This story was updated June 3, 2022, to include a response from the school district.
San Bernardino City Unified School District will keep approximately $3 million in saved state funding that the State Allocation Board attempted to reclaim. The May 24 appellate ruling deciding the funding struck down a California regulation it said interfered with state law.
The State Allocation Board had given the school district $35.5 million to construct Middle College High School, completed in 2001, of which only about $32 million was used.
The Board demanded the $3 million in savings, and filed a July 2019 case in Sacramento Superior Court to force the district to return it.
Both a Sacramento Superior Court ruling and the published appellate ruling decided that California Education Code Section 17070.62 gives the school district the savings. The law allows a school district to retain project savings for other proper purposes when the savings include funds received from the state.
“The mission of the San Bernardino City Unified School District (SBCUSD) is to provide as much support as possible to every student we serve. Every dollar entrusted to us is vital to achieving that purpose. As California’s seventh largest school district, we have a large operating budget that can manage a $3 million expense. However, our students need every dollar we can keep in the classroom,” Maria Garcia, SBCUSD communications officer, wrote in a statement to Follow Our Courts.
“SBCUSD is thankful that the best interest of our more than 46,000 students prevailed and we will keep these dollars in our schools. For SBCUSD, this case has always been about doing what’s right for kids,” Garcia continued.
Normally, the state and school district provided a 50/50 distribution of project funds. In this case, due to additional hardship funding, the state provided the vast majority of the project funds, and the school district only provided $197,000. The state argued that their additional hardship funding is required, by California Code of Regulations Title 2 Section 1859.103, to be provided back to the state.
The appellate court found the regulation invalid and unenforceable because it conflicts with California law.
Case information
Appellate case number C092003
Sacramento Superior Court case number 34-2019- 80003183CUWMGDS
Sacramento Superior Judge Steven Gevercer presided.
Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Senior Assistant Attorney General Thomas Patterson and Deputy Attorneys Generals Anthony Hakl, and Jerry Yen represented the state.
Philip Henderson, Glenn Gould and Zachary Scalzo of Los Angeles’ Orbach Huff Suarez & Henderson LLP represented the school district.
Read the ruling here.
