>> good afternoon, everyone. thank you for joining us today. we have got a modest agenda today. i would like to thank the clerks that are here with us. thank you very much. i would also like to a knowledge our friends at sfgtv for the professional and courteous work they do. madam clerk, what do we have first on the agenda? >> the first item is hearing under proposed fiscal year 2011-2012 budgets of san francisco unified school district. >> thank you. are there any conversations you would like to have? any words? anything you would like to say?

ok, all right. thank you very much. let's begin with -- actually, i have a few words. we have school district staff that will be making a presentation today on the first agenda item. please step up to the microphone. thank you. >> should i get started? ok. good afternoon, everyone. i am the director of budget services for the san francisco unified school district. i am here to give you a brief update on our -- not just the governor's budget proposal for the state k-12 education, but our status and where we are with our district's budget

development. this presentation was provided to our own board members a few weeks ago at one of our committee hearings. so it might be repetitive for you, but bear with me. let me start by giving you a very brief overview of where we were in january when the governor proposed his budget for 2011-2012. in january, the state was looking at a projected deficit of $25 billion -- $26 billion, sorry. at the time when the governor came out with his proposal in january for the k-12 budget, he proposed bridging this $26 billion gap with a combination of $12.5 billion of cuts mostly to the uc's and state colleges.

and a $13 billion augmentation or proposal to augment revenue. let me just get to the right slide. i'm sorry. at the time, governor brown acknowledged that k-12 education -- or k-14 education, ashley, had won more than its proportionate share of cuts over the years, and he proposed keeping cut its bid to keeping funding for education flat or at current year levels. the additional revenues to address the deficit to keep k-12 education flat was going to come primarily from an additional five-year extension of some temporary tax surcharges that have been put in place since 2009.

he proposed putting a measure on the ballot in june to get those extended for an additional five years. those were primarily the sales tax, the license fee, and dependent care credit. and the personal income surcharge. obviously, this needed 8 2/3 majority vote -- a 2/3 majority vote, which he did not get, so there was not a june ballot. the proposal also included an alternative that in the event those tax extensions did not go to the voters for a vote and did not pass, that education would have 8 $330 per eight years cut. when we look at the january

proposal, when we were in the initial stages of starting our own district budget development for the 2011 s 2012 year, and we built that $330 cut into our scenario, we gave our schools allocations that reflected that. we gave them a best case allocation, and we gave them a scenario b allocation. as i said, the legislature did approve a lot of the suggestions and recommendations the governor had put forward in january, but this particular extension of the taxes was not approved. since january, when the governor came out with his may revision, a few things, initial functions

have changed. of significance is that the state received additional revenue collections from income taxes. the state income tax receipts were up. the may revision recognizes -- includes the recognition of an additional $6.6 billion of revenues over the next 14 months. $2.8 billion in the current year, and $3.5 billion in 2011- 2012. however, the may revision still continues to assume that the temporary surcharge as that are due to sunset in june will get extended. either a special election in november -- at this point, i'm not sure how. but that they will be extended.

what she took off the table, and this is a reflection of the increased income tax revenue -- was the extension of the surcharge to the personal income tax. but it would still be coming back next year as a new measure. unfortunately, like the january proposal, and this is something that does not help much with our planning -- unlike the january proposal, there is no specific fallback if those tax extensions do not pass. our prop 98 guarantee, which is what funds california k-eight education, is $3 billion higher than what it was in january, and this -- a lot has been written in the press, i have to add, about this. about education getting a $3

billion increase. the fact is that the $3 billion does not translate into any increase on a per-ada basis for students. all it means is that the governor proposes to use part of the $3 billion to reverse the original decision to defer payments to school districts. there was an additional $2.1 billion of deferrals added to the 2011-2012 budget, which means on top of past deferrals, there is an additional $2.1 billion added that would again delay further into the following years payments that are owed to the school district. for school districts, $334 million for -- of existing

deferrals for a total of $2.5 billion. also reversing $350 million of deferrals for community college apportionments, and a significant change in the governor's proposal. we touched upon that when i was here last time speaking about the january budget proposal, the shift of services that were provided and funded through the county mental health services that to school districts. this shift would be funded partly through this $3 billion increase to the budget. the risks to the governor's revised proposal are the tax proposals, which is the extensions proposed to be put on the november ballot -- these are

worth $4 billion, and they could be either rejected by the legislature or by the voters if they actually come into the ballot. as i mentioned earlier, the governor does not provide a plan in the event that tax extensions failed to materialize. without the tax extensions, prop 98 funding could fall from $52.4 billion to $53.8 billion. it is also the likelihood of an all-cut its budget if the tax proposals -- extensions do not go through. it is still a possibility, but it is a less probable one and it was in january. as a result of the improved general fund revenue, it lowers their reliance on the successful passage of the tax extension is lower. it is $4 billion as opposed to what we were looking at, $5.3 billion in january. if the $4 billion of revenue

from the tax extension does not materialize, the governor still has the option of taking the $3 billion he had targeted to reverse his deferrals and making k-12 education whole. as far as the bulk of the school district's funding is concerned, which is what we call revenue limits, and it is generated from our district ada, for both the 2010 s 2011 and 2011 s 2012 years, the budget proposes to keep the total revenue limit funding flat with no change. the statutory kohler is 2.24%, which is slightly higher than the 1.6% that was proposed in january. however, it is not funded in order to not fund the deficit

factor, i.e. what we would actually get funded. the actual revenue that districts would receive has been increased to about -- the deficit has been increased to about 20%. all it translates to is that for every dollar owed to education, we will be receiving 80 cents roughly of that dollar. in addition to not receiving any cola. even for sfusd, we have seen a slight -- less than five percentage -- increased, but we do anticipate receiving a little more funding. the next chart shows you four of the san francisco schools -- unified school district, what the actual 2010-2011 funding

was, and that is the blue bar. the orange color bar is the amount that is not funded by the state. similarly in 2011-2012, of the 6486 that our school districts should be receiving, we will only receive 5204. this next chart is also a little interesting. i thought i would throw it in there. it is a comparison that was done by the national education association, a ranking of the states for 2010. it shows how far behind california has fallen in comparison to the national average, in funding public education. it has gone from 82% of the

national average to 78% of the national average. this was what the -- our graf looked like back in january. as you can see, the last time we were fully funded was in 2007- 2008. since then, the blueline is what we should have been funded. the line below, the brown line, is what sanford cisco unified actually gets in our revenue limit funding. there is a dotted line which represents -- in 2011-2012, which represents what would have happened if the cut had been implemented. we would have received a little less than $4,800, where we would

have actually had received $6,500. this is a similar chart revised for the may revision. again, there is a gap between what should be funded and what is not. back to the bar chart of 1048, i believe the number was, that is the variants. now for this high level multi- year projections would put together and just revised very quickly, we are in the process of getting budgets finalized. we go to the board with our first meeting of our budget next tuesday, which is the 14th.

we are developing our budgets based on flat funding, based on the governors may revised, the court he has stipulated. the assertion that he will avoid cuts to education as to the extent possible. unfortunately, there is still a level of uncertainty until the budget is actually signed. when we had to act on making our deadlines for certificate layouts, which were very quickly around the time that the governor signed -- or rather the may revise came out, we noticed approximately 147 certificated -- 199 paris, and 100

classified employees. since then, we have back 84. the 1099 #has been reduced to approximately 100. are classified --hr folks are still working on the classified list because it is all based on seniority, and that will eventually take out at some point. but regardless of the flat funding, it still represents a cut to the school district. as i mentioned, about 20 cents on the dollar, which is why the rainy day reserve is so critical for us. we are obviously extremely indebted to the city for that. it has helped avoid a lot more

layoffs. as to the status of the rainy day reserve, i believe it has been incorporated into the mayor's budget. i have run some numbers, and we are eligible for a draw. as i was saying about the raid a reserve, i have run some preliminary numbers based on the governor's made revised scenario, and it shows we would be eligible, and i understand it has been inc. -- $8.5 million has been incorporated into the city's budget. that is a number that is also incorporated into budget development funding for the 2011-2012 year.

so if you have any questions, i am here to answer them. >> colleagues, are there any questions? ok, seeing none, thank you. i'm going to open it up to public comment now at this point. the public is welcome to comment or ask questions on this particular item. seeing no questions, ok. we are going to close public comment. please read item two. >> it would be the hearing to review and update on the initial education and related expenditures stemming from the core community benefits agreement. >> thank you. i wanted to offer some introductory remarks. we all know from last year that the agreement was a contentious

piece of negotiating that went on between community members as well as leaders as well as members from the board of supervisors, but just to give a little background, the implementation committee detailed in the shipyard core community benefits agreement recently decided to fund two programs with the initial funding generated, 1, an academic summer youth program, and two, a summer employment program. dcyf and sfusc staff are here to present and speak to the academic program, and we also have the office of work force development that will be able to speak to the employment component. i would like to bring up staff from dcyf and the san francisco unified school district to make a presentation. thank you for being with us today.

>> hello. i am with the department of children, youth, and families. i am a program officer there, and i'm going to have the executive director talk about the academic summer program, since we have now shifted the entire work load and work plan over. >> good afternoon, commissioners. executive director, young community developers. thank you for giving me this time to discuss the program. as ms. dorsey just explained, we entitled the program summer academic program. it is for ninth graders and incoming 10th graders who are in danger of failing and has the possibility of not receiving the high school diploma if we did not intervene right away. the program is currently being

hosted at balboa high school. today, we did our first orientation with about 50youth and the principal and responsible open it up for us to do another presentation tomorrow and one on monday. the schedule fluctuates, but the program is set up to serve 100, and they have an opportunity to receive up to at $590 that it, so it is a $50 gift card, depending on attendance, depending on summer school attendance, and we developed a rubric to determine how that they scale would work in terms of their seven. first orientation was today. that went over very well. we had about 50 something youth. they have all been given intake forms for the program. we will probably have a more finalist as of monday. part of our strategy as well is possibly working with bringing some of the youth over from philip burton. they have a credit recovery

program being operated, as well as lowell high school. we working up some transportation issues because we want to try to get as close to 100 as possible. so there are already enrolled in summer school. the first hour is academic tutorials, academic enrichment, and the next hour we go for to the wheel hours, is about life skills and job readiness training. that is what we do. we bring in guest speakers to talk about college experience, talk about work experience. we conduct a couple of field trips, hopefully, to a university. we are trying to get out to maybe twitter or google or some corporation so they can have an opportunity to also see how the business aspect of the universe works. again, it is a two-hour program. first our definitely dedicated to academic tutoring and in

richmond. next hour, life skills and job training. all of our tutors are college students right now. some of them attend across the united states and our home for the summer, but all are college students. and, of course, that was done by design. the tutors are in the classroom with the teachers during the day so they can understand and know what the needs of the students are and be able to build that relationship during the day which will assist them and help them in the after-school portion. if there are any questions. >> do you have any questions? all right. supervisor chiu: bank -- supervisor chu: thank you. quick question about the funding. >> the funding is in the shipyard in the southeast sector. lennar has dedicated -- it is

the $80 million community benefits package. this fund -- the dollars that are available right now is about $500,000 pot, so that money comes from lennar, and it is actually monitored by the foundation. there is a district can committee that is set up that is responsible for administering the funds and overseeing the program. i may miss one organization, but -- and the labour council. they monitor and decide how the funds get administered. supervisor chu: the number of students you cited earlier -- i think you said 50 to 70 who were

at the first meeting. how many slots do you have available for the program? >> we have 100 total. we can serve up to 100. the budget and program were designed for up to 100. we are focusing hard to get that 100, but we also want to make sure we provide a quality service. we will have a more finalist on monday in terms of who is eligible. we are hitting the ground running today, but we want to make sure that it is effective. supervisor chu: is that summer slots or year-round? >> this this summer. but we have also put in place instead of a program to where this could work year round, because the idea is to keep this going so that the youth will have an opportunity for a pay- work experience in the fall as well as academic enrichment components, so we do have that option of the funding is available. commissioner fewer: i wanted to know -- the students that are at

balboa high school participating in the program -- are they participants in san francisco unified-sponsored summer school for a credit recovery? >> actually, it is regular summer school for sfusd. phillip burton high school has occurred recovery program during summer school. we need to get more to reach our goal, we will work with phil burton and provide transportation for those. >> my question again was, the students that you have a participating, the 100 students, they go to summer school for a half-day and then participate in your program for two hours after the summer school -- is that how it works? >> correct. commissioner fewer: you're giving academic support to the students in summer school that -- for the students -- for the subjects they are also taking?