FAQ.

Haven't we already passed bond measures, and weren't the funds 'used as promised, on time and on budget'?

That claim — which appears on the YesonLCF.org Yes-campaign site — is wrong on the facts and wrong about the law. On the facts: our tracking shows roughly $22M in overruns by 2019 and ~$28M gross / ~$26M net by 2024 — about 33% over in aggregate, ~40% on a per-project average. A program running a third over its project-level estimates is not 'on budget' by any ordinary meaning. On the law: a Proposition 39 Citizens' Oversight Committee has no authority to 'confirm projects were completed on time and on budget.' Its statutory job is narrow — confirm that bond funds went only to authorized projects and were not spent on salaries or operating costs. Schedule and budget performance is simply not something it certifies. And the Yes-campaign passage contradicts itself in consecutive sentences: 'projects were completed on time and on budget,' immediately followed by 'some schools have not been upgraded.' If a school in the 2017 scope was not upgraded, the program did not deliver what it promised. You can only stay inside a fixed borrowing cap while overrunning the projects you did complete by deleting promised scope elsewhere — which is the opposite of 'on budget.'

Are you against the schools?

No. We support LCUSD, its teachers, and its students. That is exactly why we want a properly reconciled, right-sized bond — not a vote of confidence on a record we haven't been allowed to read.

Is this a campaign committee?

No. This is an independent informational site. It does not raise or spend money, does not coordinate with any campaign committee, and is not subject to FPPC committee-reporting requirements. We publish public records and editorial commentary.

Why is the site called YesOnLCF.com?

Because we are FOR La Cañada and its schools. The 'NO' is on a specific bond measure, not on the community.

Where do your numbers come from?

Two public documents: the 2017 LCUSD Facilities Master Plan (Section 4 — Program Costs, and Section 6 — Appendix) and the District's May 21, 2026 Measure LCF Citizens' Oversight Committee Project Expenditure Update (financials as of April 30, 2026). We line-item-matched the two and noted where scope definitions diverge. The 2017 FMP baselines were re-verified against the FMP Scope-Prioritization chart; 17 of 18 match to the dollar.

Aren't cost overruns just inflation?

Some, yes — construction prices have risen materially since 2017. But inflation does not explain ~$18M of FMP-promised projects with zero spend recorded, a pool that quietly grew from 25yd × 33m to 40m, or modernization scope that ran 199% over. Those are scope and governance issues, not commodity prices.

Is it fair that Sagebrush residents will be taxed but couldn't vote on Measure LCF?

We don't think so. The Sagebrush area's territory transfer into LCUSD does not take effect until July 1, 2026 — after this bond election. That means Sagebrush residents are not eligible to vote on Measure LCF, but once the transfer closes they will be inside the district boundary and bound by the tax assessment for the life of the bonds (typically 30+ years). Whatever one thinks of the measure on the merits, committing a neighborhood to a multi-decade obligation it had no voice in approving is a basic fairness problem the District has not addressed.

What would make you support a future bond?

A public, line-item reconciliation of Measure LCF spending against FMP promises; a written explanation of the missing-scope projects; an independent oversight committee with real teeth; and a right-sized ask tied to a fresh, current-dollar scope. We will say so loudly when we see it.

Can I contribute content or corrections?

Yes. If you spot a factual error, a misread of a line item, or have a public document we should incorporate, please reach out via the address on the About page.