👑 PART THREE: SO... WHAT ARE WE ACTUALLY BUYING?
Dearest reader,
We have followed Chippewa Valley Schools through quite the little bond rabbit hole.
In Part One, we learned that the district's own Treasury application lists its School Bond Loan Fund beginning date as 1967.
In Part Two, we opened the financing ledger on the proposed $288 million bond and discovered that, under the assumptions submitted to Treasury, $288 million is most certainly not the last number.
Now Lady B would like to do something rather old-fashioned.
If taxpayers are being asked to borrow $288 million...
Let's look at what they're buying.
And, oh my.
Those 140 pages have receipts. 📜👓
The district's Form 3881 contains a combined cost summary that accounts for essentially the entire $288 million proposal.
Here is where the money is projected to go:
New construction:
$50,900,096
Remodeling:
$106,696,749
Construction contingencies:
$12,894,087
Instructional technology:
$20,494,389
Furniture and equipment:
$16,923,208
Buses:
$7,676,211
Site work:
$42,259,377
Architectural and engineering fees/costs:
$13,643,611
Construction-management fees/costs:
$16,512,272
And when Lady B's calculator finished clicking away...
Architectural/engineering costs + construction-management costs + construction contingencies come to approximately:
$43,049,970.
Nearly $43.05 million.
Now, before someone begins furiously typing that Lady Budgetdown has declared those expenses unnecessary...
She hasn't.
Architects cost money.
Construction managers cost money.
Large construction projects have contingencies.
Lady B's job is not to decide for you whether those costs are worthwhile.
Her job is to show you that they are there.
Because "$288 million for our schools" sounds considerably simpler than a 140-page Treasury application.
And Lady B rather enjoys the 140-page version.
But there is one project in particular that caught my spectacles.
🐇 Ottawa Elementary.
The application contains a project of approximately:
$55.5 MILLION.
The plans contemplate approximately 75,000 square feet of new stand-alone construction associated with replacing the existing school.
And according to the utilization paperwork submitted with the application, the new facility is modeled with capacity for approximately 405 students.
Projected five-year enrollment?
Approximately 452.
Projected utilization?
112%.
Interesting.
But Ottawa isn't the only building where the utilization sheets caught Lady B's attention.
Across the application, individual facilities are projected at utilization rates including:
123%.
112%.
109%
.
107%.
106%.
105%.
Which sounds like a district bursting at the seams.
Except...
Turn a few pages backward.
Because Chippewa Valley's districtwide enrollment projection tells a rather different story.
2020–21 enrollment:
14,194
2025–26 enrollment:
13,376
Projected five-year enrollment:
12,604
Let's put that into the ledger.
From 2020–21 to 2025–26:
818 fewer students.
And over the following five years, the district projects:
772 fewer students.
From 14,194 to 12,604:
1,590 fewer students.
Approximately an 11.2% decline.
Now THAT is where Lady B's quill stops.
Because those two things can absolutely exist at the same time.
A district can lose students overall while particular schools experience overcrowding.
Attendance boundaries matter.
Grade configurations matter.
Programs matter.
Where families live within a district matters.
Buildings aren't interchangeable little boxes that we can pick up and move around a map.
So Lady Budgetdown isn't declaring a contradiction.
She's asking a question.
How does a district projecting continued overall enrollment decline simultaneously arrive at projected utilization exceeding 100% at several individual facilities?
And what assumptions are driving those building-by-building projections?
That, dearest reader, is precisely the kind of question a 3881 allows taxpayers to ask.
And Ottawa sent Lady B down one more rabbit hole.
Michigan's statewide school-facilities study previously estimated repair costs for Ottawa Elementary at approximately $11.7 million, compared with replacement costs of approximately $51.5 million under that study's methodology.
Chippewa Valley's 2026 application now contains an Ottawa project of approximately $55.5 million.
Does that mean the school could simply be repaired today for $11.7 million?
No.
And Lady B will not pretend that it does.
Those numbers come from different analyses at different times. Construction costs change. Building conditions change. Project scopes change. Needs change.
But it gives taxpayers a perfectly reasonable question:
What changed between the statewide facilities assessment and the 2026 bond planning that led to replacement rather than the repair alternative identified in that earlier study?
That's not an accusation.
That's not opposition to a bond.
That's not support for a bond.
That's called reading the paperwork.
👑
And perhaps that is the biggest lesson from our very first reader-obtained 3881.
A ballot question gives voters a paragraph.
The underlying application gave Lady Budgetdown 140 pages.
Those pages gave us:
A state-loan history beginning in 1967.
A proposed $288 million bond.
Estimated bond interest.
Anticipated additional state borrowing.
Estimated state-loan interest.
A project-by-project construction ledger.
Building capacities.
Enrollment projections.
Architectural costs.
Construction-management costs.
Contingencies.
And the assumptions underneath all of it.
That is why Lady Budgetdown asked readers across Michigan to FOIA these documents.
Not because a 3881 tells us whether voters should vote yes.
Not because it tells us whether voters should vote no.
It does something much more useful.
It gives voters information.
And now that our first little 3881 has arrived...
Lady B is rather curious what the rest of Michigan's mailboxes are going to bring. 👀📬
Keep sending those receipts, dearest readers.
We've only opened the first envelope.
Support Lady Budgetdown
https://ko-fi.com/ladybudgetdown
With receipts and respect.
Chippewa Valley Schools
#LadyBudgetdown #WithReceiptsAndRespect #ChippewaValleySchools #SchoolBonds #FollowTheMoney #MichiganSchools #MichiganTaxpayers #PublicMoneyPublicRecords #SchoolBondDebt #Bond3881