March 15, 2012 Board Meeting
4:30 p.m. Closed Session
6:30 p.m. Open Session
Agenda Items
5.0 SPECIAL PRESENTATION
2011-12 Adult Education Teacher of the Year
9.0 BOARD WORKSHOP/STRATEGIC PLAN AND OTHER INITIATIVES
9.1 Resolution No. 2695: Resolution Recognizing C.K. McClatchy High School鈥檚 75th Anniversary
9.3 2011-12 Second Interim Financial Report
9.4 Center for Green Schools UTC Green School Fellow
9.5 Integrated Support Services Update
10.0 CONSENT AGENDA
10.1b Approve Personnel Transactions
10.1c Business and Financial Report: Warrants and Checks Issued for the Period of February, 2012
10.1d Approve the Budget Revision of the 2011-12 Fiscal Year, for the Period Ending January 31, 2012
11.0 BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION / REPORTS
11.1
Business and Financial Report:
鈥� Cash Flow Report
Video Archive
Contact the Board of Education Office at (916) 643-9314.
Response to Public Questions
1. If the district is laying-off over 300 classified and 400 teachers, why is the district advertising to hire another Gang Prevention Specialist?
Response: The Gang Prevention Specialist position is grant-funded. The funds could not be directed to other staffing.
2. If the district is eliminating home-to-school transportation, has the district calculated how much ADA it stands to lose for students who rely on transportation as their only way to get to school?
Response: We have no way to predict whether or how much ADA might be lost in this scenario.
3. Is it true that the district transportation home to school program transports over 3100 students per day? If it is true, has the district thought about the impact an extra 2-3000 vehicles on the road during commuter drive time? Will the roadways be safe for the one who have to walk to and from to school?
Response: The district transports about 1,500 regular education students and 1,380 Special Education students. Regular education includes students transported for over-enrollment purposes and Program Improvement choice students. Special Education students will continue to be transported along with Program Improvement choice students. Please also see response to #5 below.
4. If the district is eliminating transportation, have they investigated what the impact of having extra walking traffic will have on the traffic problems that already exist in Sacramento?
Response: See answer to #5.
5. If the district is eliminating transportation, has the district investigated how many registered sex offenders live in the district boundaries? Isn鈥檛 this type of exposure putting young students at risk?
Response: The Safe Schools Office is working with Sacramento Police Department and traffic engineers from the city to devise ideas for student safety such as walking attendants, 鈥渨alking鈥� school buses, and crossing guards. We are applying for grants for pedestrian safety education. We are working with 鈥淲alk Sacramento,鈥� a local community organization to devise safe routes to schools. Safe Schools will also work directly with school sites to promote pedestrian safety through school-wide assemblies.
6. Is it true the district has the responsibility of student鈥檚 safety from the time they leave home until they return? If so, how do you plan to do this without an extra cost to the district?
Response: Yes, Education Code states that the school district has responsibility for the safety of students from their home to school and back to their home. See answer to #5 for some of the strategies to be employed.
7. I have heard that the district contracts with Sacramento City Police Department (SCPD) for the School Resource program at a cost of approximately between 1.4 and 1.7 million dollars a year for less than full-time coverage? Is this true?
Response: For the 2011-12 school year, the Sacramento City Police Department contract for was for $1,448,952. The contract has been reduced to $750,000 for the 2012-13 school year. SCPD School Resource Officers are deployed primarily for school and student safety immediately before, during and after the school day. 麻豆原创 security services provide security for buildings and property after school hours and on weekends.
8. Is it true that the Sacramento City Unified School District receives approximately an 80% re-imbursement rate from the State of California for transportation?
Response: The reimbursement rate for transportation is approximately 35 percent for the 2011-12 fiscal year. The transportation program has always required support from the unrestricted general fund as it is not a fully funded program from the state.
9. Is it also true that the school district receives several millions dollars in transportation revenue from the Federal Government?
Response: The district does not receive any federal revenue for home-to-school or Special Education transportation.
10. Is it true that if the district eliminates the transportation home to school program that when the program returns, the district will be reimbursed at an approximately 40% rate? Isn鈥檛 this a future loss of revenue?
Response: The district is currently reimbursed at a lesser rate than 40 percent. Transportation funding at the state level will be determined by the final signed state budget 鈥� it is still unknown if the district will receive any revenue at all for the transportation program in 2012-13.