Pacific Grove Unified holds community input session on master facility plan; survey to be posted

Pacific Grove Unified School District held the second of three community input sessions on the district's master facility plan, where MGT consultants presented enrollment forecasts, facility assessments and capacity/utilization data and invited public feedback via a district survey.

The session opened with Superintendent Adamson, who said the community's input will help prioritize projects that could be funded in a future bond: "Your voice is a critical part of this process. It matters." Lance Richards, an MGT consultant and former Indiana superintendent, led the presentation and summarized the firm's findings on demographics, enrollment projections and building conditions. Monica Ferrera, MGT consultant, guided attendees through a live polling survey and explained options for participating after the meeting via QR code, web link or text.

The consultants reported that the district's total student population peaked in 2017 (about 2,084 students) and has declined since. Present-day district enrollment was described as roughly 1,710'1,725 students. Richards said the firm's models forecast a gradual decline in enrollment rather than a sharp drop, and emphasized that projections are more reliable within a three- to five-year window: "We feel pretty good about our 3 year, good about our 5 year. But when you reach out into that 10 year window, it's a little bit more difficult because you're making assumptions on assumptions."

Consultants gave school-by-school estimates and utilization figures. Reported figures included: - Forest Grove Elementary: current enrollment cited around 310 students with a projected decline of roughly 20 students over the forecast horizon. - Robert Down Elementary: roughly 400 students now with a similar modest decline projected. - Pacific Grove Middle School: current enrollment near 425, with slight year-to-year declines in projections. - Pacific Grove High School: roughly 550 students, with small declines projected forward. - David Avenue (Community High/alternative programs): enrollment described as variable and need-driven; the building's utilization was cited at about 58 percent. - Pacific Grove Adult Education: reported to serve about 1,800 to 2,000 community members in rotating programs.

On community and population demographics, Richards said the local population cohort aged 5'19 shows a decline in the younger (5'9) brackets and that some forecasts put community population down by roughly 15 percent across the next decade; he stressed that community- and housing-driven changes (for example, older homes turning over to younger families) can alter those trends and should be monitored annually.

The facility assessment shared condition and educational-suitability scores across campuses. Richards explained MGT's combined scoring approach and noted that many PGUSD buildings are older (cited construction years included Forest Grove: 1959; Robert Down: 1929; David Avenue campus: 1951; some Pacific Grove facilities originally built earlier and rebuilt after a 1948 fire). Reported assessment highlights included: - A district'wide target utilization "sweet spot" of 80 to 95 percent; several campuses were near or within that range. - Robert Down was cited near the high 80s to low 90s on combined scores (reported as 93 in the presentation); Pacific Grove High cited around 91; Pacific Grove Middle around 81; some elementary schools were in the high 70s. - Technology readiness was identified as a district strength, with previous bond measures noted for technology investment. - Grounds and drainage issues were flagged at some sites (the adult education campus was called out for drainage issues when assessed).

Richards and district staff said the assessments are a snapshot in time; district leadership will receive more detailed, room-level PDF reports showing specific issues and recommendations. Richards said past measures that contributed to current conditions include Measure A (2014), Measure D (2020) and Measure B (2024), which the consultants cited as sources of prior investment in technology and building envelope work.

Monica Ferrera administered a live community poll with the room and remote participants. Poll results during the session showed priorities from attendees centered on building condition and safety, with respondents also favoring a mix of long-term comprehensive investments and short-term fixes. The survey included questions on priorities for CTE/STEM pathways (health sciences and arts ranked highly in the in-room responses) and an open-ended question that attendees were encouraged to complete online; Ferrera said the same survey will be posted on the district website and kept open after the session.

Attendees asked questions during the presentation about athletic facilities, Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility and whether consolidations (for example, shifting students between Robert Down and Forest Grove) were planned. Richards and Superintendent Adamson said no consolidation plans are in place: the district and consultants are at the stage of presenting data and gathering community input before any board deliberation. Richards said: "There are no plans for anything in regard to that right now. District officials just saw this information probably two weeks ago." He added that MGT will compile the survey results, open-ended responses and assessment data into a draft report to share with the school board for further consideration.

The presenters asked participants to share the online survey with neighbors; Richards said the survey window would likely be about a week to 10 days after posting, and that MGT would summarize and present the findings to the board. The consultants and district said the board will review the draft and that trustees will have an opportunity to provide feedback before a final plan is prepared.

What's next: the district will post the full survey online, MGT will analyze polling and open-ended responses and produce a draft report for board review. No policy decisions or boundary changes were made at the session; consultants said next steps depend on board direction after community feedback is compiled.