Facing aging campuses and rising construction costs, the Paso Robles Joint Unified School District board of trustees moved a potential $180 million general obligation bond one step closer to the November ballot.
The dollar amount presented by district staff on April 28 reflects an early estimate of total project costs outlined in a developing facilities master plan, which includes modernization of aging classrooms, infrastructure repairs, and expansion of career technical education facilities at Paso Robles and Liberty high schools.
Dale Scott, a consultant for the district, presented polling results showing that 51 percent of likely voters support a bond measure—below the 55 percent supermajority required. That support rose to 56 percent after respondents heard information about its use for classroom upgrades and career technical education programs and taxpayer oversight.
“I would say that this is a bond election that would take work,” Scott said, cautioning that the district would need a strong public education campaign to succeed.
General obligation bonds are essentially loans that are repaid by a tax on all property within the district’s boundaries, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pawlowski explained during the meeting. Taxes to repay general obligation bonds start when bonds are issued—not upon passage by the voters.
Pawlowski told the board that construction costs and access to state matching funds could worsen if the district waits.
“If we wait two more years, we can only assume the cost of those projects are going to escalate by 10 percent per year,” Pawlowski told the board.
Polling presented at the meeting suggested voters responded most favorably to projects tied to workforce preparation, including programs in aerospace, health care, and skilled trades. Renovating science labs and repairing aging infrastructure also drew support.
Athletic facilities proved more complicated. One version of a ballot question that included athletic upgrades saw support fall from 50 to 45 percent before voters were given more information.
More than 70 percent of respondents said they were more likely to support a bond if funds would not be used for administrator salaries and if spending were subject to independent audits and public disclosure.
After hearing the presentation and data, several board members questioned whether voter support was strong enough.
“I don’t like the idea of pushing something that’s going to cost us tens of thousands or potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars based off these numbers,” Trustee Kenney Enney told Pawlowski. “If it had been a 60 percent, … and there was support for it, you know, it’d be a no-brainer. But I right now it’s 50/50.”
Enney also said the district needs a clearer and narrower project list before asking voters for support.
“Part of my issue with this whole thing is we’re pushing this bond measure, but we really haven’t seen the master facility plan yet,” he said.
Board President Joel Peterson noted that the April 28 discussion was only an informal “thumbs up” to direct staff to prepare a resolution, not an endorsement of the bond.
“It’s just telling staff to spend the effort to develop the resolution and bring that forward,” he said.
The board directed staff to return May 12 with a draft resolution, election cost estimates, and a more detailed facilities project list.
A final decision on whether to place the measure before voters could come May 26, ahead of the June filing deadline for the November ballot. ∆
This article appears in April 30 – May 7, 2026.