Board studies $350 million Measure EE bond plan, timeline and project priorities

At a board meeting, Los Altos School District trustees reviewed the district—s Measure EE bond program, a $350 million authorization voters approved, and discussed how and when the district would issue bonds, sequence construction and prioritize projects across campuses.

The study session featured a presentation from the district—s financial adviser, Makiko of Ispent Advisors, who described a financing plan that assumed four bond series issued roughly every two years (series in 2025, 2027, 2029 and 2031) and estimated an initial Series A near $90 million. Makiko said the layered-series approach lets the district match issuance to assessed valuation growth, spread interest-rate risk and meet federal tax-law spending rules that require a district to expect to spend most bond proceeds within three years of issuance.

District staff presented program-management steps the board must approve or direct next: release and review of requests for qualifications for program-management services (RFQs due the day after the meeting), hiring architects and engineers, updating district construction standards, and creating a pipeline of projects so design and construction overlap and cash flow is predictable.

Trustees and staff repeatedly emphasized three priorities discussed in the facilities master plan: modernizing permanent classrooms, converting to a middle-school model that would move sixth grade to junior-high campuses, and resolving decisions about the district—s 10th site (the —tent site— referenced in materials). Board members asked staff to return with concrete options that show timeline, cost and trade-offs so the trustees could set priorities and approve a phased program.

Key policy and schedule points raised during the discussion included: - Financing assumptions: the plan uses assessed-value growth and layering series to preserve purchasing power. Makiko said the district—s historical assessed-value growth (about 6% annual average since 2007) supported a larger authorization but the plan will be updated yearly with County assessed-value numbers before each issuance. - Timing and Series A: the adviser said the district could issue Series A in 2025 (with an early-July issuance possible) but actual timing depends on when cash is needed for construction and on updated assessed values. - Cash flow and project phasing: staff described sample cash-flow scenarios showing that the district should time issuances to when construction costs are incurred and recommended maintaining a project pipeline so design, DSA (Division of the State Architect) review and construction overlap rather than sit idle. - Regulatory and cost drivers: staff and the adviser reminded the board that Division of the State Architect (DSA) review times, California Title 24 energy-code requirements, ADA/path-of-travel upgrades and long lead procurement items (switchboards, HVAC equipment) add time and cost to projects. - Procurement and staffing: RFQs for program-management services were due immediately; the district plans to hire a program manager, additional accounting support (paid from bond funds where allowable) and a pool of architects and engineers. - —Quick-start— projects: trustees asked for a short list of projects that could begin faster (for example, permanent shade structures) because some such items have quicker DSA or pre-check paths and smaller procurement lead times.

Trustees pressed staff on several risk and contingency items: what happens if assessed value declines after issuance (the adviser noted limited options other than refunding or delaying later series), whether bond anticipation notes would be needed (adviser said they were not planned), and how competing bond programs in neighboring districts could affect labor and material costs and DSA review backlog.

Staff asked the board for clearer priority direction so the newly hired program manager can build a realistic phased program. Multiple trustees said they preferred beginning work on junior-high campuses to enable a move of sixth grade to middle school, because that change would benefit the largest number of current and future students; others urged a plan that touches every campus in some way. Trustees and staff agreed to return with a recommended phase-1 project list and timing for board review in the spring so design work could begin and the district could pursue a summer 2026 or 2027 construction start depending on project scope and DSA timelines.

The presentation closed with staff noting additional potential revenue sources (remaining Measure N funds, TDR receipts and possible state modernization grants) that could alter the cash-flow plan; staff said those revenues were not included in the baseline cash-flow examples and that state grants, if obtained, often arrive years after construction.

The board did not take formal action in the study session; staff will return with a recommended phased project list, refined cost estimates and an implementation timeline that reflects DSA review, procurement lead times and anticipated cash needs.