Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sinking Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board coalesces around 1.5‑mill, 10‑year sinking fund proposal; staff to draft ballot language
Summary
After facility consultants presented priorities and cost estimates, the board signaled general agreement to pursue a November 2026 sinking‑fund ballot at 1.5 mills for 10 years and asked staff to return with precise ballot language at an August 5 meeting. The plan emphasizes safety, security, roofs and IT upgrades.
The Midland Public Schools Board of Education agreed Monday night to move forward with ballot language asking voters for a 1.5‑mill sinking fund over 10 years, with the board directing staff and counsel to prepare final wording for review at an August 5 special meeting.
Consultants leading the district’s facility‑planning work recommended a November 2026 sinking fund in the 1.5–1.75 mill range and presented a prioritized four‑year program that focuses on safety and security, roofing and site drainage repairs, IT/camera upgrades and replacement buses. “The steering team made the recommendation of 1.5 to 1.75 mill sinking fund,” said Steven Gutter of GMB, who led the presentation for the consultant team.
Board members pressed for clarity on both the scale and the ballot language. Staff and consultants said a 1.5‑mill rate would produce roughly $4.6 million in the first year under current taxable‑value assumptions (consultant estimates ranged 4.6–5.4 million depending on exact millage and taxable value). The team stressed that the sinking fund is intended to supplement—not replace—general fund maintenance and to give the district flexibility to respond to emergencies without drawing down operating budgets.
Contractor Kevin Bushey summarized a recent Northeast Middle School roof walk: the roof is a single membrane, permitting a second membrane application that could extend life 5–10 years without a full tear‑off; a full replacement had been estimated previously at about $3.3–4.0 million. “We’re working with the vendor to understand what those options are to be the best possible use of the dollar,” Bushey said.
Trustees debated how narrowly to word the ballot question. State statute lists permitted sinking‑fund uses (site purchase, construction and repair, security improvements, technology, student transportation vehicles and maintenance vehicles/parts), and staff noted the board can strike individual bullets from the ballot language if it wishes. Several trustees urged keeping the language broad enough to allow year‑to‑year adjustments, paired with a public dashboard to report collections and expenditures.
By the end of the discussion trustees expressed general agreement with the steering team’s approach and asked the administration to draft ballot language reflecting a 1.5‑mill request for 10 years, excluding purchase of real estate. The board did not take a final vote to place the measure on the ballot Monday; rather, the action at the meeting was direction to prepare and return a proposed ballot question for consideration on August 5.
What’s next: staff will work with the district’s attorney to prepare formal ballot language and will present that wording at the August 5 special meeting, along with a detailed communications plan and the project dashboard the steering team proposed.
