Urbandale board hears options to borrow against PPEL and SAVE, weigh Rolling Green reuse and 10-year plan

URBANDALE, Iowa — At a work session Aug. 18, the Urbandale Community School District heard a financial briefing from Piper Sandler representative Tim Oswald on how much the district could borrow without harming operations, what ballot and public‑hearing steps would be required and how that borrowing interacts with a proposed facilities plan.

Oswald told the board the district has a statutory debt limit of about $172,000,000 and roughly $83,000,000 in outstanding debt, leaving a cushion of about $88,000,000. He said the district could borrow roughly $7,000,000 against the voter‑approved portion of the PPEL and about $26,000,000 against the SAVE sales tax if the district adopts a current revenue purpose statement, yielding about $33,000,000 of combined near‑term capacity while still supporting the district’s 10‑year facility plan.

The hearing focused on two legal and procedural points that affect timing: first, Oswald said the board may borrow against only the voter‑approved portion of PPEL and that no election is required for PPEL borrowing; second, he said the legislature rescinded older SAVE revenue purpose statements and required districts to re‑vote new revenue purpose statements effective Jan. 1, 2031 — a step the district has not yet completed. "It would be wise to get that on the ballot and get the voter approval, at your earliest possible convenience," Oswald said, explaining that without a current revenue purpose statement SAVE revenue would be required to buy down certain voted bond tax rates instead of being available for district projects.

Oswald described the public process tied to borrowing and spending SAVE money: the district must hold a board hearing that is publicly noticed; after the hearing a valid petition within 14 days could force a November bond election, in which case projects could be delayed while the vote is held. He said an athletic facility financed with SAVE money triggers an additional hearing because state rules typically treat standalone competition facilities differently than school‑attached gyms. "If we borrow the money, you'll have two hearings. If we spend SAVE cash, you'll have one hearing," he said.

Oswald and board members walked through preliminary numbers in the district's 10‑year cash flow: for fiscal 2026 Oswald showed a beginning SAVE/PPEL balance of about $8,200,000, with estimated SAVE revenue of roughly $4.8 million and PPEL revenue of about $3.1 million; he showed bond proceeds of $26,000,000 in a scenario that resulted in about $34,000,000 total revenue and roughly $11,000,000 of planned expenses for the year. Oswald highlighted that, excluding bond proceeds, the operating revenue in that year would be about $8 million and that the district would still end fiscal 2026 with a modest positive cash balance under the illustrated scenario, but cautioned that later years in the example dip lower before recovering.

Board members asked about the size of the 10‑year plan from year to year and whether the plan contains sufficient cushion for unexpected work such as HVAC or roof repairs. Oswald said the district and staff will need to refine the project timing and cost estimates and that the firm had used conservative, illustrative figures for some items (he noted he had “made up” certain cost timing as placeholders). He recommended more detailed cost estimates before committing to borrowing and construction contracts.

The meeting also covered the district's Rolling Green property (also discussed in the transcript as an option for administrative/operations space). Board members and staff discussed whether renovating Rolling Green for administrative and operations use would cost more or less than current rent plus utilities for the district's leased office space. Oswald and staff said they would gather estimates comparing current annual rental and utilities costs (about $370,000 in rent and associated charges was discussed) versus the projected operating costs after renovation, and would refine capital and operating estimates for renovating, building new, or using other properties (Jensen property and 12 acres out west were discussed as assets that could be appraised or used in options analysis).

Directions and next steps recorded in the session included: district finance staff (Steve) and consultants will refine five‑year budget projections; Oswald offered to return with an explanation of GEO bond capacity and more detailed illustrations; the district expects to publicize a community meeting on Sept. 25 to gather public input; and staff will pursue more precise cost estimates for Rolling Green and other facility options. No formal motions or votes were taken at the work session.

Board members emphasized the need to set priorities before committing to pieces of the facilities package. Several directors said a staged approach or returning to the facility committee for prioritized recommendations would help avoid implementing single projects in isolation. Oswald cautioned the board about timelines for hearings and petition windows if the district intends to seek bond approval at a specific November election.

The work session concluded with Oswald and staff agreeing to return with refined numbers and a proposed schedule for hearings, bond timing and community outreach. A community informational meeting on Sept. 25 was mentioned as the next public step.