OTHER OPTIONS?

There is a powerful consensus in our community:  we take pride in our schools, and we know our buildings require critical investment. No one disputes that aging roofs need replacement, security systems need modernizing, and our instructional technology must keep pace with the 21st century.

 The debate is not IF we should invest in our facilities,

but HOW we should pay for them.

Traditionally, the automatic response to capital needs is to propose a large-scale bond millage. This approach involves borrowing millions of dollars upfront, which taxpayers then spend decades repaying. It is a system built on debt & interest. But times have changed, and the fiscal landscape is increasingly volatile. We must move away from the "credit card" mentality and embrace a more responsible path:  the "pay-as-you-go" model of a sinking fund millage.

We strongly urge the STCS Board of Education to avoid placing our district further into long-term debt. We instead propose a sinking fund to voters. This approach prioritizes fiscal discipline, respects the economic reality of our taxpayers, and ensures every dollar collected goes directly to improving our schools.

The argument for a sinking fund is simple math. When the district asks voters to approve a school bond, they are asking to take out a massive loan. While this provides a lump sum of cash upfront, it comes with a massive, long-term hidden cost:  interest. When all is said and done, a district might spend $1.30 or even $1.50 for every $1.00 they actually invested in a new roof or HVAC system. That extra 30 or 50 cents doesn’t educate a child or repair a boiler—it pays the bank.

A sinking fund flips this script. It is a voter-approved millage that is collected annually and placed into a dedicated account. The district can only spend the money it has already collected. There is no borrowing, no long-term debt, and, crucially, zero interest payments. Every single dollar of tax revenue collected via a sinking fund goes directly into a facility or technology project within our district. This is the definition of financial stewardship.

Furthermore, a sinking fund is uniquely suited for the current economic moment. With inflation stressing household budgets, asking taxpayers to sign on for 20 or 30 years of guaranteed, inflexible debt service is a dangerous and irresponsible request. A sinking fund offers stability and transparency. Taxpayers know exactly how much they are paying each year, and they know that amount isn't being used to service interest.

The objection often raised against a sinking fund is that it requires patience. It cannot fund massive projects, like building an entirely new high school, overnight. However, most districts do not require whole new schools; they require a planned cycle of repairs and upgrades. The recent expansion of Michigan law to allow sinking funds to cover technology purchases & school security improvements makes this tool more versatile than ever. We don't need all the money at once; we need a predictable, annual stream of revenue to systematically address our capital needs.

The path of least resistance is to stick with the status quo of large, interest-heavy bonds. The path of true leadership, however, requires a long-term vision. It requires proposing a sinking fund—a fiscally sound plan that provides the resources our schools need without burying our community in debt.  That is what we are asking for.  If we want to teach our students the value of financial responsibility & planning for the future, we, as a community, must model that same behavior.   We should not be funding today's renovations on our children's future paychecks.

Taxpayers deserve a better plan instead of being asked to agree to another $94,000,000.00 bond lasting 20 years.

Repeatedly placing bond/millage proposals on our ballots is actually preventing the hard work of addressing what public education in Saginaw Township should look like.  In the face of dropping enrollment, rising cost of living, increasing cost of energy, escalating fees & prices and unemployment among college graduates, is maintaining our current educational focus, property & facility plan advisable?  No one is asking that question.

If our schools must recruit students from other school systems to stay afloat, then we need to revisit the reason & method for our township schools.  The school system should not aim to be one of the largest employers in our area.  Increasing or maintaining a high number of employees should NOT be the reason for our schools to exist.  We should match our public school system to the size of our enrollment base (# of township students).  

No business could survive the way public schooling is being done.  When facing a decreasing customer base, increasing costs, higher wages and a high cost of living, businesses look at consolidation, reducing overhead, reducing workforce size, cost efficiencies and better stewardship of the resources they currently have.  More money does not address wrongly-sized educational institutions & workforces.  And we should not be rewarding poor stewardship with more money.  Voters deserve better management of our tax dollars.  Students deserve a better education.

There are more ways than 1 for schools to gain access to funds for their needs.  Voters need not be the source to which the schools always turn.  In fact, voters & millages should be a LAST resort only after all other options have been tried.

Federal & state grants are available for many facilities-related needs.  Writing a grant forces those asking for $$ to think through & "make their case" for being one of those grant recipients.

Corporations & businesses will often make donations for specific school needs...especially if doing so will bring them increased visibility & good favor within the community.

Booster clubs are another option.  Those who WANT to see these improvements can donate themselves or work to gain others' support for the facility needs they want to see addressed.

Alumni can be another source of funds.  Many would like to make a contribution to their alma maters after they have found their place in the workforce.

Even "GoFundMe" projects can bring in funds for some of those desirable (and even critical) needs.

Before we impoverish our township residents, we expect our school board members to make serious efforts to exhaust other sources.  

After all, we are talking about only 4,600 youth vs. the full population of 41,361 township residents & 18,660 households (2023 U.S. Census data).

The following is the ballot proposal language for the May 5, 2026 ballot...

Actual Bond Proposal Text