BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 1404
AUTHOR: Hancock
INTRODUCED: February 24, 2012
FISCAL COMM: No HEARING DATE: April 18, 2012
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
SUBJECT : Civic Center Act.
SUMMARY
This bill expands the authority of a school district
governing board to charge fees for the use of its school
facilities and grounds under the Civic Center Act.
BACKGROUND
Current law, known as the "civic center act" declares that
at every public school facility and grounds there is a
civic center where the governing board of the school
district may grant various organizations, clubs, and
associations, some of which are specified, the opportunity
to engage in supervised recreation and meet and discuss
subjects pertaining to the interests of the citizens of the
communities in which they reside.
The school district governing board is authorized to set
terms and conditions for this use of public school
facilities and grounds, and some conditions are specified
in statute. In addition, the governing board is authorized
to charge an amount not to exceed its direct costs for use
of its facilities by any entity. Current law defines
direct cost as costs of supplies, utilities, janitorial
services, services of any other district employees, and
salaries paid school district employees necessitate by the
organization's use of the school district's
facilities/grounds.
In the case of entertainments or meetings where admission
is charged or contributions are solicited, and the
receipts are not expended for the welfare of the district's
students, districts are required to charge a fee equal to
SB 1404
Page 2
fair rental value. Current law defines "fair rental value"
as the direct costs to the districts plus the amortized
costs of the facilities or grounds used for the duration of
the authorized activity. (Education Code § 38130- 38139)
Current law authorizes the governing board of a school
district to require persons other than students, or
organizations that wish to use recreational facilities that
are on school grounds or are provided by a district at a
community recreation center and maintained solely by the
district, to pay fees, as prescribed by the board. (EC §
10912)
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Restricts the authority of a school district to
require persons or organizations that desire to use
recreational facilities on school grounds or provided
by a district at a community recreation center to
charge a fee.
2) Expands the definition of "direct costs" which a
school district is authorized to charge for the use of
its facilities and grounds under the Civic Center Act
to include:
a) The share of the costs, as
specified, to operate and maintain school
facilities or grounds proportional to the use of
the facilities or grounds by the entity using
them.
b) The share of amortized costs of
repair, refurbishment, or replacement of school
facilities or grounds (including artificial turf)
proportional to the use by the entity.
c) Costs incurred by the entity that
would not otherwise be incurred by the affected
school district.
3) Authorizes a district, in determining direct costs to
consider costs incurred generally, rather than those
SB 1404
Page 3
incurred at a specific facility by a particular
entity.
4) Replaces the current authority of a school district to
charge a "fair rental fee" for certain specified uses
with the authority to charge "fair market value," as
defined.
5) Defines fair market value as the price determined by
the governing board of a school district as the most
probable price that the use of the property would
bring in a competitive and open market, as specified.
6) Makes a number of technical changes.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . Current law authorizes a school
district to charge fees for use of their grounds or
facilities that cover direct costs, i.e. the
incremental costs to the district caused by the
community organization's use. However, current law
does not allow the inclusion of any of the district's
cost to maintain the facilities in condition for use
by the public or students or to replace equipment such
as artificial turf, track surfaces, or gym floors,
which are worn out over time.
2) Districts' strained general fund . Maintenance costs
for facilities and grounds are generally covered under
a district's general fund budget. State budget cuts
have resulted in many districts being unable to set
aside funds to maintain or repair facilities and
grounds. In addition, in order to provide districts
with the flexibility to meet their local needs, the
Legislature and Governor, through the Budget Act, have
authorized the flexibility to use some categorical
funds for any purpose until 2014-15. These include
deferred maintenance funds, generally used for major
repair or replacement of plumbing, heating, air
conditioning, electrical, roofing, and floor systems,
painting, and other items. The challenge of
maintaining facilities and grounds are further
exacerbated by the use of facilities and grounds by
non-profit organizations, sports leagues, and
community organizations. Given the realities of the
SB 1404
Page 4
state's fiscal condition and the impact this has had
on school districts, it appears that without some
additional source of funding, districts may be unable
to ensure the ongoing maintenance of school facilities
and grounds for their intended purposes.
3) Permanent response to a temporary problem ? The Civic
Center Act was enacted ostensibly to ensure public
access to publicly funded facilities for purposes that
benefit the community. Current law provides for the
recoup of costs related to the use of the
buildings/grounds, but did not envision "user fees" to
the non-profit organizations, sports leagues, and
community organizations that use school facilities and
grounds to promote youth and school activities. While
it is clear that the current fiscal condition of the
state has affected the ability of districts to
currently meet what some would argue was the original
intent of the Act, should the authority to impose user
fees to recover district maintenance costs be extended
in perpetuity? Or, should the authority be granted for
an interim period in order to ensure that, as economic
conditions improve, the original intent of the act can
be honored? Staff recommends the bill be amended to
set a five year sunset on the bill's provisions.
4) Greater flexibility is the goal . This bill currently
amends provisions of the Civic Center Act and
provisions governing the fees which may be charged to
non-students and organizations under community
recreation program provisions in an effort to broaden
school districts authority to charge fees for the use
of facilities and grounds. Under community recreation
program provisions a school district is authorized to
charge fees for use of school facilities and grounds
as prescribed by the board, a much broader authority
than that authorized under the Civic Center Act. This
bill appears to limit that authority by imposing the
fee requirements for facility use applicable under the
Civic Center Act, potentially undermining the bill's
intent. Staff recommends the bill be amended to delete
section 1 of the bill.
5) Capital costs versus operations and maintenance costs .
SB 1404
Page 5
This bill currently includes the share of amortized
costs of repair, refurbishment or replacement in the
definition of direct costs which a district may charge
for the use of school facilities or grounds. While It
seems reasonable that school districts need some
relief in responding to general fund pressures that
have made it difficult to meet the operation and
maintenance costs necessary to ensure the continued
use of facilities and grounds by the community,
capital outlay costs for replacement of facilities are
typically funded through state and/or local bond
funds. Should user fees be the source of funding for
replacing facilities and grounds? Shouldn't these be
subject to a determination at the local level that
voters are willing to increase their local costs
through long term bonds or parcel taxes in order to
meet these needs? Staff recommends the bill be amended
to delete "replacement" costs from the definition of
direct costs and to replace the existing definition in
(g) (1) (A) (ii) with "The share of the costs for
maintenance, repair, restoration and refurbishment,
proportional to the use of the school facilities or
grounds under this section" and to delete (g) (1) (A)
(iii).
6) Fair market value for using public buildings ? This
bill replaces the authority to charge a fair rental
value with the authority to charge a much more
ambiguous "fair market value." Should the fee to use a
publicly funded building be based upon the fees that a
privately financed and owned building might garner?
How many times should taxpayers be asked to pay for
the same building? Given the changes to the definition
of direct costs proposed by the bill, fair rental
value would now include the costs of repair, restoral,
and refurbishment of those facilities as well as,
under current law, amortized costs of the building.
How much more fee discretion for the use of a public
building is necessary? Staff recommends that lines
22-27 on page 4 be deleted and that current law
defining "fair rental value" be restored.
7) Beyond a user fee . This bill authorizes a school
district to determine direct costs by considering
SB 1404
Page 6
general costs attributable to a category of
facilities, rather than the costs related to the use
of a specific facility by a particular entity. This
would seem to go beyond the creation of user fees
related to proportional use of a facility to ensure
that it can be maintained. Should the Legislature
authorize what appears to be a shift of broader
general facilities costs to non-profit organizations,
sports leagues, and community organizations? Staff
recommends that lines 17-21 on page 4 be deleted.
8) Regulations . It is unclear how districts might
calculate what constitutes a proportionate share of
costs, and what costs would be captured under the new
definition of direct costs. The regulatory process
could provide an opportunity to ensure some
consistency in the way that districts operationalize
this authority while maintaining the flexibility to
make modifications as necessary. Staff recommends the
bill be amended to direct the State Board of Education
to develop regulations to guide the determination of
proportionate share and the specific allowable costs
that a district may include as "direct costs."
SUPPORT
Association of California School Administrators (ACSA)
Los Angeles Unified School District
Piedmont Unified School District
Riverside County School Superintendents' Association
San Diego Unified School District
San Francisco Unified School District
OPPOSITION
California State Alliance of YMCAs
SB 1404
Page 7