A Morgan Hill Unified School District bond measure that would have asked voters to authorize $335 million for school facility improvements fell short of the required two-thirds majority at the May 28 board meeting.
Following discussion and public comment, three trustees voted yes but three others argued the district needs more time to build community support before returning to the ballot.
Board President John Horner, Vice President Sarah Northrup Gadus and Clerk Jennifer Marquez voted in favor of placing the measure before voters in November. Trustees Pamela Gardiner, Nancy Altman and Rebecca Munson voted no, while Trustee Veronica Andrade recused herself from the vote.
“I think we need the community’s backing,” Munson said. “I don’t think there was enough stakeholder input. I don’t think we’ve done enough to prepare ourselves for that.”
Andrade recused herself because her husband, Joe Andrade, serves as the district’s bond services director. Although the state Fair Political Practices Commission found in January that her participation would not constitute a conflict of interest under the Political Reform Act, she later announced that she would step back from all bond-related board activity to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
Trustees who voted no did not oppose a bond in principle, but argued that waiting for the 2028 presidential election would give the district time to conduct the kind of sustained outreach that preceded Measure G’s passage with roughly 60% approval in 2012.
“I talked with four of the board members who got Measure G passed,” Altman said. “I heard about the preparation they did ahead of time. I think we would be really well poised if we were looking at holding up for two years.”
Horner, who supported placing the measure on the ballot, said he was confident the community’s need was clear.
“I believe our students need it, and I believe the voters deserve the opportunity to vote,” he said.
The vote was preceded by a presentation by Bond Services Director Joe Andrade summarizing how Measure G’s $198.25 million were spent, including funding a near-complete rebuild of Britton Middle School, gymnasium modernizations at Live Oak High School and other campuses, new classrooms at several elementary schools and $17 million in deferred maintenance.
Measure G Citizens’ Oversight Committee Chair Kathy Chavez-Napoli told the board these improvements were long overdue and that more work is required to get all of the district’s campuses up to the same standards.
“These buildings desperately needed it, and we still have buildings that desperately need it,” she said.
Despite the progress made under Measure G, the district’s facilities master plan identifies roughly $1 billion in total needs at aging campuses including P.A. Walsh, San Martin Gwinn and Live Oak High School. The proposed $335 million bond was intended to address the highest-priority items on that list.
The district engaged financial consulting firm Dale Scott & Co. to conduct polling and advisory work on the measure—a move critics described as premature given that support from the other board members on a potential bond was not secured before consultants were hired.
“There has been zero engagement among the community,” said district resident and Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association board member Chris Robell during public comment. “Board members haven’t even had any discussion about what priorities might be necessary.”
Scott explained the mechanics of school bond financing, describing how voter approval grants the district authority to sell bonds in tranches to investors as project funds are needed, with taxpayers repaying principal and interest over time at a tax rate of $49 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Meredith Johnson of DWK, a law firm specializing in California education law, gave an overview of the proposed measure, including the 75-word ballot label voters would see when casting their ballots.
“Importantly, this is not actually issuing bonds at the time of the vote,” Johnson emphasized. “We are simply asking voters to authorize the district to issue bonds at a later date as project funds are needed.”
Scott stressed that a “yes” vote on the motion to approve the ballot measure would not immediately impose a new tax on residents, but instead give voters an opportunity to decide for themselves.
“A vote for this measure does not create a bond,” he said. “You do not have that authority without voter approval. Conversely, a vote against this resolution does not stop the bond, it only stops the community from being able to vote on it.”
SVTA President Mark Hinkle also spoke out during public comment at the meeting to note that district students are performing below grade level in English and math, and argued that bond-funded facilities improvements would do nothing to move those numbers.
“Your job should be to provide good quality teaching to the kids, which you can do through a parcel tax, not a bond,” Hinkle said. “A bond is a total waste of money. Don’t do it, don’t burden the taxpayers. The cost of living here in California is exploding, and this is just another reason.”
Trustees who voted no indicated they would support returning the bond measure to the ballot in 2028, giving the district roughly two years to conduct community outreach comparable to the multi-year campaign that preceded Measure G.
“I’m not against a bond. I’m a teacher, and I understand its importance deeply—that’s exactly why I think we need to wait two years,” Munson said. “With two years of planning and preparation, we can get the community fully behind us and answer all the outstanding questions. When we do this, we want to do it well.”
