AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 49 and Title 71, relative to child care.
HB0698 creates a new process for child care facilities to access vacant or underutilized public school property owned by local education agencies (LEAs). It requires LEAs in which a child care facility operates to submit a comprehensive list of vacant or underutilized property to the Department of Human Services and the comptroller, who must make the list available to child care providers. The bill also authorizes child care facility owners to petition for an audit of the LEA’s property list and allows the comptroller to adopt rules to administer the program.
The bill gives qualifying child care facilities a right of first refusal to buy or lease listed property at or below fair market value for child care services. If the LEA has no public charter schools operating within its boundaries, the child care facility gets the first right; if charter schools do operate there, the child care facility gets a second right of refusal. Fair market value is determined by averaging two independent appraisals, one chosen by the LEA and one by the child care facility. The bill also sets terms for leases, maintenance, utilities, capital repairs, and what happens if either the LEA or the child care facility later wants to sell or stop using the property.
The bill would amend Tennessee law in Title 49 and Title 71 by adding a new property-access framework for child care providers and by changing an existing charter-school-related provision so that a referenced duty applies to each LEA rather than only LEAs with charter schools. It also requires annual reporting by LEAs on their plans for underutilized or vacant properties, and it takes effect July 1, 2025.
The general sentiment reflected in the available vote history appears favorable but not unanimous. In the House K-12 Subcommittee, the bill received a 6-1 recommendation for passage with amendment and referral to the Education Committee, suggesting broad support for expanding child care access to public property while still prompting some concern or need for revision.
The main points of contention appear to be the balance between supporting child care providers and preserving LEA control over school property planning. The bill expressly says it is not intended to frustrate LEA planning, but it also imposes listing, reporting, and right-of-first-refusal requirements that may be viewed as limiting local discretion. The special treatment of LEAs with public charter schools, the valuation method for property, and responsibility for repairs and lease credits are likely the most significant operational issues for affected school districts and child care operators.
The bill would add a new statutory mechanism in Title 49 for child care facilities to identify, bid on, lease, or purchase vacant and underutilized LEA property, while also amending an existing Title 49 charter-school-related provision to apply to each LEA. It would affect local school systems, the Department of Human Services, and the comptroller by creating property-listing, audit, rulemaking, and annual reporting duties, and it would create enforceable rights of first refusal for certain child care providers.
Available legislative history suggests the bill was generally well received, with the House K-12 Subcommittee voting 6-1 to recommend passage with amendment and referral. That vote indicates support for the bill’s child care access goals, but also that at least one member had reservations or wanted changes before final approval.
The likely areas of disagreement are how much control LEAs should retain over vacant or underutilized school property and how the bill should balance that control against child care expansion. The bill’s right-of-first-refusal structure, the distinction between LEAs with and without charter schools, the appraisal-based fair market value formula, and the allocation of repair and lease costs could all be contentious for school districts, charter-school stakeholders, and child care operators. The bill also tries to protect LEA planning authority, signaling that this concern was anticipated.