Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Charter Facilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

SFUSD proposes raising Prop 39 facility fee to $2.79 per square foot; charters warn of strain

San Francisco Unified School District Board of Education · January 29, 2013
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SFUSD staff recommended recalculating Prop 39 pro rata facility rates (moving from $0.95 to $2.79/sq ft in two steps); charter representatives said the proposed 181% increase could force schools to shift funds from classrooms and asked for detailed cost rationale.

District staff presented an information item revising the methodology used to calculate Prop 39 pro rata-share charges for charter schools and recommended increasing the per-square-foot fee. Michael Davis, a district facilities official, told the board that after reviewing Title 5 provisions and district inventory, staff concluded the fee should be $2.79 per square foot and proposed phasing the increase (to $1.87 in the first year and $2.79 thereafter) to mitigate immediate impact.

Davis said the methodology used interior square footage and applicable unrestricted general fund costs to derive the rate and that preliminary facility offers to affected charter schools would state the proposed fee and the district’s methodology. He said the district had notified charter schools and would provide a facilities use agreement after May 1 for final board ratification.

Hilary Harmsen, a regional director for the California Charter Schools Association, spoke on behalf of charter operators and said the proposed increase would amount to an 181 percent rise in facility costs over two years, potentially forcing a school with a 20,000-square-foot facility to pay an additional $34,400 annually and divert funds from instruction. Harmsen asked the district to provide the legal rationale and a detailed cost breakdown and requested additional time for discussions.

Board members asked staff about the timing of prior reviews and whether the district had been transparent about the recalculation; staff said the district had discussed the need to recalculate in prior offers and would provide a written legal rationale and cost data to charters. Several board members expressed support for maximizing revenue from district real estate while urging staff to communicate clearly and allow charter schools time to plan. No formal vote was taken; the item was presented as an information item with follow-up to come.

"The Prop 39 facility use fee proposal in front of you would result in a 181% increase in facilities costs for charter schools in just two years," a charter representative told the board, urging that the district share detailed methodology and projected costs.

Next steps: the district will send preliminary offers to charter schools (including methodology) and bring facilities use agreements to the board for review after the Prop 39 offer process is complete.