Inglewood board approves six‑month joint‑use lease for former adult school despite community objections

The Inglewood Unified School District board on Jan. 14 approved a six‑month joint‑use lease for the former adult school property after a heated exchange with community members and some board members who said the process lacked proper notice and committee review.

Public commenters, including John Hughes of the district’s Asset Management Advisory Committee, told the board that the decision appeared to have moved forward during the winter break without committee notice. “It should be done in the open and it should show respect for the community,” Hughes said, arguing the committee’s recommendations had been set aside.

Diane Sembrano told the board residents had not been properly informed and raised broader concerns about accountability and large proposed construction expenditures. Several speakers said demolition already had occurred and asked what assurances the district had about future use, costs and community benefit.

Assistant Superintendent and Chief Business Official Rafael Guzman said the lease is a joint‑use arrangement that allows the district to continue to use the property while a private operator demolishes and installs a temporary structure at no operating cost to the district. Guzman said demolition was estimated at roughly $1 million and that the third‑party operator would assume environmental, safety and labor responsibilities. “No district operating costs were incurred here,” Guzman said, describing the agreement as a way to avoid the district paying demolition costs.

Board member Brandon Myers urged pulling the item for further review, saying steps outlined to the asset management advisory committee appeared to have been skipped. Other board members pressed staff for clarification about contracts and whether pulling the board item would negate agreements already executed; staff confirmed a binding agreement is in place and that pulling the lease now would affect that contract.

After discussion, the board approved item 9E1 (the six‑month joint‑use lease). The public record shows community members expect follow‑up: staff committed to provide the advisory committee’s recommendations and to present additional detail at the asset management committee meeting the next day.

What happens next: staff said the district retains inspection and access rights to the property and will provide the board and advisory committee with documentation and a timeline for next steps. A concerned group of residents and advisory‑committee members requested a formal follow‑up briefing with the board.

Note on sources and numbers: participants stated that the structure had already been demolished and that demolition costs were in the order of $1 million; that amount and other cost estimates were presented by staff during the meeting and not corroborated in the transcript. The transcript also contains claims about larger bond totals by public speakers that were not documented in an agenda item and have not been independently verified.