Citizen Portal
Sign In

District gets first look at 20-year facilities master plan and lowest-cost bond option

Dearborn Board of Education · April 14, 2026

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Consultants presented a 20-year facilities plan proposing to preserve a 26.3-mill levy and generate about $1.51 billion over 20 years for phased projects (critical first-phase needs ~ $366M); trustees requested more community engagement and emphasized phase-1 clarity.

Dearborn Public Schools staff and consultants presented a first update on a 20-year facilities master plan and a lowest-cost bond financing option at the April 13 board meeting.

Consultants described a phased approach: an initial set of critical projects (phase 1) priced at an estimated $366 million, followed by additional phases across two decades. The financial model presented would preserve a 26.3 mill levy rate for City of Dearborn households and — assuming city debt retirements align and taxable value growth proceeds as projected — could generate approximately $1.51 billion over 20 years (the first issuance estimated at roughly $183 million in 2027). District staff said roughly $640 million of that would underwrite new construction and about $1.39 billion would be construction overall.

Program priorities identified for early phases include security and infrastructure (secure vestibules, roofing, technology), CTE/STEM upgrades, accessibility and special-education facilities, and districtwide needs such as bus replacement and auditorium/athletics improvements. Consultants and staff outlined options including increasing the number of K–8 schools (from two toward five) and examining whether consolidating the district's three high schools onto one campus could yield programmatic equity and operational efficiencies; trustees noted that a consolidated-campus model remains only an option and would require substantial community education.

Trustees stressed the need for clear, community-facing phase-1 plans because voters will receive a ballot question with a dollar figure and a description of projects; several trustees cautioned that presenting too many speculative long-term options could complicate voter trust. Staff responded that phase 1 would be specific and that subsequent phases would be refined through continued stakeholder input.

Next steps: the district will refine the plan, continue community outreach, produce more phase-1 specifics for a May update, and, if appropriate, consider placing a bond question on the November 2026 ballot.