Visualizing Success

Planning for the Future

Facility Master Plan: Committee Recommendation
Presented to the District: December 11, 2017
Discussion Points

Visualizing Success
▪ Introductions
▪ Facility Master Plan Process (Part One)
▪ Tagline
▪ Facility Master Plan Process

▪ FMP Foundational Informational (Part Two)

▪ Academics, Culture, Economics (ACE)
▪ Belief Statements
▪ Open Enrollment
▪ Renovation Costs
▪ Facility Cost Index: Elementary
▪ Physical Plan and Equipment Levy (PPEL)
▪ General Fund Costs
▪ Student Location – Heat Map
▪ Enrollment Projection and Accuracy
▪ Committee Milestones
▪ Sustainability Definition

▪ Committee Plan (Part Three)

▪ 100,000 Feet Overview
▪ Public Input Details Discussed
▪ Tiers
▪ Timeline

▪ Moving Forward (Part Four)

▪ Next Steps
▪ Committee Members Report Out
 About RSP

Visualizing Success
Planning
▪ Founded in 2003 Robert Schwarz
CEO, AICP, REFP, CEFP
▪ Professional educational planning firm Richard Sanchez
Planning Project Manager
▪ Expertise in multiple disciplines
Educators
▪ Over 20 Years of planning experience
Clay Guthmiller
▪ Over 80 years of education experience Education Planner
Craig Menozzi
▪ Over 20 years of GIS experience Education Planner
Elizabeth Sanders
Education Planner, PhD
▪ Clients in Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, David Stoakes
Education Planner, EdD
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dave Wilkerson
Education Planner, PhD
Dakota, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin
▪ Projection accuracy of 97% or greater GIS Analyst
Tyler Link
GIS Analyst
Brandon Sylvester
GIS Analyst
Our Clients
Making it Happen

Visualizing Success
Cedar Rapids Community School District

Shive Hattery Architecture and Engineering

Cedar Rapids Committee Members

Jasmine Almoayed Valerie Dolezal David Janssen Matthew Oliphant Sue Shanklin
Gary Becker Jordan Dreyer Julie Jensen Matt Olmstead Steve Shupp
Jenny Becker Dave Dvorak Tania Johnson Maureen Oviatt Chad Simmons
Laura Blythe John Feltes Rielle Jones Dave Parmley Daryl Spivey
David Brandon Sandi Fowler Rob Kleinsmith Patrick Parsley * Don Steichen
Lois Buntz * Brian Galusha * Jason Kline Al Pierson Dale Todd *
Brad Buck Brenda Garbe Christine Landa Shellie Pike Melissa Trumpold
Julie Cain Jennifer Goebel Larry Lee * Jennifer Pratt John Tursi
Grace Carey Steve Graham Pat Loeffler Casey Prince Sean Ulmer *
Karl Cassell Laurie Hamen Trista Manternach Dorice Ramsey Kathy Ulrich *
Kiley Chambers Gary Hatfield Wyatt Martinson Greg Reed Doug Wagner
Angie Charipar Jennifer Hemmingsen * Mary Ellen Maske Jillian Ries * Phil Wasta
Jim Craig Marta Hershner Mark Matson Al Rowe Michael Welch
Joe Crozier Jerry Hobart Lura McBride * Tina Rusbult * Lawrence Wenclawski
Hector Cuebas * Courtney Hogan Jon McKowen Ryan Schlader * Bridgett Wood
Nicholas D'Amico Michelle Huggins * Catherine Metz Diane Schnoebelen-Kramer Roger Worm
Mike Dawson Vicki Hyland Karen Muters Jackson Schreckengast Leslie Wright
Christopher Deam Jason Jaeger * Rochelle Naylor * Jillian Schulte Erica Yoder
John Zimmerman

* denotes withdrew
from the committee
 Visualizing Success
Part One:
Facility Master Plan:
Process
 Facility Master Plan: Tagline 12:25 PM

How students learn and the environment in which they do so

How the Cedar Rapids Community School District may look

in the future and how students may be educated

In facilities and in the community within the district

7
 Facility Master Plan: Purpose 12:25 PM
INTRODUCTION:
The Committee journey to Re-Imagine, Re-Envision, and Re-Invest in our students and
school facilities was driven by a number of important factors the Board of Education believed are
paramount to student success. First and foremost they have a responsibility to students, staff
members, and community for the committee to investigate all viable options and factors impacting
the conversation of how to plan for the future. Every student should have the option of being
prepared to be College and/or Career Successful. The manner in how that can be done in the
existing school inventory will likely be very different from how it currently takes place.
In order to address all of the critical issues facing the District, a Master Facilities Plan Committee was
formed, including parents, employees, business and industry leaders, and other community
members. The discussions focused around how to Re-Imagine, Re-Envision, and Re-Invest
in the future students who will attend Cedar Rapids schools.
The committee journey included:
• Belief statements
• Academic, Culture, Economics (ACE)
• Enrollment, Demographic/Development trends
• City trends (Cedar Rapids, Hiawatha, Palo, Robins)
• Academic research (School Size and Student Performance)
• Financial data
• Building tours (College Community School District, Linn-Mar Community School District,
Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, and Shawnee Mission School District)
• Consideration for unique architectural features, flood plain, and historic preservation
While no plan is perfect, the committee has spent the last year analyzing, touring, and processing
significant information resulting in the creation of a plan they as a group feel will position the district
to continue to position students for a successful future.

8
 Facility Master Plan: Process Board Outcome
12:25 PM

Meetings:
• BOE: 7
o Added One to the original process
• Committee: 15
o Added Four to the original process
• Subcommittee: 13
• Public Input: 9
o Added Two to the original process
• Total Meetings: 44

Utilize existing Building Assessments and project

baseline from the 2013 Facility Master Plan

Focus always comes back to ACE (Academics,

Culture, Economics) – Teaching and Learning as
the Focus of decision making to positively impact
student learning

9
 Facility Master Plan: Phase 1 Board Outcome
12:25 PM

Timeline: Meetings:
• August 2016 to December 2016 • BOE: 1
Purpose: • Subcommittee: 13
• Create the Foundation for how the • Public Input: 3
Facility Master Plan could be • Total Meetings: 17
developed in the following areas:
o Finance
o Program Offerings
o Grade Configuration Focus always comes back to ACE – Teaching
o New Schools / School and Learning as the Focus of decision making
Renovations to positively impact student learning.
o Closing and/or Repurpose of
Schools
10
 Facility Master Plan: Phase 2 Board Outcome
12:25 PM

Timeline:
• January 2017 to January 2018
Purpose:
• Work toward a plan that would
provide the best
Meetings:
• BOE: 6
• Committee: 15
• Public Input: 6
• Total Meetings: 27

11
 Facility Master Plan: Phase 3 Board Outcome
12:25 PM

“Community Hub” conversations

▪ These conversations take place after the plan has been adopted and prior to site changes
▪ Stakeholders to attend meetings include but not limited to:
• Households within the existing elementary attendance area
• Households within a certain distance around the site
• City persons
• Business leaders and nonprofit organizations
▪ Potential Discussion Items:
• Historic Preservation
• Reuse and/or transition of site to another owner
• Validation of Reinvestment of sites
• Types of community spaces needed in facility (Gym, Health Center, Library, etc.)
• Future Attendance Areas
• Timeline for implementation
12
 Visualizing Success
Part Two:
Facility Master Plan:
Foundational
Information
 Facility Master Plan: ACE
ACADEMICS:
A
• Professional Learning
Community
C • College & Career
Ready
A • Relevant & Rigorous
D
• Quantitative growth
each student at all
E
ability levels
• Equity / Proficiency
M • Class Size
• Enrollment/Capacity
I • Educator resources
C
and tools
S Experience
14
RSP Guidance
12:25 PM
These three pillars have been the
foundation to how the committee
has worked toward creating a
plan that will position the district
to have College and/or Career
SUCCESSFUL STUDENTS.
CULTURE: ECONOMICS:
• Athletics E • Resourceful
• Activities • Life Cycle Costs
C • Clubs C • Repurpose of Schools
• Organizations • Remodeling/Additions
U • Student Engagement O • New Construction
L • Parent Involvement N • Closing Schools
• Professional Learning • Bond Referendums
T Community O • Community Support
• Traditions/Pride • Ability/Desire To Afford
U • Teacher / Staff M • Belief in future forecast
• Fiscally responsible
R Experience
• Safety
I
E • Multi-cultural changes C
• “Cedar Rapids”
S
• Beliefs
• Values
• Attitudes
 Facility Master Plan: Structure and Journey RSP Guidance
12:25 PM

MEETING STRUCTURE:
• Find out what Committee Knows about a Topic
• Present new information
• Discussions:
• Clicker Response
• Small Group Discussion
• Large Group Discussion
• Tours
• Homework
• RSP or District Follow-up

THE COMMITTEE JOURNEY:

• Belief statements
• Academic, Culture, Economics (ACE)
• Enrollment, Demographic/Development trends
• City trends (Cedar Rapids, Hiawatha, Palo, Robins)
• Academic research
• Financial data
• Building tours (College Community School District, Linn-Mar Community School District,
Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, and Shawnee Mission School District)
• Numerous options of different size schools (450 to 600 students)
• Consideration for unique architectural features, flood plain, and historic preservation

15
 Facility Master Plan: Belief Statements Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

NOTES:
The statements were created over
several committee meetings through
several activities and committee
feedback, so the list of nearly 50 items
would have more meaning in the process
and for future district decisions
concerning the following five topics:
• Financial
• District Program Offerings
• Grade Configuration and Boundary
Criteria
• New Schools / School Renovations
• Closing Schools and/or Repurpose

16
 Facility Master Plan: Sustainability Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

The committee worked on creating a definition for sustainability over the course of
three committee meetings. The majority of the committee members at Meeting #15 felt
the definition below best described how sustainability should be viewed.

Sustainability is our commitment to…

▪ Learner – Centered
▪ Future Focused
▪ Resource Optimized
▪ Community Enhanced
▪ Facilities

17
 Facility Master Plan: Consensus Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

COMMITTEE CONSENSUS ON THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS:

• Every student should be in an environment that promotes student learning to help be
successful in college and/or a career.
• The district must prepare for a sustainable financial future.
• Many parents have chosen to open-enroll their children into neighboring districts. A
survey of people who open enroll out yielded a limited number of responses. Some
of the likely reasons that influence this choice could be the higher overall
achievement rates in neighboring districts, a perception of fewer student discipline
challenges, and modern facilities.
• Enrollment is forecasted to be stable with potential to decrease over the next five
years.
• The district must be good stewards of taxpayer resources. Investing 11 to 14 million
dollars in projects that will not change the learning environment will not be as
beneficial as building new state of the art facilities which will cost between 16 and 20
million. The new facilities will cost less to operate.

18
 Facility Master Plan: Open Enrollment Administration12:25
InputPM

1,500

1,000

500
Students

-500

-1,000

-1,500 FY 91 FY 93 FY 95 FY 97 FY 99 FY 01 FY 03 FY 05 FY 07 FY 09 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FY 14 FY 15 FY 16 FY 17
In 12 123 242 304 349 413 482 535 521 557 431 388 389 361 363 378 369
Out 16 147 276 363 456 558 632 672 736 793 861 929 988 1,054 1,140 1,200 1,283
Net -4 -24 -34 -59 -107 -145 -150 -137 -215 -236 -430 -541 -599 -693 -777 -822 -914

Total losses $42.4 million since inception.

*Data Source: FTE of open enrolled in and out public students, Annual Certified Enrollment

Revised 10-18-16

• “Out” students are students who live in the Cedar Rapids School District
who choose to attend a different public school district. The number of “out”
students has increased significantly.
• “In” students are students who live within the boundaries of another public
school district, but choose to attend the Cedar Rapids School District.
• Net open enrollment In/Out enrollment has increased.
19
 Facility Master Plan: Renovation Costs Shive Hattery12:25
InputPM

Cost Estimates updated from Summer 2017 projects

Graphic Explanation:
• Shows the PPEL, 2013 Master Plan Building Leadership, and Total Renovation Cost
• Total ES School Renovation Cost = $223,227,774 versus ES plan at $224,234,064
• Monroe and Polk sites not in calculations
20
 Facility Master Plan: Facility Cost Index (ES) Shive Hattery12:25
InputPM

Graphic Explanation:
• When Greater than 50% (Red Vertical Line) would potentially indicate the facility would
be more cost efficient to replace the existing structure
21 • PPEL projects to include Grant summer 2017 project
 Facility Master Plan: PPEL Promise Info Administration12:25
InputPM

Graphic Explanation
• The Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL) Promise is a limited list of “essential & funded” District facility repair
needs totaling $102.9 million.
• PPEL reserves are currently $7.5 million and have ranged between $5.0 - $7.5 million in the last five years. These
reserves act as a savings account to be used in case of emergencies and other unplanned facility repair needs.
• As District facilities continue to age, there is an increasing reliance upon PPEL reserves to pay for a growing list of
unplanned facilities repairs. If this increased reliance on PPEL reserves continues at its present rate, reserves will be
completely exhausted by 2024. Leaving the PPEL Fund unable to pay for unplanned facilities needs.
22
 Facility Master Plan: General Fund Cost for ES Administration12:25
InputPM

23
 Facility Master Plan: Student Location Video RSP Input
12:25 PM
▪ Red areas depict highest density of students, Gray as lowest student density
▪ Overlapping points (2 or more students) are handled using a weighting of coincident points
▪ Illustrates student density location in district from 2006/07 to 2017/18
▪ 2008 Flood area shown on map
▪ The darker the red color the greater the density of students

24
 Facility Master Plan: Projection Accuracy RSP Input
12:25 PM

Source: Cedar Rapids Community Schools and RSP SFM & Demographic Models

Graphic Explanation:
• This bar chart illustrates the past core K-12 students serviced by the district (Not include: Early
Childhood, Home School, Private, or Parochial Students)
• Elementary = Red and Pink Bars, Middle School = Blue and Light Blue, High School = Green and Light
Green, and Purple line is K-12 total enrollment
• By 2021/22 elementary enrollment projected to decrease, middle school to increase, and high school
decrease, resulting in fewer K-12 students
25
 Facility Master Plan: Projection Accuracy RSP Input
12:25 PM

Highlights:
• Elementary
▪ Lowest: 97.5% (2013/14 projection for 2014/15)
▪ Highest: 99.9% (2011/12 projection for 2012/13)
▪ 5 Year: Year One Average: 99.0%

• Middle School
▪ Lowest: 98.8% (2014/15 projection for 2015/16 and 2015/16 projection for 2016/17)
▪ Highest: 99.9% (2012/13 projection for 2013/14)
▪ 5 Year: Year One Average: 99.3%

• High School
▪ Lowest: 98.8% (2011/12 projection for 2012/13 and 2013/14 projection for 2014/15 and 2015/16 projection for 2016/17)
▪ Highest: 99.7% (2012/13 projection for 2013/14)
▪ 5 Year: Year One Average: 99.1%

• District
▪ Lowest: 98.3% (2013/14 projection for 2014/15)
▪ Highest: 99.9% (2011/12 projection for 2012/13)
▪ 5 Year: Year One Average: 99.3%

26
 Facility Master Plan: Committee Milestones Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

Listed below are committee milestones that follow the Committee Belief Statements, Board Guiding
Principles, and the committee discussion from the fifteen committee meetings (12+ month journey):

Ideal elementary school of 600 student capacity (4 sections per grade)

▪ Re-Imagine and Re-Envision Academic opportunities for students
▪ Minimize traveling of professional staff between schools (Music, Art, Physical Education, etc.)
▪ Financial efficiency (Operational: Staffing/Utilities and Instructional)
▪ Provides capacity opportunities (Growth or Decline)
▪ Supports the target of having about 7,800 elementary student capacity district-wide
▪ Modernize schools
▪ Improved safety of security of schools
▪ Potential to maintain or reduce existing class sizes
▪ Functional capacity of a school has had some schools close to 600 students
▪ Potential for community tailored “Community Hub” spaces at each new/renovated school

Focus on Elementary Schools

▪ Elementary schools with the greatest building improvement need
▪ Efficiencies could result in the reallocation of funds to other student instructional need
▪ Significant funds in recent years have been invested in the middle schools ($21.2 million)
▪ Significant funds in recent years have been invested in the high schools ($76.5 million)

Site Re-Investment Reasoning

• Site location in proximity to housing and student location
• Site size
• City infrastructure current and future investment (sidewalk connectivity)
• Safe transportation access (potential to have various modes: Walker/Bikers/Car/Bus)
• Strategic location to provide educational services in the long term as demographics and
residential development (infill and new) change
27
 Facility Master Plan: Community Input Community Outcome
12:25 PM
Shown below are the themes which came out of the three Community Input Sessions that are a starting point for
the conversations to CONTINUE LISTENING to the community in Phase Three – Community Hub Conversations:

• Bussing of students (20+)

o 1 mile, 1.5 mile and 2 mile radius study (District commissioned a study)
o How many busses and drivers will be needed
• Is there property value/economic assessment in areas where schools close? (9)
o Polk and Monroe Property Value Video (In this presentation)
• Safe travel for students/work with the city (7)
o Current conditions of sites for walkers, bikers, cars and buses
• What were the criteria for selecting schools to close? (7)
o Reducing from 21 to 13 difficult decision must be made (Student and Site Location, Site conditions, Infrastructure)
• Losing sense of community/neighborhood culture with a larger building (7)
o Future “Community Hub” listening sessions specific to each neighborhood area to ensure cultural and community
need integrated into the new and/or renovated school
• What happens if the SAVE Funds aren’t extended? (6)
o The Board could consider Bond Referendum Option
• Timing of the closing of schools/transition (6)
o Work to move students no more than 1 time – tiers an example of how the plan can be integrated, more discussion
happens with “Community Hub” listening sessions in Phase Three
• Why are we losing students? (6)
o Perception/reality of facility condition, academic achievement, and/or student discipline
• What will happen to the school sites that close (6)
o Past history of school closings and what the market and community may mean for what could happen on each site
o District desire to be a good community partner
• Concerns about class size (6)
o All class sizes same regardless of the capacity of each school (district goal)
28 o Class size more likely to be in line with the district benchmark with a 600 capacity elementary school
 Facility Master Plan: Property Value Video 1 RSP Input
12:25 PM
▪ Illustrates one mile radius around Monroe Elementary property values
▪ Assessed values from Linn County from 2012 to 2017
▪ Bar chart line is the district average for each year – bars are for the 1-mile radius

29
 Facility Master Plan: Property Value Video 2 RSP Input
12:25 PM
▪ Illustrates one mile radius around Polk Elementary property values
▪ Assessed values from Linn County from 2012 to 2017
▪ Bar chart line is the district average for each year – bars are for the 1-mile radius

30
 Visualizing Success
Part Three:
Committee Plan
 Facility Master Plan: Introduction Committee Outcome
12:25 PM
The Plan at 100,000 feet:
o This is a FIFTEEN to TWENTY year plan
o Plan is driven by Academic, Culture, and Economic data
o Re-Invest in Thirteen Elementary Sites (10 new schools and 3 renovated schools):
▪ Jefferson HS: Cleveland(N), Coolidge(N), Grant(R), Hoover(N)
▪ Kennedy HS: Harrison(N)(*), Hiawatha(R), Jackson(N), Pierce(N), Viola Gibson(R)
▪ Washington HS: Arthur(N) (*), Erskine(N), Johnson(N), Wright(N) (*)
Note: (N) = New school on existing sites and (R) = Renovated school site (*) = Historic
Preservation conversation in Community Hub Phase determine New or Renovated

o Estimated cost for the elementary portion of this plan is $224,234,064

o Target Capacity goal for new schools should be 600 students
o Johnson Elementary would be a 450 school because of limitations to the site size
and need to have a school site near a high density of students
o Relocate Grant Elementary from Jefferson HS feeder to the Washington HS Feeder
to plan for future district growth in the north and west
o Future Community Hub discussions to help implement what is needed at each site
o Additional funds will be required to do the middle school and high school PPEL
and Leadership need (Bond Referendum option)

32
 Facility Master Plan: Outcome Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

End Outcome of the Facility Master Plan:

• Plans for needed change to meet economic realities in both the general fund and PPEL
fund
• Re-Investment in core areas of the community
• All elementary schools will serve K-5 grades
• Planning for an elementary enrollment of about 7,650 K-5 students
• Future attendance area and feeder changes will be required if a complete feeder system is
desired
• Mostly new elementary schools with some renovated elementary schools
o Modern and Safe and Secure
o Additional educational programming space will be factored into the final design (Early Childhood,
Special Education, English Language Learners (ELL), etc.)
o Collaboration with each city to maximize possible joint efforts in an area
• Elementary sites will have to be closed and/or repurposed
o District has closed sites in the past
o Recommendation based on student and site location proximity, demographic shifts, development,
city Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), City Comprehensive Plan
o District history has been to successfully work with numerous entities to transition a site to a new
use
• Enhanced academic opportunities for students that will support community need
• Additional community conversations with areas impacted by the change when the
elementary change is two years out that will help create what “Community Hub” means for
each site Re-Investment
33
 Facility Master Plan: Current and Plan Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

Details:
• Thirteen Elementary Schools
• Twelve are Four section 600 capacity
• One is a Three section 450 capacity
• Potentially Ten are new schools
NOTE: depends on the outcome for Arthur, Harrison, and Wright
• Three are renovated schools
NOTE: depends on the outcome for Arthur, Harrison, and Wright
• Several sites might utilize significant portions
of the historical architecture
• The criteria used to Invest or Eliminate a site
was based on having 70% or greater
committee response during the discussion
about each site

Notes:
1. Greyed schools are sites not utilized in the future.
2. Harrison is currently located in both Kennedy and Jefferson
High School Feeders. In the committee recommendation,
Harrison would only attend Jefferson.
3. Monroe and Polk Elementary are not represented in either
Current or Draft plan
4. Demolition Costs are included in “Estimated Project Cost”
5. In “Recommendation “plan, Grant Elementary changes from
Jefferson HS to Washington HS feeder

34
 Facility Master Plan: Tiers Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

Tiers Elementary schools are separated by tier based on the percentage in the Facility Condition Index.

Tiers are a guideline, they are

flexible to adjust for the
Community Hub conversations

FCI greater than 110% = Tier 1

FCI between 110% and 90% = Tier 2
FCI lower than 90% = Tier 3

35
 Facility Master Plan: Timeline Committee Outcome
12:25 PM

Items that influence the timeline:

▪ Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) extension becoming
available July 2020
▪ Available SAVE funds for District use
 Diversion by the Legislature may impact the amount of SAVE funds district
receives
▪ Site Choice by the Tier Levels
 Other considerations might happen to influence a cross over in schools that
would be considered before others
▪ Community Hub discussions
36
 Visualizing Success
Part Four:
Moving Forward
 Next Steps 12:25 PM

Board of Education Meetings:

• December 11, 2017 – District Office 5:30PM (Board Hears Committee Plan)

• January 11, 2018, District Office 5:30PM (Board Work Session)

• January 22, 2018 – District Office 5:30PM (Board Considers Plan)

38
 12:25 PM
Notes
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

39