ST. CHARLES: November Bond $10.475M

[Shadowninja]

Dearest reader... since St. Charles is talking bonds again, your Lady went back to the ledger. 🪶

And this one is worth reading carefully.

The Form 3881 submitted for St. Charles Community Schools' failed August 2026 bond provides considerably more detail than a campaign summary about what the district was proposing to do with the money.

A very important note before we begin: this is the 3881 for the AUGUST proposal that voters rejected. The November proposal has been reduced from $11.03 million to $10.475 million, so some projects, costs or financing assumptions may have changed.

But here is what was actually sitting in the August 3881.

🏫 ST. CHARLES ELEMENTARY

Among the proposed work:
• Replace the heating-system boilers, boiler pumps and piping — $264,806
• Replace the digital temperature-control system — $240,079
• Install a new make-up air unit above the elementary gym — $398,200
• Replace damaged sewer pipes — $168,629
• Door/security work, including fobs, night locks, cameras and exterior-door security

The elementary project carried an estimated total project cost of approximately $2.64 million, including contingencies, architectural costs and construction-management costs.

🏫 ST. CHARLES MIDDLE SCHOOL

Among the proposed work:
• Replace unit ventilators — $136,400
• Replace urinals and toilets — $105,856
• Install magnetic-hold-open devices on interior doors
• Install door fobs on classroom and office doors
• Install a night-lock system

Estimated total project cost: approximately $498,000.

🏫 ST. CHARLES HIGH SCHOOL

This was the much larger list.
Among the proposed work:
• Roof replacement — $1,215,177
• LED lighting and lighting-control upgrades — $700,023
• Replace select flooring throughout the building — $436,540
• Replace the digital temperature-control system — $417,258
• Science-room renovations, including student lab stations, cabinets, flooring and ceilings — $312,434

The 3881 also included asbestos-abatement allowance, restroom renovations, windows, ceilings, doors, security improvements, cameras, sewer work and numerous other projects.

The high-school remodeling portion alone was estimated at more than $5 million before the associated contingencies, architectural and construction-management costs were added.

And there is another number tucked inside this application that caught your Lady's eye.

The enrollment projection submitted with the August 3881 showed general-education enrollment declining from 674 students in 2025–26 to 518 students in 2030–31 — a projected decline of 23.15%.

Now, a few things about the bond explanation circulating this morning deserve some clarification.

First: your Principal Residence Exemption does NOT exempt your home from school bond debt millage.

The PRE generally exempts a principal residence from up to 18 mills of a school district's operating tax. That's a different tax. If voters approve a school debt millage, PRE homeowners still pay it.

So while PRE is certainly a real Michigan property-tax provision, presenting it as "property tax relief" in a guide explaining the cost of this particular bond can be misleading without explaining that distinction.

Second: bond proceeds really are restricted.

They cannot simply be moved into the district's operating budget to pay teacher or administrator salaries, benefits, routine maintenance or ordinary operating expenses. The ballot language itself contains those restrictions.

But the statement that "every single dollar" is subjected to "external, third-party state public oversight audits" needs a little polishing of the crown. 👑

Michigan requires an independent audit of bonded construction funds to determine whether the proceeds were spent for authorized purposes. Those audits may be conducted annually or cumulatively following completion of the project.

That's important oversight.

It just isn't quite the same thing as the State of Michigan continuously auditing every individual dollar as it is spent.

And one more distinction matters:

Bond proceeds may only be spent for purposes authorized by the ballot proposal, but listing a project does not necessarily guarantee that every listed project will ultimately be completed.

Finally, none of this tells us that the NEW November proposal is good, bad, necessary or unnecessary.

It tells us what St. Charles put on paper when it sought approval for the $11.03 million August bond that voters rejected.

The new proposal is $10.475 million — $555,000 less.

So your Lady has one rather simple question after reading the old ledger:

What changed?

Which projects were removed?

Which were reduced?

Which costs changed?

And which projects remain exactly as they were?

Those seem like perfectly reasonable questions before taxpayers are asked to open the ledger again.
With receipts and respect. 🪶

#LadyBudgetdown #StCharlesSchools #StCharlesCommunitySchools #StCharlesBond #SchoolBond #MichiganSchools #MichiganEducation #SchoolFinance #PropertyTaxes #TaxpayerTransparency