Source: http://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume54/d16713
Timestamp: 2019-08-19 08:24:43
Document Index: 280420947

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2853', '§2852', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§310', '§2853', '§2853', '§7803', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2856', '§2856', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853', '§2853']

Decision No. 16,713 | Office of Counsel
Decision No. 16,713
Appeal of ACHIEVEMENT FIRST - BUSHWICK CHARTER SCHOOL from action of the New York City Department of Education regarding school utilization.
Cohen Schneider & O’Neill, LLP, attorneys for petitioner, Cliff S. Schneider and Lisa J. Holtzmuller, Esqs., of counsel
BERLIN, Acting Commissioner.--Petitioner, Achievement First – Bushwick Charter School (“petitioner”), challenges the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE” or “respondent”)[1] failure to offer a co-location site in a public school building or space in a privately owned or publicly owned facility at DOE’s expense and at no cost to petitioner, as required by Education Law §2853(3)(e). The appeal must be sustained in part.
Petitioner is an existing education corporation that, in October 2014, was approved by the Board of Trustees of the State University of New York, as charter entity, to operate an additional charter school, Achievement First Charter School 12 (“AF 12” or “the school”), to serve students in grades five through twelve in Community School District (“CSD”) 16, 17, 19 or 23. The school’s charter was deemed approved and issued by the Board of Regents on January 30, 2015 (Education Law §2852[5-a]). AF 12 is scheduled to commence instruction in the 2015-2016 school year.
By letter dated August 1, 2014, DOE was notified of AF 12’s need for space in CSD 16, 17, 19 or 23. By letter dated December 23, 2014, DOE acknowledged the August 1, 2014 request for space but stated that it would “not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 16, 17, 19, or 23 at this time.” This appeal ensued.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to offer AF 12 any facilities, in violation of Education Law §2853(3)(e), and that such failure is arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion. As relief, petitioner seeks an order directing DOE to pay rental assistance in accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) for the 2015-16 school year and continuing thereafter.
Preliminarily, I note that this appeal was commenced pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e), which was added by Part BB of Chapter 56 of the Laws of 2014. Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3) provides that a charter school in the City School District of the City of New York shall have the option of appealing the “city school district’s offer or failure to offer a co-location site through... an expedited appeal to the commissioner” pursuant to Education Law §310 and the procedures prescribed in Education Law §2853(3)(a-5). Pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(3), in any such appeal, the standard of review shall be the standard prescribed in Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §7803.
Petitioner asserts that DOE failed to respond to AF 12’s request for co-location space with an offer of either co-location space in a public school facility or space in another public or private facility at no cost to petitioner. Education Law §2853(3)(e) provides that in the City School District of the City of New York, charter schools that are approved by their charter entity to first commence instruction for the 2014–2015 school year or thereafter and request co-location in a public school building shall be provided access to facilities. The statute also requires that, within the later of five months after a charter school’s written request for co-location and 30 days after the charter school’s charter is approved by the charter entity, the city school district shall offer the charter school either a co-location site in a public school building approved by the board of education as provided by law at no cost to the charter school, or space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no expense to the charter school (Education Law §2853[3][e][1]).
The record indicates that in its December 23, 2014 response to AF 12’s request for facilities, DOE indicated that it would “not be extending an offer of co-located space in a DOE building in Community School District (CSD) 16, 17, 19, or 23 at this time.” However, in the event that DOE did not offer the school a co-location site in a public school building, it was nevertheless required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1) to offer it space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no expense to petitioner. Instead, DOE stated only that it would not extend an offer of co-located space. As it did not offer the school space in a privately owned or other publicly owned facility at the expense of the city school district and at no expense to petitioner, DOE failed to comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(1).
In accordance with Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE is therefore required to pay rental assistance based on student enrollment in all grades for which AF 12 has been approved to provide instruction during the term of its charter (Appeal of International Charter School of New York, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,691; Appeal of Rosalyn Yalow Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16,690). I note that Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) provides for rental assistance based on current school year enrollment, not the enrollment projections set forth in the charter, for each year of the charter term. Specifically, with respect to a new charter school whose charter is granted before October 1, 2016, “if the appeal results in a determination in favor of the charter school, the city school district shall pay the charter school an amount attributable to... the formation of the new charter school that is equal to the lesser of: (A) the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by the charter school or (B) twenty percent of the product of the charter school’s basic tuition for the current school year and (i) for a new charter school that first commences instruction on or after July first, [2014], the charter school’s current year enrollment...” (Education Law §2853[3][e][5]).
The amounts payable to a charter school in its first year of operation shall be based on the projections of initial-year enrollment set forth in the charter until actual enrollment is reported to the school district by the charter school (see Education Law §2856[1][b]). Such projections shall be reconciled with the actual enrollment at the end of the school’s first year of operation, and any adjustment shall be made to payments during the school’s second year of operation (see Education Law §2856[1][b]). The record in this case indicates that the school will first commence instruction in the 2015–2016 school year with an estimated enrollment of 92 students. Accordingly, pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5), DOE must pay petitioner in each year of the charter term the lesser of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by petitioner or 20 percent of the product of petitioner’s basic tuition for the current school year (e.g., the 2015-2016 school year in the first year) and petitioner’s enrollment for the current school year (e.g., the 2015-2016 school year in the first year). As noted above, DOE is obligated to pay for all the grades in the newly-opened charter school in each year of the initial charter term; the amount payable must be based on the charter school’s actual current year enrollment (Appeal of International Charter School of New York, 54 Ed Dept Rep, Decision No. 16,691; Appeal of Rosalyn Yalow Charter School, 54 id., Decision No. 16,690).
In this instance, petitioner also has not been afforded the opportunity to select an alternative privately owned site, and respondent must afford it an opportunity to do so. Petitioner must present DOE with evidence of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site so that DOE can determine whether such rental cost is less than the amount computed pursuant to Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5)(B).
Nothing herein should be construed to prevent DOE from offering petitioner co-location space for AF 12 in the future.
IT IS ORDERED that DOE comply with the requirements of Education Law §2853(3)(e)(5) in accordance with this decision and pay petitioner the lesser of the actual rental cost of an alternative privately owned site selected by petitioner or 20 percent of the product of AF 12’s basic tuition for the 2015-2016 school year and AF 12’s current year enrollment.
[2] I note that, although respondent generally denies petitioner’s assertion that the appeal is timely, it does not raise timeliness as a defense. In any event, petitioner commenced this appeal on January 22, 2015, within the time period required by Education Law §2853(3)(e)(2).