BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                     SB 705


                                                                    Page  1





          SENATE THIRD READING


          SB  
          705 (Hill)


          As Amended  July 9, 2015


          Majority vote


          SENATE VOTE:  21-13


           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |Committee       |Votes|Ayes                  |Noes                |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Education       |5-2  |O'Donnell, McCarty,   |Chávez, Kim         |
          |                |     |Santiago, Thurmond,   |                    |
          |                |     |Weber                 |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
          |Appropriations  |12-5 |Gomez, Bloom, Bonta,  |Bigelow, Chang,     |
          |                |     |Calderon, Daly,       |Gallagher, Jones,   |
          |                |     |Eggman, Eduardo       |Wagner              |
          |                |     |Garcia, Holden,       |                    |
          |                |     |Quirk, Rendon, Weber, |                    |
          |                |     |Wood                  |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
          |                |     |                      |                    |
           ------------------------------------------------------------------ 


          SUMMARY:  Requires a school district, within 10 days of receipt  








                                                                     SB 705


                                                                    Page  2





          of a facilities request from a charter school or making a  
          preliminary offer or final offer of facilities to a charter  
          school, to post the information on the school district's  
          Internet Web site.  Specifies that "preliminary offer" includes  
          situations in which the school district reasonably anticipates  
          that a public school facility located in a district-operated  
          school will be allocated to a charter school.


          FISCAL EFFECT:  According to the Assembly Appropriations  
          Committee, Proposition 98 (1988)/General Fund state mandated  
          costs, likely in the low tens of thousands, for school districts  
          to post facility proposals or requests on their Web site.  


          COMMENTS:  In 2000, voters passed Proposition 39 (2000), which  
          gave districts the opportunity to seek approval of a local  
          education bond based on a 55% vote rather than a two-thirds vote  
          under specified conditions.  The initiative also enacted  
          provisions in the Education Code to require school districts to  
          make school facilities available to charter schools with at  
          least 80 units of average daily attendance operating in the  
          district.  Facilities are required to be reasonably equivalent  
          to facilities pupils would receive if the pupils were to attend  
          district schools.  School districts are required to make  
          reasonable efforts to provide the charter school with facilities  
          near where the charter school wishes to be located.  Facilities  
          provided by the district shall be contiguous, furnished, and  
          equipped.  School districts are allowed to charge a pro rata  
          share of any facilities costs the school district pays for with  
          general fund revenues. 


          Under regulations specified in California Code of Regulations  
          Title 5, charter schools and school districts are required to  
          comply with the following timeline:


          1)On or before November 1, a charter school is required to  








                                                                     SB 705


                                                                    Page  3





            submit a written facilities request for facilities for the  
            following school year including a projection of the number of  
            in-district pupils who will be attending the charter school. 


          2)On or before December 1, the school district is required to  
            express any disagreement with the projected number of pupils  
            and provide a projection the district considers reasonable.


          3)On or before January 2, the charter school responds to the  
            district's objections and either reaffirms or modifies its  
            previous projections.


          4)On or before February 1, the school district provides a  
            written preliminary proposal regarding the space to be  
            allocated to the charter school.


          5)On or before March 1, the charter school is required to  
            respond in writing to the school district's preliminary  
            proposal.


          6)On or before April 1, the school district is required to  
            submit in writing a final notification of space offered to the  
            charter school.


          What does this bill do?  This bill requires a school district,  
          within 10 days of receiving a facilities request from a charter  
          school or making a preliminary offer or final offer of  
          facilities to a charter school, to post the information on the  
          school district's Internet Web site.


          The author introduced this bill in response to parent and  
          community concerns following the San Mateo Union High School  








                                                                     SB 705


                                                                    Page  4





          District's decision to co-locate a charter school with an  
          existing high school, Mills High School, in Millbrae.  According  
          to the author's office, members of the community expressed  
          concerns about the lack of community engagement and transparency  
          in the process and raised concerns about potential traffic,  
          scheduling and overcrowding problems at the schoolsite.  


          According to the California Department of Education (CDE), Mills  
          High School had an enrollment of 1,232 in 2013-14.  According to  
          the author's office, the capacity at the schoolsite is 1,454.   
          The charter school opened with 140 9th graders in the 2014-15  
          school year, but is expected to grow to about 600 when all four  
          grade levels are reached.  The charter school was given six  
          classrooms, resulting in nine Mills High School teachers having  
          to share classrooms.  Common areas such as the library and the  
          gym are shared by the two schools.  The district ultimately  
          formed a task force to help the two schools determine how best  
          to share the facility for the 2014-15 school year and found that  
          keeping the charter school at that schoolsite is not feasible  
          long-term and will impact the educational programs of both  
          schools.  The local newspaper, The Daily Journal, reported  
          teachers' concerns that sharing classrooms will impact their  
          ability to do prep work and keep a classroom organized, which  
          could potentially impact the education of students.  


          Proposition 39 requirement.  The premise behind the Proposition  
          39 requirement was to give charter schools access to district  
          facilities.  Implementation has been challenging for some  
          districts, with lawsuits filed in several areas.  Not all  
          districts have surplus property, and if they do, the property  
          may not be located where the charters wish to reside.   
          Co-locating charters with existing schools is not uncommon,  
          although logistically and administratively challenging.  This  
          bill simply requires a district to post information on the  
          school district's Internet Web site within 10 days of receiving  
          a request by a charter school or upon making a preliminary or  
          final offer to a charter school.  The prior version of this bill  








                                                                     SB 705


                                                                    Page  5





          would have required a school district to provide written  
          notification to a school and parents and guardians of students  
          of the school of a potential co-location.  According to the CDE,  
          as of 2013-14, there were 1,125 charter schools enrolling  
          approximately 514,000 of the state's 6.2 million students.   




          Analysis Prepared by:                                             
                          Sophia Kwong Kim / ED. / (916) 319-2087  FN:  
          0001437