Dearest reader,
The St. Johns ledger has presented me with a rather interesting circle.
After the district's 2024 bond proposal failed, Superintendent Anthony Berthiaume explained that approximately $1 million in needed boiler and parking-lot work would have to come from the General Fund:
"That's gonna come out of our general fund, which will affect classrooms."
After the 2025 bond failed, the message was similar: necessary projects would have to compete with classrooms, staffing and other operating expenses for General Fund dollars.
Fair enough.
That is, after all, one of the primary arguments for bonds. Capital projects are expensive. Paying for them through the General Fund can put pressure on the money used to operate the schools.
But then I found the Early Learning Center.
An Early Learning Center appeared in both the 2024 and 2025 bond proposals rejected by voters. In the 2025 proposal alone, approximately $20 million was designated for the ELC.
The district subsequently took a different route.
Rather than constructing the much more expensive ELC proposed in the bond, the district purchased an existing building and renovated it for approximately $3 million, financing the project through non-voted bonds.
And this distinction matters.
A non-voted bond is borrowing authorized by the school board without asking voters to approve that particular bond issue at an election. The district receives the money upfront and repays the debt over time. In this case, the district itself says repayment of the ELC bonds "is an obligation of the general fund."
And there it is.
The district's 2026-27 General Fund budget now contains:
2026 ELC Debt Retirement, $391,250
Meanwhile, St. Johns is asking voters to approve another $40 million bond, and one of the district's stated objectives is to:
"Temporarily alleviate the general fund to right-size the budget and allow for proper future planning."
So put the spectacles down for a moment and look at those statements together.
The district has repeatedly explained that using General Fund dollars for capital needs can affect classrooms.
The district subsequently placed the repayment obligation for a roughly $3 million ELC financing onto that General Fund.
And now relieving pressure on the General Fund is part of the argument for another $40 million voter-approved bond.
Which leaves me with one very simple question:
If using the General Fund for capital needs affects classrooms, and relieving pressure on the General Fund is now part of the case for another $40 million bond, why did the district choose to place approximately $3 million of non-voted ELC debt onto that same General Fund after voters rejected two bond proposals containing an Early Learning Center?
I'm not telling anyone how to vote.
I'm simply putting the district's own statements beside the district's own decisions.
Sometimes the ledger asks the question all by itself.
With receipts and respect.
#LadyBudgetdown #StJohnsPublicSchools #EarlyLearningCenter #SchoolBonds #SchoolFinance #MichiganSchools #FollowTheMoney #Transparency #WithReceiptsAndRespect