2026 Frequently Asked Questions

This bond proposal focuses on our most pressing facility priorities according to community input:

✔️  Updating Safety & Security

✔️  Replacing Aging Infrastructure

✔️  Updating Classroom Furniture, Fixtures, Equipment, and Technology

✔️  Replacing Aging Parking Lots and Sidewalks

✔️  Renovating Classroom Spaces

For a complete project list, see here: 2026 Complete Project List

The bond would provide the following improvements for safety and security enhancements throughout the district:

• Secure vestibule entries
• Door hardware replacement
• Improved door access controls and alert system
• Additional security cameras

School safety is a layered approach—there is no single solution that eliminates risk entirely, but it is a combination of measures that can help create a safer environment. Physical security enhancements, such as cameras and secure building entrance vestibules, are just parts of the equation. Equally important are measures that focus on prevention, including strong relationships between students and staff, threat assessment protocols, and emergency preparedness training.

Regarding backpacks, schools continually evaluate policies based on research, expert recommendations, and what is practical for students and staff. While eliminating backpacks can seem like a simple, no-cost solution, it also presents challenges in terms of student needs and enforcement. Our focus remains on proactive safety strategies that address both prevention and response, and we are always open to feedback as we work toward creating safer learning environments.

We appreciate all the engagement in this conversation and encourage ongoing dialogue as we continue to refine and improve school safety measures.

As has been shared openly in recent years, our early learning programs are in high demand, have not had adequate space to handle their long waitlists, and programs are spread between three buildings, which makes staffing a challenge. In our area, there are about six children per every one available spot in childcare: https://erec.msu.edu/projects/child-care-mapping-project/maps-and-charts/child-care-supply-and-demand.  

When the previous proposals were not approved by our community, the District consulted financial advisors and construction partners to explore what other options might be available to address our identified early learning program needs. For approximately $3 million, SJPS purchased and is renovating a newer building (1999 compared to the 1966 East Olive building) into the new Early Learning Center to bring it up to standards.

The purchase of the Tolles Drive property provides the district additional classroom space to continue to prioritize smaller class sizes at K-3 level both at Oakview and Riley, and also utilize classroom space at Oakview for its original intention of an art classroom. With the purchase of the new ELC the district was able to avoid purchasing a portable classroom for the 2026-27 school year for the additional 3rd grade section moving up to Oakview next year. The building on Tolles Drive was purchased to be renovated into an early learning center (ELC). We currently have an early childhood program in our district spread out among three different buildings, one of which is East Olive, which was built in 1966. The ELC will provide a centralized location for efficiency purposes, collaboration amongst staff and general operational costs being one building. 

The district purchased the building for $300,000 and is renovating the building for $2.7M. The district plans to list East Olive for sale this summer once the new Early Learning Center is confirmed to open for the start of the 2026-27 school year. The purchase and renovation of the new ELC allowed the district to open three more classrooms that were preschool classrooms, two at Oakview and one at Riley. In the 2024 & 2025 bond proposals, the new build of an ELC would have cost approximately $24M. The savings of the purchase and renovation of Tolles Dr. saved $21M of estimated costs along with opening additional classroom space at both Oakview and Riley Elementaries (another focal point of the 2024 & 2025 bond proposals).

If approved, the 2026 bond would provide a gym and two classroom additions to meet the needs of our Early Learning programming.

The District did consider the East Olive building for an Early Learning Center. However, East Olive is a 60-year-old building with many aging systems and infrastructure items in the building, many of them past their useful lifespan. 

• The building is only equipped with partial cooling in certain areas, so adding this to a building of this size would be costly. 

• The building is outfitted with aging boilers that are failing.

• This building runs on propane due to its rural location, and propane is around 30% more expensive than natural gas to purchase for operational use.

• Last year, the District had a $90,000+ insurance claim due to excessive mold in the building. Mold developed overnight because of the amount of humidity in the building and no way to get rid of it with the limited cooling systems. We risk this happening again.

• On top of the high operational cost, the building is a general liability to the district with its aging infrastructure and potential issues down the road.  

 To renovate this building even to basic standards with minor improvements, it would have cost approximately $4.1 million. To best steward resources, the District has decided to sell the East Olive building and invest in the newly purchased and renovated Early Learning Center on Tolles Dr. (which cost approximately $3 million, including purchase of the building) 

Our existing maintenance and office structures are beyond their useful life expectancy. Constructing a replacement facility would not only update the building; it would also allow us to incorporate the transportation office into a new facility to eliminate an extra building and improve communication and staff efficiency. 

With our transportation department responsible for over 200 square miles, functioning buses and transportation infrastructure are vital to serving students.

Playgrounds require inspection to ensure that equipment and safety surfacing meet current codes and regulations, including determining if any physical deformations of the equipment exist.  To ensure compliance with current codes, as well as considering ongoing maintenance costs to keep the existing equipment safe, it was determined that the replacement of the equipment would be the appropriate long-term solution. This bond would provide funding to improve our youngest learners’ access to play to supplement their classroom learning. Adding new playground equipment at schools would also help to provide an equitable playground experience, no matter which school students attend.

Photos from current playgrounds

If approved by voters, this bond proposal would provide $40,000,000 for district-wide improvements with zero mill increase expected over the prior year’s levy. 

For more information about how to calculate your property tax impact, please click here.

We use the wording expected only to communicate that the tax rate information is a projection of future taxable values. These projections are based on careful analysis of financial data by both the district and our municipal financial advisors based on current information. SJPS does not anticipate an increase in the tax rate.

Below are some financial details of the projection:

• St. Johns Public Schools currently levies 7.0 mills for debt. The rate of 7.0 mills has been in place for the past 31 years.

• If approved by voters, the proposal would add millage while previous bond debt is paid off simultaneously, keeping the total estimated millage rate at 7.0 mills.

• If approved, the rate is projected to remain at 7.0 mills through 2032 with decreases over time as bond debt is paid off.

• Careful financial projections of the projected taxable value of property in our community are calculated with current data.

No. The bond millage rate is estimated to remain at 7.0 mills through 2032, and thereafter it is estimated to decline due to bond repayment and taxable value growth, as illustrated in the chart below. If the bond is not approved by voters, the millage rate is estimated to decline to 5.83 mills in 2027.

SJPS’s millage rate has been 7 mills without increase since 1995.

The graph below shows how the zero-mill increase compares to districts around SJPS.

The proposal would generate $40,000,000 which would be spent over five years. The bonds are proposed to be issued in one series to be sold in 2027. 

Each year the bond millage rate is recalculated based on the school district's new taxable value figure and the bond payment required in the upcoming year. Due to repaying prior outstanding bonds along with taxable value growth, it is estimated that the bond millage rate required to pay the existing bond payments will decline to allow this proposal to be funded without having to change the present bond millage rate of 7.00.

While funding from this bond proposal is independent of the district's general fund operating budget, the bond would likely have a positive impact on the district’s general fund by allowing the district to reallocate operating funds that are currently being spent on aging facilities, mechanical systems, and technology. The operational savings generated from new and more cost-efficient facilities could be redirected to student programs and resources.

On the December 1, 2027 property tax bill.

No. Most technology purchases are required to be amortized (paid off) over a 5-year period beginning at the time of installation.

School districts operate under a different financial model than personal finances or small businesses, as we do not generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Instead, our funding primarily comes from the state, based on student enrollment, in the form of our Operating Fund. Bond proposals are designed to finance capital projects, such as new buildings and expansions.

If the bond proposal is approved by the voters, the projects that would be paid for by the bonds would serve the community and be used for many decades. Financing those projects with bonds allows the cost to be spread over multiple "generations" of taxpayers since multiple generations of students and the community would use the projects. Otherwise, the district's current taxpayers would be required to bear the financial burden all at once for projects that would be used for many decades.

Think of selling bonds like purchasing a home. As with a mortgage, interest on the bond will be incurred. For a home that costs $100,000, you make monthly payments on that amount, plus interest, over a specified number of years. The total amount that you have paid over time after your home is paid off is higher than the initial purchase price – but you still consider the cost of your home to be $100,000. And, most homeowners consider the expense worthwhile for the immediate and long-term, generational impact on their household.

The same is true with bonds, although these interest rates cannot be determined until the bonds are sold. In this proposal, the district would sell $40,000,000 in bonds to fund improvements over 7 years. The bond series would have a length of 30 years or shorter. A conservative estimate on the interest rate is between 3.1 - 5%, meaning the estimated interest on these bonds is $24,719,306. Interest is also subject to decrease with district financial stewardship and refinancing to pay them off sooner. We have been able to do this with existing bonds and reduce total interest payments.

Michigan law requires that the expenditure of bond proceeds be audited, and the proceeds cannot be used for repair or maintenance costs, teacher, administrator or employee salaries, or other operating expenses. An audit would be completed at the end of each series to ensure compliance.

Indirect costs, sometimes referred to as “soft costs,” are costs required to prepare for and complete a construction project. They occur throughout the duration of the bond projects, which in St. Johns case are anticipated to occur over five to six years.

Contingency (10%): Reserved to accommodate unforeseen costs related to existing building and site conditions

Architect’s Fees (<8% of construction value):  Fees to allow further program development, design, documentation of projects for construction, issuance of bidding documents and field observation during construction

Construction Manager’s Fees (<8% of construction value):  Fees to manage the construction process including:

• Ongoing estimating and budget confirmation throughout design

• Coordination of bidding process and post-bid evaluation of bids received

• Coordination of subcontractors

• On-site staffing for construction observation

General Conditions (2%):  Costs that support construction that are not captured by subcontractors’ bids. These include: 

• Temporary facilities  (Job trailer(s) and temporary restrooms, temporary fencing, on-site safety measures (signage, etc.))

• Temporary utilities (power, water, gas, etc.)

• Dumpsters for waste and recycling

• Material testing costs

• Permit fees

Soft Costs/Consultants (2%):

• Geotechnical services

• Site surveys

• Permit fees

• Food service, technology, and security consultants

• Commissioning services

Bonds allow SJPS to prioritize facility advancements without taking from other integral school resources. See below for a breakdown of which types of projects each can fund.

SJPS has intentionally chosen to continue to enhance our county elementary buildings to ensure these students have access to a similar caliber of learning environments as those at Oakview and Gateway. Using funds to upgrade these buildings—rather than replace them completely—allows bond funds to spread further and be used in other priorities across the district.

Together with the Community Steering Committee and the Board of Education, we considered a few different scenarios that looked to address any facility and operational inefficiencies. This will allow us to continue our focus on neighborhood schools and keep the overall cost of the bond proposal lower by not building a new elementary-level building in town, while still addressing the needs of the building and the learning environments of the students there.

The purchase of the Early Leaning Center has many benefits to the district however, this was not simply put, a want by the district.

There were 3 main factors that came into play regarding the decision.

1. The current 2nd grade class has a higher number of students, which required an additional section to be opened at Gateway. Gateway with some shuffling, was able to open up a classroom to accommodate the need when these students were in kindergarden. Oakview however, does not have the ability to do so due to the fact that preschool occupies 3 classrooms in the building. 

The only option to be able to house the additional section of to be 3rd graders would be to purchase a mobile classroom for the next 3 years. At the cost of $100,000 per year this would bring additional costs to the district that would never see returns.

2. East Olive is no longer a viable option due to code requirements. When the district moved the Little Wings program from the Wilson Center, the work needed to be done to satisfy licensing and code requirements to operate out of the 4 classrooms was minimal. If the district were to reopen the entire building, it would be subject to higher code standards that financially did not make sense for the district. With a sticker price of over $1,000,000 alone to upgrade the fire suppression system in the 1957 building and additional $2,000,000 to modernize the rest of the building, it only made sense to move the program into a building that would be newer and not have the required upkeep of an older facility.

3. The ability to put all pre-k programs under one roof. Currently Preschool (both GSRP and tuition based) are spread out across 3 buildings with various start times. Putting all classes under one roof allows for standardization of time but also structure to our young learners and their families. As a result of relocating the preschool classrooms, we get additional classroom space at Riley and Oakview. This will allow for the district to continue prioritizing lower class sizes at the k-3 level as well as give programs an appropriate space to educate our students.

The non-voter bond does not have any effect on the current proposed bond. Though a non-voter bond does provide much of the same functions as a voter bond, there is no additional tax burden to the community. 

Using sinking funds for large-scale capital improvement projects is not practical and would require an increase in the millage rate.

A 1-mill tax rate increase would provide approximately $1,018,849 in the first year.  The maximum 3-mill tax rate increase would provide approximately $3.06 million in the first year. (This hypothetical is shown below.)

Larger projects would need to be delayed for several years to develop a large enough fund to complete them.

Michigan schools are funded through operating funds, bond proposals, and sinking funds. The nature of each of these mechanisms and the cases in which they would be most practical vs. impractical are outlined below:

Operational funding

Funding for the day-to-day operations of the district is provided through state, federal and local sources.

• The majority of the funding is allocated through the state per pupil foundation allowance

• Programs and services, personnel costs, utilities, supplies and maintenance costs are financed in this category.

Operational funds do not provide enough money to make significant improvements to infrastructure.

Bonds

A bond proposal is how a public school district asks its community for authorization to borrow money to pay for capital expenditures.

• With a bond, taxpayers approve an amount of bonds to be issued and taxes are collected in the amount necessary to cover principal and interest on bond debt.

• Funds raised through the sale of bonds cannot be used on operational expenses such as employee salaries and benefits, school supplies, and textbooks.

• Bond funds must be kept separate from operating funds.

• SJPS currently levies a combined 7.0 mill debt millage rate.

Sinking funds

A sinking fund is a proposal that requests voters to approve a taxation on property that would pay for capital expenditures over time.

• Sinking funds have limited allowable uses, including school building construction and repair, school real estate, security improvements, student transportation vehicles, and technology purchases or upgrades.

• A sinking fund may be authorized for a maximum of 3 mills and for no more than 10 years.

Using sinking funds for large-scale capital improvement projects is not practical.

• A 1-mill tax rate increase would provide approximately $922,474 in the first year.  The maximum 3-mill tax rate increase would provide approximately $2.8 million in the first year.

• Larger projects would need to be delayed for several years to develop a large enough fund to complete them.

SJPS does not have a sinking fund millage.

• If SJPS considered a sinking fund for voters, it would be a tax rate increase, and would need to be approved each time an approved sinking fund expires.

No. Bus purchases are required to be amortized (paid off) over a 6-year period beginning at the time the buses are put into service.

Yes, businesses and second homes (non-homestead properties) and primary homes (homestead properties) are treated the same regarding bond millage.

If a business has been granted an Industrial Facilities Tax ("IFT") credit then only half of the taxable value is subject to the bond millage. The business would need to verify if some of the taxable value has been designated for the IFT credit. One item a community member could research is the Michigan Homestead Property Tax Credit. The Michigan Homestead Property Tax Credit is a method through which some taxpayers can receive a credit for an amount of their property tax that exceeds a certain percentage of their household income. This program establishes categories under which homeowners or renters are eligible for a Homestead Property Tax Credit. We would recommend that community members consult their tax advisor to determine if they are eligible for this tax credit.

The foundation allowance follows the student, which means the district receives State funding for each student that is enrolled at St. Johns Public Schools. For each student who attends through schools of choice, SJPS receives state funding, similar to how it receives State funding for in-district students.

No. School districts are not allowed to use funds from a bond for operating expenses such as teacher, administrator or employee salaries, routine maintenance, or operating costs. Bond proceeds must be kept separate from operating funds and expenditures must be audited by an independent auditing firm.  

If approved by voters, the district’s Architect/Engineer would design the proposed projects and prepare construction documents and specifications for the projects. Once the projects are designed, the district’s Construction Manager will assemble bid packages and publicly advertise to solicit competitive bids for all work. This is required by law, as outlined in the Revised School Code. This process ensures that the district selects the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. All qualified contractors will have an opportunity to attend a pre-bid meeting to obtain additional information and project clarification. All qualified contractors will have the opportunity to participate in the competitive bid process. 

Each project will be required to be submitted to both the Bureau of Construction Codes (BCC) and the Bureau of Fire Services (BFS) for both plan review and permitting. These agencies will review the projects to ensure they comply with applicable codes before any building permits are issued. Building plans and specifications must be signed and sealed by a Licensed Architect/Professional Engineer before submission. As of 2019, Michigan law requires school districts to consult on the plans for the construction or major renovation regarding school safety issues with the law enforcement agency that is the first responder for that school building. This consultation would happen after a bond proposal has been approved by voters and before construction documents are finalized prior to project commencement.

Visit Michigan.gov/vote to register to vote online. It is recommended by the Secretary of State to register by mail by October 19, 2026 to participate in the November 3, 2026 election. Individuals may also register in-person at their local clerk’s office through November 3, 2026, with the required documentation. For assistance in obtaining the address of your local clerk, visit Michigan.gov/vote.

Registered voters must complete and submit the application to receive their absentee voter ballot. To vote by mail, fill out the application and sign it, and then return it to your local clerk. For assistance in obtaining the address of your local clerk, visit Michigan.gov/vote. When filling out the application, if you check the box to be added to the permanent absentee voter list, you will get an application mailed to you before every election.  

If you registered to vote after absentee voter ballot applications were mailed, applications may be obtained online at Michigan.gov/vote. Absentee voter ballots are available as early as September 19 through election day, November 3, 2026.

Registering to vote:

• The last day for voters to register by mail is October 19, 2026.

• Voters may register in person through November 3, 2026 (election day) with the required documentation. 

Absentee Voting:  

• Absentee voter ballots are available as early as September 19 until November 3, 2026 (election day).

• On or before Saturday, September 19, 2026 - Absentee voter ballots must be available to be sent to voters serving in the military or living overseas.

•  Absentee voter ballots must be available by Thursday, September 24, 2026 to be sent to members of the general public.

• Contact your local clerk with questions.

Attend a public information community forum. We will announce these dates as Election Day gets closer.

Owners of property are only eligible to vote if they reside within the school district’s boundaries. To be eligible to register to vote you must be:

• A Michigan resident (at the time you register) and a resident of your city or township for at least 30 days (when you vote)

• A United States citizen

• At least 18 years of age (when you vote)

• Not currently serving a sentence in jail or prison

Yes, if you rent a house or apartment, you can still vote. You must be a registered voter in the city or township you are living in and live within the school district’s boundaries.

Tuesday, November 3, 2026 is election day, but absentee voting can occur leading up to that date. All registered voters may cast an absentee voter ballot by mail. Voters may also cast a ballot at the polling location established by their city/township. If you have questions or do not know where you vote, please contact your city/township clerk’s office. Polls will be open from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Please visit our website or contact the District Office at 989.227.4050.