Romulus superintendent outlines $153 million, three‑series bond plan; council asks for finance details

Romulus Community Schools Superintendent Ben Edmonson and district staff briefed the Romulus City Council on May 12 on a proposed $153 million facilities bond to address aging school buildings, technology and safety upgrades and other campus projects. The presentation outlined a three‑series borrowing plan beginning in 2025 and completing construction by 2031 if voters approve the first series.

Edmonson said the district’s plan would be issued in three series: about $57 million for series 1, $54 million for series 2 and $40 million for series 3. He told the council the district expects to phase major work across those series, and that, if the first series passes in 2025, initial work would begin in late summer or September 2025 and the full program would finish by 2031. “Truth plus transparency equals trust,” Edmonson told the council while describing what information the district would share with voters.

The district presentation broke down priorities that Edmonson and his operations and technology directors said would be addressed with bond proceeds: district‑wide roof and HVAC work; parking‑lot repairs (the district estimated roughly $11 million to repave parking lots across the system); classroom and locker room renovations; upgrades to security cameras and communications (including network switches and cell‑signal boosters); replacement of aging interactive panels and student devices; and the demolition and remediation of an identified blighted building (Mount Pleasant). The district also discussed programmatic items including a proposed welding lab, culinary‑arts space and an expanded esports and technology program.

Edmonson described current district finances and prior spending: the district’s sinking fund receipts were described as rising from about $2.9 million to about $3.9 million annually since the last renewal, and he said federal ESSER pandemic relief funds provided roughly $20.3 million that the district has allocated and spent on a mix of staffing and infrastructure needs. He emphasized that, under state law, bond proceeds may not be used for salaries and are audited. “There is no state funding for school infrastructure in Michigan,” he said, adding that districts rely on local bonds for capital projects.

On taxes and the millage effect, Edmonson presented a scenario the district’s financial advisers prepared: the district would seek a bond levy that the administration described as a 2.7‑mill voter‑approved levy tied to the bond series; the district said that, because an existing sinking fund or bond is scheduled to drop off, the net mills paid by many taxpayers would remain near the current level in the district’s projection. Council members pushed back for clarity: Councilmember Stacy Paige and others asked for a detailed showing of how the current outstanding debt (the presentation cited roughly $21.23 million of outstanding qualified bonds) would interact with the new debt, what interest rate assumptions underlie the projections, and whether the 2.7‑mill figure reflected only the first series or the full program. Edmonson said the district would bring PFM, the financial firm that prepared the plan, back to answer specific interest‑rate and debt‑service questions.

Council members also pressed on enrollment and fiscal risk. The superintendent said district enrollment is roughly 2,100 students; he said about 1,800 of those students live in Romulus (about 85 percent) and the district has roughly 329 students attending under school choice. Council members asked what enrollment decline would trigger serious fiscal stress; Edmonson said declining enrollment usually forces districts to first reduce staff and, in a worst‑case, consider building consolidations, and that the district’s proposal aims in part to make programming and facilities more attractive to students and families.

Several council members said residents need more time and clearer financial modeling to evaluate tax impacts. Councilmember Paige highlighted the need for the district’s finance adviser to present scenario modeling (interest rates, debt service schedules and millage paths). Edmonson agreed to arrange an appearance by the district’s financial advisers and said the district will supply detailed follow‑up materials and community forums; the district also circulated a QR code and a bond committee contact list for community questions.

The presentation was informational only; the city council took no formal vote on the bond at the meeting. Edmonson and district staff asked to return to the council and the public with the financial team to address outstanding questions before the expected August election date for the ballot measure.

Why this matters: the bond would fund multi‑year infrastructure upgrades and program expansions but would also add long‑term debt that affects property taxpayers. Council members said they want transparent, auditable financial projections before the city or residents take a position or the district begins an active campaign.