HEMLOCK PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT: BOND. WHAT DID THE VOTERS ACTUALLY KNOW?

[Shadowninja]

Dearest reader,

I received a breadcrumb from a reader today. And sometimes a breadcrumb leads to a document. Actually a couple documents. And sometimes those documents open an entirely different ledger.

🟢 LINK FOR DOCUMENTS AT THE END 🟢

Hemlock voters are being asked to authorize up to $17.75 million in new bond debt.

On the district's website, the explanation sounds fairly straightforward:

"additional needed classrooms" at Hemlock Elementary and K.C. Ling Elementary.

Another district post describes "additional classroom space to address enrollment growth."

Fair enough. But Lady B went looking behind those words.

And the district's own Request for Proposals, issued months before the November election, provides considerably more detail.

The RFP identifies the project as:

Hemlock Elementary School/Early Childhood Center Expansion and Renovation.

It says approximately $1 million in USDA funding would support Phase I, including two to three new ECC classrooms.

Then comes Phase II.

If voters approve the bond, the RFP says another $2-$3 million in bond proceeds would be allocated to expand the Hemlock Elementary project by approximately 9,000 additional square feet.

And the district states the purpose plainly:

"The overall goal of this expansion is to relocate the early childhood programming to the new wing, to make space to bring 1st grade back to this building."

Then Lady B found the district's June 30 pre-proposal walkthrough.

Superintendent Don Killingbeck explained that the additions would allow the childhood/early-education classrooms to "migrate east," freeing space for first grade.

And then came something Lady B certainly did not see mentioned on the public bond pages she reviewed:

"potential overnight care."

The more detailed room program went even further.

Phase II contemplated seven classrooms, a flexible learning area, staff and nursing space, and a bunk room with two bunk beds and a separate toilet/shower identified "for overnight care."

But there are two more breadcrumbs in these documents that deserve attention.

First, Phase I was not scheduled to wait for the November bond election.

The RFP states that Phase I work would begin before the district knew the outcome of the bond vote. Because of that, the selected design-build team was instructed to anticipate the future Phase II expansion as part of the initial design.

To be clear: Phase I was being funded primarily through the USDA grant. The bond-dependent Phase II was contingent upon voter approval.

But the district was already designing Phase I around the possibility of that future expansion before voters cast their ballots.

Then came the June 30 walkthrough.

When asked about the Phase I budget, the district acknowledged that the $1 million USDA grant would not cover the entire project.

The written response says:

"The goal would be to use the $1M grant to complete as much work as possible, though there is hope that when the bond passes, the work scope can flex a bit, absorbing any overage from phase I into phase II."

Not "if."

"When the bond passes."

That is the district's wording in its own July 2 addendum.

Meanwhile, the district itself says its Early Childhood Center has experienced approximately fourfold growth over the last three years.

And months before the bond campaign, Hemlock publicly announced that it had been identified for approximately $1.015 million in federal funding for a project specifically called:

"Childcare Facility Construction."

That project was described as expanding early-childhood childcare infrastructure and increasing local childcare capacity.

So Lady B has a question.

📌 How much did Hemlock voters actually know about what was being planned when they were told the bond would provide "additional needed classrooms" and classroom space for "enrollment growth"?

📌 Did voters understand that the district's own planning documents describe relocating and expanding early-childhood programming?

📌 Did they know the Hemlock Elementary portion was being designed so ECC could move into new space while first grade moved into classrooms ECC vacated?

📌 Did they know the planning discussions included potential overnight care?

📌 Did they know the detailed room program contemplated bunk beds and a shower specifically for that purpose?

📌 Did they know the USDA-funded first phase was moving forward before the bond election, with designers instructed to anticipate the bond-funded second phase?

📌 And how should taxpayers interpret the district's own written phrase, "when the bond passes," before voters had actually decided whether it would?

None of this means early-childhood care is good or bad.

That isn't Lady B's question.

The question is transparency.

If taxpayers are being asked to authorize $17.75 million in debt, shouldn't they know not merely that the district wants "additional classrooms", but what those classrooms are being planned for?

Lady B does not expect readers to take her word for it.

The original RFP, appendices and Addendum #2 are available below.

Read the documents.

Follow the breadcrumbs.

Decide for yourself.

📂 District documents:

Link #1: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/99w8iykewqwqmvb4906e2/HPSD-DB-RFP-FINAL-4.pdf

Link #2: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/52bqj49bngs6ekf3zcwdv/HDPS-DB-RFP-ADDM-2_FINAL.pdf

With receipts and respect,
Lady Budgetdown

#LadyBudgetdown #HemlockPublicSchools #Hemlock #SchoolBond #TaxpayerTransparency #FollowTheMoney #WithReceiptsAndRespect