Dearborn board hears bond research showing public openness but warns about cost, timelines and clarity

Consultants hired by the Dearborn Board of Education told trustees at a Jan. 5 study session that community research shows broad goodwill toward Dearborn schools but sharp caution about adding taxes, especially among younger residents.

"There is an openness to a bond proposal," said Mark Fisk of the consulting team, summarizing interviews, focus groups and a telephone/text poll of about 400 registered voters. Fisk said voters rated Dearborn schools positively but showed a pronounced financial squeeze that will shape what size and scope of bond the district can sell to voters.

The presentation combined a facilities assessment — categorizing buildings as critical, high, moderate or low priority — with public-opinion testing. Consultants said the polling showed an initial 61% yes advantage for a hypothetical millage with no specifics, rising into the low‑to‑mid 70s after positive messaging and dipping but remaining favorable under negative framing. When asked about funding levels, "71% picked the lowest funding option or refused higher options entirely," the presenters reported, and many respondents favored framing costs as a small monthly payment rather than a single yearly number.

Trustees used the session to press for detail before committing to a ballot measure. Several asked for an updated enrollment forecast that accounts for students choosing virtual programs (for example, Penn Foster) so the board can tell whether additions or new buildings are needed. The consultants said they relied on 2022 projection studies and offered to provide updated forecasts.

Board members also sought clearer explanations of how the consultants assigned buildings to "critical" versus "high" categories. Consultants said the ranking combines multiple factors — structural condition, age, program fit, site acreage and projected enrollment — and gave examples: some schools have poor structural "bones" that could make replacement more cost‑effective, while others have sound structures well suited to renovation.

A Gilbane-affiliated cost representative provided recent construction benchmarks, saying new high schools are averaging roughly $750–$800 per square foot and elementary schools about $550–$600 per square foot, and noting that unit costs jumped substantially after 2020. Trustees flagged those numbers when discussing whether to pursue a larger single bond or smaller phased bonds; consultants said the polling favored a smaller phased approach by a noticeable margin (56% chose a smaller 10‑year millage in a paired‑statement exercise, versus 38% for a larger 20‑year millage).

Trustees also discussed feasibility constraints on some sites: several schools were labeled "not feasible" for a replacement due to limited acreage, pushing the consultants to recommend targeted additions or reconfiguration instead. Trustees repeatedly asked that the team provide per‑school clarifications (what exactly makes a site infeasible, what work would be required to make a building 21st‑century ready, and estimated timelines and costs for each option).

The board and consultants agreed on two procedural next steps: produce costed option sets (for example, what a $500 million, $1 billion and $1.5 billion bond could accomplish, and what would be done in a smaller phased bond), and update enrollment projections so the district can tie capacity recommendations to current student trends. The financial advisor noted logistical deadlines for placing a bond on a ballot (county submission deadlines in mid‑July for some election cycles) and that roughly 90 days typically elapse after passage before bond proceeds are collected; major new-school construction can require about 18 months of preconstruction work.

Trustees emphasized the need for transparent, simple public communications and repeated that demonstrating immediate, visible value to taxpayers — such as addressing the most urgent HVAC and safety problems first — will be essential to any campaign. President Mozart closed the session after a short scheduling discussion about the superintendent search; trustees set a study-session date and adjourned at 9:04 p.m.

What comes next: consultants and staff will prepare the option sets with associated costs, give per‑school feasibility notes, and deliver the updated enrollment forecast trustees requested. The board will use those materials to decide whether to place a bond on an upcoming ballot and to shape public engagement materials.