Napa Valley Unified is rejecting a civil grand jury’s call to stop using school bond funds for staff salaries — a move the jury warns could erode public trust as $230 million in new bond spending begins.
Just months after narrowly passing a $230 million bond measure, Napa Valley Unified School District is drawing new scrutiny for using school bond funds to cover staff salaries — a practice a civil grand jury warns could erode public trust.
In its latest report, the Napa County Civil Grand Jury urged the district to stop using bond money to pay employees, even those overseeing bond-funded projects. While such spending is legal under California law, the jury argued it runs counter to promises made to voters and could deepen public skepticism — already heightened by years of rising property taxes and repeated bond measures.
District leaders are not backing down. In a formal response scheduled for consideration by the school board Thursday night, Napa Valley Unified said it would continue using a portion of bond proceeds to pay staff directly involved in bond project oversight, calling the practice fiscally responsible.
At the heart of the debate is the growing tension between what the district is legally allowed to do — and what it told voters it would do. Campaign materials for the district’s bond measures clearly stated that funds would be used for school facilities, not for teacher or administrator salaries. But the fine print of bond language, and state legal precedent, permits spending on staff overseeing construction projects.
The issue is surfacing at a particularly sensitive time. In November, Napa Valley Unified’s $230 million Measure B passed by fewer than 40 votes — barely clearing the 55% threshold required under California’s Proposition 39. That marked the district’s third bond measure in a decade, adding to local property tax obligations that now cover more than half a billion dollars in bond principal and interest from Measures H, A2 and B.
With many voters already voicing frustration over rising tax bills, the grand jury report struck a pointed warning: using bond funds for employee salaries could reduce public trust by “contradicting public pledges and bond ballot language that states “no funds for administrators.”
What the law allows — and what voters heard
Approved by state voters in 2000, Proposition 39 lowered the supermajority needed to pass local school bonds from two-thirds to just 55%, with the condition that bond funds be used for school facilities — not on operating expenses or salaries.
In 2004, the California Attorney General clarified that bond proceeds may be used to pay district staff performing direct oversight of construction projects. Napa Valley Unified, like many districts, has relied on this exemption.
District leaders argue that using internal staff to oversee bond-funded projects saves money compared to hiring outside consultants. In its response to the grand jury, the district said this approach ensures experienced employees familiar with school facilities needs are managing projects at lower cost.
But critics point to the clear messaging used to sell bond measures to voters. Measure B’s full text states that bond funds will be used only for the construction and replacement of school facilities. The district’s own website for past measures also states in bold that bond funds cannot be used to pay for salaries. Only in legal fine print does the exception for project oversight appear.
That gap between voter-facing messaging and actual spending is what the grand jury says puts trust at risk.
How much is being spent?
Between 2018 and 2023, the district spent about $1.3 million from Measure H on staff salaries and benefits, amounting to between 0.08% and 1.15% of total expenditures each year, according to the grand jury. No Measure H salaries were charged in the 2023-24 or 2024-25 budgets.
For the newly passed Measure B, the district has said it plans to follow the same approach — using a portion of bond proceeds to pay staff performing project oversight — but full spending data is not yet available.
Transparency concerns
The grand jury also raised broader transparency concerns around the district’s handling of bond information. It said Napa Valley Unified’s website is difficult to navigate and that key financial information about bond spending is hard for the public to locate. The jury recommended that the district do more to clearly communication how bond dollars are being used and to better inform citizens about the role of bond oversight committees.
In its response, the district largely rejected those recommendations, asserting that it already provides accessible online information and has hired Bay Area-based communications firm Q Communications to assist with public outreach for Measure B. It also said it provides training and information to its citizen bond oversight committees.
The grand jury did commend the district for implementing some of its earlier recommendations on transparency.
Trust in the balance
As the district prepares to roll out projects funded by Measure B, the tension between legal allowances and public perception remains unresolved.
District leaders maintain they are acting within both the law and fiscal prudence. But with another $230 million in taxpayer-backed debt now on the books — and with community trust already tested by narrow bond margins and rising property taxes — how Napa Valley Unified handles its spending decisions may shape its ability to secure public support for future needs.
You can reach Tarini Mehta at 707-521-5337 or tarini.mehta@pressdemocrat.com. On X (Twitter) @MehtaTarini.
