Future Meeting – Bond Process

November 12th – Establishing Goals Workshop
December 10th – Bond Options Workshop

Meeting #3 – October 8, 2024

This meeting took place at Pierce Elementary School, IMC at 6:00 PM.

Meeting recap:

The Cedar Rapids Community School District’s facilities task force recently met to discuss the needs and challenges of each of the 32 schools.

The meeting started with an exercise asking the Task Force Members to quickly evaluate the schools in the district using information presented

The goal of the meeting, and the following factors were discussed:

1. Present Data used in the assessment of the schools. Discuss what the data means and how to interpret the data for use in assessing and comparing the schools. Data Components included:
   1. Growth of the greater Cedar Rapids. Over the last 40 years, there has been dramatic growth throughout portions of Cedar Rapids. Information was shared showing student density throughout the district as well as population movement as Cedar Rapids has grown in the past 40 years.
   2. Building Age: The task force reviewed the ages of the student attendance centers. At around 70 years old, school buildings begin to reach a point of needing major renovation. The average age of all the buildings in the district is 66 years old. It was identified the average age of the middle schools is 88 years old.
   3. Building Capacity: Data was shared concerning the efficiency or each school based on capacity and the current enrollment numbers per school, and the projected enrollments for SY 28-29.numbers.
   4. Operational Cost Data: Operational cost data was provided for each school building and were analyzed in a comparative manner between schools. Additionally, schools were also analyzed by combining operational cost data and enrollment to create efficiency studies based on the enrollment of each school.
   5. In-District Transfers: Schools were analyzed by comparing In-District Transfers between the schools to determine which schools are losing students and which schools are gaining students to look for student movement that falls outside the standard deviations for transfers.
   6. Scheduled PPEL Costs: School data was presented to illustrate which schools are budgeted to receive scheduled maintenance projects through the PPEL funding building on the previous Task Force Meeting where PPEL costs were shared.
      
2. Recent and On Going School Projects: Highlights were provided for the recently completed 3 New Elementary schools and the current on-going improvement projects for Harrison, Hoover, Van Buren, Washington and Jefferson schools.
3. Bond Financial Options: Options were presented for initial discussion with the Task Force regarding how the bond could be established through four different funding models. These will continue to be evaluated by the Task Force in future meetings and developed with their input.

Participants were able to understand how each building was evaluated and how the criteria created the Future Ready Facility Score as a tool for continued evaluation of the district facilities.

The task force has been invited to work through an activity to select schools, based on extensive data, for the various bond projects and what bond options they feel would best be supported by the community and will be providing feedback prior to the next Task Force Meeting.

Meeting #2 – September 17, 2024

This meeting took place at Wilson Middle School Auditorium at 6:00 PM.

Meeting recap:

The Cedar Rapids Community School District’s facilities task force recently met to discuss funding sources and their respective uses and restrictions. The three primary funding sources explored were:

1. Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL): This funding source is typically used for purchasing and improving grounds, buildings, and equipment. It has specific limitations on what it can be used for, often excluding operational costs.
2. Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE): SAVE funds are derived from a state-wide sales tax and are used for infrastructure improvements, technology purchases, and other capital projects. They have more flexibility compared to PPEL but are still restricted from covering operational expenses.
3. Bond Referendum: Bonds are used for large-scale capital projects like building new schools or major renovations. They require voter approval and are repaid over time through property taxes.

During the meeting, participants engaged in table discussions to identify important values for the school district. Each table selected a spokesperson to report common themes, which will help guide the development of the facilities plan.

In addition to discussing the funding sources, the Cedar Rapids Community School District’s facilities task force engaged in a hands-on activity designed to apply their understanding of these financial resources. Participants were given a list of potential school projects, each with associated costs, and asked to utilize the available funding sources to plan and sequence these projects effectively. The funding sources included:

• PPEL: With an annual budget of $14,000,000.
• SAVE: With an annual budget of $20,000,000.

The task force was challenged to create a timeline for project sequencing that strategically utilized these budgets. Each team was responsible for developing a plan that prioritized projects based on importance and feasibility within the constraints of the available funding. Teams then reported their plans, highlighting how they balanced immediate needs with long-term goals while adhering to the specific uses and restrictions of each funding source. This exercise aimed to foster collaborative planning and awareness of complexities and challenges associated with financial resources and efficient allocation to enhance the district’s facilities.

Participants concluded by provided feedback (see attachment).

Meeting #1 – August 13, 2024

This meeting took place at Maple Grove Elementary School’s cafeteria