Frequently Asked Questions

In short, our facilities still have a lot of issues and have much room for improvement to best serve our students, staff and community. We have been working diligently with the community and our community Facilities Steering Committee to reevaluate our needs and determine how to be best stewards of our community resources and district facilities. 

On May 7, 2024, we proposed a bond to address increasing facility issues across the district. The proposal failed by 109 votes. We surveyed the community for feedback and learned that more information was desired and more community members wanted to be involved in the process of facility planning.

In July, the Board of Education commissioned a district steering committee to review facility needs. Committee volunteers included students, staff, parents, and the community at large. Inputs included strategic priorities, community surveys, forums, facilities assessment and building tours.

Over eight meetings, the committee arrived at consensus and presented a no-mill-increase bond proposal recommendation to the Board of Education. The Board approved moving forward with next steps for a bond proposal in May of 2025.

For a complete project list, see here: Project List

No, we do not plan to close any buildings and are committed to providing Riley and Eureka Elementaries with a similar learning experience as the in-town schools. For more details on the significant improvements coming to those schools, please see the complete project list.

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 at Eureka, specifically. However, after hearing from the community and consulting the Board of Education, we have decided to keep Eureka open, and to invest in upgrades to the building. 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.

SJPS has very intentionally chosen to continue to enhance Eureka and Riley 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 at Eureka, specifically. However, after hearing from the community and consulting the Board of Education, we have decided to keep Eureka open, and to invest in upgrades to the building. 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.

We currently offer childcare for birth-5 years old in our Little Wings Program that is housed at East Olive. We offer Adventure Club before and after school lach-key services for our school-aged children at Gateway and Oakview. Both Little Wings and Adventure Club are tuition-based programs, meaning families pay for these programs. Families sign up for these programs and we often have a waitlist for these programs. We also offer preschool at Riley and Oakview Elementary schools. Preschool is for children who are 4 years old and we get a grant from the Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) and Head Start to fund this program. Families enroll in preschool and selection is based on age, then family income.

Statistics:

• For GSRP (4-year-olds), we have about 200 children eligible in the school district, and only slots for 80. 
• For Little Wings (0-5 years), we offer 40 slots, and there are 71 children on the waiting list. This is not counting the families that inquire about care and do not add their names to the list once they hear how long it is. 
• For Adventure Club (School-age), we offer 72 slots and have 10 on the waiting list.

A new Early Learning Center is included in the proposal for a multitude of reasons:

Current inefficiencies and challenges: Our current dispersed model means we have to pay for licenses at four separate buildings and staff them all separately. Collaboration and attraction/retention of teachers is challenging in these distinct spaces.

Capacity limitations: Currently, we have 200 children eligible for our GSRP program and only 80 spots available. We also have 71 children on the waiting list for Little Wings and only 40 spots available in our spaces.

Attracting and retaining Young Families in our community: An Early Learning Center provides support for young families and makes our community and schools more appealing for them to stay.

Attracting and retaining staff: Providing space for Early Learning professionals to excel would help us appeal to more high-quality staff for our youngest learners. Dispersed resources, full-capacity classrooms, and aging buildings do not help to attract or retain.

Learning, socialization benefits: Top research supports numerous significant benefits of high-quality early education. 

If a new facility is built to support Early Learning, all the appropriate security, code, and traffic flow requirements would be implemented to be sure this space supports our earliest learners and their families effectively.

The Early Learning Center’s programs for ages 0-5 would be tuition or federal and state grant-based.

If approved, the existing stadium field would remain natural grass.  The current soccer field would be replaced with a new, lighted multi-use synthetic turf field.  This multi-use field would increase the hours of playability, reduce required resources and costs for maintenance, and provide a high-quality, highly playable field for our community to use. 

Currently, our soccer field is experiencing significant drainage issues.

This article compares the costs and safety issues related to synthetic and natural turf fields. We will continue to work with our architect/engineer to select a field that will meet the needs of our student and community athletes.

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

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.

The bond, if approved, would fund a complete replacement of the stage in the auditorium to support our fine arts programs. New auditorium doors and theatrical lighting improvements would also be included in the proposal. A fly system for the theatre would also be installed to support fine arts productions.

The East Olive building has aged and is no longer up to code or conveniently located. It would need fire suppression and significant remodeling of most of the building that already does not meet standards for early childhood centers. We also have rented the facility to the East Olive Community Center for the past five years: this would require us to force them out of the space.

If approved by voters, this bond proposal would provide $99.75 million for district-wide improvements with zero mill increase projected over the prior year’s levy.

We use the wording expected only to communicate that the tax rate information is a projection of the future. 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.

• 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 2044 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 2041, 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.

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.

Michigan schools are funded through operating millages, 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.

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 pay once 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 $99.75 million in bonds to fund improvements over 7 years. The school district plans to issue the bonds in three separate series as the work is completed: in 2025, 2027, and 2029. Each 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 $92,844,340. 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.

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.

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

The proposal would generate $99.75 million which would be spent over seven years. The bonds are proposed to be issued in three separate series (2025, 2027, 2029). This would allow for years of bond repayments to occur before a new bond issue is completed.

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, 2025 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.

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 April 21, 202 5to participate in the May 6, 2025 election. Individuals may also register in-person at their local clerk’s office through May 6, 2025, with the required documentation. For assistance in obtaining the address of your local clerk, visit Michigan.gov/vote.

• Registering to vote: 

  • The last day for voters to register by mail is April 21, 2025

  • Voters may register in person through May 6, 2025 (election day) with the required documentation 

• Absentee Voting:  

  • Absentee voter ballots are available as early as March 22 until May 6, 2025 (election day)

  • On or before Saturday, March 22, 2025 - Absent 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, March 27, 2025 to be sent to members of the general public

  • Contact your local clerk with questions

• Attend a public information community forum: 

  • March 11 at 6:30 p.m. at the High School Media Center

  • March 24 at 6:30 p.m. via Zoom

  • April 16 at 6:30 p.m. at the High School Media Center

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 March 23 through election day, May 6, 2025.

Tuesday, May 6, 2025 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, May 6, 2025.

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.

Contact Dr. Anthony Berthiaume, Superintendent, at [email protected] or 989.227.4050