a cabin down a peach growers, in the hopes that he would always be of to do to camp mather. occasionally we go up and sit by the lake, but we feel like we are intruders. because we now have to purchase a day pass. my father suffers from alzheimer's and enjoys the time that i can take him and walk through the camp, and he can enjoy his memories. i ask that we have an agreement where we do not feel like we have to apply a wrist band every day to go down there. our cabins are only used by our families. they're not rented out. it is not the general public coming through. i encourage you to come up with some sort of an agreement with us. thank you. >> is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? >> 1931 was my first summer at

campmather -- at camp mather. i was four years old. we were not actually to stay in the camp, but the campground was open to the public for a fee. my brothers doctor recommended getting him out of the summer fog in santa cruz. so we camped at mather they all summer long and for four more years after that. of course our days were spent at the lake. i learned to swim in the old cement pool, and i was proud when i passed the test is one in the leg. in 1935, my father was able to buy a place at peach growers, and we continued to spend summers there, from june until september, swimming in birch lake every day. we still spend summers at our cabin. my father's grandchildren and great-grandchildren are growing up at the cabin, except that now

they're not able to swim in birch lake. * change, that is to be understood. but -- times change, that is to be understood. but surely it is possible to come up with some equitable arrangement that will allow the families at peach growers to share the heritage of the use of a birch lake. i ask for your thoughtful consideration in this matter. >> is there anyone else who would like to comment under this item? >> my name is dennis. me and my family have a cabin at peach growers, so i would like to address the issue of use of the lake. my understanding is that the first cabins at peach growers

were built around 1910. so we're talking about a history of about 100 years. and i also want to emphasize that the property, th mah -- the mather property is very unique. for hundreds of square miles, there really are not open meadows like that mather. only a few areas. the uniqueness is that it has this late -- lake. it is really the only place in a large area that is available for people to swim or to have that recreational opportunity. for example, the city has a large reservoir where hetch hetchy is, but that is closed to

the public. the city has another dam with the body of water at early intake, which is closed to the public. there is a swimming pool at early intake, which is closed to the public. there used to be a dam on the middle fork when it the boy scouts had a camp, but that is no longer there. so this particular spot, this lake, is the only place. and what my concern also is is that the city, by having a high fee, if that is what its decision is, which for a family of four, i believe, would be $52. again, not 100% sure on that, but i think so. there is also the issue of the difficulty to actually go and use and get a day pass.

so not only do you have a high fee, but when, on a saturday -- people may come up on a friday night and then a saturday afternoon to go to get a pass, and it is the very time- consuming process, because all of the people that are checking in are at the office. if you have ever gone to mather and had to check in, which i have done many times -- i have been going to mather for over 50 years. i was up there with my family. my father was a police officer. that is it. >> thank you. >> is there anyone else would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, anybody? >> then we are on item 12, which is the adjournment. >> a great.

there are communications. -- at the -- [inaudible] >> we have found out that that is not one of our parks. yes. >> all right, thank you. >> i guess they have enough problems with jurisdiction. >> commissioner harrison >> before we adjourn, could someone please read what was on the plaque? i cannot read the plaque, and i think for tony, he was such a major contributor to camp

mather, and i could not read it. i think it does a disservice to him for us not to have that information. >> it is not clear from the picture, i will be there the week of june 25 for our senior staff event. i will bring back a picture with the text. >> i cannot even read what we said. >> i do not think you can see it from the photograph, so i will get it. >> 0h, so you'll have to get that. somebody will. please have somebody do that, because his contributions were just invaluable, and i really appreciate all the work that he did. i want to know if we recognized him accordingly. thank you. >> thank you. any other business? i will entertain a motion to

adjourn. >> so moved. >> second. >> we stand adjourned. thank you, all.

>> 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 s 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