>> roll call, "please. [roll call] i believe he is absent today. >> yes. [roll call] is mr. sanchez here? i thought i saw him. >> here, sorry. >> thank you. >> that is all of us. the special board of education meeting.

i also want to know it's being alive cablecast did online, too. this is the same channel as the regular board meetings. the live video stream will also be available online. welcome to the district staff members and members of the public. thank you to the budget staff in advance for their the hard work and getting information ready for this special meeting. the process for this afternoon, i would like to turn it over first to superintendent matthews and the staff who will start out with a presentation. i will then open it up to public comment and depending upon how many speakers we have requested, i will also put a time limit in case, again, really wanting the

purpose of today's meeting to have dialogue amongst the commissioners. we have had a lot -- we had lots of engagement as well the past tuesday evening at our board meeting and we will also have an opportunity this upcoming week as well. so at this time, i would like to turn it over -- actually, before i turn it over to dr. matthews, you know, the purpose of the meeting is to recognize from two -- tuesday night's meeting over the desire for further discussion by commissioners in order for to pass -- in order for us to pass the budget next wednesday, july 1st. i want to highlight a couple of areas from the last tuesday night's board meeting that was clear for some areas of discussion. one is looking in understanding of the recent budget decision

and how that is going to impact us as best as we know it, given that news just came out today. second is around understanding the budget solutions including cuts in reductions centrally and at school sights. and third, the path towards the budget and timing of the decision. i would like to turn it over to dr. matthews. >> thank you, commissioner lamb. good afternoon, everyone. good afternoon, members of the public. thank you for joining us this afternoon. as commissioner lamb just laid out, we have a robust discussion on tuesday night and the board had several questions and wanted to give -- had the opportunity to have more of a discussion around the budget and more detail so that we are here today the hope is that through the

questions that are asked, as well as the direction that the discussion goes in, it will give staff the opportunity to craft a budget so the board can pass this budget on july 1st next wednesday evening. with that, i would like to turn it over to the deputy superintendent who will lead us into this discussion and as i said, the one thing that i hope is at the end of this evening, at the end of the afternoon, we will have clarity around the direction that is most important and key. without that clarity we would return wednesday night and not be in the same place we were tuesday. we really need clarity around the direction. i appreciate the opportunity to

present and get that clarity. i will turn it over to the deputy superintendent now. >> thank you, dr. matthews. good afternoon commissioners and colleagues and community members i would like to start by wishing everyone a happy pride weekend. it is not like everyone had hoped, but it is worth noting nonetheless. happy pride, everybody. thank you commissioner lamb and dr. matthews for setting up the conversation. as a preface, we staff are a little unclear on what the right structure and content for this afternoon's discussion should look like. we were eco- -- eager to get some direction from commissioners about what you would like to see.

we were a little unclear about what would be the best fit for discussion from your perspective we took our best -- we made our best attempt at pulling together content surmising from the discussion on tuesday night. with that i hope you will bear with us. we put together a fair amount of information and some of it may interest some of you more than others, but, like i said, "we were trying to interpret from the discussions from tuesday night what would be of most interest and most relevant for this discussion today. let me go ahead and provide a little bit of a table of contents for the discussion that staff has prepared. there is three main buckets of information.

one is that we wanted to clarify the goals. we wanted to share information about the content of the budget and whether commissioners are members of the public expressing an interest in better understanding the budget. we wanted to provide an opportunity and we will do most of the presenting in this section to walk through the budget book. we are not entirely clear that everyone is familiar with the contents of the budget book. we wanted to spend a few minutes walking through highlights there and talking about the evolution of the projections over the past several months, which we know has been complicated. it has been an unusual year and it has taken a lot of

concentration to follow the storyline. so we wanted to recap that. we wanted to address questions and address very specific questions that commissioners have asked since the last meeting of tuesday night. we are happy to be able to share some reports and i think you'll be quite interested in them. with respect to what comes next as commissioner lamb and dr. matthews mentioned, it is important, as you discussed on tuesday night, to have a budget to submit to them. we want to make sure we identify any lingering questions and concerns and most importantly, from our perspective, the path forward to being able to adopt a budget. part of our presentation will frame the importance of that action being taken and what happens if it's not taken.

with that, let me turn it over to the magnificent and marie gordon who is going to walk through the highlights of the budget book and other information about the budget. [indiscernible] >> i'm sorry -- [indiscernible] >> your audio -- >> terrifying. >> there's something wrong with their -- your audio. >> it's terrifying. >> go out and come back in because it is a little scary. [laughter] >> it's like i am sci-fi. [laughter] >> wow.

we had our first zoom call and i did not know budget was such an exciting committee, you know? the staff is full of surprises. >> that was unplanned, commissioners. [laughter]. >> i thank you were trolling us. >> i haven't come across that particular snafu before, but hopefully she will join us in a second. while we are waiting for her to rejoin us, this is also for members of the public who are interested in these topics, too. we did repost on board documents there are a few attachments that will be on the agenda for this evening. one of them is the budget book for second reading and it is

also posted on the district's website, on the budget page of the district's website. what she will do is -- we will just pull out a few key elements from the budget book, but we do think that it is never perfect. the budget is confusing and complicated. that said, this document has been drafted to be helpful for the reader to get an introduction of the district's overall budget. in the first few pages there is an executive summary at a section about how to navigate the document, you know, literally how to engage with the document. the description of the structure of the document, how to navigate the tableau dashboard. we think that for anyone who is

interested, including commissioners, and really plumbing the depths of the exhibit and everything, if you haven't already looked at the document closely, we think that is a good investment of time to walk you through that. and we have been inviting for a while to have feedback. we have a request to meet and this is a good opportunity today to do it as a group. we do look at this document as a foundational reference point for the overall budget of the district. i don't know if mr. gordon has rejoined us. [laughter] >> you may have to call back in.

>> yeah,. >> since you are meeting and you just helped with the description of the documents on the board docs, i just want to go through it so the public and myself are also understanding what we are seeing. the first one is just the resolution and the reason why we are here, then it is the budget book we just shared. the next document attached is what -- it is a presentation you are going to show us. correct? >> actually, meghan, please chime in here. it looks like the third attachment that is supposed that is posted on board documents, the first page says june 23rd. what we want to show, or what we are about to go through in the document should say june 26th

on it. >> so the presentation that is attached is the june 23rd presentation? >> yes. >> so it would appear on the third attachment. >> does it happen to be -- are there any other attachments? i wanted to know if it was just included as a reference to the prior meeting. >> let's take a peek. >> i don't see any. >> i think it's just the wrong document that appears to have been posted. >> okay. >> we will swap that out in a moment. the fourth attachment is a p.d.f. of a word or google document document that includes questions from several of the past week and then the last

couple of documents are data reports. one of which, two of which you saw on tuesday night, which were related to site-based positions. >> correct. >> and then the last one is a new report, and this was requested by commissioner collins and commissioner lamb. we hope that is what those two commissioners had in mind. a comparison by job titles and job code between 19-20, and the budget year of 2021. that also contains a breakdown

of filled versus vacant positions. i think she was going to walk through those attachments in the presentation. >> the second to last two school site budget documents, one is all of the jobs, and one is by school site. >> correct. right. one of them has -- i think it is based on the same dataset, but one of them is sorted so you can see the impact by each school site and the other one aggregates the same information across the school sites by job title. >> thank you. >> is this any better?

>> yes. >> thank you. [laughter] >> i have never had that happen before. i am just here on my phone. >> it is probably your broadband >> that is probably what it is. >> sorry about that. i guess you are welcome for the entertainment. should i go ahead and get started? >> yes, thank you. >> awesome. good afternoon, everybody. thank you for bearing with me through the technical difficulty for today, i will start with a brief overview of the budget that is highlighting a few of the exhibits in the budget bank. the beginning of the budget book is a narrative and i think that is what was being shared as the format of the overall structure of documents. and starting around 29 pages in,

we have an exhibit. that is where i want to start today. in talking about what the budget actually is and what is actually -- what comprises our budget, our district operating budget is 849.1 million dollars for 2021 and it is broken up into the unrestricted general fund, restricted general fund, and a number of other funds that you see listed on the slide. in the budget book itself, we have -- this is shown in exhibie budget book. this is from nine a. nine b. has a little bit more of a specific detail for each component of the fund that you see here. on the next slide we have -- on

the next slide we will see the operating budget which is $135.8 million and it consists of the county general fund, special education and other county programming. going to the budget book our exhibits 11 and 12 the focus on the components of our county operating budget, including revenue. >> this is where we begin when we are talking about what our budget is. i do want to take a moment to dive in two schools. i brought back this visual that made its debut at a couple of the budget business service readings -- meetings earlier in the year, which have a framework of school support. as you can see and as we have

discussed in a lot of detail over the past couple of months,. [indiscernible] -- as well as in multiple ways from central office to court. this framework helps to begin the conversation about the latest formula and multitiered system of support and comprehensive review that we began this year. on the next slide, i brought back some findings and themes around school resource allocation that we shared at the december budget and business services subcommittee meeting. i will not read through the whole list, but in order to establish a mower car hearing vision around school resources, we use the experience to orient four core values, which you will

see on the next slide. those being equity, transparency , flexibility, and stability. one thing i do want to acknowledge about these values is that there can be some push and pull among them. for example, we have been talking a lot about transparency , and also stability and the contingency to mitigate unexpected changes and schools are not seeing drastic -- drastic shifts. sometimes owes go hand-in-hand with one another. in order for us to create a transparent system and a clear criteria, we may have to move forward with some change in order to restabilize under a transparent and coherent system. a lot of our discussion over the past couple of weeks have been -- i guess i did a recap of the

impact of the changes to the multitiered system of support. i do want to take one moment to come back around to the budget and the student formula. in addition to incorporating new ways and modifying some of the weighted student formula, we also implemented the baseline this year. the preferred baseline was the idea around the baseline services and programming that we would want the school to be able to implement. it was the way that we operationalize and monetize those different components and proposed baselines. the baseline is not given to a

school in terms of the positions that are lifted here, but in terms of dollars. the idea it is the minimum funding amount that a school should be able -- the minimum amount to be able to do things here with only at site dollars and promoting different decisions and what is listed here. they do have the dollars to do so. in our spring allocation, we had -- we have about nine schools that have the dollars exactly corresponding to the baseline and every other school actually has more than this baseline. nine are at this minimum and every other school, based on the dollars in our school have the capacity with their dollars alone to do more than what is lifted here -- listed here. next slide. back to the budget book. if you want to be able to dive

into of these details around school funding, we have three exhibits. eight, be and see they give you school by school detail about this formula and the multitiered system of support and central office managed allocations. [please stand by]

>> now these additional materials that you can see the two that are listed as updated. the position changes which is the school by school level, of school by school report, and

then the job summary is the overall across all of the schools. so, the update that we were able to make from tuesday until today was to get a little more specific around the job codes for positions like family liaisons and elementary advisors where we had initially not been able to go school by school and identify the very specific job code, so that has been updated in both of those reports. also, the new report combines -- it looks similar to the school report, but also includes information around vacant and filled positions at the central office. so i will say that the central office report is a little bit of a challenge to create.

we have a lot of school site positions, which we discussed on tuesday that are in central office and we don't always have a clear path to know that it is actually deployed to a school. so if you have questions about specific positions or would like any detailed follow up, this report is a very comprehensive first take that has been valida validated. the next step will include reaching out and confirming some of those details. so i will be handing it off to chief financial officer megan wallace. >> thank you ann marie. good afternoon everybody. so i'm going to take you all down for a walk down memory lane with regards to our budget process this year.

so to begin, you know, this is the calendar of our school year, fiscal year and back in october and into december, i started to come and report to the budget and business service committee, primarily about some issues that we were identifying in the current year budget, particularly in october when we closed the books for the prior fiscal year. we had found that we were starting the current fizz -- fiscal year with a lower fund balance than we built in our budget. later, going into december, i was able to provide more information around new costs or costs that we hadn't built into the budget. it's not that they -- >> excuse me. i'm sorry.

we consistently do reviews and i don't want to be rude and jenny let me know what you think. we constantly done a review of where we, how we got here and i want us to leave this up to commissioner lam, but i think we consistently spend about 30 minutes every meeting doing a review. i do think that's helpful for folks joining us, but i also wanted to beg the question commissioner lam. >> yes, commissioner collins is just level set for the staff, we'll get through to the dialog which is important. i think it is level setting for the public in case it's again for that revisit. megan, yeah, if you want to -- >> i can move quickly. >> yeah, thank you. all right. >> okay, so also in february was when we really started to dive in to looking at our historical

spending, relative to revenues and asking what happened? why are we finding ourselves out of the balance, and how is it that we're in this current year deficit and what's the trajectory for the path ahead. it was the february committee as a whole where i presented the out year projections for fiscal years 2021 and 2022. the primary take away here for the public that have asked about what the key drivers were of our change, the change and outlook, it was really stagnant. we're not seeing growth in those state revenues. that's being paired with rising expenditures, primarily on personnel, our pension contributions, and also on the

progr programmatic side, that we haven't built into our budget. we haven't been building that growth in our budget in the p t past, as well as other areas. it's just general operating costs. really flagging in years 2021-2022, we would be out of our rainy day reserve, which is supporting a living wage for educators act, salary increases. also in february, we came forward with our initial balancing plan to address approximately $50 million shortfall in fiscal year 2021. that did include sharing of reductions between central services and school sites, as well as looking for district wide solutions.

however, through a course of public feedback and input, the board's direction to staff is to have central services take on $22 million worth of target reductions. they did fill a $4 million reduction in their budget, however we had back filled that with plan dollars. i won't go into a lot of detail, but ultimately we restored those funds because of shortfalls and the budget. on top of that, looking for $34 million of district wide solutions. in april and may, we are still realizing the impacts of covid-19 but as the state government levels, the impacts were starting to be built into our financial forecasting. so, you can see here that on the

table, you see our original shortfall, building in the various target reductions and our overall balancing plan. we had $11 million in that budging plan that have yet to be solved for and we saw the lost of local revenues built into that forecast. then in june, that's when we actually built in the real state impact of having lost, not seeing the lost of coa but a 10% reduction under the governor's revised budget. that's where it ends, june, and talking about how we are going to balance the budget and also weighing in the factor that we knew that the state legislature was taking a different approach to the budget. we started to talk about the fact that we continue to see an

ongoing shortfall in the governor's revise, but in the event that l.c.f. should be restored, that ongoing shortfall would be significantly addressed, but none the less seeing up to $29 million for fiscal year 2021 that needed to be resolved. then further growing in that second year. so the budget that was submitted for the first reading actually built in that anticipated shortfall. the ongoing impacts of having lost lcff. that's why i wanted to share updated multi-year projections. having built in changes to the budget, i have another slide following this that goes into more detail. building in the factors of that

impro improved revenue outlook. we're now able to see a reduced impact. we possibly would want to revisit this slide because it's a key factor here. there are two key factors, but to highlight one, revenues have improved in this outlook, however, staff is recommending that we build in a reserve to address anticipated costs associated with reopening schools under the covid-19 environment. so with these adjustments, you can see the deficit projection for fiscal year 2021 is now 22.3 and looking at 65 and 75 million shortfall in the following fiscal years. so just as i stated verbally, here you can see this budget before you can based on the current budget agreement with the governor and the legislature

have come to an agreement because the governor has not yet signed the budget. we have many resources that provide input about various factors of the budget. we're still gathering information, but we have enough information to be able to build in these revenue assumptions. again, i assume that the stimulus funds from the federal government will be received. if not, then the state will go through a referral. we'll have enough to manage cash, but we will have the budget as anticipated. in this, with no coa, so that brings us to a $530 million lcff assumption. i built that out in this multi-year production for ongoing into the second and third years. so the great news, which i know is a key driver of a lot of the

positive reactions to the state's budget is in large part due to these learning loss funds. this is a very significant amount of $45.3 million that we can anticipate coming to our school district. 23.1 of that is based upon our lcff, so it adds $165 per a.d.a. additionally 13.9 million for students with disabilities. 8.3 million based on our proportion of supplemental and concentration grant funding. so that is excellent news, but it still doesn't address our shortfall when you take into account our local revenue loss due to covid-19. an anticipated $27 million cost to reopening schools and the structural imbalanced we

originally talked about over the course of this fiscal year. i do want to highlight some major expenditure changes that also occurred during first reading. we received a green light to go ahead and find savings in the expenditure and transportation. there is a $2 million cost that we had to add to our budget, but there were staff that were cut from school sites, but they cannot be laid off and they haven't been placed in new positions yet. so these positions haven't previously been budgeted. those are now built into our forecast for fiscal year 2021. it's mentioned the reserve for covid-19 costs and with those things taken in account, balancing the new revenue, we're still looking at a $22 million remaining imbalance and 65

million and 75 million in the multi-year projections. i want to emphasize how important it is to look at those out years because it is the standard on how the california department of education looks at our budget. they want to see we're taking those additional years into account. sorry about that. okay. with that i'm going to hand it over to the deputy director. >> thank you megan. actually, i'm sorry about this but i noticed on one of the previous slides, just a bit of a mix up in terms of the amounts versus the labels on the learning loss funds. so if we could scroll back to slide 23. i want to get this on the record and we'll clean it up in the

document. i'm sorry chief wallace, i didn't notice this before. the 23 million, where it says based on lcfs, and the 8.3 million based on supplemental grants, those numbers are reversed. it should be 8.3 million of the funds are distributed proportionately to lcfs as a whole, and then 23 million distributed on the basis of supplemental and concentration grants. so that's just a technical -- it was just reversed on this slide. so all of these funds are one time funds, a special one time fund that was included in the final budget agreement. they're just being allocated through three different techniques and they total up to

very helpful amount of about $45 million. okay, so we wanted to next, we're hitting around the home stretch of our presentation. so we wanted to clarify a few questions that came up on tuesday evening. one of them had to do with educators. we heard from many community members and employees and other community members that expressed concerns about how the budget, the impact of the budget, the recommended budget, with respect to para educators. so we wanted to provide a bit of clarification and bit of additional information on this topic. i believe chief wallace on tuesday evening clarified that there are not cuts to f.t.e.s for our para educators in the

special education program. on those positions, they're increasing modestly, about nine f.t.e.s. we also typically see that during the course of a year, as more students are assessed and identified with i.e.p.s, there are typically growth in the number of pair educators. there is capacity built in for that trend. on the other hand, with other classifications outside of special education and we know there has been discretion about family liaisons and elementary advisors, among others, there were some consolidations through the spring both at the school level and in some cases, some social services departments as

departments trying to meet budget savings targets to align to the overall reductions that we had to make. in the meantime, no para educators have been laid off. they are still employed by the district and in order to be laid off, para educators would need to be -- lay off action would have to be approved by the aborted -- board of education. we haven't brought such an action to the board and we had some discussions about that. this last piece is a new information. the total cost of those consolidations that resulted in unbudgeted positions is a little less than $2 million, so for the purposes of the discussion today, the multi-year projections that chief wallace mentioned includes $2 million of costs that so far have not been budgeted. so that $22 million gap in

f.y.2021 including $2 million or just under $2 million of cost that in our previous presentations were not included as expenditures to reflect that position if they are not going to be reduced through layoffs or absorbed through attrition, then those costs would be added to the expenditures. so, just wanted to mention that. >> can you clarify -- i'm confused if you could restate that. i'm sorry. >> yes, certainly. so, maybe if we could go back to -- let's see. if we can go back to slide 22. so if you look at the second row

where it says total expenditures, $636.5 million, that includes for the purposes of this presentation and this discussion, that includes about $2 milli $2 million -- position costs, salaries and benefits that are associated with consolidated positions in the para educator bargaining unit that school sites and/or central services department have consolidated. so, those weren't included in the budget so far. it's the discussion that has taken place and particularly the amount of discussion and the nature of the discussion that took place on tuesday based on conversations with the

superintendent, as we were debriefing that discussion, he felt it was appropriate for this conversation to add those costs back to the expenditure projections, so that they're now included in that $636 million and otherwise if that wasn't reflected, then the deficit at $22 million at the bottom would be $2 million smaller. so it would be -- >> so i would say in layman's terms, for the purposes of this discussion, there are no para professional layoffs or para professional cuts listed in the discussion for today. i just want to make sure that's clear. >> you made an adjustment based on feedback? this is just really confusing and i'm feeling like i know sometimes when i'm trying to say something, i think i'm clear and

maybe i'm not hearing it. so did you -- is this a change from last week and you incorporated that input and putting it back in and now like -- if we weren't to cut them, is that what you are saying? >> yeah -- definitely based on feedback. i'm trying to understand what you just said. based on feedback and the discussion, from the discussion from tuesday night as well, there was a lot of discussion around balancing the budget on the backs of paraprofessionals and lot of comments to that effect. you can see the amount of the deficit. what we wanted to do is focus the discussion on the deficit and how we close the deficit as opposed to what the conversation and the comments of trying to balance the budget. you can see it's not.

even if it's 2 million, it's not trying to balance the entire budget on the backs of paraprofessionals. we wanted to make sure that the conversation is focused on how do we close this hole, this budget deficit without it being entirely entirely focused on one unit of the organization. >> so if we prove this, we would be 22 million in the hole? and it includes the folks that have gotten consolidation letters this spring. they weren't to be laid off. >> yes, that's correct. >> thank you. >> and we recognize this is a little bit complicated, so thank you for assisting with that clarification. so picking back up on slide 27.

the next several slides really talk about the importance of the board passing a budget, that is balanced. so in some of this we eluded to, but i don't think we presented these specific details. so, this will just take a few minutes. i wanted to go through some of the regulatory and legal requirements. so the question is what happens if the board doesn't pass a budget and just to provide some background, districts have to file a budget, have to submit a budget, typically to their county office by july 1 # --st. so in this case and this is often the case. the date, the relevant date is july 1st, that's the date that we've been talking about including on tuesday evening. as a point of clarification,

school districts over the 1,0 1,000-plus districts, there are only a few of us that don't fall under the county office of education. typically school districts submit their budgets to their county office and in our case, where there is one administrative body, one governing body that functions both as the school district and the county office, the oversight is performed -- the oversight that would typically be performed by a county office is performed by the california department of education. so they act as the county office for our district in this case. so, the next slide talks about what happens if a district, if our district doesn't pass a budget. so the first item is that if the school district does not submit a budget, and these code

provisions refer to the county office. as i just mentioned, the state would play this role in our case. it will at the district's expense, develop a budget by september 16th and transmit the budget to the governing board of the school district. so basically they will take over, prepare a budget, and then let us know, including the board of education know what is contained in the budget. the state will also withhold a portion of the state and county money for any district that neglects or refuses to make the school district budget and the county superintendent in this case, again the state is also authorized not to approve warrants for these districts, meaning paying the cash that we would otherwise receive. finally the state superintendent may direct the county auditor to withhold payment to district

superintendents, governing school members. we know that board of education commissioners don't receive large stipends for your service, but i wanted to mention that this is specifically called out as a consequence, or a potential consequence of not submitting a budget. then the next few slides talk about the different types office cal certifications and what happens if a district is in something other than a positi positive fiscal certification. basically there are three categories of physical health in the eyes of the state or the county offices. one is most typical, and this is the one we've been in for many years is a positive certification. the district self certifies and the state confirms in their

judgment that the district will meet its obligation, financial obligations for the current year and two subsequent years. in this case what we're talking about is fy-2020-2021, the budget year, and then the two following years. a -- >> i'm sorry, this is not what i was asking for. >> commissioner collins, please -- i know that we're in our final stretch here so we're going to wrap up and then staff presentation. we'll head into public comment and then we will have our time for the dialog with the commissioners. so superintendent lee, are you close to the final? >> i'll make it fast.

>> this is a link from the legislative office with more details and for negative certification, the state can stay or rescind local governing board action and won't read all of these words here, but, basically, this is when the state takes jurisdictional authority in place of the governing board and so, basically, eliminating local control by the governing board.

and that last statement -- this is just a quote from the report, that the boards have a greater incentive not to take action that would result in the district not meeting their obligations in the future. so it says contain local control so these are just our closing thoughts. if commissioners have any questions, we are happy to go through think of the reports and most importantly, we do feel compelled to point out that we have to identify ongoing savings and that the state will -- they notified us through chief wallace they are taking a close look at the budget assumptions and hopefully, we'll be in a position to recommend the budget

that you can approve next wednesday. i should say, it's not stated in these slides, but it is our thinking that we should leave open the likely possibility of amending the budget within 45 days of the govern signing the budget, which we mentioned in the last week, week and a half. that's continuing changes in the revenue and not to mention collective bargaining and very importantly, the continuing clarity that we build -- that we have to build in terms of school restarting and the specific operational costs related to that and we think all of those variables, even though we now have a state budget agreement, that those variables which are still falling into place will point towards the option, taking

the option to recertify the budget in the first half of august. with that, i will consider us wrapped up. >> thank you so the finance team for your work and your presentation and so at this time, i do want to open it up to public comment. and i do want to limit the public comment i opened up the meeting with. i would like to set the time for 20 minutes and one minute per speaker. >> ok, one minute, 30 here and please raise your han i hand ifu would like to speak to the budget presentation given. then you'll have one minute to

speak. >> question: i'm the leader of the local 21 at the sfusg. improve have a quick question. i know it was stated that the paras will be saved from the lay-offs, which i think is a great thing, but i was wondering abouif the paras are safe, who s also safe or not going to be safe? that's the question i had. thank you.

>> there will be cutbacks in administration and that would be clarified and also with -- and our concern -- i had a question about what expenditures that were from special ed were. what were they? we were concerned they may have

been crag to pay for private schools. what were the unexpected expenditures? they can still be laid off if that's the way they choose to balance the budget, so we are concerned about the para educators. thank you. >> thank you. >> how much oversight is on

human resources to make sure this is placed before a budget crisis before you hire temporary teachers because i'm noticing a lot of temporary teachers hired in a budget crisis. and i would love to have some clarity about how you receive human resources. this would allow lay offs betweelay-offsbetween now and at would legally allow.

because if he suspended that section, my understanding that it should have been done by march 15th and ma maybe there will be consolidations but i'm confused how there can be lay offs. >> helhello, kay. >> this is kay holmes, librarian, i was concerned about all of the different places where it looked like funding would be changed from peace to something else, particularly when there was no mention of a librarian or art teachers. the other thing i was concerned about is what about the class size since we can only have kids six feet apart? so i would like that to be

considered. thank you.

>> sometimes they're still offered a position and i wept wt

from a full-time para to be monitored with significantly less hours and so, it would be great if we could see if that's happening because that's effectively a cut. >> thank you. hello, megan. >> i wanted to sort of make a point about the clarity of understanding positions in the district. it was great to see the list of positions being cut so we can have a better understanding, but i think it's not acceptable to the general public when we just use codes and abbreviated titles and it would be important to have a description when even our

board commissioners may not know the difference between a curriculum special and computer science teacher or a resource teacher i want to make sure

we're not looking to tuck this in to balance our budget. >> hello. >> hi, i'm just curious, why are the numbers that are reflected and i know paras are safe but we

talk about equity and i don't see where there are an equitable cut and so could you show us how much is cut from the top if we're distributing these cuts >> i know president sanchez may have to leave early and i would like us to go in a couple of rounds where each commissioner can ask questions and we can have dialogue for five minutes and carry that on through a couple of rounds until we feel like those questions and anticipations have been addressed.

president sanchez, i'll open up with you. >> this will work out. but i appreciate the superintendent coming back with revisions around paraeducators and for clarifying, which jean robertson was trying to do last tuesday, around special education paraeducators. cutting from the top and prior to that, the discussion around furloughs, i think we should acknowledge that furloughs might be a part of the discussion and if it does happen, that there's a disproportionate allocation of

furloughs. for example, if you're making x amount of money, you'll get a certain amount of money compared to people making less than that. if we're going to have to have furloughs, which have been negotiated, that they're disproportionate. i made that point before, but i want to reiterate that. thank you. >> can i make a suggestion? >> about process? not about this. >> ok, so we have -- we could have a variety of questions and normally we do it commissioner by commissioner and i was hoping to focus in if the commissioner has a question and then, we can engage in that specific topic and we can get a resolution of some kind of agreement and then move on to the following

question they might have or another commissioner. we're actually kind of doing it by topic that way and then we can get, like, a resolution for staff. >> what i'm suggesting is this leads to this being a jerky conversation and it doesn't get to a resolution and we're trying to get to a clarity for staff so they can have a clear directive. i'm suggesting as far as process goes, we focus on individual

issues. >> thank you for your proposal. i will recommend in hi opening around three buckets of area and we can have discussion. we see this poe jecte this proje

state budget decision and second was around clarification or understanding about budget solutions including cuts and reductions both centrally and at school sites. third, if there are any remaining questions around just overall process-wise, as a district of responsibility. >> i don't want us to be discussing stuff that we've been misunderstanding.

>> the number is correct, it's 4.7 and you can see the revenues are greater than expenditures.

>> i don't get it. >> we were on that slide and i was looking at it. [ laughter ] >> second clarified question, so the beginning fund balance is 18.9 million for each of the out-years. is that correct? if you carry forward the deficit, it compounds and gets bigger. in the prior presentation, i showed the year over year change so people could see that number and i think it's harder to digest.

this is more of a way to dial in on the deficit amount. >> i wanted to make sure i was understanding that, so that makes sense.

>> so my question now is -- generally what has happened in the past, right, when we're presented with a proposed budget is that the cuts are already baked in, so we see the multiyear projection and usually we see the three years of negative and there are specific strategies to apply to bring that down to be a balanced budget, right? (please stand by)

>> and then, there's now $22.3 million that it sounds like what you're saying for next year for us, you're saying we can't get there without -- without some concessions from our labor partners is basically what i'm hearing. is that -- sk >> i mean, yeah. i mean, that's coming from my perspective, we did go through and identify ways to save within central services. and we certainly can be pushed to look for more savings, but i think at some point, we all need to have a reality check that it is going to impact schools, that if we're asking h.r. to cutback, we're going to

see a slower response to hiring and other services. if i ask to cutback, we're going to see further issues with payroll or addressing financial reporting. technology, we're seeing a demand, actually, for more resources. so i think if there is an ask for central services to take more, you know, just please recognize that there will be service delivery impacts to school sites. and so taking an attitude that yes, let's be equitable, i think we will have a time where we're all called to the table to find a way to close out at least this coming fiscal year

and also bake in some of those assumptions of being two- and three-year givebacks at least as we go through the process of a longer term strategy of figuring out our budget. >> and i don't know if it's possible to post or to remind us of those lists of cuts that have already been -- because the problem, i think right now, is it does look lop sided based on the documentation that's been provided. like, there's been all of these other cuts that have been made, you know, as -- as the staff has been going through the budget process, but those don't show up in the documents to -- you know, then, what the public is reacting to is the balancing option that just talks about labor, but it's not reminding us about the budget cuts that have already happened, and

that's important for us to be clear about, so i'm just saying that, you know, that that is one of the things, and i think that's why we're hearing anger, because it does look lop sided. and maybe there are further cuts that need to be made from central office. i'm not taking a position on that, but i'm saying it doesn't look right now, based on what's been provided because you're showing us after the cuts have already been made. am i clear on that? so that's just a recommendation, that it would be important to remind everybody of the reductions that have already been made throughout the process. and just my loast question is, so basically, what you're proposing is that we would send to the state on july 1, assuming this board votes for it, and there's a lot of, you know, a lot of bad things that

happen if we don't -- i get that, but assuming we vote for this, we can send the state a budget that says we're going to be asking for these concessions from our labor partners, so those add up to x million in reductions this year and in out years so we can balance the budget sort of prospectively before those actual budgets would be negotiated? >> mm-hmm. we can indicate in our report to c&e that we're under negotiations. i imagine that report is typically noted in reports for salary negotiations. in this, we're clearly asking for savings, and all the more reason our book is accompanied

with documentations of our major assumptions, and i would kind of like to layout an action plan for how we're going about those negotiations. the rubber really hits the road, so to speak, by the time we're doing our first interim report that if we're not seeing that come into fruition, and we can't certify that we're seeing the savings in the current fiscal year, then we would need to certify or qualify ourselves as negative. >> okay. thank you. >> just, if i may, commissioners, just one -- two additional comments. one is that prior to the interim report, if, indeed, we are in a position to recommend a recertified budget in sort of the early part of august, that would then be another opportunity for an update that would be submitted to c.b.e.

a -- c.d.e. and frankly, between now and then, we will learn about c.d.e.s with respect to this budget. they may say yes, this is sufficient, and we'll go ahead and recertify or they may say no, this isn't sufficient, and you won't have a certification because the reductions are still too speculative. so we don't have complete information about the perspective that they'll take, so we will learn in the coming weeks about their assumptions. the other thing i want to say -- this is about your comments, commissioner norton, about the central office cuts not being available in this presentation. you're right.

we don't have all the details, but they were included in the committee of the whole presentation from -- was it last tuesday? in t latter part of the slides? >> was it only last tuesday? >> well, i think it was a week or ten days ago, and we have included a number of times this spring those inclusions. so maybe we should include them effort we make a presentation. >> i mean, because there may be a couple of members of the public that may not be paying attention -- they're working, they have things to do -- i think it's important -- and to remind us, as well. it's important that we see it. i remember seeing it, but off the top of my head, i can't tell you what the reductions

were. >> yeah. okay. is my audio working normal still? okay. i was going to ask, i just wrote down kind of a quick list of what those reductions have been that i thought maybe just as a reminder i could share. incorporated into the central office budgets for 2021, we have $16 million worth of reductions, which is equivalent to approximately 6% across central office, so $16 million. originally, in february, we were -- we had also proposed a $10 million cut to schools, which we then did away with, and 7 -- but 7b z$7 million of

that, we said we can backfill that. then, covid-19 happened, and we lost that $10 million gap that we were looking to offset, so that made things a little bit more murky than they had been back in february and march. but apart from that $7 million, we have an additional $3 million of nonpersonnel that, right now, is a line item that we're planning to take additional nonpersonnel reductions, and then as of about two weeks ago, we had the $3 million worth of libraries, arts, and music cuts, and $4 million of savings in transportation. so i think that's a quick -- a quick list of the things that have been built in. we also have had, this last year, the presentation of the expenditure plan, which reported a little more on those lost revenues which resulted in small reductions to the piece

pr programs. >> so just to be super, super clear of what you're saying, so the budget book reflects $14 nil i don't kn million of cuts, and that reflected central office and operations, and $3 million in further cuts and $3 million in transportation cuts, so then, another $3 million that are not offerings at sites but are central office positions, or what is that $3 million in slam reduction? >> i would have to go back to the slides from tuesday to give

you the exact details. i can pull that up, but the priority was, like, not school positions. so i don't know, megan, if you have that off the top of your head more available, but if not, i can pull it up to see what the impacts were. >> and i think -- not to belabor the point, but i also just think it would be helpful to remind everybody, you know, of the -- like, central office represents -- like, what we're calling central office represents x% of the district's unrestricted general fund budget. maybe it's not u.g.f., but when we talk about central sites, like, it's true that central office has many higher paid people than work at sites, but at the same time, it's a much

smaller number of people than the people that work at sites. is there a way to quantify that? >> yeah, i think i actually might have something at quick reference, so just one moment, please. and, of course, my computer's going to think here for a minute, so -- >> we can -- if you want to move on, commissioner lam, and, as well, if you want to just come back, like, at another moment, pull that up, so you're not -- >> it's all right. i actually do have it really quickly, if you would like. that across nonpersonnel -- or, i guess, encompassing all categories of spending, that -- actually, let's go ahead and move on. i want to make sure that i'm

moving at the filters correctly. >> so at least $23 million in central office reductions, and that $3 million for s.l.a.m. might be on top of that or not. we haven't characterized that exactly. is that accurate to say? >> yes. i can -- and i -- yes, and i was going to say, if anyone has a budget book open, exhibit 5 has a good breakdown of -- of school-based support versus administrative and operational services, so it -- the school-based support section is both school budget and central office that are deployed to sites. >> great. thank you so much. >> the percentages are a little off because we're showing a deficit there, too, but there's a pie chart there that'll give you a sense of the magnitude. >> thank you. >> commissioner collins, did you have any topics that you wanted to address? >> thank you.

so i just wanted to say, number one, i really, really appreciate the reports that have been generated, and i feel like there's several that, you know, when i was the budget chair when i gone, i think, you know, i was really trying to focus in on peef, and i feel really positive looking at how that is evolved. i think we've gotten a lot more transparency in that process, and a lot more clarity. and i think in this process, doing way to student formula, and then, we looked at schools and how to make that clear, and so i really want to credit annemarie and megan, but i think annemarie was holding specifically all of that stuff, just holding all of that stuff, how we're going to clean that up. i do appreciate annemarie and megan in terms of, like,

talking through -- like, you guys came on and took on the way we do things or the way we've been doing things for a really long time and trying to clean things up, and i see that. even in terms of the answers i had of why are some things in one bucket and another thing in another bucket. and the chief's question of why are things funded in multiple ways? like, making it easy to understand, like, how do we pay things out of one bucket -- so just looking at that, i appreciate that. it's a year, and it's a lot of work, but we're miles ahead of where i think we've ever been in the district. and that's on top of having a budget deficit and also covid

and having this kind of economic -- it's like a roller coaster. and so these two additional chi chiefs that we have, i think they're also really amazing. the job code and being able to look site by site, i think it's really helpful. i think when we look at budget decisions, we can look at the site. we can go back to, and think about looking at programming versus what do schools get. so i guess i have specific questions. one of them is, on the m.t.s. desk, when you talk about the baseline with, like, the weighted student formula -- and obviously, that's teachers, principals, a weighted student formula, if i could just get

information that there is a weighted baseline for every public school? i don't know if, -- if you could send that out because i keep two screens going at the same time. >> yes, commissioner. it was added to board docs, the one that we're going through now. >> okay. i'm looking at that. was it added in. >> it's definitely up there, commissioner. i found it. >> it's the last one. >> okay. i reloaded it. >> slide nine. >> okay. thank you. so we're looking at it. so slide 9 is -- all right. so i think what's really helpful in terms of process, and this whole process, i'll just be honest, it is been -- this whole process -- this has been really hard because i

think we're like a ping pong because, like, we're all going back and forth with what's happening in sacramento, and we're all just trying to feed people and just deal with distance learning and do everything. so, like, all of us have been working, like, beyond. but part of this process has been feeling -- like, what's effective to me is speaking to documents. so when you give a presentation or a report, that's really helpful. it grounds our conversation, and when we have a meeting and public comment, and oh, did they cut paras or did they not cut paras? let's see what the data is and is that true or not true, and we can dispel it. it's facts. it's not like somebody called me from this school or that school. i'd love if we could run our meetings like that, because instead of us all just having conversation, speaking to the

text is what we say in english -- in english classes. so for -- you said slide number nine is the weighted student formula. we have one principal, and this elementary schools get a half of an admin partner, is that correct? >> yeah. they get -- and it's all in terms of the dollars, so it's not like you -- [inaudible] >> it would pay for the .5? >> it would pay. >> okay. and if it's larger than a certain number, then they might get a full-time admin partner? >> yeah, correct. larger than 400. >> okay. so what would they spend that on if they don't spend it? like, i don't -- people, like, do they have a half aide or assistant principal or what are schools spending that on? >> yeah. so i was going to say, i don't think there are that many halftime assistant principals. i would say in a situation like

this, a school could ask for -- see, it's an admin partner, so the school could internalize, is that a principal, is that a facilitator, is that something? the thinking behind this is there is some flexibility with how to implement. and i think another thing in looking at kind of this comprehensive picture is that this is what a school can -- will be able to support with its site funds only, and a lot of times their some dynamics, for example, if a school has central allocations or tiers or other supports. >> so i appreciate that, and i guess -- so these are the assumptions, right? like, you gave an assumption of, like, if it's, like, i was to go to a restaurant. and you gave an example of if i wanted to go to, like, this restaurant, it would cost so

much. you're making some general assumptions, like, if i get a salad for lunch, it would cost this much, or if i go for dinner and get filet mignon, it would, like, be that much. i'm saying we all need teachers, and there's a set number of kids in the class that's, like, a max. it's guaranteed by the contract, right, by the general -- and even just common practice. and then, we're assuming a .5 social worker for everybody, and then, nonstaff, there's a general, like, portion -- a portioned amount for supplies and jenna portioned amount for p.d., right? and i guess the -- and this is not you because i think it's

not your -- you're not a -- a principal or whatever, and you can have conversation. but i'm wondering who decided this? like, who decided what's baseline because i have an idea of what i think is a baseline for a school, and it might be different from president sanchez, and it might be different from commissioner norton? and principals all have different opinions, and so part of the problem that we've been having in all these conversations is that we've never defined what it is at the baseline, and i think we're constantly hearing, also have site staff, and especially, like, special education teachers, and, like, we need certain things in order to, like, function. so their idea of what is not extra but, like, what is required to function -- each individual's teacher might have a different idea, but we've never involved community or

even had a conversation among the board of what that is. and i don't think that's your job because you're not -- it's not your specific job into it because it's each of our individual jobs to be assuming in our own head. that's where we're coming up with the specific conflict because in our mind, those cuts were inaccessible because in our minds, we were assuming things they didn't articulate. so i think the bigger problem is we've never defined what is the baseline, what is the basic needs of a school? and i'll say what personally mine is. but it's not up to me because this is something that we all have to cocreate, right? because i believe in cocreating things. but if it's just me, and i'm externalizing that, i'm going to say we need a principal, we

need teachers, and, depending on the size of the school, a part-time social worker and also a part-time nurse. and for other schools, like, depending on the school and this is where we get into the ntss, you know, family liaisons, you know, student advisors. for some schools, that is a baseline for them, and so my biggest problem for me, and we're not going to fix it today, as a baseline project, we need to fund the baseline of the schools first, and then, we need to do our budgeting. and the way i approach this -- and i'm involved in this. i'm not saying that somebody didn't do something. like, we're trying to do things

differently, and we're getting there, but the way we ultimately need to be doing things is we need to fund schools first, and we all need to agree on what that baseline is, and then, we pay for everything else. and what it seems like what we've been doing is try to fiddle with the system and make changes here and there, and i do think we've made improvements. we've made things more transparent, which is good, but when it comes to actually making decisions about what we fund, i don't think we're funding based on our priority, which we say is student centered. and if student-centered is -- for me, just operationally, it means what's around the child, and that's the school that's the first kind of -- that's the mechanism of delivering services is school site staff. and then also, there's back-end staff and supervisorial staff

and staff -- custodial staff. i think people are saying we can't function if we don't have certain things. and honestly, we may not be able to approve a budget -- i want to say this to the public, as well. we may have make cuts that i think are unacceptable because as it's been said and belabored and oversaid, we don't want the state to take over. i worked in a district where the state took over, and there's no board of ed, there's no public -- you know, public has no say in anything. it's the state, and that's not not acceptable to me and not acceptable to anybody. so if i have to pass a budget that i hate, i'm going to do that over the state taking us over, and i think we all need to just stomach that, and i'm going to say it straight up. like, we might have to cut site staff, and we're going to have to cut programs, and just that's where we're at because families are doing that with

their family budgets. we're all doing it. so, you know, i'm not going to promise to say there's no cuts anywhere, but i do -- i do feel like i'm still not clear, and the community is still not clear on, you know, how these decisions were made, and, you know, about what the baseline is, and -- and as far as -- you know, if we're -- if we agree that the student is the center, right? [please stand by]

>> we just said we are cutting here, but that hasn't been a conversation. you know what i mean. people don't know why. even if we are creating efficiencies in some ways, and those are smart, that is part of this problem with the public. even with the board is that we are not all on board because we are not all clear.

i think these are helpful, but i think having a report, you know just as far as process, a report is easy to read. this information is in different spaces. if you guys could put together a summary of cuts, that would be really helpful. some of them, like we need to make cuts. we need to be able to explain to the public this is going to cut this thing, this is how many positions or this is where you are going to feel the impact. this is what is going to happen. this is what it means. or this is the rational and how we will meet the need or we are not able to provide the service we used to do. that is something i would like to see when we sign the budget on wednesday. i will sign whatever it is, even if i fight to amend it after the

fact, that will be helpful for all of us to have. additionally, i guess as far as like central office, i would like to look at central office if you could pull that up so we can talk to it. the central staffing summary that is on the chart. can you pull that up? >> i can do that.

>> i can briefly answer your question about the base while meghan is pulling up the document. we began looking at the way for the baseline starting with the actual where the prior formula baseline was before. we started with, you know, with formula was introduced which helped bring here 20 years ago, i think. we wanted to start with the work done to establish that baseline, recognizing the review was to review. look at where things changed about our values and how to support students. a lot of the conversation about the baseline was actually

facilitated by depth superintendent in collaboration with many of the superintendent, we need the instructional chiefs including curriculum and instruction, early education. it was focused in the preliminary design in central office, but very much facilitated by deputy superintendent and asking the same questions you are asking what is it that, understanding what schools get and things like that. >> i appreciate that and at the same time that is kind of a problem. not to say that, you know, that has to happen. i am not involved in that process and neither was site staff. there wasn't a collaborative

process around that. when you just tell me what i got, that is not the sort of practices to do with and not for. i think it is just a culture. i have the deepest respect for deputy superintendent and all of the folks in central office, but, you know, it is a flawed -- that is flawed as far as process goes. if you want to design a program for somebody, you have to do it with them. we heard that with the apac. they said do it with us. you can't do it for us. this was built for schools, not with them. with the people who do the work on the ground. going forward after we, you know, approve this which we have to do at some point, i think i would like to initiate a process

of looking at engaging with site staff and parents, also, in deciding what is the baseline budget for a school. obviously with the expertise of central office, i appreciate you saying that. this is a long meeting already. i was hoping i could get to the central office position. >> this is just the link. this is the specific one you were looking for, commissioner. >> i want the public to see it so we are all talking with the

same reference. when we scan through here, i appreciate this. we can see year to year. another commentter brought up in a previous meeting was lead staff. i am wondering if somebody can find data not in here. i don't know if you can go to the lead section. there was a comment that said there was a rejection based on this year. the previous year in 2018 there was a huge jump. if you look over two years, it is not a cut. i wonder if you could tell me what it looks like lead right now says we have in 2019 to 2020 it is 35 positions. that is this year. next year proposed is 33 positions. i was wondering if you could tell me what 2018 to 2019 was as

far as overall lead staffing. >> i don't have that available. >> can somebody loo look for it? i want us to have meetings that are more collaborative. i understand i am trying to shift the way we do things as a district and that also means not just like in the classroom. it means how we do meetings. that means less formal, less top down, and more about dialogue than about presentation. if i ask a question it would be great if i could have an answer and i would love to hear from other commissioners what they think about that. if you could get me that information. just this one thing, i would

love it if we could do this with the whole thing. i don't think people would tolerate that. i don't think people would be able to tolerate it. lead keeps coming up as far as leadership, the central office, what cuts with we making? i would love to have a dialogue about that one item. >> i know the answer. it is because the staffing. [ inaudible ] >> that was the increase from 18-19 to 1920 as the program. >> what is the number in 2018 to 2019? the number of lead staff? >> how much did it increase?

>> yes, f.t.e. 2018-2019? >> i have it broken out by all of the specific cohorts within lead, but the closer there is an increase. it looks like increase of 4 f.t.e.s. >> is it on the 2018 actuals? >> i am looking at last year's budget book in exhibit 6. it shows by specific department the number of f.t.e.s that are paid for with the general fund. it is pretty much all on the general fund.

>> this year we have 35.1 f.t.e., full-time staff positions that we are paying for. >> sorry. can you ask that again? >> lead, what is the total number of f.t.e. positions for 2018-2019? >> in addition to your lead question, did you have remaining topics or do you want me to -- i can ask commissioners? >> she can get to that. i can come back. i am fine with that.

>> commissioner lopez. >> thank you. i have been keeping tabs on people's time. i will use the same amount if that is okay. just to clarify. my overall idea is to make this clear. i know my responsibility and what my vote is going to be on wednesday because i understand the consequences if we don't pass this. what i am very appreciative of is these consistent and constant conversations. it is a lot of work on everyone's end to clarify and make this budget as transparent as possible. i say that because as a learner the way i take in this information is not accessible to my learning style. this is very u frustrating. my job is to educate the public.

i have to have this background. i am seeing all of the work that is going in and the work that we are asking you to do and we are doing on our end to make that as clear as possible, but also like to a lot of the points that have been made this is a very high level way we budget. it really should be flipped. i am looking at all of the school budgets. my questions are around that. in that piece there is like seven different pots that we pull from for the school community. to the point of commissioner collins for some time now. the baseline structure what the school looks like is something we have to honor given everything we have been hearing from the public and demands that we keep getting.

if our priority is to uplift and make sure that every one of our students is successful that means the school sites have these people in these positions prioritized over other ones. when they are cut we make the decision after that is set. to begin with my question, i had a lot around the formula, mtsf and central office. to be very transparent, that is all of those pieces is what contribute to our school site budget, correct? >> contribute to our schools? >> yes. >> okay. i am looking at the school site budget and that is when you have

the principals and teachers, the basic stuff. in the mtsf that is the other extras, the social workers, coaches, counselors but in looking at the school sites we know and looking at exhibit 8b we know they don't all have that, right? so that is like for me we have these positions set. we are saying that our schools need it. the schools need to be represented in this way and supported in this way, but it is clear that given the circumstances not all schools have all of these positions set, right? then the next piece exhibit 8b, the central office stuff that supports all of these other important positions peer resources, wellness coaches, and

on the curriculum instruction side all of these things not prioritized at our schools, right? i just want to name that. again, like these positions exist. we are not prioritizing them in our baseline. when we look at the pot of funding that it comes from, i know it is mtsf, centrally funded and the student formula. is that restricted, unrestricted, how does that all workout? my question is if we are be beginning with the weighted student formula is that restricted or unrestricted funds or a mix? >> the resources in the weighted student formula are unrestricted. if you are looking at exhibit 8a the headers are really small.

at the top it has a list of the resource codes. every resource beginning with 0 is unrestricted resource. you will see about halfway along the chart you will see a couple of resources beginning with a different number like a 1 or the art allocations and pe allocations that the majority of what schools see in their site budgets is unrestricted. >> okay. that is in the school site budget? >> yes. >> that is unrestricted? and this is what i mean by like it being confusing. i just saw four different sources of funding to help our schools. when we say defund these areas, then we defund the school sites. that is a problem, right?

so i don't know if there is a way money from schools comes from one place and take care of that and figure out the rest after that. that is a goal of mine. moving on -- >> may i speak to one thing that comes to mind when you describe that. funding and mtsf are two mechanisms forgetting resources to schools. they are largely unrestricted. in funding that allocation is more to their discretion of how they use them, mtsf is given to them given upon or method for determining which site receives which service. central allocation is another methodology. each of those kind of has when you say unrestricted, you can

either think unrestricted general funds. if we cut it would would achieve savings but there is another level of restriction. it is to the degree the school site has decision-making power over how they use those funds. i want to kind of like think about in terms of type of money versus the allocation and how much flexibility the site has to make decisions. >> who created that restriction? where did that rule come from? is it state law? is funding from mtsf have to be for this and it is not to use it? where did that come from? this is a question for my own understanding. i know we had to get from three

pots to fund the ap. it was a lot of mixing of money. this is why this is so confusing. >> may i make a suggestion related to this set of questions? the graphic organizer on slide 6 of the main presentation you have been going through. maybe that will be helpful to refer back to because it does capture both the distinctions and the complementary relationship between the site-based budgeted funds and centrally allocated resources, and within the site-base -- resources it depicts the fact there are multiple funding sources. i don't know if this helps to

visualize how these resources work together, vice president lopez. i have to say in terms who decides, it would be simpler for sure if all of the funds that we received were more flexible and at the district level we could decide what the priorities were and the restrictions are with differently sources, but the specific restricted resources we get from the federal, state or local government. they do have their own rules and responsibilities and permitted uses. we have to align the decisions. we try to allocate all at the

same time as much as possible so decisions can be made. utilize multiple funding sources to be clear about what the parameters are for the programs in the spring budgeting process. you are absolutely right, it is kind of a complicated suit. not to mention we have a shared decision-making process at the school site level which is important but also some people have a better understanding and have been through this before and others are new to it or, you know, schools have to pay a lot of attention of to processes and we always try to work towards it. individual schools try to work towards having that clear. it is tough sometimes, for sure.

do you want to mention anything else about this chart? >> i think the one thing i was thinking about that i think in commissioner lopez your initial talking through the way it is all set up and the way that schools receive these differently sources. onone thing i want to make suree don't under state the size of the weighted student formula. i don't have the disclaimer. the size is not to scale, the student formula is over $340 million altogether. what that means is that and i say that because i don't want you to worry that all that

weighted formula funds is the baseline for every school. because of the way that the money is allocated to the weighted storm lais based on the students and characteristics that we additional weight to. what that means is that most schools get i would say sizeably more money than required to meet the baseline. with that additional money, schools can choose to support other positions. even if a school doesn't have a counselor. they can use the student formula site funds to have that position. i think that is some of what makes it a little bit murky is the specific subset of positions

that are paid for in central office by mtsf. the school could pay for the principals themselves if they want to. some schools pay for one and have an assistant principal so they have two. that is why these conversations are challenging. there is a lot of flexibility and the story is different for every single school. i think that was one, you know. i don't want that to add to confusion. i want to make sure to add clarity the baseline is the idea is we want that to be the baseline for all, knowing that the majority of schools get more than that in their allocations before we consider what resources they receive from central office. >> commissioner collins --

commissioner lopez, sorry. additional questions? >> we can bounce back and forth if that is helpful. >> was there an answer to the 2018 lead for commissioner collins? >> i believe it is 24.1 f.t.e., but i am comfortable saying that is approximate and i would prefer to dig in to follow up with absolute certainty. >> i appreciate that. if we are going to talk about the hypothetical, we assume that is true. this is something we thought up by a constituent that looked at the numbers. 24.1 is what you are seeing or they said 22. last year it was 35.

that seems like a lot. that is a 10 f.t.e. increase. to come down by three f.t.e. is not a cut over two years. >> part of that -- could i chime in. historically when i was on the board the first time in 2007 or 2006, lead was five people. >> that is what i am getting at. i would love to hear your thoughts. it is a conversation to answer for the public and board what we believe the priorities. >> we definitely need to look at the central office staffing to do comparative analysis with other districts. i think that would be important for us to do.

>> this budget is going to take time. we are not going to do that by wednesday. i think like you mentioned. with this it is only 2% or it is a small cut. i think i am looking at fscsd. schools community support division. we have cut restorative practices, school behaviorists. that concerns me because those folks work at site. they are the ones that are dealing with conflicts, school behaviorists. i feel like we need more to talk about policing in schools. when we have more of those. >> i do want to speak to that, too. nothing category. our budget completely

significantly out weigh the positions in that same division. what we just stated on tuesday is more of a priority than security, right? >> this is a question, too. at one school the principal hired two t10s and got the only two black staff members there doing voice groups. they were quote security but really what they were doing was more like student adviser work you might see in elementary school. it was that student support. that is to say sometimes a job title doesn't communicate. we know clerks are like doing family liaison work. the point is that we do need -- i would rather be focused on prioritizing student support, violence prevention, mental

health and wellness and physical safety like nurses especially in the fall over awesome programs and professional development. that is just not. if i am going mass maslow's basic needs nurse, full-time social worker and security staff and paraeducators in every classroom. we have to deal with less professional development and less, you know, maybe professional learning, you know, plcs and things like that for a while. i don't know how you feel about that. i would love to hear from commissioners. what are your thoughts? if we get clear guidance at the end of this meeting. we have been told and please clarify $22 million funding balance that we have to find

savings even from the proposed budget, is that correct? >> yes, commissioner. we are not trying to prompt the board or ourselves to specify what all of the individual components of those reductions would be for this interim budget to be submitted next wednesday. >> why not? why can't we have that conversation now and give you clear direction. i thought that was the point of the meeting. look, we agree. i don't necessarily think this is where i am at because i don't have clarity. maybe you could show me a budget with no cuts to anything. if that were something we agreed on, then i would want you to take that and put it in the plan. isn't this is time? this is the time, right?

for us to give you those clear directives as a board? i want us to have input on that. i feel like we keep vaguely asking questions then you guys try to respond, but i want us to be really clear so you have a clear directive. so. >> this is danielle. there are significant legal and personnel ramifications and restrictions that the board has around some of the cuts you are discussing now. for example, the window of time to layoff any certificate employee including administrative certificate employee has passed. if we are so detailed as to talk

about personnel level cuts, it would be very difficult to do at this late hour and in a public setting. >> so i mean that is helpful information. that is not visibl not an visib. that is why the public and we are confused. i just want to say it. this is the system. the system is we approve contracts in february and january of administrators before we add proof the budget. what that does is we are guaranteeing the people that are at the high end of the pay scale will be around and the once most vulnerable which i am also hearing and maybe you can confirm if this is wrong. paraeducators because of job status and whatever has been negotiated for them are the most

vulnerable. that is right there. maybe the system and we may have to flow with it, but i want be to name it. that is like white supremacy culture. i don't know. it is cologne nalism. the people that have the most power protect themselves and the folks with the least in society, you know, in our system are the ones that, you know, are kind of hanging. you know, as far as next time around, if there is anything to do this time around i want to do it. we should still discuss. when are we going to discuss do we need this many folks in lead? we keep asking that question and never answer that. that might not -- this might not

be the venue for that conversation. when are we going to talk about it? i have heard mark say it over a year since i have been on the board and i am sure he has been asking for a while. we have to do the $22 million to be like where is that coming from? you are saying that has to come from paris or where is that coming from? >> if you are saying we can't touch? i hear danielle say we can't touch certain job classifications, is that true. >> i want to clarify. i said layoff not necessarily salary reductions we would negotiate with represented employees and mandate with unrepresented employees. in terms of actually eliminating positions, unfortunately you are right. it is the system that forces the board into the position of

making that decision in very early effectively february in order to implement any kind every deduction decision. that is all driven by the education code. if that is something the board wishes to do, we need to look at that at january and february in order to be able to implement it effectively. >> can you clarify that we are not talking about just administrators with this. we are talking about all certificated employees. it is not accurate to say we vote on high-priced administrators and make decisions later for other certificated folks. we gave direction to the staff that there would be no layoffs of any certificated employees, whether administrator or not back in february. it is not completely accurate to

say that it is the people at the top that get saved and the people at the bottom don't. it is true that paras are on a different timeline than teachers. that is what is negotiated. >> that is not true because what we did was we effectively gave schools budgets that then allowed the schools to basically consolidate people. that is technically not laying them off. >> the specific direction not to have layoffs. >> pass the buck is what we do. this is my perception of things. maybe you have a different perception. this is not just us. this is society. this is the man, as my dad used to say. this is the man. make sure the system and so i don't like the system. that is why i ran for office and i want to change it. i think we need to do it with

rules and policies and those things. danielle is saying to change this we have to have conversations before january, do assessment. where do we want to put our money? do we want it in schools? do we want to spend it on innovative programs, central office policy. how many administrators in central office? that needs to happen before january. the reality for me is what i see happening. i am not talking about intent. what happens we approve contracts for administrators specifically and that is at school sites and centrally in january and february. then we approve the budget in june. effectively we are securing people's lively hoods that are at the higher end of the pay scale in january and february.

we prioritize them first. then the people left behind and a see that paras and certificate staff like custodial staffs at the low end of the pay scale are the ones that we have the most flexibility to cut and that is -- we didn't create it, but we have to name privilege. if you are white. i didn't do that. you are privileged. you should name it. it is something to name who is privileged, who is not. if we want to be about social justice we should name that. >> may i clarify one thing. we don't just approve administrative contracts in januarinjanuary and february. we have been voting through the spring. i hear what you are saying the larger point you are making, commissioner. i think you are not -- there is

inaccuracies in what you are saying. you are trying to make a point. i just want to point out that it is not as clear-cut or as clean as you have portrayed it to be. we do have -- we voted on the administrator contracts back as late as two weeks ago for people who had previously been issued may not renews that we decided to renew. we have until may to decide to renew ad more contracts. it is not accurate to say that is january and february. i am happy to do that assessment. >> i am mindful of time. i did set out a process when we started the meeting. i want to bring it back to i am hearing themes that is clearly lifting up for this what this

board in road map working with staff in the present year as raised by president sanchez looking at centralized budget analysis and what that may look like in the coming year. not for next week but really setting that tone in the coming year. there continues to be this pull and tension between baseline funding, centralized site budgeting and i hear what was lifted up as far as what is the engagement like in addition to the process that was laid out this year with staff that really how that is grounded in working with educators and site administrators as well. those are the key points. i also wanted to highlight for next week. i think it is helpful to have a highlight summary of

commissioner collins raised this earlier about where those essentially our budgeting journey has been and how can we highlight where those assumptions decisions around cuts and the rationale. i believe that is a tangible follow-up if it is high level be able for the public to reference. now we do have this new information with the budget analysis of the remaining $22 million that we are going to need to address. it sounds to me that largely it will be a solution that will come from the discussion with our labor partners. as well as additional maybe direction from tonight's meeting. >> i appreciate that, commissioner lamb. that is a helpful summary.

can i ask another question? >> yes. >> as far as the formula, i want to understand as far as last year and this year when we gave budgets to school on weighted student form las were those based on stepped up salary schools? how do we anticipate what site staff stays at school? do we do that? does it include that? >> yes, thank you, commissioner. the process in most years where we have knowledge about a scheduled increase from an already developed or executed bargaining agreement or if we have some expectation of increase in salaries and benefits. that is usually the case and that was the case. >> you are saying year to year. every year things get more

expensive so you step up a general number for what those costs are generally? >> yes. it is a two-step process. first thing we do is we determine apples to to apapples what should the change be in terms of size of the total formula pot. should it be exactly level, should it be increased or decreased? that is one question. then there is a technical analysis, whatever the answer to that question is, there is a technical analysis that changes the size of the total pot for the formula. that is specifically related to the change or increase in the salaries. let's say i will use the example. there is a 3% increase in

teacher's salary. round numbers this is low. if there is $300 million in the formula pot, and there is a 3% increase that is bargained. then we will build in the increase to the pot to grow that from $300 million to $308 million or $307 million depending how much we believe the cost of the additional cost of the salaries will be associated within terms of purchase. the purchasing power is left the same. that is one part. the other question doing what to change the purchases price, usually increase it. if we want to increase the formula by $10 million, then we would increase it by an additional $10 million. using the numbers i am using as

an example we would go from one year of $300 million. we would grow it by $8 million to maintain the purchasing power with higher salaries and add an additional $10 million to increase the purchasing power. the even tall allocations the school site receives in this simple example two things. one maintaining a level purchasing power, giving them more money to pay for increases in salaries and increase in the total amount of purchasing power that we included in the overall budget. that is how we do that. >> did we do that last year as well? >> we did it for 19-20. from 18-19 to 19-on 20. >> are we building that into the formulas for next year.

>> from 20-21. we have maintained a consistent level of funding for the weighted student form la. because of the budget and everything we have maintained the purchasing power from the current year but did not build in an additional growth in purchasing power for the schools. >> that sounds to me a hidden cut. we actually ended up getting to incorporate the salary and benefits when we were looking at the $10 million reduction, that i think would have been where it felt like more than $10 million. when we then went to bring those dollars back to the school

budget we brought in the dollars and grew. initially the first budget the schools got in the fall you didn't add that kind of cost, like a cost of living for schools. if you were going to summarize. when the commissioner said we don't want that cut, you added it back and added additional to level out the cuts. i am summarizing for understanding, is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. i wanted that clarity. thank you. i appreciate it. >> next year you could say that schools then got that added growth based on that? >> correct. we actually have the amounts that overall the wayne th the wt

grew in exhibit 6. i will jump to confirm the exact amount. it ended up the overall pool grew by 2.6%. that is about $8.8 million. that is both as a result of the salary and benefits and because there were also -- there was also a certain amount of money. because of the mcsf revamp for el menvey advisor and the cleanup we moved to site budgets as well. that was inaggregate $8.8 million increase to the weighted student formula partially due to clean up and growth in salary and benefits. >> i appreciate that. you are good at explaining things. we have been going up and down this whole year.

i appreciate also, jenny, that you said it would be helpful to have a summary. depending on when people tuned in. me and commissioner lamb and norton have been in the budget meetings all year. for folks tuning in and out, i think it is helpful at the state level it is crazy. to be able to tell a story because it seems inconsistent because it is inconsistent the numbers we have been using have been changing. i want folks to know. transparency is what you are hearing from us. it did change. we are not making up numbers or, you know, the numbers are bigger than last time. it is not because we are hiding money or i want us to be transparent and say, you know, things have changed and this is

how, and this is where and pointing to what is different, i think, is helpful and why. president sanchez anything that you want to raise to get us to the finish line for tonight and i will open up to staff for clarifying comments. >> thank you. i have enjoyed the conversation. generally we are headed in the right direction given everything we are up against. i do want to mention that some of our labor partners have sent us a list of questions they would like answered and some have been answered in this give and take. i have forwarded to staff so when we are meeting with partners that we can clarify some of those questions and answers for them that would be awesome. we don't have time right now to

go through all of those questions. i would appreciate it if that took place to the extent possible. >> president sanchez i would say thank you for referencing those questions. time permitting when we can arrange it, we would be happy to have another briefing with the labor partners. we had two and we have shared information and we fielded a lot of questions and followed up with written responses to questions. this would continue, i would hope, would continue the type of engagement we had with them earlier this spring. maybe we know john is taking the reigns of the labor relations role, and we can talk to him about trying to coordinate a session if our labor partners

are so inclined to have another session with us. >> thank you. >> i am still confused. i keep coming back to redding. it looks like i hear that they got a cut. i look at the data in the report and it says they got .5 increase. i am hear from the site they got half of the social worker cut and so i am wondering why. that is the problem. i hear from constituents we got a cut then i hear from you there is no cut. can we look at this school as a case study. is it something i am not reading right? >> if a school is growing and you add a teacher, that is 1 f.t.e. cut half a social worker and

half a nurse that would be a wash, right? it is a little confusing when we add teachers because the school is growing and use that as extra f.t.e. because it really isn't. the number of kids demands the basic funding for that person. >> this report on the line if you can look at this with me. this is just classroom teachers. this isn't just support staff. these charts are misleading. i am confused. >> it gives me clarity. you say there are no cuts. this is why i asked. we know site staff. i want to see support staff. that is what mark and i are

saying. we know classroom teachers are going to be covered. it is the para educator, school nurse. those are the folk provided services. if we are adding in teachers, it is maybe not making what we hear visible when we hear from staff and they say my nurse or social worker got cut. it looks like they are doing fine. as school community they got a cut. i wonder if we can see what is the support staff on the report like this in that is the piece. everybody gets a teacher. that is a given. it is the support staff that people feel when we talk about cuts. i have been on the school side

counsel. we need full-time social worker and nurse. those are the conversations people feel. if you took those out year to year, is that -- did they experience a cut in support staff? >> one reason the entirety that teachers are included is because the weighted student formula baseline does a calculation for the number of teachers based on those class size ratios, based on the size of school and number of optio kids per grade is in te baseline. if the school has more dollars than the baseline they may choose to hire more teachers to achieve reduction. we aren't mandating a certain number of teachers.

that is flexibility. what it means is that the school may opt to hire another teacher for a smaller classroom and no longer be able to pay for another support position. it is common that we see that the smaller class size if the school can do that and they want to, it does constrain what additional f.t.e. they support in terms of outside of nonteaching support staff. >> we are talking about, i think, what is the baseline for the school? you know, if we agree with on the weighted formula baselines and there is the way this report might be helpful if we assume a

certain number of teachers per student and the school chooses to hire another teacher and class size reduction teacher that teacher would show up. what is above and beyond the classroom? and a principal and secretary? being able to visibly see that, you know, would be helpful. >> the question i have is it looks like there are two more classroom teachers next year than this year. were those decided upon by the school side council to use the weighted student form laor money to purchase two nor teachers. that is why it might have been cut. you can't tell by this. >> based on this they did add

the classroom teachers on the site budget. you can see reduction of the technology specialist is due to retirement. i am actually not sure about the literacy specialist. i would have to -- i don't see it on there. i don't see it. >> it is just that we added teachers and they are teaching classes of kids. not like an extra site-based teacher which i am not hearing that is not an added teacher to reduce class size, then they are experiencing a cut in support staff. maybe that is the fault of this.

i am trying to get at the report to show us the answer to the question. how does the school experience a loss of services for students. at this school they had to cut and you can see it curriculum technology specialist and leadership toolleadershipleadear literacy specialist. that is a cut. as opposed to what the result shows at the bottom is green. it says they got, you know. anyway. you know, i think it would be great to do a case study to look at individual sites and hear from site leaders and families about, you know, we have questions. i have questions i can't stance

becausanswer.how do they make ds around staffing. when were they asked to make the decisions if they made them in january based on a certain budget, you know. >> i agree, commissioner collins. this brings us back to this thing that keeps the pension between baseline central budgeting and site budgeting. that is the system that has been in place and moving forward as a board we can exam that. >> may i ask a clarifying question. is it correct sites were given latitude, 400 students half time ap, right? >> right. >> they didn't have to do that. they could use that resource for something else?

>> no. they don't -- apart from the 22 size class ratio there is flexibility for what the site can do with the student formula dollars. >> thank you. >> i know this is long discussion. just to add one other reference, i guess. in the school site plan, every school situation is obviously different and has things related to that school and the allocations they receive and decisions they make. i think is it great we fine tune the reports and templates. i want to point out some of

these very particular circumstances may be best captured in the schools what they used to be called the balance scorecardses to draw out from the schools the articulation of the resource decisions or changes that they make. i want to say that may be another one. >> i have been on the school side council. have you been there as a parent on the school? >> i have been. i know what it feels like to decide if you get a full-time or half time social worker. those reports don't show that. they are not valid. i will tell you. we want the community to know we are making the best decisions in mind and listening many times we have to give information they don't want and suck it up.

not that everybody gets what they want and paying with state money. i am going to be straight with you. as somebody who served on the school side counsel for five years that is patronmizing. i know what it is like to have to decide. i got laid off when i worked at everett as peer resource because the school had decide if they kept the band teacher or peer resource program. he had been there for 500 years and was amazing. i am not going to fight him for a job, you know. that is what schools do when they have to make these decisions. in these meetings schools get to choose. it feels disrespectful. schools want everything for our kids. i would like for us to stop saying like they have choice when they feel like they have to

cut their arm or leg off. that is not a choice anybody should have to make. we are not getting enough funding we have to choose between arm and leg. we try not to do that. >> both can be true. i ran two schools in cleveland. we built a strong school side council that was very representative, and we had the luxury of having a good budget and good mts that we were able to keep. i have a different experience. i do know your experience as well. both can be true. i would like, of course, that every school side co un cih can make the decisions and has the budget to have the latitude for the things they need and that is why i love what you have been

talking. jenny summarized it. with a community and with families and site leaders answer staff to make the decision what baseline staffing plan looks like. that is something we have never been involved in really, and we need to be involved in. i am hopeful that is what we are able to do next school year. >> i apologize if you intented anything as patronizing or disrespectful. >> that is how it comes off. i know what it sounds like from the parents perspective. i know that is not your intention. it needs stated for the public for folks that are worried about staffing at their schools. i am sorry if i -- i know that is not your intention. that is a personal thing. i think our language is important to talk about these things, you know, the way it is

heard depends on your perspective and where you it is. when you it is in central office or the school site those are different experiences. >> okay. that is fine. >> anything at this time? i can talk about me serving on the school site council. it is really tough decisions that all communities, school communities or school administrators have to make now at this board governance level is what we have ahead of us. not only for us getting to the finish line on the budget and then the interim budget as well as i think we have clear goals as a board for our next fiscal year as well. clearly there will be continued discussions as well with our labor partners in answering

outstanding questions and concerns there. with that we have had a robust conversation tonight. i want to see if there is any final comments. >> my final comment is that i appreciate the fact that the superintendent was responsive and leadership team was responsive to respond to concerns around para educators. i hope that includes family liaisons and/or student advisers. i don't know if they are in that para category or if we are talking about para professionals. i want that clear that i hope that we are preserving and protecting those staff members. i know that they are members of

the community sometimes holding the school communities together and they are essential, especially now opening under covid and helping families access services. i don't want be consolidation from those positions. that is my opinion. thanks. >> commissioner, for clarification, all of the references in the presentation and during the earlier part of the meeting about para educators included elementary and student advisers and member members of a educator unit. >> that is helpful for the public when they hear para educators they will hear those job classifications. i appreciate that. >> all right. with that. >> i am not adding. i want to make sure that the

department superintendent lee and chief wallace you have the clarity to bring a budget back on wednesday? >> chief wallace, due to field that first? >> well, i think that may be what i -- the big question in my mind is are there changes that the overview in terms of, you know, sources and uses and al lines with a very high level of what you would see in the exhibit and those exhibits are what my team needs to prepare. if there are changes in there we want to call those out right away. alternatively, if the budget as presented if you can give a green light with the strategy

that whatever w whatever we neeo balance is through partnership with labor, i think i would want to provide some level of detail. suddenly i am harassed by small children. i would need to provide a level of detail about that plan. that is part of the work that i will be doing over the course of the next few days. i do need to know if i have a general green light on that approach. >> i would say yes. if it talks about concessions like i mentioned about furloughs we need to be sure that is part of the discussion. >> yes, i think we have had

discussions at staff level about having an equity approach of thinking that staff is a higher level of the income scale would be contributing higher number of days for example on furloughs. we have heard that input and are planning on aprining on aprilni. >> the details we think will be appropriate to reflect in the recertification budget that would happen in august. we don't intend to specify this group will take this many days, you know, unit by unit or employee group by employee group for next wednesday. that is the intention and discussion among the leadership

team. >> i think the interim budget approach is important. also to respond to the public input. what are you doing in the fall and how much will it cost? where will be spend our money? until we do through that process the current budget we have is the place holder. i want to echo that has to be a place holder and serve as interim function that we want to be able to communicate that we have a strategy for closing the gap. >> one last question quickly. is it possible for us to and i don't know if the board is open to this. we have a per dollar amount for weighted student formula for schools for supplies and stuff. i don't know if that is something that is an area we are

looking at furloughs or different things we are negotiating with labor is something that we would want to include? you know, i am putting that out as a question. it is a longer conversation. if the union said we will be willing to not have as many supplies if we can have furloughs. if that is part of the conversation? >> i think that is a variable that would be worth building into the model of on site learning. as we go through this path to understand the constraints on any of the options, you know, to the extent we are looking at the number of students and staff on site at a given day we would want to make sure that we are meeting the safety standards and investing up to meet those.

to the extent there is flexibility to invest more than less not to invest less than what we need. that is a great example of something to go through the planning process to understand where we need to spend our funding. >> thank you. in closing i want to appreciate the public for joining us this evening for our special meeting. i thank our finance team for their work. they have been jamming on it since tuesday evening, particularly around the budget and the state budget analysis. thank you to doctor matthews for your work. we will see you all on july 1st. >> thank you for running the show, jenny. >> thank you.

>> hello, everyone. thank you for joining us today. friendly reminder, this line is only for members of the press. if you are a member of the public, please join us on the sfg youtube channel. please type your name, news outlet, and question exactly as you would like it to be read. please indicate if you would like a translation in spanish. please ask only two questions. if you ask more than two questions, we will ask you to prioritize the questions that you would like us to ask. order of speakers today is dr. jeannie lee followed by dr.

kathr catherine jane, and with that, i'd like to turn it over to dr. jeannie lee. thank you. >> hi. i'm dr. jeannie lee. i'm with the school district department of public health working on school guidance. just to give some background, schools are still closed, according to the san francisco health order. we are sharing this preliminary guidance because we know that schools need to plan ahead for safely resuming in-school attendance if and when san francisco health officers allow schools to open. the good news is that we have learned a tremendous amount in the last few months about covid-19, mostly about how it affects children and teens and about how it's transmitted in effective spread of covid-19. we know that the risk of illness from covid-19 is very low for children, and we know that those, especially those

under ten, are less likely to get covid-19 as well as less likely to transmit it. in addition, we know what's been working well to prevent covid-19 spread in our child cares and summer camps, both locally and nationally, and so the principles in the school guidance are similar to what we've been using in the best setting. the guidelines were drawn from the best science available to us at this time. it will continue to evolve as we learn more about covid-19 and about how it affects children and adolecents. it was developed by the san francisco department of public health with extensive help from sfusd, the catholic schools,

and the independent private schools in san francisco. it's formed by guidelines from a variety of sources, including the centers for disease control, california department of public health, we also referred to guidance from harvard school of public health and the american association of pediatrics. we say the guidelines will be used as a tool to help schools layout their operational guidelines for opening. they can use them as age appropriate interventions to protect staff, students, and their families. we emphasize preventing transmission of covid-19 via respiratory droplets, especially transmissions between adults which we know is at greater risk, using universal distancing, face

coverings, and general intervention, and we feel this is better than frequent cleaning and disinfection. that is because coronavirus is easy to kill. common cleansers are effective, and hand washing breaks the chain of transmission. we recommend that cohorts be of a smaller size in elementary schools. cohorts can be a larger size in middle school and high school. finally, these guidelines are about how to keep teachers, staff, and students as safe as possible in schools, but safely reopening schools needs to be a community effort. even the children's risks are lower than adults.

children do get covid-19, and they do give it to others, so families have a big part to play in keeping children safe at home and in keeping the community safe, because the most common way that a person gets covid-19 is from an individual in their home. we all have a duty to wear face coverings, wash our hands frequently, as well as practicing physical distancing and staying away from other people when we're ill. students can do the same, but if covid-19 spreads too rapidly in our city, that may not be enough for them to be able to be open safely. we all have a huge debt of gratitude to all of the teachers and school staff for serving on the frontlines, and we owe it to them to do

everything we can to keep students, teachers, and staff as safe as possible in the school. so i think this is where i open it up for questions. >> thank you, dr. lee. so at this point, we will start receiving questions via our zoom chat. please submit all your questions to geaqanda ho geaqandahost@sf.gov.

we're just in the process of receiving questions now, dr. lee. >> our first question is from the s.f. examiner. how will the city's overall response aid schools with hygienic supplies and nurses needed according to the guidelines? should they bring students back? >> i'm sorry. can you repeat that question? >> yes. how will the city's overall response aid schools with supplies and nurses needed according to the guidelines should they bring students back? >> okay. so again, we are relying on the schools to communicate what they need to open, and the persons and resources that they need, so it's hard for us to speak to the school in terms of the support that they need, but

certainly, we are committed to supporting our schools. >> thank you. our next question, dr. feng, if you could please respond to this next question in chinese. if you could tell us what kinds of extracurricular activities at this point. >> interpreter: actually, if dr. feng can explain it, i can support in chinese, too. oh, dr. feng, please unmute. dr. feng, please unmute. >> okay. thank you. so yes, i'm dr. richard feng, and one of the physicians on the department of public health, and the question is

related to extracurricular activities. so -- so this is an important question, and this is something that all schools are trying to figure out right now. we're having -- we're trying to rely on the science available, and we're trying to figure out which extracurricular activities are safe, and which ones are not as safe at the moment. we are able to draw upon our experience from summer camps and child cares to -- to form this decision. it's difficult to try to categorize specific activities, but i think in general i can speak to general principals that we've been applying to consider extracurriculars as something that is safe or not. so in general, activities that

can be performed outdoors are -- for example, like, outdoor exercising, for example, would be considered safer than activities that are performed indoors. in addition, all activities would be safer if they can maintain social distancing. so in general, activities that involve close contact, touching, are less safe. and so it is very possible that what we do would have to be modified to adhere to social distancing. they would have to be performed outdoors as much as possible, and if possible, they should be performed by -- within the cohort so as to prevent large gatherings of people. >> great, dr. feng. i will translate into

cantonese. [speaking cantonese language] [end of translation] >> interpreter: let me repeat. [speaking cantonese languag

[end of translation] >> and dr. lee would also like to respond to that question, so dr. lee, if you'd like to provide additional information. >> yes. so to echo what dr. feng said, we have certainly principles that we use in our guidance on extracurricular activities, and the ones that -- the specifics we can say is that [inaudible]

is a very high activity because we've seen that a large group of adults infected with covid-19 while singing, so we are recommending against chorus, and same for wood winds and brass. other instruments, like string instruments that don't involve the reproduction of respiratory droplets are okay. a lot of people have questions about competitive sports, and i think it's safe to say that at this point in time, we are not recommending sports that involve being within 6 feet of each other. [inaudible] >> interpreter: sorry. >> and because of the emphasis on keeping people in cohorts and keeping people in stable

groups and keeping people from mixing, we are probably not going to recommend interscholastic competitions in the future. >> interpreter: great. let me provide an interpretation in cantonese, and leo will provide a translation in spanish. [speaking cantonese language]

[end of translation] >> interpreter: and i'll pass it on to leo. [speaking spanish language]

[end of translation] >> thank you, leo. and dr. lee, we also have a request to repeat the portion where you spoke about competitive sports as the audio got interrupted. >> i'm sorry? >> the audio got interrupted on the competitive sports? >> yes, so if you could repeat the part where you discussed repetitive sports. >> yes. so repetitive sports have certain risk factors, and the main one is that you're allowing cohorts of different students to mix, and that permits the spread of infection. so our rules are that people

shouldn't be doing active exercise within 6 feet of each other because, again, the deep inhalation and deep exhalation may be detrimental to students, and we don't want mixed cohorts of students, so that's why we won't be recommending interscholastic sports in the near future for students needing to be in close contact with each other. >> thank you very much, doctor, and leo will be translating that into spanish. [speaking spanish language]

jeannie l jeanne l [end of translation] >> thank you, leo. an additional question for dr. lee from the s.f. examiner. how many hours of the school day are these ongoing precautions anticipated to take up? >> that depends on how the schools implement them. so it's very hard to say because how much depends on how the schools are going to operationalize them. >> thank you, dr. lee.

that's all the questions that we have received in english. dr. catherine james will be joining us be -- ja will be joining us at 2:00 p.m. for a press conference in spanish. if not, thank you so much for joining us today. >> if you have any more questions for dr. lee, please submit them via chat or you can submit them to dr. feng and i will translate. >> and doctor, we just received one more question. the question is if a student lives with high-risk people, will the student be required to attend school? >> again, that is going to be a

decision for the schools to make, and -- and how they operationalize this guidance. the only thing we say about students and medical conditions is that the school should not automatically exclude a student because they have diabetes, asthma, or another medical condition; that they should allow the student's medical care team and family to decide whether in-person attendance would be indicated. beyond that, we leave it to the schools. >> thank you, dr. lee, and it looks like we have a couple more questions coming in. so norm bigger, the s.f. public press. is there a time that sfusd will decide that it's safe to reopen based on the number of cases and which the department of

public health will make a final decision on the case of schools reopening? >> we don't have a timeline, and a lot will depend on what we see with community transmission in the coming weeks. and again, the decision that -- the decision d.p.h. will make is whether it is safe for schools to reopen with these recommended interventions in place. the decisions for specific schools or specific school systems to reopen to in-person attendance is going to probably be based on other factors like do they have these resources to implement these interventions, when will these resources be available, but it's two separate sets of decisions. i hope that makes sense. >> thank you, dr. lee. our next question is from kathy

novak at kcbs, and the question is what preparations should teachers be making, and will those preparations differ on the ages of students they're teaching? >> so i just want to say that we -- we put a lot on our teachers, and it's not really on individual teachers to make preparation for the schools to be safe. i think that is on the school system or the school administrations themselves because it really has to be a coordinated layered set of interventions at the school level, and that is beyond the power of a single teacher to make it safe because of the multiple interventions that need to be implemented. so that's -- that would be my -- my main message. >> thank you, dr. lee.

we have a request for a translation to chinese, so victor will be translating your response for us. >> interpreter: can you reread the question? >> yes. the question is, what preparations should the teachers be making, and will those preparations differ based on the ages of students they're teaching? [speaking cantonese language]

[end of translation] >> and dr. lee, i understand that you have further information you'd like to provide. if you'd like to do that, and then, victor can provide the translation. thank you. >> so in terms of different interventions of the schools at different levels and age groups, they will differ. for example, we know for our very youngest children, physical distancing is very difficult, not practical for socio-emotional learning and just very difficult to enforce for an entire school day. we also know that our youngest students are probably the lowest risk for a covid-19 infection and at the lowest risk to spread it. so for that group, our guidance

says that we want to prioritize stable cohorts as well as universal masking at this stage, so universal face coverings. for our older students who are more able to physically distance, and broken-down to a more realistic expectation, then we would emphasize that. we'll emphasize, and then, by emphasizing that, that allows for a little more overlap in cohorts safely, and again, at this age, we want to continue to emphasize the universal face coverings for everybody as much as possible. we do recognize that the risks to staff and teachers are going to vary a bit by age, and probably the teachers of our youngest students are going to be at the lowest risk of being infected by their students

versus our high school teachers. but we also know that the risk of adults and adult transmission probably trumps all of that; that based on what we see locally and nationally in other settings with children, that staff are more -- or adults are more likely to be the confirmed covid-19 case, and adult-to-adult transmission, staff-to-staff transmission has been more likely than child-to-staff transmission. so at all of these ages, we're really trying to prevent staff-to-staff transmission and spread at any school, and that's emphasized in our guidance. >> interpreter: thank you, dr.

lee. [speaking cantonese language]

[end of translation] >> interpreter: and then, at this point, i will let leo also say it in spanish. [speaking spanish language]

[end of translation] >> next question is from crystal lee ann from sftv. so request for a translation, so either dr. lee or dr. feng

can take it. >> we consider city workers to be essential workers and because they work for the city and county of san francisco. the get tested website can tell people where they get tested. so we are not currently requiring teachers and students to be tested and that is because testing only tells you whether a person is infected at a certain point in time. they could have a negative test and the next day be infected. so unless a school system is willing to do something similar to what we've done in our nursing homes and long-term care facilities where we're going in and testing everybody every several weeks, that it's not thought to be as useful an

intervention. that said, we absolutely want to make sure that our school staff and teachers have access to testing and can get tested if they would like to, whether or not they have symptoms. >> interpreter: thank you, dr. lee. [speaking cantonese language]

[end of translation] [speaking spanish language]

[end of translation] >> well, at this point, i think dr. james might be wrapping up her meeting. are there any words that dr. lee or dr. feng would like to chime in -- oh, dr. james just joined. we will turnoff the mute. dr. james, welcome. thank you for joining us. >> sure, thanks for helping me. >> actually, we've answered a lot of questions already, but is there anything in particular that you would like to present

to our spanish speaking community, cantonese speaking community that we haven't talked about before? >> i think we were just talking about schools reopening and where we are right now, the current state of infections in the city. do you want me to go ahead in spanish, then? >> interpreter: yes, please go ahead in spanish. [speaking spanish language]

[speaking spanish language]

. >> well, if we have no other questions for our press, we want to thank our press partners, and we want to thank all the doctors from d.p.h. for

being here today. thank you very much, and i hope you had an opportunity to record. we'll be sending out the link shortly. i'll translate it into chinese. [speaking cantonese language] [speaking spanish language] >> thank you, >> when i look at an old neon sign that's working or not

working, i feel the family business that was in there. >> since 2009, citywide, sf shines, has supported businesses and sites like the ones that receive new neon signs. >> you know, sf shines is doing an amazing job to bring back the lighting and the neon glow of san francisco. >> sf shines is such an amazing program, and i can't think of another program in another city that gives matching gunned funds to store owners, mom and pop owners, and if they've got a neon sign, they've really got a great way to advertise their business. >> this is a continuation of the sf shines program.

>> focusing other neon signs is relatively new to us. of the seven neon signs, we've invested about $145,000. >> a good quality sign costs more, but it lasts infinitily longer. as opposed to lasting five years, a good neon sign will last 15 to 20 years. >> in san francisco, the majority of neon signs are for mom-and-pop businesses. in order to be able to restore these signs, i think it gives back to your community. >> part of the project has to do with prioritizing certain signs in the neighborhood based on their aesthetics, based on their current signs, and base on the history. in the time that we've been

here, we've seen a number of signs restored just on eddy street. >> there are a number of signs in the tenderloin and many more that are waiting or wanting to be restored. i have worked with randall and al, and we've mapped out every single one of them and rated them as to how much work they would need to get restored. that information is passed onto sf shines, and they are going to rank it. so if they have x budget for a year, they can say all right, we're going to pick these five, and they're putting together clusters, so they build on top of what's already there. >> a cluster of neon signs is sort of, i guess, like a cluster of grapes. when you see them on a corner or on a block, it lights up the neighborhood and creates an ambient glow. if you havy got two of three of them, you've created an atmosphere that's almost like a movie set. >> some of the hotel, we've

already invested in to get those neon signs for people to enjoy at night include the elk hotel, jefferson hotel, the verona, not to mention some we've done in chinatown, as well as the city's portal neighborhood. >> we got the fund to restore it. it took five months, and the biggest challenge was it was completely infested with pigeons. once we got it clean, it came out beautiful. >> neon signs are often equated with film noir, and the noir genre as seen through the hollywood lens basically depicted despair and concentration. >> you would go downtown and see the most recent humphrey

bogart film filled with neon in the background. and you'd see that on market street, and as market street got seedier and seedier and fewer people continued to go down, that was what happened to all the neon strips of light. >> the film nori might start with the light filled with neon signs, and end with a scene with a single neon sign blinking and missing a few letters. >> one of my favorite scenes, orson welles is chasing ririt

rita hayworth with neon signs in the background. >> i think what the office of economic and workforce development is very excited with is that we'll be able to see more neon signs in a concentrated way lit up at night for visitors and most especially residents. the first coin laundry, the elm hotel, the western hotel are ones that we want to focus on in the year ahead. >> neon signs are so iconic to certain neighborhoods like the hara, like the nightcap. we want to save as many historic and legacy neon signs in san francisco, and so do they. we bring the expertise, and they bring the means to actually get the job done. >> people in tenderloin get really excited as they see the signs relit. as you're driving through the tenderloin or the city, it pretty much tells you something exciting is happening here.

>> knee an was created to make the night more friendly and advertise businesses. it's a great way of supporting and helping local businesses. >> there's so many ways to improve public safety. the standard way is having more eyes on the street, but there's other culturally significant ways to do that, and one those ways is lighting up the streets. but what better way and special way to do that is by having old, historic neon signs lighting up our streets at night and casting away our shadows. >> when i see things coming back to life, it's like remembering how things were. it's remembering the hotel or the market that went to work seven days a week to raise their money or to provide a service, and it just -- it just -- it just

>> good afternoon, welcome to the land use and transportation committee for the san francisco board of supervisors for today, july 13th, 2020. my name is aaron peskin, i'm the chair of the committee joined by vice-chair and safai and member dean preston. our clerk is ms. erika major, ms. major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect board members, city employees and the public, the board ofer