Board pauses vote on $54.2 million Measure S technology contract after extended Q&A

The Redondo Beach Unified School District board on Monday reviewed a proposed districtwide Measure S procurement and financing agreement that would authorize up to $54,228,951 in network infrastructure, safety, security and classroom-technology purchases.

Susanna Garcia, the district chief technology officer, told the board the multi-phase plan would standardize PA systems, bells, clocks, classroom phones, access-control (buzz-in) systems and expand security cameras from roughly 300 to about 988 units. Garcia said the work also includes ripping out end‑of‑life cabling and fiber, upgrading the data center and implementing hardware and seven‑year software licensing, and that devices such as Chromebooks and staff laptops would be refreshed on a multi‑year schedule.

"We want to standardize on a product, Cisco, so the team can support it," Garcia said, outlining three phases and recommending two pilot school sites to be completed in 2025 before broader rollout. She described Phase 1 as focused on campus safety systems and infrastructure work over the summer to avoid disrupting instruction.

Dr. Alpern (district staff) and vendor representatives described the procurement vehicle as a CMAS/NASPO/NCPA piggyback approach that bundles hardware, services and seven-year licensing. The district presented a financing plan arranged through Cisco that staff said carries 0% interest and would be repaid over five years in annual installments. The district summarized the finance terms as a not‑to‑exceed total of $54,228,951 and annual installment payments of $10,845,790.

Ash Shams, a vendor lead who described long experience supporting K‑12 districts, said the agreement is intentionally flexible: the district may select phases and individual line items to order and is not financially responsible for items it declines to purchase. "If we don't order it, you don't purchase it," he said, describing reconciliation options if the district removes phases later in the process.

Board members pressed staff and the vendor on legal and fiscal protections. Questions centered on (1) what elements would be protected from tariff increases if the board approved before a vendor pricing deadline (staff cited April 18 as a date tied to manufacturer price guarantees), (2) how much of the $54.2 million sits in Phase 1 versus later phases, (3) whether the sample contract exhibits and escrow terms had final values (several documents shown in the packet were marked "sample"), and (4) the installment-payment mechanics and whether legal counsel had reviewed final lender/escrow terms.

Board members sought clarity about which line items would be ordered immediately if the board locked Phase 1 pricing (for example, cameras and cabling), and how the district would avoid paying for unwanted products if pilot outcomes prompted changes. Garcia and vendor representatives said Phase 1 contains the bulk of the infrastructure work (cabling, servers, cameras) and that line items ordered for Phase 1 would be covered by the pricing guarantees; they also reiterated that the contract is "not to exceed" and that unused phases or quantities can be removed from the purchase and reconciled in final accounting.

Several trustees requested additional written confirmation from the district attorney or the outside counsel who reviewed the financing agreement that the board's financial exposure is constrained as described in the presentation. Trustees also asked that final escrow and fee details be provided before action.

After more than an hour of questioning and requests for contract clarifications, the board voted to continue action item 12.4 to the district's April 2 regular meeting to give trustees time to review final contract documents and for the district's attorney to be available by phone.

What happens next: The board will revisit Resolution R24‑25:26 and the associated financing and procurement documents at its April 2 meeting. Staff said locking Phase 1 orders before the vendor pricing deadline would protect those ordered line items from near‑term tariff-related price increases, but trustees asked for explicit contract language and escrow/fee detail before authorizing purchases.

Sources and attributions: Quotes and attributions are from meeting remarks by Susanna Garcia (chief technology officer), Dr. Alpern (district staff), and Ash Shams (vendor representative) during the open session discussion on the Measure S technology procurement and financing (action item 12.4). The total not‑to‑exceed cost and annual installment figure were read aloud to the board by district staff during the meeting.