Midland steering team recommends sinking fund, advises against unified high‑school on November ballot

The Midland Public Schools steering team recommended putting a sinking fund measure on the November 2026 ballot and recommended against including a proposal to unify the district’s high schools, the board heard June 29.

Consultants from GMBB presented results from a district‑facilitated community survey (May 22–June 7) and a parallel phone poll. GMBB reported almost 1,900 completed survey responses and an 85% completion rate, and said about 95% of respondents reported living within MPS boundaries. “We were really impressed with the participation in the survey — almost 1,900 people completed the survey,” the consultant said.

The steering team and consultants described two funding approaches they tested with residents: multi‑hundred‑million dollar bond scenarios (a 2.5‑mill example and a larger 3.6‑mill option) and a recurring sinking fund (tested at a 1.0‑mill example). The 2.5‑mill bond scenario hovered around the 50% support threshold among all respondents but support dropped among non‑parent community members; the 3.6‑mill scenario showed substantially less support. By contrast, consultants said a sinking fund drew broader relative support in the survey and was seen as more palatable for voters concerned about large, one‑time tax increases.

Because responses on a proposed unified high school were sharply divided, consultants recommended not placing a unification measure on the November ballot. “A unified high school should not be on the November ballot,” the presenters told the board, citing a larger share of strongly opposed respondents and a significant group that said they needed more information before deciding.

The steering team’s recommended ballot approach is a sinking fund in the 1.5–1.75 mill range — a level the presenters estimated would generate roughly $4.6–$5.4 million per year to be targeted to aging infrastructure, career and technical education equipment and facilities, and safety and security improvements. The consultants presented two roadmaps: one that pairs a bond and sinking fund on a 2026 ballot and another that places a sinking fund in 2026 and pursues a bond in 2028, noting timing affects eventual project completion dates and cost escalation.

Board members pressed for specificity about how sinking‑fund dollars would be allocated, especially whether the revenue could meaningfully address acute issues at Northeast Middle School. Several board members asked for a clear, public accounting plan that would allow the district to document completed projects with photos and timelines as a trust‑building measure. In response, steering‑team members and consultants recommended an 18–24 month period of public education and engagement, paired with visible, photo‑verified projects to show progress.

In public comment, residents urged plain‑language communications and frequent reporting on sinking‑fund spending if the board pursues the measure. One resident, Megan, said she wants Midland to remain “my forever home” and urged the district to assure the public that consolidation would not reduce student opportunities.

The board did not take a final vote on a ballot question during the study session. Administrators listed next steps: a community engagement session July 15, a board discussion July 20 to reach consensus on scope, and an Aug. 5 meeting to consider approving ballot language to meet county deadlines.

Funding estimates, support levels and timelines came from the consultants’ presentation; specific ballot language, millage choice and project lists remain to be finalized by the board and administration.