we're also going back and verifying the number of units before we get the requests for additional addresses to make sure they are legal and there is a whole process of going in place that is brand new to to the fact the city's address will override the address system and dbi will be providing the street number addresses. before they just sent the lots to the assessor and the system address to be assigned, nobody assign the address. we probably have about 10,000 addresses to be assigned, due to

the fact that there are apartment units. that will help us when we go to the new permit system. we will have a clean address base and that will save us a lot of time. several people are working on it to clean our own database sense we are going to be the final push button on whether an address is legal in the city. >> is there a monthly update on what is being proposed and what is in place? >> there are proposing to go live on august 15th. hopefully we can show you how the demonstration and have them come in and show you how it is going to work. it is a new thing that will be available to the citizens and they will be able to point out an address and find a property. >> terrific.

technology advancing on this category. >> is their public comment on the director's report? any public comment? item number seven, commissioners questions and matters, agrees to staff. commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding various documents, practices and procedures which are of interest to the commission. >> i believe it would be good to get an update from our departing deputy director.

there has been support and interest in moving for some of our mandatory program discussions. it would be good to bring the men and had them update us on that. >> thank you. commissioners? >> with regard to an article i recently read on violations within the housing authority and the housing stock itself, we have significant issues that continue to not be responded to by those that are responsible for correcting this. do we execute nov's to those

properties or follow-up in responses by those respective -- >> can i add to that? also an agenda item to talk about the state of the mou we have a housing authority and what our policies are. >> is more at the next meeting. >> we can have that as an agenda item and we do have information on that. >> there was some articles and at freedom of information act -- freedom of information act requests regarding our code enforcement. i think it's time to see where we are at with the housing authority properties and our understanding of helping them achieve good code enforcement. >> we can certainly do that. >> great. maybe we can invite the director of housing authority. >> if you couldn't, during the

course of how your discussions take place -- >> we should invite them. >> i would like to see it. >> me, too. >> item 7b -- the commission may take action to set the date of a special meeting and determine the items to be placed on the agenda for the next meeting and other future meetings of the building commission. >> we requested a joint commission with the planning commission. can we get that on the books? >> we have had and potentially have a couple of dates being considered.

there are those where the rules of the engagement of topics of what is to be covered will be discuss prior to the consolidated meeting. >> maybe it would be good to get a date for the meeting. >> yes. if you could provide me some of the items -- >> i will do that. >> that will help me. >> the next meeting of the building inspection commission will be on august 17th. >> and the rescheduled meeting? >> i'm not sure. >> 18th of august? >> ok. >> public advisory committee. is there any public comment on item number seven? item #8 -- review and approval

of the regular meeting of january 19th, 2011. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor? the minutes are proved. item #9 is a german. >> move to adjourn. >> second. -- item #9 is adjournment. >> thank you.

>> 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