The Case for a ‘No Vote’ on $169.2 Million Bond Proposal

Editor’s Note:

Since the Saginaw Township School District is not providing much in the way of details about the Bond costs contained in this millage plan prior to press time  of our print edition, a Freedom of Information request was sent to the State of Michigan for the application submitted by the Board to the state, which shows a total cost of over $300 million to taxpayers.

Based on the provided document, the total cost to taxpayers over 25 years for the Saginaw Township Community School District bonds is the sum of the Existing UT Debt and the Proposed and Existing UT Debt. The total Existing UT Debt is $10,494,200. The total Proposed and Existing UT Debt is $318,458,081.

Therefore, the total cost to taxpayers is the sum of these two figures. Adding the two together yields a total cost of $328,952,281.

__________________________________________________

On November 4, 2025, Saginaw Township voters are being asked to approve a massive $169.2 million bond proposal for our community schools. This is a moment of profound consequence - a decision that will shape the future of our children’s education and the financial health of every single property owner for decades to come.

The proponents of this bond, in their well-meaning but ultimately misguided campaign, tell us that we must vote “Yes” to invest in our future, to ensure our students have the resources they need. They speak of modernizing classrooms, improving security, and upgrading athletic facilities. However, this  bond proposal is driven by people who live off your tax dollars, especially insider sole-source contractors who stand to make huge profits from these capital projects.

The School Board presents a future where the simple act of checking the “Yes” box solves all our problems.  This is a moment not for simple trust, but for critical deliberation. This is not a moment for an unquestioning "Yes," but for a determined and principled "No."

Voting "No" is not an act of abandoning our schools; it is an act of demanding a better, more accountable, and more responsible vision for their future. It is a vote for fiscal sanity, for educational integrity, and for a long-overdue reckoning with the systemic issues that have plagued our district for far too long. 

This bond would impose an average 5.21 mills property tax over 25 years - much higher than the school board has falsely claimed. As your taxable value increases up to 5% each year your tax burden will DEFINITELY increase significantly every year - for the next 25 years! For example, a township home assessed at $150,000.00 SEV will pay $781.50 each year over and above all the other property taxes you pay now.

A "No" vote is a vote to say that we will not simply write a blank check for a system that has, time and again, demonstrated a fundamental inability to manage our trust and our resources. Many of today’s students would inherit this new tax burden long after they graduate – think guaranteed student loans.

Countering the Financial Claims: The Truth Behind "Spreading the Cost"

The district's campaign claims that a bond "allows the district to raise funds upfront for large-scale projects... while spreading the cost over time to reduce the financial impact to community taxpayers." 

Let's be clear about what that means: it is a convenient phrase to mask decades of new debt. It means that every homeowner, regardless of whether they have a child in the school system, will be saddled with a significant tax increase. 

The district's funding is directly tied to student enrollment, and for years, we have watched those numbers plummet. State data confirms this, with ten of thirteen districts in Saginaw County experiencing student population declines in recent history. Student enrollment has dropped 18.2% since the high point (2007) of 5,494 students.

A shrinking student body naturally leads to a shrinking budget. However, instead of adapting to this new reality by consolidating resources, closing underutilized buildings, or streamlining administration, the district has doubled down on its strategy of seeking more money from taxpayers to prop up a bloated infrastructure.

A Distraction of "Improvements" and a Misleading Claim of "Capacity"

The campaign's vague list of proposed improvements—"upgraded safety," "modernized learning environments," and "improved athletic facilities"—is a polished distraction from the fundamental problems at hand. 

The district's claim that many schools are "operating at or near capacity" is particularly misleading. The district's own data and state-level enrollment reports show a long-term, consistent decline in student population. This statement either ignores the data or deliberately misleads the public about the true state of the district's facilities. 

Furthermore, while the bond promises "upgraded safety," true security is not just about cameras and secure entrances. It is about a stable, functional school environment that prioritizes educational outcomes. A crumbling academic program is a far greater threat to our children's future than an aging boiler.

The Illusion of Detail: A Shopping List is Not a Budget

The most glaring weakness of this proposal is its profound lack of financial transparency. The school board's latest campaign attempts to lend an air of legitimacy by providing a list of projects, from "renovated bathrooms" to "new turf athletic fields." But let's be clear: a shopping list is not a budget. 

We are told about a wide range of capital projects, but we are given absolutely no public-facing, itemized breakdown of costs. How much of our $169.2 million will be spent on enclosing open-concept classrooms versus the proposed on-site softball field? What is the cost of "storm drainage improvements" compared to "air conditioning and HVAC controls"?

The list is intentionally generic, designed to make voters feel informed without actually providing any of the specific fiscal details necessary for a responsible decision. We are being asked to write a blank check for an immense sum of money without any clear plan or public accountability for its expenditure. This is not a sign of a well-managed organization with a strategic vision; it is a sign of an institution that believes it is entitled to our money without having to earn our trust through transparency.

The Intentional "Stealth Election" Technique

This lack of transparency is no accident; it is a feature of a carefully planned "stealth election" technique. The timing of this vote is a key issue. By placing this bond on the November 4, 2025, ballot—an off-year, municipal election—the district is deliberately trying to avoid a high voter turnout.

These elections are historically known for low engagement, as many citizens are not accustomed to voting outside of major presidential or gubernatorial contests. This is a well-documented political strategy to pass controversial or expensive measures by appealing to a smaller, more easily swayed base of voters, rather than the broad, diverse electorate that would likely scrutinize this proposal more closely. 

The district tried a similar tactic with the failed May 2023 bond proposal. The fact that they are trying again with a similar timing suggests a pattern of behavior designed to circumvent broad public debate and avoid the kind of democratic mandate that a measure of this scale truly requires. We must not allow ourselves to be taken advantage of by this technique.

Moreover, in a Special Election the cost is borne by those asking for it.  Our school board decided to put a special bond election on the ballot in May 2023.  Because they lost the election, they are liable to pay the entire cost of the election--with YOUR taxpayer funds.  Consequently, they have had to use school funds to pay an estimated $120,000. Now two years later they’re spending it again. Can they truly be in dire straits if they can afford to spend our tax dollars putting bond proposals on SPECIAL elections that we have ALREADY said that we don't want?

Refuting the Fear: A False Choice About the Future

The most desperate part of the district's campaign is the series of threats about what will happen if the bond fails. Their warnings about "deferred maintenance," "rising costs," and a "limited Sinking Fund" present a classic false choice designed to scare voters into approving the bond. 

Voting "No" is not a vote for deferred maintenance; it is a vote for a different, more responsible approach to maintenance. They claim the Sinking Fund is inadequate, but its limitations expose a more profound problem: a failure of strategic planning. 

Why, after years of dedicated funds, do we still face a 50-year backlog of urgent repairs? The issue is not the fund itself, but the district's inability to strategically prioritize its use. They warn that delaying repairs will lead to "rising costs." This argument is a flimsy excuse to avoid the difficult, necessary work of consolidating resources and adapting to current realities.

This bond proposal also represents a missed opportunity. Instead of a holistic approach to saving our schools, it is a narrow, capital-expenditure-focused plan that ignores the human element of the crisis. 

None of the funds from this Bond Proposal will go to students, curriculum or teacher supplies & salaries.  All funds will be directed to facilities--construction, remodeling, furnishing/refurnishing, equipment, erecting a "school support building".  It is also earmarked for athletic fields, driveways/parking lots and various changes to school sites.

Where is the plan to attract and retain the best teachers? Where is the initiative to partner with local businesses and community organizations to provide students with real-world skills and opportunities? Where is the commitment to parental engagement beyond a simple informational meeting? 

A true vision for Saginaw Community Schools would not be a siloed bond proposal, but a comprehensive strategic plan that addresses declining enrollment, student achievement, and community engagement in a coordinated, public way.

Voting "No" is not about being anti-school or anti-student. It is about being pro-accountability. It is a vote to compel our school leaders to do the hard work they have been avoiding. It is a vote to demand a plan that acknowledges the fiscal realities of our community and the educational needs of our students. It is a vote to say that we believe in our schools, but we believe in them so much that we are not willing to let them continue on a path that is not working. 

The Saginaw Community Schools are at a crossroads. We can continue to apply a financial bandage to a gaping wound, or we can demand the fundamental changes necessary for true healing. Let us choose the path of reform. Let us cast a vote that demands better for our children, our community, and our future. 

Let us Vote "No" on November 4, 2025.

For more information please visit the Vote No website at www.taxhike.org