Dearest reader,
Well.
It appears one school district's ledger has managed to leave a breadcrumb in another.
After my post about St. Johns Public Schools and its approximately $3 million non-voted bond for the Early Learning Center, a reader sent me a rather interesting question.
And I haven't been able to stop thinking about it.
The reader asked:
If a Michigan school district can finance a capital project through non-voted borrowing, why have the longstanding flooding problems at Arrowwood Elementary and Sherwood's gym remained tied to passage of a much larger voter-approved bond in Saginaw Township?
Oh.
Out came the spectacles.
Because these aren't exactly problems that arrived with yesterday's rainstorm.
Arrowwood's flooding has reportedly been an issue for roughly six decades.
Sherwood's gym has experienced problems with water during heavy rains for decades as well.
And both have now survived the facilities conversation surrounding three unsuccessful Saginaw Township Community Schools bond proposals: 2023, 2025 and 2026.
For years, residents have repeatedly heard essentially the same message:
These are problems that need to be fixed.
And the bond needs to pass so they can be fixed.
Except my little trip through the St. Johns ledger prompted a reader to ask a question about another district entirely.
If St. Johns Public Schools could use non-voted borrowing to finance a capital project, had Saginaw Township Community Schools ever considered a similar financing approach for Arrowwood or Sherwood?
Now, before anyone gets overly excited, the abacus would like a word.
That does not make anything free.
The debt still has to be repaid. District resources ultimately have to pay for it. Borrowing has costs.
But the reader's breadcrumb raises a much broader question, and not just for Saginaw Township Community Schools.
When districts tell communities that longstanding facilities problems need to be fixed through a voter-approved bond, how
transparent are they about the other financing avenues that may be available?
A voter-approved bond may very well be the district's preferred option.
It may even be the best option.
But those are very different statements from leaving residents with the impression that it is the only option.
If non-voted financing, sinking funds, General Fund expenditures or other legally available mechanisms could potentially address a particular problem, shouldn't those alternatives, and the reasons for using or rejecting them be part of the public conversation too?
Because voters shouldn't have to stumble across another district's ledger to discover that there may have been more than one path.
And that brings me right back to Arrowwood and Sherwood.
Did Saginaw Township Community Schools ever explore non-voted financing specifically to permanently address Arrowwood or Sherwood?
If so, why wasn't that option pursued?
If not, why not?
And perhaps the most important question:
If these problems were serious enough to be included in the facilities conversation through three consecutive bond proposals, were they serious enough to consider fixing independently rather than continuing to make their permanent repair dependent upon passage of a much larger bond?
Because after three unsuccessful bond proposals, perhaps the only question shouldn't be:
"When will voters approve the bond?"
Perhaps another question belongs in the ledger:
"What options were available to fix these problems without waiting for them to?"
That, dearest reader, is why I follow the breadcrumbs.
Sometimes one district's receipts teach me which questions to ask in another.
With receipts and respect.
#LadyBudgetdown #SaginawTownship #SaginawTownshipCommunitySchools #ArrowwoodElementary #SherwoodElementary #SchoolBonds #SchoolFinance #MichiganSchools #PublicSchools #Transparency #Accountability #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect