Burbank bond oversight committee told audits delayed; roofing projects slated to start May 29

At its regular meeting, the Burbank Unified School Facilities Oversight Committee was told by district officials that there is not yet an audit for the 2024–25 bond because most bond spending began on July 1 and bond audits are performed the following year. Dr. Macias, a district representative, introduced consultant Dr. Jason Hastie and said Hastie is compiling expenditure documentation and that the committee will receive a comprehensive report and purchasing timeline at the next meeting.

The absence of an FY2024–25 audit prompted members to press whether any bond-funded roofing work had been expended before June 30, 2025 — which would change the audit year. Staff said expenditures were booked beginning July 1 and pledged to research and report back with precise purchasing dates and any encumbrances. "We'll have a comprehensive report that includes our purchasing," Dr. Macias said, adding that Director of Purchasing David Gearhart and the district's project managers will provide timeline detail.

Bond project manager Robin Rickman outlined the district's 2026 construction schedule and immediate priorities: bids for roofing projects are due in January and, if all goes as planned, work would begin May 29 (the day after schools dismiss). Rickman said one recently completed roof experienced a leak after recent storms and that the ceiling-tile failure in a classroom is being addressed under warranty by the vendor and facilities staff. She said additional roofing projects remain on the multi-year list and that clay-tile roofs will require Department of State Architect (DSA) review.

Rickman also described long-range athletic projects: the district has engaged two architect/engineering teams for softball-field projects at both high schools; design meetings with schools are expected to begin in February, and construction likely will fall in 2027–28 depending on DSA approvals. Staff emphasized both fields will be CIF-compliant and that coaches, athletic departments and the community will be included in design decisions.

Committee members asked how current cost estimates relate to prior studies. Staff said Garland provided baseline roofing cost estimates used as a reality check against contractor bids; Perkins Eastman — the facilities master‑planning consultant — included escalation and contingency allowances in its earlier cost estimates. Dr. Macias warned that tariffs and supply-chain issues could increase costs and noted that a 2023 study produced a very large needs estimate (the transcript cited a figure described as "close to 1000000000 dollars") but that not every item in that study will be addressed within the bond program.

Members raised transparency and oversight concerns: they asked for clearer public materials showing priority lists and procurement timelines and requested opportunities to participate in architect selection and to observe design meetings. Dr. Macias said a superintendent's bond subcommittee meets regularly and that the district will post updated priority lists and procurement information on the website to improve disclosure.

Separately, Dr. Macias told the committee that recent resignations and retirements in business and fiscal services have delayed production of some expenditure reports. He said key positions are being filled, a director of fiscal services has been hired and consultant Dr. Jason Hastie began in early January to assist with financial oversight. "We are getting to a better place," Dr. Macias said, noting staff are working to deliver the outstanding financials and change‑order details at the next meeting.

The committee approved two formal actions during the session: the minutes of the Nov. 5, 2025 meeting were approved as amended, and the committee approved recommended term assignments for members and alternates. Staff agreed to schedule site visits to damaged roofing locations before and after repairs and to involve committee members in the selection process for an independent bond auditor separate from the district's general auditor.

The committee adjourned after roughly one hour; members were asked to review posted minutes and materials and to bring additional questions or agenda items for the next meeting.