PCS Community Forum on Facilities

2. PCS Community Forum on Facilities October 21, 2008

3. Goals • Provide accurate and honest information • Listen to and respond to what people want to know • Hear ideas and suggestions of what should be done next • Give people an idea of what they can do to help bring this to a positive resolution

4. Agenda Three informational presentations: • History and Background on the Current Use Agreement—John Hamstra • Prop 39--Dina Hoffman • Facility Alternatives---Ken Cole

5. Record Questions on 3 x 5 cards • Write down questions • Ideas/Solutions • What you are willing/motivated to do • Please always write clearly and write your name on each card • Pass them to the front or the ends of the aisles

6. A Brief History of the PCS – SCCS Facilities Discussion John Hamstra PCS Facilities Chair from 2000-2006

7. Fall 2003: The first effective date for Prop 39 • Constructive discussions with superintendent Roy Nelson began in the fall of 2002 • The discussion continued with succeeding superintendent, Keith Parkhurst • SCCS planned to offer 8 classrooms at B-40 Junior High • PCS suggested 2 classrooms at Westlake • Agreement was quickly reached on the Westlake arrangement

8. Fall 2004 • SCCS Board grapples with elementary re-alignment in fall and winter, 03-04 • District acts to close Natural Bridges and B-40 Elementary, January 2004 • Throughout this time, PCS engaged in constructive discussion with superintendent Alan Pagano • District board members participated in formal and informal discussions

9. The Five-year Use Agreement • PCS was interested in the B-40 Elementary site – not available • Swift St. had potential to provide adequate instructional space, and a cap on enrollment • The discussion, while long, was collaborative • Parties negotiated a multi-year agreement • PCS sought 5+5, District offered 5 + 3

10. In-District and Out-of-District • The Use Agreement recognizes a special set of circumstances • The Use Agreement recognizes the Prop 39 obligation • The Option to Renew was to be guided by relevant law and statewide practice

11. The Three-Year Extension • PCS attempted contact with SCCS administration and board in spring 2007 • PCS attempted contact with SCCS administration and board in fall 2007 • Parties met once, in February, 2008 • All subsequent communication came from district counsel • PCS made a second offer, at $200,000 • Now, as then, county superintendent Watkins offers to help bring parties to the table

12. Dina Hoffman PCS Facilities Committee Member

13. Proposition 39 Summary In November 2000, Proposition 39 amended Education Code Section 47614 to require each school district to provide all of a charter school’s in-district students with school facilities which are “reasonably equivalent” to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other public schools in the district.

14. Proposition 39: Intent The intent of the law “is that public school facilities should be shared fairly among all public school pupils, including those in charter schools.” Education Code Section 47614(a)

15. Facilities to be provided by SCCS Each school district shall make available, to each charter school operating in the school district, facilities sufficient for the charter school to accommodate all of the charter school’s in-district students in conditions reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending other public schools of the district. [Education Code Section 47614(a)]

16. Facilities to be provided by SCCS Facilities provided shall be contiguous, furnished and equipped… The school district shall make reasonable efforts to provide the charter school with facilities near to where the charter school wishes to locate, and shall not move the charter school unnecessarily. [Education Code Section 47614(b)]

17. Cost for Facilities The school district may charge the charter school a pro rata share (based on the ratio of space allocated by the school district to the charter school divided by the total space of the district) of those school district facilities costs which the school district pays for with unrestricted general fund revenues. [Education Code Section 47614(b)(1)]

18. District can charge fair market value for out of district students The Santa Cruz City Schools District is not obligated to provide space to our students who are not in-district students. The District may only charge their “facilities costs” for the space used by in-district students, and can charge PCS “fair market value” rent for the out-of-district students.

19. Average facilities costs Average facilities costs charged other California charter schools run from $0.44 to $1.00 per square foot per year; average fair market value rental costs for schools run from $12 to $14 per square foot per year.

20. Calculations still need to be done We will need more information from the district to calculate their actual facilities costs, but we have reason to believe that the rental amount we have been paying (an average of $200,000 per year) probably exceeds the amount we would have to pay under Proposition 39 for in-district students even including payment of fair market rental value for out-of-district students.

21. Can PCS move out of the District? PCS is obligated to remain within the boundaries of the Santa Cruz City School District because it originally applied for a charter from the Santa Cruz City School District. Education Code Section 47605((j)(1) requires a charter school who appeals such a rejection and is approved by the County Office of Education, as PCS did, to remain within the boundaries of the original rejecting district.

22. PCS’ out of district studentsprovide revenue to SCCS If maximizing funds is important to the District, to deny space to the out-of-district students is adverse to their financial interest, but they have no obligation to rent PCS space for these students.

23. The timeline for the Proposition 39 process • November 1: Charter notifies district of need for upcoming year. PCS has submitted its Proposition 39 Request for Facilities. • December 1: District raises concerns or objections, if any • January 2: Charter must respond to objections by modifying or reaffirming original request • February 1: District provides written preliminary facilities proposal • March 1: Charter responds in writing to preliminary offer, expressing concerns or making counterproposal • April 1: District must provide detailed, final facilities proposal • May 1 (or 30 days after final facility proposal): Charter notifies district of intent to occupy facility

24. Discussions between PCS and SCCS At any time both sides can sit down to discuss going forward; absent that, the above dates are the last dates for the actions indicated as set forth in the regulations implementing the provisions of Proposition 39.

25. PCS Facilities Alternatives Ken Cole PCS Facilities Chair

26. Alternative #1 • Current Location • 255 Swift Street • Multi-Year • Improvements negotiated

27. Alternative #2 • Prop 39 Facilities • Local High School • Requested annually • Other space leased nearby as needed

28. Alternative #3 • Leased space • New non-SCCS site • Multi or Single year approach • “Failsafe Mode”

29. Alternative #4 • Long term lease/purchase or purchase land/build • Capital Campaign and Charter School financing • Permanent home • “Dream Mode”

30. Follow-up Check the PCS Website for more information in the days and weeks ahead: www.pacficcollegiate.com