Dearest reader,

45 YEARS.

That's how long Fowlerville Community Schools is listed as participating in Michigan's School Bond Qualification and Loan Program.

And according to the Michigan Department of Treasury's 2025 annual report, the district wasn't classified as "Repaying."

It was classified as "BORROWING."

Now, before anyone jumps to conclusions, participating in Michigan's school loan program is perfectly legal. The program helps qualifying school districts meet their bond payments when debt tax collections aren't sufficient.

But after finding Fowlerville's name in the state's annual report, I decided to follow the breadcrumbs a little further. 🔎

And what I found deserves a closer look.

💰 FOWLERVILLE'S STATE SCHOOL LOAN BALANCES

According to Michigan Treasury records:

📌 2023: $17,094,804.84

📌 2024: $18,543,734.02

📌 2025: $19,373,482.21

📌 October 15, 2026: $20,370,990.51

That's an increase of approximately $3.28 MILLION, or 19.2%, from the first reported balance to the latest statement.

And these aren't estimates pulled from someone's Facebook comment.

They're figures from Michigan's own Treasury records.

📚 SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THIS PROGRAM?

Michigan's School Bond Loan Fund and School Loan Revolving Fund programs allow qualifying districts to borrow from the state to help make payments on existing school bonds.

But borrowing to make bond payments creates another financial obligation.

And that obligation accumulates interest.

According to Fowlerville's October 15, 2026 Treasury loan statement:

💵 Outstanding state loan balance, including accrued interest: $20,370,990.51

📈 Current interest rate: 3.77586%

🏠 Current computed debt millage: 9.55 mills

📅 Mandatory final state loan repayment date: May 1, 2040

And here's another number that caught my attention.

The Treasury statement reports approximately $2.23 MILLION in interest accrued during the statement's reporting period.

That's not a single year's interest. And it isn't necessarily the amount taxpayers will pay in future interest.

But it illustrates why understanding these obligations matters.

Now, there's something else I want readers to understand.

45 years in the program does NOT necessarily mean 45 consecutive years of borrowing without repayment.

And a district being classified as "Borrowing" does not mean it isn't making payments on its underlying bonds.

Those are important distinctions.

But the figures still raise a reasonable question.

💬 After 45 years in Michigan's School Bond Qualification and Loan Program, why is Fowlerville still classified as borrowing, and what is the district's repayment plan for its outstanding state loans?

Because taxpayers deserve to understand more than the original amount of a school bond.

They deserve to understand the interest.

The additional borrowing.

The repayment schedule.

And the long-term financial obligations that follow.

I am not suggesting that Fowlerville has done anything improper.

I am asking a much simpler question.

When a school district has more than $20 MILLION outstanding through Michigan's state school loan programs, shouldn't that information be easy for taxpayers to find and understand?

The numbers are public.

The questions are reasonable.

And the receipts come directly from the Michigan Department of Treasury.

With receipts and respect.

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolBondLoanFund #SchoolLoanRevolvingFund #SchoolDebt #PropertyTaxes #SchoolFinance #TaxpayerTransparency #PublicEducation #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest Reader,

Let's talk about Saginaw Intermediate School District (SISD).

In November, Saginaw County voters will be asked to consider renewing the district's Career and Technical Education (CTE) millage.

Career and technical education provides valuable opportunities for students. But whenever taxpayers are asked to continue funding a public institution, transparency and accountability deserve a place in the conversation.

So, let's revisit something I uncovered earlier this year. 📖

According to Saginaw ISD's own organizational charts:

📌 2019: 16 leadership positions

📌 January 2025: 25 leadership positions

That's an increase of 9 leadership positions, or 56.3%, in approximately six years.

And here's something worth remembering.

Superintendent Jeffrey Collier assumed leadership in July 2020. Much of this administrative expansion occurred during his tenure.

Now, an increase in leadership positions does not automatically mean those positions are unnecessary. School districts grow, responsibilities change, and organizational needs evolve.

But a 56.3% increase certainly deserves an explanation.

What additional responsibilities justified the expansion? What has the additional leadership structure cost taxpayers? And how has that expansion directly benefited the students and educators SISD serves?

Those are reasonable questions.

As voters consider the November CTE millage renewal, I believe they deserve a clear understanding of how the district manages public resources.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that CTE millage revenue funded these administrative positions. They are separate issues.

But transparency should not be limited to the specific programs appearing on the ballot. It should extend throughout the institution asking for the public's continued trust.

Supporting students and demanding financial accountability are not competing priorities.

They should go hand in hand.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B 🕯�

#LadyBudgetdown #SaginawISD #SaginawCounty #SchoolTransparency #TaxpayerAccountability #PublicEducation #CTE #MichiganSchools #FollowTheMoney #EveryDollarMatters

Dearest Reader, 🪶

In 2020, Jeffrey Collier began his tenure as superintendent of Saginaw Intermediate School District with a base salary of $160,000.

According to ABC12's investigation, his total compensation package for the 2026–27 school year now exceeds $373,000.

That's a difference of more than $213,000 in six years, comparing his starting base salary with his current reported compensation package.

ABC12 also reported that journalist Terry Camp spent weeks attempting to obtain an explanation from SISD regarding the superintendent's compensation increases.

Late this afternoon, Katherine Ellison, President of the Saginaw ISD Board of Education and Vice President of the Hemlock Public Schools Board of Education, issued a statement.

Her response?

The SISD Board approved Collier's contract on June 22.

That's it.

No explanation of how the compensation was determined. No explanation of the substantial difference between his starting salary and current compensation package.

Dearest Reader, I don't question whether the Board approved the contract.

I question how the Board arrived at those numbers.

And taxpayers deserve to be able to ask that question. Especially with the Saginaw ISD requesting a millage renewal just WEEKS away.

https://www.abc12.com/news/saginaw-isd-superintendents-pay-at-373-000-contact-shows-446-000-in-2031/article_6f3aab66-8090-4bd1-ba16-749679180f79.html

With receipts and respect,
Lady Budgetdown 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #SaginawISD #HemlockPublicSchools #SchoolTransparency #TaxpayerAccountability #MichiganEducation #OurStory

UPDATE: I have now obtained and reviewed Superintendent Jeffrey Collier's signed 2026–2031 employment contract.

For clarification, the $373,000+ figure shown in my graphic represents his scheduled compensation package, not his base salary alone.

According to Attachment A of the contract, his 2026–27 compensation consists of:

• Base salary: $291,748
• Annuity: $29,175
• Longevity: $29,175
• Merit pay: $23,340

Total: $373,438

Merit pay is subject to the contract's performance provisions. The total does not include the value of additional benefits, including insurance and district-provided vehicle use.

The $160,000 figure from 2020 represents his starting base salary, so these are two different compensation measures.

I appreciate the readers who questioned the comparison. Accuracy matters, and I want everyone to have the complete picture.

Source: Jeffrey Collier's signed 2026–2031 employment contract, Attachment A, page 12.

With receipts and respect,
Lady B

DEAREST READER, SET YOUR CLOCKS!

Something is apparently brewing in Saginaw County tonight.

A post circulating in the Saginaw Township Neighbor Watch group is telling taxpayers to tune in to ABC12 at 6 p.m. tonight.

The warning?

"Saginaw County taxpayers are gonna be stomping mad!"

👀 Well, Lady B certainly has her popcorn ready.

What will the receipts reveal?

📺 ABC12 | TONIGHT | 6 PM

With receipts and respect,
Lady Budgetdown

https://www.abc12.com/news/saginaw-isd-superintendents-pay-at-373-000-contact-shows-446-000-in-2031/article_6f3aab66-8090-4bd1-ba16-749679180f79.html

#LadyBudgetdown #SaginawCounty #ABC12 #TaxpayerTransparency #FollowTheReceipts

 Dearest reader,

Lady B is back in Fowlerville Community Schools, and today we're following something that doesn't always get the attention it deserves.

DEBT.

Because borrowing money is one thing. Paying it back, with interest, is another.

💰 STEP 5A: DEBT & BORROWING

In Step 5, I examined Fowlerville's audit, General Fund balance, budget projections, and financial transparency.

But there was another number in the district's 2024–25 audited financial statements that deserved its own discussion.

And it's a big one.

💵 $117,730,945

That's approximately $117.7 MILLION in reported bonds and state school borrowing obligations.

Let's break that down. 🔎

🏫 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS

$98,359,714

This amount includes outstanding general obligation bonds and associated premiums.

These are obligations the district must repay over time.

🏛� STATE SCHOOL BORROWING

$19,371,231

This amount includes reported borrowing and interest associated with Michigan's School Bond Loan Fund and School Loan Revolving Fund programs.

And this is where things get interesting.

Michigan's school loan programs allow qualifying districts to borrow money to help make debt payments when their debt tax collections are insufficient.

In other words, a district can borrow money to help pay obligations from earlier borrowing.

And those additional loans must eventually be repaid, too.

Now, these programs are established under Michigan law. Using them does not automatically indicate financial mismanagement.

But they do create additional long-term repayment obligations.

📊 WHERE DOES FOWLERVILLE'S REPORTED DEBT SIT?

Of the approximately $117.7 million:

• 83.5% represents general obligation bonds.

• 16.5% represents state school borrowing.

And remember, these are reported obligations, NOT the total amount taxpayers will ultimately pay in future principal and interest.

That distinction matters.

🏠 WHAT ABOUT PROPERTY TAXES?

Fowlerville's audit reports a debt levy of 9.55 mills.

What does that mean for a property owner?

On a property with a taxable value of $100,000:

9.55 mills = $955 annually.

That's $955 toward school debt alone, based on that illustrative taxable value and millage rate.

And taxable value is not necessarily the same as market value.

💬 BUT HERE'S WHAT I REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

How much will Fowlerville taxpayers ultimately repay?

Not simply the outstanding balances reported in the audit.

I'm talking about the remaining principal AND interest.

How much additional interest will accumulate?

How much will the state school loans ultimately cost?

And in what year will the district finally retire these obligations?

Those are important questions, because a $117.7 million reported balance does not tell taxpayers the complete future repayment cost.

📚 NOW, LET'S CONNECT THE BREADCRUMBS.

In Step 1, we learned that Fowlerville's enrollment declined 16.50% over ten years.

In Step 1A, we learned that administrative expenditures increased 31.14%.

In Step 5, we learned that the district's amended 2025–26 budget projected a $1.2 million General Fund deficit.

And now, in Step 5A, we're examining approximately $117.7 million in reported bond and state borrowing obligations.

These figures represent different funds, financial measures, and obligations. They shouldn't be added together or treated as though one caused another.

But together, they help taxpayers understand the district's broader financial picture.

And that brings me to my question.

💬 When school districts ask communities to support long-term borrowing, shouldn't taxpayers be able to easily see the FULL repayment picture, including principal, interest, state loans, and the final payoff year?

I certainly think so.

A bond's original amount is only part of the story.

The repayment schedule matters.

The interest matters.

And the long-term obligations matter.

Because today's borrowing decisions can affect taxpayers for decades.

These figures come from Fowlerville Community Schools' 2024–25 audited financial statements. The complete remaining debt-service cost and final repayment year have not yet been independently established in this review.

No accusations. No assumptions.

Just another chapter in the ledger.

With receipts and respect.

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolBonds #SchoolDebt #SchoolFinance #PropertyTaxes #EducationTransparency #TaxpayerAccountability #PublicEducation #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest reader,

Lady B is back in Fowlerville Community Schools, and today we're opening the district's audit and budgets.

📚 STEP 5: AUDIT, BUDGET & FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY

We've followed the enrollment numbers, administrative spending, staffing, compensation, and checkbook.

Now it's time to look at the district's overall financial health.

And there are a few things worth paying attention to. 🔎

💰 LET'S START WITH THE GENERAL FUND.

According to Fowlerville's financial records:

📘 2024–25 Audited Fund Balance:
$4,139,473

📙 2025–26 Projected Fund Balance:
$2,929,479

📗 2026–27 Projected Fund Balance:
$3,413,717

Notice something?

The district's amended 2025–26 budget projects a $1,209,994 DEFICIT.

That's approximately $1.2 MILLION more in expenditures than revenues for that fiscal year.

The following year's adopted budget projects a partial recovery, but the General Fund balance would still remain below its 2024–25 audited level.

And remember, those last two figures are budget projections, not final audited results.

📉 NOW, LET'S LOOK AT THE 2026–27 BUDGET.

Compared with the amended 2025–26 budget:

🍎 Basic Instruction: DOWN 8.72%

📚 Added Needs Instruction: UP 3.88%

🏛� General Administration: UP 0.75%

🏫 School Administration: DOWN 1.87%

💼 Business Office: DOWN 1.78%

🔧 Operations & Maintenance: UP 3.74%

Now, here's what catches my attention.

Basic instruction is projected to decrease by more than 8%, while general administration is projected to increase slightly.

Does that automatically mean something improper is happening?

Of course not.

Budgets change for many reasons, including staffing, enrollment, grants, and program needs.

But when classroom-related spending decreases, I think taxpayers deserve to understand what is driving those decisions.

🔎 WHAT DID THE AUDIT FIND?

Let's give credit where it's due.

Fowlerville received an unmodified, or CLEAN, audit opinion for the 2024–25 fiscal year.

The auditor did not identify any material weaknesses or reportable noncompliance in its Government Auditing Standards report.

That's important, and it deserves to be acknowledged.

However, the auditor also issued a separate management letter identifying a concern.

🍎 THE FOOD SERVICE FUND

The auditor reported that Fowlerville's Food Service Fund balance exceeded the three months of operating expenditures permitted under Michigan Department of Education guidelines.

The district's Food Service Fund ended the 2024–25 fiscal year with a balance of $913,605.

The auditor recommended developing a plan to spend down the excess.

To be clear, this was a management-letter concern, not a finding that changed the district's clean audit opinion.

But it is still something the auditor considered important enough to bring to the district's attention.

📂 AND NOW, TRANSPARENCY.

This one is particularly interesting to me.

When I previously examined Fowlerville's financial records, additional historical audits and budgets were available.

Now, the district's designated transparency page displays only the most recent audit and two recent budgets.

Why does that matter?

Because historical financial records allow taxpayers to follow trends, compare expenditures, and understand how financial decisions have changed over time.

A clean audit doesn't automatically mean a district is providing the most useful level of public transparency.

And while I cannot establish why those older documents are no longer displayed, I believe maintaining a readily accessible historical financial archive is simply good public practice.

💬 SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION:

When a district projects a $1.2 million operating deficit, reduces basic instructional spending, and has an auditor-identified Food Service Fund concern, shouldn't taxpayers have easy access to the historical financial records needed to understand the bigger picture?

I certainly think so.

And there's one more significant piece of Fowlerville's financial picture that deserves its own discussion.

The district's outstanding debt and borrowing obligations.

That's coming in Step 5A. 👀

For now, these figures come from Fowlerville Community Schools' 2024–25 independent audit, amended 2025–26 budget, and adopted 2026–27 budget.

No accusations. No assumptions.

Just public records, financial trends, and questions worth asking.

With receipts and respect.

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #EducationTransparency #SchoolBudgets #PublicEducation #AuditFindings #TaxpayerAccountability #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest reader,
Lady B is back in Fowlerville Community Schools, and today I'm opening another ledger.
💰 STEP 4: FOLLOWING THE CHECKBOOK
We've examined enrollment, staffing, administrative expenditures, and employee compensation.

Now let's see where some of those taxpayer dollars went.

I reviewed Fowlerville Community Schools' 2024–25 accounts payable records, covering July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.

And there are a few payments worth discussing. 🔎

⚖️ LEGAL SERVICES

Thrun Law Firm, P.C.
Total Payments: $90,946.73

Nearly $91,000 in legal services during one fiscal year.

What matters did those payments cover? Labor negotiations? Personnel issues? Board counsel? Litigation?

The check register doesn't tell us.

📋 CONSULTING & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

• Maner Costerisan: $42,873.63
• Jill Hanke Westenkirchner LLC: $12,908.49
• Silver Strong & Associates: $10,200.00
• RWorm Consulting: $7,908.76
• Foxbright Solutions: $6,195.00
• DocuSign: $4,615.78
• Spark Hire: $3,988.00
• NEOLA: $3,545.00

Combined: $92,314.66

These vendors provide a variety of services, including accounting, professional development, technology, recruiting, and policy support.

Some may directly support educators and students. Others support district operations.

But the check register doesn't explain precisely what was purchased with each payment.

🏨 HOTELS & HOSPITALITY

• Hilton Garden Inn: $804.46
• Delta Hotels Marriott, Kalamazoo: $1,219.05
• Kiwi Hospitality Detroit LLC: $1,632.54
• Sleep Inn: $1,894.20

Combined: $5,550.25

Who traveled? Where? For what purpose?

Were these conferences, training sessions, athletics, or student-related trips?

The payment records don't identify the travelers or purposes, so I'm not assuming these were administrative trips.

📊 MUNETRIX

One additional payment caught my attention.

Munetrix LLC: $10,347.00

Munetrix provides financial transparency and data analytics tools used by public entities.

It's worth asking what services Fowlerville purchased and how those services are being used.

💵 THE FOUR CATEGORIES COMBINED:

$199,158.64

That's nearly $200,000 in selected payments for legal services, consulting and professional services, hotels, and Munetrix during one fiscal year.

To be clear, this is NOT a complete accounting of administrative spending. Some payments may support classrooms, students, or districtwide operations.

And an expenditure appearing in a public check register doesn't automatically make it unnecessary or wasteful.

But here's what I find interesting.

In Step 1A, we learned that Fowlerville's administrative expenditures increased 31.14% between 2014–15 and 2024–25.

In Step 2A, we learned that reported administrative staffing actually declined 2.61%.

And now, in Step 4, we're seeing some of the outside vendors receiving district funds.

These are different financial measures, and we cannot assume these vendor payments explain the ten-year increase.

Still, they provide another piece of the puzzle.

💬 SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION:

When taxpayers review a school district's checkbook, should they be able to see more than a vendor name and a dollar amount?

Shouldn't they also be able to understand what services were purchased and how those expenditures benefited the district?

I believe transparency means more than showing us who received a check.

It means helping the public understand what their money purchased.

No accusations. No assumptions.

Just another look at the receipts.

With receipts and respect.

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #PublicSpending #EducationTransparency #SchoolAdministration #TaxpayerAccountability #PublicEducation #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest reader,

Lady B is back in Fowlerville Community Schools, and this time we're opening the payroll ledger.

💰 STEP 3: FOLLOWING THE COMPENSATION

In Steps 1, 1A, 2, and 2A, I examined enrollment, school finances, administrative expenditures, and staffing over a ten-year period.

Now it's time to look at what some of those positions actually cost taxpayers.

And as always, the receipts are public records. 🔎

📊 THE $100,000 CLUB

According to Fowlerville Community Schools' 2025 compensation transparency report:

👥 16 employees reported Medicare wages of $100,000 or more.

💵 Their combined TOTAL employer compensation?

$2,789,980.

That's nearly $2.8 MILLION in compensation for just 16 employees.

And remember, total compensation includes more than wages. It also includes employer retirement contributions, insurance, and FICA/Medicare costs.

🏫 LET'S LOOK AT FIVE LEADERSHIP POSITIONS.

💰 Superintendent
Medicare Wages: $151,400
Total Compensation: $241,079

💰 Assistant Superintendent
Medicare Wages: $142,789
Total Compensation: $204,411

💰 Human Resources Director
Medicare Wages: $117,929
Total Compensation: $166,545

💰 Operations Director
Medicare Wages: $109,328
Total Compensation: $171,615

💰 Athletic Director
Medicare Wages: $103,544
Total Compensation: $169,930

Now, let's connect a few breadcrumbs. 🧐

In Step 1, we learned that Fowlerville's enrollment declined 16.50% over the past decade.

In Step 1A, we learned that administrative expenditures increased 31.14%.

And in Step 2A, we discovered that total administrative staffing actually DECREASED 2.61%.

Now we're looking at what individual leadership positions cost in 2025.

These figures don't tell us whether someone is overpaid or underpaid. Nor does this compensation report establish what caused administrative expenditures to increase over the decade.

But they do give taxpayers another important piece of the financial picture.

🍎 AND HERE'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.

Remember Step 1?

Fowlerville's average teacher salary increased just 1.51% between 2014–15 and 2024–25.

After inflation, that represented a 24.90% decline in purchasing power.

Now, an average teacher salary and an individual administrator's total compensation are different measures. They shouldn't be treated as a direct apples-to-apples comparison.

But they certainly invite a broader conversation about compensation priorities.

💬 SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION:

When evaluating how a school district spends taxpayer dollars, should the public be looking beyond base salaries and examining the FULL cost of compensation?

And should districts make that information easier for taxpayers to understand?

I certainly think so.

One final reminder: The $2.8 million represents only the 16 employees included in this disclosure. It is NOT the district's total payroll, and not all 16 employees are administrators.

No accusations. No assumptions. Just publicly reported numbers and questions worth asking.

With receipts and respect.

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #EmployeeCompensation #EducationTransparency #TeacherPay #PublicEducation #TaxpayerAccountability #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest reader,

Lady B is back in Fowlerville Community Schools, and this time I'm looking beyond the dollars.

📚 STEP 2 & 2A: STAFFING AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRENDS

In Step 1, we learned that Fowlerville's student enrollment declined over the past decade, while revenue per pupil increased substantially.

But what happened to staffing during those same ten years?

Let's follow the receipts. 🔎

📉 STUDENT ENROLLMENT

2014–15: 2,862 students
2024–25: 2,389.66 students

That's a decline of 16.50%.

🍎 NOW, LET'S LOOK AT TEACHERS.

2014–15: 119.74 FTE
2024–25: 137.44 FTE

That's an INCREASE of 14.78%.

Fewer students, but MORE teachers.

And that's not necessarily a bad thing! Smaller classes and additional instructional resources can benefit students.

But remember what we discovered in Step 1?

Fowlerville's average teacher salary increased just 1.51% over the same decade.

After adjusting for inflation, that's a 24.90% loss in purchasing power.

More teaching positions, but very little growth in average teacher pay.

🏫 WHAT ABOUT ADMINISTRATION?

Here's where the numbers tell a different story.

Central/District Administrators:
7.00 → 5.60 FTE
📉 DOWN 20.00%

School/Building Administrators:
8.30 → 9.30 FTE
📈 UP 12.05%

Total Administrators:
15.30 → 14.90 FTE
📉 DOWN 2.61%

So, while enrollment declined 16.50%, the district actually reported a slight REDUCTION in total administrative staffing.

That's an important distinction.

And it becomes even more interesting when compared with Step 1A, where we learned that administrative expenditures increased 31.14%.

Fewer administrative positions overall, but higher administrative expenditures.

Of course, expenditures include more than salaries, and ten years of inflation matters.

📊 OTHER STAFFING CHANGES

• Instructional Aides: DOWN 5.53%
• Instructional Support: UP 233.33%
• Guidance: DOWN 30.00%
• School Support: UP 5.97%
• Student Support: DOWN 6.81%
• Other Support: UP 11.15%

Some categories grew. Others declined.

And that brings me to something I think deserves more attention.

💬 HERE'S MY QUESTION:

When enrollment declines but teacher staffing increases, administrative staffing decreases, and administrative expenditures rise, what should taxpayers be looking at to determine whether their district is using its resources effectively?

Class sizes? Student outcomes? Teacher compensation? Administrative costs?

Perhaps all of the above.

Not every increase is wasteful, and not every reduction is a victory.

The purpose of these comparisons isn't to declare a district good or bad.

It's to give parents, educators, and taxpayers a clearer picture of how their schools have changed over a decade.

The staffing figures come from Michigan's REP and NCES reporting, with pupil counts from MDE Bulletin 1014. Staffing is measured in full-time equivalents (FTE), not individual employees.

With receipts and respect. 💙

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #PublicEducation #TeacherStaffing #SchoolAdministration #TeacherPay #EducationTransparency #SchoolFinance #TaxpayerAccountability #FollowTheReceipts

Dearest reader,

Lady B is adding a NEW step to the ledger!

📊 STEP 1A: ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURES

For this step, I'm turning to Michigan Department of Education Bulletin 1011 to examine how much school districts actually spend on administration.

And my first stop is Fowlerville Community Schools in Livingston County.

Let's follow the money. 🔎

💰 THE TEN-YEAR COMPARISON

In 2014–15, Fowlerville reported $2,499,635 in combined administrative expenditures.

By 2024–25, that figure had climbed to $3,278,146.

That's an increase of $778,510, or 31.14%, over ten years.

But where did that money go?

📚 GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
2014–15: $542,055
2024–25: $914,162
Increase: 68.65%

🏫 SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
2014–15: $1,606,835
2024–25: $1,817,137
Increase: 13.09%

💼 BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
2014–15: $350,745
2024–25: $546,847
Increase: 55.91%

Now, here's where things get interesting.

General administration increased nearly 69%, while school administration increased just 13%.

And remember what we learned in Step 1?

Fowlerville's student enrollment declined 16.50% during this same period.

So, fewer students, but higher administrative expenditures.

However, there's another important piece of the puzzle.

Administrative spending increased 31.14%, while total operating expenditures increased 38.44%.

That means administration's share of operating expenditures actually DECREASED, from 10.35% to 9.81%.

And that's why I believe looking at the complete picture matters.

💬 HERE'S MY QUESTION:

When reviewing a school district's finances, should taxpayers focus on how much administrative spending has increased, or how much of the overall budget administration consumes?

Or perhaps both?

These figures represent General Fund administrative expenditures, not simply administrator salaries. The increases are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.

An increase alone doesn't establish waste, just as a declining budget percentage doesn't automatically establish efficiency.

But understanding where public dollars are going is always worth the effort.

One district. Two fiscal years. Ten years of change.

With receipts and respect. 💙

#LadyBudgetdown #FowlervilleCommunitySchools #LivingstonCounty #MichiganSchools #SchoolFinance #AdministrativeSpending #EducationTransparency #PublicEducation #TaxpayerAccountability #FollowTheReceipts