Local May 3rd Election Guide

[XLFD]

Michigan allows for regular elections to happen in February, May, August, and November, and this will be one of the busier May elections on Tuesday in Mason County, as a sizable school bond vote is planned for those in the Mason County Central (MCC) District, a sinking fund renewal is being sought by the Ludington Area School District (LASD) and folks in the City of Ludington will see a simple yes/no question of whether they should do a charter revision, and a more complex vote to seat the charter revision committee should the vote be 'yes'.  

The MCC bond vote will be interesting as the district is looking to get up to $33,635,000 to invest in their school properties.  The proposed projects cover just about all MCC facilities, but the most notable deal with the existing high school facility where an ambitious performing arts area is to be added, along with a weight room, and changing the existing wood shop to a community room.  Among other major projects is installing artificial turf and a new restroom facility at the football stadium, playground improvements at the two elementaries, and a lot of maintenance.

Local media is really pushing hard for this millage in particular the Mason County Press whose chief editor's spouse was, until October 2021, on the school board.  They have used local Scottville entertainment celebrities Maynard James Keenan, Edgar Struble, and Tom Richert to pitch the big-ticket item (performance center), despite MCC having very limited performance facilities in order to produce such talent as they have in those three successful people.  

Most media do not take into account the burden the folks around Scottville are under with the high rates of inflation over the last year and the lack of security those with fixed incomes see and that same questionable security many have in their jobs and positions.  The public is generally very giving, to a fault, so let's analyze the costs and see whether MCC is offering them a bargain or not.

This link shows past and present school bond elections in Michigan.  We notice that Scottville has the following history:

In 2003, the district asked voters for $25.4 million, which was soundly rejected by voters.  In 2004, the district cut some corners to offer a bond of $19.8 million which also failed by a couple hundred votes.  Not until 2006 did a bond pass by the MCC district voters, a modest $16.935 million package which seemed to include more than prior bond elections, since the money went primarily to build the upper elementary building along with many of the other smaller projects voted down previously.

The 2006 bond appears to have offered more than what this current bond offers as far as value is concerned, but it was only half what they are seeking now.  Inflation doesn't explain that problem away as the rate of inflation between 2006 and 2022 has been only 42.6%, meaning that the projects envisioned in the 2006 bond would cost just over $24 million if done today.  

One notices that the architect MCC is using for the project is GMB, the same architect who drew up what the 2019 LASD bond would do, all $101 million of it.  This was about ten times the amount of the only other bond passed by LASD voters in this century, which accomplished quite a bit in itself:

If the MCC school district voters want value or are cautious about what the future holds in these uncertain times, they would be wise to reject this initial offer, much like they did in 2003; and if the district comes back with a better offer in future years, consider doing again what they did in 2004 if it isn't good enough.  MCC leaders and their media partners do not seem to have any empathy for the impact this tax increase will have on district voters and their children in the future --when they are adults and decide to stay in the area, it may be a good time to let them understand those pains with a 'no' vote and let them bring back a better template at a better price.

In the LASD, voters will see the following ballot issues if they live in the city limits-- only the sinking fund yes/no question if they are outside.

The city provides a FAQ for the charter commission, leaving off the question of costs, which could be substantial.  Should the charter revision be approved, the City of Ludington will find itself in a legal quandary since the city council has not done their duty, according to the MML manual for charter revisions.  

The city council needed to establish, before the election, how much this revision would cost in compensation and expenses, and they have not.  Those who vote on the charter revision may change their vote from 'yes' to 'no' if the compensation and expenses were deemed prohibitive; likewise, they may do the reverse if they saw them as reasonable.  What this means is that any vote results on this issue on Tuesday can be challenged, and it should be successful since the council neglected to fulfill their required duties before the election.  The next question to ask after the annulment is whether they will try it again in August or November.  

The sinking fund millage renewal will raise an expected $4 million plus over the next ten years, starting with $370,000 this coming year.  The district expects a millage renewal will be easier to pass this year, rather than let it lapse and try to reintroduce it in the future when the sinking fund's purposes will be clearer. 

Many people wonder at this point why would the school need a sinking fund when their elementary building is brand spanking new, and their middle/high school is getting tens of millions in extensive revisions.  Many also wonder when they look through the proposed uses of this sinking fund and see expenses that were originally covered by the 2019 bond (i.e. putting artificial turf on the football field, the costliest example and arguably, a fraud).  If the sinking fund lapsed, one could see it potentially passed three or more years in the future, when there may actually be some need for repair of school facilities.  

If you believe that our public schools should receive financial help from the public when requested, you will have the opportunity to do so when some other LASD school millage renewals come up for vote in the future, as two of them are in the next few years.  This does not seem like a logical renewal at this point, however.

Make sure to go to your proper polling place on Tuesday, May 3rd and vote your preferences.

[Willy]

Well done X. A lot of information to digest. The schools don't need more money so I'm voting no. A lot of good that will do though.  But it's still the voters who approve the multi million dollar waste without researching what's on the ballot. 

[XLFD]

If voter turnouts for May elections weren't generally below 20%, you would have a lot more of these bond issues fail, since the schools and other interested parties who will benefit from the redistribution of wealth can generate a lot of votes among themselves.  The solution is for people to treat these elections with importance, as if it was held in November.  Without that happening, schools will be paying for May elections to get their free money, whether they deserve it or not, while reasonable people stay home.