Cedar Rapids wants neighborhood schools

Dr. Tawana Grover became interim superintendent of the Cedar Rapids Community School District on April 4, 2023, and officially assumed the role on July 1. Upon taking the reins, Grover found herself in the unenviable position of preparing for a school bond referendum already in motion. The proposal sent to voters had been trimmed from an initial $312 million to $220 million.

The lion’s share of the money was earmarked for middle schools. The plan called for closing or repurposing existing buildings — such as Harding and Wilson — constructing a new middle school for $104.6 million (plus $2.25 million for land), and renovating Franklin Middle School for $73.5 million.

In 2023, the Iowa Legislature passed a law requiring that bond referendums be held in conjunction with the November regular city, school, or general election. Previously, these referendums could be scheduled as special elections, often held at odd times of the year when voter turnout was low. As a result, school bond measures were frequently decided by a small fraction of the electorate.

Iowa law requires a 60% supermajority to pass a school bond issue. In the end, the measure was soundly defeated, receiving just 38% of the vote. The message from voters was clear: the district had failed to earn the community’s support for its plans.

I should probably pause here and clarify some terms. A school bond referendum allows the district to borrow money for projects and pay it back with interest. A levy is used for ongoing expenses. Both bonds and levies are paid through property taxes.

Last September, 72% of voters approved the renewal of the district’s Physical Plant and Equipment Levy (PPEL). Cedar Rapids voters clearly support their schools — but in return, they expect the district to spend taxpayer dollars responsibly. It’s worth noting that, under current state law, levies like the PPEL can still be placed on the ballot during a special election. Turnout for the levy election was just 6%, while the bond referendum — held in conjunction with the school board election — drew nearly 24% of registered voters.

In the failed bond referendum, many voters voiced concerns about the district’s plan to consolidate schools by building a new 1,200-student middle school and closing some existing ones. Some questioned the wisdom of moving students away from “neighborhood schools” to larger, more distant campuses.

The community expressed these concerns at the ballot box, but the school district didn’t listen. In January, the district bought 51 acres of land, out by Highway 100, for a massive new middle school. We were told that the failed bond issue had $2.5 million to purchase land for the new middle school. Since voters rejected that money, the district used the PPEL levy to purchase the land. Oh, the cost of the land? $7.5 million, three times the amount voters rejected in the bond referendum.

There is a catch: the district bought the land, but the money to fund the construction of the school will have to come from … wait for it … a new bond referendum. It’s like déjà vu all over again! This time, the district decided to test the waters and see if voters would support a $211 million bond issue this fall.

This week, the school district released survey results showing that only 41% of respondents supported the plan, with another 15% undecided. Even in the best-case scenario — if every undecided respondent came around to support it — the total would rise to just 56%, still well short of the 60% supermajority required by law.

The Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance also surveyed voters on the potential bond issue. In their poll, 51% of respondents would “likely or definitely” support the bond issue. These are better numbers, but still well below the required 60%.

In the district’s own survey, only 46% of respondents supported the portion of the referendum that would raise $104 million to build a new middle school. To their credit, Dr. Grover and district leaders appear to be listening. They’ve acknowledged the lack of support and are going back to the drawing board, hoping to craft a revised proposal for the fall ballot.

Part of the reason the PPEL levy passed so easily last year is because the district framed it around a simple, compelling message: it would help keep kids “warm, safe, and dry.” But since then, the district has used PPEL funds to purchase land for the new middle school — a project the public clearly doesn’t support. Now they’re telling voters that a bond issue must pass in order to build on land they’ve already bought.

Once again, Dr. Grover and the district have failed to read the room. The community isn’t asking for fewer, larger middle schools — they want to keep their neighborhood schools. And they especially don’t want to be told their only option is to approve a bond issue simply because the district moved ahead with land purchases before securing public buy-in.

David Chung is a Gazette editorial fellow. [email protected]