Midland Public Schools steering team narrows bond options; board weighs sinking fund and a single high school timeline

Midland Public Schools’ facility-planning steering team presented a range of bond and sinking-fund options to the school board on May 18, laying out what each millage scenario could accomplish and recommending further community education before asking voters to consider a larger construction bond.

Steven Gunther, a consultant with GMB, told the board the team modeled multiple millage increases — roughly 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5 and a 3.6-mill scenario — and mapped each to what could realistically be funded. "A 1-mil bond is insufficient to build a new Northeast Middle School; a 1.5-mil scenario can begin to address it but would still require additional funds for demolition, furniture and fixtures," Gunther said. He emphasized the value of pairing a bond with a sinking fund to pay for buses, technology and ongoing infrastructure needs.

A steering-team member described five guiding values the committee used to evaluate proposals: career-and-technical readiness, safety and well-being, equity and strategic prioritization, phased responsible facility planning, and transparent stewardship. Using those criteria, committee feedback and group ranking exercises from two community engagement sessions, the steering team found that 2.0- and 2.5-mill proposals ranked highest for likely community support; the 3.6-mill option aligned most strongly with all guiding values but was judged less likely to win broad support.

Steering members said community participants prioritized infrastructure replacement, elementary utilization and CTE investments when asked to rank needs. Alicia, a steering committee member who works at the Midland Area Community Foundation, said her outreach to PTOs and boosters found people want communications that are "simple, visual and transparent," including renderings and explicit statements of "what this means for my child."

Board members and steering representatives also debated whether to discuss a long-term goal — a unified single high school — now or treat it as a five-to-eight-year objective. "If we build now, you should plan not only for immediate needs but for flexibility in the design so the building can adapt to future uses," Gunther said, estimating that consolidation planning, land acquisition, design and phased construction would likely take at least five years.

Several board members urged a two-step approach: place a sinking-fund proposal on the ballot in November 2026 to address pressing maintenance and replaceable items, then continue community education and consider a bond with a well-defined, flexible road map by November 2027. The board directed the steering team and administration to refine survey questions, collect broader feedback and produce clearer, visual materials that show exactly which priorities are covered at different millage levels.

Next steps: the district will refine community survey content, continue outreach with PTOs and other groups, finalize the steering-team recommendation and return to the board with a recommended first step (sinking fund and/or bond timing). The steering team and consultants emphasized the need to present concrete, milestone-based plans so voters understand what each dollar will buy.