Dearest reader,
I went looking at the St. Johns Public Schools November 2026 bond proposal, and this one required more than one page of the ledger.
The proposal is for $40 million.
The district describes it as a "0.00 mill net increase over the prior year's levy."
And, technically, that is correct.
St. Johns currently levies 7.00 debt mills. If the proposal passes, the district estimates taxpayers will continue paying 7.00 mills in 2027.
But there is another number in the district's own materials.
If the proposal does not pass, St. Johns projects its debt millage will fall to 5.83 mills in 2027.
So the comparison looks like this:
2026: 7.00 mills
2027 if the bond passes: 7.00 mills
2027 if the bond fails: 5.83 mills
That makes the difference between passage and failure 1.17 mills in 2027.
So "0.00 mill net increase" means no increase compared with what taxpayers are paying now.
It does not mean there is no difference between what taxpayers would pay next year with the bond and without it.
Both statements can be true.
But then I followed another breadcrumb.
St. Johns has maintained a 7-mill debt levy for approximately 31 years, according to the district.
Again, that does not mean taxpayers have been paying the same bond for 31 years. The debt has changed over time through new issues, refundings and repayments.
And there is another participant in this ledger:
The State of Michigan.
St. Johns has participated in Michigan's School Loan Revolving Fund for approximately 15 years. Treasury's 2025 records showed the district with about $1.145 million outstanding and listed it as repaying.
The district's 2026 ballot language says its current state-loan balance is down to approximately $238,751.
But the proposed $40 million bond anticipates borrowing from the state program again:
Estimated new state borrowing: $1,608,798
Estimated interest: $387,502
Estimated repayment: $1,996,300
Estimated repayment period: 7 years
Why?
The district says using the state loan program helps it maintain its targeted 7.00-mill total bond rate.
And then there is the General Fund.
The district's own budgets show:
2025-26 projected General Fund deficit: $870,006
2026-27 projected General Fund deficit: $555,969
That would reduce General Fund balance from approximately $5.84 million at the beginning of 2025-26 to $4.42 million by June 2027, a projected decline of approximately $1.43 million in two years. The executed 2025-26 final amendment shows $37.052 million in revenue against $37.922 million appropriated. 2025-26 Budget Resolution - Final Amendment 06.22.2026 EXECUTED.pdf
And St. Johns lists one of the purposes of the proposed bond as:
"Temporarily alleviate the general fund to right-size the budget and allow for proper future planning."
So after putting all of those receipts on the same table, I think the fair question is this:
If taxpayers have maintained a 7-mill debt levy for roughly 31 years, the existing debt levy is projected to fall to 5.83 mills without the new bond, the new proposal anticipates additional borrowing from the State of Michigan to help maintain a 7-mill rate, and the district says the bond is also needed to temporarily relieve pressure on a General Fund projected to decline by approximately $1.43 million over two years, what is the long-term plan?
Not whether St. Johns needs roofs.
Not whether buses eventually need replacing.
Not whether buildings require maintenance.
Those are separate questions.
What is the long-term financial plan that eventually allows taxpayers to come off 7 mills while maintaining the district's facilities without repeatedly needing debt to relieve pressure elsewhere in the budget?
That is the question I am left with.
No recommendation on how anyone should vote.
No declaration that the bond is good or bad.
Just the district's numbers, the state's numbers, and one rather large question sitting in the middle of the ledger.
With receipts and respect.
#LadyBudgetdown #StJohnsPublicSchools #SchoolFinance #MichiganSchools #SchoolBonds #PublicEducation #Transparency #WithReceiptsAndRespect