Column: The saga of Paso’s pool
Retired superintendent Curt Dubost
– I was pleased to attend the recent grand opening of the new high school pool. While not as elaborate or complex as originally envisioned, it is a beautiful facility that will serve the high school and community for decades to come. It is infinitely superior to the totally inadequate former facility, which was, particularly for water polo, an absolute embarrassment. It was scaled down to one pool, not two, yet still was hugely over the original budget. Completing it was the only responsible action the Board could take, however, under the circumstances.
As I watched the athletes finally leap into the water, some ten years after the bond approving its construction was narrowly passed by the voters, I was reminded of a meeting seven years ago on the site with the County Grand Jury. They had demanded to see the storage containers in person, where the prematurely purchased pool parts were being stored. So low was the level of trust and so rampant the various conspiracy theories that the Grand Jury insisted on confirming visually the two pools that had been shipped in from Italy actually existed and were indeed there in their shipping containers.
They were there all right. What was missing was any viable plan to pay for their installation, and once in money in the budget for their ongoing maintenance and operation. The District’s reserves were at less than one percent, well below the three percent required by the law. The oversight of the district’s finances was, by law, in the hands of the County Office of Education, and all expenditures needed approval by the county-appointed financial advisor, Diana Larsen, and County Superintendent, Jim Brescia.
As an aside, District Personnel went on a field trip to Hollister to view an identical new aquatics complex and were told by the Business Manager there that our pool budget was woefully inadequate and that their project had cost about twice what we were estimating.
What led to this mess?
Several previous bonds had failed to gain voter approval. By 2016, a charismatic, visionary but inexperienced superintendent had been hired who had proposed a veritable blizzard of exciting new programs and championed the campaign to pass a bond. Construction projects, both large and small, were included in the ninety -five million for elementary school renovation and reconstruction, as well as the new aquatics complex. In any case, and only after very intense, door-to-door campaigning by the Aquatics Athletes, Boosters, and some school staff, the bond passed by a slim margin. Additional controversy arose when it became clear some “voluntary” staff donations of time and or money to the campaign had been coerced.
Unfortunately, it became obvious by the time the then Superintendent had resigned that the costs of those promised projects had been wildly underestimated and that many of the promised construction was not feasible. It was also clear from independent demographic studies that enrollment projections used to justify the bond construction as well as the annual revenue it would generate, were grossly overestimated.
As a result, one of the first actions I took as the new CEO was to empower a feasibility study of the projects by two retired local developers/builders and the former district facilities director. They concluded many of the approved projects were either unnecessary and not wanted by the site staff (such as the second story on what was then the Lewis Middle School administration building), or cost-ineffective, such as the expensive remodeling of the Pat Butler parking lot (for a net gain of only a handful of parking spaces). This study (The Krum Report) concluded that many of the approved projects should be abandoned and that, in fact, the district in the future would need one LESS elementary school, not expansion at sites like Butler, King, Peterson, and Pifer.
To be sure, at least three of the elementary sites (Bauer, Speck, and Georgia Brown) had fallen into serious disrepair and desperately needed to be rebuilt. That construction and the new electives building at the now junior high were already underway and those costs were already far exceeding the budget. Partially this was due to the exponentially rising prices of construction. In other cases, the buildings were not designed cost-effectively with expensive raised roofs and other unnecessary features. At Bauer, the costly roof overhangs were reportedly designed to be “neo-Craftsman” in style to “match the neighborhood.” I live nearby and volunteer there weekly, and it’s a beautiful school with a staff that is incredibly dedicated. It ought to be a stunning structure at a cost of over a million per classroom.
Expensive change orders due to errors and omissions in the architectural plans also became an ongoing problem and a huge cost (every effort was made to recoup those funds, some more successful than others). The district, in response, fired architects and replaced construction overseers. Meanwhile, the planned reconstruction of Georgia Brown was beset by new obstacles, especially the discovery of a “seismic anomaly” under the site. ( The authors of the aforementioned Krum Report viewed this development only slightly “tongue in cheek” as Divine Intervention in that we actually needed one LESS school site.)
It turns out they were right, and ultimately that site was not needed.
To address a rumor repeated often in the local media, no site was, to my knowledge EVER intentionally allowed to fall into disrepair in order to build support for the bond. What we didn’t do was repair or replace any structures that were planned for imminent demolition if the concern was cosmetic or superficial, not structural or hazardous. To spend unnecessarily on a structure soon to be dozed under would rightfully have been loudly questioned. In addition to the architects and inspectors, the contractor on many of the repairs had grandchildren in school at the site and personally assured us that the site was safe. I am also absolutely certain that none of our staff, from top to bottom, would ever have intentionally done anything for political purposes that might in any way potentially have harmed any students or staff.
Why do I bring this all back up now? Superintendent Loftus, whom I believe is doing a terrific job, mentioned at the Aquatics Grand Opening that the District is considering proposing another huge tax override bond to build vocational and technical specialty facilities at the high school and Alternative Ed sites.
I respectfully submit that now is NOT the time to propose another bond. More time is needed to build back taxpayer and public confidence in the District and its oversight abilities after all of the problems in the last ten years.
I strongly suggest the District should focus not on passing another bond at this time and should instead:
- Justify the need for a new bond while enrollment overall is in decline;
- Make sure the annual budget fully funds Deferred Maintenance to repair any facilities in disrepair, such as the Men’s and Women’s Locker Rooms at the high school;
- Explore shared specialty facilities with both Cuesta and other North County High Schools;
- Make sure any proposed projects are designed for cost-effectiveness and utility, not aesthetics. To paraphrase former Board member Lance Gannon, can we please just have classrooms with “four solid walls and a roof that doesn’t leak” and spend any saved money on maintenance of existing buildings;
- Address first and foremost, improved student academic achievement. Give the instructional improvement plans now in place a chance to bear fruit and thereby build community support;
- Monitor actual enrollment carefully to determine the effects of new development as well as immigration enforcement and demand for vineyard workers; and perhaps most importantly ,
- Continue to operate in a totally transparent and frugal manner on all matters.
If the District continues to build on its current successes under the capable leadership of Superintendent Loftus and with the many dedicated professional educators we have, I’m confident the district can successfully address the above, thereby earning the support of a majority of the voters.
Let’s give it at least two years to prove to the public that significant progress toward the goals can be achieved and that the District is to be trusted with a new bond.
-By Retired Paso Robles Joint Unified School District Superintendent Curt Dubost
Curt Dubost’s column asks the community to treat delay as wisdom. It is not. What actually happened with the pool is more straightforward: the original concept was overly ambitious for PRJUSD, (designed and approved prior to Dr Dubost’s arrival in the district) and the district had to make a necessary course correction to right-size the project for the students, the district, and the community. That is not failure. That is responsible governance. Even Dubost now acknowledges the finished facility, though scaled back from the original two-pool concept, is “a beautiful facility” that will serve the high school and community for decades. The issue was never whether students needed a pool. The issue was whether the original concept fit the district’s reality. It did not. So the district adjusted and delivered something buildable and sustainable.
So let’s deal directly with his six reasons for waiting, because each one sounds cautious on paper but falls apart under scrutiny.
First, the claim that declining enrollment makes a new bond harder to justify is an incomplete argument. The size of a bond is not determined by enrollment alone. It is driven by the age and condition of facilities, infrastructure failures, modernization needs, safety requirements, program demand, code compliance, and whether existing spaces are adequate for the educational model the district is trying to provide. Bond needs are about what must be repaired, modernized, or built to serve students properly. It is not a simple headcount exercise. Even PRJUSD’s own Facilities Master Plan is described by the district as a long-term facility needs assessment with estimated costs “in today’s dollars” and a list of potential bond projects. That is exactly the point: facility need is based on facility condition and strategic need, not just enrollment charts.
Second, the argument that the district should fully fund deferred maintenance before pursuing another bond sounds disciplined but misunderstands how school finance works. Deferred maintenance and major capital modernization are related, but they are not the same thing and they are not funded the same way. Bond proceeds exist to fund construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, replacement, furnishing, and equipping of school facilities. They cannot legally be used for teacher salaries, administrative salaries, or ordinary operating expenses. So when someone says, “Take care of maintenance first instead of asking for a bond,” they are blending together two different buckets of responsibility. A district can and should do both: maintain what it has while also planning for the larger capital projects that operating dollars will never realistically cover.
Third, the suggestion that the district should lean on shared specialty facilities with Cuesta or neighboring schools sounds collaborative, but in practice it often means reduced access, transportation complications, scheduling dependence, diluted ownership, and fewer opportunities for students to use those spaces during the regular school day. Shared use can be useful at the margins. It is not a substitute for having your own instructional infrastructure when your own students are the ones you are responsible for serving. Paso students should not have to borrow their future from someone else’s campus calendar.
Fourth, Dubost says projects should be “cost effective, utility-driven, and frills-free.” Fine. Then that is an argument for better project definition, not for waiting. If the district’s next bond is centered on Career Technical Education and other clearly justified educational priorities, that is the very definition of utility-driven investment. PRJUSD’s own CTE materials say these programs are designed to prepare students to be both college and career ready, and the district is expanding offerings for 2026–27 specifically in response to student interest and industry demand, including cosmetology, infant and toddler care, cybersecurity, and agriculture pathway enhancements. That is not decorative spending. That is targeted investment in programs tied directly to student opportunity and workforce relevance.
Fifth, the idea that the district should focus on academic achievement before facilities is a false split. Facilities are not separate from academics. They are part of academics. Students do not prepare for skilled trades, health careers, cybersecurity, agriculture, or technical fields through slogans. They need actual spaces, actual equipment, and actual programs. If the district wants to expand hands-on, career-aligned learning—as its own 2026–27 pathway planning says it does—then facilities are not a distraction from academic achievement. They are one of the conditions that make that achievement possible.
Sixth, the call to wait two more years in the name of transparency and frugality is the weakest argument of all, because transparency is not created by delay. It is created by structure, oversight, and discipline. PRJUSD already has a Citizens’ Oversight Committee, and the district states plainly that the committee’s legal charge is to review and report on the expenditure of bond funds and ensure those revenues are used only for approved school construction purposes. The accountability mechanism is already there. The answer is to use it well, define projects well, communicate well, and execute well—not to pretend that time itself creates trust.
And then there is the practical issue Dubost’s column never truly escapes: waiting does not make construction cheaper. It usually does the opposite. His own piece references rapidly rising construction costs, and current industry reporting backs that up. ENR’s Construction Cost Index and Building Cost Index both increased year over year into 2026, while Associated General Contractors reported nonresidential construction materials and services were up 3.1% year over year in February 2026, with especially sharp increases in several metals categories. That means every year of hesitation risks buying less with the same taxpayer dollar. Delay is not neutral. Delay is a cost decision.
That is why the “wait” argument sounds prudent but functions as drift. If the next bond is focused on Career Technical Education, modernization, and other legitimate facility priorities, then the question should not be, “Why now?” The question should be, “Why would anyone oppose investing in spaces that prepare students for real work, real skills, and real opportunity?” PRJUSD is already expanding CTE offerings in response to student interest and industry demand. A bond aligned to that vision is not excess. It is a rational response to what students need and what the local economy will reward.
So here is the bottom line. The lesson of the pool is not that PRJUSD should wait longer before acting again. The lesson is that when a project is oversized, responsible leaders correct course, right-size the work, and keep moving. The district did exactly that. And the lesson for the future is two fold and is just as clear:
1 – Projects should be designed to match the actual need. That means getting the scale right, defining the scope carefully, and making sure the architectural approach supports the educational purpose rather than trying to impress with unnecessary flair. School facilities should be durable, functional and attractive enough to reflect community pride, but they do not need to be oversized over designed or loaded with expensive features that do little to improve student outcomes.
2 – Bond need is not measured by enrollment alone. It is measured by the age of facilities, the condition of infrastructure, the demand for programs, the adequacy of instructional spaces, safety and compliance obligations, and whether the district is serious about preparing students for the future.
If PRJUSD now wants to pursue a bond centered on Career Technical Education and real facility priorities, that is not reckless. That is disciplined investment. That is strategic planning. And that is exactly what the community should expect.
Curt Dubost’s column asks the community to treat delay as wisdom. It is not. What actually happened with the pool is more straightforward: the original concept was overly ambitious for PRJUSD, (designed and approved prior to Dr Dubost’s arrival in the district) and the district had to make a necessary course correction to right-size the project for the students, the district, and the community. That is not failure. That is responsible governance. Even Dubost now acknowledges the finished facility, though scaled back from the original two-pool concept, is “a beautiful facility” that will serve the high school and community for decades. The issue was never whether students needed a pool. The issue was whether the original concept fit the district’s reality. It did not. So the district adjusted and delivered something buildable and sustainable.
So let’s deal directly with his six reasons for waiting, because each one sounds cautious on paper but falls apart under scrutiny.
First, the claim that declining enrollment makes a new bond harder to justify is an incomplete argument. The size of a bond is not determined by enrollment alone. It is driven by the age and condition of facilities, infrastructure failures, modernization needs, safety requirements, program demand, code compliance, and whether existing spaces are adequate for the educational model the district is trying to provide. Bond needs are about what must be repaired, modernized, or built to serve students properly. It is not a simple headcount exercise. Even PRJUSD’s own Facilities Master Plan is described by the district as a long-term facility needs assessment with estimated costs “in today’s dollars” and a list of potential bond projects. That is exactly the point: facility need is based on facility condition and strategic need, not just enrollment charts.
Second, the argument that the district should fully fund deferred maintenance before pursuing another bond sounds disciplined but misunderstands how school finance works. Deferred maintenance and major capital modernization are related, but they are not the same thing and they are not funded the same way. Bond proceeds exist to fund construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, replacement, furnishing, and equipping of school facilities. They cannot legally be used for teacher salaries, administrative salaries, or ordinary operating expenses. So when someone says, “Take care of maintenance first instead of asking for a bond,” they are blending together two different buckets of responsibility. A district can and should do both: maintain what it has while also planning for the larger capital projects that operating dollars will never realistically cover.
Third, the suggestion that the district should lean on shared specialty facilities with Cuesta or neighboring schools sounds collaborative, but in practice it often means reduced access, transportation complications, scheduling dependence, diluted ownership, and fewer opportunities for students to use those spaces during the regular school day. Shared use can be useful at the margins. It is not a substitute for having your own instructional infrastructure when your own students are the ones you are responsible for serving. Paso students should not have to borrow their future from someone else’s campus calendar.
Fourth, Dubost says projects should be “cost effective, utility-driven, and frills-free.” Fine. Then that is an argument for better project definition, not for waiting. If the district’s next bond is centered on Career Technical Education and other clearly justified educational priorities, that is the very definition of utility-driven investment. PRJUSD’s own CTE materials say these programs are designed to prepare students to be both college and career ready, and the district is expanding offerings for 2026–27 specifically in response to student interest and industry demand, including cosmetology, infant and toddler care, cybersecurity, and agriculture pathway enhancements. That is not decorative spending. That is targeted investment in programs tied directly to student opportunity and workforce relevance.
Fifth, the idea that the district should focus on academic achievement before facilities is a false split. Facilities are not separate from academics. They are part of academics. Students do not prepare for skilled trades, health careers, cybersecurity, agriculture, or technical fields through slogans. They need actual spaces, actual equipment, and actual programs. If the district wants to expand hands-on, career-aligned learning—as its own 2026–27 pathway planning says it does—then facilities are not a distraction from academic achievement. They are one of the conditions that make that achievement possible.
Sixth, the call to wait two more years in the name of transparency and frugality is the weakest argument of all, because transparency is not created by delay. It is created by structure, oversight, and discipline. PRJUSD already has a Citizens’ Oversight Committee, and the district states plainly that the committee’s legal charge is to review and report on the expenditure of bond funds and ensure those revenues are used only for approved school construction purposes. The accountability mechanism is already there. The answer is to use it well, define projects well, communicate well, and execute well—not to pretend that time itself creates trust.
And then there is the practical issue Dubost’s column never truly escapes: waiting does not make construction cheaper. It usually does the opposite. His own piece references rapidly rising construction costs, and current industry reporting backs that up. ENR’s Construction Cost Index and Building Cost Index both increased year over year into 2026, while Associated General Contractors reported nonresidential construction materials and services were up 3.1% year over year in February 2026, with especially sharp increases in several metals categories. That means every year of hesitation risks buying less with the same taxpayer dollar. Delay is not neutral. Delay is a cost decision.
That is why the “wait” argument sounds prudent but functions as drift. If the next bond is focused on Career Technical Education, modernization, and other legitimate facility priorities, then the question should not be, “Why now?” The question should be, “Why would anyone oppose investing in spaces that prepare students for real work, real skills, and real opportunity?” PRJUSD is already expanding CTE offerings in response to student interest and industry demand. A bond aligned to that vision is not excess. It is a rational response to what students need and what the local economy will reward.
So here is the bottom line. The lesson of the pool is not that PRJUSD should wait longer before acting again. The lesson is that when a project is oversized, responsible leaders correct course, right-size the work, and keep moving. The district did exactly that. And the lesson for the future is two fold and is just as clear:
1 – Projects should be designed to match the actual need. That means getting the scale right, defining the scope carefully, and making sure the architectural approach supports the educational purpose rather than trying to impress with unnecessary flair. School facilities should be durable, functional and attractive enough to reflect community pride, but they do not need to be oversized over designed or loaded with expensive features that do little to improve student outcomes.
2 – Bond need is not measured by enrollment alone. It is measured by the age of facilities, the condition of infrastructure, the demand for programs, the adequacy of instructional spaces, safety and compliance obligations, and whether the district is serious about preparing students for the future.
If PRJUSD now wants to pursue a bond centered on Career Technical Education and real facility priorities, that is not reckless. That is disciplined investment. That is strategic planning. And that is exactly what the community should expect.