Dearborn board hears options to preserve, renovate or replace aging schools ahead of a possible bond

Dearborn Board of Education members on May 5 heard a draft facilities assessment from preservation architects Quinn Evans and builders Gilbane that maps options to renovate, adaptively reuse or replace the district’s aging schools and lays groundwork for a future bond package.

The presentation, led by Ann Delture and Denise Close of Quinn Evans with Gilbane’s Stephanie Crona and Amro Amra, summarized site visits to all 34 district buildings, documented historic context and identified recurring priorities including secure vestibules, modern restrooms, upgraded HVAC/air conditioning, and dedicated student support spaces. The consultants described three high‑level options for each school: full replacement, major renovation, or moderate renovation, and said they will produce price estimates for each option.

“I’m Ann Delture with Quinn Evans,” Delture said in opening remarks, introducing the firm’s experience with school and heritage projects and the team’s role in translating facility conditions into options for the district. Denise Close described the draft report and the methodology — enrollment projections, site plans, building condition assessments and cost modeling — and used Duval Elementary as a case study to show how a constrained site can limit the feasibility of a new building. The team said they use roughly 150 square feet per student as a planning metric for a new 21st‑century elementary school.

The consultants reported that work at many schools could be addressed through a mix of targeted improvements (for example adding locked vestibules for entry control or replacing restroom layouts with floor‑to‑ceiling stalls) and larger‑scale renovations that reconfigure corridors and commons. They also documented sites that are landlocked or have limited ability to accommodate new construction on the existing footprint.

Public commenter Ian Thomasic, who identified himself as a lifelong Dearborn resident, urged the board to prioritize adaptive reuse over demolition, arguing that preserving historic schools conserves “embodied carbon” and local character; he cited preservationist Carl Elephante’s line that “the greenest building is the one that’s already built.”

Trustees asked how the district will explain technical choices to voters. Trustee Petoff, who requested the study, said the public “wants to get down to the nuts and bolts — what are you going to do and how much is it going to cost me?” Consultants said they will assemble clear option sets and coordinate with the district’s communications consultants so the public can evaluate tradeoffs and help shape a bond proposal.

Trustee Zar pressed the consultants to prioritize neighborhood schools, asking for explicit comparisons that show the cost to preserve a school’s historic character versus the costs and community effects of moving or replacing a building. The consultants agreed that some options will be infeasible on certain sites and said they will present feasible alternatives with estimated costs so the community can compare outcomes.

District staff reminded the board of prior steps in the facilities process: a 2019 bond effort and a 2022 Fielding International 30‑year study that the board later supplemented with the current historic‑focused review. Staff also noted interim investments (the consultants and staff referenced roughly $90 million of ESSER‑era HVAC/air upgrades and a separate energy bond of about $1.3 million) that have addressed some infrastructure needs; the size of any future bond will depend on the option mix the board and community select.

The presentation concluded with next steps: the consultants will finalize a draft report with per‑school recommendations and cost ranges and will coordinate with the district’s outreach team to test options with surveys and focus groups before the board considers a bond recommendation. No formal action or vote occurred at the study session.

What’s next: The board will receive the draft report, refine option sets with staff and communications consultants, and develop materials for public outreach so voters can compare renovation and replacement scenarios prior to any bond decision.