Should Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District voters approve Measure N? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether voters should approve Measure N for Los Gatos-Saratoga schools.

The measure would let the school district borrow $321 million, paid through local home taxes.

What supporters say

• The measure would require checks, yearly reviews, and public reports about how money gets used.
• The money could fix roofs, pipes, power lines, heat, air flow, labs, rooms, and safety needs.
• A school loan can pay for big work that the yearly school budget cannot afford.

What critics say

• Home tax loans can make some people pay much more than others.
• The tax would create a long debt for people who own homes in the area.
• The public record does not clearly show if every planned job ranks as a top need.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; strong proof matters more.

Measure N would let the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District borrow $321 million for repairs and modernization, paid for through local property taxes. Voters must weigh the potential benefits of improved campuses against a long-term financial obligation and unanswered questions about the projects’ costs and priorities.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure N is that it would create a dedicated source of money for major facility work. The ballot description lists roofs, restrooms, plumbing, electrical systems, heating and cooling, safety improvements, classrooms, laboratories and equipment. These are needs that regular school operating budgets generally are not designed to cover. 1

Research broadly supports the idea that safe, functional and well-equipped schools matter. Better facilities can improve school conditions and may help student achievement, although that research does not show how much educational benefit would come from any particular Measure N project at Los Gatos High School or Saratoga High School.

Local general-obligation bonds are also a standard way to pay for large school construction and repair projects. Operating budgets must support ongoing expenses such as staff and services, while bonds spread the cost of major capital work over time. State school-facilities programs often require local participation or matching funds, so rejecting Measure N could leave the district with fewer immediate options for assembling money for large projects. 2

The measure also includes more than a general promise to improve schools. Its ballot language refers to oversight and annual audits. California guidance requires audits to check whether bond money was spent on authorized facility purposes and whether related personnel costs were allowed. Oversight can also review project budgets, schedules, scope and effectiveness. These safeguards would give the public tools to monitor how the money is used. 3

The case against

The strongest objection is financial. Measure N would create a long-lasting property-tax obligation, with an estimated rate of about $30 for every $100,000 of assessed value, or roughly $23 million a year while the bonds are outstanding. The ballot summary cited in the record does not state the exact repayment period or the total cost after interest. Voters therefore cannot assess only the annual tax; they must also consider the full, multiyear commitment and the opportunity cost of borrowing. 4

The public record also does not independently verify every project priority. District planning documents explain why officials are seeking the money, but they are institutional sources rather than independent reviews of each building’s condition, the urgency of each project or the estimated cost. News reports have raised concerns that some proposed work could overlap with promises or projects connected to an earlier bond measure, but the available record does not settle that question. 5

The tax burden would also fall unevenly. Property owners would pay directly, while the most immediate facility benefits would be concentrated at two campuses. That raises concerns for renters, homeowners without enrolled students and taxpayers who support the schools but do not receive a direct educational benefit. California research has also found differences among districts in their ability to raise local capital funds, adding to concerns about fairness. 6

Audits and oversight would improve accountability, but they would not guarantee low costs or strong educational results. Construction inflation, delays and changes in project scope could still occur. Nor does the existence of a lawful bond mechanism prove that this particular package is necessary now.