March 1, 2017 Superintendent Rick Bagley, PhD Ross Valley School District 110 Shaw Drive San Anselmo, CA 94960 Re:

Ross Valley Charter Response to District Preliminary Proposal Proposition 39 2017-2018

Superintendent Bagley: Ross Valley Charter (“RVC” or “Charter School”) is in receipt of the Ross Valley School District’s (“District”) January 31, 2017 letter (“Preliminary Proposal”) regarding RVC’s request for facilities under Proposition 39 (“Prop. 39”) for the 2017-2018 school year. The District’s Preliminary Proposal is for exclusive use of “Building 100” at White Hill Middle School (“WHMS”) with the exception of Rooms 106, 107, 108, 109 and 111. RVC’s allocated exclusive use space in “Building 100” includes 8 “regular classrooms” (6 classrooms for grades K-3 and 2 classrooms for grades 4-5), a “counseling room,” office/conference/staff/workspace rooms, custodial/storage rooms, 1 a nurse’s room, a serving area, and student and adult restrooms. The Preliminary Proposal also offers use of the multi-purpose room, library and outdoor play area to RVC for 20% of each school day. The District’s Preliminary Proposal is based on a projected in-District classroom ADA of 181.5. Section 11969.9(g) of the Proposition 39 Implementing Regulations (the “Implementing Regulations”) requires RVC to respond to the District’s Preliminary Proposal, to express any concerns, address differences between the preliminary proposal and the charter school’s facilities request as submitted pursuant to subdivision (b), and/or make counter proposals. RVC does not believe the Preliminary Proposal meets the legal requirements of Prop. 39, in part, because the Preliminary Proposal lacks sufficient information regarding the manner in which the District calculated the allocation of teaching stations, specialized classroom space, and non-teaching station space and the District’s pro rata share calculation. RVC also has concerns

1

RVC notes that the site map provided by the District does not identify the location of Rooms 115 and 116, two custodial/storage rooms allocated to RVC.

P.O. Box 791 • Fairfax, CA • 94978

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 2

with the draft Facilities Use Agreement (“FUA”) included with the District’s Preliminary Proposal, which are included in a non-exhaustive list below. RVC, as outlined below, believes that if the District had followed the law and provided the reasonably equivalent facilities required by law, RVC would be entitled to the entire 100 building. Moreover, the entire 100 building is roughly the same amount of space that sits vacant and deteriorating at Red Hill that RVC would like to have rented and fixed up at RVC’s own expense under an in lieu agreement. But in the interest of continuing to try to find common ground with the District and as a gesture of good will and attempting to minimize impact on White Hill programs, RVC has decided to not ask for any additional classrooms in Building 100. Instead, in this counter proposal RVC is just requesting additional office spaces, Rooms 109 and 111, in the building, as well as some additional outside shared eating and playground space, and a few smaller items discussed below in sections a through i, required for an elementary school and clearly provided by the District at the District’s other elementary schools. Alternative Agreement RVC would like to propose a different allocation of Building 100 rooms than is included in the District’s Preliminary Proposal, as RVC is actually entitled to a considerable amount of additional specialized classroom and non-teaching station space (approx. 3,387.85 additional sq. ft. of building space and 37,570 total sq. ft. of outdoor space) and 9 teaching stations, rather than the 8 included in the District’s Preliminary Proposal. 2 RVC is requesting exclusive use of “Building 100” at WHMS with the exclusion of only Rooms 106, 107 and 108. RVC also requests exclusive use of the outdoor space behind Building 100 for an outdoor classroom area, and additional shared use of the outdoor picnic table dining area at WHMS located in front of Building 100 (approximately 20 tables plus benches.) In addition, RVC requests that the District provide RVC with a reasonably equivalent allocation of shared use playground space at WHMS, perhaps east of the basketball courts that are on the north edge of Lefty Gomez Field, where RVC could install, at its expense, a playground structure that WHMS and the public could use as well. RVC also requires the ability to use the tables and chairs located in the multi-purpose room, including some access to the space after school and occasional evenings/weekends for performances, meetings, professional development and other activities related to the operation of a public charter school. Since RVC (as described below) is entitled to 1 additional teaching station and approximately 3 additional classrooms 3 worth of interior specialized classroom and non-teaching station space above the 918 sq.ft. the District offered, the request for Rooms 109 and 111, totaling only 329 sq. ft. according to the District’s map, is conservative and represents RVC’s desire to be good neighbors including its willingness to sacrifice by opening its school with fewer students than originally planned.

2 3

All the non-teaching space square feet projections in this letter do not include bathroom or hallway space. Assuming 900 sq. ft. average for classrooms based on average classroom size in Building 100.

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 3

Location of the Facilities Red Hill Site In its Proposition 39 request, RVC stated that its “clear preference” was to locate at the District’s Red Hill site through an “in lieu” agreement with the District allowing RVC to lease classrooms and office space under a separately negotiated multi-year lease. RVC provided the District with a detailed explanation of the feasibility of this arrangement and why it believes this arrangement would be in the best interests of the entire Ross Valley. Red Hill has the amount of vacant space that RVC requires for its program. On December 12, 2016, RVC sent a letter to the District reiterating its request to be located at the Red Hill site and explicitly stating that RVC has offered, and continues to offer, to fund the improvements needed to re-open the site for its use. In light of the foregoing, RVC is dismayed by the District’s false claim that “Charter School expected the District to fund upgrades to the facility which is neither fiscally sound nor in the best interests of the District.” RVC’s prior communications with the District make it clear that RVC has no such expectation and RVC intends to expend its own funds to make Red Hill ready for occupancy. Further, the District provides no support for its allegation that RVC is unable to make necessary repairs and improvements to the Red Hill site. Of course, RVC understands that the necessary repairs and improvements to the Red Hill site will involve a considerable amount of time and preparation, and it is for this reason that RVC sought to lease and improve the site more than one year ago – an offer the District rejected – and RVC has continued to seek action from the District regarding this matter. RVC takes this opportunity to once again reiterate that it believes locating RVC at the Red Hill site is the best long-term facilities solution for RVC and the District. Manor and Brookside Sites Pursuant to Education Code § 47614(b), the District is required to make “reasonable efforts” to provide RVC “with facilities near to where the charter school wishes to locate.” In its Prop. 39 request for facilities for the 2017-2018 school year, RVC also noted its second choice would be to locate its entire in-District enrollment at Manor Elementary since most of its projected in-District students either currently attend Manor or live in its attendance area. RVC explained that due to declining enrollment at Manor and the significant number of students from Manor or the Manor area who have expressed meaningful interest in attending RVC in 2017-2018, RVC expected that at least 7-8 classrooms would be available for RVC at Manor. However, since RVC does not want to dislocate any District student from his/her current school site, it also proposed that the District split RVC between two schools if RVC’s facility needs, as calculated under 5 CCR 11969.3, could not be entirely met at Manor without dislocating any existing Manor students. RVC explained that Brookside is a viable option for a second location because Brookside could combine its four classrooms being used for intervention, resource, and Special Ed, into two classrooms (one special day class and one general purpose pull out room) based on the average teaching station square foot-to-ADA space allocated to resource, special education, EL, and intervention at the three other District elementary schools (excluding the Learning Centers). Brookside has approximately 11.42 sq. ft. of space for each (special ed, resource, El, and

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 4

intervention) ADA compared to 4.09 sq. ft/ADA for the other three elementary schools. If Brookside utilized only 2 rooms for these specialized purposes it would free up two classrooms. It is not clear whether Brookside, apart from the Learning Center, has a population of students that requires three times the space allocation of the other District schools or is just using otherwise empty classrooms because they are available. RVC also explained that Brookside has three fifth grade classrooms this year, and if the incoming Brookside Kindergarten class size is similar to the size of the last four years, it will only have two incoming kindergarten classrooms next fall, which would free up another classroom. In addition, the District houses its entire TK District program in two classrooms at Brookside. This is a transient one year population of students from all area schools that could be located on other elementary school campuses. However, the District determined that the only non-elementary school in the District, WHMS, presents the best option for both RVC and the District. The District claims that it chose WHMS because “it conforms to the requirement for a contiguous facility, minimizes overall student displacement, provides for separate ingress and egress, is a facility that meets the condition and capacity requirements of Proposition 39, and locates Charter School at the District’s facility best able to accommodate a co-located Charter School.” The District does not explain how the sites/location arrangements proposed by RVC fail to meet any of the elements upon which the District based its decision to locate RVC at WHMS (i.e. minimizing overall student displacement, providing for separate ingress and egress, meeting the condition and capacity requirements of Proposition 39, and accommodating a co-located Charter School). Further, choosing to locate RVC at WHMS denies RVC’s elementary students access to a play structure, which exists at the comparison schools. Notwithstanding the foregoing, RVC would like to accept the District’s proposed location of RVC at WHMS, with all rights reserved. The Condition of the Facilities A district must also determine whether a facility is reasonably equivalent by determining whether the condition of facilities provided to a charter school is reasonably equivalent to the condition of comparison group schools. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.3(c), the District must assess “such factors as age (from latest modernization), quality of materials, and state of maintenance.” The District must also assess the following factors: 1. School site size 2. The condition of interior and exterior surfaces 3. The condition of mechanical, plumbing, electrical, and fire alarm systems, including conformity to applicable codes 4. The availability and condition of technology infrastructure 5. The condition of the facility as a safe learning environment including, but not limited to, the suitability of lighting, noise mitigation, and size for intended use 6. The condition of the facility's furnishings and equipment 7. The condition of athletic fields and/or play area space The District did not perform this complete analysis in its Preliminary Proposal; the Preliminary Proposal states only that the District evaluated the above conditions and “In all aspects, White Hill Middle School, which has 12.7 usable acres, is reasonably equivalent and

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 5

perhaps superior to the comparison site schools.” The Preliminary Proposal does not assess any of the factors required by the Implementing Regulations, and thus has not complied with 5 CCR Section 11969.3(c). Comparison Schools The Implementing Regulations provide an analysis by which a school district must determine whether a facility is reasonably equivalent to those in which the students would be accommodated if they were attending public schools of the school district. First, pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.3(a), the District must identify a comparison group of district-operated schools with similar grade levels to RVC. 5 CCR Section 11969.3(a)(3) defines the process for identifying comparison schools in a school district whose students do not attend high school based on attendance areas as follows: [T]he comparison group shall be three schools in the school district with similar grade levels that the largest number of students of the charter school would otherwise attend. For school districts with fewer than three schools with similar grade levels, the comparison group shall be all schools in the school district with similar grade levels. RVC is concerned that the Preliminary Proposal is not based on the correct comparison group. The District’s Preliminary Proposal indicates that the District selected Manor, Brookside, Hidden Valley, and Wade Thomas (i.e. all of the K-5 schools in the District) as the comparison group schools “in accordance with section 11969.3(a)(2) of the Regulations.” However, section 11969.3(a)(2) of the Regulations does not apply to the District as there is no high school within the District. As noted above, for school districts whose students do not attend high school based on attendance area, the comparison group are the three schools in the school district with similar grade levels that the largest number of students of the charter school would otherwise attend (unless the school district has fewer than three schools with grade levels similar to the charter school). Notwithstanding the foregoing, RVC accepts the District’s identified comparison schools for RVC, with all rights reserved. Allocation of Teaching Stations As you are aware, all California public school students are entitled to learn in a classroom that is safe, that is not crowded with too many students, and that is conducive to a supportive learning environment. Title 5, California Code of Regulations § 11969.3(b)(1) requires that facilities made available by the District are provided to RVC in the same ratio of teaching stations (classrooms) to ADA as those provided to students in the District attending comparison group schools. The allocation cannot be based upon the District’s “loading standard,” nor can it be based on an arbitrary and fabricated formula. In responding to RVC’s request for classroom space, the District must follow the three-step process, as explained in California Charter Schools Assn. v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist. (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1221:

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 6

First, the district must identify comparison group schools as section 11969.3(a) prescribes. Second, the district must count the number of classrooms in the comparison group schools using the section 1859.31 inventory and then adjust the number to reflect those classrooms “provided to” students in the comparison group schools. Third, the district must use the resulting number as the denominator in the ADA/classroom ratio for allocating classrooms to charter schools based on their projected ADA. (Id. at p. 1241, emphasis added.) In calculating the number of classrooms that the District will make available to the Charter School, the District must count the number of classrooms in the comparison group schools and cannot use districtwide norming ratios. (Id., p. 1236.) However, the Court held that “counting classrooms ‘provided to’ district students for the purposes of section 11969.3(b)(1) is not the same as counting only those rooms a district elects to staff with a teacher.” (Id., p. 1241.) The Court reasoned that “[c]ounting only those classrooms staffed by an assigned teacher would effectively impute to charter schools the same staffing decisions made by the District. But there is no reason to think a charter school would necessarily use classrooms in the same way that the District does.” (Ibid.) In its Preliminary Proposal, the District stated that it “determined the teaching station to ADA ratio at the comparison group schools in accordance with the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, section 11969.3(b)(1) . . . ” and projected the following ADA to teaching station ratio for 2017-2018: Teaching Station to ADA ratios K-3 24:1 4-5 30:1 Although the Preliminary Proposal asserts that the District “determined the teaching station to ADA ratio at the comparison group schools,” the Preliminary Proposal fails to include any such analysis. The Preliminary Proposal does not list the projected ADA for each of the comparison schools in 2017-2018 or the projected number of teaching stations that will be “provided” to students at each of the comparison schools in 2017-2018. Despite RVC’s request, the District continues to refuse to provide this information. RVC notes that the “teaching station to ADA ratio” quoted by the District, too, appear to be loading standards (which are strictly forbidden by CCSA v. LAUSD, supra) because they are whole numbers, and significantly higher than the actual class sizes cited in the publicly available documents for the comparison schools The ratios quoted by the District are also not supported by publicly available information or the information contained on the District’s own website, which indicates that the District’s average class sizes at all of the comparison schools, for 2015-16 and many years prior, are lower than the teaching station to ADA ratios stated in the Preliminary Proposal:

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 7

Why Has RVSD Raised Class Sizes?

Why has RVSD raised class sizes? We hear this question a lot and the simple truth is, we haven't. The chart above shows our total district enrollment as of the tenth day of school (September 10, 2015). As the data indicates, our K-3rd class size averages are at 20.24 and our 4th-5th grade class size averages stand at 24.22. This is in spite of the fact that RVSD is funded by the state of California, at 24:1 in K-3rd and 30:1 in 4th-5th. Overall our K-5th enrollment averages 21.57, which is the best it has been in several years. At middle school it becomes a little more difficult to calculate exact class size averages, but we've shown above the average class size taking into consideration only the number of staff teaching core subjects (English, math, social studies and science). Had we included the staff who teach electives, the average class sizes would have dropped below what is shown. The bottom line at WHMS is that overall class size averages are below 30:1, which is where we are funded by the state. So why does there seem to be a belief that RVSD raised class sizes? Well, it's probably because last year when we discussed enrollment and staffing, we referred to the district's prior decision (pre 2014-15) to maximize or "cap" classes at 24:1 in K-3rd and 30:1 in 4th-5th. As we can see from the chart above, establishing class size maximums does not automatically translate into higher class sizes. This is because students don't all come in nice neat groups of 24 or 30. That said, the numbers above also indicate there are variances among schools and grades with regard to enrollment. For example, Brookside first grade and Wade Thomas fifth grade currently have class size averages that are close to (but not at or exceeding) the enrollment maximums. Again, this is to be expected given we cannot predict where families will reside. Will these numbers change throughout the coming months? Yes, it is likely the numbers will change as families move into and/or out of the district. But typically we do not see large swings in student enrollment so while there will be some variance from the above numbers, we expect it will be minimal. Also, in cases where class size maximums have been reached, new enrolling students will be directed to other schools where class sizes are still well below maximum levels.

From http://www.rossvalleyschools.org/news/441-why-has-rvsd-raised-class-sizes-2 The District argues that the above information is based on 2015-2016 class size averages and it intends to staff elementary classrooms in accordance with Board Policy 6151 adopted on November 1, 2016. However, the District fails to acknowledge that, similar to its previous policy, Board Policy 6151 also provides for the District to “make every reasonable effort to maintain classes at not more than 24 students per teacher (i.e. 24:1), unless an alternative class size or class

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 8

size average for each school site is collectively bargained” and to “make every reasonable effort to maintain classes at not more than 27 students per teacher (i.e. 27:1), but may enroll up to 30 students per class (i.e. 30:1)” only if certain specific conditions apply. As the District’s class size maximums will stay the same and now the District is required to “make every reasonable effort to maintain classes at not more than 27 students per teacher,” which is 3 less than the District’s projected 4th-5th grade teaching station to ADA, it is highly like that in 2017-18, the average K-3rd grade and 4-5th grade class size averages will be continue to approximate those stated above. Moreover, the small class sizes that the District proudly proclaimed in the above web site posting came after the District, in a March 17 Staffing Allocation presentation to the Board, stated the following staffing norms: “Transitional kindergarten through 3rd grade class sizes are capped at 24:1, with sites allowed to enroll to 22. 4th and 5th grade class sizes are capped at 30:1, with sites allowed to enroll to 28.” Clearly as the District’s fall 2015 posting clearly illustrates, staffing norms have always been significantly higher than average class sizes. The policy adopted last November was no different than the practice that has been in effect for several years with the net effect of class sizes averaging considerably lower than the norms, which was in fact the point of the District posting reproduced above. Further, since class size averages must be higher than teaching station to ADA ratios as class sizes are based on enrollment, not ADA, the teaching station to ADA ratios at the comparison schools must be lower than the class size averages noted above and the District’s quoted teaching station to ADA ratios. This is consistent with the publicly available information regarding the District comparison schools’ teaching stations and enrollment, specifically the District’s Facilities Master Plan, School Accountability Report Cards, board reports, and historical enrollment and attendance data for each of the comparison schools. These documents suggest that RVC is entitled to an allocation of at least 9 regular teaching stations. The publicly available information we reviewed indicates that each of the comparison schools has approximately the following number of teaching stations and teaching station to ADA ratios:

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 9

School Name

ADA 4

Hidden Valley Elementary Manor Elementary Wade Thomas Elementary Brookside Elementary Average

318.25 340.10 374.30 336.30

Teaching Stations 5 16 18 19 16

Teaching Station to ADA Ratio 19.89 18.89 19.70 21.02 19.88

Applied to RVC’s projected in-District classroom ADA, this results in a teaching station allocation of 9.5 regular exclusive use teaching stations. And assuming an average comparison school classroom average size of 960 sq. ft., this totals 9,120 sq. ft. The District’s 8 regular teaching stations offered in Building 100 total 7,156 sq. ft., a full 1,964 sq. ft. short of what RVC believes the regulations require. The Building 100 teaching stations average 895 square feet compared to what RVC believes is the comparison schools average of 960. Allocations of Specialized Classroom Space and Non-Teaching Station Space RVC is also entitled to reasonable allocations of specialized and non-teaching station space pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.3.5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(2) requires that, if a school district includes specialized classroom space, such as science laboratories, in its classroom inventory, the Proposition 39 offer of facilities provided to a charter school shall include a share of the specialized classroom space. The Preliminary Proposal must include “a share of the specialized classroom space and/or a provision for access to reasonably equivalent specialized classroom space,” and “the amount of specialized classroom space allocated and/or the access to specialized classroom space provided shall be determined based on three factors: 1. The grade levels of the charter school's in-district students; 2. The charter school's total in-district classroom ADA; and 3. The per-student amount of specialized classroom space in the comparison group schools.” 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(2) and Section 11969.9(f). (See also Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist., 200 Cal. App. 4th 296 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2011) and California School Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Education, 191 Cal. App. 4th 530 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2010).)

4

RVC has assumed a 95% ADA rate based on the District’s average 95% ADA rate in 2015-16 according to the California Department of Education’s records (2215.73 ADA/2330 total enrollment= 95%). RVC has conservatively assumed that the District’s regular enrollment at the comparison schools will stay the same as this year’s (2016-17) Day 3 enrollment as reported to the District Board on September 13, 2016 since, based on CDE records, enrollment at Hidden Valley has continued to decrease since 2011-12, enrollment at Manor has continued to decrease since 2012 -13, and enrollment at Wade Thomas has continued to decrease since 2013-14. The District’s Facilities Master Plan also notes that the District projects K-5 enrollment to “slightly decline through 2017-18.” (P. 14). These enrollment counts do not include any ungraded enrollment. 5 RVC has conservatively used the District’s classroom count from the September 13th board report and each school’s website, which lists the staff member, the grade level taught, and the room number, as well as the number of rooms RVC is aware are empty on the site and reference to the Facility Master Plan and maps.

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 10

As such, the District must allocate specialized classroom space, such as science laboratories, art rooms, computer rooms, music rooms, etc. commensurate with the in-District classroom ADA of RVC. The allocated site must include all of the specialized classroom space included across all of the different grade levels. In addition, the District must provide non-teaching station space commensurate with the in-District classroom ADA of RVC and the per-student amount of non-teaching station space in the comparison group schools. (5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3).) Non-teaching space is all of the remainder of space at the comparison school that is not identified as teaching station space or specialized space and includes, but is not limited to, administrative space, a kitchen/cafeteria, a multi-purpose room, a library, a staff lounge, a copy room, storage space, bathrooms, a parent meeting room, special education space, nurse’s office, RSP space, and play area/athletic space, including gymnasiums, athletic fields, locker rooms, and pools or tennis courts. (5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3).) An allocation of non-teaching station space can be accomplished through shared use or exclusive use. (5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3); Bullis Charter School v. Los Altos School Dist., 200 Cal. App. 4th 296 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2011) and California School Bds. Assn. v. State Bd. of Education, 191 Cal. App. 4th 530 (Cal. App. 3d Dist. 2010).) According to the Implementing Regulations, the allocation of specialized teaching space and non-teaching space is based on an analysis of the square footage of these types of space available to students at the comparison schools (specifically, “the per-student amount of specialized classroom space in the comparison group schools”). (5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(2) and (3).) Specialized Classroom Space The District claims that it “does not provide specialized teaching space at the comparison schools. Before/after school, art, and music programs are privately funded and, therefore, are not part of reasonable equivalence analysis.” First, the District has completely misread the actual Prop. 39 regulations related to exclusions related to purchase with “non-District funds.” Specifically, the only reference to what may be excluded from a Prop. 39 allocation because it is paid for with non-District funds is furnishings and equipment, not actual facilities. (5 CCR Section 11969.2(e).) Therefore, even if the facilities were purchased and maintained with private funds – which they were not, as set forth below – the District would still be obligated to allocate reasonably equivalent amounts of these facilities. Moreover, a review of the publicly available information reveals that the District does provide before/after school, art, music, and computer lab space to its students at the comparison schools, and these facilities were not acquired with private funds. The only private funds at issue here are the funds used to pay for the teachers in these programs; the District has used general funds and other District funds to build, maintain and repair the facilities. As such, because obviously before/after school, art, music, and computer lab space are not furnishings and equipment, and these types of spaces exist at the comparison schools as well as WHMS, RVC is entitled to a reasonably equivalent allocation of space or access to these spaces in order to operate

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 11

its educational program. Although private funds are raised to support the music and art programs, the teachers who teach those programs are District employees supervised by District administrators.. Based on RVC’s estimates of specialized classroom space at the comparison schools as outlined in Appendix F to the Request, RVC is entitled to an allocation of at least 2.78 sq. ft. of art space, music space, and before/after school care space per unit of in-District ADA. Therefore, RVC is entitled to a further allocation of a total of 503.82 sq. ft. of art space, 503.82 sq. ft. of music space, and 503.82 sq. ft. of before/after school care space at WHMS based on RVC’s in-District classroom ADA of 181.5. Further, there is nothing in the law that allows the District to refuse to allocate specialized classroom space to RVC when such space exists at comparison schools and the offered site, even if that space was acquired with private funds. Pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(2), the amount of specialized classroom space allocated and/or the access to specialized classroom space provided shall be determined based on three factors: (A) the grade levels of the charter school’s in-district students; (B) the charter school’s total in-district classroom ADA; and (C) the perstudent amount of specialized classroom space in the comparison group schools. Non-Teaching Station Space The District did not base its allocation of non-teaching station space to RVC on “the perstudent amount of non-teaching station space in the comparison group schools” as required by 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3). Indeed, the Preliminary Proposal does not indicate that the District performed any analysis of “the per-student amount of non-teaching station space in the comparison group schools.” Rather, the District arbitrarily allocated certain exclusive use non-teaching station spaces to RVC (including “‘pull-out’ instruction and related purposes,” “office/conference/staff/workspace,” “custodial/storage,” “nurse’s room,” and “serving area” space) without any explanation of how this allocation is commensurate with RVC’s in-district classroom ADA and the per-student amount of non-teaching station space in the comparison group schools. With regards to the District’s allocation of shared use non-teaching station space (including multi-purpose room, library and outdoor play area space) the District inappropriately based its allocation of non-teaching station access to RVC on the projected number of in-District RVC students occupying WHMS in 2017-18 divided by the projected total enrollment at WHMS, which is not a comparison school (i.e. 189/982=20%). Again, the Preliminary Proposal does not include any explanation of how this allocation is commensurate with RVC’s in-district classroom ADA and the per-student amount of non-teaching station space in the comparison group schools. This allocation also does not comply with the requirements of 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3) as it has nothing to do with the per-student amount of non-teaching station space at comparison schools, and it fails to provide RVC with the amount of shared non-teaching station space to which it is entitled. Since RVC is being allocated space on the District’s only middle school that has approximately twice the enrollment of RVC’s comparison schools, the District’s shared use allocation method results in an artificially reduced allocation of non-teaching station

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 12

space than RVC would receive if it were located at an elementary school. For example, under the District’s methods, if the District instead chose to locate RVC at Hidden Valley where RVC would make up approximately 34% of the total enrollment at the site (189+365=554; 189/554=34%), RVC would’ve been entitled to access the shared use spaces on Hidden Valley’s 12.51 usable acres 6 for 34% of the day (equivalent to 4.25 exclusive acres). Conversely, at WHMS, RVC may only access the shared use spaces on WHMS’s 12.7 usable acres for 20% of the day (equivalent to 2.54 exclusive acres). Moreover, a review of the SARCs, campus maps, and Facilities Master Plan documents for each of the comparison schools reveals the District has not made a reasonably equivalent allocation of non-teaching station space to RVC. In addition to the kinds of non-teaching spaces the District has already allocated to RVC, the comparison schools also have other non-teaching station spaces including, but not limited to, gardens, gymnasiums and shaded outdoor eating areas with tables and benches. RVC requires reasonably equivalent allocations of these spaces or access to these spaces for its educational programs. a. Use of Exclusive Space RVC takes this opportunity to note that there is nothing in the law that would require RVC to limit its specific use of the allocated exclusive use spaces according to the District’s designations in the Preliminary Proposal and the proposed FUA. As explained by the California Supreme Court in California Charter Schools Association v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1221), “there is no reason to think a charter school would necessarily use classrooms in the same way that the District does.” (Id., p. 1241.) While RVC would agree to use the allocated exclusive use spaces for the operation of a public charter school and related purposes, the District may not limit RVC’s specific use of the allocated exclusive use spaces according to the District’s designations. RVC also reminds the District that it may not limit the hours during which RVC may access its allocated exclusive use spaces during the school year; 5 CCR Section 11969.5, the District must make the space available for RVC’s entire school year. RVC advises the District that it intends to use its allocated exclusive use spaces before and after school hours for meetings, before and after care, special classes, events, professional development and other activities related the operation of a charter school. b. Special Education Space Special education space is necessary for compliance with state and federal special education laws, which require privacy for implementation of certain special education services. RVC does not believe that the District’s allocation of special education space to RVC is reasonably equivalent or sufficient to meet its special education facilities needs. As explained in the Request, RVC is providing its own Special Education Services and providing Intervention and EL services to its students. Since it will be providing these services some of the time using a pull-out model, depending on student need and student IEPs, RVC will need reasonably equivalent classroom space to provide those IEP, Intervention and EL services that cannot be provided in the classroom. A review of publicly available information indicates that, as stated above and in the Request, 6

Based on the District’s Facilities Master Plan.

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 13

Brookside has approximately 11.4 sq. ft. of space for each ADA and the other three comparison schools have an average of 4.09 sq. ft/ADA. Thus, RVC’s comparison schools have approximately 5.89 sq. ft. of resource, special education, EL, and intervention space per unit of ADA. This multiplied by 181.5 ADA results in 1,068.62 sq. ft. Yet, the District is only providing RVC with Room 123, which is 342 sq. ft. according to the District’s notations on the site map, as an allocation for counseling and “pull-out instruction and related purposes.” Thus, the District proposes to allocate RVC with only 1.88 sq. ft. of resource/special education/intervention/EL space per unit of in-District classroom ADA, which is 4.01 sq. ft./ADA less than its comparison schools. RVC is entitled to another 727 sq. ft. of resource/special education/intervention/EL space based on its inDistrict ADA of 181.5. RVC will use the two additional offices it requested above, Rooms 109 and 111, which total 329 sq. ft., for this purpose as well as for meeting/conference/teachers-lounge space. This will still leave RVC 397.6 sq. ft. short of reasonably equivalent resource/special education/intervention/EL space. In addition to these two offices, RVC might be agreeable to share additional existing separate spaces on the WHMS campus for student pull-out purposes if the detailed arrangements for such sharing can be clearly worked out as part of the plan for assigning space to RVC. c. Administration Space The Preliminary Proposal allocates approximately 576 sq. ft. of office/conference/staff/workroom and nurse’s station space to RVC according to the District’s notations on the site map. However, based on the information included in the Request and on its Appendix F regarding the amount of per-student reception/administration/conference/staff and nurse’s station space at the comparison schools, RVC estimates that it is entitled to approximately 7 sq. ft. of administration and nurse’s station space at WHMS per unit of in-District ADA (i.e. 1,270.50 total sf. ft. for 181.5 in-District ADA). As such, the District’s allocation of 576 sq. ft. of administration and nurse’s station space at WHMS does not comply with the requirements of by 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3). RVC is entitled to approximately 694 sq. ft. of additional administration and nurse’s station space. It would be the intention of RVC to use Room 109 that it is requesting for this purpose as well as for student pull out space discussed in section b above. d. Food Preparation Space The District has also failed to provide RVC with a food preparation space and is refusing to allow RVC to “install or utilize food preparation equipment” in its allocated “serving area” space. RVC presumes that, notwithstanding the foregoing, the District will allow RVC to install a food warmer and a milk cooler in its allocated serving area space and make any improvements to electrical outlets that are necessary for use of such equipment in that space. RVC believes that the District uses this type of equipment to serve warm meals and cold milk to its students at the comparison schools. Further, if the comparison schools are provided with access to kitchen spaces on site and/or use of the furnishings and equipment inside those spaces as part of its food service to students, RVC is also entitled access to any kitchen space that exists at WHMS including any oven on site. Moreover, pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.9(k)(4) the District must provide and

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 14

maintain the space to RVC in compliance with the California Building Code, which will require any space to be able to accommodate food service equipment. e. Restrooms The Preliminary Proposal does not address whether the District’s allocation of exclusive use restroom space to RVC is legally compliant for RVC’s occupancy, nor does it provide any information upon which RVC may determine its compliance. RVC is concerned that the District’s restroom allocation to RVC is not reasonably equivalent and potentially in violation of Plumbing Code requirements. RVC requests that the District confirm that the student restroom facilities (sinks and water closets) allocated to RVC are of the appropriate heights to serve K-5 students. f. Multi-Purpose Room Based on the information included in the Request and on its Appendix F regarding the amount of per-student multi-purpose room space at the comparison schools, RVC estimates that it is entitled to approximately 12.47 sq. ft. of multi-purpose room space at WHMS per unit of inDistrict ADA (i.e.2,263.2 total sf. ft. for 181.5 in-District ADA). As such, the District’s allocation of use of the 8,385 sq. ft. multi-purpose room for 20% of the school day (equivalent to 1,677 sq. ft.) does not comply with the requirements of 5 CCR Section 11969.3(b)(3). RVC is entitled to at least 2,263.2 total sf. ft. of multi-purpose room space or access to the 8,385 sq. ft. multi-purpose room for at least 27% of the school day (2263/8385=.27). Nevertheless, in the interests of being good White Hill neighbors, RVC is willing to accept allocation of the multi-purpose room for 20% of the school day as proposed by the District. RVC also requires occasional access to the multipurpose room after school hours for Board meetings, school performances, and other events which are an integral part of its educational program. Further, RVC notes that the District may not deny RVC access to the furnishings and equipment in the multi-purpose room, including any chairs and tables. These items are provided to District students, at White Hill as well as all the comparison elementary schools, who use the multi-purpose rooms, and therefore are part of the reasonably equivalent furnishings and equipment used to support classroom instruction. As such, RVC is entitled to use these items (5 CCR Section 11969.2(e)), but of course will be responsible for caring for these items in the same manner as the District program. RVC proposes that scheduling of the Multi-purpose room for 2017-2018 (including evening and weekend use) take place before opening the facility to other non-school uses. g. Outdoor Student Dining Area The District has failed to allocate reasonably equivalent outdoor student dining area space to RVC. As noted above, the comparison schools have outdoor student dining areas with tables and benches, some of which are shaded. RVC requests shared use of the outdoor picnic table dining area at WHMS located in front of Building 100 and the library. h. Outdoor Play Area RVC also requires additional access to outdoor space. Consistent with its charter, RVC must provide all its students with 200 minutes of Physical Education every two weeks. Access to

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 15

outdoor space to be used for physical education and recess for only 20% of the school day is insufficient to meet this requirement. Based on the information included in the Request and on its Appendix F regarding the amount of per-student playground and field space at the comparison schools, RVC estimates that it is entitled to approximately 207 sq. ft. of playground and field space at WHMS per unit of in-District ADA (i.e. approx. 37,570.5 total sf. ft. for 181.5 in-District ADA). In addition, RVC requests a reasonably equivalent allocation of play structure space, as this type of space exists at comparison schools. RVC would like to work with the District to install an appropriate play structure on the north side of the Lefty Gomez field west of the blacktop area (or other area as appropriate). This structure would be of benefit to the entire community, including the WHMS students. There was a great deal of interest in having a play structure for the 6th grade when it was moved to White Hill, and the small structure that did exist was torn down during the recent bond construction. This joint effort would be a win-win for everyone, and RVC would be willing to contribute funds towards this installation. RVC also requests that the District make it clear to the site Principal that RVC is entitled to a reasonably equivalent allocation of access to all the different types of outdoor space that exists on the site. i. Outdoor Classroom Area As noted above, RVC also requests exclusive use of the outdoor space behind Building 100 for an outdoor classroom area. Pro Rata Share Calculation RVC is concerned that the District is improperly calculating the pro rata share to be charged to RVC. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 11969.9(f), on or before February 1, the District must provide RVC with a preliminary proposal regarding the space to be allocated to RVC and/or to which RVC is to be provided access. The Preliminary Proposal must include “the projected pro rata share amount and a description of the methodology used to determine that amount.” The District’s Preliminary Proposal states that “[t]he Charter School’s pro-rata share for the 2017-18 school year is estimated to be $84,244.86” or “$6.46 per square foot.” It does not state the total facilities costs or total District square footage used to arrive at this amount, nor the specific categories of costs included in the facilities costs calculation. The District’s purported methodology for determining its pro rata share amount is completely hollow without any reference to the data/numbers upon which the District bases its calculation. For example, it would be highly unlikely for the District to find any methodology contained in a Prop. 39 request for facilities sufficient to support the reasonableness of a charter school’s in-District classroom ADA projections if it lacked any reference to the projected enrollment and attendance rate figures on which the projections are based. Without any explanation of how the District reached its projected per square foot amount and the categories of costs that are included in the District’s calculation, RVC has no way of verifying that the District has properly calculated the pro rata share amount. Therefore, the projected pro rata share amount and the purported methodology included in the Preliminary Proposal does not meet the requirements of California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 11969.9(f). RVC also reminds the District that pursuant to 5 CCR Section 11969.4 and

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 16

11969.7, RVC is entitled to perform the day to day maintenance and operations of its facilities, and thus any costs associated with this work may not be included in the pro rata share. Facilities Use Agreement Many of the terms contained in the Facilities Use Agreement (“FUA”) attached to the Preliminary Proposal are acceptable to RVC. However, RVC would like to note several nonexhaustive proposed changes to the FUA here, with the understanding that RVC may have additional proposed changes when the parties actually negotiate the terms of the FUA: 1. Section 1: The FUA states that RVC’s use of the site and facilities will be limited for the “sole purpose of operating the Charter School and its related classroom based educational programs in accordance with the Charter School’s charter and any MOU related to its operation . . .” RVC intends to use the site and facilities for the purpose of operating a charter school, including its classroom based educational programs, its before/after school program, and related events (for example, Board meetings, student performances, family gatherings, meetings of a parent-teacher association, etc.). As drafted, RVC is concerned that the language could be narrowly construed to prevent some of these activities. In order to clarify this, RVC requests to modify the language to state that the site and facilities will be used for the “sole purpose of operating the Charter School and activities reasonably related to the operation of the Charter School....” RVC requests the same clarification in Section 10.e as well. Also, to ensure that RVC is authorized to operate a before/after school program, or bring in a third-party to operate an after school program, RVC requests the District’s consent in Section 19 of the FUA, as explained below. 2. Section 2: The phrase “not to exceed 201 students in any case” could be interpreted to mean that RVC cannot have more than 201 students at the site. However, RVC understands that this is not the intended meaning as the District is aware that RVC will serve greater than 181.5 ADA, including in-District and out-of-District students at the site, and the District may not limit the manner in which RVC accommodates its students at the site (and no issues of capacity or classroom loading standards will be implicated by RVC’s accommodation of more than 201 student at the site). As such, this language will need to be clarified. 3. Section 3: RVC objects to this section as it has been granted exclusive use of its classrooms and will be negotiating a schedule for the shared space; this section implies that the District may grant access to RVC classrooms or scheduled shared space outside of regular school hours without first consulting with RVC. Proposition 39 requires that “the space allocated for use by the charter school, subject to sharing arrangements, shall be available for the charter school's entire school year regardless of the school district's instructional year or class schedule.” (5 CCR Section 11969.5.) RVC must have first priority for use of its exclusive use space and any scheduled use of the shared space, and the District must notify RVC of requests to use RVC’s space so that RVC can verify that it does not intend to use the space during the requested time before the

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 17

District permits use of RVCs space by the community and members of the general public. RVC may also require access to certain shared spaces after 5:00 pm on certain days, which it is entitled to. RVC proposes to schedule use with the WHMS Principal or District Office as appropriate. Also, the District must consult with RVC scheduling use of the shared space to ensure RVC has not already scheduled use of the space. 4. Section 4: This section states that RVC shall be bound by all District Policies in the use of furnishings and equipment. Accordingly, RVC requests copies of all applicable policies to enable RVC to comply. 5. Section 6: RVC objects to this section. RVC will provide reasonable forms of residency verification. Such forms of residency verification will include documentation collected by RVC, which may or may not include a current utility bill or property lease. RVC is concerned that the District intends section 6 to allow the District to demand additional forms of residency verification that have not been collected by RVC on a monthly basis, which will create a substantial and unreasonable burden on RVC, and more specifically, its families. RVC believes that the residency verification it will collect for its students will be sufficient for the District’s verification purposes as well. RVC commits that all of its residency verification procedures will meet the requirements of the Education Code. Further, to the extent that RVC is entitled to payments under Education Code section 47635 and/or 47663, the District cannot withhold payments on the basis of failure to comply with the terms of the FUA. The timelines for these payments are statutory and RVC does not agree that the District may change its statutory obligations through the language of the FUA. Also, the District absolutely may not unilaterally withhold any funds or terminate the FUA in the event that RVC’s evidence of residence is deemed not adequate by the District. RVC must be provided with its facilities for its entire school year, and just because RVC and the District may have a dispute as to whether the residency verification information presented is sufficient in the District’s opinion does not give the District the right to remove RVC from its facilities. 6. Section 7: To the extent that RVC is entitled to payments under Education Code section 47635 and/or 47663, the District cannot withhold payments on the basis of failure to comply with the terms of the FUA. 7. Section 10: Sections 10.c, 10.d, and 10.e must be revised to provide a sufficient notice period and an opportunity to cure to RVC. The initial paragraph must be modified to indicate that the FUA may not terminate until RVC has exhausted all of its statutory and judicial appeals in the case of a revocation or non-renewal as RVC’s charter would still be in good standing and the school operational, until that time.

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 18

For the same reasons mentioned with respect to Section 1 above, RVC requests to modify the language in Section 10.e to allow RVC to use the site and facilities for the “sole purpose of operating the Charter School and activities reasonably related to the operation of the Charter School....” Also, the District may not terminate this Agreement without providing sufficient notice to RVC if it believes RVC is not using the facility in compliance with its charter because it is the responsibility of RVC’s authorizer to determine if and when it believes non-compliance has occurred under the charter. Finally, in the event that District’s actual practice differs from District policy, RVC cannot be required to identify the policy in writing to the District because such a requirement would be impractical, would hold RVC to a higher standard than the District’s own agents and employees, and no such requirement exists in law. 8. Section 11: RVC reserves any objections it may have to the District’s calculation of the pro rata share pending RVC’s opportunity to review records sufficient to calculate the pro rata share as explained above. 9. Section 13: This section states that the District shall provide routine maintenance, but that RVC shall be solely responsible for providing all supplies necessary for maintenance. To make this section consistent, the District should be responsible for all supplies necessary for maintenance and the reference to RVC’s responsibility for all supplies necessary for maintenance should be removed. RVC will pay its proportional share of maintenance costs through the pro rata share, and will not be providing any supplies except those necessary for custodial services in RVC’s exclusive use spaces. Also, the section should be modified to state that the costs charged to RVC for landscape and grounds maintenance for common areas, the Outdoor Play Area and the shared space will be charged in proportion to RVC’s use. This section should also be clarified to state that the District must provide reasonable written notice prior to inspecting the Premises and must take reasonable steps to mitigate the impact and disturbance to RVC and its educational program as much as possible. 10. Section 14: RVC would like the ability to paint interior hallways, or cover middleschool graphics with bulletin board panels. RVC would also like the opportunity to install coat hooks like other comparison schools. 11. Section 15: This section states that the “Charter School, at its sole cost and expense, shall comply will all applicable laws, regulations, rules and orders with respect to its use and occupancy of the Site.” This is vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as the District is responsible for legal compliance related to ADA, buildings codes, etc. RVC requests that the District either remove this language or specify the meaning of the language.

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 19

12. Section 18: Section 18: RVC cannot provide coverage for products and complete operations coverage of the same limits as the policy limits because RVC is informed that its insurance provider limits the products-completed operations coverage to projects valued at $200,000 or less. 13. Section 18(a)(iii) and (b)(ii): RVC’s insurance provider will not agree to provide notice directly to the District and RVC cannot require the insurance company to do so. It is unclear how the District expects RVC to direct its insurance company to provide this notice when the insurance company has refused to do so. If the District would like, RVC can provide the District with contact information for the company and the District can reach out directly to request this notice. RVC’s insurance company has also requested clarity on the meaning of the language which appears in (a)(ii), (b)(ii), and (d)(ii) regarding “a waiver of any right to contributions from any other coverage purchased by, or on behalf of, the District.” If this language means the District is asking for the School’s insurance to be primary and any insurance maintained by the District should not be required to contribute with it, then this is acceptable to the School’s insurance company. 14. Section 19: To the extent that this section requires the District’s consent to allow RVC to contract with a third-party to operate a before/after school program for RVC’s students from 7 AM – 8:30 AM and from 1:00 PM– 7 PM in the facilities and portions of the site allocated to RVC, RVC requests that the District’s express consent be included in the terms of the FUA. 15. Section 20: The language of the indemnification section should be made fully reciprocal, as required by 5 CCR Section 11969.9(k). The second paragraph should read, in part, “…that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm or entity arising from the District’s use or maintenance of the Site or Facilities or from conduct of its business or from any activity, work, or other things done, permitted or suffered by the District its trustees, officers, employees and agents in or about the Site of Facilities.” The underlined phrase should be added and the phrase with the strike through should be deleted to make it mirror the preceding paragraph. Also, the reference to “willful negligence” should be changed to “negligence” as negligence, by definition, is not willful. 16. Section 21: RVC does not believe that it can be required to waive any claims regarding compliance with Proposition 39 as a condition of agreeing to the Facilities Use Agreement. Accordingly, this section should be deleted. 17. Section 22(a): In the event of partial damage to the Site leaving RVC with less than 100% access to the usable classroom space, the District will need to perform the repairs to the Site and provide RVC with alternative reasonably equivalent facilities during that time (as well as an abatement of rent for the portion of the program that is displaced). RVC maintains that it is the District’s responsibility under Education Code section 47614(b)(2) to provide facilities for one full year. It is further the District’s

Superintendent Bagley Re: Ross Valley Charter’s Response to District’s Proposition 39 Preliminary Proposal March 1,2017 Page 20

responsibility to treat RVC’s in-district students the same way it would treat the District’s students; the District would find another facility for its students in the event of damage or destruction to a District school site. Moreover, RVC and the District maintain insurance coverage in the event of damage or destruction. 18. Section 22(b): This section refers to 181.5 in-District, classroom ADA, which must be updated to reflect the in-District, classroom ADA upon which the facilities are finally allocated. 19. Section 23: Whereas this section requires the District to provide reasonable written notice prior to accessing the space allocated to RVC, this section should specify that at least 48 hours’ written notice is required except in the case of emergency. 20. Section 25: RVC requests that the District provide RVC with seven (7) days prior notice of any planned or scheduled spraying of pesticides or herbicides on the Site. RVC will provide the District with a red-lined FUA in the next few weeks to commence the process of negotiating the terms of the FUA. *

*

*

RVC looks forward to working with the District to revise and update the District’s offers of facilities to address the concerns outlined above, in order to find a workable solution to RVC’s facilities needs, and to review and negotiate the terms of the Facilities Use Agreement. Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Sharon Sagar Ross Valley Charter Governing Board Chair Cc: Ross Valley School District Trustees