Yuri Calderon Attorney | School District Facilities Planning in Santa Barbara and San Diego

As shared by Yuri Calderon Attorney.

Yuri Calderon Attorney is a qualified attorney with extensive experience representing public school districts in San Diego and Santa Barbara. 

Yuri supports schools with program & project management, school construction, developer negotiations, and other related school business issues. 

Yuri’s commitment to the public education sector, transparency, and integrity are second to none. 

Yuri Calderon is experienced as a chief business officer, providing legislative, and support to California public school districts. 

Yuri Calderon is an Attorney at law, having graduated from the University of Denver and Georgetown University Law Center. 

School Facilities Planning 

School facilities planning presents a platform for the extensive discussion of laws and regulations that oversee, sit, plan, fund, design, and construct educational facilities within school districts in California. 

Since the passing of the Leroy Greene School Facilities Act of 1998, California’s school facility finance system has evolved into a cost-sharing partnership between the state and school districts. 

The State of California grants school districts financial support for the new school construction and modernization of projects. The agency associated with this responsibility  is the School Facility Program (SFP). 

From 1998, California voters have approved five statewide bond issues to fund the School Facility Program. 

Yuri Calderon Attorney, Cold Spring School District representative, states that combined, the five bond issues have seen K-12 public schools receive $42.43 billion in state funding for SFP. 

Local school districts, including the Cold Spring school district, finance their school construction and modernization costs from revenues achieved through developer fees and local general obligation (G.O.) bond elections. 

Yuri Calderon Attorney added that from 1998-2016, local school districts in California raised over $113 billion from school bond issues. They also raised $10.47 billion from developer fees in the same period used to improve school facility improvements.  

School Facilities Planning Funding Fluctuation 

Yuri Calderon, a representative of the Cold Spring School District in Santa Barbara, also notes that school facility funding has fluctuated significantly. 

Since 1970, school facility funding started declining to reach today’s low margins. The fluctuation is attributed to the ever-changing economic times, demographic conditions, consistent recessions, and student explosion (thus increasing schooling facilities). 

Political events, including the passage of Proposition 12 in 1978, and the passing of Proposition 39 in 2000, continuously contribute to the variability associated with school facility funding. 

Yuri also added that the statewide school facility bond issue’s erratic and unpredictable nature also contributes to considerable school facility funding variability. Today, to finance school facility investments, California School Districts rely mostly on Local General Obligation. 

The percentage of total facility funding emanating from statewide bond revenue and developer fees has significantly declined in recent years. From 1998-2006, developer fees made up 11%, while state aid made up 32% of the total facility revenues. 

The years between 2007 and 2015 saw funds dwindle further where developer fees made up 5% and state aid made up a total of 19%, respectively. The declines saw the share of revenue garnered from the local G.O. bond issue climbed upward to 50% in the 1998-2006 era and 65% during the 2007-2015 period. 

The decline of total revenue is attributed to zero statewide bonds issued for supporting K-12 school facilities in the years 2007 to 2015. The fall of the share of the revenue from the developer fees is related to the decline of new construction that followed the recession. 

Yuri Calderon Attorney advises that school districts seeking SFP funding for new school construction and modernization projects should interact with and get approval from several state agencies. 

The agencies include: 

  • The Office of Public School Construction (OPSC)
  • The School Facilities & Transportation Services Division (SFTSD) of the California Department of Education (CDE) 
  • The Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSA)
  • The Division of the State Architect (DASA) in the Department of General Services (DGS)
  • The Department of Industrial Relations (DIR). 

The State Allocation Board (SAB), together with the above five state agencies, oversee state-mandated facility standards and approve the processes school districts must adhere to, to access state funds.