Four questions, in your own words. Your answers come to me, a Troy resident — not to the District — and I'll publish what I learn. The questions are right below; the District's own budget documents are at the foot of the page if you want them.
Turnout for the August 4 school funding vote was 36.6%. Board meetings draw a few dozen people out of a district of roughly 12,000 students. Decisions worth tens of millions of dollars are being made in near-silence. I'd like to change that a little, and I'm willing to pay for the privilege of your attention: a $100 Amazon gift card drawn at random from everyone who leaves contact details, and $500 to the Troy Foundation for Educational Excellence regardless of what the responses say. Both explained at the foot of the page.
Aggregate results go up on this site after the survey closes and go to the Board of Education. Your actual words are only passed on if you tick a box — off by default — and your contact details are never published or shared either way.
Closing 12 days before the election is deliberate. The results are meant to inform how people think about the District, not to land as an October surprise with no time to argue with it.
Everything below is the District's own — its budget, its list of proposed cuts, its Schools of Choice deck — plus the arithmetic I did on top of it. It's collapsed because you shouldn't have to read a budget to answer a question about your kids' school. Open whatever you're curious about; every figure is sourced and every document is reproduced in full.
You don't need any of this to answer questions 1 and 2. It's here because question 3 asks you about specific decisions, and you should be able to see them.
Oakland County voters rejected the Oakland Schools regional enhancement millage — 1.5 mills for six years — by 6,703 votes: 163,120 yes (48.99%) to 169,823 no (51.01%), all 395 precincts reporting. In the City of Troy the margin was wider: 8,821 yes (42.91%) to 11,736 no (57.09%).
Troy School District had built $8,100,000 a year of enhancement millage revenue into two of the three four-year scenarios it showed the Board on July 22. Those two scenarios are now off the table. The remaining one — Scenario 1 — is the plan.
Presented to the Board of Education, July 22, 2026. Fund balance as a percentage of expenditures is the District's headline solvency measure; the Board's informal floor has been in the mid-teens.
| Scenario | Reductions FY27 / 28 / 29 | FY26 | FY27 | FY28 | FY29 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 — No millage (what happened) | $12M / $7M / $7M | 13.52% | 14.42% | 13.96% | 14.03% |
| 2 — Millage passes | $12M / $7M / $7M | 13.52% | 18.61% | 18.27% | 18.48% |
| 3 — Millage passes, smaller cuts | $12M / $3M / $3M | 13.52% | 18.61% | 15.88% | 16.07% |
Read together: the millage was never the difference between cutting and not cutting in FY27 — $12 million comes out either way. What it bought was the ability to cut $3 million instead of $7 million in each of the two years after that, and a fund balance in the 18s instead of the 14s.
Adopted June 16, 2026 for the fiscal year that began July 1. The General Fund is the operating budget — salaries, benefits, instruction, buildings, buses. It is separate from the bond and sinking fund money that pays for construction, which by law cannot be spent on operations.
| FY2026 original | FY2026 amend. #3 | FY2027 proposed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $190,545,984 | $202,153,044 | $191,055,509 |
| Expenditures | $194,285,613 | $207,641,522 | $193,342,088 |
| Change in fund balance | $(3,739,629) | $(5,488,478) | $(2,286,579) |
| Beginning fund balance | $32,979,691 | $33,713,795 | $28,225,317 |
| Ending fund balance | $29,240,062 | $28,225,317 | $25,938,738 |
| As % of expenditures | 15.05% | 13.59% | 13.42% |
Michigan's FY2026-27 school aid budget was signed on July 21, 2026 at a $10,300 per-pupil basic foundation allowance. By the District's July 22 scenario sheet, final state revenue is $193,155,509 — about $2.1 million more than the June assumption. That turns the projected FY2027 fund balance change from −$2,286,579 into −$186,579: very close to break-even, after the $12M of cuts.
Levied for 2026-27. Only the hold-harmless rate moves with the District's own decisions; the rest are fixed by statute or by voter-approved debt.
| Levy | Mills | Falls on |
|---|---|---|
| Operating | 18.0000 | Non-homestead property |
| Commercial personal property | 8.4102 | Business equipment |
| Hold harmless | 2.4102 | Homestead (down from 2.5796 and 2.7294) |
| Debt retirement | 6.1000 | All property — bond repayment |
| Sinking fund | 0.9473 | All property — capital repair |
Hold harmless is the mechanism that matters for question 3c. Troy is one of a minority of Michigan districts allowed to levy a local homestead tax on top of the state foundation allowance, because it was spending above the state formula when Proposal A passed in 1994. It is why Troy's per-pupil foundation allowance is $11,086 in FY2027 while the state basic is $10,300.
On June 1, 2026 the administration gave the Board a document titled Budget Reduction Scenario, marked "DOCUMENT IS IN PROGRESS." It contains 37 proposals, each scored against six weighted criteria and sorted into three tiers. Everything in this section comes out of that document, reproduced in full.
Each proposal was rated 1–5 on six criteria; the weighted total sets its tier. A 5 means minimal negative impact, high feasibility, broad support; a 1 means severe impact or legal risk and widespread opposition.
| Criterion | Weight | What a high score means |
|---|---|---|
| Impact on student learning | 30% | Minimal disruption to core learning |
| Equity impact | 20% | Does not fall disproportionately on high-need students |
| Legal / compliance risk | 15% | Complies with law, policy and labor agreements |
| Cost savings amount | 15% | Substantial, recurring savings |
| Feasibility / timeline | 10% | Can be done in time with existing capacity |
| Stakeholder support | 10% | Staff and families will understand it |
| Tier | Score | Savings | Share | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tier 1 — Strong candidate | 4.0–5.0 | $8,909,725 | 76.5% | Recommended for inclusion |
| Tier 2 — Consider | 3.0–3.9 | $2,094,526 | 18.0% | Needs planning or phasing |
| Tier 3 — High risk | below 3.0 | $635,100 | 5.5% | Needs further study or redesign |
Click a column heading to sort. This is the detailed proposal list from the June 1 document, transcribed verbatim, with each area's savings reconciled against the document's own summary table.
The document's summary counts 37 proposals and lists 5 under Secondary. Its detailed list contains 36, with 4 under Secondary. Every dollar figure still reconciles — Secondary's four line items sum to exactly the $1,687,800 the summary reports, and all 36 sum to $11,639,351 — so a proposal appears to be counted in the summary without a row in the detail, or carries no savings. On a document stamped "DOCUMENT IS IN PROGRESS" that is unremarkable, but it is worth knowing that the public list is one item short of the public count.
| Area | Proposal | Savings | Score | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total — 36 itemised | $11,639,351 | 4.32 avg |
"Special education remains one of our highest priorities and largest areas of investment in the district. […] all special education programs will continue to be staffed in alignment with state and county requirements […] These decisions are guided by each student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) and are mandated to comply with all legal and educational standards."
The same document gives the reason it is on the list at all:
| 2018-19 | 2024-25 | Change | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cost — IEP & non-IEP | $16,744,610 | $29,210,999 | +$12,466,389 (+74%) |
| Students served | 1,332 | 1,367 | +35 (+3%) |
Cost per special education student rose from about $12,571 to about $21,369 in six years. Whether that reflects rising need, a state-driven shift in service delivery, or something the District controls is exactly the kind of thing worth an opinion in the box below.
This is the part almost nobody has run the numbers on, so I did.
Sections 105 and 105c of Michigan's State School Aid Act let a district enroll students who live somewhere else and count them in its own membership, without the home district's permission. Section 105 covers students from other districts inside Oakland County. Section 105c covers students from districts in a neighboring county's ISD — Macomb, Wayne, Livingston, Genesee, Lapeer, Washtenaw. Participation is entirely voluntary, decided by the Board every year, and the District chooses the grades, the buildings, and the number of seats.
Per the Michigan Department of Education: "School districts that enroll nonresident students under Section 105 or 105c receive the lesser of their own foundation allowance or the foundation allowance of the district of residence."
Troy's FY2027 foundation allowance is $11,086, because Troy is a hold-harmless district. The state basic allowance — what most Oakland County districts get — is $10,300. So for a choice student from an at-basic district, Troy receives $10,300, not $11,086. Every Schools of Choice student is worth $786 less than a Troy resident sitting in the same chair.
That is a 7.1% haircut. It does not make the students unprofitable — it makes them about 93 cents on the dollar. Any estimate that multiplies students by $11,086 is too high by roughly $786 apiece, which at 1,200 students is $943,000 a year of revenue that was never there.
Troy runs what the resolutions call a "Limited" program: a fixed number of seats, only at entry grades. For 2026-27 the Board authorized 116 seats on December 16, 2025 — and only in kindergarten, first grade, and grades 6–8. No high school seats. Several buildings have been closed to open enrollment outright in past years: Barnard, Bemis, Schroeder, Boulan Park, Athens and Troy High.
| Grade | §105 (in county) | §105c (contiguous ISD) | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kindergarten | 83 | 4 | 87 |
| First grade | 25 | 1 | 26 |
| Grades 6–8 combined | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| Total | 110 | 6 | 116 |
In 2025-26 there were 173 Schools of Choice students in Troy's elementary buildings — 3.54% of elementary enrollment. The concentration is uneven: Hill Elementary is at 10.57%, Wass at 6.35%, Wattles at 5.54%; Schroeder is at 0.00% and Bemis at 0.24%.
| Year | Kdg. seats | Kdg. applications | Kdg. enrolled |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 1,114 | 2,300 | 1,103 |
2025-26, elementary buildings. This matters because it is the cost side of the ledger, and because it is a fair question whether the District should be thinking about these students as revenue at all.
| Choice students | Resident students | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free / reduced lunch | 54.34% | 28.91% | +25.4 pts |
| Special education | 19.65% | 13.87% | +5.8 pts |
| English learners | 10.98% | 24.92% | −13.9 pts |
The special education gap is the one with a price tag. Troy spends about $21,369 per special education student against a district-wide General Fund average of about $16,290 — a gap of roughly $5,079. An extra 5.8 percentage points of special education share therefore costs on the order of $294 per choice student. The higher free/reduced-lunch share cuts the other way: it draws additional Section 31a at-risk funding. The lower English-learner share reduces EL service cost. Net, the demographic mix is worth a few hundred dollars per student — real, but an order of magnitude smaller than the $786 foundation haircut.
Defaults are set to the District's own figures and to the premise in question 3 — about 1,100–1,300 students, or roughly 10% of enrollment. Move anything you disagree with.
| Gross foundation revenue | — |
| New sections needed | — |
| Extra support cost | — |
| Net per year | — |
It takes years, not months. Choice students enter at kindergarten and, by statute, may stay until they graduate. Filling every one of the 116 authorized seats every year builds toward the target one grade at a time — see the ramp below. Nothing here helps with the $12 million due in FY2027.
You cannot un-enroll them. A student admitted under §105 or §105c has the right to remain through graduation, and their siblings get first claim on future seats. This is a thirteen-year commitment made one year at a time.
| Year | Cumulative choice students | Gross revenue | Net contribution |
|---|
At the District's own authorization of 116 seats a year, held to graduation across thirteen grades, the steady-state population is roughly 1,200–1,500 students — which is where the "10% of enrollment, 1,100–1,300 students" figure comes from. It checks out. At $10,300 apiece that is $12.4 million a year gross and, on the default assumptions above, about $8.8 million net — coincidentally almost exactly the $8.1 million the enhancement millage would have raised.
But it arrives over about a decade, only if every seat fills every year, and only if the applications show up. In 2025-26 Troy advertised 52 kindergarten seats, received 59 applications, and enrolled 37. Getting to 116 filled seats a year — let alone more — means opening grades and buildings that are currently closed, and competing for families the District has not historically courted.
That is the actual question: not whether the money is real — it is — but whether Troy wants to be a district that recruits.
One caveat I want to be straight about. Troy's hold-harmless levy is recalculated every year from enrollment, taxable values and the foundation allowance. How adding several hundred nonresident students — who generate the lower allowance — interacts with that calculation is a question for the District's business office, and I have not been able to resolve it from public documents. It could move the per-student figure in either direction. Everything else on this page is straight out of the sources listed at the bottom.
The committee behind the Yes campaign reported a $500 contribution from Richard Machesky, received June 26, 2026. Troy's Superintendent is Dr. Richard M. Machesky — though the filing lists this contributor as "not employed" at a Chesterfield Township address, so the record is below and you can judge it for yourself.
I am matching it. $500 of my own to the Troy Foundation for Educational Excellence, a 501(c)(3) that funds classroom grants for Troy students. It isn't contingent on anything — not on how many responses come in, or what they say — and I'll post the receipt here when it's made.