Much restrictions for how they could take it out, its been growing so that 25 percent, once weve established our eligibility for that certain year has been a lot and certainly in the years we were most desperate because with the budget issues, so i dont why should there be a restriction on how much we could take in one year . I do understand that should this language as proposed go through, we could change that rule 2 3 of the board could change that rule so maybe we want that limitation of 50 percent in any one year because its sort of a its kind of a restriction on us that keeps us sort of actually having a Rainy Day Fund ourselves, saving it because budget problems dont tend to happen only in one year. Unless we do it to ourselves, but for actual revenue problems are cyclical so, you know, we dont want to spend the whole thing one year if we might need it the following year. I appreciate youre saying that, that came from the controller, but now that were talking about it, its raisin
Is one change, but in technical terms, that would be less than 25 percent of the whole balance in the rainy day reserve, but at least there would be certainty about that. Thats why we think there would be less money. Thank you. I want to follow up on that. This is where my antenna goes up because i want to make sure we thought through the whole thing. Clearly there are people that beyond the Rating Agency issue think this is a better situation for them. So i mean, i havent i have to confess and i havent read through your whole memo that you sent us so you may have done this, but it just seems to me, like, if you could play out the scenarios of the last few years i mean, i understand those conversations were very id owe sin cattic but if you look at the city had this much in the fund and this is the amount that we were the gross amount we were entitled to regard less of what we actually agreed to or negotiated, i wonder if we should do some comparison that way. Do you know what i mean .
[inaudible] or whether or not we would be getting [inaudible]. Not in the materials that i went through tonight, but yesterday i sent an email with scenarios and calculations to you. Its hard to tell because its speculative. We dont know what the among other things, we dont know what the policymakers of the city would do in the future, including the near future about making draws or appropriations to the district under the current language so its part of this depends on one zone predictions about how likely and for how long the city would continue to appropriate funds from the rainy day reserve to the district so in my view, it is certainly not guaranteed that the city would continue to make appropriations to the district as theyve done for the last four or five years, at least indefinitely, especially as our own revenues hopefully will continue to increase as the lcff rolls outs and gets implemented. We could see that each year wed certainly make the case, but even in bad years weve h
Supporting the amendment. I think one of the toughest tasks the members have had has had to do with lay offs. Really just a terrible situation and so your first bull let bullet point, im very interested in seeing that change. I think if we think about the lay off process that weve had to go through in the past years, its very cruel and unusual punishment for or valuable assets so im interested in making this charter amendment. Commissioner [inaudible]. I had a question. Go ahead. Were you going to two questions. One, do we know who would introduce this next week . Ive had some discussion with supervisor kim and will be meeting with her tomorrow morning to go through the specific language. And the other question is really sort of where this proposal came from originally. I mean, so this idea that the restriction that we would only withdraw 30 percent in a particular year and was that our idea, was that brought to us by the mayors office. How did this particular structure evolve . We tal
Problem. If thats done im okay. Any other questions, comments . You mentioned none of this is set in stone, so can we 60, 40, instead of 75, 25 . Just kidding. My suggestion about this is [inaudible] or whether or not we would be getting [inaudible]. Not in the materials that i went through tonight, but yesterday i sent an email with scenarios and calculations to you. Its hard to tell because its speculative. We dont know what the among other things, we dont know what the policymakers of the city would do in the future, including the near future about making draws or appropriations to the district under the current language so its part of this depends on one zone predictions about how likely and for how long the city would continue to appropriate funds from the rainy day reserve to the district so in my view, it is certainly not guaranteed that the city would continue to make appropriations to the district as theyve done for the last four or five years, at least indefinitely, especiall