Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Master Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Facilities plan estimates $439M need; trustees debate bonds and sequencing
Summary
A consultant told the Inglewood Unified facilities committee the district faces roughly $439 million in facility needs and recommended sequencing projects; trustees pressed staff on equity, prior bond spending and whether to prioritize red-condition infrastructure over large new builds.
A consultant'led presentation to the Inglewood Unified School District Facilities Advisory Committee estimated roughly $439 million in district facility needs and laid out a conceptual facilities master plan that would be funded by a mix of state modernization grants, developer fees and local bonds.
Calwell Flores Winters, the district's facilities consultant, described the document as a planning-level, conceptual design intended to inform sequencing and funding choices rather than a set of final construction drawings. The firm's estimate includes a program reserve and is expressed in today's dollars; it covers new construction, retrofit/modernization, upgrades and repurposing across 11 school sites.
"It's about $58 million is what we are projecting in terms to replace the overall campus" at Bennett Q, the consultant said, summarizing one site-specific rebuild scenario. The presentation used a heat-map of building condition (red/orange/yellow/green) to prioritize where modernization or replacement would be most economical.
Trustees and committee members repeatedly questioned how the district would pay for the plan. The consultant said state modernization grants could contribute an estimated $22.6 million but warned the state's reimbursement process is slow and competitive. Local general obligation bonds were described as the primary path to raise large sums; the consultant explained how Prop 39 bond limits and phasing work and walked the group through a notional four-series bond program over a decade.
District staff stressed the plan is a menu of options, not a mandate. "These are the legal sources available to you," a consultant said, adding that the plan helps craft bond language and priorities if the district chooses to seek voter approval.
Community-elected members pushed back. Several committee members said residents have supported previous measures and deserve clear evidence of equitable distribution of funds before another bond. One trustee said he could not support talking about a new bond "if we haven't gotten the first thing down where we're still focusing on the majority of our community to be enhanced." Another member said the district must prioritize urgent infrastructure that repeatedly fails in day-to-day operations.
The consultant and district staff proposed a sequencing strategy: start with a smaller bond series targeted at the most pressing red-condition sites, demonstrate completed projects, then return to voters for subsequent series rather than attempting to fund all needs at once. They stressed that designing projects to maximize state eligibility and pursuing developer fees and other local sources would reduce the local tax ask.
The committee agreed to continue the conversation and set the next Facilities Advisory Committee meeting for Feb. 4, 2026, where members said they will further discuss priorities, sequencing and community engagement ahead of any possible ballot measure.
The committee did not take formal action on the master plan; the consultant said the plan would be presented to the governing board for consideration at a future meeting. The committee concluded with administrative business and adjourned.
