correct? >> correct. >> so we'll be voting on everything except for the athletics portion of the budget. >> our date of submission to the city for the final budget is the 15th of april so i don't know if that impacts our ability to meet that requirement. >> i'm happy to talk to folks over at the city to let them know the situation and we can still leave that one item out and that it's upon approval and that will be submitted forthcoming. >> okay. >> we're going to rely on mr. mendoza's juice and if there's any issues then we'll try to

schedule and emergency meeting of some sort. >> i just want to know -- i understand that this is the spending plan and so the way we're spending the money is what's at issue. there'll be some clarification about the actual expen /tkeu expenditure, but can't we write that this some way -- wouldn't that sort of take care of your problem? especially because of -- sorry. especially because of the different distribution of money that is what formerly held back money when the trigger was pulled so it seems

to me it's an important piece of information that we include in this to the board of supervisors so that we know how much money we spend on sports and athletics, but we can reconsider the specific items. wouldn't that be easier. >> i would say is yes. i would say we would be able to write readjust the spending plan. we need to speak to our city partners about that expectation. i think we need to do that so there's a clear vote, this is the allocations with more detail to follow on that one item. >> can we state clearly what the issue is for the public

because it seems to me we're not being very clear about what the issue is. >> so as a chair, the buildings and ground committee, i requested that i get more detail on a field allocation that has been requested for dollars to build out a field at school of the arc and i want to make sure it properly is brought forward again. >> that is the question and we are going to vote on this with the understanding -- i'm just stating what my understanding is so that hopefully it's not just your understanding. so we will vote on this, understanding that you are going to revise the language somewhat to reflect that there may be some adjustments within the athletic budget, but the total amount devoted to athletics will remain the same. >> yeah. a is arts. yeah,

whoops. >> thank you for that clarification. yes, we can do that. >> the amount going to the department is not going to change. it's just that particular spending component of it so that can be submitted without an itemized budget. i don't know if we can do that, but it ooo be fine. >> we still are voting on this as amended, but the specific amendment will come later. >> i really want to thank the community advisory community who's put in many hours on this. i also want to recognize staff. this has been a moving target. the latest budget proposal is 1.15 million more than the april 2 budget and 51 million dollars -- 16 million dollars more than the january budget so i really appreciate the hard work that staff has

put into adjusting the numbers. i want to i light a couple things that i think are very strong in the proposal, very glad to see in physical education that 100 percent of elementary schools will be covered. also in arts and music that 100 percent of every elementary school will benefit. i think we have some ways to go in the libraries, but it's something to keep in mind. restoretive practices -- i'm concerned about this. i think there's some places where it's working really great and other places where it's still bumps in the road and would love to see this investment go to making sure that there's more consistency in restorative practices. i do have a strong commitment to stem, as commissioner mendoza noted this is a priority for the

superintendent and school district. i had one question, which was about the level of the reserves. so in the current budget we're looking at a 7.6 million dollar reserve, of which there's been an addition of 787 thousand. how is this number generated? is this typical number, are we in good shape, bad shape? i'd like to be able to evaluate the level of the reserve. >> i'll try to address your question. i want to provide a little bit of contextual information about this line item. this was introduced as a line item in the third third when the state began to fall

very short of its funding responsibilities in terms of deficit factor becoming a very significant element of the state's budget. and just to recap for folks who may not know that term by heart, as i unfortunately do, in the state's decision making about its budgetory priorities, the primary way schools and districts receive funds is through the revenue limit and when the state is in times of fiscal distress as it has been, it has certain mechanisms to reduce the amount of funding from year to year that it should properly pay the school district. and the biggest indicator of that is this factor. what that means is for every dollar of revenue limit,

the ada funds, the deaf sis factor represents the amount that the state is not paying for every dollar that they should be paying. so in 2007, 2008, there was no deficit factor so the schools received the full amount of the revenue limit that they were entitled to and over the next several years, that deficit factor increased to more than 20 percent. it remains at 22 percent so for every dollar of revenue limit we should receive, the state is only paying 78 cents on the dollar. the ago -- in that context, and i think all commissioners and most of our community members are very aware of the very deep cuts that the district has had to make, and

in that light unfortunately a few years ago it was deemed necessary in order to protect baseline funding for our schools to have some of the peek dollars partially offset that really significant funding from the deficit factor. this represents about 10 percent of the impact of a deficit factor for our budget. the total amount is high, but the am that it absorbs from the impact of the cuts is actually quite small. over time, if and when the state is able to reduce that deficit factor and replace it with the local control funding formula, in one way, shape or form, to approach more adequate levels of funding for schools or more appropriate

levels of funding for schools, we would hope we can reduce the amount of overall spending program that is spent in this way, but as yo all know, we're not at that point yet. so if we were to eliminate this amount from the spending plan, then the consequence of that would be that we need to significantly reduce our baseline funding to the schools or find other cuts. right now it's hanging steady at about 7.5 million dollars, more or less and over time we do hope to be reduce that. sorry, i gave you a really long winded answer. >> is that the end of your questions? okay. miss lee. >> i was on it last year and i know how much work that goes into being part of this committee, the dedication, the

commitment to figure out this proposal to submit to the board and i just am really grateful for the extra support that we've gotten this year. that's one thing i'm so happy to see that has gotten funding. i will come back to see the number of students on track for graduation. i'm excited for the stem programs being more involved in the school district. so thank you for all your hard work and dedication. >> i want to say thanks. i was on this board for many years. i know there's a lot of hard volunteer hours and a lot of work. i want to thank the

staff as well. thank you very much for all those questions being answered. and i want to say thanks to the city and the city of san francisco for being so generous to the school district having said that, i see some things in this budget that -- i want to mention first that -- so glad to see that cte, building our pathways and building a real internships and full pathways for students -- this is a fabulous thing. glad to see we're bringing on another fte for that much needed hard work. when i'm looking at the a through g support, i have to mention

this, i understand that we have put aside money for this and i want to commend the district for doing so. as you know, the class of 2014 and the class of 2015 and the class of 2016 and from then on will have to graduate with these very rigorous graduation requirements, the acg sequence of classes. so while i think this fund -- the catch up, meaning students who actually are not on /trag ly track -- that i feel more money should be put into this for more preventive measures. if we know there are certain gate keepers for a through g then i think money should be put toward support for students in passing those classes. we have much better success when students pass it the first time than rather having to catch them back up after they have

failed the class once. and so while i think this is a really good effort to put this money toward getting your students on track -- the ones that are off track -- this does nothing to prevent them from getting off trackment and we know some things work. we know lower class size works for these very rigorous courses. things like chemistry -- very difficult for students to pass in this district. it shouldn't be 40 students to one class. it should be 25 students to one class. we no longer have to reduce classes for graders. that was very successful too.

>> i'm just going to make an amendment to this budget because i feel like i must. at the committee meeting of the whole, i reminded the board that in 2009 and 2010, we had 9 /#1911,294 being put towards [inaudible] our vehicle for violence /pr*efpbs. and so at that time the board elected to allocate -- last week you hear me saying i didn't think enough money. so i'm so glad you heard me and allocated additional funds to this. however, the additional funds i

was asking for was 274 thousand dollars. you upped this, which i think is great and very generous. also to this budget, can meet the 911 thousand dollars that was originally planned for this. i heard the talk about restorative practices, but i feel like they were trying to do it on a shoe string budget. i would like to make an amendment that we allocate up to so as you know, this is an expensive endeavor. it is very expensive to try to

ship around. it is changing the culture of our schools. we're on the tip right now of doing that. i think we wanted to see it actualized that these additional funds -- not a lot of money -- 43,430 extra to this budget. so i'd like to make the amendment that we bring up the total funding of the restorative practices to 911 thousand. >> you have made a motion. >> yes. i have. >> we have a second. now there is a motion on the floor for an amendment to the budget. so just to state it clearly, you are proposing that we add another 43,000 to the restorative budget. >> from where? >> it'd be helpful to know from

where. >> i would take that from the reserve. so the reserve would be minus 43,430 dollars. >> it's possibly an unfair question, but can you sort of give us a sense of what the impact of taking money out of the reserve and putting it back into something else is? >> i think the best thing for me to say is this is symbolic decision either way. i think it's a policy call for the board to make. the unrestricted general fund balance is really another term for the reserve. as you know, the test that we have to meet

every year and for two years following the budget year is that we are meeting all of our financial obligations and maintaining 2 percent of our budget in terms of expenditures. we have a large budget and 43,000 dollars will need to come from somewhere, and it is something that, at your direction, we will find a cut at some other part of the budget to offset that. so i think it's a decision for the board of education unless superintendent have another point of view. >> may i add something? i just wanted to mention that -- so we were at the level of 664,000 for many years. i think this is an opportunity, we have the money now, the trigger hasn't

been pulled, there is a little bit more money and i think it was a testing ground for restorative practices and i think we've seen is that people want this type of strategy, we want to implement them in their schools, they want the coaches to make it real. my fear is if we keep it at this amount that you recommend, that it will stay at this amount for many, many years so i'd like to set the bar high and i think ten years from now we will think this amount is low. but as you see, we had it at 664,000 for many, many years and we have this opportunity now to up it a little bit to its full level of funding that we originally intended it to be at. >> commission mofus. >> thank you. so to vice president fewer's point around

the additional 43,430 dollars, i noted on this revised -- the revision that we have a general infrastructure increase of 45,000 which wasn't on our budget, on the budget that we received as a committee as a whole so i don't know. i saw the explanation, but in my mind, we were just taking it from the reserve. this money which is newly added in to our budget today or yesterday -- 45,000 dollars. does that not cover the amount we were taking to restorative practices? >> i could see the general explanation of general infrastructure -- maybe just give us the two sentence explanation. >> commissioners, as we all

know, the funds are increasing the number of programs are increasing, the programs themselves are increasing and so are the evaluation needs so this is to expands our evaluation needs to continue our program to the city and to the board. >> we didn't do that before? my point is that at the committee as a whole last tuesday, that dollar amount is not in here so i believe we probably still have that need so we were going to fund it from somewhere. yes? that is my assumption -- that we were going to get it somewhere. so i hope where we were going to get it from last tuesday, we can still get it from there and this money can be sent to restorative practice.

appreciate your explanation. >> my understanding of the general infrastructure expense is -- particularly this board has been interested in documenting outcome, but it will be a very important expen /tkeu /skhaour as we look for renewal so i'm more comfortable taking money from the reserve. i'm reluctant to make last minute changes, but i'm persuaded by the comment that there's a great demand for restorative practices. when i went to the school site summit a couple years ago i saw someone accosted by teachers and parents who wanted the pack to come in and do a community convening around restorative practices. how many programs do we have with that much demand. and again, the feedback i'm receiving is it's

pretty inconsistent from one school to the other. i'm comfortable with supporting the amendment with the monies taken from the reserve. >> i'd say this is a program that in terms of the feedback, in terms of the support, in terms of the demand, it's incredibly under funded and i'm very inclined to support vice president's recommendation. one question i would have is putting out the 45,000 or around that amount of money what that means in practice. if 55 thousand can get us another coach, maybe with can talk about the mechanics of the number that's being put out there. i'd like to know more about that. >> commissioner wynn. >> i just wanted to say a couple things. one is that reserve is -- this is not a reserve. i don't know why we use the term reserve because this is actually the support for the weighted student

formula. this is the money that keeps us from -- if we take money out of that fund, which is misnamed as a reserve, what we're doing is saying we're going to take money from each school and they're going to have to figure out -- unless we move it somewhere /es else. i understand that. if we just did that, made this list, we would be saying to this school a few hundred dollars less in your allocation. i think that's how this works, so i think we need to speak differently here at this table about it. because if you think it's just sitting there, again, some contingency, in the past to the schools. the second thing is i think we should do this. i think we should identify where you want to take it from. not from the schools, because i a pose the gist on that basis because that's been

my priority. try not to create the weighted student formula because then you're saying that what we do here is more important than what they use the money for. that's the first thing. the second thing is that my discussion with the people in the restorative practices, restorative practices program is they're ramping up as fast as they can. that managing this to -- it's developmental process and getting to scale -- yes, now they have actually hired a number of more new coaches and getting 'em trained and getting everything on line. so i guess i think we need to -- if we want to do this, i want somebody to identify where we would really take the money

from. if we're going to take it out of that fund, i'd oppose it. this is a finite amount of money. let's think of something we think is less important and take it from there, not from the schools, in my opinion. >> superintendent did you want to respond? >> sure, i think the question that's burdened on everybody's mind -- >> the line item is very closely related to our able to maintain or, in this case, slightly improve, /phrao*es compared to last /kwraer, the weighted funding. for a change

of this magnitude, we would not send allocations out again that reflect the weighted student formula being reduced by 43 thousand dollars. those were dis/treupbted distributed to school sites on february 22 and all the schools have or are just about finished preparing their site budgets, which they've gone through their local government chains and they've submitted, or are very close to submitting, all of those budget materials. so with that in mind, i don't think it would be practical for us to send them a change of this magnitude. we would need to depend --