Should Sunol Glen Unified School District voters approve Measure K? (November 3, 2026 ballot)

What's this about?

People disagree about whether Sunol Glen voters should approve Measure K on November 3, 2026.

The plan would fix school buildings, but it would also raise taxes for many years.

What supporters say

• Measure K would fix key parts of the school, such as pipes, power, sewers, heat, air, rooms, and restrooms.
• The plan would keep the money in a separate account and use checks, audits, and public reports.
• A yes vote might help the district seek more state money for school building work.

What critics say

• Passing Measure K would not promise that all the planned work gets done on time or within its cost.
• Taxpayers would pay back more than the amount borrowed because loan costs would add up.
• Better school buildings may help learning, but they do not ensure higher grades or test scores.

How to read this

The number of points on each side does not show who is right; the strength of each point matters more.

Sunol Glen Unified School District voters will decide on Measure K on November 3, 2026. The measure would finance campus repairs through a long-term property-tax obligation, raising questions about the district’s building needs, the cost to taxpayers and whether the promised work and educational benefits will materialize.

The case for

The strongest argument for Measure K is that it would pay for major building systems that regular school operating budgets generally cannot cover. The ballot description includes completing the Main Building retrofit and replacing plumbing, electrical, sewer, heating and ventilation systems, along with modernizing classrooms and restrooms. State guidance identifies local general-obligation bonds as a main way for school districts to finance large capital projects. 1

Better facilities can improve students’ learning conditions. Some California studies have found links between targeted investment in school buildings and improved student outcomes. But those studies show associations, not proof that every project funded by Measure K would raise academic performance.

The measure also includes formal checks on spending. It would create a separate bond account, require annual financial and performance audits, establish an independent citizens’ oversight committee and require annual reports to the governing board. Those measures could make it easier to see whether money is being spent for approved purposes. 2 They would not, however, guarantee that construction is completed on time or within budget.

Approval could also strengthen the district’s ability to seek state facilities money. California programs include matching funds and technical support for small or lower-wealth districts. That opportunity may matter because research has found that many districts do not have enough taxable property wealth to pay for adequate facilities on their own. 3 Still, outside funding would depend on future state decisions and is not assured.

The case against

Measure K would create a much larger repayment obligation than the amount borrowed. The measure would authorize up to $6.1 million in bonds but is estimated to require about $13.815 million in total debt service. The average estimated tax rate is $33.54 per $100,000 of assessed value, with a projected maximum of $35, and collections could continue through the 2058–59 fiscal year (see Figure 1). 4

That estimate is based on assessed value, not simply a property’s current market price. Actual rates could change depending on property-value growth, when bonds are issued, interest rates and the district’s financing choices. Even so, voters would be approving a decades-long tax stream whose total cost is substantially greater than the principal.

The most serious concern is that approval would not guarantee the entire construction program. Some projects may depend on state funding that lawmakers have yet to provide. County Counsel specifically warns that passing the measure does not ensure all listed work will be completed. Taxpayers could therefore take on the debt while receiving only part of the promised improvements. 5

The academic payoff is also uncertain. School conditions can affect learning, but student achievement depends on many other factors, including teaching, staffing, enrollment and students’ circumstances. Bond money cannot pay salaries or provide unrestricted operating support, and existing California research does not isolate the effect of these specific Sunol Glen projects. 6