Dearest reader,
A clarification seems worthwhile.
Lady Budgetdown is not against Early Learning Centers.
I am not arguing that childcare isn't important. I am not questioning whether working parents need it. I am not suggesting that preschool programs don't benefit children or families.
That isn't the question in my ledger.
The question is about financial priorities and how public projects are funded when voters have already said no.
St. Johns voters rejected a roughly $92 million bond proposal in May 2024. That proposal included a new Early Learning Center.
In May 2025, voters rejected another bond proposal. This time approximately $99.75 million, which also included a new Early Learning Center.
Those were larger bond proposals containing many projects, so I am not going to pretend voters cast a separate up-or-down vote on the ELC.
They didn't.
But the bond proposals containing it were rejected.
The Board then explored other financing options.
On January 12, 2026, the Board approved the purchase of the Tolles Drive property and, separately, authorized the issuance of non-voted School Improvement Bonds.
The district's own FAQ now explains that repayment of that non-voted debt is an obligation of the General Fund.
And the district's 2026–27 budget contains this line:
2026 ELC Debt Retirement - $391,250.
Now put that beside what the Board was told just a few months later.
On April 27, the district's Finance Director reported continued financial strain from declining enrollment and rising costs. The minutes say the district would need over $700,000 in cuts the next year and nearly $2.9 million the following year to maintain financial stability.
Those same minutes then move directly into discussion of the Early Learning Center bid package.
That's why I'm asking questions.
Not:
"Should children have an Early Learning Center?"
But:
When voters reject two bond proposals containing a project, under what circumstances should a school board pursue that project through debt that does not require voter approval?
And when repayment of that debt becomes an obligation of a General Fund already facing significant financial pressure:
Was that the right financial priority?
Those are different questions.
A project can be wonderful.
A program can help families.
A building can serve children.
And the decision about how to pay for it can still deserve scrutiny.
In fact, that's precisely when the ledger matters most.
I'm still working to obtain the complete financing details behind the ELC debt, principal, interest rate, repayment schedule and total cost. Until I have those receipts, I'm not going to pretend I know what they say.
But the $391,250 General Fund ELC debt-retirement appropriation is already sitting in the district's budget.
So no, this isn't an argument against daycare.
It's a question about debt, General Fund dollars, voter decisions and priorities.
Those aren't the same thing.
And I think taxpayers are perfectly capable of discussing all of them at once.
🪶📜
With receipts and respect.
#LadyBudgetdown #StJohnsPublicSchools #SchoolFinance #FollowTheMoney #MichiganSchools #PublicMoney #Transparency #WithReceiptsAndRespect