Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
March 1, 2019
Honorable Keely Bosler, Director 915 L Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Phil Ting, Chair California State Assembly Committee on Budget State Capitol, Room 6026Sacramento, CA 95814
Honorable Holly J. Mitchell, Chair California State Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review State Capitol, Room 5019Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Director Bosler, Mr. Bell, Ms. Holmes, Chairperson Mitchell and Committee Members, and Chairperson Ting and Committee Members:
This letter is submitted for your consideration in accordance with FCMAT’s responsibilities under Assembly Bill 1840 with regard to the Oakland Unified School District.
Of note: On the evening of February 28, 2019, the district reached a tentative agreement with the Oakland Education Association. This report was finalized prior to the settlement, and FCMAT/Alameda COE staff will need time to analyze the impact of the settlement on the deficit calculation. An update to this letter will be done as soon as the data is available to incorporate.
Background
AB 1840Assembly Bill 1840 (Chapter 426/2018) (AB 1840) passed the Legislature on August 31, 2018 as a budget trailer bill and became effective on September 17, 2018. Among other provisions, AB 1840 provides for several changes in the oversight of fiscally distressed districts and sets forth specific require-ments for the Oakland Unified School District in exchange for providing financial resources under certain circumstances. This report is provided in accordance with Education Code Section 42160(d) as established by AB 1840 and outlined below.
2
AB 1840 shifts the former state-centric system to be more consistent with the principles of local control. Several duties formerly assigned to the state Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) are now assigned to the county superintendent, with the concurrence of the SPI and the president of the State Board of Education. While AB 1840 does not change the definition or trigger of fiscal insolvency, it does change the structure of how fiscally insolvent districts are administered once a state emergency appropriation has been made.
Under AB 1840, the state trustee assigned to the district now reports to the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, and no longer reports to the SPI. If the current state trustee elects not to continue, or a determination is made by the county superintendent that the trustee should be replaced, the next appointment of the next state trustee would follow the provisions under AB 1840, namely: 1) be selected from a list of candidates identified and vetted by FCMAT, and 2) be appointed jointly by the county superintendent, SPI and president of the State Board of Education.
Additionally, AB 1840 established Education Code Section 42160, which provides:
(a) For the 2018-19 fiscal year, by March 1, 2019, the Oakland Unified School District, in collaboration with and with the concurrence of the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools and the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, shall do both of the following:
(1) Update or develop short- and long-term financial plans based on reasonable and accurate assumptions and current and past year expenditure data.
(2) Review and update school district facilities construction plans to ensure that costs are reasonable, accurate, and align with long-term financial plans for fiscal solvency.
(b) Beginning with the 2019-20 fiscal year, the Budget Act shall include an appropriation for the Oakland Unified School District, if the school district complies with the terms specified in subdivisions (a) and (c), in the following amounts:
(1) For the 2019-20 fiscal year, up to 75 percent of the school district’s projected operating deficit, as determined by the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, with concurrence with the Department of Finance.
(2) For the 2020-21 fiscal year, up to 50 percent of the school district’s projected operating deficit, as determined by the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, with concurrence with the Department of Finance.
(3) For the 2021-22 fiscal year, up to 25 percent of the school district’s projected operating deficit, as determined by the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, with concurrence with the Department of Finance.
(c) Disbursement of funds specified in subdivision (b) shall be contingent on the Oakland Unified School District’s completion of activities specified in the prior year Budget Act to improve the school district’s fiscal solvency. These activities may include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(1) Completion of comprehensive operational reviews that compare the needs of the school district with similar school districts and provide data and recommendations regarding changes the school district can make to achieve fiscal sustainability.
3
(2) Adoption and implementation of necessary budgetary solutions, including the consolida-tion of school sites.
(3) Completion and implementation of multiyear, fiscally solvent budgets and budget plans.
(4) Qualification for positive certification pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 42130) of Chapter 6.
(5) Sale or lease of surplus property.
(6) Growth and maintenance of budgetary reserves.
(7) Approval of school district budgets by the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools.
(d) Funds described in subdivision (b) shall be allocated to Oakland Unified School District upon the certification of the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, with concurrence from the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, to the Assembly Committee on Budget, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Department of Finance that the activities described in subdivision (c), as specified in the prior year Budget Act, have been completed. Additionally, by March 1 of each year, through March 1, 2021, the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, with concurrence from the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools, shall report to the Assembly Committee on Budget, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Department of Finance the progress that Oakland Unified School District has made to complete the activities described in subdivision (c), as specified in the prior year Budget Act.
(e) The activities described in subdivision (c) shall be determined in the annual Budget Act based on joint recommendations from the County Office Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team and the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools. These recommendations shall be submitted to the Assembly Committee on Budget, Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the Department of Finance by March 1 of each fiscal year, through March 1, 2021, in conjunction with the certification described in subdivision (d).
District OverviewLocated in the Bay Area of Northern California, the district serves approximately 50,231 students in 86 district-operated schools and 35 authorized charter schools. Just over 30 percent of the district’s students speak a foreign language at home. Eligibility for free and reduced-price meals is 74.4 percent. The district’s unduplicated pupil percentage is 77.4 percent. For fiscal year 2018-19, the district is expected to have a combined unrestricted and restricted revenue of $586 million and expenditures of $596 million. The district’s projected June 30, 2019 unrestricted ending fund balance is $20.8 million.
The district’s own self-assessment of its financial condition is as follows:
“Core to the mission of a school district is the need to maximize the resources afforded to that system by the taxpayers to the benefit of the students that educators serve on a day-to-day basis. Fiscal challenges are an unwelcome distraction that draws attention away from the primary mission and purpose of the educational institution.
“Unfortunately, this is the current circumstance for OUSD. Beginning in the winter of 2016, OUSD began exhibiting signs of fiscal distress that continued to progress through the end of the 2016-17 fiscal year and carried into the 2017-18 fiscal year.”
4
“Key drivers that were impacting the financial health of the District in the structural budget imbalance, revenues and expenditures are listed below:
• Structural Budget Imbalance and Cash Flow: A lack of sufficient controls in place to manage for long-term balance and sustainability following the large infusion of revenues from the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF);
• Revenues: Based on the use of roll-over budgeting, the District was unable to carefully review the multi-year impact of expenditure decisions and revenue changes; and
• Expenditures: Prior to the implementation of Escape, the financial and human resource management systems and procedures were inadequate to ensure there is a robust position control process in place.”
Emergency Appropriation, Loan Status and Payment TermsIn 2003, the district was unable to meet its financial obligations without the assistance of the state of California. Senate Bill 39 (SB 39) (Chapter 14/2003) was passed, which authorized a $100 million cash flow loan for the district. Consistent with practice, SB 39 directed that the Superintendent of Public Instruction assume all of the rights, duties, and powers of the district’s governing board. Full rights, duties and powers of the governing board were reinstated on June 28, 2009, and at that time a state trustee was appointed to provide specific oversight of the district’s continued recovery. The state trustee has stay and rescind authority over actions by the governing board.
In 2006, a portion of the state loan was refinanced by the sale of California Infrastructure Economic Development Bank (I-Bank) bonds of $59.6 million (principal and accrued interest). After the refi-nancing, the state general fund portion of the loan was $35 million. The California Department of Education (CDE) reports that as of July 1, 2018, the district owes $40 million. The payment schedule for the I-Bank portion of the state loan is monthly, July through January, totaling approximately $3.8 million annually through January 2023. The annual payment on the state general fund portion of the state loan is approximately $2.1 million, due in June through June 2026. Payments are made through a State Controller’s Office intercept of the district’s monthly principal apportionment.
The state subsidizes the interest payments on the I-Bank portion of the loan by approximately $1.7 million per year pursuant to Education Code Section 41329.57(a)(1), which establishes that the effective costs of the I-Bank financing provided to the district shall be equal to the cost of the original state general fund emergency loan.
Other FCMAT Reviews of the DistrictIn late 2017, Oakland USD petitioned the California Department of Finance (DOF) to defer its remaining current year and budget year payments on the outstanding emergency appropriation (state loan) originally authorized in 2003.
In response to the district’s petition for a deferral of payments on the state loan, the director of the DOF convened a meeting of stakeholders on December 14, 2017. FCMAT provided a brief overview of the August 15, 2017 fiscal health risk analysis review of the district conducted at the district’s request, in which FCMAT concluded that the district showed signs of fiscal distress.
Subsequently, on January 22, 2018, the Alameda County Office of Education and FCMAT entered into a study agreement for FCMAT to provide on-site technical assistance to the district wherein FCMAT was
5
charged with two phases of work. The first phase was to review the district’s 2017-18 general fund budget and develop a consensus about assumptions, including the values of mid-year reductions. From this base, FCMAT would update the district’s 2017-18 cash forecast to determine if it had sufficient cash resources to meet its obligations, including the June state loan payment.
The second phase was to develop a general fund multiyear financial projection. FCMAT issued reports relative to this technical assistance on May 31, 2018 and July 2, 2018. The May 31 report concluded the district would have a positive general fund balance and cash flow position on June 30, 2018. The July 2 report made 18 recommendations that would lessen the district’s risk of potential insolvency.
During the time a state administrator was in place (2003-2009) FCMAT conducted regular assessments of the district’s operations that were documented in written status reports. FCMAT issued its last comprehensive review report on December 5, 2008 – its sixth in the series.
As previously noted, at the request of the district, FCMAT conducted a fiscal health risk analysis of the district in August 2017.
Current Financial Status
Adopted BudgetThe district’s governing board adopted the 2018-19 fiscal year budget on June 27, 2018. This budget reflected a net increase in the general fund of $22,461,032. Beginning fund balance for the general fund was estimated to be $25,708,250, with an ending fund balance estimated at $48,169,282. The budget was built on revenue estimates driven by industry standard assumptions along with estimated funded average daily attendance of 35,340.
The multiyear projection showed a positive fund balance trend in 2019-20, increasing the estimated fund balance by $12,231,142, which resulted in estimated ending fund balance of $60,400,425. In the third year of the multiyear projection, 2020-21, a net decrease/deficit of $9,189,833 was estimated, bringing the estimated ending fund balance on June 30, 2021 to $51,210,592.
The Alameda COE performed the review and analysis of the adopted budget and on September 6, 2018, conditionally approved the district’s 2018-19 adopted budget, pending receipt and analysis of the 2017-18 unaudited actuals report. The letter of conditional approval cites uncertainty with the district’s overall fiscal outlook. Also, the letter discusses that the solvency of the district is “largely dependent on the District’s ability to implement approximately $30 million of ongoing reductions in 2018-19.” (Exhibit A)
On November 8, 2018, the district’s budget was approved by the Alameda COE, noting that the 2017-18 ending balance with the unaudited actuals report was higher than projected with the adopted budget. The letter states that the Alameda county superintendent “remains deeply concerned regarding OUSD’s fiscal health.” The unaudited actual ending general fund balance for 2017-18 was $56,587,852, which is $30,879,605 higher than estimated with the adopted budget. (Exhibit B)
First Interim ReportThe district board approved the 2018-19 first interim budget on December 12, 2018 and self-certified the district as positive, able to meet its financial obligations in the current and two subsequent years. This budget reflected a net decrease (deficit) in the general fund of $23,272,299. Beginning fund balance for the general fund was reported to be $56,587,852, with an ending fund balance of $33,315,553. The
6
budget was built on revenue estimates driven by industry standard assumptions along with estimated funded average daily attendance of 34,989.
The multiyear projection showed deficit spending of $4,643,090 in 2019-20, which resulted in an estimated ending fund balance of $28,672,463 at June 30, 2020. In the third year of the multiyear projection, 2020-21, a deficit of $669,683 was estimated, bringing the estimated ending fund balance at the end of June 2021 to be $28,002,780.
The Alameda COE performed the review and analysis of the first interim budget and on January 15, 2019, changed the district’s certification status from positive to qualified, indicating that the district may not meet its financial obligations for the current and two subsequent years. The letter cited that the primary areas of concern with the first interim report related to the handling of audit adjustments resulting in a one-time impact as opposed to having an ongoing effect. Also, the letter requests further detail about the calculations/assumptions used to create the first interim report. Without such details, the letter states that the county superintendent “cannot determine with accuracy the condition of OUSD’s financial position.” (Exhibit C) A case could be made that without sufficient data details and a determi-nation of accuracy, the county superintendent could have downgraded the certification from positive to negative or designated the district as a lack of going concern.
Status of Collective BargainingOn the evening of February 28, 2019, the district reached a tentative agreement with the Oakland Education Association. This report was finalized prior to the settlement, and FCMAT/Alameda COE staff will need time to analyze the impact of the settlement on the deficit calculation. An update to this letter will be done as soon as the data is available to incorporate.
Negotiations at the district remain unsettled for 2017-18 and beyond. For Oakland Education Association (OEA), the parties made their initial proposals public on February 8, 2017, commenced bargaining, and after 30 bargaining sessions declared impasse on May 18, 2018. The OEA filed a request for a mediator on May 23, 2018. An agreement was reached on five of 16 open articles, leaving 11 open for negotiation. Because mediation failed to produce a complete agreement, factfinding hearings took place on January 31 and February 1, 2019.
The neutral factfinder produced a report on February 15, 2019. This report recommends a three-year agreement to be negotiated for 2017-18 through 2019-20 with a 3% increase retroactive to July 1, 2017 and an additional 3% retroactive to July 1, 2018 on the certificated salary schedule, reopening the negoti-ations for the third year. (Exhibit D)
All units remain unsettled, and the potential of a “me-too” settlement costs the district far more than just settling with OEA alone.
The following chart demonstrates the full (across all units) settlement costs of the following proposals; factfinding, most recent district offer to OEA, and OEA request.
• Factfinding: cumulative effective rate 6.09%, 3% for both 2017-18 and 2018-19 with start dates of July 1.
• District offer: 1.5% for all of 2017-18 off schedule, 3% effective January 1, 2019, 2% effective January 1, 2020, 1% effective January 2, 2021 and 1% July 1, 2021.
• OEA request: 3% for 2017-18, 4% for 2018-19, and 5% for 2019-20 with start dates of July 1.
7
Factfinding
2017-18 (to be paid in 2018-19) 3% on salary schedule
2018-19 3% on salary schedule
2019-20 0%(reopen the contract for negotiation)
2020-21 0%
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Cumulative
Certificated $11,999,273 $5,934,501 $6,026,485 $23,960,259
Classified $5,697,961 $4,597,130 $4,637,125 $14,932,217
Benefits $4,551,214 $960,928 $1,212,173 $6,724,314
Total $22,248,448 $11,492,558 $11,875,783 $45,616,790
OUSD
2017-18 (to be paid in 2018-19) 1.50% off-salary schedule
2018-19 1.50% on salary schedule
2019-20 2.50% on salary schedule
2020-21 1.50% on salary schedule
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Certificated $5,911,978 $8,172,878 $11,507,478 $25,592,333
Classified $2,806,952 $3,817,402 $5,338,941 $11,963,296
Benefits $2,247,133 $1,242,562 $2,876,383 $6,366,078
Total $10,966,063 $13,232,842 $19,722,801 $43,921,707
OEA Request
2017-18 (to be paid in 2018-19) 3.00% on salary schedule
2018-19 4.00% on salary schedule
2019-20 5.00% on salary schedule
2020-21 0.00%
2018-19 2019-20 2020-21
Certificated $14,051,058 $25,103,502 $25,492,607 $64,647,167
Classified $6,663,312 $11,784,780 $11,887,308 $30,335,400
Benefits $5,364,183 $8,156,241 $8,892,568 $22,412,992
Total $26,078,552 $45,044,524 $46,272,482 $117,395,559
8
The district and OEA have 11 open articles that encompass more than compensation considerations. The cost of settlement data presented above represents only salary considerations and does not include the cost impact of any other terms being negotiated. The open articles include topics such as reducing class size, coun-selor staffing and increasing substitute salaries. The fiscal impact of these articles is unknown at this time.
District Actions Since Budget AdoptionOn August 8, 2018, the district governing board unanimously approved resolution 18-19-0041 (Exhibit E), which stated: “absent a material positive change in the District’s projected revenues or reduction in District expenses, the District will be required to consider and implement budget reductions in force beginning in FY 2019-20 of at least 234 FTE Certificated positions and 104 FTE Classified, Management and Confidential positions for approximately $26.4 million to be identified on or before February 28, 2019, books and supplies of $400,000 and $3.5 million services and operating expenses to address the District’s negative ending fund balance.” At this meeting, the district board also approved a revised multiyear projection for 2019-20 and 2020-21 reflecting the reductions contained in resolution 18-19-0041 as well as the 45-day revision to reflect the adopted state budget.
On August 22, 2018, the district governing board approved resolution 18-19-0007 (Exhibit F), which acknowledged insufficient funds in Measure J to complete all of the projected projects on the Measure J spending plan. The resolution revised the capital facilities spending plan, recommending reductions to specified projects to balance the spending plan.
On September 12, 2018, the board received an update on the Fiscal Vitality Plan sharing the outline of the work, progress to date and review of next steps. Also at this meeting, the board approved a final response to a grand jury investigation report. (Exhibit G) The 2017-18 civil grand jury report was titled “Oakland Unified School District: Hard Choices Needed to Prevent Insolvency.” A summary of the findings with district responses is included below:
Finding 18-6 Staff and Board efforts to circumvent established budgeting pol-icies along with board efforts to interfere in the administrative responsibilities of the superintendent invite financial instability and contribute to Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems.
District Response: District agrees with this finding with the clarification that it does not believe the efforts referenced in the finding are intentional.
Finding 18-7 Oakland Unified School District’s inability to control overstaffing and poor position control decisions have contributed to the dis-trict’s financial instability.
District Response: The District agrees with this finding. The District’s largest fiscal expenditures are salary and salary-driven benefit costs.
Finding 18-8 Lack of transparency related to Oakland Unified School District’s financial positions has led to mistrust between the district, the community, and labor organizations.
District Response: The District agrees in part with this finding but believes that other factors, including historical context in Oakland and negative media coverage of the District contribute to distrust even with greater access to information.
Finding 18-9 High turnover of key administrators has created an atmosphere of mistrust, destroying the continuity of the district’s educational mission, and crippling the district’s effectiveness in addressing its most pressing fiscal issues.
District Response: The District disagrees with this finding. Although the overall strategic plan, Community Schools, Thriving Students, has remained in place, each Superintendent’s initiatives and focal points within the plan have varied.
Finding 18-10 Financial instability and high staff turnover contribute to poor student performance.
District Response: The District agrees in part with this finding but qualifies its response based on the myriad of factors that may impact student performance.
Finding 18-11 Operating 86 schools is unsustainable and will lead the district to insolvency.
District Response: The District agrees with this finding in part. Assuming that all current conditions, including revenue, enroll-ment, class sizes, staffing levels, number of schools, and expens-es, remain the same, the District will continue to operate at a fiscal deficit and will become insolvent. Reducing the number of District-operated schools is one way to reduce expenditures.
Finding 18-12 Collaboration between traditional public schools and charter schools operating in the district benefit all students in Oakland Unified School District.
District Response: The District agrees with this finding in part. The District does not believe that expending precious, limited resources fighting with charter schools is beneficial to students living in Oakland.
9
On October 24, 2018, the board discussed AB 1840, received a Fiscal Vitality Plan update from the Fiscal Vitality Committee and approved a budget revision that would inform budgetary changes to be included in the first interim report.
On November 14, 2018, the board approved resolution 18-19-0013 from the Fiscal Vitality Committee (Exhibit H) that established three recommended guiding principles for budget development and priori-tization as the district defines the $30 million in reductions to be established per resolution 18-19-0041. Also at this board meeting, the board received a report outlining a timeline for the overall Citywide Plan and an update on the Citywide Map. (Exhibit I)
On December 12, 2018, the board approved the district’s first interim report.
On January 9, 2019, a 2019-20 fiscal year district budget reduction proposal was presented (Exhibit J) adopting principles from resolution 18-19-0013 and various scenarios with levels of reductions in staff.
On January 23, 2019, an update was provided to the 2019-20 fiscal year district budget reduction (Exhibit K) that refined the recommendations and incorporated the Governor’s January proposed state budget assumptions and the impacts of those assumptions on the district’s budget for 2019-20 and beyond.
On January 28, 2019, the district board approved resolution 18-19-0143 (Exhibit L) to approve the Coliseum College Preparatory Academy expansion and Roots International Academy closure, per the Blueprint for Quality Schools.
On February 6, 2019, resolution 18-19-0144 (Exhibit M), to be approved on February 11, was presented for a first reading. This resolution reduced the amount needed for 2019-20 budget reduction from $30 million (as determined in August 2018) to $21.7 million.
On February 11, 2019, the district board received reports based on 2019-20 fiscal year reductions:
• Changes to school allocations
• Staffing changes by FTE and resource
• Explanation of change to restricted funds as a result of reductions
• Program adjustments
• Resolution 18-19-0144 was not approved.
On February 19, 2019, the district board received feedback from staff and stakeholders about the restorative justice program, which was recommended at the February 6, 2019 meeting to be eliminated. Resolution 18-19-0144 was rescheduled to be approved on February 27, 2019.
On February 27, 2019, the board meeting was cancelled and approval of resolution 18-19-0144 was further delayed.
Deficit CalculationOn the evening of February 28, 2019, the district reached a tentative agreement with the Oakland Education Association. This report was finalized prior to the settlement, and FCMAT/Alameda COE staff will need time to analyze the impact of the settlement on the deficit calculation. An update to this letter will be done as soon as the data is available to incorporate.
10
FCMAT Analysis of MYP Deficit in 2019-20 and 2020-21To validate the calculations on the first interim multiyear projection (MYP), FCMAT, in collaboration with the Alameda COE, performed the following tasks:
• reconciled budget, payroll and position control
• created a new LCFF projection; updating enrollment and ADA calculations
• verified utilization of parcel taxes per each measure’s stated purpose
• verified audit adjustments and corresponding journal entries
• performed budget to actuals analysis for the current year
• balanced restricted resources for 2019-20 and 2020-21
Many updates were made to the current year (2018-19) and subsequent years to arrive at the projected deficit spending utilized in this report. These calculations are based on what is known at the time this report is being written and will likely change in the weeks ahead.
Using the assumptions below, FCMAT calculated general fund deficit for the three years of the MYP as follows:
• Salary settlement: no cost increases included for any bargaining unit settlement
• RDA revenues: $8 million classified as unrestricted
• Parcel tax: included parcel tax G1 contributions of $5 million
• Expenditure reductions per board resolution: no reductions included
• Books and supplies expense reduction to all three years of MYFP
• Routine Restricted Maintenance has been budgeted at the full contribution rate of 3% for all three years of the MYFP
Unrestricted Restricted Combined2018-19 $11,818,473 ($20,782,442) ($8,963,969)
2019-20 $2,013,453 ($8,382,342) ($6,368,889)
2020-21 ($5,929,608) ($9,775,069) ($15,704,677)
A copy of the MYP is included with this report as Exhibit N.
COE Intervention Costs to be Added to Deficit CalculationThe Alameda COE estimates a total of 7,320 hours for 2019-20 to provide support and intervention to the district to comply with AB 1840. The total cost for this support is $1,427,588. For 2020-21, the Alameda COE anticipates fewer hours of support, with a cost estimate of $1,204,400. (Exhibit O)
Other considerations added/subtracted from the deficit amounts listed above:
• Any settled salary increases or negotiated costs should be considered as an addition to the deficit calculation. Depending on the terms of any settlement, the salary values range from a low of $11,492,558 to a high of $45,044,524 for 2019-20, and a range of $11,875,783 to $46,272,482 for 2020-21 based on the data presented earlier in this report.
11
• Additionally, any costs associated with articles other than salary will need to be added to the deficit calculation. As stated above, those costs are undetermined at this time and could change as collective bargaining comes to a close.
Opportunities and Challenges to Deficit Calculation• The status of labor negotiations poses a significant challenge to the district’s deficit calculation.
The fact that the district is over 18 months beyond the expiration of the most recent collective bargaining agreement represents a fiscal liability for the district depending on settlement terms and effective dates. Uncertainty promotes instability and forces limitations on the projection of meaningful MYP surpluses/deficits. As indicated, costs of the various proposals can be found earlier in this report.
• Employee turnover, lack of capacity and training of staff in the business department and other key functions creates significant challenges to the production of accurate and timely data for decision-makers and stakeholders. This challenge also promotes a significant lack of trust and credibility in the district’s budgetary data, and as a result, a lack of acceptable and understanding of any fiscal challenges that may impact the district’s ability to provide services. This challenge should not be confused with a lack of staff. Ample staff exists to perform the necessary duties, but capacity to do so is limited.
AB 1840 Benchmarks
Required BenchmarksIn addition to the district established benchmarks, Education Code 42160(c) provides a list of bench-marks to be measured as a condition of apportionment of one-time funds to assist the district. The benchmarks are listed below along with a brief detail of district status with regard to each of these bench-marks:
1. Completion of comprehensive operational reviews that compare the needs of the school district with similar school districts and provide data and recommendations regarding changes the school district can make to achieve fiscal sustainability.
Status: Alameda COE has sought a contract with a fiscal consultant who will perform the following review by March 2019:
• Assess the district’s fiscal operations in the functional areas of accounts payable, procurement, payroll, and accounting. Provide a report of findings that focuses on the functional areas, listing their strengths and weaknesses, proposing recommendations for their improvement, and identifying impediments to their improvement. FCMAT believes the scope of this engagement is not sufficiently comprehensive because it does not include a comparison of the district’s organization and staffing structure with similar districts as required by 42160(c)(1).
• Collaborate with Alameda COE on district needs and provide leadership, mentoring, guidance and support to the district in school business and operations, accounting and budgeting as well as accounting, payroll, purchasing, accounts payable, maintenance
12
and operations, facilities, property liability, workers’ compensation and any other areas needed by duties as requested by the county superintendent.
• Provide guidance for budget development and monitoring to include the LCFF calculations, trend analysis, multiyear projections, income and expenditures projections as well as guidance regarding budget monitoring and accounting to ensure fiscal support. Provide support, as requested, for district interim financial reports as required by state statute.
• Review district financial reports, budgets, proposals, agreements and board policies as well as Alameda COE and state advisories to provide direction and advice as requested.
• Analyze state budget activities and Alameda COE budget advisories and assist in training the district business office leadership and staff on pertinent revenue projections and expenditure calculations.
• Collaborate with the Alameda COE on the form and frequency of reporting on status, updates and fiscal and operational findings and recommendations that may impact the district’s fiscal stability and financial health.
2. Adoption and implementation of necessary budgetary solutions, including the consol-idation of school sites.
Status: Budgetary solutions are provided by means of Fiscal Vitality Plan and district board resolution 18-0041. Implementation is still a work in progress. Budgetary solutions were intended to be provided by means of adoption of the Fiscal Vitality Plan and board resolution 18-19-0144, which was not acted upon by the district’s own adopted deadline of February 28, 2019 as established in board resolution 18-0041. Consolidation of school sites is addressed as part of the Citywide Plan.
3. Completion and implementation of multiyear, fiscally solvent budgets and budget plans.
Status: Details available in district benchmark Fiscal Vitality Plan below.
4. Qualification for positive certification pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 42130) of Chapter 6.
Status: As of first interim, the district self-certified positive but this certification was not supported by data, and the Alameda COE downgraded the certification to qualified based on a lack of information. Such absence of information could also be the basis for a negative certification or a lack of going concern (EC 42127.6).
5. Sale or lease of surplus property.
Status: Details available in district benchmark Citywide Plan below.
13
6. Growth and maintenance of budgetary reserves.
Status: With reductions as proposed in district board resolution 18-0041, the district could experience growth or maintenance of district reserves. However, subsequent action by the board to adopt the Fiscal Vitality Plan and proposed resolution 18-19-0144 to carry out the commitments of resolution 18-0041 have not been completed.
7. Approval of school district budgets by the Alameda COE.
Status: The Alameda COE initially conditionally approved the district’s 2018-19 budget; the super-intendent later gave unconditional approval.
District-Established BenchmarksCitywide PlanDistrict Board Policy 6006 (June 2018) titled Quality School Development: Community of Schools calls for the district superintendent to draft a Citywide Plan that “promotes the long-term sustainability of publicly funded schools across Oakland that represent quality and equitable educational options.” The district has recognized that there are 10,000 empty seats in 86 schools within district boundaries and is striving to become more efficient with facilities. The first strategy under this plan is to implement the Blueprint for Quality Schools action plan to identify four cohorts of school changes.
As a part of this plan, the district will identify on a citywide map the school sites that will be closing or merging with a nearby site. The following schools and properties will be included in the final citywide map:
1. Number and location of district-run schools
a. Traditional schools
b. Alternative schools
c. Specialized schools
2. District early childhood education (pre-K) locations
3. District special education programs
4. Charter school locations
5. Number and location of surplus properties
Cohort 1 was identified in June 2018. On January 28, 2019, the district board passed resolution 19-0095 (Exhibit L) to close Roots International School, which was initially to be part of Cohort 2.
The district is addressing the need to downsize the facilities footprint through the Citywide Plan, which was planned to be approved by the district board on February 27, 2019, as shown below:
14
The board did not approve the Citywide Plan on February 27, 2019, as the board meeting was cancelled.
Fiscal Vitality PlanThe district’s Fiscal Vitality Plan was introduced on December 13, 2017 and is organized into three segments: Stability (short term plans), Recovery (medium term plans) and Vitality (long term plans). The Fiscal Vitality Plan was created as a response to a FCMAT Fiscal Health Risk Analysis that demonstrated many areas of need or improvement for the district. There are 23 recommendations for action to help rectify the district’s current fiscal health. Alameda COE monitors the progress of the recommendations. The most recent evaluation for the 23 recommendations is dated February 7, 2019 (Exhibit P).
Below are the 23 recommendations and the status of each:Recommendation StatusRestore the ending fund balance and maintain the state-mandated reserve for economic uncertainty In Progress
Institute adjustments to existing central office positions In Progress
Maximize the use of restricted revenue sources In Progress
Evaluate central office-based contracts and books/supplies for possible freeze and capture of savings In Progress
Pursue capture of donated days and/or furlough In Progress
Adjust school per pupil allocations to capture savings In Progress
Institute closer monitoring of contributions to other programs In Progress
Update and implement budget forecast and projection practices In Progress
Review and update cash flow monitoring practices In Progress
Institute immediate protocols to limit and review spending among central office and school sites In Progress
Plan for and adopt a balance budget that avoids future deficit spending In Progress
Establish and conduct zero-based budgeting sessions with all central office practices In Progress
Research, engage and implement a central office reorganization In Progress
Institute and conduct monthly central office and school site budget monitoring practices Not Started
Review, update and implement effective position control practices Not Started
Develop a process for pre-approval of extra time employee payments In Progress
Review and implement revised contract approval, processing and management procedures Not Started
15
Complete transition to Escape technology system to manage finance and human resource information Complete
Review and execute on shifts in expense that maximize the use of restricted funds Making Progress over last year
Review and engage school district and school leaders to re-establish appropriate budget roles and responsibilities In Progress
Establish systems for the management and oversight of bargaining agreements In Progress
Consider and act on recommendations from the Blueprint for Quality Schools review In Progress
Future FCMAT Updates in Support of DOF and Legislative ActionFuture periodic letters will include updates on the various operational reviews, recommendations and plans to incorporate the recommendations in the fiscal stabilization plan, Citywide Plan and other applicable planning. The district is working on its second interim report. Additional periodic reports will be made once the 2019-20 budget is finalized (June 2019), when 2018-19 unaudited actuals are available (September 2019), and when other major milestones are reached.
FCMAT will provide updates and progress reporting on benchmarks upon the following occurrences including (but not limited to):
• Salary settlement
• Results of operational reviews
• Second interim report
• June 30 progress review of benchmarks; 2019-20 budget review
• Unaudited Actuals report
• October 1 progress review of benchmarks
ConclusionIn accordance with Education Code Section 42160, FCMAT has determined that the school district’s 2019-20 projected operating deficit is as follows, with the caveat that there are several unknows at this point in time (e.g., status of negotiations):
Fiscal Year 2018-19 2019-20Projected Deficit ($8,963,969) ($6,368,889)
COE Additional Support/Intervention ($1,427,588) ($1,204,400)
Projected Revised Deficit ($10,391,557) ($7,573,289)
As a reminder, any settled salary increases or negotiated costs, as well as any costs associated with articles other than salary need to be considered as an addition to the above deficit calculation. As stated above, those costs are undetermined at this time and could change as collective bargaining comes to a close.
Sincerely,
Tamara EthierFiscal Intervention Specialist
16
cc: L. Karen Monroe, Alameda County Superintendent of Schools Karen Stapf-Walters, Executive Director, California State Board of Education Nick Schweizer, Deputy Superintendent, California Department of Education Jeff Bell, Program Budget Manager, California Department of FinanceJessica Holmes, Assistant Program Budget Manager, California Department of FinanceChris Learned, State Trustee, Oakland Unified School District Gary Jones, Interim Associate Superintendent, Alameda County Office of Education Dr. Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Superintendent, Oakland USD
17
Exhibit A
18
19
November 8, 2018 Aimee Eng, President Board of Education Oakland Unified School District 1000 Broadway, Suite 680 Oakland, CA 94607 RE: 2018-19 Adopted Budget Approval Dear President Eng: As communicated in our letter dated September 6, 2018, the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE) conditionally approved the Adopted Budget of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) for 2018-19. The approval of the Adopted Budget was contingent upon OUSD’s closure of fiscal year 2017-18 and the resulting beginning fund balance for 2018-19. By statute, ACOE is required to make a final determination regarding approval or disapproval by November 8, 2018. OUSD’s Unaudited Actuals Report was received by ACOE by the statutory deadline of September 15, 2018, and ACOE subsequently conducted a review of the report as submitted. While ACOE noted that the subsequent ending fund balance was higher than OUSD projected at Adopted Budget, and that OUSD was able to meet the 3% required minimum reserve in 2017-18, ACOE also notes that possible revenue adjustments (reductions) to the 2017-18 year, and ADA reassessments for FY 18-19, may be necessary at First Interim. While the resulting beginning fund balance for 2018-19 is anticipated to be adjusted downward at First Interim, ACOE’s review has determined that OUSD has met the minimum conditions for approval, as outlined by ACOE. OUSD’s 2018-19 Adopted Budget is therefore approved. However, ACOE remains deeply concerned regarding OUSD’s fiscal health, and expect OUSD to continue its efforts to align revenues with expenditures in an ongoing and sustainable manner. The continued restoration and maintenance of OUSD’s financial stability must remain a top priority as OUSD moves forward to implement the required reductions as expected with the passing of AB 1840. While OUSD has met the minimum conditions for approval of the 2018-19 Adopted Budget, ACOE concurs with the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) that OUSD develop short- and long-term financial plans based on reasonable economic assumptions to implement those plans with a commitment to attaining fiscal solvency. Accordingly, ACOE acknowledges OUSD’s business staff’s efforts as they conduct a thorough review of all fiscal and operational areas, with a specific focus on budgetary projections, Special Education expenditures and OUSD’s cash flow.
Exhibit B
20
I appreciate OUSD’s ongoing assistance during this process and look forward to reviewing the 2018-19 First Interim Report. Please feel free to contact me with any questions as we at ACOE continue to work collaboratively to ensure both fiscal and educational success. Sincerely, L. Karen Monroe Alameda County Superintendent of Schools cc: Board of Education, Oakland USD Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Superintendent, Oakland USD
Marcus Battle, Chief Business Officer, Oakland USD Sondra Aguilera, Senior Deputy Chief, Continuous School Improvement Chris Learned, State Trustee, Oakland USD Tom Torlakson, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, CDE Nick Schweizer, Deputy Superintendent, CDE Michael Fine, Chief Executive Officer, FCMAT Gary Jones, Interim Associate Superintendent, ACOE
Ingrid L. Roberson, Chief of Learning & Accountability, ACOE
21
Exhibit C
January 15, 2019 Aimee Eng, President Board of Education Oakland Unified School District 1000 Broadway, Suite 680 Oakland, CA 94607 RE: 2018-19 First Interim Report Dear President Eng: The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) filed a POSITIVE certification of the district’s First Interim Report for fiscal year 2018-19 with the Alameda County Office of Education (ACOE). In accordance with Education Code Section 42131, ACOE reviewed the First Interim Report, based on standards and criteria for fiscal stability adopted by the State Board of Education pursuant to Section 33127. ACOE’s review determined that OUSD may not meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and two subsequent fiscal years. Consequently, the certification shall be changed to QUALIFIED. The revised certification is based on the following areas of concern discovered in ACOE’s review:
Reduced Prior Year ADA – Reduction in Fund Balance of $5,379,785 OUSD’s 2017-18 ADA was less than anticipated, reducing prior year LCFF Sources by $5,379,785. This amount is identified on Form 01I, Components of Ending Fund Balance – Assignments, as “Assigned-ADA Adjustments Prior Year,” rather than being accounted for as an Audit Adjustment. By accounting for the prior year adjustment to ADA as a one-year, 2018-19 Assignment rather than an Audit Adjustment, OUSD’s Beginning Fund Balances are not reduced in the two subsequent years by the $5,379,785. Therefore, the projected Ending Fund Balances for 2019-20 and 2020-21 on Form MYPI are overstated by $5,379,785. Audit Adjustment – Reduction in Fund Balance of $1,225,000 The OUSD 2017-18 Annual Financial Report (Audit Report) contains an additional prior year fund balance reduction of $1,225,000 identified as “Fiscal year 2018 expenditures recognized in the succeeding period.” This audit adjustment was unknown to OUSD prior to the submission of their First Interim.
22
Aimee Eng, President Page 2 January 15, 2019
Reduced Current Year ADA – Reduction in Fund Balance of $2,400,000 The revised 2017-18 P-2 attendance report and the decreased 2018-19 CALPADS enrollment (certified) causes OUSD’s 2018-19 projected LCFF revenue to decrease from what was anticipated in the First Interim Report. Based on ACOE’s LCFF projections, OUSD will be funded at 95.55% of the CALPADS enrollment, which decreases OUSD’s LCFF revenue by approximately $2,400,000, or 128 ADA from OUSD’s estimates. Assumptions The First Interim Report requires OUSD to submit a detailed accounting of the district’s assumptions. The SACS Form MYPI states:
ASSUMPTIONS Please provide below or on a separate attachment, the assumptions used to determine the projections for the first and second subsequent fiscal years. Further, please include an explanation for any significant expenditure adjustments…
Without the details of the First Interim Report’s assumptions, ACOE cannot determine with accuracy the condition of OUSD’s financial position. ACOE is concerned that OUSD’s Reserve for Economic Uncertainties in the two subsequent fiscal years may be insufficient to avert insolvency. My office remains committed to working collaboratively with the district to ensure its long-term fiscal health. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our review process, please feel free to call me at (510) 670-4140.
Sincerely, L. Karen Monroe Alameda County Superintendent of Schools cc: Board of Education, Oakland USD Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Superintendent, Oakland USD Marcus Battle, Senior Business Officer, Oakland USD Tony Thurmond, Superintendent of Public Instruction Christopher Learned, Fiscal Oversight Trustee Gary Jones, Associate Superintendent, ACOE Teresa Santamaria, Chief of District & Business Advisory Services, ACOE
23
Exhibit D
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
Exhibit E
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD
RESOLUTION 1819-0041
CONFIRMING OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S COMMITMENT TO FISCAL SOLVENCY
WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that the district is highly dependent on revenue from the State of California and that revenue source is dependent on the on-going stability of the California State economy; WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that the Governor’s 2018/2019 Budget proposal projects out year increases tied to cost of living adjustments only, and that these budget components have a direct impact on the District’s multiyear projections; WHEREAS, the Governing Board further recognizes the impact of declining enrollment and increasing STRS/PERS pension costs on the District’s budget; WHEREAS, The Education Code specifies that on or before July 1 of each year each school district shall adopt a budget; WHEREAS, Education Code section 42127(c) provides, in relevant part, that the County Superintendent of Schools shall: “Determine whether the adopted budget will allow the school district to meet its financial obligations during the fiscal year and is consistent with a financial plan that will enable the school district to satisfy its multiyear financial commitments . . . [and] shall either conditionally approve or disapprove a budget that does not provide adequate assurance that the school district will meet its current and future obligations and resolve any problems identified in studies, reports, evaluations, or audits described in this paragraph.” WHEREAS, based on the District projections of revenue and expenditures and the District’s current fiscal challenges, it is projected that the District will not meet its required minimum reserves in the 2019-2020 and 2020-21 fiscal years, and the District will have a negative ending fund balance (currently estimated at approximately -20,300,000 and -$59,000,000 respectively); WHEREAS, the Governing Board desires to minimize the impact on the level of service and quality of staff and education programs for District students; WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that the District’s health and welfare benefits package is a significant factor in the District’s ability to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers and staff, and the Governing Board is committed to minimizing the impact on the level of such benefits within the District’s fiscal constraints and without major disruption to plan benefits; WHEREAS, the Governing Board desires to avoid draconian budget reduction measures beginning in the 2019-2020 fiscal year;
59
WHEREAS, the Governing Board remains committed to collaboration with its employee representatives and bargaining units in addressing the District’s fiscal challenges in hopes of avoiding any draconian cuts to Reductions in Force; WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that the current multiyear projection included in the District’s proposed budget projects a negative fund balance of approximately $20,300,000 in 2019-2020 fiscal year, and $59,000,000 in the 2020-2021 fiscal year, and further recognizes that the projections may increase or decrease depending on the final State revenue allocated to Proposition 98 as adopted by the State of California in the 2018-2019 and/or 2019-2020 state budget, or any other changes to the multi-year assumptions; WHEREAS, the Governing Board recognizes that if the District’s current fiscal circumstances do not change materially for the positive on or before January 31, 2019, then it will be necessary to either increase revenue and/or make appropriate expenditure reductions in order for the District to remain fiscally solvent beginning in FY 2019-20 and the two subsequent years fiscal as mandated by California State law; WHEREAS, the Governing Board has been advised of the risk in delaying reductions which may allow the projected negative ending fund balance (approximately -$59,000,000) by 2020-2021 to grow larger; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, based on the above recitals and in order to ensure that the Oakland Unified School District remains fiscally solvent, the Governing Board is committed to reducing expenditures in all budget areas including salaries, employee benefits, services and operating expenses, capital outlay, other outgoing and other financing sources; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, absent a material positive change in the District’s projected revenues or reduction in District expenses, the District will be required to consider and implement budget reductions in force beginning in FY 2019-20 of at least 234 FTE Certificated positions and 104 FTE Classified, Management and Confidential positions for approximately $26.4 million to be identified on or before February 28, 2019, books and supplies of $400,000 and $3.5 million services and operating expenses to address the District’s negative ending fund balance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, given the District’s history of budget and fiscal miscalculations, the Board will require the District to establish a more conservative target for reductions to achieve a minimum of a 3% reserve beginning in FY 2019-20 in order to address unforeseen budgetary increases; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, during the 2018-19 fiscal year, the District will work in collaboration with the bargaining units and the Board to provide alternatives to reductions in force which would be enacted in the absence of new money or equivalent savings identified by January 31, 2019; and BE IT ADDITIONALLY RESOLVED that the Governing Board is committed to explore and pursue any and all options to increase revenue including local, state, federal grants, and additional remedies as provided by the State. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Governing Board of the Oakland Unified School District, Alameda County, State of California, on August 8, 2018, by the following vote:
60
Passed by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE: None
PREFERENTIAL NAYS: None
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION: None
PREFERENTIAL RECUSE None:
PREFERENTIAL ABSENCE: Josue Chavez (Student Director), Yota Omosowho (Student Director)
AYES: Jody London, Nina Senn, Shanthi Gonzales, James Harris, Vice President Jumoke Hinton Hodge, President Aimee Eng
NOES: None
ABSTAINED: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Roseann Torres
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a Regular Meeting of the Governing Board of the Oakland Unified School District held on August 8, 2018.
__________________________ Aimee Eng
President, Governing Board
__________________________ Kyla Johnson Trammell
Secretary, Governing Board
Legislative File No. 18-1723Introduction Date: 8/8/18Enactment No. 18-1266Enactment Date 8/8/18 er
61
Exhibit F
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 1819-0007
District's Capital (Facilities) Program - Revised Spending Plan - August 2018
WHEREAS, in June 2012, Oakland voters passed Measure J, a $475 million School Facilities Improvement Bond;
WHEREAS, the Facilities Master Plan developed in 2012 identified that the Facilities needs cost more than the funding sought by the bond measure;
WHEREAS, as project scopes have expanded, construction costs have increased over time, and various circumstances have contributed to delays, there are insufficient funds in Measure J to complete all of the projected projects on the Measure J spending plan;
WHEREAS, it is estimated that an additional $160 million would be needed to complete all of the committed Measure J projects as currently scoped and within the timeframes committed;
WHEREAS, a framework was developed to determine which projects to reduce or defer to ensure that the District’s capital spending plan is balanced with resources; the framework recommends cuts that are: (1) furthest away from the classroom; (2) not yet in construction or furthest away from construction; (3) least harmful to the overall District and Facilities program,
WHEREAS, the District’s Capital (Facilities) Program – Revised Spending Plan – August 2018 (attached as Exhibit A) applies this framework to recommend reductions to specified projects to balance the spending plan,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board hereby adopts the revised District’s Capital (Facilities) Program – Revised Spending Plan – August 2018 attached hereto as Exhibit A and authorizes the use of Measures B and J , Measures B and J Interest, Fund 25 (Capital Facilities ) and Fund 35 (County School Facilities) Funds, as stated in Exhibit A, as the funding sources for related expenditures for facilities projects subject to the Board’s approval of the contracts, or other Board required authorizations, if any, for such expenditures.
Passed by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE:
PREFERENTIAL NOE:
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION:
NoneNoneStudent Directors Chavez and Omosowho
62
PREFERENTIAL RECUSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
RECUSED:
ABSENT:
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a
Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District, held on
August 22, 2018.
Legislative File Info.
File ID Number: 18-1729
Introduction
Date:
8/1/18
Enactment
Number:
Enactment Date:
Exhibit “A” - Revised Measure J Spending Plan
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
___________________________________________ Aimee Eng President, Board of Education
___________________________________________ Kyla Johnson-Trammell Superintendent and Secretary, Board of Education
NoneJody London, Nina Senn, Roseann Torres, Shanthi Gonzales, President Aimee EngVice President Jumoke Hinton Hodge, James Harris
NoneNoneNone
18-1395
8/22/18 os
63
EXHI
BIT
D
12/
13/2
016
1C
alifo
rnia
Sol
ar In
itiat
ive
(CSI
) Pro
ject
35,0
00,0
00$
-$
-$
35,0
00,0
00$
31,0
00,0
00$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
31,0
00,0
00$
2G
lenv
iew
Ele
men
tary
Sch
ool -
Rep
lace
men
t47
,000
,000
$-
$-
$47
,000
,000
$37
,000
,000
$11
,800
,000
$-
$10
,000
,000
$
-$
-$
58,8
00,0
00$
3M
adis
on G
rade
Exp
ansi
on P
roje
ct (F
rom
6-9
to 6
-12)
27,0
00,0
00$
-$
-$
27,0
00,0
00$
15,5
00,0
00$
5,20
0,00
0$
-$
15,7
00,0
00$
-
$-
$36
,400
,000
$4
Gre
enle
af E
xpan
sion
Pro
ject
(Fr
om K
-5 to
K-8
)40
,000
,000
$-
$-
$40
,000
,000
$39
,480
,000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$39
,480
,000
$5
Sank
ofa
Expa
nsio
n Pr
ojec
t (Fr
om K
-5 to
K-8
)3,
000,
000
$-
$-
$3,
000,
000
$2,
500,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,
500,
000
$6
Frem
ont H
igh
Scho
ol -
Rep
lace
men
t80
,000
,000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$82
,000
,000
$11
7,00
0,00
0$
3,80
0,00
0$
-$
12,4
00,0
00$
-$
-$
133,
200,
000
$7a
Educ
atio
n Le
arni
ng C
ompl
ex (E
LC2)
38,0
00,0
00$
5,00
0,00
0$
-$
43,0
00,0
00$
14,6
20,0
00$
-$
2,88
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
17,5
00,0
00$
7bIn
terim
Hou
sing
6,50
0,00
0$
-$
-$
6,50
0,00
0$
14,4
80,0
00$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
14,4
80,0
00$
8M
cCly
mon
ds H
S In
tens
ive
Supp
ort S
ite2,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$4,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,
000,
000
$9
Cas
tlem
ont H
S In
tens
ive
Supp
ort S
ite4,
000,
000
$-
$-
$4,
000,
000
$4,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,
000,
000
$10
Bro
okfie
ld E
S In
tens
ive
Supp
ort S
ite1,
000,
000
$3,
000,
000
$-
$4,
000,
000
$2,
500,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,
500,
000
$11
Fric
k M
S In
tens
ive
Supp
ort S
ite2,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$4,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,
000,
000
$12
Cen
tral
Kitc
hen/
Com
mis
sary
at F
oste
r Site
45,0
00,0
00$
8,00
0,00
0$
-$
53,0
00,0
00$
50,0
00,0
00$
21,0
00,0
00$
-$
-$
-$
-$
71,0
00,0
00$
13Sc
hool
Kitc
hens
l &
210
,975
,000
$17
,800
,000
$-
$28
,775
,000
$7,
750,
000
$25
,000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$7,
775,
000
$14
Roo
seve
lt M
oder
niza
tion
(Des
ign
Onl
y)-
$1,
000,
000
$-
$1,
000,
000
$-
$1,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,
000,
000
$Su
btot
al34
1,47
5,00
0$
40,8
00,0
00$
-$
382,
275,
000
$33
9,83
0,00
0$
46,8
25,0
00$
2,88
0,00
0$
38,1
00,0
00$
-$
-$
427,
635,
000
$
15Se
curit
y C
amer
a Pl
an (D
esig
n O
nly)
500,
000
$-
$-
$50
0,00
0$
500,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$50
0,00
0$
16Se
curit
y Im
prov
emen
t Dis
tric
t Wid
e2,
000,
000
$4,
000,
000
$-
$6,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,
000,
000
$Su
btot
al2,
500,
000
$4,
000,
000
$-
$6,
500,
000
$2,
500,
000
$2,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$4,
500,
000
$
17Pr
op 3
9 En
ergy
Effi
cien
cy8,
625,
000
$-
$-
$8,
625,
000
$8,
625,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$8,
625,
000
$18
Educ
atio
nal T
echn
olog
y2,
000,
000
$1,
000,
000
$-
$3,
000,
000
$2,
000,
000
$1,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,
000,
000
$19
Tech
nolo
gy a
nd C
omm
on C
ore
7,20
0,00
0$
-$
-$
7,20
0,00
0$
7,20
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
7,20
0,00
0$
20Te
chno
logy
Infr
astr
uctu
re U
pgra
des
2,50
0,00
0$
2,50
0,00
0$
-$
5,00
0,00
0$
2,50
0,00
0$
2,50
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
5,00
0,00
0$
Subt
otal
20,3
25,0
00$
3,50
0,00
0$
-$
23,8
25,0
00$
20,3
25,0
00$
3,50
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
23,8
25,0
00$
21Pa
ving
and
Infr
astr
uctu
re6,
186,
496
$-
$-
$6,
186,
496
$5,
863,
066
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$5,
863,
066
$22
Bat
hroo
m R
enov
atio
ns8,
049,
489
$-
$-
$8,
049,
489
$2,
800,
000
$-
$1,
700,
000
$-
$-
$-
$4,
500,
000
$23
Roo
fing
Proj
ects
1,56
4,64
7$
-$
-$
1,56
4,64
7$
1,56
4,64
7$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,56
4,64
7$
24Fr
uitv
ale
ES B
leac
hers
/Res
troo
ms
1,00
0,00
0$
-$
-$
1,00
0,00
0$
912,
740
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$91
2,74
0$
25C
hild
Dev
elop
men
t Cen
ters
Impr
ovem
ents
- La
urel
3,50
0,00
0$
-$
-$
3,50
0,00
0$
3,50
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
3,50
0,00
0$
26B
oile
r Rep
lace
men
ts-
$-
$-
$-
$1,
500,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,
500,
000
$27
DSA
Leg
acy
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
550,
000
$-
$-
$-
$55
0,00
0$
29M
obile
Mod
ular
Leg
acy
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
204,
000
$-
$-
$-
$20
4,00
0$
30AD
A U
pgra
des
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,00
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,00
0,00
0$
31H
ealth
Clin
ics
- Oak
land
Tec
h2,
500,
000
$-
$50
0,00
0$
3,00
0,00
0$
300,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$30
0,00
0$
32Jo
aqui
n M
iller
ES
Play
stru
ctur
e80
,917
$-
$-
$80
,917
$80
,917
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$80
,917
$33
Cla
rem
ont M
S K
itche
n Fi
re1,
500,
000
$3,
500,
000
$-
$5,
000,
000
$-
$3,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,
000,
000
$34
Scie
nce
Cla
ssro
oms
and
Labs
12,7
50,0
00$
-$
500,
000
$13
,250
,000
$3,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,
000,
000
$35
Play
mat
ting
and
Play
stru
ctur
es9,
000,
000
$-
$-
$9,
000,
000
$3,
000,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$3,
000,
000
$36
Man
zani
ta E
S Pl
ay A
rea
200,
000
$-
$-
$20
0,00
0$
200,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$20
0,00
0$
37B
ella
Vis
ta E
S Po
rtab
le R
emov
al60
0,00
0$
-$
-$
600,
000
$57
3,99
8$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
573,
998
$38
Skyl
ine
HS
Gym
Roo
f45
0,00
0$
-$
-$
450,
000
$45
0,00
0$
-$
200,
000
$-
$-
$-
$65
0,00
0$
Subt
otal
47,3
81,5
49$
3,50
0,00
0$
1,00
0,00
0$
51,8
81,5
49$
24,7
45,3
68$
3,00
0,00
0$
2,65
4,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
30,3
99,3
68$
39a
Turf
Fie
ld R
epla
cem
ent -
Sky
line
HS
2,03
5,00
0$
-$
-$
2,03
5,00
0$
1,92
9,46
3$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,92
9,46
3$
39b
Turf
Fie
ld R
epla
cem
ent -
Oak
Tec
h H
S Fi
eld
-$
1,85
0,00
0$
-$
1,85
0,00
0$
-$
1,85
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
1,85
0,00
0$
39c
Turf
Fie
ld R
epla
cem
ent -
Cas
tlem
ont H
S &
McC
lym
onds
HS
2,70
0,00
0$
-$
-$
2,70
0,00
0$
2,40
0,00
0$
1,00
0,00
0$
2,00
0,00
0$
600,
000
$-
$-
$6,
000,
000
$41
Car
ter @
Oak
land
Inte
rnat
iona
l HS
Turf
Rep
lace
men
t2,
500,
000
$-
$-
$2,
500,
000
$1,
800,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,
800,
000
$41
Bur
bank
ES
Site
Impr
ovem
ents
2,55
0,00
0$
-$
-$
2,55
0,00
0$
2,07
8,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
2,07
8,00
0$
42Pa
rker
ES
Astr
o Tu
rf In
stal
latio
n1,
762,
493
$-
$-
$1,
762,
493
$1,
733,
860
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$1,
733,
860
$43
Scor
eboa
rd a
t Fie
lds
100,
000
$-
$-
$10
0,00
0$
89,2
50$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
89,2
50$
44M
iddl
e Sc
hool
Fie
lds
5,50
0,00
0$
3,95
0,00
0$
-$
9,45
0,00
0$
5,52
5,00
0$
2,92
5,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
8,45
0,00
0$
45Em
erso
n Fi
eld
2,00
0,00
0$
-$
-$
2,00
0,00
0$
2,00
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
2,00
0,00
0$
Subt
otal
19,1
47,4
93$
5,80
0,00
0$
-$
24,9
47,4
93$
17,5
55,5
73$
5,77
5,00
0$
2,00
0,00
0$
600,
000
$-
$-
$25
,930
,573
$46
Lead
Aba
tem
ent
-$
-$
-$
-$
2,30
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
2,30
0,00
0$
47B
ond
Prog
ram
Con
tinge
ncy
-$
6,90
0,00
0$
-$
6,90
0,00
0$
7,00
0,00
0$
2,90
0,00
0$
-$
-$
2,00
0,00
0$
2,50
0,00
0$
14,4
00,0
00$
48B
ond
Prog
ram
Coo
rdin
atio
n41
,670
,958
$50
0,00
0$
-$
42,1
70,9
58$
58,2
44,0
59$
1,00
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
-$
59,2
44,0
59$
49Fa
cilit
y M
aste
r Pla
n2,
500,
000
$-
$-
$2,
500,
000
$2,
500,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$-
$2,
500,
000
$50
Linc
oln
Wat
er In
trus
ion
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
-$
2,21
0,00
0$
-$
-$
-$
2,21
0,00
0$
51Pr
ior B
oard
App
rove
d Al
arm
Pro
ject
s-
$-
$8,
480,
000
$8,
480,
000
$-
$-
$-
$-
$7,
480,
000
$-
$7,
480,
000
$
475,
000,
000
$65
,000
,000
$9,
480,
000
$54
9,48
0,00
0$
475,
000,
000
$65
,000
,000
$9,
744,
000
$38
,700
,000
$9,
480,
000
$2,
500,
000
$60
0,42
4,00
0$
FACI
LITI
ES P
LAN
NIN
G &
MAN
AGEM
ENT
Aug
ust 1
6, 2
018
Mea
sure
B In
tere
stTO
TAL
New
Pro
pose
d Fu
ndin
g Pl
an -
Augu
st 2
018
Mea
sure
JM
easu
re B
$65
MM
easu
re B
Inte
rest
TOTA
LFu
nd 3
5Fu
nd 2
5M
easu
re J
Inte
rest
Fiel
d Pr
ojec
ts
All
Cap
ital R
esou
rces
- Su
mm
ary
of
chan
ges
Mod
erni
zatio
ns a
nd N
ew C
onst
ruct
ion
Secu
rity
Proj
ects
Ener
gy a
nd T
echn
olog
y
Oth
er C
apita
l Im
prov
emen
ts
Boar
d Ap
prov
ed -
June
201
7
Mea
sure
JM
easu
re B
$65
M
Dist
rict's
Cap
ital (
Faci
litie
s) P
rogr
am -
Revi
sed
Spen
ding
Pla
n - A
ugus
t 201
8Ex
hibi
t "A"
64
Exhibit G
September 12, 2018
Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill Alameda County Superior Court 1225 Fallon Street, Department One Oakland, California 94612
Cassie Barner c/o Alameda County Grand Jury 1401 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1104 Oakland, California 94612 RE: Response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Oakland Unified School District: Hard Choices Needed To Prevent Insolvency” Dear Presiding Judge Carvill and Foreperson Barner: The Oakland Unified School District (the “District”) submits its Responses to the Findings and Recommendations from the 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Oakland Unified School District: Hard Choices Needed To Prevent Insolvency.” The District appreciates the Jurors' commitment to their role, thoroughness, and diligence in analyzing and understanding many of the complex and critical issues facing the District. The Civil Grand Jury exemplified the effectiveness of a panel of citizens to objectively analyze a component of the District’s operations and to provide thoughtful insight and recommendations to the District. The District appreciates the opportunity to raise awareness of these challenges, receive the candid feedback, and implement the recommendations. The District disagreed with some of the narrative preceding the Findings and Recommendations. However, since these facts did not materially change the District’s response to the findings and recommendations, the District only noted a few of the factual inaccuracies relating to the School of Language and Rudsdale Academy in its response.
65
Presiding Judge Wynne Carvill Foreperson Cassie Barner RE: Response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Oakland Unified School District: Hard Choices Needed To Prevent Insolvency” September 12, 2018 Page 2 of 2
Notably, at the beginning of the Civil Grand Jury’s service, the District began new leadership under the esteemed Dr. Kyla Johnson-Trammell, an Oakland native and long-time educator in the District. Dr. Johnson-Trammell engaged immediately to build a trusted, experienced team of business and fiscal experts to advise and implement improvements. In addition, the Board passed numerous new fiscal policies to help ensure that District staff was implementing the recommendations of the Fiscal Crisis Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) and to prioritize rebuilding fiscal reserves. The Board also reinstituted its Budget and Finance Advisory Committee and increased Board trainings and the number of board meetings focused on fiscal and budget topics. Although the hurdles are significant, the District believes it is on its way toward implementing the recommendations of the Grand Jury and becoming a fiscally sustainable, quality educational institution with students who are prepared for college, career and community success.
Sincerely,
Aimee Eng President of the Board
AE:lf
Attachment: Response to 2017-2018 Civil Grand Jury Report, “Oakland Unified School District: Hard Choices Needed To Prevent Insolvency”
_______________________________________ 9/13/18Aimee EngPresident, Board of Education
______________________________________ 9/13/18Kyla R. Johnson-TrammellSecretary, Board of Education
Enactment No.: 18-1505
66
OAKLAND UNIFIED RESPONSE TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 18-6: Staff and Board of Education efforts to circumvent established budgeting policies along with board efforts to interfere in the administrative responsibilities of the superintendent invite financial instability and contribute to Oakland Unified School District’s financial problems.
The District agrees with this finding with the clarification that it does not believe the efforts referenced in the finding are intentional. One component of the District’s theory of action is to maximize school site-based decision-making regarding staffing, finances, calendars, and programs. As a result, there are numerous board policies supporting each principal’s and particular school community’s fiscal and programmatic autonomy to best meet the needs of its school community. There is considerable research highlighting some of the advantages of this method of budgeting. See, e.g., Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy. (October 2012). Smart School Budgeting: Resources for Districts. Cambridge, MA: Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy. Some of the advantages for these budgeting policies are: “Those who best understand needs have the authority to make decisions. Provides greater control/ reporting of school-level data and greater school-level accountability. Staff/community given a voice, generating public support.” Id. On the other hand, however, these policies require substantial training and deeper understanding and attention to financial matters than alternative ways of budgeting. In a district with significant administrator turnover and deep instructional needs, these responsibilities can be challenging. Also, it can cause an otherwise “unified” system to have internal discord through numerous parts working separately on individualized goals and accountability.
Some of the Board’s legislative proposals relating to creation of personnel positions tended to focus upon development of positions that could assist the Board in fulfilling its role in overseeing the District’s budget at a time when the District’s financial department was understaffed. These positions were proposed in adherence to the Board’s Bylaws and, ultimately, were not adopted by the majority of the Board. The Board has engaged in numerous trainings over the last 15 months to improve its governance.
Finding 18-7: Oakland Unified School District’s inability to control overstaffing and poor position control decisions have contributed to the district’s financial instability.
The District agrees with this finding. The District’s largest fiscal expenditures are salary and salary-driven benefit costs. To drive school improvement, the District has focused
67
on increases resources to schools, often in the form of staffing. In 2017, $419.2 million, approximately 80% of the District’s budget, was spent on employee salaries and benefits. During the same time, the statutorily required pension benefits for District employees continued to rise an additional 2% from the prior year’s increase without additional funding allocated for such purposes. In addition to increasing costs, in 2017, the District’s staffing at schools and District-wide support positions (such as substitutes, school security, custodial, nutrition services, and special education staff), increased by 621 general fund positions while central office general fund positions decreased by 383.
This finding highlights the complexity of the District’s budget and enrollment patterns, and the pressure placed on specific school communities and the Board when the enrollment upon which school budgets were based changes. Each of the District’s eighty-seven schools gets its following school year’s budget allocation in the spring based on projected enrollment. Schools develop their staff assignments, class lists, and master bell schedule/ class offerings accordingly. After schools, school communities, and students are assigned to teachers, it is programmatically and politically difficult to make changes to staffing and scheduling after the school year begins and to adjust a school’s budget downward. Also, the District also often receives immigrant students, newcomers, and/or transfer students during the school year and need to ensure sufficient staffing to meet these late enrollment needs. Given teacher shortages and recruitment challenges, the District risks being unable to meet these needs if teachers are separated from employment based on enrollment in the first weeks of school. Unfortunately, the state funding model which is based on student attendance rather than the fixed costs of staffing classrooms disparately impacts districts like Oakland Unified that have large numbers of late enrollees and absenteeism due to chronic health conditions.
Finding 18-8: Lack of transparency related to Oakland Unified School District’s financial positions has led to mistrust between the district, the community, and labor organizations.
The District agrees in part with this finding but believes that other factors, including historical context in Oakland and negative media coverage of the District contribute to distrust even with greater access to information. Also, the District’s prior financial system, data management, and generation of reports were inconsistent and unreliable. One issue facing the District is how to best communicate complex fiscal information to a wide audience. For example, in January 2016, School Services of California and the District fiscal team presented information in the District’s public board meeting about the expectation of a slowdown in revenue as the Local Control Funding Formula “gap” funding started to narrow to only a cost of living increase while pensions costs were increasing; subsequent budget presentations continued to note this data. Yet, the complexity of the overall budget shielded awareness of this issue.
68
The District’s utilization of and access to data surpasses most other districts. All minutes, videos, and actions taken by the Board since 1999, including all budget presentations and all financial decisions impacting the District, are available in an easily searchable database on the District’s website at https://www.ousd.org/domain/67. In our analysis of other school districts, few have this level of transparency and accessibility. In addition, the District’s Research and Development department maintain data dashboards (www.ousddata.org) relating to student demographics, performance, discipline and attendance, teacher data, attendance patterns, accountability, wellness, climate and culture data, and post-secondary readiness data for use by the public. In spring 2016, the District also added comprehensive data dashboards of fiscal information that is viewable by school, department, resource, or expenditure type to analyze multiple years of fiscal data. (https://www.ousd.org/fiscaltransparency)
Finding 18-9: High turnover of key administrators has created an atmosphere of mistrust, destroying the continuity of the district’s educational mission, and crippling the district’s effectiveness in addressing its most pressing fiscal issues.
The District agrees with this finding. After the Board regained governance following state receivership, the District had five different Superintendents (two of which were interim superintendents) in nine years. Although the overall strategic plan, Community Schools, Thriving Students, has remained in place, each Superintendent’s initiatives and focal points within the plan have varied. Without clear leadership and focus, work within District departments and schools seemed less aligned and targeted. Similarly, during leadership transition, retention efforts of other key staff became more difficult which increased costs.
Moreover, superintendent turnover required the Board to spend significant time and energy on recruiting, selection, and vetting of superintendent candidates rather than other important work of the Board. However, the investment in the selection process for Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell has helped position the District on a new trajectory. As an Oakland native and acclaimed educator in OUSD, Dr. Johnson-Trammell has begun to rebuild the trust of the community and staff and is poised to stabilize and lead the District toward its vision.
Finding 18-10: Financial instability and high staff turnover contribute to poor student performance.
The District agrees in part with this finding but qualifies its response based on the myriad of factors that may impact student performance. The District believes that inadequate educational funding, even if stable, detrimentally impacts student performance. For districts like Oakland Unified, where schools must serve a variety of student’s physical, mental, social, safety, linguistic, and academic needs, incremental
69
cost of living increases to educational funding that are insufficient to cover increasing mandated costs, will continue to contribute to poor student outcomes.
Relatedly, research data reflects that high teacher and administrator turnover negatively impacts student performance, and adequate funding is a component of retention, particularly in the context of the current teacher shortage.
Finding 18-11: Operating 86 schools is unsustainable and will lead the district to insolvency.
The District agrees with this finding in part. Assuming that all current conditions, including revenue, enrollment, class sizes, staffing levels, number of schools, and expenses, remain the same, the District will continue to operate at a fiscal deficit and will become insolvent. Reducing the number of District-operated schools is one way to reduce expenditures. However, from prior experiences, the District believes that to reduce potential loss of enrollment (and corresponding revenues) and creating unintended consequences, school consolidations need to be thoughtful and focused upon increasing quality options for all students. As reflected in a comprehensive independent study, Oakland Unified School District New Small Schools Initiative Evaluation by Ash Vasudeva, Linda Darling-Hammond, Stephen Newton & Kenneth Montgomery The School Redesign Network at Stanford University, the Oakland community has indicated previously that it values small schools and many small schools were regarded as successful. These perspectives and outcomes must be balanced with the District’s resources and commitment to a City-wide system of high-quality schools.
Alternatively, if the District increased enrollment or other revenue options, such as optimizing under-utilized property, or decreased expenses, the current school portfolio may be more sustainable. The Board, through its special committee on Fiscal Vitality, is currently exploring a variety of options and combinations of ways to eliminate the structural deficit.
Lastly, there are some factual inaccuracies in the report relating to Rudsdale Academy and the School of Language (SOL). Contrary to the report, Rudsdale Academy is not a new school. Rudsdale Academy is an alternative high school that opened in 2001, prior to that it operated as a continuation high school and prior to that it was a traditional high school. Although SOL was a new school in 2017-18, there was a great deal of strategic planning, development, and community outreach for years preceding the formal Board vote to open the school. Oakland SOL was added to the District’s portfolio of schools in order to build a PK-12 multilingual pathway in alignment with the district’s strategic plan to “implement strategies that accelerate academic achievement while closing the opportunity gap” (OUSD Pathway to Excellence, 2014) and create strong pathways and feeder patterns in every Oakland neighborhood (OUSD Superintendent’s 2016-17 Workplan). The English Language Learner and Multilingual Achievement (ELLMA) office and the Office of Continuous School Improvement supported the launch of Oakland SOL middle school as a critical component of growing equitable dual
70
language/bilingual pathways in furtherance of the District’s 2015-2018 plan for improving outcomes for English Language Learners (ELL Roadmap for Success 2015-2018). This lengthy planning process and alignment to the District’s strategic plan, particularly for underserved students, was not captured in the grand jury’s report.
Finding 18-12: Collaboration between traditional public schools and charter schools operating in the district benefit all students in Oakland Unified School District.
The District agrees with this finding in part. The District does not believe that expending precious, limited resources fighting with charter schools is beneficial to students living in Oakland. The District agrees that collaborating with charters about school quality standards, enrollment and feeder patterns, professional development, placement of programs, special education, governance, fiscal transparency, equity and innovation would be beneficial to students in Oakland. However, there are some areas in which District schools and Charter schools have divergent interests and differential standards imposed by the Education Code. For example, California Charter School Association, on behalf of its Oakland charter school member(s), initiated and is currently pursuing litigation against the District which the District is vigorously defending.
In spring 2018, the Board worked diligently to debate and discuss various issues relating to District and charter schools and the number of schools in Oakland. The discussions culminated in a robust, visionary, and collaborative new Board Policy 6006 System of Schools (attached). The work to build a City-wide plan for a coherent system of schools is ongoing and a retreat on the issue is anticipated for November 2018.
Recommendation 18-7: The Oakland Unified School District Board of Education must participate in governance training, emphasizing that they are policy makers, not day-to-day administrators.
This recommendation has been partially implemented. In 2017-18, the entire Governing Board engaged in numerous governance training retreats and special meetings with Ron Bennett of School Services of California (10/5/17), Barbara Anderson and Allan Alson through Panasonic Foundation (10/5/17, 1/20/18, 6/7/18), and Victor Carey of the National Equity Project (10/5/17). In addition, numerous individual board members engaged in individual professional development to assist them in their roles, including attending conferences of the Government Finance Officers Association, Council of Great City Schools, and California School Board Association. The Board has committed to ongoing governance training in the 2018-19 school year, including a
71
governance retreat/ new board member orientation planned for January 2019.
Recommendation 18-8: The Oakland Unified School District Board of Education members must communicate with district officials through the superintendent.
This recommendation has been partially implemented. In a Board Retreat in August 2018, the Superintendent and Board discussed communication protocols in which the Board would direct its communications through the Superintendent and her “CORE Team” of direct reports with a copy or summary to the Superintendent. The consensus of the Board agreed to such communication protocols, but the protocol has not been formally adopted in the Board’s Governance Handbook.
Recommendation 18-9: The Oakland Unified School District must establish a position control system that tracks staff allocation and spending, and better interfaces with payroll systems.
This recommendation has been partially implemented. In July 2018, the District transitioned to a new financial management system, “ESCAPE”, which is fully-integrated with and hosted on the Alameda County Office of Education’s servers. As a result, the District anticipates that it will have enhanced controls, data, uniformity, and support from the County. In addition, the District hired a new chief business officer, Marcus Battle, who has extensive business, finance, and systems experience. The District also hired a new Chief Financial Officer, Ofelia Roxas, who is a certified public accountant with experience in school districts and county offices of education. In addition to the ESCAPE implementation, the new business and operations team are in the process of updating fiscal policies and administrative regulations and identifying training needs of the District.
In 2017-18, the Board passed a new reserve policy to help prioritize its reserves and ensure that the District was not overspending in staffing and also passed a resolution to monitor implementation of FCMAT’s recommendations.
Recommendation 18-10: The Oakland Unified School District must provide school site administrators with comprehensive training regarding position control and budgetary policies.
This recommendation has been partially implemented. In connection with the transition to a financial management system, ESCAPE, school site administrators, school support personnel, and central office staff were offered a series of trainings (April - August
72
2018) on how to use the new system. ESCAPE includes multiple levels of approvals for hiring, budget modifications, and purchasing transactions; greater keying error and omission safeguards; and more real-time, accurate information for users and supervisors to ensure compliance with budgetary policies. In addition, business leaders are reviewing and updating board policies and administrative regulations to recommend potential updates and improvements. As new policies are developed and training gaps identified, additional trainings and/or support for school site administrators will be developed.
Recommendation 18-11: The Oakland Unified School District must not hire any new staff or institute any new program unless there is money in the budget beforehand to fund them.
This recommendation has been implemented. Beginning in January 2018, any contracts that were submitted to the Board for approval were required to have a funding source with sufficient funds identified. Similarly, no position can be posted without the fiscal team identifying the budget and corresponding position code in the budget and no employee can be hired and begin work without a designated funding source. The District anticipates ongoing support and oversight from the Alameda County Office of Education, FCMAT and its state trustee to review budgeting and spending.
Recommendation 18-12: The Oakland Unified School District must develop a transparent budget platform that better informs the Board of Education and the public regarding long-term consequences of financial decisions.
This recommendation has been partially implemented. The District has a comprehensive, customizable database of its budget and historical budgets available on its website at https://www.ousd.org/fiscaltransparency. In addition, the Board has appointed a special committee for Fiscal Vitality that is charged with, among other things, making recommendations to reduce the structural deficit. The special committee anticipates holding approximately fourteen meetings from August to December 2018 and is engaging community to build awareness and understanding and to exchange ideas for solutions. The meetings, like the District’s Board meetings, are recorded and available online.
Although the historical and current information is available online, there are fewer resources available for the public regarding the potential future consequences of the District’s structural deficit. The Board is looking for ways to engage a broader, more diverse cross-section of the Oakland community beyond standard board meetings.
73
Exhibit H
MemoTo Board of Education
From Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality Shanthi Gonzales, Chair Aimee Eng James Harris
Board Meeting Date November 14, 2018
Subject Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
Action Requested and Recommendation
Approval by the Board of Education of Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
Background and Discussion
The Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality has met over the fall to review key board policies and the Governance Theory of Action. The Committee created a set of recommendations for budget development and prioritization for the 19/20 school year and is asking the Board of Education to consider adopting the following key recommendations:
1. Implement BP 3150 2. Redesign the District 3. Competitive Employee Compensation 4. Commit to Shared Decision Making and Multi-Stakeholder Teams
Fiscal Impact Reductions of $30 million
Attachments • Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
www.ousd.org
Board Office Use: Legislative File Info. File ID Number 18-2385 Introduction Date 11/14/18 Enactment Number 18-1787
Enactment Date 11/14/18 er
74
1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 1819-0013
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 19/20 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION FROM
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISCAL VITALITY
WHEREAS, the OUSD Board of Education is committed to the fiscal solvency of our School District; and
WHEREAS, the Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality has met over the fall to review our key board policies and ground ourselves in our Governance Theory of Action; and
WHEREAS, our learning and deliberations as a Committee have informed a set of recommendations for budget development and prioritization for the 19-20 school year for the consideration of the Board of Education.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by March 1, 2019, the Board will identify and make ongoing reductions of ~$30 million (coupled with savings measures and efficiencies). These reductions should:
align with the District’s Theory of Action; Board Policies (BP 3150, BP 3625, BP 6005, BP
6006); and Resolutions on Fiscal Vitality (Resolutions 1819-0041, 1718-0197A, and 1718- 0087A).
show evidence that staff have incorporated feedback from the Fiscal Vitality Committee as well as key stakeholders and engagements, and
comply with the Board adopted “Guiding Principles Regarding Budget Development and Prioritization”(Dec. 2017)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, In order to achieve our goals, the Committee is asking the Board to consider adopting the following key recommendations for implementation in 2019-20.
1. Implement BP 3150. In establishing budget priorities and reductions for school year
2019-20, apply BP 3150's allocation scheme, including restricting Central District-wide Administrative costs to 12% of general unrestricted revenues. Our expectation is that the number of school- and district-level administrators – particularly classified
75
2
administrators -- will be significantly reduced to be more in line with comparable districts and that resources to school sites will be maximized.
2. Redesign the District. Many centrally funded and managed initiatives are not aligned to existing Board Policies. The Committee recommends we use BP 3150, BP 3625, BP 6005, and BP 6006, and a zero-based budgeting approach to guide the restructuring of the District, and eliminate initiatives and programs that do not show evidence to support the rapid acceleration of students’ academic outcomes and improved social emotional well-being. The District’s Theory of Action states that the District will operate a “central office and the number and type of schools that we can sustain over time.” The redesign process will include reimagining how the central office is currently organized and identifying strategies to reduce the total number of schools the District operates.
3. Competitive Employee Compensation. Prioritize funds to enable the District to remain
competitive in teacher compensation. Pursue and invest in strategies that show evidence of increasing teacher and leader retention. In order to do this, we recognize the need to reprioritize current investments in order to reallocate dollars.
4. Commit to Shared Decision Making and Multi-Stakeholder Teams. Direct
Superintendent to form consult a multi-stakeholder leadership team which includes site-based leaders (including students, families, teachers, classified staff, principals, and central staff) to provide input, accelerate the work and ensure quality and equity remain central pillars in the District’s redesign process. This committeeThe consultations will meet take place between December 2018 and March 2019.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2018, at a Regular Meeting of the Governing Board by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE: None
PREFERENTIAL NO: None
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION: None
PREFERENTIAL RECUSE: None
AYES: Jody London, Shanthi Gonzales, James Harris, Aimee Eng
NOES: Jumoke Hinton Hodge
ABSTAINED: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: Rose Ann Torres Yota Omosowho (Student Director) Josue Chavez (Student Director)
763
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District, held on November 14, 2018.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Aimee Eng President, Board of Education
Kyla Johnson-Trammell Superintendent and Secretary, Board of Education
Legislative File Info. File ID Number: 18-2385
Introduction Date: 11/8/18Enactment Number: 18-1787
Enactment Date: 11/14/18 er
77
MemoTo Board of Education
From Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality Shanthi Gonzales, Chair Aimee Eng James Harris
Board Meeting Date November 14, 2018
Subject Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
Action Requested and Recommendation
Approval by the Board of Education of Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
Background and Discussion
The Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality has met over the fall to review key board policies and the Governance Theory of Action. The Committee created a set of recommendations for budget development and prioritization for the 19/20 school year and is asking the Board of Education to consider adopting the following key recommendations:
1. Implement BP 3150 2. Redesign the District 3. Competitive Employee Compensation 4. Commit to Shared Decision Making and Multi-Stakeholder Teams
Fiscal Impact Reductions of $30 million
Attachments • Resolution No. 1819-0013 Recommendations For 19/20 Budget Development and Prioritization from Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality
www.ousd.org
Board Office Use: Legislative File Info. File ID Number 18-2385 Introduction Date 11/14/18 Enactment Number 18-1787
Enactment Date 11/14/18 er
78
1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 1819-0013
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 19/20 BUDGET DEVELOPMENT AND PRIORITIZATION FROM
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON FISCAL VITALITY
WHEREAS, the OUSD Board of Education is committed to the fiscal solvency of our School District; and
WHEREAS, the Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality has met over the fall to review our key board policies and ground ourselves in our Governance Theory of Action; and
WHEREAS, our learning and deliberations as a Committee have informed a set of recommendations for budget development and prioritization for the 19-20 school year for the consideration of the Board of Education.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by March 1, 2019, the Board will identify and make ongoing reductions of ~$30 million (coupled with savings measures and efficiencies). These reductions should:
align with the District’s Theory of Action; Board Policies (BP 3150, BP 3625, BP 6005, BP
6006); and Resolutions on Fiscal Vitality (Resolutions 1819-0041, 1718-0197A, and 1718- 0087A).
show evidence that staff have incorporated feedback from the Fiscal Vitality Committee as well as key stakeholders and engagements, and
comply with the Board adopted “Guiding Principles Regarding Budget Development and Prioritization”(Dec. 2017)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, In order to achieve our goals, the Committee is asking the Board to consider adopting the following key recommendations for implementation in 2019-20.
1. Implement BP 3150. In establishing budget priorities and reductions for school year
2019-20, apply BP 3150's allocation scheme, including restricting Central District-wide Administrative costs to 12% of general unrestricted revenues. Our expectation is that the number of school- and district-level administrators – particularly classified
79
2
administrators -- will be significantly reduced to be more in line with comparable districts and that resources to school sites will be maximized.
2. Redesign the District. Many centrally funded and managed initiatives are not aligned to existing Board Policies. The Committee recommends we use BP 3150, BP 3625, BP 6005, and BP 6006, and a zero-based budgeting approach to guide the restructuring of the District, and eliminate initiatives and programs that do not show evidence to support the rapid acceleration of students’ academic outcomes and improved social emotional well-being. The District’s Theory of Action states that the District will operate a “central office and the number and type of schools that we can sustain over time.” The redesign process will include reimagining how the central office is currently organized and identifying strategies to reduce the total number of schools the District operates.
3. Competitive Employee Compensation. Prioritize funds to enable the District to remain
competitive in teacher compensation. Pursue and invest in strategies that show evidence of increasing teacher and leader retention. In order to do this, we recognize the need to reprioritize current investments in order to reallocate dollars.
4. Commit to Shared Decision Making and Multi-Stakeholder Teams. Direct
Superintendent to consult a multi-stakeholder leadership team which includes site-based leaders (including students, families, teachers, classified staff, principals, and central staff) to provide input, accelerate the work and ensure quality and equity remain central pillars in the District’s redesign process. The consultations will take place between December 2018 and March 2019.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of November, 2018, at a Regular Meeting of the Governing Board by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE: None
PREFERENTIAL NO: None
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION: None
PREFERENTIAL RECUSE: None
AYES: Jody London, Shanthi Gonzales, James Harris, Aimee Eng
NOES: Jumoke Hinton Hodge
ABSTAINED: None
RECUSE: None
ABSENT: Rose Ann Torres Yota Omosowho (Student Director) Josue Chavez (Student Director)
80
3
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District, held on November 14, 2018.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
Aimee Eng President, Board of Education
Kyla Johnson-Trammell Superintendent and Secretary, Board of Education
Legislative File Info. File ID Number: 18-2385
Introduction Date: 11/8/18Enactment Number: 18-1787
Enactment Date: 11/14/18 er
81
Exhibit I
Com
mun
ity o
f Sch
ools
City
wid
e Pl
an:
Tow
ard
a Ci
tyw
ide
Map
Nove
mbe
r 14,
201
8Ky
la Jo
hnso
n-Tr
amm
ell,
Supe
rinte
nden
tSo
ndra
Agu
ilera
, Dep
uty
Chie
f, Co
ntin
uous
Sch
ool I
mpr
ovem
ent
82
Our V
ision
And
Miss
ion
Grou
nd U
sVi
sion:
All O
USD
stud
ents
will
find
joy
in th
eir a
cade
mic
lear
ning
exp
erie
nce
whi
le g
radu
atin
g w
ith th
e sk
ills t
o en
sure
they
are
carin
g, co
mpe
tent
, fu
lly-in
form
ed, c
ritica
l thi
nker
s who
are
pr
epar
ed fo
r col
lege
, car
eer,
and
com
mun
ity su
cces
s.
Miss
ion:
To b
ecom
e a
Full
Serv
ice
Com
mun
ity D
istric
tfoc
used
on
high
ac
adem
ic ac
hiev
emen
t whi
le se
rvin
g th
e w
hole
child
, elim
inat
ing
ineq
uity
, and
pr
ovid
ing
each
child
with
exc
elle
nt
teac
hers
, eve
ry d
ay.
Key P
rincip
les:
Qual
ity, E
quity
, Ac
cess
and
Fisc
al Su
stai
nabi
lity
2
83
Wha
t we
are
tryi
ng to
solv
e in
ord
er to
reac
h ou
r miss
ion
and
visio
n?Fi
scal
Vita
lity &
Sus
tain
abili
ty
We
need
few
er, b
ette
r res
ourc
ed sc
hool
s with
larg
er e
nrol
lmen
t
Qual
ity &
Equ
ity
We
need
bet
ter q
ualit
y pr
ogra
ms i
n ev
ery
neig
hbor
hood
for e
very
st
uden
t
Equi
ty &
Acc
ess
W
e n
eed
acce
ss to
qua
lity
scho
ols c
lose
r to
hom
e
We
need
regi
onal
feed
er p
atte
rns f
rom
pre
-K th
roug
h hi
gh sc
hool
3
84
Com
mun
ity o
f Sch
ools
Polic
y (B
P 60
06)
A Ci
tyw
ide
Plan
grou
nded
in p
olicy
: Ass
et M
anag
emen
t, Ch
arte
r Aut
horiz
atio
n, E
nrol
lmen
t, Eq
uity
, Res
ults
Bas
ed B
udge
ting,
Sch
ool G
over
nanc
e, a
nd Q
ualit
y Sch
ool D
evel
opm
ent
Defin
ed A
uton
omie
sE
Best
supp
ort c
ontin
ued
inno
vatio
nw
ithin
OUS
D sc
hool
s and
ac
cele
rate
the
num
ber o
f hig
h-qu
ality
scho
ol o
ptio
ns w
ithin
OU
SD
Acce
ss to
Equ
itabl
e &
Qua
lity
Educ
atio
n fo
r all
DSh
are
best
pra
ctice
s acr
oss a
ll Oa
klan
d pu
blics
scho
ols,
(e.g
., pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t, re
crui
tmen
t and
rete
ntio
n of
ed
ucat
ors)
that
impr
ove
equi
tabl
e ed
ucat
iona
l acc
ess f
or a
ll Oa
klan
d st
uden
ts.
Char
ter A
utho
rizat
ion
CSt
reng
then
our
role
in o
vers
ight
and
acc
ount
abili
tyto
ens
ure
that
all
char
ter s
choo
ls op
erat
ing
in O
akla
nd a
re p
rovi
ding
a h
igh
qual
ity e
duca
tion
and
wor
king
to a
ddre
ss in
equi
ties.
Facil
ities
ABe
st le
vera
ge v
acan
t, un
deru
tilize
d, a
nd su
rplu
s pro
pert
iesa
nd
utili
ze fa
cility
use
agr
eem
ents
to st
rate
gica
lly e
ngag
e al
l Oak
land
pu
blic
scho
ols-
dist
rict o
r cha
rter
; ide
ntify
hig
h qu
ality
opt
ions
for
acad
emic
prog
ram
s
Enro
llmen
t & T
rans
port
atio
nB
Wor
k w
ith a
ll Oa
klan
d pu
blic
scho
ols d
istric
t or c
hart
er -
to
bett
er a
rticu
late
feed
er p
atte
rnsa
cros
s Oak
land
to e
nsur
e m
ore
pred
ictab
ility
for f
amili
es.
4
85
Com
mun
ity o
f Sch
ools:
A C
ityw
ide
Plan
Blue
prin
t for
Qu
ality
Scho
ols
Appr
ove
Coho
rt 2
in
May
Facil
ities
M
aste
r Pla
nUp
date
fa
ciliti
es d
ata
and
plan
for
port
able
re
mov
al b
y Ju
neCh
arte
r Pa
rtne
rshi
psId
entif
y Lo
ng T
erm
Le
ase
Crite
ria b
y De
cem
ber
Enro
llmen
t/Fe
eder
Pat
tern
sId
entif
y fe
eder
pat
tern
s and
en
rollm
ent p
lan
in 2
019
An In
terc
onne
cted
Com
preh
ensiv
e St
rate
gy
Facil
ities
Ass
ets-
Surp
lus P
rope
rty
7-11
Com
mitt
ee to
de
clare
surp
lus
prop
erty
by
June
5 Ye
ar C
ityw
ide
Map
Qual
ity Sc
hool
St
anda
rds &
De
fined
Au
tono
mie
sUp
date
exis
ting
guid
ance
doc
umen
ts
by Ju
ne
5
86
Outc
omes
for T
oday
1) T
o de
fine
the
timel
ine
for t
he o
vera
ll Ci
tyw
ide
Plan
, inc
ludi
ng a
ll co
mpo
nent
s in
dica
ted
in th
e Co
mm
unity
of S
choo
ls Po
licy
2) T
oday
’s Up
date
: Foc
us o
n th
e De
velo
pmen
t of C
ityw
ide
Map
De
fine
wha
t will
be
inclu
ded
in th
e Ci
tyw
ide
Map
to b
e ap
prov
ed in
Fe
brua
ry
De
velo
p a
shar
ed u
nder
stan
ding
of t
he a
naly
ses c
ondu
cted
thus
far
tow
ard
crea
ting
a Ci
tyw
ide
Map
6
87
Tim
elin
e of
Key
Boa
rd E
ngag
emen
ts fo
r the
City
wid
e Pl
an
Blue
prin
t Coh
ort 1
: M
et W
est E
xpan
sion
Appr
oval
Crite
ria fo
r Lo
ng T
erm
Le
ases
for
Char
ters
City
wid
e M
ap:
Data
Ana
lyse
s to
info
rm fi
nal
prod
uct
Asse
t Man
agem
ent
& F
acili
ties M
aste
r Pl
an U
pdat
e
City
wid
e (F
ootp
rint)
Map
(fi
rst r
ead)
Blue
prin
t Coh
ort 1
& 2
Up
date
(pre
view
)
Blue
prin
t Coh
ort 2
Pr
opos
al D
eep
Dive
(with
fis
cal i
mpa
ct a
naly
sis)
Blue
prin
t Coh
ort 2
(a
ppro
val),
Ass
et
Man
agem
ent &
Fac
ilitie
s M
aste
r Pla
n (a
ppro
val)
Sept
. 26,
201
8
Nov.
14, 2
018
Dec.
5, 2
018
Stud
y Se
ssio
n
Feb.
13,
201
9
Feb.
27,
201
9
April
24,
201
9
May
22,
201
9
Com
mun
ity E
ngag
emen
t & C
omm
unica
tion
with
Sta
keho
lder
s
7
April
17,
201
9St
udy
Sess
ion
City
wid
e M
ap
(app
rova
l)De
fined
Aut
onom
ies
(pre
view
)
Asse
t M
anag
emen
t Re
trea
t Sept
. 8, 2
018
88
Tow
ard
Defin
ing
the
City
wid
e M
ap
5 Ye
ar
City
wid
e M
ap
Wha
t will
be
inclu
ded
in th
e fin
al C
ityw
ide
Map
to b
e ap
prov
ed in
Fe
brua
ry?
-Nu
mbe
r and
loca
tions
of d
istric
t-run
scho
ols
Trad
ition
al sc
hool
s, al
tern
ativ
e sc
hool
s, sp
ecia
lized
scho
ols s
uch
as
dual
lang
uage
pro
gram
s-
OUSD
ear
ly ch
ildho
od e
duca
tion
(pre
-K) l
ocat
ions
-OU
SD S
pecia
l Edu
catio
n pr
ogra
ms
-Ch
arte
r sch
ool l
ocat
ions
-Nu
mbe
r and
loca
tion
of su
rplu
s pro
pert
ies
Wha
t will
be
inclu
ded
in th
e to
day’
s upd
ate
on th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he
City
wid
e M
ap?
-Tw
o in
itial
ana
lyse
s con
duct
ed to
info
rm th
e de
velo
pmen
t of t
he
City
wid
e Pl
an
8
89
Over
view
of I
nitia
l Ana
lyse
s
Wha
t is t
he m
inim
um n
umbe
r of
scho
ols w
e ne
ed b
ased
on
whe
re
stud
ents
GO
to sc
hool
and
the
seat
capa
city
of o
ur e
xistin
g fa
ciliti
es?
Whe
re a
re th
e op
timal
loca
tions
for
scho
ols b
ased
on
whe
re st
uden
ts
LIVE,
and
how
far a
way
are
our
ex
istin
g fa
ciliti
es?
1. Fa
cility
Cap
acity
Ana
lysis
2. Lo
catio
n Al
loca
tion
Anal
ysis
Note
: Res
ults
are
subj
ect t
o ch
ange
with
add
ition
al re
visio
n, a
nd d
o no
t re
pres
ent a
conc
lusio
n or
fina
l ans
wer
.
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
sLo
catio
n An
alys
is
9
90
Wha
t it i
s… W
hat i
t isn
’t ...
Thes
e tw
o an
alys
es ..
.
…
are
the
first
in a
serie
scon
trib
utin
g to
a C
ityw
ide
Map
.
…
are
sole
ly b
ased
on
anal
ysis
of d
istric
t-run
scho
ols.
...
are
not
iden
tifyi
ng w
hich
or h
ow m
any
sites
to cl
ose
or co
nsol
idat
e.
… a
re n
otye
t inc
ludi
ng a
ltern
ativ
e ed
ucat
ion,
spec
ial e
duca
tion
prog
ram
s, sc
hool
s with
spec
ializ
ed p
rogr
ams,
char
ter s
choo
ls; d
ata
on p
rogr
am ty
pe o
r qu
ality
, fac
ility
cond
ition
s; or
surp
lus p
rope
rty.
The
se co
nsid
erat
ions
will
be
addr
esse
d in
subs
eque
nt a
naly
ses i
n de
velo
pmen
t of t
he C
ityw
ide
Map
for
2023
and
bey
ond.
…
are
pre
limin
ary
and
may
chan
ge w
ith fu
rthe
r ite
ratio
ns.
10
91
Tow
ard
a Ci
tyw
ide
Map
Proj
ecte
d En
rollm
ent v
s. Fa
cility
Cap
acity
An
alys
is
Offic
e of
Enr
ollm
ent &
Res
earc
h As
sess
men
t & D
ata
(RAD
)Na
na X
u, S
usan
Rad
ke, K
aia
Vilb
erg,
and
Jean
Win
g
10-2
018
Part
1
Wha
t is t
he m
inim
um n
umbe
rof s
choo
lsw
e ne
ed b
ased
on
whe
re
stud
ents
GO
to sc
hool
and
the
seat
capa
city
of o
ur e
xistin
g fa
ciliti
es?
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
92
How
was
the
anal
ysis
cond
ucte
d?
Note
: Spe
cializ
ed sc
hool
s are
not
inclu
ded
here
and
will
be
cons
ider
ed in
sepa
rate
ana
lyse
s. Th
is an
alys
is al
so d
oes n
ot in
clude
dat
a on
cha
rter
scho
ols.
This
anal
ysis
assu
mes
that
at l
east
1
trad
ition
al e
lem
enta
ry, m
iddl
e, a
nd h
igh
scho
ol w
ill b
e ne
eded
in e
ach
regi
on.
With
in e
ach
of 5
Str
ateg
ic Re
gion
al A
naly
sis (S
RA) R
egio
ns, c
ompa
re:
# st
uden
ts e
xpec
ted*
to
atte
nd O
USD
scho
olsi
n ea
ch
regi
on in
202
3vs
.#
seat
s in
scho
ol fa
ciliti
es
in e
ach
regi
onCap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
*Pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
t num
bers
wer
e pr
ovid
ed b
y Ja
cobs
/Coo
pera
tive
Stra
tegi
es. S
ee a
ppen
dix
for m
ore
info
rmat
ion.
12
93
Stra
tegi
c Reg
iona
l Ana
lysis
(SRA
) Reg
ions
Cen
tral
East
Nor
thea
st
Nor
thw
est
Wes
t
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
13
94
Curr
ently
, the
cent
ral r
egio
n ha
s*
7
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
s
1 K-
8 sc
hool
s
1 m
iddl
e sc
hool
1
high
scho
ol
CENT
RAL R
egio
nC
apac
ity A
naly
sis
*Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s onl
y
14
95
CENT
RAL E
lem
enta
ry &
K-8
The
tabl
e sh
ows t
he p
roje
cted
# st
uden
ts in
202
3, th
e se
at ca
pacit
y of e
ach
scho
ol, a
nd th
e su
rplu
s/sh
orta
ge (c
alcu
late
d by
com
parin
g #
stud
ents
with
# se
ats)
.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Shor
tage
1Be
lla V
ista
K-5
413
479
66
2Cl
evel
and
K-5
397
410
13
3Fr
ankl
inK-
567
192
225
1
4Ga
rfiel
dK-
557
474
717
3
5Lin
coln
K-5
705
779
746 7
Man
zani
ta C
omm
unity
/M
anza
nita
SEE
DK-
5K-
549
441
21,
016
110
8La
Esc
uelit
aK-
846
854
274
Tota
l4,
134
4,89
576
1
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
We
coul
d su
ppor
t K-5
and
K-8
pr
ojec
ted
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 1
fe
wer
OUSD
dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
.
We
coul
d al
so co
nsol
idat
e 1
shar
ed
elem
enta
ry ca
mpu
s in
the
regi
on.
K-5
+ K-
8 su
rplu
s =76
1 se
ats
15
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 2
sc
hool
sCap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
96
CENT
RAL M
iddl
e &
Hig
h
#Sc
hool
Na
me
Type
Proj
ectio
nFa
cility
Ca
pacit
y*Su
rplu
s/
Shor
tage
1Ro
osev
elt
Mid
dle
506
607*
*10
1
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
**P
orta
bles
that
will
be re
mov
ed in
sum
mer
201
9 ha
ve b
een
subt
ract
ed fr
om th
e to
tal
capa
city
her
e.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge
1Oa
klan
d Hi
ghHi
gh1,
525
1,43
2-9
3
The
curr
ent m
iddl
e sc
hool
is la
rge
enou
gh to
supp
ort t
he p
roje
cted
enr
ollm
ent f
or th
e re
gion
. Pr
ojec
tions
for t
he h
igh
scho
ol e
xcee
d th
e cu
rren
t fac
ility
capa
city.
Mid
dle
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
101
seat
s
16
High
scho
ol sh
orta
ge =
93
seat
s
The
tabl
e sh
ows t
he p
roje
cted
# st
uden
ts in
202
3, th
e se
at ca
pacit
y of e
ach
scho
ol, a
nd th
e su
rplu
s/sh
orta
ge (c
alcu
late
d by
com
parin
g #
stud
ents
with
# se
ats)
.
Tota
l Red
uctio
n of
0 sc
hool
s
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
97
EAST
Reg
ion
Curr
ently
, the
Eas
t reg
ion
has*
20
ele
men
tary
scho
ols
2
K-8
scho
ols
7
mid
dle
scho
ols
3
6-12
scho
ols
2
high
scho
ols
17
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
*Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s onl
y
98
EAST
Elem
enta
ry a
nd K
-8
*Fac
ility
cap
acity
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acili
ties.
**
Faci
lity
capa
city
exc
lude
s se
ats
that
use
d by
a c
o-lo
cate
d ch
arte
r sch
ool a
t the
tim
e of
ass
essm
ent.
Co-
loca
ted
char
ter e
nrol
lmen
t not
incl
uded
in p
roje
ctio
n to
tal.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
Alle
ndal
eK-
536
556
019
52
Brid
ges
K-5
443
604
161
3Br
ookf
ield
K-5
276
560
284
4 5Co
mm
unity
Uni
ted/
Fu
ture
sK-
5K-
532
827
591
431
1
6Ea
st O
akla
nd P
RIDE
K-5
309
574
265
7 8En
com
pass
/ AC
ORN
Woo
dlan
dK-
5K-
529
930
680
620
1
9 10Es
pera
nza/
Ko
rem
atsu
K-5
K-5
341
353
784
90
11Fr
uitv
ale
K-5
387
600
213
12Gl
obal
Fam
ily/L
WL*
*K-
544
459
515
113
Hora
ce M
ann
K-5
335
433
9814
Mad
ison
Park
K-5
312
502
190
15M
arkh
amK-
531
659
628
016 17
New
Hig
hlan
d/RI
SEK-
5K-
534
323
592
034
2
18Re
ach/
Cox*
*K-
537
762
524
819 20
Thin
k Co
llege
Now
/ In
tern
atio
nal C
omm
unity
K-5
K-5
276
253
838
309
21Gr
eenl
eaf
K-8
578
456
-122
22M
elro
se L
eade
rshi
pK-
869
647
6-2
20To
tal
7,84
710
,843
2,99
6
18
We
coul
d su
ppor
t K-5
and
K-8
pro
ject
ed
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 6
few
erOU
SD
dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s.
We
coul
d al
so co
nsol
idat
e 5
shar
ed
cam
pus O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
s in
the
regi
on.
K-5
+ K-
8 su
rplu
s =2,
996
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 1
1 sc
hool
s
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
99
EAST
Mid
dle
& 6
-12
We
coul
d su
ppor
t pro
ject
ed
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 2
few
erOU
SD d
istric
t-run
mid
dle
scho
ols.
We
coul
d al
so co
nsol
idat
e 3
shar
ed
cam
puse
s.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1 2
Allia
nce/
Elm
hurs
tM
iddl
eM
iddl
e31
736
486
918
8
3Fr
ickM
iddl
e23
667
644
04
Oakl
and
SOL
Mid
dle
225
238
135 6
Root
s/CC
PA**
Mid
dle/
6-12
324
456
1097
317
7 8Un
ited
for S
ucce
ss/
Life
Acad
emy*
*M
iddl
e/6-
1234
446
410
1921
1
9Ur
ban
Prom
iseM
iddl
e35
042
878
10M
adiso
n Pa
rk U
pper
6-12
727
606
-121
Tota
l3,
807
4,93
31,
126
**No
te th
at C
CPA
and
Life
are
6-12
gra
desp
an sc
hool
s tha
t sha
re ca
mpu
ses w
ith m
iddl
e sc
hool
s.
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
seat
s in
both
tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t fac
ilitie
s. **
Note
that
CCP
A an
d Lif
e ar
e 6-
12 g
rade
span
scho
ols t
hat s
hare
cam
puse
s with
mid
dle
scho
ols.
19
Mid
dle
& 6
-12
surp
lus =
1,12
6 se
ats
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 5
sc
hool
sCap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
100
EAST
Hig
h Sc
hool
s
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
**
The
new
faci
lity
is p
lann
ed to
hou
se 1
,200
stu
dent
s so
that
# is
sho
wn
here
.
#Sc
hool
Na
me
Type
Proj
ectio
nFa
cility
Ca
pacit
y*Su
rplu
s/
Shor
tage
1Ca
stle
mon
tHi
gh83
31,
603
770
2Fr
emon
tHi
gh71
41,
200*
*48
6
Tota
l1,
547
2,80
41,
257
20
We
coul
d su
ppor
t pro
ject
ed
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 1
few
erOU
SD d
istric
t-run
hig
h sc
hool
.
High
Sch
ool s
urpl
us =
1,25
7 se
ats
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 1
sc
hool
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
101
NORT
HEAS
T Re
gion
Curr
ently
, the
Nor
thea
st re
gion
ha
s* 7
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
s
1 K-
8 sc
hool
1
mid
dle
scho
ol
1
high
scho
ol
21
*Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s onl
y
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
102
NORT
HEAS
T El
emen
tary
& K
-8
#Sc
hool
Type
Proj
ectio
nFa
cility
Ca
pacit
y*Su
rplu
s/
Shor
tage
1Bu
rckh
alte
rK-
524
137
413
32
Carl
Mun
ckK-
518
853
835
03
Gras
s Val
ley
K-5
243
467
224
4Ho
war
dK-
522
040
718
75
Laur
elK-
548
056
181
6Re
dwoo
d He
ight
sK-
532
541
186
7Se
quoi
aK-
544
444
73
8Pa
rker
K-8
227
479
252
Tota
l2,
368
3,68
41,
316
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
22
We
coul
d su
ppor
t K-5
and
K-8
pro
ject
ed
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 3
few
erOU
SD
dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s.
K-5
+ K-
8 su
rplu
s =1,
316
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 3
sc
hool
sCap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
103
NORT
HEAS
T M
iddl
e &
Hig
hFa
cility
capa
city
is sh
own
belo
w b
y sc
hool
type
. Fiv
e ye
ar p
roje
ctio
ns fo
r the
regi
on a
re a
lso sh
own.
#Sc
hool
Na
me
Type
Proj
ectio
nFa
cility
Ca
pacit
y*Su
rplu
s/
Shor
tage
1Br
et H
arte
Mid
dle
489
863
374
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
#Sc
hool
Na
me
Type
Proj
ectio
nFa
cility
Ca
pacit
y*Su
rplu
s/
Shor
tage
1Sk
ylin
eHi
gh1,
687
1,90
922
2
23
Both
the
curr
ent m
iddl
e an
d hi
gh sc
hool
s are
larg
e en
ough
to su
ppor
t the
pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
t fo
r the
regi
on.
Mid
dle
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
374
seat
s
High
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
222
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n of
0 sc
hool
s
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
104
NORT
HWES
T Re
gion
Curr
ently
, the
Nor
thw
est
regi
on h
as*
10
ele
men
tary
scho
ols
1
K-8
scho
ol
3 m
iddl
e sc
hool
s
1 hi
gh sc
hool
24
*Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s onl
y
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
Gle
nvie
w
105
NORT
HWES
T El
emen
tary
& K
-8
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
Chab
otK-
554
059
454
2Cr
ocke
r Hig
hlan
dsK-
544
133
4-1
073
Emer
son
K-5
324
444
120
4Gl
envi
ew**
K-5
489
460
-29
5Jo
aqui
n M
iller
K-5
411
470
596
Kaise
rK-
525
528
328
7M
ontc
lair
K-5
691
616
-75
8Pe
ralta
K-5
301
356
559
Pied
mon
t Ave
K-5
312
414
102
10Th
ornh
illK-
538
547
691
11Hi
llcre
stK-
837
335
2-2
1To
tal
4,52
24,
799
277
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
seat
s in
both
tem
pora
ry a
nd p
erm
anen
t fac
ilitie
s. **
Capa
city
as e
stim
ated
for n
ew fa
cility
und
er co
nstr
uctio
n.
25
The
curr
ent K
-5 a
nd K
-8 sc
hool
s hav
e su
fficie
nt ca
pacit
y to
supp
ort t
he
proj
ecte
d en
rollm
ent.
K-5
+ K-
8 su
rplu
s =27
7 se
ats
Tota
l Red
uctio
n of
0 sc
hool
s
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
106
NORT
HWES
T M
iddl
e &
Hig
h
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
Clar
emon
tM
iddl
e44
347
128
2Ed
na B
rew
erM
iddl
e78
978
2- 7
3M
onte
raM
iddl
e77
398
721
4
Tota
l2,
005
2,24
023
5
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
**
Far W
est c
ampu
s ca
paci
ty (2
16) i
s in
clud
ed in
the
tota
l sea
t cap
acity
for O
akla
nd T
ech.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
Oakl
and
Tech
High
1,86
71,
991*
*12
4
26
Both
the
curr
ent m
iddl
e an
d hi
gh sc
hool
s are
larg
e en
ough
to su
ppor
t the
pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
t for
th
e re
gion
.
Mid
dle
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
235
seat
s
High
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
124
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n of
0 sc
hool
s
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
107
WES
T Re
gion
Curr
ently
, the
Wes
t reg
ion
has*
4
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
s**
2
mid
dle
scho
ols
1
high
scho
ol
**No
t cou
ntin
g Laf
ayet
te, w
hich
will
be
close
d as
of s
choo
l yea
r 19-
20.
27
*Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s onl
y
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
108
WES
T El
emen
tary
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
Hoov
erK-
531
248
016
82
Mar
tin Lu
ther
Kin
g Jr.
/ La
faye
tte
K-5
N/A
431
592
161
3Pr
esco
ttK-
521
547
025
54
Sank
ofa
K-5
223
336*
*11
3To
tal
1,18
11,
878
697
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
**S
anko
fa p
orta
bles
that
will
be re
mov
ed in
sum
mer
of 2
019
are
subt
ract
ed fr
om th
e ca
paci
ty h
ere.
28
We
coul
d su
ppor
t pro
ject
ed
enro
llmen
t with
up
to 1
few
er O
USD
dist
rict-r
un e
lem
enta
ry sc
hool
.
K-5
surp
lus =
697
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 1
sc
hool
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
109
WES
T M
iddl
e &
Hig
hFa
cility
capa
city
is sh
own
belo
w b
y sc
hool
type
. Fiv
e ye
ar p
roje
ctio
ns fo
r the
regi
on a
re a
lso sh
own.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge
1W
est O
akla
nd
Mid
dle
Mid
dle
176
760
584
2W
estla
keM
iddl
e35
596
260
7
Tota
l53
11,
722
1,19
1
*Fac
ility
capa
city
incl
udes
sea
ts in
bot
h te
mpo
rary
and
per
man
ent f
acilit
ies.
#Sc
hool
Nam
eTy
pePr
ojec
tion
Facil
ity
Capa
city*
Surp
lus/
Sh
orta
ge1
McC
lym
onds
High
399
780
381
We
coul
d su
ppor
t the
pro
ject
ed e
nrol
lmen
t with
up
to 1
few
erOU
SD d
istric
t-run
mid
dle
scho
ol.
The
curr
ent h
igh
scho
ol in
the
regi
on is
larg
e en
ough
to a
ccom
mod
ate
proj
ecte
d en
rollm
ent.
29
Mid
dle
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
1,19
1 se
ats
High
scho
ol su
rplu
s =
381
seat
s
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 1
scho
ol
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
110
Elem
enta
ry &
K-8
Res
ults
Regi
onCu
rren
t #
Scho
ols
Min
imum
#
Scho
ols
Chan
ge in
#
Scho
ols
Cent
ral
8*6*
*-2
East
22*
11**
-11
Nort
heas
t8
5-3
Nort
hwes
t11
110
Wes
t4
3-1
Tota
l53
36-1
7
30
*Cur
rent
ly, 6
pai
rs o
f ele
men
tary
scho
ols s
hare
a ca
mpu
s.**
Min
imum
inclu
des c
onso
lidat
ion
of sh
ared
cam
puse
s (5
in E
ast
and
1 in
Cen
tral
).To
tal R
educ
tion
up to
17
scho
olsC
apac
ity A
naly
sis
We
curr
ently
hav
e an
el
emen
tary
seat
capa
city
of
26,0
99 se
ats,
but e
xpec
t to
have
onl
y 20
,052
OUS
D st
uden
ts in
202
3.
Elem
enta
ry/K
-8 se
at
surp
lus a
cros
s reg
ions
=6,
047
111
Mid
dle
& 6
-12
Resu
lts
Regi
onCu
rren
t #
Scho
ols
Min
imum
#
Scho
ols
Chan
ge in
#
Scho
ols
Cent
ral
11
0Ea
st10
*5*
*-5
Nort
heas
t1
10
Nort
hwes
t3
30
Wes
t2
1-1
Tota
l17
11-6
31
*Cur
rent
ly 2
pai
rs o
f mid
dle/
6-12
scho
ols s
hare
a ca
mpu
s.**
Redu
ctio
n in
clude
s con
solid
atio
n of
3 sh
ared
cam
puse
s. To
tal R
educ
tion
up to
6
scho
olsC
apac
ity A
naly
sis
We
curr
ently
hav
e a
mid
dle
scho
ol se
at ca
pacit
y of
10
,365
seat
s, bu
t exp
ect t
o ha
ve o
nly
7,33
8 OU
SD
stud
ents
in 2
023.
Mid
dle/
6-12
seat
surp
lus
acro
ss re
gion
s = 3
,027
112
High
Sch
ool R
esul
ts
Regi
onCu
rren
t #
Scho
ols
Min
imum
#
Scho
ols
Chan
ge in
#
Scho
ols
Cent
ral
11
0Ea
st2
1-1
Nort
heas
t1
10
Nort
hwes
t1
10
Wes
t1
10
Tota
l6
5-1
32
Tota
l Red
uctio
n up
to 1
sc
hool
sCap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
We
curr
ently
hav
e a
high
sc
hool
seat
capa
city
of 8
,915
se
ats,
but e
xpec
t to
have
on
ly 7
,025
OUS
D st
uden
ts in
20
23.
High
scho
ol se
at su
rplu
s ac
ross
regi
ons =
1,8
90
113
Sum
mar
y of
Par
t 1 R
esul
ts
Re
sults
are
a st
artin
g po
intf
or d
eter
min
ing
the
abso
lute
min
imum
num
bero
f di
stric
t-run
scho
ols n
eede
d to
supp
ort O
USD
stud
ents
in 5
yea
rs.
Th
is an
alys
is do
es n
otte
ll us
whi
chor
how
man
ysc
hool
cam
puse
s to
close
or
cons
olid
ate.
Elem
enta
ry &
K-8
Mid
dle
& 6
-12
High
Tota
l
Curr
ent
5317
676
Min
imum
3611
552
Chan
ge-1
7-6
-1-2
4
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
33
114
Tow
ard
a Ci
tyw
ide
Map
OUSD
Loca
tion
Allo
catio
n An
alys
is
Rese
arch
Ass
essm
ent &
Dat
a (R
AD)
Susa
n Ra
dke
10-2
018
Whe
re a
re th
e op
timal
loca
tions
for s
choo
ls ba
sed
on w
here
stud
ents
LIVE
and
how
far a
way
are
our
exis
ting
facil
ities
?
Part
2Lo
catio
n A
naly
sis
115
Wha
t is a
loca
tion
allo
catio
n an
alys
is?
•Us
ed in
the
publ
ic se
ctor
to id
entif
y th
e m
ost e
ffect
ive
loca
tion
for p
ublic
se
rvice
s suc
h as
scho
ols,
hosp
itals,
and
fire
stat
ions
whe
re a
n op
timal
lo
catio
n en
sure
s the
gre
ates
t and
mos
t equ
itabl
e ac
cess
to se
rvice
s.
•Us
ed h
ere
to d
eter
min
e th
e op
timal
loca
tion
of sc
hool
site
sbas
ed o
n th
e lo
catio
n of
stud
ents
.
•De
cisio
ns a
bout
scho
ol co
nsol
idat
ions
and
relo
catio
ns ca
n be
mad
e m
ore
effe
ctiv
ely
if w
e ac
coun
t for
whe
re st
uden
ts li
ve. T
his w
ill e
nabl
e us
to
prov
ide
qual
ity sc
hool
opt
ions
clos
er to
hom
e.
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
35
116
Wha
t inp
uts a
re n
eede
d to
bui
ld th
e m
odel
?
1.Ho
w m
any
scho
ol a
ge ch
ildre
n w
ill b
e liv
ing
in O
akla
nd in
202
3?
2.Ho
w m
any
of th
em w
ill a
tten
d di
stric
t-run
scho
ols?
3.W
here
will
they
be
livin
g in
Oak
land
in 2
023?
4.Ho
w m
any
scho
ol lo
catio
ns w
ill b
e op
timize
d?
5.Ho
w fa
r sho
uld
stud
ents
trav
el to
scho
ol?
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
36
117
1.Ho
w m
any
scho
ol a
ge ch
ildre
n w
ill b
e liv
ing
in
Oakl
and
in 2
023?
•Th
is an
alys
is us
es th
e US
Cen
sus B
urea
u pr
ojec
ted
popu
latio
n 5
year
est
imat
es
of sc
hool
age
child
ren
livin
g in
Oak
land
’s 33
6 ce
nsus
blo
ck g
roup
s (sh
own
on
map
) to
dete
rmin
e ho
w m
any
OUSD
stud
ents
will
be
livin
g in
Oak
land
in 2
023.
•Ad
ditio
nal a
naly
ses w
ill b
e co
nduc
ted
this
Fall
to d
eter
min
e th
e im
pact
of n
ew
Oakl
and
hous
ing
cons
truc
tion
on p
roje
cted
202
3 en
rollm
ent.
29,5
34 e
lem
enta
ry sc
hool
-age
d ch
ildre
n14
,610
mid
dle
scho
ol-a
ged
child
ren
18,5
53 h
igh
scho
ol-a
ged
child
renLo
catio
n A
naly
sis
37
118
2. H
ow m
any
of O
akla
nd sc
hool
age
child
ren
will
at
tend
OUS
D sc
hool
s?
Elem
enta
ry
& K
-8M
iddl
e &
6-
12Hi
ghTo
tal
Estim
ated
# sc
hool
age
child
ren
livin
g in
Oa
klan
d in
202
329
,534
14,6
1018
,553
62,6
97
2017
-18
OUSD
Dist
rict-R
un C
aptu
re R
ate
64.6
%48
.7%
53.6
%57
.6%
Estim
ated
# sc
hool
age
child
ren
livin
g in
Oa
klan
d ex
pect
ed to
atte
nd O
USD
dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s in
2023
19,0
767,
111
9,95
136
,138
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
Her
e, th
e es
timat
es o
f the
# o
f OU
SD
stu
dent
s in
202
3 ar
e ba
sed
on c
ensu
s pr
ojec
tions
of w
here
st
uden
ts w
ill b
e liv
ing.
38
119
3. W
here
will
OUS
D st
uden
ts b
e liv
ing
in 2
023?
Each
blo
ck g
roup
is m
appe
d by
its s
hare
of
proj
ecte
d 20
23 O
USD
stud
ents
.
A ra
ndom
set o
f poi
nts w
as g
ener
ated
with
in e
ach
bloc
k gr
oup
to p
ositi
on in
divi
dual
pro
ject
ed st
uden
ts th
roug
hout
the
geog
raph
ic ex
tent
of t
he b
lock
gro
up to
mar
k “d
eman
d po
ints
” in
the
mod
el.
(zoo
m v
iew
)
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
39
120
*Ass
umin
g ea
ch e
lem
enta
ry sc
hool
is a
lloca
ted
502
stud
ents
; eac
h m
iddl
e sc
hool
is a
lloca
ted
771
stud
ents
; eac
h hi
gh sc
hool
isal
loca
ted
1,51
8 st
uden
ts.
The
final
num
ber o
f sch
ools
need
ed w
ill ch
ange
bas
ed o
n th
e ac
tual
capa
city
of e
xist
ing
scho
ol si
tes.
Elem
enta
ry
& K
-8M
iddl
e &
6-
12Hi
ghTo
tal
A ) E
stim
ated
# sc
hool
age
child
ren
livin
g in
Oakl
and
in 2
023
29,5
3414
,610
18,5
5362
,697
B ) 2
017-
18 O
USD
Dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s “ca
ptur
e ra
te”
64.6
%48
.7%
53.6
%57
.6%
C ) E
stim
ated
# sc
hool
age
child
ren
livin
g in
Oak
land
ex
pect
ed to
att
end
OUSD
dist
rict-r
un sc
hool
s in
2023
(A
x B
)19
,076
7,11
19,
951
36,1
38
D ) #
stud
ents
allo
cate
d pe
r sch
ool
502
771
1,51
8n/
a
E ) #
scho
ol lo
catio
ns to
opt
imize
*(C
/ D)
389
653
4. H
ow m
any
OUSD
scho
ol lo
catio
ns w
ill b
e op
timize
d?Lo
catio
n A
naly
sis
40
121
5. H
ow fa
r sho
uld
stud
ents
trav
el to
scho
ol?
Excl
udes
stud
ents
att
endi
ng ci
tyw
ide
scho
ols a
nd st
uden
ts li
ving
out
side
Oakl
and.
The
mod
el st
arts
off
with
a “c
lean
slat
e” a
ssum
ing
ther
e ar
e no
scho
ols y
et in
Oak
land
.
•Th
e di
stan
ce th
at is
sele
cted
form
s a b
ound
ary
arou
nd e
ach
scho
ol lo
catio
n, a
nd st
uden
ts w
ithin
th
at b
ound
ary
are
allo
cate
d to
that
scho
ol.
•Th
e m
axim
umdi
stan
ces u
sed
wer
e•
1.5
mile
s for
ele
men
tary
and
K-8
•2
mile
s for
mid
dle
scho
ols a
nd 6
-12
•3
mile
s for
hig
h sc
hool
s
•Fe
wer
scho
ols w
ill m
ean
bigg
er a
tten
danc
e ar
eas.
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
41
122
Prel
imin
ary
Outp
uts:
optim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry
scho
ol lo
catio
ns
Inpu
ts:
19
,079
dis
trict
-run
elem
enta
ry
stud
ents
exp
ecte
d in
202
3 us
ing
a ca
ptur
e ra
te o
f 64.
6%
502
elem
enta
ry s
tude
nts
per s
choo
l*
1.5
mile
max
imum
dis
tanc
e tra
vele
d
38 e
lem
enta
ry s
choo
ls (1
9,07
9/50
2)
plac
ed
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
*The
max
imum
num
ber o
f stu
dent
s allo
cate
d to
eac
h sc
hool
was
ba
sed
on th
e m
edia
n of
seat
capa
city
for O
USD
scho
ols i
n th
at
grad
espa
n.
42
123
Dist
ance
was
mea
sure
d al
ong
Oakl
and
stre
et n
etw
ork
betw
een
curr
ent e
xistin
g sc
hool
facil
ities
and
clos
est o
ptim
al
scho
ol lo
catio
n(s)
.
Aver
age
dist
ance
of a
ll cu
rren
t ele
men
tary
/K-8
sc
hool
s to
close
st o
ptim
al e
lem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns: 0
.400
4 m
iles
Prel
imin
ary
Outp
uts:
optim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry
scho
ol lo
catio
nsS
choo
l dis
tanc
e to
op
timal
loca
tion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
43
124
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns -
CENT
RAL R
egio
n
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Cen
tral
Bella
Vis
ta0.
4394
Cen
tral
Cle
vela
nd0.
4819
Cen
tral
Fran
klin
0.14
12
Cen
tral
Gar
field
0.05
55
Cen
tral
La E
scue
lita
0.39
86
Cen
tral
Linc
oln
0.14
06
Cen
tral
Man
zani
ta C
omm
unity
/M
anza
nita
SEE
D0.
3046
CEN
TRAL
Elem
enta
ry (a
vera
ge)
0.28
03
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
44
125
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns -
EAST
Reg
ion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
East
ACO
RN
Woo
dlan
d/En
Com
pass
0.50
15
East
Alle
ndal
e0.
3570
East
Brid
ges
0.43
96
East
Broo
kfie
ld0.
6082
East
Com
mun
ity U
nite
d/Fu
ture
s0.
3186
East
East
Oak
land
PR
IDE
0.25
33
East
Frui
tval
e0.
2658
East
Glo
bal F
amily
0.17
61
East
Gre
enle
af K
-80.
0916
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
East
Hor
ace
Man
n0.
1049
East
Int'l
Com
mun
ity/
Thin
k C
olle
ge N
ow0.
2693
East
Kore
mat
su/E
sper
anza
0.39
02
East
Mad
ison
Par
k Lo
wer
0.29
61
East
Mar
kham
0.20
42
East
Mel
rose
Lea
ders
hip
K-8
*0.
4227
East
New
Hig
hlan
d/R
ISE
0.26
80
East
Rea
ch0.
2747
EAST
Elem
enta
ry (a
vera
ge)
0.30
84
*Mel
rose
Lea
ders
hip
is a
spe
cial
ized
dua
l la
ngua
ge im
mer
sion
sch
ool a
nd c
urre
ntly
ha
s a
city
wid
e at
tend
ance
are
a.
45
126
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns -
NORT
HEAS
T Re
gion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Nor
thea
stBu
rckh
alte
r0.
5793
Nor
thea
stC
arl M
unck
0.42
03
Nor
thea
stG
rass
Val
ley
1.63
39
Nor
thea
stH
owar
d0.
0799
Nor
thea
stLa
urel
0.45
05
Nor
thea
stPa
rker
0.33
21
Nor
thea
stR
edw
ood
Hei
ghts
0.31
56
Nor
thea
stSe
quoi
a0.
2738
NO
RTH
EAST
Elem
enta
ry (a
vera
ge)
0.51
07
46
127
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns -
NORT
HWES
T Re
gion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Nor
thw
est
Cha
bot
0.90
46
Nor
thw
est
Cro
cker
Hig
hlan
ds0.
3791
Nor
thw
est
Emer
son
0.21
92
Nor
thw
est
Gle
nvie
w E
lem
enta
ry0.
1349
Nor
thw
est
Hillc
rest
1.09
08
Nor
thw
est
Joaq
uin
Mille
r0.
9591
Nor
thw
est
Kais
er1.
4835
Nor
thw
est
Mon
tcla
ir0.
1515
Nor
thw
est
Pera
lta0.
2990
Nor
thw
est
Pied
mon
t0.
4087
Nor
thw
est
Thor
nhill
0.37
26
NO
RTH
WES
TEl
emen
tary
(ave
rage
)0.
5821
47
128
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
elem
enta
ry sc
hool
lo
catio
ns -
WES
T Re
gion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Wes
tH
oove
r0.
1123
Wes
tM
artin
Lut
her K
ing
0.26
17
Wes
tPr
esco
tt0.
3095
Wes
tSa
nkof
a0.
4419
WES
TEl
emen
tary
(ave
rage
) 0.
2813
All
Reg
ions
Elem
enta
ry (a
vera
ge)
0.40
04
48
129
Prel
imin
ary
Outp
uts:
optim
al O
USD
mid
dle
scho
ol lo
catio
ns
Inpu
ts:
7,
115
dist
rict-r
un m
iddl
e sc
hool
stud
ents
ex
pect
ed in
202
3 us
ing
a ca
ptur
e ra
te o
f 48
.6%
77
1 m
iddl
e sc
hool
stud
ents
per
scho
ol*
2
mile
max
imum
dist
ance
trav
eled
9
mid
dle
scho
ols (
7,11
5/77
1) p
lace
d
Aver
age
dist
ance
of a
ll cu
rren
t mid
dle/
6-12
sc
hool
s to
close
st o
ptim
al m
iddl
e sc
hool
lo
catio
ns: 0
.557
0 m
iles
Sch
ool d
ista
nce
to
optim
al lo
catio
n
Opt
imal
sch
ool l
ocat
ion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
*The
max
imum
num
ber o
f stu
dent
s allo
cate
d to
eac
h sc
hool
was
ba
sed
on th
e m
edia
n of
seat
capa
city
for O
USD
scho
ols i
n th
at
grad
espa
n.
49
130
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
mid
dle
scho
ol
loca
tions
Lo
catio
n A
naly
sis
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Nor
thea
stB
ret H
arte
0.87
64
Nor
thw
est
Cla
rem
ont
0.49
47
Nor
thw
est
Edn
a B
rew
er0.
1248
Nor
thw
est
Mon
tera
0.54
55
Nor
thw
est
Mid
dle
scho
ol (a
vera
ge)
0.38
83
Wes
tW
est O
akla
nd M
iddl
e0.
5105
Wes
tW
estla
ke0.
8227
Wes
tM
iddl
e sc
hool
(ave
rage
)0.
6666
All
Reg
ions
Mid
dle
scho
ol (a
vera
ge)
0.55
70
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Cen
tral
Roo
seve
lt M
iddl
e Sc
hool
0.89
42
East
Alli
ance
Aca
dem
y/E
lmhu
rst C
omm
unity
Pre
p0.
5134
East
Fric
k Im
pact
Aca
dem
y0.
8178
East
Mad
ison
Par
k A
cade
my
6-12
1.03
29
East
Oak
land
Sch
ool o
f Lan
guag
es0.
4716
East
Roo
ts In
tern
atio
nal A
cade
my/
Col
iseu
m C
olle
ge P
rep
Aca
dem
y0.
2273
East
Uni
ted
for S
ucce
ss A
cade
my/
Life
Aca
dem
y0.
3376
East
Urb
an P
rom
ise
Aca
dem
y0.
1285
East
Mid
dle
scho
ol (a
vera
ge)
0.50
42
50
131
Prel
imin
ary
Outp
uts:
optim
al O
USD
high
scho
ol
loca
tions
Inpu
ts:
9,
951
dist
rict-r
un h
igh
scho
ol st
uden
ts
expe
cted
in 2
023
usin
g a
capt
ure
rate
of
53.6
%
1,51
8 hi
gh sc
hool
stud
ents
per
scho
ol*
3
mile
max
imum
dist
ance
trav
eled
6
high
scho
ols (
9,95
1/1,
518)
pla
ced
Aver
age
dist
ance
of a
ll cu
rren
t hig
h sc
hool
s to
close
st o
ptim
al h
igh
scho
ol lo
catio
ns: 1
.116
5 m
iles
Sch
ool d
ista
nce
to
optim
al lo
catio
n
Opt
imal
sch
ool l
ocat
ion
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
*The
max
imum
num
ber o
f stu
dent
s allo
cate
d to
eac
h sc
hool
was
ba
sed
on th
e m
edia
n of
seat
capa
city
for O
USD
scho
ols i
n th
at
grad
espa
n.
51
132
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
SRA
Reg
ion
Scho
olD
ista
nce
(Mile
s)
Cen
tral
Oak
land
Hig
h0.
8246
East
Cas
tlem
ont
0.99
32
East
Frem
ont
0.66
51
East
Hig
h sc
hool
(ave
rage
)0.
8291
Nor
thea
stSk
ylin
e2.
4411
Nor
thw
est
Oak
land
Tec
h0.
7667
Wes
tM
cCly
mon
ds1.
0087
All
Reg
ions
Hig
h sc
hool
(ave
rage
)1.
1166
Dist
ance
to O
ptim
al O
USD
high
scho
ol
loca
tions
52
133
Mai
n Ta
ke-A
way
s fro
m th
e Tw
o An
alys
es
W
e ne
ed fe
wer
scho
olsb
ased
on
how
man
y st
uden
ts w
ill g
o to
our
sc
hool
s.
Ou
r lar
gest
surp
lus o
f sea
ts is
in th
e Ea
st R
egio
n an
d in
Ele
men
tary
scho
ol
seat
s.
Loca
tion
Anal
ysis
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
M
ost O
USD
scho
ol fa
ciliti
es a
re a
lread
y clo
se to
an
optim
al lo
catio
n, g
ivin
g us
man
y op
tions
to u
tilize
curr
ent f
acili
ties a
nd in
form
the
City
wid
e M
ap.
Th
e av
erag
e di
stan
ce b
etw
een
curr
ent O
USD
scho
ols a
nd a
n op
timal
lo
catio
n ba
sed
on w
here
stud
ents
will
be
livin
g is
only
0.4
mile
s for
el
emen
tary
, 0.5
mile
s for
mid
dle,
and
1.1
mile
s for
hig
h sc
hool
s. 53
134
Next
Ste
ps fo
r the
City
wid
e M
ap A
naly
ses
Ad
d im
pact
of n
ew O
akla
nd h
ousin
gto
loca
tion
anal
ysis
to e
nsur
e w
e ha
ve
scho
ols w
here
we
need
them
.
Co
nsid
er w
here
to h
ouse
: alte
rnat
ive
scho
ols,
OUSD
pre
-K, s
pecia
lized
pro
gram
s an
d sc
hool
s (e.
g., d
ual l
angu
age,
Met
Wes
t), ce
ntra
l offi
ce, a
nd ch
arte
r pro
gram
s.
Id
entif
y w
ays t
o ex
pand
acc
ess t
o hi
gh q
ualit
ypro
gram
s, es
pecia
lly in
hi
stor
ically
und
erse
rved
com
mun
ities
.
Re
conf
igur
e at
tend
ance
bou
ndar
iesa
nd fe
eder
pat
tern
s acr
oss g
rade
leve
ls.
Id
entif
y su
rplu
s pro
pert
iest
hat c
an b
e us
ed fo
r rev
enue
gen
erat
ion,
and
for
cons
ider
atio
n in
the
upco
min
g 7-
11 co
mm
ittee
.
Co
llabo
rativ
ely
crea
te a
dat
abas
e of
OUS
D ca
mpu
s fac
ility
info
rmat
ion.
Qu
ality
prog
ram
s in
ever
y ne
ighb
orho
od.
54
135
1000
Bro
adw
ay, S
uite
680
, Oak
land
, CA
9460
755
136
APPE
NDIX
137
Appe
ndix
A Resu
lts fr
om P
art 1
The
follo
win
g sli
des s
how
add
ition
al in
form
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
anal
ysis
pres
ente
d in
Par
t 1 -
Capa
city
Anal
ysis.
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
138
Enro
llmen
t pro
ject
ion
met
hodo
logy
•Th
e lo
ng-te
rm e
nrol
lmen
t pro
ject
ions
at t
he sc
hool
leve
l (‘G
o’ p
roje
ctio
ns) t
hat w
ere
used
in
the
capa
city a
naly
sis w
ere
prov
ided
by
Coop
erat
ive
Stra
tegi
es in
17-
18.
•Th
ese
5 ye
ar p
roje
ctio
ns a
re b
ased
on
hist
orica
l cen
sus d
ay d
ata
and
wer
e ca
lcula
ted
by
appl
ying
the
coho
rt su
rviv
al m
etho
dolo
gy.
•Th
e co
hort
surv
ival
met
hodo
logy
use
s hist
oric
birt
h da
ta a
nd h
istor
ic st
uden
t enr
ollm
ent t
o tr
ack
how
stud
ent c
ount
s inc
reas
e or
dec
reas
e as
they
mov
e th
roug
h gr
ades
.•
Any
of th
ese
fact
ors c
ould
caus
e a
signi
fican
t cha
nge
in lo
ng te
rm st
uden
t enr
ollm
ent:
Bo
unda
ry a
djus
tmen
ts
Dist
rict s
choo
l ope
ning
s/clo
sure
s
Char
ter/
priv
ate
scho
ol o
peni
ng o
r clo
sure
Ho
usin
g de
velo
pmen
t
Chan
ges i
n pr
ogra
m o
fferin
gs
Chan
ges i
n gr
ade
conf
igur
atio
n
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
139
How
was
seat
capa
city
mea
sure
d?Fo
r eac
h in
stru
ctio
nal r
oom
, Jac
obs
mul
tiplie
d th
e 1)
max
imum
# o
f stu
dent
s th
at c
ould
be
assi
gned
to a
ro
om,*
by
2) a
n ad
just
men
t fac
tor f
or g
rade
-leve
l sch
edul
ing,
** a
nd 3
) a ro
om s
ize
fact
or.**
*
The
cam
pus
capa
city
was
then
cal
cula
ted
by th
en s
umm
ing
the
fact
ored
cap
acity
for a
ll in
stru
ctio
nal
room
s on
a c
ampu
s. N
ote
that
for c
ampu
ses
with
sm
alle
r cla
ssro
oms,
this
mea
sure
of s
eat c
apac
ity w
ill
unde
rest
imat
e po
tent
ial u
se.
*Max
imum
#s
of s
tude
nts
that
cou
ld b
e as
sign
ed to
an
inst
ruct
iona
l roo
m. A
val
ue o
f 0 w
as u
sed
for a
udito
rium
s, d
inin
g ha
lls, s
tora
ge ro
oms,
ad
min
istra
tive
room
s, o
r com
mun
ity-u
se ro
oms.
**
Sche
dulin
g fa
ctor
sw
ere
95%
for e
lem
enta
ries,
92%
for K
-8 s
choo
ls, 8
5% fo
r mid
dle
scho
ols,
and
75%
for h
igh
scho
ols
(in m
ost c
ases
).**
*Siz
e fa
ctor
sw
ere
set t
o th
e pr
opor
tiona
l siz
e of
eac
h cl
assr
oom
rela
tive
to it
s ta
rget
siz
e fo
r edu
catio
nal a
dequ
acy
(as
defin
ed b
y Ja
cobs
)onl
y w
hen
the
size
of a
n in
stru
ctio
nal r
oom
fell
belo
w 8
5% o
f the
targ
et. O
ther
wis
e it
was
set
to 1
.
Cam
pus
asse
ssm
ents
wer
e co
mpl
eted
in 2
017
by J
acob
s.
Roo
m fa
ctor
ed c
apac
ity =
max
# s
tude
nts
Xsc
hedu
ling
fact
orX
size
fact
or
Cap
acity
Ana
lysi
s
140
Appe
ndix
BAd
ditio
nal I
nfor
mat
ion
from
Par
t 2
The
follo
win
g sli
des s
how
add
ition
al in
form
atio
n re
gard
ing
the
anal
ysis
pres
ente
d in
Par
t 2 -
Loca
tion
Anal
ysis.
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
141
How
man
y of
Oak
land
scho
ol a
ge ch
ildre
n w
ill
atte
nd p
ublic
scho
ols?
•Bl
ock
grou
p co
unts
are
pro
rate
d by
curr
ent c
aptu
re ra
tes o
f sch
ool a
ge ch
ildre
n in
OUS
D sc
hool
s to
dete
rmin
e ho
w m
any
Oakl
and
child
ren
are
expe
cted
to a
tten
d OU
SD sc
hool
s in
2023
.El
emen
tary
scho
ol e
xam
ple:
•Cu
rren
t TK/
K-5
Oakl
and
publ
ic sc
hool
capt
ure
rate
(dist
rict-r
un &
char
ter):
84.
8%
•Cu
rren
t TK/
K-5
OUSD
capt
ure
rate
(dist
rict-r
un):
64.6
%
•Es
timat
ed n
umbe
r of e
lem
enta
ry a
ge ch
ildre
n liv
ing
in O
akla
nd in
202
3: 2
9,53
4•
Num
ber o
f ele
men
tary
scho
ol a
ge ch
ildre
n ex
pect
ed to
att
end
OUSD
scho
ols i
n 20
23: 1
9,07
9(2
9,53
4 *
64.6
%)
2017
Pop
ulat
ion
2017
-18 D
istric
t-Ru
n st
uden
ts20
17-1
8 Cha
rter
st
uden
ts
2017
-18 T
otal
st
uden
ts in
Oak
land
Pu
blic
Scho
ols
2017
Tota
l sch
ool
age
child
ren
in
Oakl
and
2017
Not
in
Oakl
and
Publ
ic Sc
hool
s
2017
-18 P
ublic
Sc
hool
Cap
ture
Ra
te20
17-1
8 OUS
D-DR
Ca
ptur
e Ra
te20
17-1
8 CHA
RTER
Ca
ptur
e Ra
te
#Stu
dent
s 201
7-18
36,9
0015
,977
52,8
77
Livin
g in
Oak
land
36,2
4114
,029
50,2
7062
,737
12,4
6780
.1%
57.8
%*
22.4
%
K-5
(5-1
0yrs
)19
,524
6,11
725
,641
30,2
284,
826
84.8
%64
.6%
20.2
%
6-8
(11-
13yr
s)7,
054
3,94
811
,002
14,4
933,
563
75.9
%48
.7%
27.2
%
9-12
(14-
17yr
s)9,
663
3,96
413
,627
18,0
164,
497
75.6
%53
.6%
22.0
%
TOTA
L36
,241
14,0
2950
,270
62,7
3712
,467
80.1
%57
.8%
22.4
%
Loca
tion
Ana
lysi
s
Tota
l dis
trict
wid
e ca
ptur
e ra
te is
slig
htly
hig
her h
ere
due
to in
clus
ion
of s
tude
nts
who
se O
akla
nd a
ddre
ss c
ould
not
be
geol
ocat
ed in
to a
ny o
f the
5 S
RA
regi
ons.
61
142
Tim
elin
e fo
r Blu
eprin
t for
Qua
lity
Scho
ols
2017
-18
2018
-19
2019
-20
2020
-21
2021
-22
2022
-23
Coho
rt 1
Scho
ol
Sele
ctio
nPl
anni
ngIm
plem
enta
tion
ONGO
ING
SUPP
ORTS
Coho
rt 2
Scho
ol
Sele
ctio
nPl
anni
ngIm
plem
enta
tion
Coho
rt 3
Scho
ol
Sele
ctio
nPl
anni
ngIm
plem
enta
tion
Coho
rt 4
Scho
ol S
elec
tion
Plan
ning
Impl
emen
tatio
n
City
Wid
e M
ap
Appr
oved
in 2
019:
W
ill id
entif
y all
scho
ol ch
ange
s ne
eded
by 2
023
143
Exhibit J
1
2019
-20
Budg
et R
educ
tion
Plan
Pr
esen
tatio
n
Janu
ary 9
, 201
9
Pre
sent
ed b
y: M
arcu
s B
attle
, Chi
ef B
usin
ess
Offi
cer
To: O
US
D B
oard
of E
duca
tion
V2
144
Disc
ussio
n To
pics
1.Un
ders
tand
ing
our D
efici
t2.
Prio
ritiza
tion
in B
udge
t Dev
elop
men
t3.
Reco
mm
ende
d Re
duct
ion
Scen
ario
s and
Po
tent
ial I
mpa
ct4.
Reim
agin
ing
OUSD
5.AB
184
0
2
145
Unde
rsta
ndin
g Ou
r Bud
get D
efici
t
Wha
t is o
ur p
roje
cted
ope
ratin
g de
ficit
over
the
next
thre
e ye
ars?
Wha
t are
the
Boar
d Fi
scal
Vita
lity
Spec
ial C
omm
ittee
Re
com
men
datio
ns?
Ho
w m
uch
do w
e ne
ed to
redu
ce o
ver t
he n
ext t
wo
year
s?
3
146
Wha
t is o
ur p
roje
cted
ope
ratin
g de
ficit
over
the
next
thre
e ye
ars?
4
147
Expe
nses
Out
grow
ing
Reve
nue
5
OUSD
’s Fi
nanc
ial C
halle
nge:
⇒Fl
at R
even
ue: B
egin
ning
20
19-2
0, U
nres
trict
ed R
even
ue
expe
cted
to fl
atte
n. O
USD
enro
llmen
t pre
dict
ed a
s mos
tly
flat.
⇒In
crea
sed
Expe
nses
: Lik
e al
l CA
Dist
ricts
, the
exp
ense
in
crea
ses a
re d
riven
prim
arily
by:
STRS
/PER
Spen
sion
rate
s -
spec
ial e
duca
tion
cost
gro
wth
Mul
ti-Ye
ar P
roje
ctio
ns*
Budg
et
Upda
te20
18-1
920
19-2
020
20-2
021
Targ
et A
mou
nt
Need
ed fo
r 2%
or
abov
e Re
serv
e by
20
/21
Adop
ted
Budg
et2.
61%
Rese
rve
4.59
%Re
serv
e3.
18%
Rese
rve
With
$30
M in
re
duct
ions
be
ginn
ing F
Y 19
-20
1st I
nter
im2.
25%
Re
serv
e2.
19%
Re
serv
e.7
0%
Rese
rve
With
NO
redu
ctio
ns
& N
O in
crea
se in
in
vest
men
ts
Appr
oved
1s
t Int
erim
2.25
%2.
48%
2.35
%$1
5 M
illio
n in
19-
20$2
8 M
illio
n in
20-
21( in
clude
s in
vest
men
ts)
*The
stat
e re
quire
s a 2
% re
serv
e. O
USD
Boar
d Po
licy
requ
ires a
3%
rese
rve
min
imum
as a
bes
t pra
ctice
in b
udge
ting.
148
Boar
d Di
rect
ives
Spec
ial C
omm
ittee
on
Fisc
al V
italit
y Re
solu
tion
$3
0 M
illio
n in
ong
oing
redu
ctio
ns st
artin
g in
201
9-20
*
Esta
blish
3%
Res
erve
for 2
019-
20 a
nd co
ntin
ue to
incr
ease
ev
ery
year
afte
r*
1.Im
plem
ent B
oard
of E
duca
tion
Budg
et P
olicy
315
02.
Rede
sign
the
Dist
rict
3.Co
mpe
titiv
e Em
ploy
ee C
ompe
nsat
ion
4.Co
mm
it to
Sha
red
Decis
ion
Mak
ing
and
Mul
ti-St
akeh
olde
r Te
ams
*(se
e al
so A
ugus
t, 20
18 R
esol
utio
n)
6
149
Budg
et P
riorit
izatio
n
Wha
t inf
orm
s our
bud
get p
riorit
izatio
n?
W
hat a
re w
e co
mm
itted
to n
ot re
ducin
g?
Wha
t is o
ur v
ision
for a
cent
ral o
ffice
rede
sign?
7
150
Wha
t inf
orm
s our
bud
get p
riorit
izatio
n?
8
151
Our M
issio
n an
d Vi
sion
Grou
nd U
sM
issio
n:To
bec
ome
a Fu
ll Se
rvice
Com
mun
ity D
istric
tfoc
used
on
high
ac
adem
ic ac
hiev
emen
t whi
le se
rvin
g th
e w
hole
child
, elim
inat
ing
ineq
uity
, and
pr
ovid
ing
each
child
with
exc
elle
nt te
ache
rs, e
very
day
.
Visio
n:Al
l OUS
D st
uden
tsw
ill fi
nd jo
y in
thei
r aca
dem
ic le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e w
hile
gra
duat
ing
with
the
skill
s to
ensu
re th
ey a
re ca
ring,
com
pete
nt, f
ully
-in
form
ed, c
ritica
l thi
nker
s who
are
pre
pare
d fo
r col
lege
, car
eer,
and
com
mun
ity
succ
ess.
Qual
ity -
Equi
ty -
Acce
ss -
Fisc
al Su
stai
nabi
lity
9
152
Our
The
ory
of A
ctio
n an
d Po
licie
s G
uide
Us
Teac
her R
eten
tion
&
Recr
uitm
ent
Lead
ersh
ip D
evel
opm
ent/
Scho
ol G
over
nanc
e
BP 5
032
Equi
ty P
olicy
Fisc
al V
italit
y Pla
n
AB 1
840/
AB12
00
BP 3
150
BP 6
006:
City
Wid
e Pl
an
OUSD
VIS
ION
& M
ISSI
ONW
here
are
we
goin
g an
d w
hy?
BP 6
005:
Qua
lity S
choo
l De
velo
pmen
t
LCAP
:Diff
eren
tiate
d As
sista
nce
ORGA
NIZA
TION
AL R
ESILI
ENCE
QUAL
ITY
COM
MUN
ITY
SCHO
OLS
FISC
AL V
ITAL
ITY
10
THEO
RY O
F ACT
ION
How
will
we
get t
here
?
153
Stak
ehol
der I
nput
Info
rms U
s
Stud
ents
(All-
City
Cou
ncil)
: Fou
r prio
rity
area
s: 1)
Stu
dent
Lead
ersh
ip
Prog
ram
s; 2)
Col
lege
Sup
port
Pro
gram
s; 3)
Tea
cher
Qua
lity:
Rec
ruitm
ent,
Rete
ntio
n an
d Re
latio
nshi
ps; a
nd 4
) Men
tal H
ealth
, Nut
ritio
n &
Wel
lnes
s.
Prin
cipal
s (PA
C Su
rvey
): Cr
itica
l Dep
artm
ents
are
Bui
ldin
gs a
nd G
roun
ds,
Cust
odia
ns, S
pecia
l Edu
catio
n, T
alen
t and
Link
ed Le
arni
ng; r
educ
e ot
her
dept
s tha
t are
less
criti
cal
Othe
r Sta
ff &
Com
mun
ity (C
omm
unity
Surv
ey):
Prio
ritize
staf
f ret
entio
n,
equi
ty a
nd cl
ass s
ize.
Rate
top
cent
ral f
unct
ion
as m
aint
aini
ng cl
ean
and
safe
scho
ol fa
ciliti
es. E
ncou
rage
max
imizi
ng p
erce
ntag
e of
fund
s dire
cted
to
scho
ol b
udge
ts
Inpu
t Hig
hlig
hts
11
154
BP 3
150:
Max
imizi
ng U
nres
trict
ed Fu
nds
Spec
ific S
ervi
ces t
o Sc
hool
sNa
med
Ser
vice
s:1.
Spe
cial E
duca
tion
2. C
usto
dial
and
Bui
ldin
gs &
Gr
ound
s 3.
Sch
ool P
olice
& S
choo
l Sec
urity
Of
ficer
s4.
Sch
ool N
urse
s5.
Sch
ool C
ouns
elor
s6.
Spe
cifie
d En
richm
ent R
esou
rces
(i.
e. su
mm
er sc
hool
, mus
ic, a
rt)
All R
emai
ning
Unr
estr
icted
Re
venu
e to
Scho
ol Si
tes
Base
d on
the
proj
ecte
d st
uden
t en
rollm
ent a
nd th
e fo
llow
ing:
1.
Gra
desp
an2.
Fre
e &
Red
uced
Lunc
h3.
Eng
lish
Lear
ners
4. F
oste
r Car
e5.
hig
h-st
ress
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
Lega
lly R
equi
red
Dist
rict-W
ide
Oblig
atio
ns
For e
xam
ple:
Sta
te Lo
an A
udit
Find
ings
, etc
.
12%
for D
istric
t-Wid
e Ad
min
istra
tive
Serv
ices
12%
= F
or e
xam
ple:
Indi
rect
adm
in
cost
s, bo
th m
anda
tory
exp
ense
s an
d co
mm
itmen
ts
12
155
Wha
t are
we
com
mitt
ed to
not
redu
cing?
13
156
BP 3
150:
201
8-19
Use
of U
nres
trict
ed G
ener
al F
unds
~$
413M
tota
l (in
cludi
ng ~
$77M
of S
&C
)
1. Le
gally
Ob
ligat
ed
Expe
nses
2. C
entr
al D
istric
t wid
e Ad
min
istra
tive
Cost
s (1
2% C
ap $
49.8
M)
3. S
pecif
ied
Cent
ral S
ervi
ces t
o Sc
hool
Site
s4.
Sch
ool S
ite
Budg
ets
~$29
MNo
Re
duct
ions
~$59
M(in
cl. ~
$17M
S&
C)Su
bsta
ntia
l Red
uctio
ns
~$98
.6M
( inc
l. ~$
22M
S&
C)No
Red
uctio
ns to
Ser
vice
s
~$23
0M(in
cl. ~
38M
S&
C)Lim
ited
Redu
ctio
ns
-Sta
te Lo
an
(~$6
.5M
)-A
udit
Find
ings
(~
$5.5
M)
-Rou
tine
Repa
ir &
M
aint
enan
ce
(~$1
7M)
e.g.
fina
nce,
hum
an re
sour
ces,
perfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t, in
stru
ctio
nal s
ervi
ces,
lega
l se
rvice
s, di
stric
t lea
ders
hip
1. S
pecia
l Edu
catio
n 2.
Cus
todi
al a
nd B
uild
ings
& G
roun
ds
3. S
choo
l Pol
ice &
Sch
ool S
ecur
ity O
ffice
rs4.
Sch
ool N
urse
s5.
Sch
ool C
ouns
elor
s6.
Spe
cifie
d En
richm
ent R
esou
rces
(i.e
. su
mm
er sc
hool
, mus
ic, a
rt, n
utrit
ion
serv
ices,
athl
etics
1. G
rade
span
2. F
ree
& R
educ
ed
Lunc
h3.
Eng
lish
Lear
ners
4. F
oste
r Car
e5.
Hig
h-st
ress
ne
ighb
orho
ods
NOTE
: Pre
limin
ary N
umbe
rs; S
ubje
ct to
revi
sion
14
157
Com
mitt
ed In
vest
men
ts
⟼Ce
rtifi
cate
d Cl
assr
oom
Tea
cher
s (Th
eory
of A
ctio
n)⟼
3150
-spe
cifie
d Ce
ntra
l Ser
vice
s to
Site
s (BP
315
0, S
urve
y Da
ta)
⟼Le
gal O
blig
atio
ns &
Man
dato
ry S
ervi
ces (
BP 3
150)
⟼$7
7M o
n Su
ppor
ts to
Stu
dent
s Ide
ntifi
ed in
LCAP
(Ed
Code
)
15
158
Brea
kdow
n of
315
0-Sp
ecifi
ed C
entr
al S
ervi
ce to
Sch
ools
(N
o Re
duct
ions
)
16
Cate
gory
Am
ount
Note
s
1. S
pecia
l Edu
catio
n ~$
78.0
M
inclu
des T
rans
port
atio
n
2. C
usto
dial
and
Bui
ldin
gs &
Gro
unds
~$
7.8M
Site
Cus
todi
ans i
nclu
ded
in S
ite b
udge
ts
3. S
choo
l Pol
ice &
Sch
ool S
ecur
ity O
ffice
rs~$
2.7M
(Site
SSO
s inc
lude
d in
site
bud
gets
)
4. S
choo
l Nur
ses
~$3.
0Min
clude
s add
ition
al h
ealth
serv
ices
5. S
choo
l Cou
nsel
ors
~$3.
6M24
in li
nked
lear
ning
bud
get,
14 in
ssc,
4 in
sc
hool
site
bud
gets
6. S
pecif
ied
Enric
hmen
t Res
ourc
es (i
.e.
sum
mer
scho
ol, m
usic,
art
, nut
ritio
n se
rvice
s, at
hlet
ics)
~$3.
5Min
clude
s Nut
ritio
n co
ntrib
utio
n; S
umm
er
prog
ram
s (93
7); a
nd a
thle
tics.
Tota
l~$
98.6
MUn
rest
ricte
d fu
nds o
nly
159
Brea
kdow
n of
315
0-Un
rest
ricte
d Di
stric
twid
e Ce
ntra
l Ad
min
istra
tive
Cost
s
17
Cate
gory
Bas
ed o
n Fu
nctio
n Co
des
Amou
ntNo
tes
Gene
ral A
dmin
istra
tive
Cost
s-Bu
sines
s Op
erat
ions
~$
29.5
M
Unre
stric
ted
Fund
s (Ge
nera
l Pur
pose
)
Gene
ral A
dmin
istra
tion
-Edu
catio
nal
Serv
ices
~$12
.6M
Un
rest
ricte
d Fu
nds (
Gene
ral P
urpo
se)
~$17
.4M
Un
rest
ricte
d Fu
nds (
LCAP
Sup
plem
enta
l and
Co
ncen
trat
ion
Fund
s)
Tota
l Cen
tral
GP
Avai
labl
e fo
r Pos
sible
Re
allo
catio
n &
Red
uctio
ns~$
42.1
MEx
clude
s 17.
4M o
f Sup
plem
enta
l &
Conc
entr
atio
n
160
Reco
mm
ende
d Re
duct
ion
Scen
ario
s and
Pot
entia
l Im
pact
W
hat a
re th
e cu
rren
t sum
mar
y of
the
redu
ctio
n op
tions
that
hav
e al
read
y be
en
iden
tifie
d?
W
hat a
re th
e po
ssib
le sc
enar
ios f
or b
udge
t red
uctio
ns fo
r 19-
20?
W
hat a
re th
e po
tent
ial i
mpa
cts t
o sc
hool
site
s and
cent
ral o
ffice
with
the
prop
osed
re
duct
ions
?
18
161
Wha
t is t
he cu
rren
t sum
mar
y of
the
redu
ctio
n op
tions
that
hav
e al
read
y be
en id
entif
ied?
19
162
Upda
ted
Mul
ti-Ye
ar S
umm
ary o
f Ide
ntifi
ed
Redu
ctio
ns to
Dat
e
20
Cur
rent
ly E
stim
ated
Ong
oing
Cos
t Sav
ings
, Red
uctio
ns &
Rev
enue
Incr
ease
sOp
tions
FY
201
9-20
(Yr.
1)FY
202
0-21
(Yr.
2)FY
202
1-22
(Yr.
3)FY
202
2-23
(Yr.
4)
Estim
ated
4 Y
ear C
umul
ativ
e Sa
ving
s Ca
tego
ry 1
: *In
crea
se R
even
ues
$1,3
00,0
00$1
,900
,000
$2,1
00,0
00$2
,300
,000
Cate
gory
2: *
Dec
reas
ed S
pend
ing
Cen
tral
Site
sO
ther
$7,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$365
,000
$7,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$1,5
70,0
00
$7,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$1,5
70,0
00
$7,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$1,5
70,0
00
Cate
gory
3:*
Cos
ts S
avin
gs$8
31,0
00$6
,750
,000
$8,1
50,0
00$8
,250
,000
Revi
sed
Tota
ls**
$12,
496,
000
$20,
220,
000
$21,
820,
000
$22,
120,
000
Not
e:*S
ee A
ppen
dix
for d
etai
ls
**Ad
ditio
nal C
entr
al A
dmin
istr
atio
n Su
ppor
t FTE
Red
uctio
ns h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d, if
nee
ded,
to m
eet t
he B
oard
’s J
une
27 R
esol
utio
n R
educ
tion
Targ
et o
f $30
Mill
ion
163
Prop
osed
Sta
ffing
and
Site
Disc
retio
nary
Red
uctio
ns
Cent
ral O
ffice
Dep
artm
ents
: $7
mill
ion
of re
duct
ions
to C
entr
al O
ffice
FTE
.•
Supe
rinte
nden
t Div
ision
:-$
1.4M
(~
11FT
E)•
Acad
emic
Serv
ices D
ivisi
on:
-$2.
8M
(~21
.5FT
E)•
Oper
atio
ns D
ivisi
on:-
$2.8
M (~
21.5
FTE)
21
Scho
ol S
ites:
$3M
of r
educ
tions
from
di
scre
tiona
ry fu
nds p
rovi
ded
to sc
hool
s.•
Scho
ols t
o de
term
ine
wha
t exp
endi
ture
s to
redu
ce•
Redu
ctio
ns to
disc
retio
nary
fund
s will
be
done
co
nsist
ent w
ith v
alue
s on
equi
ty.
The
maj
ority
of p
ropo
sed
redu
ctio
ns w
ill co
me
from
redu
ctio
ns/r
ealig
nmen
t in
cent
ral o
ffice
se
rvice
s and
redu
ctio
n to
disc
retio
nary
fund
ing t
o sc
hool
s.
Note
:Div
ision
lead
ers a
re le
adin
g re
alig
nmen
t w
ithin
thei
r Div
ision
with
cons
ulta
tions
acr
oss
divi
sions
to e
nsur
e th
at F
TE re
duct
ions
are
bas
ed
on a
reor
gani
zatio
n an
d no
t a p
erce
ntag
e cu
t per
de
part
men
t.
164
Scho
ol S
ite D
iscre
tiona
ry Fu
ndin
g Re
duct
ions
Grad
e Sp
anPe
r Pup
il Re
duct
ion
Elem
enta
ry($
58)
Mid
dle
($75
)
High
Sch
ool
($10
0)
K-8
($67
)
6-12
($88
)
The
redu
ctio
n ac
ross
all
scho
ol si
tes
tota
ls $3
mill
ion.
The
redu
ctio
n w
ill b
e m
ade
from
disc
retio
nary
fund
s pr
ovid
ed to
scho
ols a
nd ca
lcula
ted
on a
pe
r pup
il ba
sis.
This
redu
ctio
n m
etho
d is
the
sam
e as
us
ed in
rece
nt y
ears
in co
llabo
ratio
n w
ith sc
hool
lead
ers.
22
165
Wha
t are
our
scen
ario
s for
redu
ctio
ns th
at in
clude
the
boar
d di
rect
ive
to re
ach
a 3%
rese
rve
and
budg
et fo
r new
inve
stm
ents
for
the
next
two
year
s?
23
166
New
Inve
stm
ents
Wou
ld R
equi
re Fu
rthe
r Red
uctio
ns
1Ch
arte
r Offi
ce E
xpan
sion
~$30
0,00
0On
-goi
ng
2Bl
uepr
int S
choo
l Site
Sup
port
s~$
200,
000
One-
time
38
perio
d Da
y~$
8,80
0,00
0On
-goi
ng
4Te
ache
r sal
ary t
o m
edia
n~$
36,0
00,0
00+
On-g
oing
5As
set M
anag
emen
t Cos
t (Bo
nd E
lect
ion,
7-1
1 Co
mm
ittee
Sup
port
, Upd
ated
Fac
ilitie
s Mas
ter P
lan
~$1,
000,
000
One-
time
6Cu
stod
ial S
ervi
ces I
ncre
ase
up to
~$1
,000
,000
On-g
oing
24
Desir
ed n
ew in
vest
men
ts a
re n
ot co
ntem
plat
ed in
curr
ent r
educ
tion
targ
ets a
nd w
ould
requ
ire fu
rthe
r re
venu
e in
crea
ses a
nd/o
r spe
ndin
g re
duct
ions
with
cons
ider
atio
n of
whe
ther
it is
a o
ne-ti
me
or o
n-go
ing
allo
catio
n. E
xam
ple
inve
stm
ents
inclu
de:
Cons
ider
atio
n of
New
Inve
stm
ents
will
be
addr
esse
d as
par
t of t
he 2
019-
20 B
udge
t Dev
elop
men
t Pro
cess
onc
e OU
SD
has m
ore
info
rmat
ion
rega
rdin
g St
ate
budg
et d
ecisi
ons,
prop
osed
redu
ctio
ns a
nd fu
ndin
g av
aila
bilit
y
167
Redu
ctio
n Sc
enar
ios -
Assu
mpt
ion
for N
ew In
vest
men
ts
25
Assu
mpt
ions
2019
/20
Redu
ctio
n20
20/2
1Re
duct
ion
Scen
ario
A(C
urre
nt
Real
ity)
Le
vel o
f New
Inve
stm
ents
-m
oder
ate
18
-19
Rese
rve:
2.2
5%
19-2
0 Re
serv
e: 3
.17%
20
-21
Rese
rve:
3.0
6%
$17.
3M$0
Scen
ario
B
Le
vel o
f New
Inve
stm
ents
-m
oder
atel
y ag
gres
sive
18
-19
Rese
rve:
2.2
5%
19-2
0 Re
serv
e: 3
.52%
20
-21
Rese
rve:
3.0
1%
$21.
5M$0
Scen
ario
C
Le
vel o
f New
Inve
stm
ents
-ag
gres
sive
18
-19
Rese
rve:
2.2
5%
19-2
0 Re
serv
e: 4
.30%
20
-21
Rese
rve:
3.0
3%$3
0.2M
$0
168
2019
-20
Cent
ral R
educ
tions
Bas
ed o
n Th
ree
Scen
ario
s
26
Leve
l of N
ew
Inve
stm
ents
Sce
nario
sS
choo
l S
ites
Req
uire
d C
entra
l R
educ
tions
Sup
erin
tend
ent
(inc.
HR
, Fac
ilitie
s, E
quity
, C
omm
unic
atio
ns a
nd o
ther
)
@20
%
Aca
dem
ic
Sup
port
@40
%
Ope
ratio
ns
Sup
port
@40
%
Alre
ady
Iden
tifie
d$3
.0 M
$7.0
M$1
.4 M
(FTE
11.
6)$2
.8 M
(FTE
23.
3)$2
.8 M
(FTE
23.
3)
Scen
ario
A:
Mod
erat
e In
crea
se
(Cur
rent
R
ealit
y)
$3.0
M(n
o ad
ditio
nal
redu
ctio
ns)
$14.
3 M
$2.8
60 M
(F
TE 2
3.8)
$5.7
20 M
(FTE
47.
6)$5
.720
M(F
TE 4
7.6)
Scen
ario
B:
Mod
erat
ely
Agg
ress
ive
Incr
ease
$3.0
M(n
o ad
ditio
nal
redu
ctio
ns)
$18.
5 M
$3.7
M(F
TE 3
0.8)
$7.4
M(F
TE 6
1.6
)$7
.4 M
(FTE
61.
6)
Scen
ario
C:
Agg
ress
ive
Incr
ease
$3.0
M(n
o ad
ditio
nal
redu
ctio
ns)
$25.
1 M
$5.0
2(F
TE 4
1.8)
$10.
0 M
(FTE
83.
3)$1
0.0
M(F
TE 8
3.3)
169
27
Wha
t are
the
Trad
eoffs
bas
ed o
n th
e Pr
opos
ed N
ew
Inve
stm
ent S
cena
rios a
nd M
aint
aini
ng a
Pro
pose
d 3%
En
ding
Fund
Bal
ance
?
170
28
2019
-20
Redu
ctio
ns to
Cen
tral
Adm
in C
osts
Impa
ctAf
ter r
emov
ing
serv
ices e
num
erat
ed in
BP3
150
(e.g
. Cus
todi
al),
ther
e is
roug
hly
$42M
left
in
unre
stric
ted
cent
ral s
ervi
ces (
exclu
ding
S&
C).
A re
duct
ion
of o
ver h
alf o
f the
rem
aini
ng F
TE (a
250
+ FT
E re
duct
ion)
wou
ld b
e ne
cess
ary
to re
ach
the
$30M
targ
et.
Such
a re
duct
ion
wou
ld b
oth
elim
inat
e un
rest
ricte
d fu
ndin
g to
pro
gram
s cor
e to
our
Miss
ion/
Visio
n an
dse
vere
ly u
nder
min
e ou
r abi
lity t
o m
aint
ain
the
fisca
l and
ope
ratio
nal s
olve
ncy
that
is a
pur
pose
of r
educ
tions
. (se
e St
affin
g)
Core
serv
ices s
ever
ely
impa
cted
:
Pers
onne
l -re
crui
tmen
t, st
aff a
ssig
nmen
t, pa
yrol
l with
furt
her r
isk to
bas
ic st
affin
g an
d re
tent
ion
Fi
nanc
ial o
vers
ight
-bud
get d
evel
opm
ent,
spen
ding
com
plia
nce
& o
vers
ight
, fin
ancia
l rep
ortin
g fu
rthe
r del
ayed
, mor
e er
ror w
ith le
ss co
ntro
l on
over
spen
ding
or a
udit
findi
ngs
Te
chno
logy
-el
imin
atio
n of
softw
are
and
trai
ning
that
incr
ease
effi
cienc
y in
all
area
s of o
pera
tion
Miss
ion/
Visio
n-al
igne
d se
rvice
s sev
erel
y im
pact
ed:
Ac
adem
ic su
ppor
ts-s
tude
nt d
ata,
ana
lysis
and
curr
iculu
m su
ppor
t elim
inat
ed o
r und
erm
ined
as
wel
l as w
rap-
arou
nd se
rvice
s to
supp
ort s
tude
nt &
fam
ily e
ngag
emen
t in
educ
atio
n
Ne
twor
k su
ppor
ts-n
etw
ork
supp
orts
to sc
hool
s
171
28
2019
-20
Redu
ctio
ns to
Cen
tral
Adm
in C
osts
Impa
ctSt
atut
ory,
cont
ract
ual a
nd b
oard
-dire
cted
resp
onsib
ilitie
s cou
ld b
e im
pact
ed w
ithou
t effo
rts t
o pr
otec
t ne
eded
reso
urce
s fro
m cu
ts.
Each
of t
hese
is a
lread
y an
are
a of
pas
t or c
urre
nt st
rain
on
Dist
rict r
esou
rces
.
Man
date
d re
spon
sibili
ties:
Fi
nanc
ial r
epor
ting
-to
stat
e, co
unty
, aud
itors
St
aff a
ssig
nmen
t and
pro
cess
ing-
exte
nsiv
e ru
les a
bout
ass
igni
ng st
aff t
o te
mpo
rary
and
pe
rman
ent r
oles
, inc
ludi
ng a
djus
tmen
t in
hour
s and
pay
and
man
agem
ent o
f sup
port
of
pers
onne
l com
mitt
ees
Cu
rricu
lum
& te
xtbo
ok co
mpl
ianc
e -c
urric
ulum
ado
ptio
n an
d Williamsr
equi
rem
ents
St
uden
t Int
erve
ntio
n su
ppor
t-di
stric
t wid
e co
ordi
natio
n of
stud
ent a
cade
mic
and
beha
vior
al
supp
orts
St
uden
t tes
ting
supp
ort-
stat
e te
stin
g re
quire
men
ts, t
rans
crip
ts
En
rollm
ent s
uppo
rt -
adm
inist
ratio
n of
the
Dist
rict p
olici
es o
f sch
ool s
elec
tion
by fa
mili
es
172
Asse
mbl
y Bi
ll 18
40W
hat a
re th
e im
plica
tions
of A
B 18
40 a
nd ca
n w
e co
unt o
n th
is fu
ndin
g to
pro
vide
a b
ridge
or s
oft-l
andi
ng a
s we
impl
emen
t a lo
ng-
term
mul
ti-ye
ar p
lan
for b
udge
t red
uctio
ns?
30
173
AB 1
840
Ques
tions
and
Con
sider
atio
ns
Fram
ewor
k -W
hat i
s AB
1840
?
To a
chie
ve fi
scal
stab
ility
for O
USD,
the
Stat
e As
sem
bly p
asse
d AB
184
0 to
pr
ovid
e th
ree
year
s of r
elie
f fun
ding
to th
e di
stric
t.
Th
is fu
ndin
g is
inte
nded
to a
ssist
OUS
D in
add
ress
ing
its o
ngoi
ng d
efici
t, an
d to
pr
ovid
e tim
e an
d sp
ace
requ
ired
for i
mpl
emen
ting
stro
ng a
nd co
nsist
ent f
iscal
co
ntro
ls to
ens
ure
the
nece
ssar
y re
sour
ces t
o se
rve
the
stud
ents
of O
akla
nd.
Th
e pr
oces
s out
lined
in A
B 18
40 in
clude
s an
over
sight
par
tner
ship
with
the
Alam
eda
Coun
ty O
ffice
of E
duca
tion
(ACO
E), F
CMAT
, the
Cal
iforn
ia D
epar
tmen
t of
Edu
catio
n (C
DE),
Stat
e Bo
ard
of E
duca
tion
(SBE
), De
part
men
t of F
inan
ce
(DOF
), an
d St
ate
Legi
slatu
re.
31
174
Will
AB
1840
fix t
he d
istric
t’s st
ruct
ural
def
icit?
AB
184
0 is
desig
ned
to p
rovi
de a
one
-tim
e al
loca
tion
of fu
ndin
g ba
sed
on th
e di
stric
t’s p
roje
cted
def
icit a
t a ra
te o
f up
to 7
5% fo
r Yea
r 1 (F
Y 20
19-2
0), u
p to
50
% fo
r Yea
r 2 (F
Y 20
20-2
1), a
nd u
p to
25%
for Y
ear 3
(FY
2021
-22)
.
Th
e on
e-tim
e al
loca
tion
prov
ides
a b
ridge
of f
undi
ng so
that
OUS
D ca
n de
velo
p a
mor
e ba
lanc
ed, s
usta
inab
le, a
nd lo
ng-te
rm so
lutio
n to
our
fisc
al d
efici
t.
It
is th
e St
ate’
s int
ent t
hat o
ur b
udge
t will
be
bala
nced
onc
e th
is br
idge
fund
ing
expi
res.
AB 1
840
Ques
tions
and
Con
sider
atio
ns (c
ont.)
175
Is fu
ndin
g un
der A
B 18
40 G
uara
ntee
d?
Ba
sed
on th
e Di
stric
t’s n
umer
ous d
iscus
sions
with
Sta
te a
nd C
ount
y Of
ficia
ls, it
is
our u
nder
stan
ding
that
the
fund
s are
not
gua
rant
eed
and
are
subj
ect t
o an
in
tens
ive
revi
ew p
roce
ss.
Fo
r exa
mpl
e, in
Yea
r 1, t
he fi
nal f
undi
ng re
com
men
datio
n co
uld
be ze
ro fu
ndin
g to
the
full
75%
allo
catio
n.
In
a re
cent
Legi
slativ
e An
alys
t Rep
ort (
LAO)
, the
LAO
has r
ecom
men
ded
that
the
Stat
e Le
gisla
ture
resc
ind
the
auth
oriza
tion
of a
spec
ial g
rant
to O
USD
and
Ingl
ewoo
d US
D pr
ovid
ed b
y AB
184
0 an
d pr
ovid
e a
loan
def
erra
l as a
bet
ter
publ
ic po
licy
goal
.
AB 1
840
Ques
tions
and
Con
sider
atio
ns (c
ont.)
176
Reim
agin
ing
OUSD
W
hat i
s our
visi
on fo
r re-
imag
ing
our d
istric
t?
Ho
w d
oes t
he C
omm
unity
of S
choo
ls Ci
tyw
ide
Plan
influ
ence
our
fu
ture
visi
on?
Ho
w a
re w
e re
desig
ning
cent
ral o
ffice
in su
ppor
t of s
choo
ls?
34
177
Wha
t is o
ur vi
sion
for r
e-im
agin
g ou
r dist
rict?
Ho
w d
oes t
he C
omm
unity
of S
choo
ls Ci
tyw
ide
Plan
influ
ence
our
fu
ture
visi
on?
35
178
Our M
issio
n an
d Vi
sion
Grou
nd U
sM
issio
n:To
bec
ome
a Fu
ll Se
rvice
Com
mun
ity D
istric
tfoc
used
on
high
ac
adem
ic ac
hiev
emen
t whi
le se
rvin
g th
e w
hole
child
, elim
inat
ing
ineq
uity
, and
pr
ovid
ing
each
child
with
exc
elle
nt te
ache
rs, e
very
day
.
Visio
n:Al
l OUS
D st
uden
tsw
ill fi
nd jo
y in
thei
r aca
dem
ic le
arni
ng e
xper
ienc
e w
hile
gra
duat
ing
with
the
skill
s to
ensu
re th
ey a
re ca
ring,
com
pete
nt, f
ully
-in
form
ed, c
ritica
l thi
nker
s who
are
pre
pare
d fo
r col
lege
, car
eer,
and
com
mun
ity
succ
ess.
Qual
ity -
Equi
ty -
Acce
ss -
Fisc
al Su
stai
nabi
lity
34
179
Com
mun
ity o
f Sch
ools
Polic
y (B
P 60
06)
A Ci
tyw
ide
Plan
grou
nded
in p
olicy
: Ass
et M
anag
emen
t, Ch
arte
r Aut
horiz
atio
n, E
nrol
lmen
t, Eq
uity
, Res
ults
Bas
ed B
udge
ting,
Sch
ool G
over
nanc
e, a
nd Q
ualit
y Sch
ool D
evel
opm
ent
Defin
ed A
uton
omie
sE
Best
supp
ort c
ontin
ued
inno
vatio
nw
ithin
OUS
D sc
hool
s and
ac
cele
rate
the
num
ber o
f hig
h-qu
ality
scho
ol o
ptio
ns w
ithin
OU
SD
Acce
ss to
Equ
itabl
e &
Qua
lity
Educ
atio
n fo
r all
DSh
are
best
pra
ctice
s acr
oss a
ll Oa
klan
d pu
blics
scho
ols,
(e.g
., pr
ofes
siona
l dev
elop
men
t, re
crui
tmen
t and
rete
ntio
n of
ed
ucat
ors)
that
impr
ove
equi
tabl
e ed
ucat
iona
l acc
ess f
or a
ll Oa
klan
d st
uden
ts.
Char
ter A
utho
rizat
ion
CSt
reng
then
our
role
in o
vers
ight
and
acc
ount
abili
tyto
ens
ure
that
all
char
ter s
choo
ls op
erat
ing
in O
akla
nd a
re p
rovi
ding
a h
igh
qual
ity e
duca
tion
and
wor
king
to a
ddre
ss in
equi
ties.
Facil
ities
ABe
st le
vera
ge v
acan
t, un
deru
tilize
d, a
nd su
rplu
s pro
pert
iesa
nd
utili
ze fa
cility
use
agr
eem
ents
to st
rate
gica
lly e
ngag
e al
l Oak
land
pu
blic
scho
ols-
dist
rict o
r cha
rter
; ide
ntify
hig
h qu
ality
opt
ions
for
acad
emic
prog
ram
s
Enro
llmen
t & T
rans
port
atio
nB
Wor
k w
ith a
ll Oa
klan
d pu
blic
scho
ols d
istric
t or c
hart
er -
to
bett
er a
rticu
late
feed
er p
atte
rnsa
cros
s Oak
land
to e
nsur
e m
ore
pred
ictab
ility
for f
amili
es.
35
180
City
wid
e Pl
an C
onsid
erat
ions
Qual
ity &
Equ
ity
We
need
bet
ter q
ualit
y pr
ogra
ms i
n ev
ery
neig
hbor
hood
for e
very
stud
ent
W
e ne
ed to
iden
tify
qual
ity m
etric
s to
be u
sed
for d
istric
t and
char
ter s
choo
ls al
ike
W
e ne
ed to
pro
vide
ong
oing
supp
ort f
or sc
hool
impr
ovem
ent t
o al
l OUS
D an
d Ch
arte
r sch
ools
Equi
ty &
Acc
ess
W
e n
eed
acce
ss to
qua
lity
scho
ols c
lose
r to
hom
e
We
need
regi
onal
feed
er p
atte
rns f
rom
pre
-K th
roug
h hi
gh sc
hool
Fisc
al V
italit
y & S
usta
inab
ility
W
e ne
ed fe
wer
, bet
ter r
esou
rced
scho
ols w
ith la
rger
enr
ollm
ent
W
e ne
ed to
bui
ld su
stai
nabl
e re
latio
nshi
ps w
ith ch
arte
r sch
ools
in o
ur ci
ty
36
181
How
are
we
rede
signi
ng ce
ntra
l offi
ce in
supp
ort o
f sch
ools?
39
182
Purp
ose
of C
entr
al O
ffice
: Con
tinuo
us Im
prov
emen
t
To a
chie
ve th
e go
al o
f im
prov
ing s
tude
nt
outc
omes
and
incr
easin
g sc
hool
qua
lity
acro
ss th
e di
stric
t...
Cent
ral O
ffice
mus
t fo
cus o
n co
ntin
uous
im
prov
emen
t to
supp
ort s
choo
l site
ca
pacit
yand
impr
ove
the
qual
ity o
f se
rvice
sto
netw
orks
of s
choo
ls.
MEA
SURE
DEFI
NE
ANAL
YZE
38
183
Cont
inuu
m o
f Cen
tral
Offi
ce T
heor
ies o
f Ac
tion
for S
uppo
rtin
g Sc
hool
Site
s
39
Low
est S
ite B
ased
De
cisio
n M
akin
g
High
est C
entr
alize
d Co
ntro
l & S
uppo
rt
High
est S
ite B
ased
De
cisio
n M
akin
g
Low
est
Cent
raliz
ed
Cont
rol &
Sup
port
Man
aged
In
stru
ctio
n M
odel
Mos
t Sch
ool
Hom
ogen
eity
Mos
t Mod
el S
choo
l Di
vers
ity
Som
e Si
te B
ased
De
cisio
n M
akin
g
Som
e C
entr
alize
d Co
ntro
l & S
uppo
rt
Som
e M
odel
Sch
ool
Hom
ogen
eity
Grea
ter S
ite B
ased
De
cisio
n M
akin
g
Less
Cen
tral
ized
Cont
rol
& S
uppo
rt
Mor
e M
odel
Sch
ool
Dive
rsity
Man
aged
Pe
rform
ance
Em
pow
erm
ent
“ear
ned”
au
tono
my
Perfo
rman
ce
Empo
wer
men
t
“def
ined
” au
tono
my
Dive
rse
Mod
els
“com
mun
ity/ p
ortfo
lio
of s
choo
ls”
Appl
ied
to so
me
scho
ols
Appl
ied
to a
ll/m
ost s
choo
lsAp
plie
d to
man
y/m
ost/
all
Cent
ral O
ffice
focu
ses o
n sc
hool
INPU
TSCe
ntra
l Offi
ce fo
cuse
s on
scho
ol O
UTPU
TS
Adap
ted
base
d on
Kat
zir a
nd M
cAda
ms:
The
Rede
sign
of U
rban
Scho
ol D
istric
ts: C
ase
Stud
ies i
n Ur
ban
Scho
ol G
over
nanc
e (2
013)
184
Disc
ussio
nan
d Re
com
men
datio
n
42
Leve
l of I
nves
tmen
ts20
19/2
0Re
duct
ion
2020
/21
Redu
ctio
nFT
ELo
ssRa
tiona
le
Scen
ario
A(C
urre
nt
Real
ity)
Mod
erat
e
18-1
9 Re
serv
e: 2
.25%
19
-20
Rese
rve:
3.1
7%
20-2
1 Re
serv
e: 3
.06%
Adm
inist
ratio
n Re
com
men
datio
n
$17.
3M$0
119
-Al
low
s for
all
curr
ently
com
mitt
ed
inve
stm
ents
to b
e fu
nded
;-
Allo
ws f
or fu
nd b
alan
ce re
serv
e of
3%
be
ginn
ing
in FY
201
9-20
;-
Allo
ws f
or a
mor
e ba
lanc
ed a
ppro
ach
to
Cent
ral O
ffice
Red
uctio
ns;
-Ce
ntra
l Site
Supp
orts
will
be
stra
ined
bu
t man
agea
ble;
Scen
ario
BM
oder
atel
y Agg
ress
ive
18
-19
Rese
rve:
2.2
5%
19-2
0 Re
serv
e: 3
.52%
20
-21
Rese
rve:
3.0
1%
$21.
5M$0
154
This
optio
n w
ould
pro
vide
for s
light
ly m
ore
incr
ease
s in
inve
stm
ents
but
with
out a
de
cisio
n to
furt
her e
xpan
d re
duct
ions
to si
tes
and
othe
r hol
d-ha
rmle
ss su
ppor
t fun
ctio
ns,
Cent
ral S
ite S
uppo
rt fu
nctio
ns w
ould
bec
ome
dim
inish
ed, i
neffi
cient
, and
inef
fect
ive.
Scen
ario
CAg
gres
sive
18
-19
Rese
rve:
2.2
5%
19-2
0 Re
serv
e: 4
.30%
20
-21
Rese
rve:
3.0
3%$3
0.2M
$020
8
This
optio
n w
ould
pro
vide
for s
ubst
antia
l in
crea
ses i
n in
vest
men
ts b
ut w
ithou
t cut
s to
sites
or o
ther
hol
d-ha
rmle
ss fu
nctio
ns, m
ost
Cent
ral S
ite S
uppo
rt b
asic
func
tions
wou
ld b
e se
vere
ly d
eple
ted
and
in m
any
case
s bec
ome
non-
exist
ent.
All
Sce
nario
s in
clud
e th
e or
igin
al $
3 M
illion
in s
ite re
duct
ions
185
2019
-20
Budg
et R
educ
tion
Proc
ess T
imel
ine
(Key
Act
iviti
es)
Janu
ary 2
3, 2
019
Upda
te B
udge
t Red
uctio
n Ta
rget
Re
solu
tion
Base
d on
Firs
t Int
erim
an
d Go
vern
or’s
Prop
osed
Bud
get
Janu
ary 9
, 201
9Bo
ard
Revi
ews 1
st R
ead
of
Budg
et R
educ
tion
Reco
mm
enda
tions
Janu
ary 3
0, 2
019:
Spe
cial
Mee
ting
Boar
d Fi
naliz
es a
nd A
dopt
s Re
com
men
ded
Redu
ctio
ns
Febr
uary
201
9Bo
ard
Appr
oved
Re
duct
ion
Plan
Su
bmitt
ed to
ACO
E
43
Dec-
Janu
ary
Stak
ehol
der L
eade
rshi
p En
gage
men
t on
final
Bu
dget
Red
uctio
n Pl
an
See
full
Budg
et,T
alen
t an
d Sc
hool
Site
Pl
anni
ng
Tim
elin
e he
re.
Cent
ral O
ffice
Red
esig
n Pr
oces
s Jan
-June
186
1000
Bro
adw
ay, S
uite
680
, Oak
land
, CA
9460
744
187
APP
END
IX
45
188
Staf
fing
Info
46
189
Over
all S
taffi
ng O
verv
iew
*D
ivis
ion
Unr
estr
icte
d FT
Es
(Incl
udes
S&
C)
Res
tric
ted
FTEs
(E
xem
pt)
Sup
erin
tend
ent
447.
495
.5
Aca
dem
ics
347.
346
5.7
Ope
ratio
ns11
4.3
8.5
Sch
ool S
ites
2,23
7.4
904.
3
Tota
ls31
46.4
961.
0
*Bas
ed o
n Oc
tobe
r 201
8 in
form
atio
n sh
ared
with
the
Fisc
al V
italit
y Com
mitt
ee N
ovem
ber 8
, 201
8. S
ome
posit
ions
are
fund
ed b
y S&
C an
d ar
e tr
eate
d di
ffere
ntly
in a
sses
sing
pote
ntia
l red
uctio
ns.
27
190
Staf
fing
Over
view
–Of
fice
of th
e Su
perin
tend
ent 48
Site
Dep
artm
ent N
ame
901
Chi
ef o
f Sta
ff90
6O
mbu
dsm
an91
8Fa
cilit
ies
Plan
ning
929
Offi
ce O
f Equ
ity94
0Bo
ard
Of E
duca
tion
941
Offi
ce O
f The
Sup
erin
tend
ent
942
Labo
r Rel
atio
ns94
4H
uman
Res
ourc
es S
ervi
ces
-Tal
ent
946
Lega
l Cou
nsel
947
Cha
rter S
choo
ls O
ffice
(adm
in)
958
Com
mun
icat
ions
988
Build
ings
& G
roun
ds98
9C
usto
dial
Ser
vice
s99
4O
USD
Pol
ice
Dep
artm
ent
2018
-19
Pers
onne
lU
nres
tric
ted
FTE
Res
tric
ted
FTE
4.5
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.5
4.5
10.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.9
9.4
7.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
19.5
1.1
9.0
79.0
222.
00.
010
1.0
0.0
447.
495
.5
Cus
todi
al S
ervi
ces
and
Pol
ice
serv
ices
are
cor
e se
rvic
es
enum
erat
ed in
BP
3150
. W
hile
ef
ficie
ncie
s ar
e al
way
s w
elco
me,
no
redu
ctio
n is
sou
ght.
191
Staf
fing
Over
view
–Ac
adem
ic Se
rvice
s
49
Site
Dep
artm
ent N
ame
903
Offi
ce O
f Chi
ef A
cade
mic
Offi
ce90
9Ac
adem
ic In
nova
tion
910
Early
Chi
ldho
od D
evel
opm
ent
912
Link
ed L
earn
ing
921
Offi
ce O
f Pos
t Sec
onda
ry R
eadi
ng92
2C
omm
. Sch
ools
& S
tude
nt S
ervi
ces
923
Elem
enta
ry N
etw
ork
492
8O
psr C
ouns
elin
g93
2Jr
Res
erve
Off
Trai
ning
Cor
p93
3O
akla
nd A
thle
tic L
eagu
e (O
AL)
937
Sum
mer
Pro
gram
s94
8R
esea
rch
Asse
ssm
ent &
Dat
a95
4En
g La
ng L
earn
er/m
ultil
ingu
al A
ch.
961
Pre
K-5
Net
wor
k 1
962
Pre-
k-5
Net
wor
k 2
963
Pre-
k-5
Net
wor
k 3
964
Hig
h Sc
hool
Net
wor
k96
5M
iddl
e Sc
hool
Net
wor
k96
8H
ealth
Ser
vice
s (n
urse
s)97
5Sp
ecia
l Edu
catio
n
2018
-19
Pers
onne
lU
nres
tric
ted
FTE
Res
tric
ted
FTE
4.0
0.0
86.1
62.9
18.0
20.6
17.8
24.4
0.0
0.0
72.5
78.6
3.3
2.5
43.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
27.3
2.2
5.8
27.3
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
14.9
4.6
1.0
1.8
37.0
2.6
8.6
237.
234
7.3
465.
7
H
ealth
Ser
vice
s, C
ouns
elin
g S
ervi
ces
and
Spe
cial
Edu
catio
n P
olic
e se
rvic
es
are
core
ser
vice
s en
umer
ated
in
BP
3150
. W
hile
effi
cien
cies
are
alw
ays
wel
com
e, n
o re
duct
ion
is s
ough
t.
A
cade
mic
Ser
vice
s ha
s m
ore
posi
tions
fu
nded
by
Res
trict
ed th
an U
nres
trict
ed
Fund
s
192
Staf
fing
Over
view
–Op
erat
ions
50
902
Acco
unts
Pay
able
905
Offi
ce O
f Sr.
Busi
ness
Offi
cer
907
Stud
ent A
ssig
nmen
t91
3C
hief
Of O
pera
tions
936
Acco
untin
g94
9O
ffice
Of T
he In
tern
al A
udito
r95
0St
ate
And
Fede
ral P
rogr
ams
951
Budg
et97
9Pr
intin
g An
d M
ail S
ervi
ces
980
Chi
ef F
inan
cial
Offi
cer
983
Payr
oll
986
Tech
nolo
gy S
ervi
ces
987
Ris
k M
anag
emen
t99
0Pr
ocur
emen
t & D
istri
butio
n99
1Fo
od S
ervi
ce99
2W
areh
ouse
Dis
tribu
tion
995
Tran
spor
tatio
n
2018
-19
Pers
onne
l
Unr
estr
icte
d FT
ER
estr
icte
d FT
E6.
00.
02.
20.
015
.40.
70.
00.
09.
90.
40.
00.
00.
56.
515
.20.
63.
00.
02.
00.
010
.00.
036
.00.
01.
00.
03.
00.
00.
00.
38.
10.
02.
00.
011
4.3
8.5
Ope
ratio
ns h
as v
ery
few
pos
ition
s fu
nded
by
Res
trict
ed F
unds
as
man
y fu
nctio
ns a
re m
anda
tory
or r
elat
ed to
co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith la
w, c
ontra
ct o
r Boa
rd
polic
y.
193
Bud
get R
educ
tion
Plan
Det
ail
51
194
→In
crea
se R
even
ues (
Cate
gory
1)
→De
crea
se Sp
endi
ng (C
ateg
ory
2)→
Impl
emen
t Cos
ts S
avin
gs (C
ateg
ory
3)
43
Goal
: Mak
e ne
cess
ary a
djus
tmen
ts to
crea
te a
nd m
aint
ain
a ba
lanc
ed b
udge
t w
here
ong
oing
reve
nues
mee
t or e
xcee
d on
goin
g exp
endi
ture
s. A
ll ad
just
men
ts
inte
nded
to b
e on
goin
g.
Mul
ti-Ye
ar B
udge
t Red
uctio
n Pl
an
195
Cate
gory
1 -
Incr
ease
d Re
venu
es
44
Opt
ions
FY 2
019-
20(Y
ear 1
)FY
202
0-21
(Yea
r 2)
FY 2
021-
22(Y
ear 3
)FY
202
2-23
(Yea
r 4)
Faci
litie
s R
enta
l R
edes
ign
(NN
R)
$800
,000
$1,1
00,0
00$1
,200
,000
$1,3
00,0
00
Sat
urda
y S
choo
l Dis
trict
-w
ide
Opt
iona
l Im
plem
enta
tion
(AD
A)
(NN
R)
$500
,000
$800
,000
$900
,000
$1,0
00,0
00
Sub-
Tota
l Cat
egor
y 1
$1,3
00,0
00$1
,900
,000
$2,1
00,0
00$2
,300
,000
Note
: NR
= Ne
gotia
tion
Requ
ired
/ NNR
-Ne
gotia
tion
Not R
equi
red
Estim
ated
Ong
oing
Rev
enue
Incr
ease
s
196
Cate
gory
2 -
Decr
ease
d Sp
endi
ng P
lan
(con
t.)
45
Note
: NR
= Ne
gotia
tion
Requ
ired
/ NNR
-Ne
gotia
tion
Not R
equi
red
Opt
ions
FY
201
9-20
(Yr.
1)FY
202
0-21
(Yr.
2)FY
202
1-22
(Yr.
3)FY
202
2-23
(Yr.
4)
Red
uce
Ener
gy/U
tiliti
es C
osts
(N
NR
)$1
50,0
00$3
00,0
00$3
00,0
00$3
00,0
00
Con
solid
ate
Prin
ting
Cos
ts
Acro
ss th
e D
istr
ict (
Phas
e 1
–C
opy
Supp
lies,
Ton
er) (
NN
R)
$65,
000
$120
,000
$120
,000
$120
,000
Con
solid
ate
Prin
ting
Cos
ts
Acro
ss th
e D
istr
ict
(Dis
tric
twid
e Le
ase)
(Pha
se 2
) (N
NR
)
$0
$1,0
00,0
00$1
,000
,000
$1,0
00,0
00
Sub-
Tota
l Cat
egor
y 2
(con
t.)$2
15,0
00$1
,420
,000
$1,4
20,0
00$1
,420
,000
Estim
ated
Ong
oing
Spe
ndin
g D
ecre
ases
197
Cate
gory
2 -
Decr
ease
d Sp
endi
ng P
lan
46
Note
: NR
= Ne
gotia
tion
Requ
ired
/ NNR
-Ne
gotia
tion
Not R
equi
red
Estim
ated
Ong
oing
Spe
ndin
g D
ecre
ases
Opt
ions
FY
201
9-20
(Yea
r 1)
19-2
0(Y
r. 1)
FY 2
020-
21(Y
ear 2
)FY
202
1-22
(Yea
r 3)
FY 2
022-
23(Y
ear 4
)
Red
uce
Cen
tral
Sta
ffing
(N
NR
)$7
,000
,000
$7,0
00,0
00$7
,000
,000
$7,0
00,0
00
Red
uce
Site
Dis
cret
iona
ry
(NN
R)
$3,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$3,0
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
Elim
inat
e Va
cant
Pos
ition
s D
istr
ictw
ide
(NN
R)
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,000
$150
,000
Sub-
Tota
l Cat
egor
y 2
$10,
150,
000
$10,
150,
000
$10,
150,
000
$10,
150,
000
(ong
oing
from
201
9-20
, not
add
ition
al
cuts
)
(ong
oing
from
201
9-20
, not
add
ition
al
cuts
)
(ong
oing
from
201
9-20
, not
add
ition
al
cuts
)
198
Cate
gory
3 -
Cost
Sav
ings
Pla
n
47
Note
: NR
= Ne
gotia
tion
Requ
ired
/ NNR
-Ne
gotia
tion
Not R
equi
red
Opt
ions
FY 2
019-
20Ye
ar 1
FY 2
020-
21Ye
ar 2
FY 2
021-
22Ye
ar 3
FY 2
022-
23Ye
ar 4
Dis
tric
twid
e Te
leph
one
Con
solid
atio
n (N
NR
)$5
00,0
00$3
,000
,000
$4,5
00,0
00$4
,500
,000
Supp
lem
enta
l Ear
ly
Ret
irem
ent P
rogr
am (N
NR
)$0
$1,8
00,0
00$1
,300
,000
$900
,000
Scho
ol C
onso
lidat
ions
and
C
losu
res
(NN
R)
$81,
000
$1,2
00,0
00$1
,600
,000
$2,1
00,0
00
Expl
ore
Opp
ortu
nitie
s to
Le
vera
ge R
estr
icte
d D
olla
rs
to S
uppo
rt G
F (N
NR
)
$250
,000
$250
,000
$250
,000
$250
,000
Sub-
Tota
l Cat
egor
y 3
$831
,000
$6,2
50,0
00$7
,650
,000
$7,7
50,0
00
Estim
ated
Ong
oing
Cos
t Sav
ings
199
Scen
ario
A -
Mod
erat
e In
crea
se($
17.3
Mil.
Red
uctio
n Be
ginn
ing
FY 2
019-
20)
48
Cur
rent
ly E
stim
ated
Ong
oing
Cos
t Sav
ings
, Red
uctio
ns &
Rev
enue
Incr
ease
s
Optio
ns
FY 2
019-
20(Y
r. 1)
FY 2
020-
21(Y
r. 2)
FY 2
021-
22(Y
r. 3)
FY 2
022-
23(Y
r. 4)
Estim
ated
4 Y
ear C
umul
ativ
e Sa
ving
s Ca
tego
ry 1
: In
crea
se R
even
ues
$1,3
00,0
00$1
,900
,000
$2,1
00,0
00$2
,300
,000
Cate
gory
2:
Dec
reas
ed S
pend
ing
$10,
365,
000
$11,
570,
000
$11,
570,
000
$11,
570,
000
Cate
gory
3:
Cos
ts S
avin
gs
$831
,000
$6,7
50,0
00$8
,150
,000
$8,2
50,0
00
Revi
sed
Tota
ls$1
2,49
6,00
0$2
0,22
0,00
0$2
1,82
0,00
0$2
2,12
0,00
0
200
Exhibit K
1
2019
-20
Budg
et R
educ
tion
Plan
Ja
nuar
y 23,
201
9 -F
inal
Pre
sent
ed b
y: M
arcu
s B
attle
, Chi
ef B
usin
ess
Offi
cer
To: O
US
D B
oard
of E
duca
tion
201
Disc
ussio
n To
pics
1.Ba
ckgr
ound
2.Up
date
d Re
duct
ion
Scen
ario
s &
Reco
mm
enda
tion
3.Up
date
on
Gov
Budg
et a
nd W
hat i
t Mea
ns fo
r Oa
klan
d4.
Next
Ste
ps
2
202
BACK
GROU
ND
3
203
INPU
TIn
form
s spe
cific
redu
ctio
ns
PRIO
RITI
ES -
THEO
RY O
F ACT
ION
How
will
we
get t
here
?
Our
Dis
tric
t Prio
ritie
s
Teac
her R
eten
tion,
Scho
ol
Gove
rnan
ce&
Equ
ity P
olicy
BP 3
150,
Fisc
al V
italit
y Pla
nBP
600
6 Co
mm
unity
of S
choo
ls,
LCAP
, Qua
lity S
choo
l De
velo
pmen
t
VISI
ON &
MIS
SION
Whe
re a
re w
e go
ing
and
why
?
ORGA
NIZA
TION
AL R
ESILI
ENCE
QUAL
ITY
COM
MUN
ITY
SCHO
OLS
FISC
AL V
ITAL
ITY
4
Stak
ehol
ders
: Stu
dent
s (Al
l-City
Cou
ncil)
, Prin
cipal
s (PA
C Su
rvey
), St
aff &
Com
mun
ity (C
omm
unity
Surv
ey):
Benc
hmar
ks: D
istric
t Com
paris
ons,
FCM
AT R
epor
t
204
Rece
nt B
udge
t Hist
ory
Sept
embe
r 201
8Cl
osin
g of
the
book
s for
20
17-1
8 sh
ows g
reat
er
than
exp
ecte
d sa
ving
s fro
m b
udge
t red
uctio
ns
and
fisca
l res
trai
nt
Augu
st 2
018
Boar
d Pa
sses
1st
Fisc
al
VIta
lity
Reso
lutio
nto
pla
n re
duct
ions
/sav
ings
of $
30M
in
201
9-20
to e
nsur
e so
lven
cy a
nd re
serv
es
Nove
mbe
r 201
8Bo
ard
pass
es u
pdat
ed F
iscal
Vi
talit
y re
solu
tion
to p
lan
redu
ctio
ns/s
avin
gs o
f $30
M
in 2
019-
20. t
o fu
nd p
riorit
ies
inclu
ding
com
pens
atio
n an
d re
serv
es
Janu
ary 9
and
23,
201
9Fu
ll Bo
ard
revi
ews
redu
ctio
ns/s
avin
gs p
lan
prep
ared
by
staf
f
5
June
201
8Pr
ojec
ted
defic
its in
20
19-2
0 an
d be
yond
at
curr
ent s
pend
ing
leve
ls an
d fla
tteni
ng
reve
nue
Dece
mbe
r 201
820
18 1
st In
terim
supp
ort
proj
ects
min
imal
def
icit i
n 20
19-2
0, b
ut n
o fu
nds f
or
inve
stm
ent o
r 3%
+ re
serv
e
Janu
ary 3
0, 2
019
Boar
d sc
hedu
led
to a
dopt
re
vise
d re
duct
ions
/sav
ings
pl
an a
fter s
econ
d re
view
Ja
nuar
y 23
rd
205
Sum
mar
y fro
m Ja
n. 9
Boa
rd P
rese
ntat
ion
6
Staf
f pre
sent
ed th
ree
redu
ctio
n sc
enar
ios
whi
ch:
The
Boar
d di
rect
ed st
aff t
o re
turn
with
sc
enar
ios w
hich
:
Al
ignm
ent w
ith B
oard
Pol
icy 3
150
Su
bsta
ntia
l red
uctio
ns to
cent
ral
adm
in
Lim
ited
redu
ctio
ns to
cent
ral
serv
ices t
o sit
es
Lim
ited
redu
ctio
ns to
scho
ol si
tes
Ha
d op
tions
with
var
ying
redu
ctio
n to
tals
(onl
y on
e op
tion
with
$30
M in
tota
l re
duct
ions
)
Id
entif
y fu
ll $3
0 m
illio
n in
redu
ctio
ns
Es
tabl
ish 3
% R
eser
ve fo
r 201
9-20
and
co
ntin
ue to
incr
ease
eve
ry y
ear a
fter
Ex
pand
rang
e of
opt
ions
cons
ider
ed a
nd
inclu
de ce
ntra
l ser
vice
s to
sites
Ex
plor
e re
allo
catin
g su
pple
men
tal f
unds
M
inim
ize n
egat
ive
impa
ct o
n sc
hool
sit
es
In
vest
igat
e re
duct
ions
to co
ntra
cts a
nd
class
ified
man
agem
ent
206
UPDA
TED
REDU
CTIO
N SC
ENAR
IOS
AND
RECO
MM
ENDA
TION
7
207
Grou
nd in
our
Miss
ion,
Visi
on a
nd V
alue
sOv
er th
e pr
evio
us m
onth
s, w
e ha
ve h
eard
from
Prin
cipal
s, Te
ache
rs, P
aren
ts, U
nion
s, Co
mm
ittee
s, an
d Co
mm
unity
abo
ut a
pro
pose
d re
duct
ion
plan
.
8
We
belie
ve th
e re
duct
ions
we
are
reco
mm
endi
ng a
re:
•pa
rt o
f the
har
d w
ork
and
trad
e-of
fs w
e ne
ed to
do
to im
prov
e te
ache
r ret
entio
n an
d st
uden
t per
form
ance
as p
er o
ur LC
AP g
oals
We
reco
gnize
that
thes
e re
duct
ions
will
:•
affe
ct p
rogr
ams w
e va
lue
and
empl
oyee
s we
deep
ly ca
re a
bout
; we
will
not
be
able
to
keep
the
curr
ent l
evel
of c
urre
nt e
mpl
oyee
s and
pro
gram
s.
We
know
that
our
com
mun
ity, e
mpl
oyee
s and
stak
ehol
ders
hav
e as
ked
us to
:
take
a d
eepe
r loo
k at o
ur co
nsul
tant
cont
ract
s and
man
agem
ent (
cent
ral o
ffice
ad
min
istra
tors
)
avoi
d im
pact
ing
serv
ices a
nd su
ppor
ts n
amed
by
stud
ents
, prin
cipal
s and
com
mun
ity
208
Our P
roce
ss to
Rec
omm
ende
d Re
duct
ions
In o
rder
to g
et to
our
reco
mm
enda
tion,
we
expl
ored
mul
tiple
scen
ario
s con
sider
ing
the
follo
w p
aram
eter
s:
Re
duct
ions
nee
d to
be
in u
nres
trict
ed fu
nds;
whi
ch in
clude
gen
eral
pur
pose
and
su
pple
men
tal &
conc
entr
atio
n fu
nds.
Re
allo
catio
n of
supp
lem
enta
l fun
ds n
eed
to co
mpl
y w
ith th
e pu
rpos
e of
the
use
of
the
fund
s and
be
appr
oved
by
the
coun
ty.
Re
duct
ions
nee
d to
be
guid
ed w
ithin
the
fram
ewor
k of
BP
3150
with
som
e fle
xibili
ty
to g
et to
the
desir
ed re
duct
ion
targ
et.
Re
duct
ions
to sc
hool
site
bud
gets
shou
ld b
e as
min
imal
as p
ossib
le.
Lo
ok in
to co
nsul
tant
cont
ract
s and
cent
ral o
ffice
man
agem
ent
9
209
Step
s Tak
en to
Get
to R
educ
tion
Reco
mm
enda
tion
Give
n ou
r par
amet
ers,
we
took
the
follo
win
g st
eps t
o co
nsid
er v
ario
us sc
enar
ios t
o ge
t to
our r
ecom
men
datio
n:
Step
1:E
xam
ine
the
impa
ct o
f onl
y re
ducin
g ce
ntra
l sta
ff fu
nded
by
unre
stric
ted
gene
ral p
urpo
se d
olla
rs. (
Deta
il in
app
endi
x)
Step
2:E
xam
ine
the
impa
ct o
f red
ucin
g ce
ntra
l sta
ff an
d st
aff h
ired
to p
erfo
rm ce
ntra
l se
rvice
s at s
choo
l site
s fun
ded
by u
nres
trict
ed g
ener
al p
urpo
se d
olla
rs; a
nd re
duce
sc
hool
site
disc
retio
nary
fund
s. (D
etai
l in
appe
ndix)
Step
3:E
xam
ine
the
impa
ct o
f red
ucin
g ce
ntra
l sta
ff an
d st
aff h
ired
to p
erfo
rm ce
ntra
l se
rvice
s at s
choo
l site
s fun
ded
by u
nres
trict
ed g
ener
al p
urpo
se d
olla
rs a
nd
supp
lem
enta
l fun
ds; a
nd re
duce
scho
ol si
te d
iscre
tiona
ry fu
nds
10
210
Step
3: E
xam
ine
the
Real
loca
tion
of S
uppl
emen
tal F
unds
The
real
loca
tion
of S
uppl
emen
tal f
unds
invo
lves
the
follo
win
g pa
ram
eter
s:
•Su
pple
men
tal a
re a
dditi
onal
fund
s giv
en to
scho
ol si
tes t
o se
rve
spec
ific
popu
latio
ns o
f stu
dent
s: En
glish
Lear
ners
, low
inco
me,
and
fost
er y
outh
.•
Supp
lem
enta
l fun
ds m
ust b
e us
ed to
supp
ort t
he a
cade
mic
outc
omes
of
the
spec
ific s
tude
nts l
isted
abo
ve a
nd m
ust b
e ba
sed
on th
e LC
AP g
oals,
m
easu
red
by o
ur st
uden
t out
com
es.
•Th
e Pa
rent
and
Stu
dent
Adv
isory
Com
mitt
ee is
requ
ired
to b
e co
nsul
ted
on re
com
men
datio
ns o
n ho
w w
e m
ake
inve
stm
ents
usin
g ou
r Su
pple
men
tal f
unds
.
11
211
Stud
ent-C
ente
red
LCAP
Goa
lsGo
al 1
:Gr
adua
tes a
re co
llege
and
care
er re
ady.
Goal
2:
Stud
ents
are
pro
ficie
nt in
stat
e ac
adem
ic st
anda
rds.
Goal
3:
Stud
ents
are
read
ing
at o
r abo
ve g
rade
leve
l.
Goal
4:
Engl
ish Le
arne
rs a
re re
achi
ng E
nglis
h flu
ency
.
Goal
5:
Stud
ents
are
eng
aged
in sc
hool
eve
ry d
ay.
Goal
6:
Pare
nts a
nd fa
mili
es a
re e
ngag
ed in
scho
ol a
ctiv
ities
.
FOCU
S ARE
AS
Cond
ition
s for
St
uden
t & A
dult
Lear
ning
St
anda
rd-B
ased
In
stru
ctio
n
Lang
uage
&
Liter
acy
12
212
Expl
anat
ion
of FT
E an
d Pr
ogra
ms i
n Su
pple
men
tal
Fund
s in
5700
“5
700s
” rep
rese
nt p
ositi
ons t
hat s
it in
cent
ral b
udge
ts a
nd
prov
ide
dire
ct se
rvice
s to
scho
ols;
how
ever
, sch
ools
have
de
cided
to p
urch
ase
thes
e se
rvice
s:
Rest
orat
ive
Just
ice F
acili
tato
rs (2
1 FT
E =
8.75
FTE
cent
ral a
nd 1
2.25
sit
es)
Af
rican
Am
erica
n M
ale
Achi
evem
ent F
acili
tato
r (5
FTE
site
fund
ed)
Co
mm
unity
Sch
ool M
anag
ers (
33.4
FTE
= 13
.9 ce
ntra
l-gra
nt fu
nded
an
d 19
.5 si
tes)
Co
llege
/ Ca
reer
Pat
hway
s (7.
5 FT
E= 6
cent
ral a
nd 1
.5 si
tes)
Co
unse
lors
(48.
5 FT
E= 3
3.2
GP a
nd 1
5.3
FTE
Supp
lem
enta
l)
Scho
ol S
ecur
ity O
ffice
rs (8
2 FT
E Su
pple
men
tal)
Cu
stod
ians
(210
FTE
pai
d fo
r by
gene
ral p
urpo
se fu
nds)
Co
unse
ling
Inte
rns (
1 FT
E Su
perv
isor;
Site
pur
chas
e of
serv
ice)
13
213
Cons
ider
atio
ns fo
r Prio
ritiza
tion
14
Cons
ider
ed St
akeh
olde
r In
put
Prio
ritize
d In
vest
men
ts
Chan
ges t
o im
plem
entin
g se
rvice
s
Stud
ent S
urve
yPr
incip
al S
urve
yCo
mm
unity
Sur
vey
Spec
ial E
duca
tion
Nurs
esCo
unse
lors
Teac
her R
eten
tion
Teac
her R
ecru
itmen
tTe
ache
r Com
pens
atio
nNu
triti
on S
ervi
ces
Cust
odia
ns
Com
mun
ity S
choo
ls St
uden
t Se
rvice
sLin
ked
Lear
ning
Acad
emics
and
Inst
ruct
iona
l In
nova
tion
Proc
urem
ent
Fina
ncia
l Ser
vice
sPo
lice
Serv
ices
Tech
nolo
gy
214
BP 3
150
Allo
catio
ns In
cludi
ng R
ecom
men
ded
Redu
ctio
ns
1. Le
gally
Ob
ligat
ed
Expe
nses
2. C
entr
al D
istric
t wid
e Ad
min
istra
tive
Cost
s (1
2% C
ap $
49.8
M)
3. S
pecif
ied
Cent
ral S
ervi
ces t
o Sc
hool
Site
s4.
Sch
ool S
ite
Budg
ets
~$29
M~$
59M
~$48
M~$
98.6
M~$
94.2
M~2
30~$
227M
-Sta
te Lo
an
(~$6
.5M
)-A
udit
Find
ings
(~
$5.5
M)
-Rou
tine
Repa
ir &
M
aint
enan
ce
(~$1
7M)
e.g.
fina
nce,
hum
an re
sour
ces,
perfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t, in
stru
ctio
nal s
ervi
ces,
lega
l se
rvice
s, di
stric
t lea
ders
hip
1. S
pecia
l Edu
catio
n 2.
Cus
todi
al a
nd B
uild
ings
& G
roun
ds
3. S
choo
l Pol
ice &
Sch
ool S
ecur
ity O
ffice
rs4.
Sch
ool N
urse
s5.
Sch
ool C
ouns
elor
s6.
Spe
cifie
d En
richm
ent R
esou
rces
(i.e
. su
mm
er sc
hool
, mus
ic, a
rt, n
utrit
ion
serv
ices,
athl
etics
1. G
rade
span
2. F
ree
& R
educ
ed
Lunc
h3.
Eng
lish
Lear
ners
4. F
oste
r Car
e5.
Hig
h-st
ress
ne
ighb
orho
ods
NOTE
: Num
bers
Subj
ect t
o Re
visio
n at
Inte
rim
Repo
rtin
g.
17
215
Fina
l Rec
omm
enda
tion:
Redu
ce C
entr
al A
dmin
and
Cen
tral
Ser
vice
s us
ing
Gene
ral P
urpo
se Fu
nds a
nd b
y Re
allo
catin
g Su
pple
men
tal
Fund
s, an
d re
duce
Site
Bud
get D
iscre
tiona
ry Fu
nds
15
BP 3
150
Redu
ctio
n Im
pact
Cent
ral
Adm
inist
ratio
n$1
1.2M
Redu
ce 8
4 FT
E (S
uppl
emen
tal &
GP
and
max
. res
trict
ed
fund
s)
Usin
g su
pple
men
tal r
eallo
catio
n an
d ge
nera
l pur
pose
fund
s to
mak
e re
duct
ions
allo
ws u
s to
mak
e m
ore
stra
tegi
c red
uctio
ns to
cent
ral a
dmin
istra
tive
serv
ices.
The
impa
ct is
still
gre
at a
nd
will
requ
ire a
cent
ral o
ffice
reor
gani
zatio
n an
d id
entif
icatio
n of
serv
ices a
nd fu
nctio
ns th
at w
ill
no lo
nger
occ
ur.
Cent
ral S
ervi
ces
$4.4
MRe
duce
68.
4 FT
E(S
uppl
emen
tal &
GP
and
max
.rest
ricte
d fu
nds)
The
use
of su
pple
men
tal d
olla
rs w
ill h
elp
prev
ent t
he e
ntire
elim
inat
ion
depa
rtm
ents
pr
ovid
ing
of se
rvice
s to
scho
ols f
unde
d by
gen
eral
pur
pose
fund
s (e.
g. cu
stod
ians
) How
ever
, th
ese
redu
ctio
ns w
ill ca
use
a re
orga
niza
tion
in h
ow w
e pr
ovid
e se
rvice
s.
Scho
ol S
ites
$3M
Scho
ol S
ite D
iscre
tiona
ry Fu
nds R
educ
tion:
Site
Bas
ed D
ecisi
ons t
o re
duce
(e.g
. som
e st
affin
g,
cont
ract
s for
serv
ices)
.
Oper
atio
nal S
avin
gs$2
MIm
plem
ent S
atur
day S
choo
l, F
acili
ties R
enta
l Red
esig
n, S
choo
l Con
solid
atio
ns, a
nd E
nerg
y Sa
ving
s, Co
ntra
cts
Tota
l$2
0.6M
All F
TE fi
gure
s are
bas
ed o
n cu
rren
t em
ploy
ees;
exclu
ding
vac
ancie
s
216
Gove
rnor
’s Bu
dget
Pro
posa
l -Po
tent
ial I
mpa
ct
to O
USD*
16
Fund
ing
Adju
stm
ent D
escr
iptio
nFY
201
8 -
19FY
201
9-20
FY 2
020
-21
LCFF
(C
OLA
Adj
ustm
ent -
Rev
ised
LC
FF C
alcu
lato
r)C
ost o
f Liv
ing
Adj
ustm
ent e
stim
ated
at $
343
per A
DA
(~
3.37
%) b
ased
on
3.46
% in
crea
se to
sub
set o
f LC
FF
Fund
ing
cate
gorie
s.
$
0$3
Mill
ion
$3 M
illio
n
STR
S Ad
just
men
t(E
stim
ated
One
-Tim
e R
ate
Savi
ngs
at $
50 p
er
ADA
)R
educ
tion
in e
mpl
oyer
con
tribu
tion
to S
TRS
retir
emen
ts
estim
ated
at 1
per
cent
age
poin
t 201
9-20
and
202
0-21
.
$
0$
1.7
Mill
ion
$ 1.
7 M
illio
n
Early
Chi
ldho
od E
duca
tion
(TB
D)
$2.4
Bill
ion
of ta
rget
ed in
vest
men
ts s
tate
wid
e$
-
$
-$
-
Mul
ti-Ye
ar E
stim
ated
Adj
ustm
ent a
t 2nd
Inte
rim$
0
$ 4.
7 M
illio
n$
4.7
Mill
ion
*Est
imat
ed im
pact
ass
umes
Gov
erno
r’s p
ropo
sal b
ecom
es la
w a
t bud
get a
dopt
ion
in Ju
ne 2
019.
Fun
ded
ADA
Estim
ated
at F
irst I
nter
im e
qual
s 34,
642
for F
Y 20
19-2
0 an
d 34
,483
for F
Y 20
20-2
1
217
Plan
for A
ddre
ssin
g th
e Im
pact
of R
educ
tions
Gi
ven
the
amou
nt o
f red
uctio
ns th
at w
ill h
appe
n in
one
yea
r, w
e ar
e ex
pect
ing
cons
ider
able
impa
ct o
n sc
hool
site
s and
cent
ral o
ffice
per
sonn
el a
nd p
rogr
amm
ing.
The
lo
ss o
f peo
ple
is ve
ry d
ifficu
lt an
d w
e w
ill d
o ev
eryt
hing
we
can
to cr
eate
a re
spec
tful
tran
sitio
n fo
r tho
se w
ho m
ay lo
se a
pos
ition
in th
is pr
oces
s.The
follo
win
g ar
e st
eps w
e w
ill
be in
corp
orat
ing
into
a tr
ansit
ion
plan
to a
ddre
ss th
e im
pact
of t
he re
duct
ions
:
•Ce
ntra
l Offi
ce R
edes
ign:
Cont
inue
to re
desig
n gr
ound
ed in
Boa
rd p
olici
es
3150
and
600
6 an
d re
ality
of s
taffi
ng re
duct
ions
to e
stab
lish
a ce
ntra
l offi
ce
that
supp
orts
our
LCAP
goa
ls an
d se
rvice
s to
scho
ol si
tes.
•Tr
ansit
ion
Plan
ning
–Pe
rson
alize
d su
ppor
t for
em
ploy
ee jo
b tr
ansit
ions
–Cr
eate
alte
rnat
ive
plan
s to
addr
ess r
educ
tions
in ce
ntra
l ser
vice
s to
sites
–Co
ntin
ue to
see
gran
t fun
ding
for p
rogr
ams a
nd se
rvice
s tha
t hav
e be
en re
duce
d
18
218
1000
Bro
adw
ay, S
uite
680
, Oak
land
, CA
9460
719
219
APP
END
IX
20
220
Oper
atio
nal S
avin
gs D
etai
l:
Cost
Sav
ings
Re
venu
e Ge
nera
tion
21
221
Oper
atio
nal S
avin
gsPl
anFY
201
9-20
Estim
ated
Sa
ving
s Fa
ciliti
es R
enta
ls Re
desig
n$4
60,0
00
Dist
rictw
ide
Satu
rday
Scho
ol -
ADA
Reco
very
Pro
gram
(m
inim
um 2
5 sit
es)
$1,2
65,6
25
Scho
ol C
onso
lidat
ions
and
Clo
sure
s $8
1,00
0
Redu
ced
Ener
gy &
Util
ities
Cos
ts
$150
,000
Tota
l Sav
ings
& R
educ
tions
$1,9
56,6
25
25
222
Furt
her D
etai
l on
Step
s Tak
en to
Exa
min
e Re
duct
ion
Scen
ario
s
23
223
Step
1: E
xam
ine
the
Redu
ctio
n to
onl
y Cen
tral
Sta
ff th
at a
re fu
nded
w
ith G
ener
al P
urpo
se D
olla
rs-N
ot R
ecom
men
ded
12
BP 3
150
Redu
ctio
n Im
pact
Cent
ral A
dmin
istra
tion
Redu
ctio
n of
208
.1 FT
E im
pact
ing
252
empl
oyee
s
$28M
(Gen
eral
Pur
pose
Dol
lars
)
Man
y of o
ur st
aff t
hat p
erfo
rm co
re fu
nctio
ns a
re fu
nded
by
gene
ral p
urpo
se
dolla
rs.
Our a
bilit
y to
hire
, sup
port
, pay
and
trai
n ou
r em
ploy
ees w
ould
be
elim
inat
ed o
r red
uced
by
60-8
0%.
Our a
bilit
y to
bala
nce
our b
ooks
, cle
an sc
hool
s, tr
ansp
ort a
nd p
rovi
de a
safe
lear
ning
env
ironm
ent f
or o
ur st
uden
ts w
ould
also
be
elim
inat
ed in
its e
ntire
ty o
r red
uced
by
at m
inim
um 6
0%.
Mos
t aca
dem
ic ce
ntra
l of
fice
serv
ices w
ould
rem
ain
mor
e in
tact
due
to su
pple
men
tal f
undi
ng, h
owev
er,
they
wou
ld la
ck su
fficie
nt in
frast
ruct
ure
from
our
core
serv
ices
to a
llow
them
to
func
tion.
Cent
ral S
ervi
ces
---De
part
men
ts th
at p
rovi
de ce
ntra
l ser
vice
s to
sites
wou
ld re
mai
n; h
owev
er, t
here
w
ould
be
less
cent
ral i
nfra
stru
ctur
e to
supp
ort t
he im
plem
enta
tion.
Scho
ol S
ites
---Re
ducin
g ce
ntra
l adm
inist
ratio
n w
ill h
ave
indi
rect
impa
ct o
n sc
hool
site
s; su
ch a
s de
laye
d or
disc
ontin
ued
serv
ices a
nd su
ppor
t to
sites
.
Oper
atio
nal S
avin
gs$2
MIm
plem
ent S
atur
day S
choo
l, F
acili
ties R
enta
l Red
esig
n, S
choo
l Con
solid
atio
ns,
and
Ener
gy Sa
ving
s
Tota
l$3
0M
All F
TE fi
gure
s are
bas
ed o
n cu
rren
t em
ploy
ees;
exclu
ding
vac
ancie
s
224
Step
2: E
xam
ine
the
Redu
ctio
n to
Cen
tral
Adm
in a
nd C
entr
al S
ervi
ces
with
onl
y Gen
eral
Pur
pose
Dol
lars
; and
redu
ce Si
te B
udge
t Di
scre
tiona
ry Fu
nds N
ot R
ecom
men
ded
13
BP 3
150
Redu
ctio
n Im
pact
Cent
ral A
dmin
istra
tion
$11M
Redu
ce 8
4 FT
E ou
t of
227.
5FTE
(G
ener
al P
urpo
se D
olla
rs
Only
)
Redu
cing
the
tota
l red
uctio
n to
cent
ral a
dmin
fund
ed b
y gen
eral
pur
pose
less
ons
the
impa
ct o
n th
e un
real
istic
redu
ctio
n of
dep
artm
ents
we
saw
in sc
enar
io 1
, ho
wev
er, o
nly
redu
cing
staf
f fun
ded
by g
ener
al p
urpo
se d
olla
rs d
oes n
ot a
llow
us
to b
e st
rate
gic i
n ou
r red
uctio
ns.
We
inst
ead,
use
d a
prop
ortio
nal r
educ
tion
for
each
dep
artm
ent.
Cent
ral S
ervi
ces t
o Si
tes
$14M
Redu
ce 2
40 F
TE o
ut o
f a
tota
l 294
.4 ft
e(G
ener
al P
urpo
se D
olla
rs
Only
)
Ther
e ar
e on
ly 4
dep
artm
ents
/pos
ition
type
s fu
nded
by
GP in
cent
ral s
ervi
ces.
Gi
ven
this
rest
rictio
n, th
ere
wou
ld b
e th
e el
imin
atio
n of
serv
ices t
o m
aint
ain
clean
an
d sa
fe sc
hool
s.
Scho
ol S
ites
$3M
Scho
ol S
ite D
iscre
tiona
ry Fu
nds R
educ
tion:
Site
Bas
ed D
ecisi
ons t
o re
duce
(e.g
. st
affin
g, co
ntra
cts f
or se
rvice
s).
Oper
atio
n Sa
ving
s$2
MIm
plem
ent S
atur
day S
choo
l, F
acili
ties R
enta
l Red
esig
n, S
choo
l Con
solid
atio
ns, a
nd
Ener
gy S
avin
gs
Tota
l$3
0M
All F
TE fi
gure
s are
bas
ed o
n cu
rren
t em
ploy
ees;
exclu
ding
vac
ancie
s
225
Boa
rd P
olic
y 31
50: R
esul
ts B
ased
Bud
getin
g
26
226
BP 3
150:
Max
imizi
ng U
nres
trict
ed Fu
nds
(Inclu
ding
Sup
plem
enta
l & C
once
ntra
tion
Fund
s)
Spec
ific S
ervi
ces t
o Sc
hool
sNa
med
Ser
vice
s:1.
Spe
cial E
duca
tion
2. C
usto
dial
and
Bui
ldin
gs &
Gr
ound
s 3.
Sch
ool P
olice
& S
choo
l Sec
urity
Of
ficer
s4.
Sch
ool N
urse
s5.
Sch
ool C
ouns
elor
s6.
Spe
cifie
d En
richm
ent R
esou
rces
(i.
e. su
mm
er sc
hool
, mus
ic, a
rt)
All R
emai
ning
Unr
estr
icted
Re
venu
e to
Scho
ol Si
tes
Base
d on
the
proj
ecte
d st
uden
t en
rollm
ent a
nd th
e fo
llow
ing:
1.
Gra
desp
an2.
Fre
e &
Red
uced
Lunc
h3.
Eng
lish
Lear
ners
4. F
oste
r Car
e5.
hig
h-st
ress
nei
ghbo
rhoo
ds
Lega
lly R
equi
red
Dist
rict-W
ide
Oblig
atio
ns
For e
xam
ple:
Sta
te Lo
an A
udit
Find
ings
, etc
.
12%
for D
istric
t-Wid
e Ad
min
istra
tive
Serv
ices
12%
= F
or e
xam
ple:
Indi
rect
adm
in
cost
s, bo
th m
anda
tory
exp
ense
s an
d co
mm
itmen
ts
27
227
Staf
fing
Info
28
228
OUSD
Sta
ffing
Hist
ory
-All
Gene
ral F
und
29
2018
-19
Sal
ary-
Driv
en a
nd
Hea
lth B
enef
it ac
tual
s no
t yet
ad
ded
229
OUSD
Sta
ffing
Hist
ory
-FTE
by
site
type
30
Ove
rall,
201
8-19
sho
ws
a re
duct
ion
in s
taffi
ng o
f 17
FTE
from
201
7-18
.
How
ever
, as
part
of b
udge
t cl
eanu
p in
201
8-19
, ex
pend
iture
s (in
clud
ing
FTE
) he
ld a
s D
istri
ct-w
ide
wer
e al
loca
ted
to s
choo
ls a
nd
Cen
tral d
epar
tmen
ts w
here
ap
prop
riate
.
2856
.73
230
OUSD
Sta
ffing
Hist
ory
-FTE
by
empl
oyee
type 31
231
Clas
sifie
d M
anag
emen
t
32
Publ
ic re
port
s sho
w O
USD
has m
ore
Clas
sifie
d A
dmin
istra
tors
than
mos
t dist
ricts
. OU
SD
iden
tifie
s pos
ition
s as C
lass
ified
Adm
inist
rato
rs a
t a h
ighe
r rat
e th
an o
ther
dist
ricts
, and
m
any
of o
ur C
lass
ified
Adm
inist
rato
r pos
ition
s are
fund
ed w
ith sp
ecia
lized
fund
s to
serv
e ou
r spe
cific
stud
ent p
opul
atio
n.
* Ca
lifor
nia
Depa
rtm
ent o
f edu
catio
n in
clude
s as “
Clas
sifie
d Su
perv
isors
and
Adm
inist
rato
rs”;
supe
rviso
ry p
erso
nnel
who
are
bus
ines
s m
anag
ers,
cont
rolle
rs, d
irect
ors,
chie
f acc
ount
ants
, acc
ount
ing
supe
rviso
rs, p
urch
asin
g ag
ents
, site
adm
inist
rato
rs, a
ssist
ant s
uper
inte
nden
ts,
and
supe
rinte
nden
ts.
Over
-Iden
tifica
tion
The
Dist
rict c
urre
ntly
has
mor
e po
sitio
ns
iden
tifie
d as
Cla
ssifi
ed M
anag
emen
t tha
n ot
her
dist
ricts
. Ba
sed
on st
ate
defin
ition
s, m
any
posit
ions
may
be
misi
dent
ified
as m
anag
emen
t (e
.g.,
Acco
unta
nts,
Exec
utiv
e As
sista
nts,
Coac
hes,
Fina
ncia
l Ana
lyst
s, RJ
Coo
rdin
ator
s, Co
mm
unity
Sc
hool
Man
ager
s).
Theo
ry o
f Act
ion
Over
hal
f of t
he C
lass
ified
Man
agem
ent
posit
ions
are
fund
ed b
y Re
stric
ted
or S
&C
fund
s al
igne
d to
OUS
D’s t
heor
y of
act
ion
and
the
spec
ial n
eeds
of o
ur st
uden
t pop
ulat
ion.
232
Clas
sifie
d M
anag
emen
t -Ge
nera
l Pur
pose
Fund
ed
33
12
0.3
FTE
of C
lass
ified
Man
agem
ent
posi
tions
are
fund
ed a
t Cen
tral i
n 20
18-1
9 w
ith G
ener
al P
urpo
se fu
nds
10
.6 F
TE o
f Cla
ssifi
ed M
anag
emen
t po
sitio
ns a
re fu
nded
at K
-12
scho
ols
in 2
018-
19 w
ith G
ener
al P
urpo
se
fund
s*P
ositi
ons
show
n fo
r Cen
tral a
re th
ose
with
2
or g
reat
er F
TE.
233
Clas
sifie
d M
anag
emen
t -S&
C, R
estr
icted
, Oth
er Fu
nded
34
15
1.9
FTE
of C
lass
ified
Man
agem
ent
posi
tions
are
fund
ed a
t Cen
tral i
n 20
18-1
9 w
ith N
on G
ener
al P
urpo
se
fund
s
14
.6 F
TE o
f Cla
ssifi
ed M
anag
emen
t po
sitio
ns a
re fu
nded
at K
-12
scho
ols
in 2
018-
19 w
ith N
on G
ener
al
Pur
pose
fund
s*P
ositi
ons
show
n fo
r Cen
tral a
re th
ose
with
2
or g
reat
er F
TE.
234
Con
trac
t Inf
o
35
235
Cons
ulta
nt &
Con
trac
ts
36
Rest
ricte
dUn
rest
ricte
dGr
and
Tota
lCe
ntra
l$2
6.5
$22.
5$4
9.0
Scho
ols
$13.
9$4
.5$1
8.4
Gran
d To
tal
$40.
4$2
7.1
$67.
5
Of th
e $6
7M*
in co
ntra
cts,
mor
e th
an $
40M
was
fund
ed b
y Re
stric
ted
dolla
rs.
Of th
e $2
2Mfu
nded
with
Cen
tral
Un
rest
ricte
d fu
nds:
→$1
1M+
fund
ed st
uden
t tr
ansp
orta
tion,
an
expe
nse
expe
cted
to ri
se in
201
9-20
.
→Th
e la
rges
t rem
aini
ngam
ount
s pr
imar
ily fu
nd so
ftwar
e to
run
exist
ing
prog
ram
s or d
irect
se
rvice
s to
stud
ents
and
teac
hers
(s
ee a
ppen
dix)
.
* 20
17-1
8 Co
ntra
cts e
nter
ed. N
ot a
ll co
ntra
cts w
ere
fully
com
plet
ed, s
o to
tal s
pent
was
less
. 20
18-1
9 w
as n
ot u
sed
as it
is o
nly
a pa
rtia
l yea
r.
236
Larg
est C
entr
al, U
nres
trict
ed C
ontr
acts
*
37
Vend
orAm
ount
ALA
ME
DA
CO
UN
TY O
FFIC
E O
F E
DU
CA
TIO
N$1
,129
,500
STR
EET
AC
AD
EMY
FOU
ND
ATI
ON
$768
,000
ESC
APE
TE
CH
NO
LOG
Y$5
45,2
05
PO
WE
RS
CH
OO
L G
RO
UP
,$4
01,9
87
GA
TEW
AY
TO C
OLL
EG
E$3
89,2
89
SPR
ING
BO
AR
D C
OLL
AB
OR
ATI
VE
$360
,855
BLU
EPR
INT
SCH
OO
LS N
ETW
OR
K, I
NC
.$3
03,0
99
RO
BER
T H
ALF
$287
,178
PU
BLI
C C
ON
SU
LTIN
G G
RO
UP
$281
,825
SH
I IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L C
OR
P.
$273
,244
MA
RC
US
FO
STE
R E
DU
CA
TIO
N IN
STI
TUTE
$250
,000
* 20
17-1
8 Co
ntra
cts e
nter
ed. D
oes n
ot in
clude
$11
.6M
in T
rans
port
atio
n co
ntra
cts.
See
full
list o
f 17-
18 co
ntra
cts h
ere.
237
Exhibit L
1000 Broadway, Suite 680, Oakland, CA 94607 510.879.8200 ph | www.ousd.org
Board Office Use: Legislative File Info.File ID Number 19-0095Introduction Date 1/23/19Enactment NumberEnactment Date
MemoTo Board of Education
From Kyla Johnson-Trammell, SuperintendentYvette Renteria, Deputy Chief of Innovation
Board Meeting Date January 23, 28, 2019
Subject RESOLUTION NO. 1819-0143 -- Approving Coliseum College Preparatory Academy Expansion and Roots International Academy Closure – Work Plan - Blueprint for Quality Schools
Action
Background
Discussion
Adoption of Resolution No. 1819-0143 -- Approving Coliseum College Preparatory Academy Expansion and Roots International Academy Closure – Work Plan - Blueprint for Quality Schools
On February 28, 2018, the Governing Board passed Resolution No. 1718-0124 - Work Plan - Blueprint for Quality Schools to lead to the development of a phased work plan to support the District in increasing quality in school offerings. Board Policy 6006 provides that quality, equity, utility, sustainability, and community benefit are guiding principles and factors to be used during the redesign and reconfiguration process,
Resolution No. 1819-0143 authorizes: 1) Expansion of Coliseum College Preparatory Academy (CCPA), currently a 6-12 Grade School, by increasing its capacity over the next 7 school years by forming an additional 6th grade cohort in 2019-2020; an additional 7th grade cohort in 2020-2021; an additional 8th grade cohort in 2021-2022; an additional 9th grade cohort in 2022-2023; an additional 10th grade cohort in 2023-2024; an additional 11th grade cohort in 2024-2025; and an additional 12th grade cohort in 2025-2026, if needed; and 2) Closure of Roots International Academy (RIA) effective June 30, 2019 and, effectively immediately, support the enrollment transition for
19-01691/28/19 os
238
1000 Broadway, Suite 680, Oakland, CA 94607 510.879.8200 ph | www.ousd.org
2019-2020 of current RIA 6th and 7th grade students by providing priority placement at another middle school of parent, guardian or caregiver choice.
Fiscal Impact Anticipated increase in revenues through increased enrollment at a high-demand school; cost-savings over time through reduction of District’s school portfolio
Attachment Resolution 1819-0143 Presentation
239
RESOLUTION OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 1819-0143
Approving Coliseum College Preparatory Academy Expansion and Roots International Academy Closure – Work Plan - Blueprint for Quality Schools WHEREAS, on February 28, 2018, the Governing Board passed Resolution No. 1718-0124 - Work Plan - Blueprint for Quality Schools; WHEREAS, Resolution No. 1718-0124 provides that criteria shall be identified and articulated in the selection of schools for reconfiguration. Such criteria shall be approved by the Board of Education prior to any efforts to implement the Blueprint for Quality Schools; WHEREAS, Board Policy 6006 authorizes the Superintendent to increase access to high-quality public-school options for the students and families of Oakland using quality, equity, utility, sustainability, and community benefit as guiding principles and factors during the redesign and reconfiguration of the OUSD that builds upon the current work of the Blueprint for Quality Schools process to create a Citywide Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board hereby adopts the following proposal for a segment of Cohort 2 of the Blueprint for Quality Schools: 1) Expand Coliseum College Preparatory Academy (CCPA), currently a 6-12 Grade School, by forming an additional 6th grade cohort in 2019-2020; an additional 7th grade cohort in 2020-2021; an additional 8th grade cohort in 2021-2022; an additional 9th grade cohort in 2022-2023; an additional 10th grade cohort in 2023-2024; an additional 11th grade cohort in 2024-2025; and an additional 12th grade cohort in 2025-2026, if needed; and 2) Close Roots International Academy (RIA) effective June 30, 2019 and, effectively immediately, support the enrollment transition for 2019-2020 of current RIA 6th and 7th grade students by providing priority placement at another middle school of parent, guardian or care giver choice; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, as an Exception to current Board Policy 5116.1 - Open Enrollment, for this particular situation of rising 7th and 8th graders [currently 6-7 grade pupils], who are at Roots now, and also the siblings of current Roots students, who are 5th graders right now [District wide, i.e., prospective 6th graders next school year], shall have priority enrollment over anyone else that may apply to Coliseum College Preparatory Academy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Superintendent is authorized to take any and all steps to implement the reorganization of these schools and campuses to effectuate the goals outlined in the Blueprint, save an action that requires further authorization by the Board.
Passed by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE: None
PREFERENTIAL NAYS: Josue Chavez and Yota Omosowho (Student Directors)
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION: None
PREFERENTIAL RECUSE: None
240
AYES: Jumoke Hinton Hodge, Shanthi Gonzales, Gary Yee, James Harris, Vice President Jody London and President Aimee Eng.
NAYS: Roseann Torres
ABSTAINED: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: None
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a Special Meeting of the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District held on January 28, 2019.
Legislative File File ID Number: 19-0095Introduction Date: 1/23/19Enactment Number: 19-0169Enactment Date: 1/28/19By: os
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
___________________________________________Aimee EngPresident, Board of Education
___________________________________________Kyla Johnson-TrammellSuperintendent and Secretary, Board of Education
241
Exhibit M
www.ousd.org
Memo To Board of Education
From Kyla Johnson-Trammell, Superintendent
Board Meeting Date February 11, 2019
Subject Resolution No. 1819-0144 – Budget Reduction Recommendation to Achieve Fiscal Year 2019-2020 3% Reserve for Economic Uncertainty
Action Requested and Recommendation
Adoption by the Board of Education of Resolution No. 1819-0144 – Budget Reduction Recommendation to Achieve Fiscal Year 2019-2020 3% Reserve for Economic Uncertainty from a reduction target of $30M to $21.75M.
Background and Discussion
At the November 14, 2018 Board Meeting, the Board discussed and approved Resolution 1819-0013 from the Board’s Special Committee on Fiscal Vitality (FVC). The FVC met over the fall of 2018 to review key board policies and the Governance Theory of Action. The Committee created a set of recommendations for budget development and prioritization for the 2019-20 school year. In addition reductions of ~$30 million (coupled with savings measures and efficiencies), key recommendations include: 1. implement BP 3150; 2. redesign the District; 3. competitive employee compensation; and 4. commit to shared decision making and multi-stakeholder teams.
Staff is recommending a revised target of $21.75M which is still projected to reach the 3% reserve due to the updated information in the First Interim Report. The reduced target also allows the Superintendent and staff to minimize the impact of budget reductions on the level of service, quality of staff and education programs for District students. The FY 2019-20 Reduction Plan includes: 1. reduction of $11.9M in central administrative costs; 2. reduction of $3.75M in central services to sites; 3. $1.47M in contract reductions and maximizing restricted resources; 4. $1.6M in additional operational cost savings; and 5. $3M in reductions to discretionary funds to school sites.
Fiscal Impact Reductions of $21.75 million to 2019-20 Budget to reach a 3.0% reserve and account for new investments, including employee compensation, recruitment, and retention.
Attachments Resolution No. 1819-0144 – Budget Reduction Recommendation to Achieve Fiscal Year 2019-2020 3% Reserve for Economic Uncertainty
Board Office Use: Legislative File Info.
File ID Number 18-2727
Introduction Date 1/9/19
Enactment Number
Enactment Date
242
1
RESOLUTION
OF THE
BOARD OF EDUCATION
OF THE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 1819-0144
Budget Reduction Recommendation to Achieve Fiscal Year 2019-2020 3%
Reserve for Economic Uncertainty
WHEREAS, the Governing Board (hereafter “Board”) passed Commitment to Fiscal Solvency
Resolution 1819-0041 on August 8, 2018 to address the Oakland Unified School District’s
projected deficit which at the time was estimated to grow from an estimated $20,300,000 in
2019-20 fiscal year, and $59,000,000 in the 2020-21 fiscal year and provided for reductions of
at least $21,750,000 beginning in 2019-20 to address the budget shortfall and provide for a
minimum 3% reserve beginning in 2019-20 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 1819-0041 and provides for all Board
reductions based on updated budget information at First Interim, release of the Governor’s
2019 Budget proposal, and a consideration of required employee investments; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the District is highly dependent on revenue from the
State of California and that revenue source is dependent on the on-going stability of the
California State economy; and
WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the Governor’s 2019/2020 Budget proposal projects out
year increases tied to primarily cost of living adjustments only, and that these budget
components have a direct impact on the District’s multi-year projections; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors understands the increased costs of living to staff in the
Oakland Community and Greater Bay Area and the impacts on recruiting and retaining highly
skilled teachers and staff, and the Board is committed to increasing investments in staff
salaries;
WHEREAS, the Board further recognizes the impact of declining enrollment and increasing
California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) and California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS) pension costs on the District’s budget;
243
2
WHEREAS, the AB 1200 provides for the District to provide to the Alameda County Office of
Education a full disclosure of proposed impacts, costs, and multi-year projections to support
any negotiated salary investments; and
WHEREAS, Education Code section 42127(c) provides, in relevant part, that the County
Superintendent of Schools shall:
“Determine whether the adopted budget will allow the school district to meet its
financial obligations during the fiscal year and is consistent with a financial plan that will
enable the school district to satisfy its multi-year financial commitments . . . [and] shall
either conditionally approve or disapprove a budget that does not provide adequate
assurance that the school district will meet its current and future obligations and resolve
any problems identified in studies, reports, evaluations, or audits described in this
paragraph”; and
WHEREAS, based on the District projections of revenue and expenditures and the District’s
current fiscal challenges and commitment to staff salaries, it is projected that without
offsetting reductions, the District would not meet its required minimum reserves beginning in
the 2019-2020 and 2020-21 fiscal years, and the District would have a negative ending fund
balance which would vary based on the level of employee salary commitments and other
district drivers of revenue and costs; and
WHEREAS, the Board desires to minimize the impact of budget reductions on the level of
service and quality of staff and education programs for District students; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2018, the Board passed Resolution No. 1819-0013 providing
direction on the fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 budget reductions, including desired
minimum reserve levels that achieve a maximum of $30 million in reductions for the 2019-20
year and focus on: 1. implementing BP 3150; 2. redesigning the District; 3. providing
competitive employee compensation; and, 4. committing to shared decision making and multi-
stakeholder teams; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent presented information to the Board relating to the 2019-2020
budget on January 9, 2019 and January 23, 2019, which included potential options for budget
reductions, a recommendation for 2019-2020 budget reductions on February 6, 2019, for first
read, and a final vote on proposed budget reductions for the 2019-2020 budget on February
11, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Superintendent recommends (1) a reduction $11.9M in central administrative costs, a total of 90.23 FTE to be eliminated or moved to restricted funding sources ; (2) a reduction of $3.75M in central services to sites, a total of 57.8 FTE to be eliminated or moved to restricted funding sources; (3) reallocation of supplemental funds to support educator
244
3
retention and compensation; (4) $1.47M in reductions to contracts and maximizing restricted resources, and (5) $1.6M in additional operational cost savings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 1819-0041 and
provides for all Board reductions based on updated budget information at First Interim,
release of the Governor’s 2019 Budget proposal, and a consideration of required employee
investments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Governing Board hereby adopts the Superintendent’s
recommendation relating budget reductions to achieve its Fiscal Year 2019-20 3% Reserve for
Economic Uncertain and investments in educator compensation through: (1) a reduction
$11.9M in central administrative costs, a total of 90.23 FTE to be eliminated or moved to
restricted funding sources; (2) a reduction of $3.75M in central services to sites, a total of 57.8
FTE to be eliminated or moved to restricted funding sources; (3) reallocation of supplemental
funds to support educator retention and compensation; (4) $1.47M in reductions to contracts
and maximizing restricted resources; and, (5) $1.6M in additional operational cost savings; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board hereby directs the Superintendent to initiate all
steps necessary to implement these budget reductions, including without limitation, statutory
notices relating to layoff or reassignment and to incorporate these budget reductions in the
proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 District Budget to be adopted by Board not later than June 30,
2019; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that given Board Policy 3100.1 and the District’s budget, the Board
requires the Superintendent to develop a conservative budget that achieves at minimum a 3%
reserve beginning in FY 2019-20 in order to address unforeseen budgetary increases.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of February, 2019, at a Special Meeting of the Governing
Board by the following vote:
PREFERENTIAL AYE:
PREFERENTIAL NOE:
PREFERENTIAL ABSTENTION:
PREFERENTIAL RECUSE:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
245
4
CERTIFICATION
We hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a Resolution passed at a
Special Meeting of the Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District, held on
February 11, 2019.
Legislative File Info.
File ID Number:
Introduction Date:
Enactment Number:
Enactment Date:
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
___________________________________________ Aimee Eng President, Board of Education
___________________________________________ Kyla Johnson-Trammell Superintendent and Secretary, Board of Education
246
Exhibit N
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
No
Settl
emen
t
2018
-19
2018
-19
2018
-19
2019
-20
2019
-20
2019
-20
2020
-21
2020
-21
2020
-21
2/20
/201
92n
d In
terim
2nd
Inte
rim
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
UN
REST
RIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dUN
RES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dU
NRES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dFu
nded
AD
A35
,548
.64
0.
0035
,548
.64
34,9
53.9
1
0.00
34,9
53.9
134
,403
.96
0.
0034
,403
.96
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
AD
A fro
m P
rior Y
ear
-1
.67%
-1.5
7%St
atut
ory
CO
LA %
1.02
711.
0271
1.03
461.
0346
1.02
861.
0286
Gap
Fun
ding
Per
cent
age
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
CPI
1.03
581.
0358
1.03
181.
0318
1.03
051.
0305
Lotte
ry p
er A
DA15
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
0
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
133,
560,
745
65,7
73,7
8519
9,33
4,53
013
5,63
0,93
766
,793
,279
202,
424,
215
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,07
0,19
21,
019,
494
3,08
9,68
52,
102,
280
1,03
5,29
63,
137,
575
Off
sche
dule
18-
190.
00%
00
00
00
00
018
-19
0.00
%0
00
00
00
19-2
00.
00%
00
00
00
00
020
-21
0.00
%0
0To
tal C
ertif
icat
ed S
alar
ies
133,
560,
745
65,7
73,7
8519
9,33
4,53
013
5,63
0,93
766
,793
,279
202,
424,
215
137,
733,
216
67,8
28,5
7420
5,56
1,79
10
00
Base
Sal
arie
s20
00 -
2999
56,7
97,7
2036
,935
,464
93,7
33,1
8456
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
57,2
91,8
6037
,256
,803
94,5
48,6
62 S
tep
& C
olum
n0.
87%
00
049
4,14
032
1,33
981
5,47
949
8,43
932
4,13
482
2,57
3O
ff sc
hedu
le 1
8-19
0.00
%0
00
00
00
00
18-1
90.
00%
00
19
-20
0.00
%0
00
00
20
-21
0.00
%0
0To
tal C
lass
ified
Sal
arie
s56
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
57,2
91,8
6037
,256
,803
94,5
48,6
6257
,790
,299
37,5
80,9
3795
,371
,236
TOTA
L SA
LAR
IES:
190,
358,
465
102,
709,
249
293,
067,
714
192,
922,
797
104,
050,
081
296,
972,
878
195,
523,
515
105,
409,
511
300,
933,
027
3. E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
3000
-399
950
,321
,021
41,5
00,5
8991
,821
,610
54,5
27,9
0144
,285
,078
98,8
12,9
7958
,135
,027
46,3
34,8
7310
4,46
9,90
0
H
ealth
ben
efits
36,5
64,7
2921
,629
,758
58,1
94,4
8737
,661
,671
22,2
78,6
5159
,940
,322
38,7
91,5
2122
,947
,010
61,7
38,5
32
00
00
00
00
0To
tal E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
86,8
85,7
5063
,130
,347
150,
016,
097
92,1
89,5
7266
,563
,729
158,
753,
301
96,9
26,5
4869
,281
,884
166,
208,
432
4. B
ooks
and
Sup
plie
s40
00-4
999
6,86
2,78
529
,488
,552
36,3
51,3
376,
664,
693
26,9
78,0
4833
,642
,741
6,86
7,96
624
,727
,766
31,5
95,7
335.
Ser
vice
s, O
ther
Op.
5000
-599
9 36
,891
,295
54,8
47,5
2291
,738
,817
33,0
17,8
8852
,893
,474
85,9
11,3
6234
,273
,391
59,2
37,4
8793
,510
,878
6. C
apita
l Out
lay
6000
-699
912
5,88
77,
424,
565
7,55
0,45
212
9,38
51,
344,
659
1,47
4,04
413
2,84
71,
364,
265
1,49
7,11
27.
Oth
er O
utgo
7100
-729
90
9,89
2,65
29,
892,
652
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
10
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
8. D
irect
/Indi
rect
Cos
ts73
00-7
399
(4,0
14,8
03)
2,63
7,55
7(1
,377
,246
)(3
,213
,855
)1,
836,
605
(1,3
77,2
50)
(2,5
70,2
21)
1,19
2,97
1(1
,377
,250
)9.
Deb
t Ser
vice
7400
-749
96,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
TOTA
L EX
PEN
DITU
RES
32
3,75
8,94
427
0,13
0,44
459
3,88
9,38
832
8,36
0,04
625
9,71
4,88
758
8,07
4,93
333
7,80
3,61
326
7,26
2,17
560
5,06
5,78
8
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y86
,149
,097
(93,
887,
133)
(7,7
38,0
36)
77,2
43,6
30(8
2,38
6,58
6)(5
,142
,956
)74
,257
,921
(88,
736,
665)
(14,
478,
744)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
244)
74,0
04,2
440
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)73
,104
,691
(1,2
25,9
33)
(75,
230,
177)
74,0
04,2
44(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e11
,818
,472
.61
(20,
782,
442.
08)
(8,9
63,9
69.4
7)2,
013,
452.
70(8
,382
,341
.73)
(6,3
68,8
89.0
4)(5
,929
,608
.24)
(9,7
75,0
69.1
0)(1
5,70
4,67
7.34
)F.
FU
ND B
ALA
NCE,
RES
ERVE
S N
ET B
EGIN
NIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
17,9
74,9
6138
,612
,895
56,5
87,8
5623
,188
,649
17,8
30,4
5241
,019
,101
25,2
02,1
019,
448,
111
34,6
50,2
12(6
,604
,785
)(6
,604
,785
)0
0 R
ESTA
TEM
ENTS
00
0
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:23
,188
,649
17,8
30,4
5241
,019
,101
25,2
02,1
019,
448,
111
34,6
50,2
1219
,272
,493
(326
,958
)18
,945
,535
COM
PON
ENTS
OF
ENDI
NG
BAL
ANC
E:R
EVO
LVIN
G C
ASH
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
0PR
EPAI
D0
00
STO
RES
00
00
00
00
0R
EQU
IRED
RES
ERVE
2.00
%11
,913
,588
011
,913
,588
11,7
61,4
990
11,7
61,4
9912
,101
,316
012
,101
,316
Lega
lly R
estri
cted
17,8
30,4
5217
,830
,452
9,44
8,11
19,
448,
111
(326
,958
)(3
26,9
58)
Oth
er C
omm
itmen
ts0
00
00
0
00
00
00
0
00
00
0UN
APPR
OPR
IATE
D11
,125
,060
.72
0.00
11,1
25,0
60.7
213
,290
,602
.42
0.00
13,2
90,6
02.4
27,
021,
177.
180.
007,
021,
177.
18
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
247
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
Fact
finde
r
2018
-19
2018
-19
2018
-19
2019
-20
2019
-20
2019
-20
2020
-21
2020
-21
2020
-21
2/20
/201
92n
d In
terim
2nd
Inte
rim
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
UN
REST
RIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dUN
RES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dU
NRES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dFu
nded
AD
A35
,548
.64
0.
0035
,548
.64
34,9
53.9
1
0.00
34,9
53.9
134
,403
.96
0.
0034
,403
.96
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
AD
A fro
m P
rior Y
ear
-1
.67%
-1.5
7%St
atut
ory
CO
LA %
1.02
711.
0271
1.03
461.
0346
1.02
861.
0286
Gap
Fun
ding
Per
cent
age
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
CPI
1.03
581.
0358
1.03
181.
0318
1.03
051.
0305
Lotte
ry p
er A
DA15
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
0
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
137,
766,
084
67,4
12,3
6620
5,17
8,45
013
9,90
1,45
968
,457
,257
208,
358,
716
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,13
5,37
41,
044,
892
3,18
0,26
62,
168,
473
1,06
1,08
73,
229,
560
Off
sche
dule
18-
190.
00%
00
00
00
00
017
-18
(18-
19)
3.00
%4,
205,
339
1,63
8,58
15,
843,
920
00
00
18-1
93.
00%
4,13
2,98
32,
022,
371
6,15
5,35
319
-20
0.00
%0
00
00
00
00
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cer
tific
ated
Sal
arie
s14
1,89
9,06
769
,434
,737
211,
333,
803
139,
901,
459
68,4
57,2
5720
8,35
8,71
614
2,06
9,93
169
,518
,345
211,
588,
276
00
0Ba
se S
alar
ies
2000
- 29
9956
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
60,2
74,6
2738
,016
,037
98,2
90,6
6460
,799
,017
38,3
46,7
7699
,145
,793
Ste
p &
Col
umn
0.87
%0
00
524,
389
330,
740
855,
129
528,
951
333,
617
862,
568
Off
sche
dule
18-
190.
00%
00
00
00
00
018
-19
(17-
18)
3.00
%1,
721,
336
1,08
0,57
32,
801,
908
18-1
93.
00%
1,75
5,57
21,
140,
481
2,89
6,05
3
19-2
00.
00%
00
00
0
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cla
ssifi
ed S
alar
ies
60,2
74,6
2739
,156
,518
99,4
31,1
4560
,799
,017
38,3
46,7
7699
,145
,793
61,3
27,9
6838
,680
,393
100,
008,
361
TOTA
L SA
LAR
IES:
202,
173,
694
108,
591,
254
310,
764,
948
200,
700,
475
106,
804,
033
307,
504,
509
203,
397,
899
108,
198,
738
311,
596,
637
3. E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
3000
-399
953
,332
,266
43,0
40,5
5896
,372
,823
56,8
32,4
0545
,087
,597
101,
920,
001
60,6
04,6
0647
,193
,350
107,
797,
956
Hea
lth b
enef
its36
,564
,729
21,6
29,7
5858
,194
,487
37,6
61,6
7122
,278
,651
59,9
40,3
2238
,791
,521
22,9
47,0
1061
,738
,532
0
00
00
00
00
Tota
l Em
ploy
ee B
enef
its89
,896
,995
64,6
70,3
1615
4,56
7,31
194
,494
,076
67,3
66,2
4816
1,86
0,32
399
,396
,127
70,1
40,3
6016
9,53
6,48
74.
Boo
ks a
nd S
uppl
ies
4000
-499
96,
862,
785
29,4
88,5
5236
,351
,337
6,66
4,69
326
,978
,048
33,6
42,7
416,
867,
966
24,7
27,7
6631
,595
,733
5. S
ervi
ces,
Oth
er O
p.50
00-5
999
36,8
91,2
9554
,847
,522
91,7
38,8
1733
,017
,888
52,8
93,4
7485
,911
,362
34,2
73,3
9159
,237
,487
93,5
10,8
786.
Cap
ital O
utla
y60
00-6
999
125,
887
7,42
4,56
57,
550,
452
129,
385
1,34
4,65
91,
474,
044
132,
847
1,36
4,26
51,
497,
112
7. O
ther
Out
go71
00-7
299
09,
892,
652
9,89
2,65
20
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
18.
Dire
ct/In
dire
ct C
osts
7300
-739
9(4
,014
,803
)2,
637,
557
(1,3
77,2
46)
(3,2
13,8
55)
1,83
6,60
5(1
,377
,250
)(2
,570
,221
)1,
192,
971
(1,3
77,2
50)
9. D
ebt S
ervi
ce74
00-7
499
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
6TO
TAL
EXPE
NDI
TUR
ES
338,
585,
419
277,
552,
418
616,
137,
837
338,
442,
229
263,
271,
358
601,
713,
587
348,
147,
576
270,
909,
878
619,
057,
454
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y71
,322
,622
(101
,309
,107
)(2
9,98
6,48
5)67
,161
,447
(85,
943,
057)
(18,
781,
609)
63,9
13,9
58(9
2,38
4,36
8)(2
8,47
0,41
1)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
083
,104
,691
83,1
04,6
910
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)15
6,20
9,38
281
,878
,758
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e(3
,008
,001
.77)
54,9
00,2
74.9
551
,892
,273
.17
(8,0
68,7
09.7
4)(1
1,93
8,83
2.70
)(2
0,00
7,54
2.43
)(1
6,27
3,57
1.24
)(1
3,42
2,77
2.31
)(2
9,69
6,34
3.54
)F.
FU
ND B
ALA
NCE,
RES
ERVE
S N
ET B
EGIN
NIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
17,9
74,9
6138
,612
,895
56,5
87,8
568,
362,
174
93,5
13,1
7010
1,87
5,34
429
3,46
581
,574
,337
81,8
67,8
01(6
,604
,785
)(6
,604
,785
)0
0 R
ESTA
TEM
ENTS
00
0
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:8,
362,
174
93,5
13,1
7010
1,87
5,34
429
3,46
581
,574
,337
81,8
67,8
01(1
5,98
0,10
7)68
,151
,565
52,1
71,4
58CO
MPO
NEN
TS O
F EN
DIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
REV
OLV
ING
CAS
H15
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
PREP
AID
00
0ST
OR
ES0
00
00
00
00
REQ
UIR
ED R
ESER
VE2.
00%
12,3
58,5
570
12,3
58,5
5712
,034
,272
012
,034
,272
12,3
81,1
500
12,3
81,1
50Le
gally
Res
trict
ed93
,513
,170
93,5
13,1
7081
,574
,337
81,5
74,3
3768
,151
,565
68,1
51,5
65O
ther
Com
mitm
ents
00
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
00
00
UNAP
PRO
PRIA
TED
(4,1
46,3
82.6
6)0.
00(4
,146
,382
.66)
(11,
890,
807.
40)
0.00
(11,
890,
807.
40)
(28,
511,
256.
64)
0.00
(28,
511,
256.
64)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
248
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
OU
SD
2018
-19
2018
-19
2018
-19
2019
-20
2019
-20
2019
-20
2020
-21
2020
-21
2020
-21
2/20
/201
92n
d In
terim
2nd
Inte
rim
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
UN
REST
RIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dUN
RES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dU
NRES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dFu
nded
AD
A35
,548
.64
0.
0035
,548
.64
34,9
53.9
1
0.00
34,9
53.9
134
,403
.96
0.
0034
,403
.96
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
AD
A fro
m P
rior Y
ear
-1
.67%
-1.5
7%St
atut
ory
CO
LA %
1.02
711.
0271
1.03
461.
0346
1.02
861.
0286
Gap
Fun
ding
Per
cent
age
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
CPI
1.03
581.
0358
1.03
181.
0318
1.03
051.
0305
Lotte
ry p
er A
DA15
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
0
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
135,
564,
156
66,7
60,3
9220
2,32
4,54
814
1,10
7,03
669
,490
,057
210,
597,
093
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,10
1,24
41,
034,
786
3,13
6,03
02,
187,
159
1,07
7,09
63,
264,
255
Off
sche
dule
17-
181.
50%
2,10
2,67
081
9,29
02,
921,
960
00
00
00
18-1
91.
50%
2,00
3,41
198
6,60
72,
990,
018
00
00
19-2
02.
50%
00
03,
441,
635
1,69
4,87
95,
136,
514
00
020
-21
1.50
%2,
149,
413
1,05
8,50
73,
207,
920
Tota
l Cer
tific
ated
Sal
arie
s13
7,66
6,82
667
,579
,682
205,
246,
508
141,
107,
036
69,4
90,0
5721
0,59
7,09
314
5,44
3,60
871
,625
,660
217,
069,
268
00
0Ba
se S
alar
ies
2000
- 29
9956
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
57,6
49,6
8637
,489
,496
95,1
39,1
8259
,605
,019
38,7
61,0
4698
,366
,065
Ste
p &
Col
umn
0.87
%0
00
501,
552
326,
159
827,
711
518,
564
337,
221
855,
785
Off
sche
dule
17-
181.
50%
860,
668
540,
286
1,40
0,95
40
00
00
018
-19
1.50
%85
1,96
655
4,03
21,
405,
998
19
-20
2.50
%0
1,45
3,78
194
5,39
12,
399,
172
0
20-2
11.
50%
901,
854
586,
474
1,48
8,32
8To
tal C
lass
ified
Sal
arie
s58
,510
,354
38,0
29,7
8296
,540
,136
59,6
05,0
1938
,761
,046
98,3
66,0
6561
,025
,436
39,6
84,7
4110
0,71
0,17
7TO
TAL
SALA
RIE
S:19
6,17
7,17
910
5,60
9,46
430
1,78
6,64
420
0,71
2,05
510
8,25
1,10
330
8,96
3,15
820
6,46
9,04
411
1,31
0,40
231
7,77
9,44
63.
Em
ploy
ee B
enef
its30
00-3
999
51,8
06,9
1542
,261
,828
94,0
68,7
4356
,729
,465
45,4
95,2
2710
2,22
4,69
161
,389
,462
48,1
27,5
1310
9,51
6,97
5
H
ealth
ben
efits
36,5
64,7
2921
,629
,758
58,1
94,4
8737
,661
,671
22,2
78,6
5159
,940
,322
38,7
91,5
2122
,947
,010
61,7
38,5
32
00
00
00
00
0To
tal E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
88,3
71,6
4463
,891
,586
152,
263,
230
94,3
91,1
3667
,773
,877
162,
165,
013
100,
180,
983
71,0
74,5
2417
1,25
5,50
74.
Boo
ks a
nd S
uppl
ies
4000
-499
96,
862,
785
29,4
88,5
5236
,351
,337
6,66
4,69
326
,978
,048
33,6
42,7
416,
867,
966
24,7
27,7
6631
,595
,733
5. S
ervi
ces,
Oth
er O
p.50
00-5
999
36,8
91,2
9554
,847
,522
91,7
38,8
1733
,017
,888
52,8
96,4
7485
,914
,362
34,2
73,3
9159
,237
,487
93,5
10,8
786.
Cap
ital O
utla
y60
00-6
999
125,
887
7,42
4,56
57,
550,
452
129,
385
1,34
4,65
91,
474,
044
132,
847
1,36
4,26
51,
497,
112
7. O
ther
Out
go71
00-7
299
09,
892,
652
9,89
2,65
20
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
18.
Dire
ct/In
dire
ct C
osts
7300
-739
9(4
,014
,803
)2,
637,
557
(1,3
77,2
46)
(3,2
13,8
55)
1,83
6,60
5(1
,377
,250
)(2
,570
,221
)1,
192,
971
(1,3
77,2
50)
9. D
ebt S
ervi
ce74
00-7
499
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
6TO
TAL
EXPE
NDI
TUR
ES
331,
063,
553
273,
791,
898
604,
855,
451
338,
350,
868
265,
129,
057
603,
479,
926
352,
003,
577
274,
955,
705
626,
959,
282
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y78
,844
,488
(97,
548,
587)
(18,
704,
099)
67,2
52,8
08(8
7,80
0,75
6)(2
0,54
7,94
9)60
,057
,957
(96,
430,
196)
(36,
372,
238)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)73
,104
,691
(1,2
25,9
33)
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e4,
513,
863.
95(2
4,44
3,89
6.45
)(1
9,93
0,03
2.49
)(7
,977
,349
.21)
(13,
796,
532.
35)
(21,
773,
881.
56)
(20,
129,
571.
97)
(17,
468,
599.
50)
(37,
598,
171.
47)
F. F
UND
BAL
ANC
E, R
ESER
VES
NET
BEG
INN
ING
BAL
ANC
E:17
,974
,961
38,6
12,8
9556
,587
,856
15,8
84,0
4014
,168
,998
30,0
53,0
387,
906,
691
372,
466
8,27
9,15
7(6
,604
,785
)(6
,604
,785
)0
0 R
ESTA
TEM
ENTS
00
0
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:15
,884
,040
14,1
68,9
9830
,053
,038
7,90
6,69
137
2,46
68,
279,
157
(12,
222,
881)
(17,
096,
134)
(29,
319,
015)
COM
PON
ENTS
OF
ENDI
NG
BAL
ANC
E:R
EVO
LVIN
G C
ASH
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
0PR
EPAI
D0
00
STO
RES
00
00
00
00
0R
EQU
IRED
RES
ERVE
2.00
%12
,132
,910
012
,132
,910
12,0
69,5
990
12,0
69,5
9912
,539
,186
012
,539
,186
Lega
lly R
estri
cted
14,1
68,9
9814
,168
,998
372,
466
372,
466
(17,
096,
134)
(17,
096,
134)
Oth
er C
omm
itmen
ts0
00
00
0
00
00
00
0
00
00
0UN
APPR
OPR
IATE
D3,
601,
130.
060.
003,
601,
130.
06(4
,312
,908
.15)
0.00
(4,3
12,9
08.1
5)(2
4,91
2,06
7.12
)0.
00(2
4,91
2,06
7.12
)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
249
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
OEA
20
18-1
920
18-1
920
18-1
920
19-2
020
19-2
020
19-2
020
20-2
120
20-2
120
20-2
12/
20/2
019
2nd
Inte
rim2n
d In
terim
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
U
NRE
STR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
UNR
ESTR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
UNR
ESTR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
Fund
ed A
DA
35,5
48.6
4
0.00
35,5
48.6
434
,953
.91
0.
0034
,953
.91
34,4
03.9
6
0.00
34,4
03.9
6Pe
rcen
tage
cha
nge
in A
DA
from
Prio
r Yea
r
-1.6
7%
-1
.57%
Stat
utor
y C
OLA
%1.
0271
1.02
711.
0346
1.03
461.
0286
1.02
86G
ap F
undi
ng P
erce
ntag
e10
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
00CP
I1.
0358
1.03
581.
0318
1.03
181.
0305
1.03
05Lo
ttery
per
ADA
151.
0053
.00
151.
0053
.00
151.
0053
.00
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
143,
276,
728
70,1
08,8
6021
3,38
5,58
815
2,77
2,39
374
,755
,325
227,
527,
718
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,22
0,78
91,
086,
687
3,30
7,47
72,
367,
972
1,15
8,70
83,
526,
680
17-1
83.
00%
4,20
5,33
91,
638,
581
5,84
3,92
00
00
00
018
-19
4.00
%5,
510,
643
2,69
6,49
58,
207,
138
00
00
19-2
05.
00%
00
07,
274,
876
3,55
9,77
710
,834
,653
00
020
-21
0.00
%0
0To
tal C
ertif
icat
ed S
alar
ies
143,
276,
728
70,1
08,8
6021
3,38
5,58
815
2,77
2,39
374
,755
,325
227,
527,
718
155,
140,
365
75,9
14,0
3323
1,05
4,39
70
00
Base
Sal
arie
s20
00 -
2999
56,7
97,7
2036
,935
,464
93,7
33,1
8460
,859
,818
39,5
36,6
7810
0,39
6,49
664
,458
,763
41,8
74,6
7910
6,33
3,44
3 S
tep
& C
olum
n0.
87%
00
052
9,48
034
3,96
987
3,45
056
0,79
136
4,31
092
5,10
117
-18
3.00
%1,
721,
336
1,08
0,57
32,
801,
908
00
00
00
18-1
94.
00%
2,34
0,76
21,
520,
641
3,86
1,40
4
19-2
05.
00%
03,
069,
465
1,99
4,03
25,
063,
497
0
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cla
ssifi
ed S
alar
ies
60,8
59,8
1839
,536
,678
100,
396,
496
64,4
58,7
6341
,874
,679
106,
333,
443
65,0
19,5
5542
,238
,989
107,
258,
544
TOTA
L SA
LAR
IES:
204,
136,
546
109,
645,
538
313,
782,
084
217,
231,
156
116,
630,
004
333,
861,
161
220,
159,
919
118,
153,
022
338,
312,
941
3. E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
3000
-399
953
,854
,574
43,3
31,2
1897
,185
,792
61,3
93,8
3847
,918
,918
109,
312,
756
65,4
54,6
1150
,218
,401
115,
673,
012
Hea
lth b
enef
its36
,564
,729
21,6
29,7
5858
,194
,487
37,6
61,6
7122
,278
,651
59,9
40,3
2238
,791
,521
22,9
47,0
1061
,738
,532
0
00
00
00
00
Tota
l Em
ploy
ee B
enef
its90
,419
,304
64,9
60,9
7615
5,38
0,28
099
,055
,509
70,1
97,5
6916
9,25
3,07
810
4,24
6,13
373
,165
,411
177,
411,
544
4. B
ooks
and
Sup
plie
s40
00-4
999
6,86
2,78
529
,488
,552
36,3
51,3
376,
664,
693
26,9
78,0
4833
,642
,741
6,86
7,96
624
,727
,766
31,5
95,7
335.
Ser
vice
s, O
ther
Op.
5000
-599
9 36
,891
,295
54,8
47,5
2291
,738
,817
33,0
17,8
8852
,893
,474
85,9
11,3
6234
,273
,391
59,2
37,4
8793
,510
,878
6. C
apita
l Out
lay
6000
-699
912
5,88
77,
424,
565
7,55
0,45
212
9,38
51,
344,
659
1,47
4,04
413
2,84
71,
364,
265
1,49
7,11
27.
Oth
er O
utgo
7100
-729
90
9,89
2,65
29,
892,
652
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
10
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
8. D
irect
/Indi
rect
Cos
ts73
00-7
399
(4,0
14,8
03)
2,63
7,55
7(1
,377
,246
)(3
,213
,855
)1,
836,
605
(1,3
77,2
50)
(2,5
70,2
21)
1,19
2,97
1(1
,377
,250
)9.
Deb
t Ser
vice
7400
-749
96,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
TOTA
L EX
PEN
DITU
RES
34
1,07
0,57
927
8,89
7,36
261
9,96
7,94
135
9,53
4,34
327
5,92
8,65
063
5,46
2,99
336
9,75
9,60
228
3,88
9,21
365
3,64
8,81
4
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y68
,837
,462
(102
,654
,051
)(3
3,81
6,58
9)46
,069
,333
(98,
600,
349)
(52,
531,
016)
42,3
01,9
32(1
05,3
63,7
03)
(63,
061,
771)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)73
,104
,691
(1,2
25,9
33)
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e(5
,493
,161
.98)
(29,
549,
359.
99)
(35,
042,
521.
97)
(29,
160,
823.
59)
(24,
596,
125.
18)
(53,
756,
948.
77)
(37,
885,
596.
85)
(26,
402,
106.
88)
(64,
287,
703.
74)
F. F
UND
BAL
ANC
E, R
ESER
VES
NET
BEG
INN
ING
BAL
ANC
E:17
,974
,961
38,6
12,8
9556
,587
,856
5,87
7,01
49,
063,
535
14,9
40,5
49(2
3,28
3,80
9)(1
5,53
2,59
1)(3
8,81
6,40
0)(6
,604
,785
)(6
,604
,785
)0
0 R
ESTA
TEM
ENTS
00
0
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:5,
877,
014
9,06
3,53
514
,940
,549
(23,
283,
809)
(15,
532,
591)
(38,
816,
400)
(61,
169,
406)
(41,
934,
697)
(103
,104
,104
)CO
MPO
NEN
TS O
F EN
DIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
REV
OLV
ING
CAS
H15
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
PREP
AID
00
0ST
OR
ES0
00
00
00
00
REQ
UIR
ED R
ESER
VE2.
00%
12,4
35,1
590
12,4
35,1
5912
,709
,260
012
,709
,260
13,0
72,9
770
13,0
72,9
77Le
gally
Res
trict
ed9,
063,
535
9,06
3,53
5(1
5,53
2,59
1)(1
5,53
2,59
1)(4
1,93
4,69
7)(4
1,93
4,69
7)O
ther
Com
mitm
ents
00
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
00
00
UNAP
PRO
PRIA
TED
(6,7
08,1
44.8
7)0.
00(6
,708
,144
.87)
(36,
143,
069.
46)
0.00
(36,
143,
069.
46)
(74,
392,
383.
31)
0.00
(74,
392,
383.
31)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
250
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
2018
-19
2018
-19
2018
-19
2019
-20
2019
-20
2019
-20
2020
-21
2020
-21
2020
-21
2/20
/201
92n
d In
terim
2nd
Inte
rim
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
UN
REST
RIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dUN
RES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dU
NRES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dFu
nded
AD
A35
,548
.64
0.
0035
,548
.64
34,9
53.9
1
0.00
34,9
53.9
134
,403
.96
0.
0034
,403
.96
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
AD
A fro
m P
rior Y
ear
-1
.67%
-1.5
7%St
atut
ory
CO
LA %
1.02
711.
0271
1.03
461.
0346
1.02
861.
0286
Gap
Fun
ding
Per
cent
age
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
CPI
1.03
581.
0358
1.03
181.
0318
1.03
051.
0305
Lotte
ry p
er A
DA15
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
0
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
137,
766,
084
67,4
12,3
6620
5,17
8,45
013
9,90
1,45
968
,457
,257
208,
358,
716
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,13
5,37
41,
044,
892
3,18
0,26
62,
168,
473
1,06
1,08
73,
229,
560
Off
sche
dule
18-
190.
00%
00
00
00
00
017
-18
(18-
19)
3.00
%4,
205,
339
1,63
8,58
15,
843,
920
00
00
18-1
93.
00%
4,13
2,98
32,
022,
371
6,15
5,35
319
-20
0.00
%0
00
00
00
00
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cer
tific
ated
Sal
arie
s14
1,89
9,06
769
,434
,737
211,
333,
803
139,
901,
459
68,4
57,2
5720
8,35
8,71
614
2,06
9,93
169
,518
,345
211,
588,
276
00
0Ba
se S
alar
ies
2000
- 29
9956
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
60,2
74,6
2738
,016
,037
98,2
90,6
6460
,799
,017
38,3
46,7
7699
,145
,793
Ste
p &
Col
umn
0.87
%0
00
524,
389
330,
740
855,
129
528,
951
333,
617
862,
568
Off
sche
dule
18-
190.
00%
00
00
00
00
018
-19
(17-
18)
3.00
%1,
721,
336
1,08
0,57
32,
801,
908
18-1
93.
00%
1,75
5,57
21,
140,
481
2,89
6,05
3
19-2
00.
00%
00
00
0
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cla
ssifi
ed S
alar
ies
60,2
74,6
2739
,156
,518
99,4
31,1
4560
,799
,017
38,3
46,7
7699
,145
,793
61,3
27,9
6838
,680
,393
100,
008,
361
TOTA
L SA
LAR
IES:
202,
173,
694
108,
591,
254
310,
764,
948
200,
700,
475
106,
804,
033
307,
504,
509
203,
397,
899
108,
198,
738
311,
596,
637
3. E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
3000
-399
953
,332
,266
43,0
40,5
5896
,372
,823
55,3
91,4
2044
,382
,487
99,7
73,9
0759
,183
,907
46,4
98,1
6610
5,68
2,07
3
H
ealth
ben
efits
36,5
64,7
2921
,629
,758
58,1
94,4
8737
,661
,671
22,2
78,6
5159
,940
,322
38,7
91,5
2122
,947
,010
61,7
38,5
32
00
00
00
00
0To
tal E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
89,8
96,9
9564
,670
,316
154,
567,
311
93,0
53,0
9166
,661
,138
159,
714,
229
97,9
75,4
2869
,445
,177
167,
420,
605
4. B
ooks
and
Sup
plie
s40
00-4
999
6,86
2,78
529
,488
,552
36,3
51,3
376,
664,
693
26,9
78,0
4833
,642
,741
6,86
7,96
624
,727
,766
31,5
95,7
335.
Ser
vice
s, O
ther
Op.
5000
-599
9 36
,891
,295
54,8
47,5
2291
,738
,817
33,0
17,8
8852
,893
,474
85,9
11,3
6234
,273
,391
59,2
37,4
8793
,510
,878
6. C
apita
l Out
lay
6000
-699
912
5,88
77,
424,
565
7,55
0,45
212
9,38
51,
344,
659
1,47
4,04
413
2,84
71,
364,
265
1,49
7,11
27.
Oth
er O
utgo
7100
-729
90
9,89
2,65
29,
892,
652
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
10
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
8. D
irect
/Indi
rect
Cos
ts73
00-7
399
(4,0
14,8
03)
2,63
7,55
7(1
,377
,246
)(3
,213
,855
)1,
836,
605
(1,3
77,2
50)
(2,5
70,2
21)
1,19
2,97
1(1
,377
,250
)9.
Deb
t Ser
vice
7400
-749
96,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
TOTA
L EX
PEN
DITU
RES
33
8,58
5,41
927
7,55
2,41
861
6,13
7,83
733
7,00
1,24
426
2,56
6,24
859
9,56
7,49
234
6,72
6,87
727
0,21
4,69
561
6,94
1,57
1
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y71
,322
,622
(101
,309
,107
)(2
9,98
6,48
5)68
,602
,432
(85,
237,
947)
(16,
635,
515)
65,3
34,6
57(9
1,68
9,18
5)(2
6,35
4,52
8)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
083
,104
,691
83,1
04,6
910
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)15
6,20
9,38
281
,878
,758
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e(3
,008
,001
.77)
54,9
00,2
74.9
551
,892
,273
.17
(6,6
27,7
24.7
1)(1
1,23
3,72
2.95
)(1
7,86
1,44
7.66
)(1
4,85
2,87
1.93
)(1
2,72
7,58
8.86
)(2
7,58
0,46
0.78
)F.
FU
ND B
ALA
NCE,
RES
ERVE
S N
ET B
EGIN
NIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
17,9
74,9
6138
,612
,895
56,5
87,8
568,
362,
174
93,5
13,1
7010
1,87
5,34
41,
734,
450
82,2
79,4
4784
,013
,896
(6,6
04,7
85)
(6,6
04,7
85)
00
RES
TATE
MEN
TS0
00
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:8,
362,
174
93,5
13,1
7010
1,87
5,34
41,
734,
450
82,2
79,4
4784
,013
,896
(13,
118,
422)
69,5
51,8
5856
,433
,435
COM
PON
ENTS
OF
ENDI
NG
BAL
ANC
E:R
EVO
LVIN
G C
ASH
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
0PR
EPAI
D0
00
STO
RES
00
00
00
00
0R
EQU
IRED
RES
ERVE
2.00
%12
,358
,557
012
,358
,557
11,9
91,3
500
11,9
91,3
5012
,338
,832
012
,338
,832
Lega
lly R
estri
cted
93,5
13,1
7093
,513
,170
82,2
79,4
4782
,279
,447
69,5
51,8
5869
,551
,858
Oth
er C
omm
itmen
ts0
00
00
0
00
00
00
0
00
00
0UN
APPR
OPR
IATE
D(4
,146
,382
.66)
0.00
(4,1
46,3
82.6
6)(1
0,40
6,90
0.38
)0.
00(1
0,40
6,90
0.38
)(2
5,60
7,25
4.30
)0.
00(2
5,60
7,25
4.30
)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
Fact
finde
r Lo
wer
STR
S
251
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
OU
SD L
ower
STR
S
2018
-19
2018
-19
2018
-19
2019
-20
2019
-20
2019
-20
2020
-21
2020
-21
2020
-21
2/20
/201
92n
d In
terim
2nd
Inte
rim
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
UN
REST
RIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dUN
RES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dU
NRES
TRIC
TED
RES
TRIC
TED
Com
bine
dFu
nded
AD
A35
,548
.64
0.
0035
,548
.64
34,9
53.9
1
0.00
34,9
53.9
134
,403
.96
0.
0034
,403
.96
Perc
enta
ge c
hang
e in
AD
A fro
m P
rior Y
ear
-1
.67%
-1.5
7%St
atut
ory
CO
LA %
1.02
711.
0271
1.03
461.
0346
1.02
861.
0286
Gap
Fun
ding
Per
cent
age
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
100.
0000
CPI
1.03
581.
0358
1.03
181.
0318
1.03
051.
0305
Lotte
ry p
er A
DA15
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
015
1.00
53.0
0
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
135,
564,
156
66,7
60,3
9220
2,32
4,54
814
1,10
7,03
669
,490
,057
210,
597,
093
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,10
1,24
41,
034,
786
3,13
6,03
02,
187,
159
1,07
7,09
63,
264,
255
Off
sche
dule
17-
181.
50%
2,10
2,67
081
9,29
02,
921,
960
00
00
00
18-1
91.
50%
2,00
3,41
198
6,60
72,
990,
018
00
00
19-2
02.
50%
00
03,
441,
635
1,69
4,87
95,
136,
514
00
020
-21
1.50
%2,
149,
413
1,05
8,50
73,
207,
920
Tota
l Cer
tific
ated
Sal
arie
s13
7,66
6,82
667
,579
,682
205,
246,
508
141,
107,
036
69,4
90,0
5721
0,59
7,09
314
5,44
3,60
871
,625
,660
217,
069,
268
00
0Ba
se S
alar
ies
2000
- 29
9956
,797
,720
36,9
35,4
6493
,733
,184
57,6
49,6
8637
,489
,496
95,1
39,1
8259
,605
,019
38,7
61,0
4698
,366
,065
Ste
p &
Col
umn
0.87
%0
00
501,
552
326,
159
827,
711
518,
564
337,
221
855,
785
Off
sche
dule
17-
181.
50%
860,
668
540,
286
1,40
0,95
40
00
00
018
-19
1.50
%85
1,96
655
4,03
21,
405,
998
19
-20
2.50
%0
1,45
3,78
194
5,39
12,
399,
172
0
20-2
11.
50%
901,
854
586,
474
1,48
8,32
8To
tal C
lass
ified
Sal
arie
s58
,510
,354
38,0
29,7
8296
,540
,136
59,6
05,0
1938
,761
,046
98,3
66,0
6561
,025
,436
39,6
84,7
4110
0,71
0,17
7TO
TAL
SALA
RIE
S:19
6,17
7,17
910
5,60
9,46
430
1,78
6,64
420
0,71
2,05
510
8,25
1,10
330
8,96
3,15
820
6,46
9,04
411
1,31
0,40
231
7,77
9,44
63.
Em
ploy
ee B
enef
its30
00-3
999
51,8
06,9
1542
,261
,828
94,0
68,7
4355
,276
,062
44,7
79,4
7910
0,05
5,54
159
,935
,026
47,4
11,2
5710
7,34
6,28
3
H
ealth
ben
efits
36,5
64,7
2921
,629
,758
58,1
94,4
8737
,661
,671
22,2
78,6
5159
,940
,322
38,7
91,5
2122
,947
,010
61,7
38,5
32
00
00
00
00
0To
tal E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
88,3
71,6
4463
,891
,586
152,
263,
230
92,9
37,7
3467
,058
,130
159,
995,
863
98,7
26,5
4770
,358
,267
169,
084,
814
4. B
ooks
and
Sup
plie
s40
00-4
999
6,86
2,78
529
,488
,552
36,3
51,3
376,
664,
693
26,9
78,0
4833
,642
,741
6,86
7,96
624
,727
,766
31,5
95,7
335.
Ser
vice
s, O
ther
Op.
5000
-599
9 36
,891
,295
54,8
47,5
2291
,738
,817
33,0
17,8
8852
,893
,474
85,9
11,3
6234
,273
,391
59,2
37,4
8793
,510
,878
6. C
apita
l Out
lay
6000
-699
912
5,88
77,
424,
565
7,55
0,45
212
9,38
51,
344,
659
1,47
4,04
413
2,84
71,
364,
265
1,49
7,11
27.
Oth
er O
utgo
7100
-729
90
9,89
2,65
29,
892,
652
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
10
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
8. D
irect
/Indi
rect
Cos
ts73
00-7
399
(4,0
14,8
03)
2,63
7,55
7(1
,377
,246
)(3
,213
,855
)1,
836,
605
(1,3
77,2
50)
(2,5
70,2
21)
1,19
2,97
1(1
,377
,250
)9.
Deb
t Ser
vice
7400
-749
96,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
TOTA
L EX
PEN
DITU
RES
33
1,06
3,55
327
3,79
1,89
860
4,85
5,45
133
6,89
7,46
626
4,41
0,31
060
1,30
7,77
635
0,54
9,14
127
4,23
9,44
962
4,78
8,58
9
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y78
,844
,488
(97,
548,
587)
(18,
704,
099)
68,7
06,2
10(8
7,08
2,00
9)(1
8,37
5,79
9)61
,512
,393
(95,
713,
939)
(34,
201,
546)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)73
,104
,691
(1,2
25,9
33)
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e4,
513,
863.
95(2
4,44
3,89
6.45
)(1
9,93
0,03
2.49
)(6
,523
,946
.75)
(13,
077,
784.
76)
(19,
601,
731.
50)
(18,
675,
135.
89)
(16,
752,
342.
90)
(35,
427,
478.
79)
F. F
UND
BAL
ANC
E, R
ESER
VES
NET
BEG
INN
ING
BAL
ANC
E:17
,974
,961
38,6
12,8
9556
,587
,856
15,8
84,0
4014
,168
,998
30,0
53,0
389,
360,
093
1,09
1,21
310
,451
,307
(6,6
04,7
85)
(6,6
04,7
85)
00
RES
TATE
MEN
TS0
00
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:15
,884
,040
14,1
68,9
9830
,053
,038
9,36
0,09
31,
091,
213
10,4
51,3
07(9
,315
,043
)(1
5,66
1,13
0)(2
4,97
6,17
2)CO
MPO
NEN
TS O
F EN
DIN
G B
ALAN
CE:
REV
OLV
ING
CAS
H15
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
PREP
AID
00
0ST
OR
ES0
00
00
00
00
REQ
UIR
ED R
ESER
VE2.
00%
12,1
32,9
100
12,1
32,9
1012
,026
,156
012
,026
,156
12,4
95,7
720
12,4
95,7
72Le
gally
Res
trict
ed14
,168
,998
14,1
68,9
981,
091,
213
1,09
1,21
3(1
5,66
1,13
0)(1
5,66
1,13
0)O
ther
Com
mitm
ents
00
00
00
0
00
00
0
00
00
00
UNAP
PRO
PRIA
TED
3,60
1,13
0.06
0.00
3,60
1,13
0.06
(2,8
16,0
62.6
8)0.
00(2
,816
,062
.68)
(21,
960,
814.
57)
0.00
(21,
960,
814.
57)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
252
Oak
land
Uni
fied
Scho
ol D
istr
ict
OEA
Low
er S
TRS
20
18-1
920
18-1
920
18-1
920
19-2
020
19-2
020
19-2
020
20-2
120
20-2
120
20-2
12/
20/2
019
2nd
Inte
rim2n
d In
terim
Pr
ojec
ted
Proj
ecte
d
Proj
ecte
dPr
ojec
ted
U
NRE
STR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
UNR
ESTR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
UNR
ESTR
ICTE
DR
ESTR
ICTE
DC
ombi
ned
Fund
ed A
DA
35,5
48.6
4
0.00
35,5
48.6
434
,953
.91
0.
0034
,953
.91
34,4
03.9
6
0.00
34,4
03.9
6Pe
rcen
tage
cha
nge
in A
DA
from
Prio
r Yea
r
-1.6
7%
-1
.57%
Stat
utor
y C
OLA
%1.
0271
1.02
711.
0346
1.03
461.
0286
1.02
86G
ap F
undi
ng P
erce
ntag
e10
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
0010
0.00
00CP
I1.
0358
1.03
581.
0318
1.03
181.
0305
1.03
05Lo
ttery
per
ADA
151.
0053
.00
151.
0053
.00
151.
0053
.00
OBJ
ECT
A. R
EVEN
UE
1. L
CFF
Sou
rces
8010
-809
938
1,63
1,10
23,
278,
309
384,
909,
411
383,
808,
236
3,27
8,30
938
7,08
6,54
539
0,20
8,65
33,
278,
309
393,
486,
962
P
rior Y
ear A
djus
tmen
ts80
19/8
091
00
02.
Fed
eral
Rev
enue
s81
00-8
299
050
,569
,982
50,5
69,9
820
50,5
81,6
0350
,581
,603
050
,593
,175
1,28
6,61
03.
Oth
er S
tate
Rev
enue
s 83
00-8
599
14,6
83,1
8156
,626
,902
71,3
10,0
838,
182,
223
57,7
00,2
7165
,882
,494
8,21
9,58
458
,885
,908
67,1
05,4
92
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er L
ocal
Rev
enue
s86
00-8
799
13,5
93,7
5865
,768
,118
79,3
61,8
7613
,613
,217
65,7
68,1
1879
,381
,335
13,6
33,2
9765
,768
,118
79,4
01,4
15
Mea
sure
G1
- see
con
tribu
tions
00
00
00
0TO
TAL
REV
ENUE
409,
908,
041
176,
243,
311
586,
151,
352
405,
603,
676
177,
328,
301
582,
931,
977
412,
061,
534
178,
525,
510
590,
587,
044
B. E
XPEN
DITU
RES
B
ase
Sala
ries
1000
- 19
9913
3,56
0,74
565
,773
,785
199,
334,
530
143,
276,
728
70,1
08,8
6021
3,38
5,58
815
2,77
2,39
374
,755
,325
227,
527,
718
Ste
p &
Col
umn
1.55
%0
00
2,22
0,78
91,
086,
687
3,30
7,47
72,
367,
972
1,15
8,70
83,
526,
680
17-1
83.
00%
4,20
5,33
91,
638,
581
5,84
3,92
00
00
00
018
-19
4.00
%5,
510,
643
2,69
6,49
58,
207,
138
00
00
19-2
05.
00%
00
07,
274,
876
3,55
9,77
710
,834
,653
00
020
-21
0.00
%0
0To
tal C
ertif
icat
ed S
alar
ies
143,
276,
728
70,1
08,8
6021
3,38
5,58
815
2,77
2,39
374
,755
,325
227,
527,
718
155,
140,
365
75,9
14,0
3323
1,05
4,39
70
00
Base
Sal
arie
s20
00 -
2999
56,7
97,7
2036
,935
,464
93,7
33,1
8460
,859
,818
39,5
36,6
7810
0,39
6,49
664
,458
,763
41,8
74,6
7910
6,33
3,44
3 S
tep
& C
olum
n0.
87%
00
052
9,48
034
3,96
987
3,45
056
0,79
136
4,31
092
5,10
117
-18
3.00
%1,
721,
336
1,08
0,57
32,
801,
908
00
00
00
18-1
94.
00%
2,34
0,76
21,
520,
641
3,86
1,40
4
19-2
05.
00%
03,
069,
465
1,99
4,03
25,
063,
497
0
20-2
10.
00%
00
Tota
l Cla
ssifi
ed S
alar
ies
60,8
59,8
1839
,536
,678
100,
396,
496
64,4
58,7
6341
,874
,679
106,
333,
443
65,0
19,5
5542
,238
,989
107,
258,
544
TOTA
L SA
LAR
IES:
204,
136,
546
109,
645,
538
313,
782,
084
217,
231,
156
116,
630,
004
333,
861,
161
220,
159,
919
118,
153,
022
338,
312,
941
3. E
mpl
oyee
Ben
efits
3000
-399
953
,854
,574
43,3
31,2
1897
,185
,792
59,8
20,2
8247
,148
,938
106,
969,
220
63,9
03,2
0849
,459
,260
113,
362,
468
Hea
lth b
enef
its36
,564
,729
21,6
29,7
5858
,194
,487
37,6
61,6
7122
,278
,651
59,9
40,3
2238
,791
,521
22,9
47,0
1061
,738
,532
0
00
00
00
00
Tota
l Em
ploy
ee B
enef
its90
,419
,304
64,9
60,9
7615
5,38
0,28
097
,481
,953
69,4
27,5
8916
6,90
9,54
210
2,69
4,72
972
,406
,271
175,
101,
000
4. B
ooks
and
Sup
plie
s40
00-4
999
6,86
2,78
529
,488
,552
36,3
51,3
376,
664,
693
26,9
78,0
4833
,642
,741
6,86
7,96
624
,727
,766
31,5
95,7
335.
Ser
vice
s, O
ther
Op.
5000
-599
9 36
,891
,295
54,8
47,5
2291
,738
,817
33,0
17,8
8852
,893
,474
85,9
11,3
6234
,273
,391
59,2
37,4
8793
,510
,878
6. C
apita
l Out
lay
6000
-699
912
5,88
77,
424,
565
7,55
0,45
212
9,38
51,
344,
659
1,47
4,04
413
2,84
71,
364,
265
1,49
7,11
27.
Oth
er O
utgo
7100
-729
90
9,89
2,65
29,
892,
652
06,
048,
291
6,04
8,29
10
6,04
8,29
16,
048,
291
8. D
irect
/Indi
rect
Cos
ts73
00-7
399
(4,0
14,8
03)
2,63
7,55
7(1
,377
,246
)(3
,213
,855
)1,
836,
605
(1,3
77,2
50)
(2,5
70,2
21)
1,19
2,97
1(1
,377
,250
)9.
Deb
t Ser
vice
7400
-749
96,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
6,64
9,56
60
6,64
9,56
66,
649,
566
06,
649,
566
TOTA
L EX
PEN
DITU
RES
34
1,07
0,57
927
8,89
7,36
261
9,96
7,94
135
7,96
0,78
727
5,15
8,67
063
3,11
9,45
736
8,20
8,19
828
3,13
0,07
265
1,33
8,27
0
C. E
XCES
S/DE
FICI
ENC
Y68
,837
,462
(102
,654
,051
)(3
3,81
6,58
9)47
,642
,889
(97,
830,
369)
(50,
187,
480)
43,8
53,3
36(1
04,6
04,5
63)
(60,
751,
227)
D. O
THER
SO
URC
ES
1.
Inte
rfund
Tra
nsfe
rs In
8910
-892
956
4,06
70
564,
067
564,
067
056
4,06
756
4,06
70
564,
067
2. In
terfu
nd T
rans
fers
Out
7610
-762
9(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
(1,7
90,0
00)
0(1
,790
,000
)(1
,790
,000
)0
(1,7
90,0
00)
3. O
ther
Sou
rces
In89
30-8
979
00
00
00
00
04.
Oth
er U
ses
Out
7630
-769
90
00
00
00
00
5. C
ontri
b./R
estri
cted
Pro
gram
s89
80-8
999
(73,
104,
691)
73,1
04,6
910
(74,
004,
224)
74,0
04,2
240
(78,
961,
596)
78,9
61,5
960
0TO
TAL
SOU
RCES
/USE
S(7
4,33
0,62
4)73
,104
,691
(1,2
25,9
33)
(75,
230,
157)
74,0
04,2
24(1
,225
,933
)(8
0,18
7,52
9)78
,961
,596
(1,2
25,9
33)
Chan
ge to
Fun
d Ba
lanc
e(5
,493
,161
.98)
(29,
549,
359.
99)
(35,
042,
521.
97)
(27,
587,
267.
94)
(23,
826,
145.
33)
(51,
413,
413.
27)
(36,
334,
193.
20)
(25,
642,
966.
56)
(61,
977,
159.
76)
F. F
UND
BAL
ANC
E, R
ESER
VES
NET
BEG
INN
ING
BAL
ANC
E:17
,974
,961
38,6
12,8
9556
,587
,856
5,87
7,01
49,
063,
535
14,9
40,5
49(2
1,71
0,25
4)(1
4,76
2,61
1)(3
6,47
2,86
5)(6
,604
,785
)(6
,604
,785
)0
0 R
ESTA
TEM
ENTS
00
0
END
ING
BAL
ANC
E:5,
877,
014
9,06
3,53
514
,940
,549
(21,
710,
254)
(14,
762,
611)
(36,
472,
865)
(58,
044,
447)
(40,
405,
577)
(98,
450,
024)
COM
PON
ENTS
OF
ENDI
NG
BAL
ANC
E:R
EVO
LVIN
G C
ASH
150,
000
015
0,00
015
0,00
00
150,
000
150,
000
015
0,00
0PR
EPAI
D0
00
STO
RES
00
00
00
00
0R
EQU
IRED
RES
ERVE
2.00
%12
,435
,159
012
,435
,159
12,6
62,3
900
12,6
62,3
9013
,026
,766
013
,026
,766
Lega
lly R
estri
cted
9,06
3,53
59,
063,
535
(14,
762,
611)
(14,
762,
611)
(40,
405,
577)
(40,
405,
577)
Oth
er C
omm
itmen
ts0
00
00
0
00
00
00
0
00
00
0UN
APPR
OPR
IATE
D(6
,708
,144
.87)
0.00
(6,7
08,1
44.8
7)(3
4,52
2,64
3.81
)0.
00(3
4,52
2,64
3.81
)(7
1,22
1,21
3.01
)0.
00(7
1,22
1,21
3.01
)
AU
DIT
AD
JUST
MEN
T
253
Exhibit O
AB1840 Estimated CostsACOE 2018-19 October November December January February March April May June Total Hours Days Rate CostCounty Superintendent 10 60 90 100 100 60 60 60 60 600 75.0 $1,575 $118,125Associate Superintendent 10 60 90 110 120 80 100 100 80 750 93.8 $1,375 $128,906Chief of Staff 10 60 80 100 100 90 60 60 60 620 77.5 $975 $75,563ACOE Staff (various) 5 10 30 30 15 15 15 15 15 150 20.0 $600 $12,000ACOE Contractor A 10 10 20 10 10 40 40 40 40 220 27.5 $800 $22,000ACOE Contractor B 10 10 20 10 0 0 0 0 0 50 6.3 $800 $5,000External Contractor A 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 400 50.0 $1,650 $82,500External Contractor B 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 400 50.0 $1,650 $82,500External Contractor C 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 400 50.0 $1,650 $82,500External Contractor D 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 400 50.0 $1,650 $82,500External Contractor E 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 100 100 400 50.0 $1,650 $82,500
Total $774,094
AB1840 Estimated CostsACOE 2019-20 July-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Total Hours Days Rate CostCounty Superintendent 80 60 60 40 240 30.0 $1,600 $48,000Associate Superintendent 120 120 120 120 480 60.0 $1,400 $84,000Chief of Staff 40 40 60 40 180 22.5 $1,000 $22,500ACOE Staff (various) 40 60 40 40 180 24.0 $625 $15,000ACOE Contractor A 60 60 60 60 240 30.0 $800 $24,000External Contractor A 300 300 300 300 1200 150.0 $1,650 $247,500External Contractor B 300 300 300 300 1200 150.0 $1,650 $247,500External Contractor C 300 300 300 300 1200 150.0 $1,650 $247,500External Contractor D 300 300 300 300 1200 150.0 $1,650 $247,500External Contractor E 300 300 300 300 1200 150.0 $1,650 $247,500
Total $1,431,000
AB1840 Estimated CostsACOE 2020-21 July-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Total Hours Days Rate CostCounty Superintendent 40 40 20 20 120 15.0 $1,625 $24,375Associate Superintendent 90 60 40 40 230 28.8 $1,425 $40,969Chief of Staff 40 20 20 10 90 11.3 $1,025 $11,531ACOE Staff (various) 40 30 30 20 120 16.0 $650 $10,400ACOE Contractor A 60 60 60 60 240 30.0 $800 $24,000External Contractor A 300 300 300 200 1100 137.5 $1,650 $226,875External Contractor B 300 300 300 200 1100 137.5 $1,650 $226,875External Contractor C 300 300 300 200 1100 137.5 $1,650 $226,875External Contractor D 300 300 200 200 1000 125.0 $1,650 $206,250External Contractor E 300 300 200 200 1000 125.0 $1,650 $206,250
Total $1,204,400
Projected Hours
Estimated Actual Hours Projected Hours
Projected Hours
254
Exhibit P
OUSD 2018-2020 Fiscal Vitality Plan Summary Fiscal Vitality Plan was introduced on Dec. 13, 2017 and is organized into three chapters - stability, recovery, vitality
Stability - short-term (one to six months) Recovery - medium-term (three to twelve months) Vitality - long-term (six to eighteen months)
FCMAT Risk Factors and Fiscal Vitality Plan-Responsive Recommendations
Risk Factor Rating Summary FCMAT Recommendations FVP-Responsive Recommendations
Deficit Spending No Adopt a plan to eliminate deficit spending 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4
Fund Balance No Monitor contributions and transfers to restricted programs
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Reserve for Economic Uncertainty
No Develop a plan to restore and maintain reserve 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7
Enrollment and Attendance
Mixed Monitoring plan; new housing; industry, charter schools, birthrates, FTE changes
2.1
Cash Monitoring Mixed Plan for short-term cash flow needs; inter-fund transfers
1.9
Bargaining Agreement
No Bargaining beyond COLA must be supported by available fund balance
3.2
General Fund Mixed Track one-time revenues with one-time expenditures; plan for realignment or elimination of positions funded
1.3, 2.9
Encroachment No Special ed, nutrition and early childhood cost containment; evaluate transportation and bell schedules
1.7
Position Control and Human Resources
No Tracking, creating, and deleting positions; reconciling HR, budget and payroll systems
1.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8
Budget Development and Adoption
Yes Budget development timeline and procedures 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Multi-year Projections Yes Zero-based budgeting 2.2
Budget Monitoring and Updates
No Budget exception framework 2.4
Leadership Stability No Culture and practices that promote and support systematic reform
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
Internal Controls and Audit Reports
Yes Ensure continuity and consistency in the application of internal controls
2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8
General Ledger Mixed Strengthen communication among financial services departments
1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10
255
23 Recommendations for action to help rectify OUSD fiscal health Last available update online was March 14,2018
Stability - Short-Term (one to six months)
Rec # Recommendation Status
1.1 (Pg. 13)
Restore the ending fund balance and maintain the state-mandated reserve for economic uncertainty
Complete (OUSD Supt. email)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/11/19GaryShirene
The district overestimated their ADA for the prior year, resulting in an audit adjustment of $5.4M. Therewas an additional audit adjustment of $1.2M. Both reduce the fund balance. The district over-estimatedtheir current year ADA for an additional reduction of $2.4M. Their REU is projected to be below 2% forcurrent plus two years.
256
1.2 (Pg. 15)
Institute adjustments to existing Central Office positions In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
1.3 (Pg. 16)
Maximize the use of restricted revenue resources In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/8/19various
ACOE is monitoring proposed reductions of Central Office positions, their funding sources, and effects onoperations. The current official document is available on the OUSD website, entitled "18-2727 2019-20Appendix Proposed Staff Reduction and Position Funding Reallocation Impact Analysis (First Reading -2619)." The document specifies reductions in Operations, Academics, and Superintendent functions,along with projected savings.
2/7/19GaryThomasHernan
ACOE has completed a detailed analysis of locally restricted resources with large revenues andbalances. These are resources 0002-1400 and resources that roll up to 9010. The parcel tax resources of9332 (G1) and 9334 (G) require better management. The big restricted resources of 3010 (Title I) and6500(Special Education) need extensive analysis, not completed by ACOE, in an effort to reduceunrestricted contributions.
257
1.4 (Pg. 18)
Evaluate Central Office-based contracts and books/supplies for possible freeze and capture of savings
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
1.5 (Pg. 20)
Pursue capture of donated days and/or furlough In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/7/19GaryHernanThomas
ACOE has not completed a detailed analysis of contracts. The supplies budgets far exceed actualspending ($30M) and there is the possibility of large savings. The reason for the high balances is thedistrict budgets their ending balances to Object 4399, even in resources where these balances could beused differently.
258
1.6 (Pg. 21)
Adjust school per pupil allocations to capture savings In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
1.7 (Pg. 22)
Institute closer monitoring of contributions to other programs, e.g., special education, nutrition, and early childhood
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/11/19Gary
The district has high interfund transfers to Fund 13 Cafeteria and contributions to special education.ACOE does not have the capacity to evaluate these programs in great detail. No analysis of Fund 12Child Development has been attempted and ACOE does not have the capacity. Help from consultantscould benefit ACOE and the district.
259
1.8 (Pg. 23)
Update and implement budget forecast and projection practices In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
1.9 (Pg. 25)
Review and update cash flow monitoring practices In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/11/19ShireneGaryThomasHernanTeresa
Since the conditional approval of the district's budget, ACOE has increased its involvement in trying togather data to justify the district's assumptions and projections: enrollment, ADA, LCFF sources, 1% costof raises to all units, step & column calculations, unspecified other adjustments, H&W costs, unauditedactuals to CY budget, actual expenditures and encumbrances to CY budget, use of parcel taxes,budgeting of MAA, Mandated Costs, and Lottery, budgeting and spending of supplies, and other outgo.
2/11/19GaryThomasHernan
ACOE conducted its normal review of cash flow during the technical review of First Interim (ShireneMoreira). ACOE continues to conduct extensive analysis of cash flow, comparing actual spending toprojected budget. ACOE has received information from the district that indicates any proposed raises arebeing analyzed with cash flow in mind.
260
1.10 (Pg. 27)
Institute immediate protocols to limit and review spending among Central Office and school sites
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
261
Recovery - Medium-Term (three to twelve months)
Rec # Recommendation Status
2.1 (Pg. 29)
Plan for and adopt a balanced budget that avoids future deficit spending In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2.2 (Pg. 31)
Establish and conduct zero-based budgeting sessions with all Central Office practices
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
No approved plan has been received from the district.
262
2.3 (Pg. 33)
Research, engage and implement a Central Office reorganization In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2.4 (Pg. 35)
Institute and conduct monthly central office and school site budget monitoring practices
Not Started (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2/8/19DanEricGary
Reviewing organization charts and responsibilities to determine how to assist the district in reorganizingits Central Office. Consultant groups and individuals are being evaluated to determine their ability toassist.
263
2.5 (Pg. 36)
Review, update and implement effective position control practices Not Started (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2.6 (Pg. 38)
Develop a process for pre-approval of extra time employee payments In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
264
2.7 (Pg. 39)
Review and implement revised contract approval, processing and management procedures
Not Started (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
2.8 (Pg. 41)
Complete transition to Escape technology system to manage finance and human resource (HR) information
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Doug OUSD has completed the transition to the ACOE Escape Online 5 system. As of July 1, 2018, Escape Online 5 is OUSD’s system of record. ACOE is currently providing Escape support to OUSD for most areas of the software. OUSD is still working with Escape for payroll support. They are also working with Escape on some additional district specific customizations.
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
265
2.9 (Pg. 43)
Review and execute on shifts in expenses that maximize the use of restricted funds
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
Shirene The District has made progress since prior year in addressing the use of restricted funds. Some of thisdiscussion came up during their budget development during LCAP planning.
266
Vitality - Long-Term (six to eighteen months)
Rec # Recommendation Status
3.1 (Pg. 45)
Review and engage school district and school leaders to re-establish appropriate budget roles and responsibility
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
3.2 (Pg. 47)
Establish systems for the management and oversight of bargaining agreements
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates
267
3.3 (Pg. 49)
Consider and act on recommendations from the Blueprint for Quality Schools review
In Progress (3.14.18 report)
Date & Name: ACOE Updates
Date & Name: OUSD Updates