happens with administrators,. >> in closed session, yes. >> okay. >> roll call vote. [roll call] >> i'm sorry, i want to understand what is being put forth. it is unclear to me. >> in the consent calendar commissioners can sever for discussion any of the items. commissioner lopez his average two of them. we discussed them, and now we are voting on them separately. >> okay. yes. [roll call]

>> six aye. >> okay. section d., discussion and vote on the consent calendar resolution for separate consideration. there are none tonight. section e., proposals for action. there are board policies for adoption tonight. very -- they are zero 420-point for two, charter school renewal, 5148.3, preschool and early childhood education, 0450, comprehensive safety plan for a policy 31, 3516, emergency and disaster preparedness plan, student assessing teams, and

district and school websites. all these policies were moved and seconded at a prior meeting. is there a report from rules committee? >> the items were hurried out rules committee and forwarded to the board with a positive recommendation. >> let's see, superintendent, can you call someone to read it into the record? >> general counsel will read them into the record. >> president cook, a point of clarification, are you moving all these items at once, or did you want to read them all separately? >> we are moving them all at once and we will do roll call vote at the end. >> okay. the action tonight is the board approved the following policies. all of which, as you have heard vice president sanchez say or heard at rules committee, and

received a positive recommendation. board policies charter school renewal, preschool early childhood education, board policy comprehensive safety plan , and board policy emergency and disaster preparedness plan. student success teams, and board policy district and school websites. >> commissioner norton? >> thank you. i have a question about the charter school renewal policy. i am glad that we are making sure that the charger partners are going to be complying with changes in the law, but i also wonder, you know, there was an opinion issued by the state attorney general on the brown act, and also compliance with the political format. it occurs to me, i don't know

that we require our charter schools to certify that what -- what their procedures are around the brown act, and also around avoiding conflict of interest as far as a political format. with this policy include that, or what steps are we taking around that? >> this policy could include that, but it is important to remember that the attorney general's position is persuasive, but not the law. we are still waiting to see what the legislature does with those present -- provisions. the school districts have tried to go beyond and to require charters to comply with the brown act, and that has not been successful. we are waiting for a legislative action on that in order to require those types of measures. >> the district has tried to do that since the attorney general's opinion. >> know. not since the attorney general's

position. >> okay. this is something that i really think we need -- i actually would like to -- i will leave it up to board leadership and the superintendent for how to do this, but we should have a conversation about the charter m.o.u. and what we are doing, what we have in them now, what potentially we could, some changes we could make, because i think this is a really important principle, and it is a source -- it has been a source of irritation to me that different levels of schools have not been public schools -- public schools have not been required to comply with the same level of loss. i just want to make sure that we are doing everything we can at the m.o.u. his with our charter partners to make sure that we are trying to keep a level playing field. >> i'm sorry, can i just address that. i just want to correct something i said earlier because apparently tammy wong has

listened to this meeting. thank you, tammy. she is sharing, but we do have some of these provisions. what i would suggest is let us get you a board report on the specific items that you requested, and then you can decide how you want to move the discussion forward. >> great. >> commissioner sanchez? >> the resolution we passed last year on charter school accountability oversight and accountability includes some provisions that we would like the state legislature to pass, including the board for charter schools would have to follow the brown act, which went to the legislature last year, i'm pretty sure, and it was vetoed or never made it out. it was vetoed by the governor. there have been attempts in the past, and now that we have a new governor who is showing willingness to hold charter schools more accountable, i think we want to see that come back and hopefully past. but there's other things that we

ask for in that resolution as well. >> i would just like to understand, i know that san jose has an m.o.u. process where they require chargeable -- chargers that they are approving to follow the brown act and sunshine and those kind of things, and i would like to know , i know that this is constantly shifting, and there's a lot of districts that are doing things that we didn't do ten years ago, because as we are realizing, we need to be more clear, i would just like to be able to unpack that more. i appreciate the fact that maybe varty done that and rules committee, but i would like to know -- maybe you have already done that unit rules committee, but i would like to know more before i vote. >> anyone else? >> are you saying that we are free to vote on this resolution? >> i don't know.

is this locking us in? >> it can always be relented. >> okay, okay. >> roll call vote league his. [roll call] >> six aye. >> we already did section f., public comment. section g., special order of business. number 1 -- appointments to career technical advisory committee. dr matthews? >> the chief academic officer brent stevens will be presenting.

>> good evening, commissioners. we are making a request of the board this evening that the board of education approve the c.d. advisory committee listed nominees for the 2018-2019 school year. >> we have no speakers signed up for this item. any comment? seeing none, roll call vote. >> i move the recommendation. >> second. roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> yes. >> six aye. >> number 2, proposed plan for the expenditure of funds awarded under the low performing students grant. dr matthews? >> we will have our chief financial officer read -- presenting this item with landon dickey. >> thank you, good evening, commissioners. i am the chief financial officer. i'm joined by landon dickey. the requested action is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district approves a proposed plan for the expenditure of funds awarded under the low performing students grant. and expenditure plan is also attached as well. >> can you explain a little bit

more about how the eligibility -- so it says, there's numbers about for each pupil that qualifies, and i want to know exactly how -- who those peoples are that would qualify. >> sure. i believe the academic achievement of students in particular schools, and students who identified as low performing on the state english language, arts or meth assessments, and to also do not otherwise receive, are not eligible to receive, or do not count towards receipt of the supplemental grants under the lc s.f. they will receive funding at the rate of $1,976 per eligible people.

those are identified as low performing students, and the block grant is meant to target. >> the grant is about $2 million. >> it is about $1,000,009. it is a one time to be spent over two fiscal years, and there is an additional $15,000 that also comes through the county office of education. >> how much does the grant get to the school site? >> it is incorporated in the expenditure plan. mr dickey could provide some context, -- go ahead. >> so the context here is that we are going to be applying these funds to support the pitch schools, so the 20 school sights that were identified in novembeg

historically low performance for african-american students, or they are being hacked a high achievement gap between african-american students and other racial subgroups. >> so there will be low performing students at other schools that will not get the grant? >> that is correct. >> okay. thank you. >> so is this a reset with the plan, if we approve this grant, or is there discussion around how it will be implemented? >> so there can be discussion about how it's implemented, but we are approaching the deadline, so that is why we have a plan in place right now, already -- it

doesn't hit every single low performing student, but we have a plan in place that we are moving forward to. >> i guess my question is, a lot of schools have been talking about the need for community schools as a model for implementing some of the pitch implementations, and i am wondering, sometimes people think of it as the same thing, so i just want to know, if we are approving this, is there any conversation that we, as a board, can have with the district in ensuring it is done in a community-based model caught with -- in that model of community schools where this partnership with families and staff and community-based organizations? >> absolutely. that is the model we have been using. when schools have come forward with their plans, we asked them to identify the root cause. let me finish please, if you don't mind. happy birthday. [laughter]

>> they will identify the root cause and then their strategies, and then they will come forward with what are the resources they need, and the research they have identified. i had a discussion with the group from community schools, but they were really a group that was -- in one of the things that i said is one of the things we wanted to avoid from previous initiatives around low achieving -- a top-down approach, where we find the solution, and say this is the solution. we wouldn't want to save them macho is their solution unless you came to us and said that, then we would have worked with you towards that. if schools say that this is what they believe is the best way, and absolutely, we will work with them to get the resources. but we don't want to say it has to be community schools, or we are telling you it is community schools.

>> i think there is a specific -- this may be driven from certain members of the school community, but i think this community school model is not necessarily a prescriptive model in what you do. it is -- there is a clear criteria for how you gather information from the community, in that relies on community school coordinators, and it relies on a certain number of gathering input from the community that i don't normally see in schools when they have to submit plans. being someone who has been in the community meetings, and not seeing community members there, we do not do a good job of outreach. that is why m.l.k. is a great model because they are doing good work of involving the communities in whatever plans they have. in approving this, i would like to make sure to have a commitment from the district to truly engage, in that also means

resourcing the folks that do that work, which is a community school program are. it looks different in different schools, but having that person, resources, that capacity for the school to do it with integrity. >> i will just say yes, there's absolutely that commitments. >> maybe at a later date we can talk about what the ongoing, ins and oversight is of the points that is being made. we will ask for questions as they come up. >> can i have a motion and a second? >> second. >> roll call vote, please. [roll call]

>> six aye. >> we are in session h. session i is consent calendar items removed. there are none tonight. section jay, introduction of proposals. i have two speakers for public comments. please make your way to the podium. >> good evening. it has been a long evening. you guys have a big agenda. i will be superquick. it is lovely to see you. those of you i haven't met yet, i'm looking forward to the opportunity.

and the executive director of gateway public schools. we are just about to start today. the charter renewal process --dash we are super excited. this is my 19th year at the gateway, and i can't even remember how many of these charger rentals and authorizations i've done with you all, but i knew a few things for sure, i know that it is always both a rewarding and a challenging process. it is an opportunity for us to look really carefully at what we're doing well as a school, and also where we need to grow. it is an opportunity for us to spend some time together, we are looking forward to that in the time ahead, and it's an opportunity for us to remember that we are all in this work together on behalf of the kids of san francisco. i will be seeing you more soon. i won't take any more time this evening, but thank you for what you do and i will see you.

thank you. >> good evening, again. i will take more then the minute and a half. but to follow up on what the director said, they are part of the san francisco unified school district, so i would like to commend gateway on their parent participation. the real reason i am up here is to speak about policy regarding parent surrogates for special education students. i appreciate, as i've said before, i appreciate the fact we are starting to put policies in place to name a lot of these. thank you so much for the hard work you are all doing. i appreciate that we are using best practices. i would like to challenge you to look at saddleback valley

unified school district version of the same. there is is exceptionally inclusive, their policy flat-out names different laws for advocates, or i'm sorry,, surrogates. a couple fun facts, public agencies must ensure illegally that a surrogate parent is not a district employee, and the state agency must make an assignment of a surrogate within 30 days. two of those are very important safeguards for students. neither one are named in the policy, but if we named it more robustly, and included verbiage from federal law, it very well could be. thank you.

>> number 2, proposal 19212. authorization to grant an alternative to denied the petition for gateway charter school, charter high school and board policies. may i hear a motion and a second on s.b. one and the two board policies? >> so moved. >> second. >> i am referring s.b. one two budget and curriculum committees and board policies to the rules committee. section k., proposals for immediate action. there are none tonight. section l, board member report. vice president sanchez?

>> for rules? >> yes, sorry. >> thank you. i forgot what committee i am on. we reported on most of the items, but a couple were held at -- held up. nonpublic, known secretary and school agency services for special education, and board policy 6146. for, differential graduation and competitions -- competition -- competency standards. >> thank you. >> we met, and we reviewed the state budget update. just kind of an overview, and got -- we looked ahead, and we

moved, what is it called when you don't make a motion to approve or deny? with no recommendation for creative arts charter school. and we also discussed timelines for the committee, and we also discussed potential topics that we might want to discuss more in depth regarding some central office kind of -- learning more about peace, spending, and tss, and specific, if their specific departments that folks are interested in and getting more information about what programs they are spending money on, and specifically, those where curriculum instruction, and within student services, but maybe more specific to just knowing -- to understanding what some of the things that we are doing as a district, but i am also, i would like to encourage

other board members, if there's any specific topics that you would like to put on the agenda, now versus later, please let me know so we can make sure that we are putting that in the timeline. >> commissioner lopez? >> we met for the first time yesterday, and our action item was the petition for creative arts charter, which we moved with a no recommendation, specifically around their language around defiance. we had an update on the assessment committee, and we also had an update on the m.o.u. with sfpd, and there are a number of upcoming meetings coming. around the m.o.u. >> thank you. do we have any board delegates or membership organization reports? any other reports by board members?

okay, we have the calendar of committee meetings, budget and business services will be meeting on wednesday, march 6th at six p.m. the new and improved and incredibly led buildings and grounds of the services committee, chaired by none other than myself. [laughter] >> we will be meeting on monday, february 25th at six p.m. the curriculum and program committee will be meeting on march 11th at six p.m. the rules committee will be meeting on march 4th at five p.m. and an ad hoc mentee on student assignment will be meeting on monday, march 18th at six p.m. and the ad hoc community and labor relations will be meeting on wednesday, february 20th at six p.m. the committee for the school

district and city college is being held until we figure out some other things around a joint committee meeting with the board of supervisors. it is to be determined. section m., other informational items. there are none tonight. section n., memorial adjournment. there is none tonight. we don't have any public comment for a closed session, section oh, closed session of the board will now go into closed session [laughter] >> welcome back. last few minutes of your birthday and we have a read out

for the closed session for february 12, 2019. by a vote of six aye, we approve the contract. we also contribute approved the vote for the intern. issuing notice to one principle that the contract will now be renewed. we will approve the contract for 44 assistant principals. we will approve the contract for 22 program administrators. we will approve the contract of 26 supervisors. we will approve issuing notice that two principal contracts may not be renewed. the board approved issuing

notice that three assistant principal contracts may not be renewed. issuing notice that one supervisor contract may not be renewed. we will approve issuing notice that two program administrator projects may not be approved. approved the issuing notice at six principal contracts will not be renewed. we approved issuing notice that four assistant principal contracts will not be renewed. we approved issuing notice that one supervisor contract will not be renewed. the board approved the release of 11 probationary certificate employees, in the matter of d.c. versus san francisco united school district.

we give the authority of the district to pay up to the stipulated amount. on one matter of anticipated litigation, the gave direction under general counsel. that concludes the meeting tonight. this meeting is adjourned.

. . . [gavel] >> the meeting will come to

order. this is a special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am supervisor sandra lee fewer joined by vice chair kathrin stefani and rafael mandelman. our clerk is ms. wong. i would like to thank michael ballotazar and maya hernandez from sfgov tv for broadcasting this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes. please silence all cell phones and electronic thank you. >> thank you, madam clerk, please call item one. >> ordinance appropriating approximately (22) 000-0000 of educational taxes and rainy one-time fund for the small housing site and single occupancy and behavior health acquisition and behavior health and educator funding fo thank yu very much. >> good morning. >> please call item number two. >> ordinance appropriating $381.1 million in access revenue augmentation funds to the sfmta and the $19 million for the

light rail vehicles and $13.8 million for energy efficient audit and improvements and $5 million to the mitigation fund and the mandatory city services auditor baseline of $38.1 million on comptroller's reserve with the confirmation cash flow timing from the state of california. >> thank you very much. leah levenson is here if there are questions about this legislation. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair fewer. i am going to vote to forward this to the full board, but i want to talk about this item. and i want to talk about prefacing the questions and comments by saying that by, again, thanking you and the colleagues and the mayor for the tremendous flexibility and i think good intentions that were shown throughout this process to get us to a very good result. and this is part of this item is part of that result.

but there are elements of it that have been troubling to some of the constituents and to me a little bit honestly, and this is probably the least favorite part of the set of comprises that were made to get us where we are. i would like to talk about the three elements of what are in the proposal and hear what the money for the l.r.v. visa is supposed to do and what it will get us and contextualize us in what we need to do and replacing the fleet. hear more about what the specific energy efficiency improvements will be are and hear a little bit more about what will be doing the small businesses that are will being impacted by the major projects around the city. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman, chair, and i am the c.f.o. and i will do my best to answer your questions.

the light rail vehicle project is a major effort totalling over $1 billion actually to replace our entire light rail vehicle fleet and to expand it to provide more service to the growing population of san francisco. the original schedule prior to the receipt of these funds, we have already received a number of the expansion vehicles, but to replace the remaining 161 vehicles had had been planned with limitations at the speed that the manufacturer could manufacture the vehicles, which made the schedule run out until sometime in 2027. and we have been in talks for some time with the manufacturer about whether this was any way to speed up that schedule because we know this is a major issue of both maintenance and that the older vehicles break down more often and comfort and just the overall operational success of the entire rail

system to have the new vehicles in place sooner. the manufacturer had said if they opened another manufacturing facility to speed up as much as 18 months and additional costs with the additional facility and there will be a few savings with the escalator on the cost of each vehicle, and we would be buying them sooner and the cost wouldn't rise # a%, but the cost of -- wouldn't rise at # a%, but the cost of opening that facility would more than offset that 5%. the total costs are being appreciated exactly how much extra it will cost and we have been working with the funding sources to where to find the money to bridge that gap. as we were planning this, we didn't yet have all of the funding to bridge that gap to open that facility. and so this $38 million was a xr siting source to be a -- a very exciting source to be a part of that. and we are hoping actually to

conclude those negotiations and get a final dollar value by as soon as within the next month, we don't really know. sometimes there are hiccups in how long these negotiations take. as there's been the conversation about the different uses of the $38 million, and there are other priorities that were established, there was a proposal to reduce the number devoted to that gap to $19 million. what director riskin has said is we are committed to this acceleration in hoping to speed it up by the 12 to 15 months, and we will apply the $19 million from legislation towards that gap. if at the end of the negotiations there is an additional gap, we will be reviewing our entire capital program to sew what other programs may be already delayed and where there may be some surplus funding and we have a capital program in the neighborhood of hundreds of millions of dollars per year. and so usually there is the opportunity to adjust priorities and adjust the actual spending plan. and we are absolutely committed to moving forward on the

acceleration to the maximum degree that we can with a variety of funding sources that we have. >> and exact dollar amount still depends on the outcome of the negotiatio negotiatio negotiations underway and i was not just the opening of that facility. >> and quit working and why the additional gap and talked about. and the >> in the my sense that although people feel that there have been significant improvement and

feeling of the service and and actually and people trying get into overcrowded streets and tunnels and proposing to be adding thousands and thousands more units along the lines because they will be allegedly able to carry thousands and thousands of more people. what i have heard and is pretty critical to being able to move people around. and to improve the people's experience riding trains. and glad to see the 18, 19 million dollars that managed to stay here.

it is my strong hope that this board and the mayor will look to close any remaining gap through any future eraf windfall we receive. i said that the last time we talked about that and reiterating it now because i think people's frustration with our train system right now is so high. or great. but i would like to hear about the other things that we are to get. and i would like to get more input on the reduction in the l.r.v.s. >> the next largest priority is the $13.8 million for energy efficiency and audit and improvements for m.t.a. facilities. we're undergoing on overview of the facilities and tremendously exciting and over $1 billion. we deal with big numbers because they are over 100 years old and they have to be renovated in order to accommodate the new buses and the new trains and the

likely electrical power needs, in fact, of the new fleet. and we'll also be working on the existing facilities are not entirely rebuilt and we have been in discussions about the sfpuc about the best use of the funds and solar panel projects we hope to be able to move forward as quickly as possible, one being looked at is our mme, our metro east facility and we have several others and with the solar panel use. and in the design phase and rebuilding other features and energy efficiency as well as solar energy production is definitely part of the thinking

and this could help -- >> which saves the system theoretically over time. >> a yes. >> supervisor mandelman: as well as reducing our reliance. >> it is probably likely to be reducing the increase in our costs rather than an actual net reduction because we do have this goal of increasing the battery powered bus system within san francisco potentially, and we're going to have pilot studies of fleet battery powered buses which is exciting and the expansion of the fleet and the expansion 'ute of the l.r.v. fleet and we may not achieve a reduction, but deafly a reduction in the increase associated with that. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you. and maybe that you can about what we can do for the long suffering businesses that have been dealing with many years long projects. >> yes, and this is something we work closely with the mayor's office of workforce and economic development on this. and i believe that right now there is even a study being

undergone by the -- i think by the board legislative analyst on these programs, which may help us in the future, but looking at where we do the best good for each of the projects. and this is evaluated on a case by case basis to what is of most benefit to the merchants and the public for that particular capital project. and we would be doing this with very extensive outreach and planning and stakeholder input and with the help of the mayor's office and economic workforce development. i have not actually seen a precise programming for this $5 million. it would really be available with a number of major projects with major impacts and we would be glad to use this in a way that does the most good. >> all right. of course, the best thing to do from the businesses probably would be to figure out a way to get the projects done more speedily and efficiently and not speak for chair fewer, but as she looks at additional projects being proposed to her district,

we will have to figure that out before we undertake anything else, i am imagining. >> well, thank you for spending a little time explaining some of this stuff to us. as i said, i am going to be voting to forward this, but i really do want people to keep in mind the necessity of moving forward with these l.r.v. acquisitions as speedily as we can. thank you. >> thank you. >> superviser fewer: thank you. i have one public comment speaker card. christopher peterson. i'm sorry. before public comment, supervisor stefani has a comment. >> supervisor stefani: yes. just a question on the eraf fund and why weren't any of the funds allocated to the understood lying infrastructure and improving that of the light rail system and the subway. basically i read the transit riders letter and had a concern

on that. >> we also have a major project underway to modernize the train control system for the light rail system. that is a critical need and something we were intent on the moving forward with. >> supervisor stefani: will that deliver service better around faster? >> i believe we are working as quickly as we can to make that a reality. there is not a funding restraint, but a lot of complex planning going into it. >> supervisor stefani: thank you very much. >> superviser fewer: thank you very much for being patient for public comment. christopher peterson, you have two minutes. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank supervisor mandelman for his comments. unimetro right now is facing a crisis in reliability. and i really do think that these extra funds should be used to do -- to address the crisis that muni is currently facing. if muni doesn't address this

crisis and that the major transit systems are experiencing currently. and this is a huge problem in terms of the state's climate change goals and the california air resources board and stating they will not reach the greenhouse emission targets unless it starts significantly reducing vehicle miles traveled. i am very concerned about the two elements of the proposal that seem to be diverting money away from work to address those problems. and the energy efficiency component and the benign project and from the unbaked, not ready for implementation, and the small business impact fund, i totally support the city providing that, but the van ness project is not simply an muni

project. it is also a major utility infrastructure replacement project. the replacement of those underground utilities is what's causing all of the delays and the interest expenses and so with the other interested and other pucs should be contributed to that as well. >> i want to stick to the speeches i wrote when i was delayed this morning 20 minutes on muni metro. now by now each of you should have received the letter on behalf of the organization and on behalf of the board of directors and the 500 member. thank you, supervisor stefani, for bringing that up. this letter expressed concerns with the funding priority that happened today. i felt compelled to be here today. i don't know how much of an influence i will have on where

the money is spent at this point, but i am a daily rider and i feel it is important to speak up on behalf of the 170,000 and growing people who rely on muni every single day who are literally left stranded, late to appointments, late to work because our understood lying infrastructure is not working. so i am here to tell you that the eraf funds should be directed towards improving service today, not some of the priorities that are being discussed. and just to reiterate and i know this goes without saying, hopefully each of you are riders of muni. your intimately familiar with this really sad reality that you can't count on muni which means people are looking for other ways to get around and more car ride and getting on uber and lyft and clogging the streets which leads to more dangerous streets. what we're also seeing is the daily occurrences of broken switches.

issues with the atct system, automatic train control system. and i recognize there's been a 10-year effort to improve that and 10 years is a long time. and including broken vehicles is a daily occurrence. so i said i wrote this this morning when i was delayed to consider spending money on anything that does not improve service today is quite frankly a smack in the face to 170,000 people who rely on uni metro every single day. is that my time? you guys got it. thank you. >> since you are discussing revenue, i do have a pet peeve. i was wondering why with these tickets you guys don't have -- you don't partner with local businesses to provide coupons,

advertisements, for cultural events, museums, automobiles, airlines, whatever to eek out some kind of revenue from the tickets and you don't always have to go up on the fares. if there is 170,000 people riding transit every day, then five cents in revenue would amount to $8500 per day and may not sound like a lot, but it all adds up and besides, if you can get people out to the museums, then they are spending money and discount some cultural events and advertise them on these in order to provide a coupon to get people out spending money. >> seeing no other public speaker, public comment is now closed. i believe supervisor mandelman, were you going to make a motion? >> supervisor mandelman: i will reluctantly move to forward this to the full board with positive recommendation as a committee

report. >> superviser fewer: thank you very much. we will take that without objection. thank you very much, madam clerk. madam clerk, are there any other items before us today? fur >> no. >> superviser fewer: the meeting is now now adjourned. thank you very much.