to comment further. >> i think the deputy captured a lot of reasons why we felt it was important to identify partners and innovation. one of the reasons is why we identified a lead agency in our performing schools and building a capacity. the work of the partners have been doing and has been expanding on working with the superintendents on schools is working with the structures and systems within our school sites as well as the work they're doing within area teams as well as the support of the director. we have the ceo of four partners in school innovation. >> thank you very much for the opportunity. >> i am happy to do this.

i have to say, this has been extraordinary for me, for my experience. thank you all for the opportunity to hear you and to see your commitment to the community. i am happy with this question. one of the real challenges with the work of comprehensive school reform is the question with responsibility. the times when it has been successful, you will find sometimes 10 years later. the schools look like they began in the work. we have designed this to resolve that issue from the very beginning. it requires an exceedingly transparent implementation

style. a lot of what our organization due to support schools, they hold them very close. they do not allow folks to share or to see or to copy. we designed this work so transparently. i have staff directly supporting leaders in the organization at every level with the expressed objective to align those levels and to use the partner tools and structures to bring coherence to the work that happens from the structural cow that all the way down to the individual classrooms. we have a high dosage amount of reform and support. when you talk to principals and teachers to work with us, they are kind of shocked at how much of a stacy and how clear we are with them about what we are here to help them do.

when you look at those analysis, you are looking at your teachers and your leaders. our work is putting our shoulder to their wheel. this starts with something called the school transportation review -- transformation review. also, leadership clarity in each one of the buildings. they have to have the ability to transform itself. in this work, as we implemented over time, we will see the capacity of the schools. they change. we all lie in the planning infrastructure to the priorities that the building leader is responsible for. we are tracking every day, every meeting, every structure. those who do this work know that

we are transparent about our review as well. both are owned and what we provide with great double teams looking at their data. in summary, the clarity with which the district leadership has decided a more community focussed and community and howard strategy for supporting reform in the schools is natural for our style approach. our approach is about adaptation. i decided to concentrate a lot of the partners and intellectual and human capital behind the energies of the doctors because i have a strong sense and commitment and belief in their ability to empower the leaders. they know their teachers and to

actually hold them accountable for the kinds of results that we know that they need to have moving forward. they have been a partner in san francisco for a long time. i see that this is a good transition opportunity for us to impart to the district everything that we have learned. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i am still interested more in -- all of that is great. that is exactly what i wanted to hear. i wanted for the district to tell me, what structure and what mechanisms we have for assessing our building. i am particularly interested because while i have great confidence in our ability to

have a big impact on the schools and the superintendent to make serious and real progress here. we also know and surely as we're sitting here that there are going to be other considerations of school improvement proposals, grants, requirements to the state, maybe our own internal ones. in all of the time i have been involved in this, there has been this presumption that systems cannot improve themselves. whether we call them the external e valley waiter experts or whatever the term of art is at the moment, from our point of view, we want to think about how we structure and train and invest in and conceived of and talk about what we learned and how we can apply it to

sustainability. the work that is done by external partners and the schools does not erode quickly. also, our own capacity in the system to move towards a mode of continuous improvement. along the road, we are going to be talking about that. >> along the road, we are going to be talking about that. >> i think along the road you have to take into account, when we bring in extra people, that is focused on that. to say that we should not be focused on that. staff are generally multitasking. if we think we can do that

without the extra people, then we are fooling ourselves. >> any other comments or questions? i am grateful to see an influx of resources coming to our district as well. that is good news. roll call, please. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. commissioner yee: aye. president kim: yes. thank you so much for staying through our meeting. this is superintendent's proposals. resolution authorizing a change of quick claim deeds with the city and county of san francisco.

we do allow five minutes for public testimony under this item. i see none tonight. >> madame chair, for resolution 1012 we were requesting that the board waived the first meeting and enact this item tonight. >> i did not look at the white page that actually said that. i thought it was just a suggestion. all right. may we have a motion and a second on suspension of the rules to share this item? commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president mendoza: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. president kim: yes. may we have a motion and a

second for formal introduction? >> second. president kim: thank you. now they reading of the resolution. >> of the city and county of san francisco hold leader -- a legal titles to the properties including the land and school facilities including the school properties that require dedication for school purposes. the common names and street addresses are attached to your resolution. the san francisco unified school district is the beneficial owner of the school property. the city is merely a passive trusty with an ability to deliver on the deed. the school district has requested that the city deliver on the school property to the school district and where so

long as the city continues to hold legal title to the school property, the ability to hold the property to secure financing for capital projects may be limited. they are identified by certain title issues on certain properties listed at identified in this resolution. the school district in 1984 gave the key to the city which held the following facilities, the richmond police station, the tarovol police station and the former juvenile hall. this is on file with the state court of the board of supervisors is declared to be part of this motion. this contains a revision. interest in the school's favor that could impair the school's ability to use such property for

securement of capital for financial projects. when the city's director of project and the city manager have hyde -- agreed on a quick lead -- deed, the school prayer -- when the agreement that the property is of limited value to the school and the city and the school district, it is appropriate to a change of the deeds for the property interests. be it resolved that the superintendent is authorized to execute for the city property. be it resolved that the superintendent is directed to accept a quick deed from the city. the superintendent is hereby authorized to take any and all actions that the general counsel

may be necessary in order to effectuate the purpose of this resolution. >> thank you. comments? vice-president mendoza: thank you. i just wanted to acknowledge her to get this done. this has been long overdue. it is nice to have the property in our name now. and really recognizing or acknowledging what belongs to us. i really want to commend you for your efforts and pushing forward on this and working closely with amy brown's office. commissioner wynns: i have a couple of questions about this.

what's the cultural college center? is that the park? i would love to know how that became a college center. that used to be eight children's center. my other question is more about our properties. i am not clear about how we got them. the one i have a little bit of concern about this 150 otis. i think that is the bill -- the building that we were getting revenue from for a while. do you know about this? >> to the best of my knowledge, the five properties that we are actually