Consultants present third master facility study outlining building needs, five option packages

Consultants from ATS&R unveiled the Chippewa Falls Area Unified School District’s third master facility study at the board meeting on Jan. 27, presenting a building-by-building facility condition assessment, cost estimates, and five packages of aspirational options ranging from targeted repairs to new construction and central-office reconfiguration.

The study includes a facility condition index (FCI) for each building, an “at-a-glance” red/yellow/green summary by system (site, envelope, interior, and systems), and detailed appendices with inventory, equipment model numbers and cost breakdowns. The consultants recommended the district continue updating the plan every five years and provided inflation-adjusted cost scenarios.

Why it matters: the study lays out multi‑year choices that could affect building capacity, classroom configuration, parking and bus circulation, program space (CTE, music, shop), and potential future referendum or bonding needs. The consultants noted some elements represent necessary repair and betterment (priority 1 and 2 work); other items are aspirational and intended to right‑size facilities and improve equity across schools.

The consultant presentation covered the report layout (table of contents, building data, educational adequacy criteria), and explained how the FCI and “salsa” (stoplight) charts are used to highlight deficiencies. The consultants provided building-specific highlights: Homestead options include a new gym/cafeteria/media center and parking/drop‑off revisions; Hillcrest has three separate aspiration strategies (HL-1 — build new Hillcrest; HL-2 — close Hillcrest and redistrict; HL-3 — renovate and add breakout spaces, expand cafeteria and kitchen, and modify bus/car circulation). Several packages would add classroom or commons space at Parkview and Southview to absorb students if Hillcrest were closed.

Middle‑school options in the packages focused on completing items not covered by the previous referendum: updates to music, CTE, art spaces, accessibility near the pool, a larger fitness center, cafeteria expansion and athletic amenities (tennis courts, track). Central office options (CO‑1 through CO‑4 in the study) range from relocating pupil services and HR into vacated Hillcrest space to building a new central office, with options layered depending on whether Hillcrest remains open.

Chad Trowbridge provided context at the outset, noting, “This is our third version of a master facility plan,” and the consultants emphasized that cost estimates are current to 2025 but will change with inflation and timing of projects. The consultants also noted some presentational errors (a header from a different district appeared) and said they would reissue corrected materials as an amendment.

Board members raised questions about enrollment modeling and right‑sizing given recent declines; the consultants said the options are built from executive‑committee priorities and that additional scenarios could be developed specifically to reduce capacity rather than expand it. The study includes enrollment projections and a menu of the aspirational options, and the consultants said they can create alternative packages (for example, those emphasizing closures and re‑use rather than additions) if the board requests them.

No formal vote or decision on the options occurred at the meeting. Next steps identified by staff and consultants include reissuing corrected report pages, continuing community engagement, aligning any selected option with the Elementary Boundary Review Committee’s redistricting work, and using the study as a planning document for potential future capital requests.

Ending: The board will continue reviewing the master facility book, consider follow‑up scenarios that incorporate possible enrollment declines and redistricting outcomes, and may request refined cost and phasing analyses before deciding whether to pursue a referendum or specific capital projects.