Lawndale trustees receive Measure L/EE facilities update and bond planning briefing; Rogers bid due March 26

Assistant Superintendent of Business Howard Ho and Director of Maintenance and Operations Carla Bertrand gave the Lawndale Elementary School District board an update on construction and facilities work funded by Measure L and Measure EE, and ISM Advisors consultant Makiko Sato presented a bond‑program and tax‑rate discussion that outlined timing and capacity if the district elects to pursue additional authorization.

Carla Bertrand summarized maintenance and recent completed projects and credited the in‑house maintenance, grounds and electrical teams for recent work across sites. Completed work noted in the meeting included restrooms and ADA adjustments at Twain, replacement of parking lot and site lighting at Rogers and Anderson, ceiling tile and bottle‑filling station replacements, and blacktop restriping at Smith. Bertrand said the district replaced HVAC filters and added CO2 monitors through a CalSHAPE grant and completed a workroom renovation at Green Elementary.

Ho described completed Measure L projects and ongoing work: a new playground at Twain completed in January costing “almost $400,000” paid for by Measure L; a fencing project at Adams with a cost of about $458,000 paid for by Measure L; and a Rogers administrative building project in the punch‑list phase with a project cost of about $4,800,000 funded through Measure L and ESSER funds. He said Green’s modular and playground work with the PACE preschool program will relocate PACE operations on the site and free 12–14 parking spaces. Upcoming projects noted included digital marquees, playground work at Mitchell and FDR scheduled to start in the summer, and a planned two‑story building at Rogers for which a job walk drew about 17 contractors.

Ho told the board that bids for the Rogers two‑story project are due March 26 (11:00 a.m.), and a contract award and recommendation will be brought to the board in April. Trustees asked about bilingual parking signs; Bertrand said the district is replacing signs with standard parking signs and offered to explore bilingual versions in future replacements.

Trustee questions addressed change orders and fiscal controls. Ho said public contract code allows up to a 10% contingency for change orders in the district’s contracts, and that each change order is vetted by the district’s architects and construction team. “There is a 10% contingency that allows contractors to submit change orders, total change orders up to 10% of the entire contract,” he told the board; he described a multi‑step negotiation and vetting process for each change order because of unforeseen conditions that arise during construction.

Makiko Sato of ISM Advisors presented the bond program and tax‑rate options. Key points she gave the board: the district has issued most previously authorized bonds but has $16,800,000 in authorized‑but‑unissued bonds remaining under a 2020 authorization; the district has about $49,200,000 in bonds outstanding; the statutory gross bonding capacity at 1.25% of assessed value is roughly $63,100,000, leaving about $13,800,000 in net bonding capacity (a snapshot that can change with assessed valuation growth); and a Prop 39 model at the statutory cap ($30 per $100,000 assessed value) could theoretically raise about $42,600,000 if the district chose that tax‑rate target.

Sato explained a tax‑rate extension approach that takes advantage of older bond authorizations rolling off the tax roll beginning in 2028. Under that model, the district could potentially ask voters to continue an existing tax rate (a “tax‑rate extension”) rather than increasing it, allowing the district to access additional bond proceeds in the $35–40 million range without increasing the current tax‑rate level, depending on choices the board makes. She also discussed bonding‑capacity waivers from the State Board of Education: the net bonding capacity requirement (codified in education code) can be waived and more than 100 waivers have been granted statewide to date.

Sato and trustees discussed timing: because tax rates are set about one year ahead of collection, 2026 is the practical window to pursue a tax‑rate extension model without triggering an effective tax‑rate increase; the board should prepare a project list before conducting any community survey; and survey work and public outreach would inform whether to proceed. Sato recommended a community survey and project list to test voter support, with a target schedule that would have a resolution prepared by March 2026 for a June 2026 election or by August 2026 for a November 2026 election.

No bond authorization vote occurred at the meeting; trustees asked staff to prepare a project list and further information so the board could evaluate specifics before deciding whether to place a measure before voters. Ho said a bid award for the Rogers two‑story project would return to the board in April for contract approval.

Items discussed with operational implications included the district’s use of Measure L, Measure EE and ESSER funds for specific projects and capital maintenance; the public contract code limit on change‑order contingency; and timing constraints from the county and state for tax rate setting and bond issuance.