Saginaw Township Community Schools — MI
1. Snapshot
Suburb-Midsize K-12, 4,548 students across 8 schools in Saginaw, MI. SAIPE poverty 12.4%, demographics 48% White / 21% Black / 21% Hispanic. Per-pupil expenditure $12,268 (FY2020 — among the lowest in Michigan suburban districts).
2. Why this was a hard sell — community context (ACS)
| Metric | STCS | National median (typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Median household income | $62,440 | ~$75K |
| Median home value | $161,500 | ~$340K |
| Bachelor’s+ | 34.8% | — |
| Owner-occupied | 65.6% | — |
| Gini index | 0.489 | — |
This is a modest tax base. A $169.2M / 2.85-mill ask on a community with sub-$165K median home values is asking each homeowner for ~$460/year for 25–30 years. That’s the highest cumulative ask in district history per household, and 50% larger than what voters already rejected at 75/25 in 2023 (the original $243M bond). The “scale down to pass” arithmetic visibly broke once: $243M (May 2023, 75% No) → $169.2M (Nov 2025, 62% No) → $94M (now on May 2026 ballot).
3. Peer comparison
Top peers identified via MCP (default weights + plantOps emphasis):
| Peer district | State | Enrollment | Per-pupil | Plant ops/pp | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reeths-Puffer Schools | MI | 3,451 | $13,088 | $796 | Same state, same locale, 114 mi |
| De Pere School District | WI | 4,485 | $12,425 | $963 | Suburb-Midsize peer, lower poverty |
| Amherst Exempted Village | OH | 3,533 | $12,027 | — | Also on the failed-bond list, Lorain Co. |
| Oxford School District | MS | 4,763 | $13,063 | $817 | Same enrollment band |
| Grady County | GA | 4,415 | $13,348 | $775 | High-poverty rural peer |
| 5 redacted “Peer District” entries (MS/TX/CO/KY/CA) | Likely FMX customers — outreach team to validate |
4. The gap story (what the data would have shown voters)
The strongest piece of evidence for this bond was sitting in the NCES finance file:
- Plant operations spending: $774.61 / pupil vs national median $1,324 — Saginaw Township spends 41% below the national median on facilities upkeep. The under-investment story is real and quantifiable.
- Capital construction outlay (FY2020): $34,000 total district-wide. They’ve effectively stopped major capital work. This is the slide voters needed to see.
- Zero nurses across 8 schools (counselor ratio 404 students/counselor). Peer median across the top-5 comparison set: 4+ nurses. A bond framed even partly around “we can’t keep a nurse in the building” hits harder than “building improvements” boilerplate.
- Per-pupil instruction $7,623 — actually the highest of the peer set ($5,927–$7,623). Spending is being protected for the classroom; what’s failing is the building around it. That’s the bond pitch.
- Chronic absenteeism 23.9%, suspension 17.6% — both above peer medians. Building condition correlates with attendance; worth pairing.
5. Bond history (Ballotpedia + news)
- May 2023: $243M bond, failed ~75% No / 25% Yes
- Nov 2025: $169.2M bond (this one), 62% No / 38% Yes — 12,426 ballots cast
- May 2026 (on the ballot now): $94.2M, scaled to “essential safety and infrastructure”
The district is in a multi-cycle de-escalation pattern. The May 2026 ask is 39% of the original 2023 ask. If $94M also fails, the diagnosis is no longer “ask is too big” — it’s “the campaign isn’t making the case with data.”
6. What voters / opposition actually said
The WNEM coverage carried only the superintendent’s post-vote statement — “Even though the bond wasn’t approved, the needs within our district remain. Our buildings are decades old and require important updates” — and no opposition or voter quotes. The absence of public opposition messaging in coverage is itself a signal: this bond likely lost on quiet skepticism rather than organized opposition. That’s a campaign-communication failure, not a hostile community.
7. What we could have told them
- “Saginaw Township spends 41% less than the national median on keeping our buildings standing — $775/student vs $1,324.” Single most defensible bond-justifying number, hiding in plain sight in NCES finance data.
- “Last year we spent $34,000 on capital construction across 8 schools. The national peer median is millions.” Reframes the bond as catching up on a decade of deferred work, not new wishlist spending.
- “Our classroom spending leads our peer group at $7,623/student — but our buildings are at the bottom of the rankings. That’s the gap we’re asking you to close.” Decouples “the kids are getting taught” from “the buildings are failing” — the strongest two-part narrative this data supports.
- Tax-impact framing tied to the actual home-value distribution: at 2.85 mills × $161K median home × 50% taxable value = ~$230/year, not “$460/year on a $300K home” abstractions. Right-sizing the ask to the actual median taxpayer.
- “Our 8 schools have zero nurses. Reeths-Puffer in Muskegon has them.” Specific, peer-named, hard to argue with.
8. FMX outreach hook
Saginaw Township is a textbook FMX prospect: low plant ops spend, near-zero capital outlay, no portfolio condition data in their bond materials, and a 3rd-attempt bond campaign coming in May 2026. Lead with Michael Waldie (Director of Finance and Operations): he’s the one who would have to defend the $94M ask to a skeptical electorate, and he has no data infrastructure right now to do it. Opener: “Your peer Reeths-Puffer over in Muskegon tracks every work order, plant-ops dollar, and building condition score in FMX — they can put a per-square-foot number on every line of their next bond ask. With $94M back on the ballot in May, you can have the same data inside 60 days.” The reference peer doesn’t have to be Reeths-Puffer specifically — confirm against the redacted “Peer District” hits in MS/CO/KY/CA which are likely current customers.