The Tecumseh Public Schools board discussed a plan June 9 to seek a $950,000 tax‑anticipation note to cover about $940,000 in summer capital projects, including roughly $650,000 earmarked for repairs to the high school pool.

The finance discussion centered on timing and cash flow: district staff said the note would be short term, with funds expected in July and repayment in October when property tax collections arrive. Kelly Glenn, a district staff member overseeing finance, told trustees that Trune Law would post a bid packet if the board approves a resolution to go out for bids and that, by law, the district must accept the bidder offering the lowest interest rate.

The proposal includes a $10,000 contingency and relies on sinking fund eligibility for most projects. Glenn said the district expects to collect roughly $1.5 million next fall in sinking‑fund receipts and to have about $3.4 million in local property tax receipts overall.

Board members pressed for clearer cost scenarios. Trustee Simpson said the budget committee used an assumed $2.50 per‑pupil figure for planning and that the administration will present a draft budget reflecting conservative assumptions. Glenn presented a draft 2025–26 general fund budget that assumes a $250 per‑pupil increase from the state, flat enrollment in the draft and projected total revenues of about $31.45 million and total available to appropriate of about $33.39 million. The draft showed expenditures near $33.19 million and an estimated ending fund balance of about $3.99 million (roughly 12% of expenditures), leaving an excess‑revenue projection near $195,000.

Trustees discussed contingency scenarios if enrollment falls. Glenn calculated that a projected loss of 25 students would reduce state revenue by about $221,818; keeping the board’s 12% fund balance under that scenario would require roughly $212,000 in additional expenditure reductions. A 50‑student loss would reduce revenue by roughly $443,006. Trustee Martinez and others urged conservative planning and asked for monthly cash‑flow forecasts through October. Glenn said the district typically presents a final June budget amendment that reflects audited and near‑final figures and that additional amendments come after the official fall pupil count.

Board members also discussed the district’s likely borrowing needs for cash flow. Glenn noted the district may need to borrow more than $950,000 depending on July payroll timing and other cash‑flow pressures; she cited last summer’s $1.5 million borrowing as an example of a year with heavier cash needs.

Trustees asked for more detail on interest‑rate scenarios before any vote to accept bids. Trustee Brooks asked for a simple comparison of sample interest rates and the associated interest cost for a two‑ or three‑month loan; Glenn said the bid opening is scheduled for June 17.

Why it matters: The tax‑anticipation note and budget assumptions determine which capital projects proceed this summer, whether sinking‑fund projects can be completed, and whether the district must cut programs or positions if enrollment or state aid declines.

Discussion items that informed the borrowing request included the sinking‑fund‑eligible scope of projects: Glenn listed the pool (about $650,000), a new card‑access system (about $100,000), asphalt work (about $100,000), elevator work (roughly $40,000, with about half sinking‑fund eligible) and exterior door replacements. Most of those projects were identified as sinking‑fund eligible. Glenn also said the district has applied for various energy incentives and rebates and is seeking to reserve sinking‑fund money where eligible.

The board did not vote on a final loan award at the June 9 meeting; trustees approved moving other agenda items that evening (minutes, consent agenda and a $1,000 donation to the high‑school Sculpture Garden). Glenn said if the board approves the resolution to solicit bids, Trune Law will post bid documents to financial institutions and local banks, and the board will receive a bid summary for final selection.

The board asked the superintendent and finance staff to return with clearer monthly forecasts, sample interest‑rate scenarios with dollar impacts, and updated cash‑flow projections through October to inform any vote on going to market for the tax‑anticipation note.

Ending: Trustees finished the discussion by asking staff to refine the numbers and return with a recommendation; no formal approval to accept a loan bid was recorded during the meeting.