Sturgis Public Schools this week released results of a survey that explored priorities, concerns and expectations of community members in the district and surrounding communities.
The goal was to identify areas of common ground and build a clear foundation for future planning and potential investments, according to superintendent Art Ebert.
The survey period was Aug. 11-31, and generated 738 responses. It contained 31 questions.
It was developed after a bond proposal was defeated in the May 5, 2026, election, by a margin of 54 to 46 percent.
The request was for renewal of a $98 million bond to extend the current millage, with no tax rate increase. The extension would have maintained the millage rate at 7 mills. One mill is equal to $100 for each $100,000 of a property’s taxable value.
Potential funding was targeted for numerous projects and upgrades, including a new aquatic center, classroom improvement, refurbishment of restrooms, roof replacements and significant updates of several athletic facilities.
If the request had passed, funds would have become available in two series, one in 2027 and one in 2029.
Among survey respondents, 90% are registered voters, and almost 80% voted in the May 2026 election. About 51% of those who participated in the survey were in support of the bond proposal as presented.
Main reason for voting “no” on the bond proposal, according to the survey:
59%: Opposed to some of the proposed projects
29%: Other reasons
10%: The proposal requested too much money
4%: Not enough information to make an informed decision.
Responses represented a cross-section of the Sturgis community, including residents, parents, staff and alumni.
Respondents placed the highest priority on safety, accessibility, core building systems and classrooms. Turf and other major athletics-related enhancements received “divided support,” compared to other categories.
The results are expected to inform planning discussion, Ebert said. Findings will be shared with stakeholders and reviewed at meetings of Sturgis Public Schools Board of Education.
BOE is taking some time to assess the results before drawing any conclusions or developing a specific plan, Ebert said.
Regarding response level, Ebert noted that community surveys for districts of similar size typically produce 300 to 400 responses, according to Plante Moran Realpoint.
“The 738 responses that we received outperforms the industry standard,” Ebert said. “We are fortunate to be part of an engaged community, and are committed to listening to and honoring the voice of the community.”
WHAT RESPONDENTS SAID
A roundup of comments provided by survey participants.
Project scope/athletics emphasis
“I am a strong athletic supporter, but do not see the need for artificial turf.”
“I want to support the board and the district. I think the artificial turf is going beyond the needs of the district.”
“Unfortunately, the bond was viewed as a sports upgrade. This didn’t sit well… The athletic changes need to be scaled back and minimized.”
Cost, taxes and affordability
Comments tied support to household budgets, tax burden and proposal size.
“Until property owners get meaningful tax relief, I can’t support spending so much money for unnecessary projects … to maintain, paint, make repairs, I would agree to help pay for.”
“Since the economy isn’t great, I would only vote for absolute needs, not the wants that are on the list. I think if that’s all that was in the new proposal, it may have passed.”
“Our taxes are high, pay isn’t the greatest, especially when hours keep getting cut. We can’t afford much more in taxes. I do see the need for track improvements. The roof needs fixed as it leaks.”
PARTICIPANT MAKEUP
Summary of respondents by percentage, rounded to nearest whole number.
Place of residence
City of Sturgis: 46%
Sturgis Township: 17%
Sherman Township: 12%
Burr Oak Township: 11%
Fawn River Township: 8%
Outside of boundary or “other”: 6%
Age of respondents
35-44: 29%
45-54: 21%
25-34: 20%
55-64: 13%
65-74: 9%
75+: 4%
18-24: 2%
Under 18: 1%
Connection to SPS
Parent or guardian of SPS student: 54%
Community member: 45%
SPS alumni: 26%
SPS staff: 18%
Business community: 3%
Others indicated included community partner, student, government entity and board of education member.
About 38% do not have a child who attends Sturgis Public Schools.
ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK
Summary of 66 “open-ended” comments, specific to opposition of the bond proposal. Many named more than one concern.
Project scope/athletics emphasis: 50
Cost, taxes and affordability: 41
Education quality/academic focus: 17
Trust, accountability and transparency: 11
Bond term, financing or election timing: 9
Maintenance/lower cost alternatives: 7
Other: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Scope/priority: Athletics facilities, turf, pool/aquatic improvements and other perceived “wants” were cited more than any other category.
Household impact: Respondents described the total request, current taxes and 30-year commitment as difficult to support.
Confidence and alignment: Comments asked for clearer accounting, stronger maintenance planning, transparent decision-making and a more visible connection to academic outcome.
Converting community pool into athletic training facility:
No: 42%
Yes: 35%
Neutral: 24%
Football turf and facility improvement:
No: 55%
Neutral: 23%
Yes: 22%
Baseball and softball turf and facility improvement:
No: 48%
Neutral: 27%
Yes: 25%
Classroom renovation: Yes: 60%
Bathroom renovation: Yes: 69%
Boiler replacement: Yes: 75%
Secure entryway installation: Yes: 74%
Soccer facility improvement:
Yes: 37%
No: 32%
Neutral: 32%
Thumbturn classroom lock installation:
Yes: 64%
Neutral: 38%
No: 8%
All projects contained within the bond proposal will require either an alternative funding source, be reduced in scope with an alternative funding source or not be completed, Ebert said shortly after the election result was confirmed.
The most feasible options of new funding sources include: A revised bond proposal; a revised building and site sinking fund; use of operational funds; and grants.
In the absence of a revised bond proposal, it is unlikely that all of the projects can be completed, Ebert said, due to several reasons:
- Building and site finding funds are capped at 3 mills at 10 years.
- Operational funds are prioritized for teaching, learning and personnel.
- Grants typically don’t fully fund large-scale projects.
