On June 24, the Pajaro Valley Unified School District Board of Trustees will consider placing a school facilities bond measure on the November ballot that would provide $192 million for repairs and upgrades at the district’s 35 schools.
The measure, if passed, would not increase tax rates for residents within district boundaries. Instead, it would replace Measure J, which voters approved in 2002 and which expires in 2030. That would maintain the current tax rate of $120 per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
That was part of a report to the trustees by Dale Scott, whose eponymous company conducted a $15,000 survey of 410 voters from May 26 to June 1 to gauge support for the bond.
The survey tested two versions of potential ballot language for a November 2026 bond measure. One version emphasized updating career-training classrooms and received 58% support, with an additional 9% of respondents leaning yes. The other focused on replacing deteriorating portable classrooms and received 57% support, with 8% leaning yes.
Survey respondents expressed strong support for public education generally, with 80% agreeing that Pajaro Valley’s public schools are the community’s most important asset. Another 80% agreed that quality schools increase property values.
“Is there any other issue that 80% of your voters agree upon?” Scott asked the board.
Among the projects tested, voters responded most favorably to proposals to update career-training and college-preparation facilities, improve accessibility for people with disabilities, modernize science and career-technical education classrooms, and repair aging infrastructure such as roofs, plumbing, electrical systems and heating and cooling equipment.
The most persuasive taxpayer protections included assurances that bond funds could only be spent on local projects, could not be taken by the state or federal government, would be subject to public disclosure requirements and independent oversight, and could not be used for administrator salaries or pensions.
The district is considering placing the measure on the Nov. 3, 2026, ballot. According to the presentation, the school board is scheduled to consider action June 24, ahead of the county’s Aug. 7 filing deadline.
The proposal drew criticism from the two people who addressed the board.
Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers President Brandon Diniz said the union would support a bond measure that instead funded teacher salaries.
“So you’re still not seeing a tax increase, but now you’re getting to fund the people who do the work and not the schools that we’re going to be closing,” he said. “If we oppose this bond measure, you won’t get it passed. That’s just the facts, and the power that lies in the hands of the people. And right now, from where I’m standing, we would oppose this and we would work to tank this bond measure and let people put more of their tax dollars back in their pocket.”
Renaissance High School teacher Chris Webb agreed and pointed to a recent similar measure in the San Jose Unified School District that failed.
“If you keep attacking your bread-and-butter people, you’re kind of shooting yourselves in the foot,” he said.
Instead, the district should ask the people who work in the schools what they need.
“We need to do better,” he said. “We need a culture change that’s from the bottom up.”
Trustee Gabe Medina questioned why relatively few survey respondents came from his trustee area, which includes portions of Monterey County.
Scott said participation from each trustee area was proportional to the number of registered voters living there.
But Medina questioned that, saying his community should have had more representation.
“We’re disenfranchising voters who should have a say, because if we do approve this, they’re going to be impacted by this,” he said.
“…If I get them out there to sway this vote, I could tank this.”
Trustee Misty Navarro said that, as a taxpayer in the district, five of the seven measures on her property tax statement are from PVUSD.
“I don’t know that another one is going to pass,” she said. “I think that it’s a little too close, in my personal opinion, to Measure M, and we haven’t actually showed our taxpayers what we’re doing with Measure M yet.”
