Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Finance Bonds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultant outlines $42.7M GO-bond scenario and tax-rate assumptions for Urbandale schools
Summary
A finance consultant briefed the Urbandale board on a possible general-obligation (GO) bond program that could generate about $42.7 million in project funds under current assumptions, described project priorities and warned the board that election timing and interest-rate changes affect capacity.
A finance consultant presented a preliminary scenario for a general-obligation bond to the Urbandale Community School District Board on Sept. 22, outlining assumptions and a list of potential projects and estimated costs.
The consultant said the exercise aimed to “solve for an overall tax rate of $17.99” and, under a set of assumptions including moderate taxable-valuation growth and a modest near-term rise in interest rates, “could generate around a $43,200,000 borrowing that would generate around $42,700,000 of total project funds net of all the different bonding costs.” The presentation framed the numbers as a planning tool, not a final financing plan.
The consultant reviewed election and issuance timing: Iowa law changes now limit districts to a single annual GO-bond election date in November, the presenter said, and 20‑year bonds would be the maximum typical length. The board was told bonds would typically be sold the May–June after a successful vote, with issuance timing subject to the district’s construction schedule.
A preliminary project list presented to the board included an administration-office project (the consultant cited a revised estimate near $11 million), improvements to athletics facilities including middle‑school football ($2 million), softball ($3 million) and baseball ($5 million), and a career and technical education (CTE) building whose size and cost were left to be fit to available bond proceeds. The consultant said if only GO bonds were used the CTE project would be sized to fit remaining capacity, approximately $21.5 million under the scenario.
The consultant also described other financing options and fund sources the board could pair with a GO bond: the district’s voted PPEL (physical plant and equipment levy) and SAVE bonds were mentioned as possible sources to pay for specific athletic projects or the administration office, reducing the amount a GO bond would need to cover.
Board members asked how advertising revenue and other operating items might affect long-term levy calculations and raised questions about priorities. The presenter emphasized these were “rough estimates” and recommended further work with the district’s architect and a formal plan of finance before any bond issue. The board did not vote on the proposal; the presentation was informational and the board will consider priorities and next steps in future meetings.
