Where Cedar Rapids school board candidates stand on a $220 million bond referendum

Editor’s note: This article is part of The Gazette’s coverage leading up to the Nov. 7 city and school elections.

CEDAR RAPIDS — Nine candidates are vying for four seats in the Nov. 7 Cedar Rapids Community School Board elections — as district residents also prepare to vote on a $220 million bond referendum to fund improvements to middle and high schools.

The seven-member board serves about 15,700 students in the district, and board members are not paid. Voters throughout the school district may cast ballots in all the school board races.

Incumbents up for re-election are noted with (i).

Five candidates are running for two at-large seats:

Two candidates are running for the District 1 seat:

Two candidates are running for the District 4 seat:

What is the $220 million bond?

The proposed bond would help fund a facility plan that ultimately would reduce the number of middle schools in the district from its existing six. This would create a stronger feeder system for students in K-12, ensuring students stay together with classmates as they move from elementary to middle to high school. School leaders have said they believe this would provide more equitable services to all students while reducing the district’s operational and maintenance costs.

Projects under the plan that would be funded by the $220 million bond referendum include a new sixth-through-eighth grade middle school building at a location to be acquired; new career and technical education additions and new turf fields at three high schools; renovations to Kennedy High School’s cafeteria and kitchen; upgrades to the Metro High School gym; and renovations to Franklin Middle School. A location has not yet been announced for the new middle school.

If the bond is approved by district voters, the Cedar Rapids schools property tax rate would increase from $14.67 to $17.33 per $1,000 of taxable value. For an owner with a home assessed at $200,000, the bill based on the taxable value of that home — about 54.7 percent of its assessed value — would be about $282.02 a year, or $23.50 a month.

In Iowa, school bond issues — basically, loans that schools take out, typically for 10, 15 or 20 years — require a supermajority of 60 percent to pass. In passing bond issues, voters in the district agree to repay the loan, with interest, through their property taxes.

A second $225 million general obligation bond is proposed to be taken to voters in 2029 to complete projects under the district’s facility master plan.

How the candidates stand on the bond

The Gazette asked candidates in a questionnaire if they would support the bond referendum and why or why not.

Garlock said she “fully” supports the bond referendum. “A great deal of time, study, data collection, compromise and public input has been used to refine the current ask of the community. … The current plan takes into account the physical needs, the educational needs and the community’s feedback,” she said.

Garlock said she believes the plan is “fiscally responsible” and “keeps student learning at the center of all decisions.”

  Buy Photo

Neumann also supports the referendum, saying the district needs to regularly update and improve facilities and provide “safe and secure spaces” for students and staff.

“The need for career and technical education facilities and programming will provide our students with the experience and inspiration they need to find success after high school,” Neumann said.

  Buy Photo

“Our middle and high school facilities are in great need of improvement, and we have to right-size our facilities for today’s (and future) enrollment,” Neumann said. “This plan allows us to position the district to provide the best possible experience for our students in the coming years.”

Taylor said he supports the bond issue because he believes that “new buildings are what serves our students best.”

  Buy Photo

Tominsky also said he believes the plan will “address some of the most critical needs we have as a district.”

“The comprehensive facilities master plan means that every facility in the district will be new or renovated by 2037. It's a bold plan that I believe will have our community thriving long into the future,” Tominsky said.

  Buy Photo

Including expansion to career and technical education facilities as a part of the plan will “expand opportunities for students that will have an immediate impact on our community by preparing students for current and emerging occupations,” Tominsky said.

Byers is taking a middle ground approach, not saying in the questionnaire whether she is for or against the bond. Byers said it’s time to start investing in new school facilities, but she would like to take a “deeper look at each building to get a sense of how to address the gaps that exist.”

  Buy Photo

“I’m guessing that some of the buildings could be renovated and updated to meet growing student needs, but in other scenarios, the most obvious option may be to demolish and rebuild,” Byers said. “Are there leaders in the community who are interested in redeveloping or re-envisioning these historical sites? And have we gathered other school leaders across the state to get a sense of how they are tackling similar projects in their respective communities?”

  Buy Photo

In opposition to the bond referendum is Merschbrock, Woerner and Johnson.

“I will not support the referendum for two reasons: First, the bond funds a plan to close neighborhood schools,” Merschbrock said. “I committed to voting for keeping schools open when I ran four years ago, and nothing has convinced me the community feels any different today about opposing school closings. Second, the infrastructure spending in the bond could address many more concerns and be a true rethinking of public schools for the 21st century. Instead the plan leaves out too much, focusing instead on new buildings in the suburbs.”

  Buy Photo

Woerner said he does “not trust” the current school board with a $220 million bond referendum. He said middle school children should not learn in “warehouses,” referring to the 1,200-student middle schools proposed under the plan.

“According to a 2015 Hannover Research study, a middle school should be between 500-800 students (not 1,200). As the school increases in size, student outcomes decrease with a higher impact on poor students and those of racial and ethnic minorities. All of this is being completed while the district is fighting declining enrollment and test scores,” Woerner said.

Johnson said she is casting a “no” vote for the referendum — “for now.“

“When (there is) a detailed budget and proposed site location has been announced, I’d be open to reconsider my no vote,” Johnson said. “This decision feels rushed and hasty. The lack of clarity raises too many unanswered questions.”

  Buy Photo

Johnson voiced concerns about increasing the school district’s debt, unaddressed infrastructure needs and student safety.

“Who will be responsible for development costs like roads leading to the new school building, electricity, gas, water and increased transportation costs for our district? Additionally — and this is a concern of mine — is there a clear plan for managing stormwater runoff?” Johnson asked.

Comments: (319) 398-8411; grace.king@thegazette.com