Macon R-I: The Money, the Missing Reserves, and Next Years Tax Money Spent ...
A $3.3 million loan, more than $1 million in accounting corrections, and a school district contemplating spending cuts while taxpayers wait for answers.
By R. Dominique | Macon Moonline Investigates October 15, 2026
Wednesday evening, October 14, I found myself sitting inside 902 North Missouri Street, the former Onshore Outsourcing building purchased by the Macon R-I School District in August 2022. It was an interesting place to hold a meeting about financial difficulties, considering the substantial amount of taxpayer money that has already been poured into purchasing, renovating, and converting that very building for school district use.
I had come to hear how a school district that once maintained financial reserves of approximately 30% had managed to arrive at a point where those reserves had fallen to just 11%, leaving the district dependent upon a $3.3 million tax anticipation loan to meet its immediate operating obligations.
I was hoping for some straightforward answers. What I heard instead was approximately an hour of financial explanations involving accounting errors, money charged to the wrong accounts, unexpected construction expenses, declining state revenue, and discussions about cutting expenses. By the time the meeting concluded, I had a considerably better understanding of what Superintendent Bryan Thomsen wanted the board to know, but I still had some serious questions about what had happened to the district's financial cushion.
And judging from some of the questions being asked around the boardroom, I wasn't the only one.
Thomsen explained that Macon R-I had maintained reserves of approximately 30% just a couple of years ago. At the beginning of the current fiscal year, that figure had dropped to 11%. That is not some minor adjustment in a bookkeeping ledger. It represents a substantial reduction in the district's reported financial reserves, the very money that provides a cushion when revenues arrive late, unexpected expenses appear, or operating costs exceed projections.
One of the more remarkable explanations involved $548,740.64 in scholarship money that had apparently been included in the district's unrestricted reserve calculations for years. Thomsen acknowledged that the money should not have been counted as unrestricted reserves and said auditors had recommended correcting the problem previously ( years earlier.)
That statement certainly caught my attention.
According to Thomsen, the money hadn't disappeared. It was still available for its intended scholarship purposes. The problem was that the district had been counting money restricted for scholarships as though it were available to support general operations. Once the accounting was corrected, more than half a million dollars disappeared from the unrestricted reserve calculation, although the scholarship funds themselves remained intact.
One board member wanted to know whether the money was actually gone. Thomsen explained that it had simply been moved out of the reserve calculation.
Fair enough. But that explanation creates another question. If auditors had identified the problem years earlier, why had it remained uncorrected? Who received those audit recommendations? Were board members informed? And how many financial decisions were made over the intervening years using reserve figures that included money that should never have been counted?
Those are not accusations of theft or fraud. They are legitimate questions about financial reporting and oversight, and they deserve documented answers.
Then came another revelation.
Thomsen explained that more than $1 million in expenditures had been charged to incorrect district funds and subsequently had to be recoded. Some of those transactions involved Fund 4, the district's capital projects fund, and expenditures that should have been assigned elsewhere.
For those unfamiliar with school accounting, the distinction is important. The district calculates its unrestricted reserves using Funds 1 and 2. Fund 4 is used for capital projects and is not included in that reserve calculation. When expenditures originally charged to Fund 4 are corrected and charged against an operating fund, the district's reported unrestricted reserves can decline.
Once again, a board member questioned whether money had actually been spent or merely moved between accounts. Thomsen explained how the corrections affected the reserves.
But I kept coming back to the same question. What were those expenditures?
Were they construction payments? Equipment purchases? Renovations? Which vendors received the money? Who approved the original accounting entries, and how long did those entries remain uncorrected?
More than $1 million in improperly classified expenditures is not something I am prepared to dismiss with a brief explanation that the accounts have now been corrected. I want to see the transactions. I want to know what was purchased, when it was purchased, which accounts were originally charged, and where those expenses ultimately ended up. And I suspect a good many taxpayers would like to know the same thing.
The location of Wednesday's meeting made the discussion of construction expenditures particularly interesting.
We were sitting inside 902 North Missouri Street, a property that has already played a significant role in our continuing examination of Macon R-I's financial decisions. The district purchased the former Onshore Outsourcing property in 2022 and subsequently undertook extensive work to accommodate educational and administrative operations.
During the meeting, Thomsen discussed approximately $600,000 in preschool-related expenditures, along with more than $50,000 for equipment and preparation. He also described an unexpected fire-sprinkler requirement costing approximately $300,000, explaining that the requirement had emerged during discussions involving architects, fire-safety personnel, and state education officials.
I would like to know how a building being purchased and converted for school use could proceed into a substantial renovation project without the full extent of its fire-safety requirements being established beforehand.
Perhaps there is a perfectly reasonable explanation. If there is, the taxpayers deserve to hear it.
We also need to establish whether that $300,000 sprinkler expense was included in the broader preschool renovation figure or represented an additional expenditure. Until the invoices and financial records are examined, those amounts should not simply be added together.
The larger question remains unanswered. What has 902 North Missouri Street actually cost the school district from the original purchase through the renovations and improvements completed to date?
Not a rough estimate. Not scattered figures mentioned during several meetings. A complete accounting of the property, the contractors, the change orders, and the funds used to pay for the work.
Thomsen also discussed approximately $1.6 million spent on middle-school tuckpointing and window renovations. When a board member asked when the final payment had been made, Thomsen said he would have to check the records.
That date matters because it helps establish which fiscal year absorbed the expenditure and how it affected the district's financial position.
Meanwhile, the district has borrowed $3.3 million from MA Bank through a tax anticipation note. Thomsen explained that monthly payroll is approximately $1 million and $500k in operating expenses, and that most of the district's local property-tax revenue arrives in January, with additional receipts arriving in February. He indicated that the district expects to repay the borrowing before February 1, 2027. ( It must be noted that 4.5% interest on the $3.3 million TAN loan is approximately $49,500. )
Tax anticipation borrowing is not unusual in school finance. Districts often receive significant portions of their revenue at particular times of the year while payroll and operating expenses continue every month. But there is a considerable difference between routine cash-flow management and having reserves so depleted that short-term borrowing becomes necessary to meet operating obligations.
The district expects January tax collections to provide the money needed to repay the loan. Thomsen expressed confidence that remaining tax receipts, state payments, federal funding, and other revenues would allow operations to continue without another tax anticipation note, assuming unexpected expenses do not intervene.
I hope that expectation proves correct. But hope is not a financial recovery plan.
Once that $3.3 million is repaid, the district still has teachers to pay, buildings to maintain, buses to operate, and students to educate. More importantly, it still faces the challenge of rebuilding financial reserves that have declined from approximately 30% to 11%. Several board members appeared to recognize that distinction. Their questions reflected concern that merely balancing the budget would not necessarily restore the district's financial cushion.
After discussing millions of dollars in borrowing, accounting corrections, and construction expenditures, the conversation turned toward reducing operating expenses. Thomsen recommended postponing nonessential purchases, reviewing transportation costs, reconsidering vacant positions, delaying cosmetic improvements, and conserving utilities. He even discussed turning down thermostats and making certain the lights were switched off.
I have nothing against conserving electricity. I do it myself. But I found it rather remarkable that we had reached a point where the district was discussing thermostat settings after hearing about years of accounting problems, substantial building expenditures, and a multimillion-dollar cash-flow shortage.
Thomsen acknowledged that these relatively minor conservation measures would not generate significant savings during the current fiscal year. With personnel expenses accounting for just under 70% of the district's budget, meaningful long-term reductions could require far more difficult decisions.
The discussion eventually moved toward staffing levels, educational programs, class sizes, student participation, and the cost of providing those services. Potential reductions affecting personnel and extracurricular opportunities were among the possibilities being considered.
No teacher layoffs or extracurricular eliminations were approved during Wednesday's open session. These were discussions about possible future measures, not final decisions.
Nevertheless, parents, teachers, and taxpayers should pay attention. When a school district begins examining personnel and educational programs as possible sources of substantial savings, the consequences may eventually reach well beyond the administrative offices.
And before any of those decisions are made, I believe the public deserves a far more complete explanation of the financial decisions that brought the district to this point.
There was another familiar problem Wednesday evening, one that has become increasingly frustrating during my attendance at public meetings in Macon. Once again, I found myself in a room where citizens were expected to follow an important public discussion while struggling to hear and identify the people conducting it.
Gooseneck microphones were positioned in front of board members but were not in use. Yet many remarks were difficult to hear. Some exchanges were conducted in low voices, with mumbling and comments that were difficult to distinguish. There were no visible nameplates identifying individual board members, and no introductions for citizens who might not recognize every person sitting around the table.
I have encountered similar problems during Macon City Council meetings, and I find it unacceptable that citizens attending meetings involving millions of public dollars should have to strain to hear their elected representatives while the majority of citizens don't have any idea who the people are that are representing them seated on these governing boards. Is it too much to ask that board members, and council members wear nametags or display name plaques in front of them so citizens know who they are.
I recorded Wednesday's proceedings using my own equipment, and even with an "AI - RUUNE" audio recording, identifying some speakers remains difficult. Public access is not simply a matter of unlocking the meeting-room doors. Citizens should be able to hear the discussion, identify their representatives, and understand the decisions being considered. That should not be too much to ask.
Watch the Meeting and Decide for Yourself ...
Rather than asking readers to rely exclusively on my interpretation of Wednesday evening's proceedings, Macon Moonline Investigates has published the complete October 14 Board of Education work session on a dedicated YouTube channel.
I encourage parents, teachers, school employees, and taxpayers to watch the recording and listen to the superintendent's explanations and the questions asked by board members.
Watch the complete October 14, 2026, Board of Education meeting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnK6tpHm-hM&t=74s
The recording provides an opportunity for citizens who could not attend the meeting to see and hear the discussion and form their own opinions about the district's financial condition.
Another Board of Education meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, October 21, 2026. I understand that this meeting is intended to address additional questions raised by board members and citizens concerning the district's finances. I plan to attend and record that meeting as well.
The district needs to explain precisely how its reserves declined so dramatically, identify the expenditures involved in the million-dollar accounting corrections, establish the complete cost of 902 North Missouri Street, and demonstrate how it intends to repay its short-term borrowing while maintaining sufficient cash to continue operations.
An outside financial review by EGL was also discussed during Wednesday's meeting, with recommendations potentially becoming available around November. That review may provide additional insight, but it should not prevent the board from demanding the supporting financial records now.
The people serving on the Board of Education have a responsibility to oversee the district's finances. That responsibility includes asking difficult questions, examining the records, and ensuring that explanations are supported by documentation.
The superintendent has offered his account of how the district reached this position. The next step is to test those explanations against the financial records. I am not suggesting that accounting errors automatically establish wrongdoing. They do not. But when errors involving substantial sums remain unresolved for years, and a district subsequently finds itself borrowing millions of dollars to manage its cash flow, the public is entitled to examine how those decisions were made.
The financial difficulties facing Macon R-I will not disappear when the January tax receipts arrive. Repaying the loan may resolve the immediate borrowing obligation, but it will not automatically restore the reserves the district once maintained. If the eventual solution involves reducing teachers, educational programs, or opportunities for students, taxpayers have every reason to demand a full accounting of the decisions that preceded those reductions.
I left Wednesday's meeting with more information than I had when I arrived. I also left with more questions. I intend to keep asking them.
Because somewhere between 30% reserves, 11% reserves, a $3.3 million loan, and a discussion about turning down thermostats, the citizens of Macon deserve to know exactly what happened.
Macon Moonline Investigates will continue reviewing the district's financial records, construction expenditures, accounting corrections, and subsequent Board of Education proceedings.
Source: October 14, 2026, Macon R-I Board of Education special budget work session, recorded by R. Dominique and transcribed using RUUNE. Financial figures attributed to Superintendent Bryan Thomsen are based on his recorded statements and remain subject to reconciliation against district accounting records.
Regards Maconites ,
R. Dominique - Editor
