tv [untitled] January 1, 2012 8:31am-9:01am PST
research. that advocacy for our students and parents is tremendous. i meet with my bcc reps on a regular basis to find out about what the committee has been doing. every time i hear from them about the concerns about are we serving our english language lerner's the best that we can? that comes back constantly. the advocacy of this body -- i just want to say thank you. it is a great gift to all of our e.l.l. students and parents. president mendoza: thank you your much. -- thank you very much. the next item is any appointments by the board
members. do you have any appointments? >> i do. i would like to appoint florez to the bcc. she works with us, one student, and i apologize to the bcc for the length of time it is taking me to get to these appointments. i do have one more. president mendoza: and she is working where? >> she is at john pissarro. president mendoza: item l, special orders of business. i need a motion and a second.
thank you. >> good evening. i am golden. it has been a very long agenda. i'm here to present a report that i cannot put a picture to. is that not exciting? for those of you that may not remember the california government code, section 66001, and section 66006 requires california school districts that can collect developer impact fees to report on those impact fees every year and to present a projected plan which can be revised and changed as to what we project we might be spending
on developer impact fees that are collected over a five-year period. this is a report that the district has not been providing for a number of years. for those of you that my remember, there was some class action litigation, a settlement. the district things it is important we bring this report for. so that we fulfill our commitments under the government code. it is essentially an audit performed by an outside consultant on the expenditures of developer fees as well. included in your package is the report on the collection of a developer impact fees. you will notice, historically, going back 10 years, the district has collected, on average, $7 million-$8 million per year on developing -- on developer impact fees until three years ago when the bottom
fell out on the world economy. as of last year, recollected about $1.5 million. it is interesting to note -- it is an indicator of the upward trend of the economy moving in a positive direction in san francisco that it this year we collected slightly over $3 million carried that tells you that there were either 50% more building permit applications filed or as a significant number of larger applications that were filed. that is a good of word trend for the city and for us as well, if we can get back on target. some of those impact fees were spent on the design and construction of the brand new tech 21 building at john o'connell, which a number of u.n. to the grand opening last week. it was a very successful day.
a number of dollars were spent over the summer to recreate facilities and programs to accommodate what had happened at horace mann, bryant, and when a vista -- and buena vista because of changes in school locations. we have a continuing need to do it. the state has allowed us, over the course of this year, to look at whether we are going to raise those rates, which went require us to do -- which would require us to do an additional study. we are going to look at it to see if we can raise the rates. if there are any questions, i would be happy to answer them. essentially, we are requesting the board adopt the report that there are no findings, positive or negative, strictly a report
of moneys collected, money is spent, and what we have in the bank. i would be happy to answer questions. >> was this one of the special items you want to speak on, mr. kelly? i have no public speakers. comments from the board? vice president yee: i have a question on the rate we are collecting. what is it and what are you thinking about in terms of a potential increase? >> first of all, we do not set the maximum increase. the state actually sets what the maximum amount would indeed. we need to do an impact study, which would demonstrate the growth of housing units in san francisco from summer between
what we charge now and the maximum that is set. if there and in -- if there is an increase, it would fall between that range. i cannot recall what the new maximum would be. we are currently collecting something like $2.24 per square foot of residential, $0.18 for commeric -- for commercial. vice president yee: what would trigger the increase? i'm trying to get a sense of how that is done. >> the fee would demonstrate that there is significant residential growth. and impact to those things which would affect our schools and our needs to do things either with new schools or within our schools to
accommodate that growth. that is what the study would have to demonstrate a. if it demonstrated a need in excess of what we are currently collecting, then we could raise the rates. if it went the other way, our rates would be lowered. vice president yee: so for treasure island or mission bay or whatever, this starts ramping up more. it is probably going to help us collect more fees, percentage- wise? >> those developments, no matter what the rates were, would collect significant fees. also, for any high-rise construction in san francisco or large residential and commercial developments throughout the city, on top of remodeling homes, collects significant change for us. if you look at the developer
impact fees collected throughout the city, the school district is only about 5% of those fees on a citywide basis. to us, it is a significant amount. vice president yee: thank you. >> according to your report on page 5, i see that for this past year, we collected $3.75 million. we had an ending balance of $19.8 million. that is good news. table 4 lists $287 million worth of need. that is where the $19 million in our balance can only be used to address the needs listed in table four?
>> table for addresses a wide variety of things. the only column that really counts for developer impact fees would be the first column, $86 million. each of those projects that we list in table four, some of them have a funding component beyond developer fees. for instance, if you were to look at the projection of the school of the arts at 135 van ness, if we anticipate $35 million from developer fees, there might be $30 million from general obligation bonds. we know that is true. $15 million from prop a 2003 and 2006. we expect there might be some state funding and there might be funds from something else. we might get a donation of $37 million. that is a $160 million project. these are projections. the $287 million on the far
right is all of those expenses together. >> what are the purposes for which the $19 million can be used? >> the way the developer in language is structured, as with all funding language, there is a certain amorphous flexibility. in general, it is for projects that have a relation or direct correlation to new programs and new growth, particularly an increase of students writ -- particularly an increase in students. that is a different interpretation for an urban district that is not building new schools but is eligible to collect developer fees for a school district out in the central valley that is collecting impact fees to construct a new school. we have used it to expand and develop new programs, we have
used it to work on the deaf program, the tech 21 program, we built a new middle school with complete developer impact fee money. there is a wide range of continuing abuses. we project that if we are to build a new school out where lennar is, we would have a and very little new school state eligibility in. those fees would have a direct relation to building that school. potentially, the same thing could be true at mission bay. president mendoza: any other questions? commissioner fewer: 10 these funds be used to building a new and willie brown -- a new will
ie brown? >> this would be one of the available funding sources that we could bridge with. president mendoza: if there are no other questions, did you read the recommendation into the record? and then roll call. >> the subject is reviewing an adoption of the annual five-year report relating to the collection and expenditure of developer fees and the requested action is that the board of education of the san francisco unified school district review and adopt the developer impact fee annual and five-year reports for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2011. the attached report, dated november 28, a 2011, relates to the collection and expenditure of developer fees. it was prepared for the district
by the dolinka group. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: yes. president mendoza: yes. thank you. do not spend it all in one place. the next item is the adoption of the instructional calendar for the 2012-2013 school year. a reading f the recommendation. >> good evening. this order of business concerns our instructional calendar for the 2012, 2013 school year. the requested action is that the
board adopts the 2012-2013 instructional calendar. i want to thank all of our labor partners and all of our parent organizations, especially parents for public schools, the pta, and new to our process this year was city partners from rec and park who participated in the discussion. there was a lot of discussion. pros and cons, back and forth, many different versions of the calendar. this seems to have been the one that most of the faults could live with. i will frame it in that perspective. i am ready to answer any questions that the commissioners may have on the calendar. president mendoza: we have won public comment. mr. kelly.
>> good evening and congratulations, commissioner wynns, on your new election. i have been waiting a long time to come up and say that. this is the calendar and that came out as a consensus of all of those groups. calendar negotiations, as we know, are a mandatory subject of negotiations with the union. in the spirit of making sure that this works for everybody, both the district and the union had invited in all of the other partners in that mr. ruiz mentioned. it is significant that it is a consensus of all of those parties that came to this calendar. i am appreciative that this is the one that you have before you and i hope that you adopted tonight. thank you. president mendoza: comments by the board? superintendent? ok. the chief of staff has asked if
we were starting school in july. [laughter] that gradually eliminates the summer. roll call, please. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: yes. commissioner wynns: aye. vice president yee: aye. president mendoza: yes. thank you for all of your hard work on that. there is a lot of it -- i know there was a lot of back and forth. we now have the sunshining of two proposals. the 2011 s to the azarov initial proposal for a successor contract from the san francisco unified school district to the unified educators ofpublic hears
will be held at the regular board meeting on 2012. discussions of other issues. we have none this evening. consent calendar resolutions. we have none. at this time, item o is on the consent calendar. roll-call, please. president mendoza: aye. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner murase: yes. commissioner norton: aye. vice-president yee: aye. >> item p is the consent calendar resolution for board discussion. that is the sacrificial lamb tonight. this was our item k2.
i said that he did not have to stay for this. i just wanted to use this as an example for something that drives me crazy. the resolution is something that should be under the selection process. it should explain how the selection process works. the selection process is actually why this is a retroactive resolution. the challenge that i continue to have is that there are items that come before us that are often grants that we have been given. they have not dropped into our account. they come to us after we have already started service. the challenge is, are there any
of these richelieu's since -- resolutions, which are retro, we have been given the grant, it did not drop into our account. what i want to try to avoid is this idea that we are having services move forward without the money being identified or the money has not been approved for the money gets shifted from somewhere else. this is my quarterly cry to not have this happen like this in the future. this is really difficult for us to pay something that we have already committed to. i do not want to put us in a position where the work has already started and the money has not been found. with the grant ones, we can say
that it is a grant. if the grant has been given, we should have some evidence of it. that was my retroactive cry for this last board meeting as president. commissioner fewer: i think that is a really good suggestion about the grants. that is why a lot of them have recently come before us. i do want to say in defense of staff, it has gotten much better. thank you for bringing that out. thank you for standing strong on that. staff has heard it loud and clear. >> at some point, i would like
to do something about how we have this process. at some point where they can get on-line and folks can do it. >> we are rapidly approaching the century. commissioner wynns: there is a whole other step that i am hoping we will eventually take. it is going to take some conversation on the part of the board after some sort of infrastructure recommendation. it seems to me that there are a lot of resolutions that we are voting on twice. we voted on the school budgets. i am supportive of that. there are some things where we do not really know when we are
contacting things like that that need to come to us for review. i am not certain about this. we need to discuss this with our legal counsel. i do not think we need to vote on them twice. i think we have authorized this. we have tried to figure out ways not only to make the process more efficient so that people get paid and schools do not spend a disproportionate amount of their limited support time to deal with these things not to mention support staff, but also information is available that the public needs to see on a regular basis. there would be a lot that would appear to be purposely hidden in the name of efficiency. we have discussed this several
times. not only are we working on the technology, but we are making the existing technology more efficient. new process sees that would be less cumbersome and take care of other structural issues in addition to the inevitable retroactivity. thank you. >> thank you. roll call, please. commissioner fewer: yes. president mendoza: -- commissioner maufas: yes. vice-president yee: aye. president mendoza: no. >> thank you. >> i did not vote no on all my other retro is. item two is the superintendent's proposal for first reading.
i need a motion and a second for the suspension of the rules to consider action at first reading. >> second. >> roll call, please. commissioner fewer: yes. commissioner maufas: yes. commissioner murase: aye. commissioner norton: aye. commissioner wynns: yes. president mendoza: yes. i need a motion and a second for formal introduction. the reading of the resolution by the superintendent. >> as all of you know, there is probably nobody in the city that does more for the city and townwarren -- than warren. >> thank you for having this introduced as your proposal. as the superintendent mentioned, warren has been a tried and true
friend to all of the students and the administration and staff for a long time. i can say from my own experience that a pre-warren was different than the post. it has been a real honor for me, many of my colleagues to work with warren and be the beneficiaries of his wisdom and good feeling and heart over the years. i would like to thank my associate for taking over the drafting of his words. i think he expressed the affection that we have for warren.
this is the superintendent's proposal honoring warren and renaming it a meadow as warren's meadow. the school district not only a depends on the staff and faculty, but it needs the entire city and community to maximize success. whereas a unifying the entire city to focus and support our public schools relies on individuals in the private sector to drive and support. the city and county of san francisco is considering recognizing one such extraordinary individual for his contributions to the city. it is fitting to use this opportunity to specifically acknowledged the specific contributions from warren to the san francisco unified school district.
a graduate found the school district in great need. he refused to turn his back on san francisco public schools. he backed the first of six consecutive ballot measures. he could transform 150 schools when completed. this brought desperately needed funding for the arts and sports. the special needs tags and the quality teacher education act, which raised teacher salaries and instituted critical reforms would bring more than $2 billion in critical support to teachers and students. the hellman family foundation has directly provided the funding for staff and other initiatives to support our most strategic work including the continued development of our strategic plan.
whereas warren was a critical component of the every child can learn foundation which transformed into the san francisco school alliance. he has continued to cultivate the organization. by his dedicated and very public support of that the district and our schools, he has brought credibility and authority and has encouraged participation and support. whereas warren's gift to the city not only benefits all citizens of san francisco, but includes a dedicated concert for students to enjoy and celebrate this music. the superintendent of schools and the board of education of the san francisco unified