David City board reviews $16M facility addition plan, weighs CM-at-risk and lease-purchase financing

The David City Public Schools board heard detailed conceptual plans for a proposed northeast addition that would add a full-size competition gym, auxiliary space, configurable locker rooms, officials’ and training areas, a mezzanine for wrestling mats and expanded family-and-consumer-science (FCS) facilities. Architect Tim presented drawings showing circulation corridors, potential relocation of a four-stall garage, restroom and code implications, elevator access for equipment, options for retractable bleachers, and storm-shelter design choices.

Why the board discussed procurement and financing. Tim explained three delivery methods: traditional design-bid-build (award to the lowest responsible bidder), construction manager at risk (CMAR) with early trade packages and a guaranteed maximum price, and design-build. He said CMAR can provide constructability review and earlier subcontractor pricing but requires early engagement; board members were advised that to receive full preconstruction benefits from a CMAR, the district should consider selecting a CM earlier (June) rather than later in the design process.

Financing scenarios presented. Cody and Paul presented lease-purchase (interlocal) financing scenarios using the district’s special building fund levy as the repayment source. Using a sample $16 million project and an illustrative interest rate of 5.31%, they modeled: a 25-year flat-valuation scenario with estimated annual debt service of about $1,210,000 (requiring roughly a 6.57-cent levy) and a 20-year flat-valuation scenario with roughly $1,378,000 annual debt service (about a 7.41-cent levy). A model that assumed modest annual valuation growth (approximately 2.5%) would lower required levy rates (for example, a 25-year scenario dropping to ~4.98 cents). Presenters noted flexibility in structuring payments (typical approach: interest-only in June, principal and interest in December) and a five-year call feature that allows refinancing or prepayment without penalty.

Board direction and next steps. Board members discussed the scope of the December decision (full addition versus a smaller Hback/renovation) and whether to authorize architectural and early procurement steps in June; staff stressed that architectural costs would be incurred to develop bid-ready documents but that the board would retain authority to reject final bids in December. Administrators recommended considering NEBA interlocal enrollment steps in October and final financing resolution and GMP review in December. No final authorization to proceed with construction was given at this meeting; the board signaled it expects a follow-up decision in the coming months after receiving refined cost estimates and schedule details.

Quotes from the meeting. Architect Tim: "If we're hosting wrestling invites... we'd have an elevator so we could bring those wrestling mats from the mezzanine down to the main gym floor." Finance presenter Cody: "On the 25-year term, estimated annual debt service is about $1,210,000," and he noted the district's building fund levy currently yields about $1.4 million per year.

What to watch for. Future meetings should show: (1) whether the board authorizes a construction-delivery method (CMAR vs. design-bid-build); (2) any formal resolution to engage NEBA or another interlocal for lease-purchase financing; (3) final GMP, bid results and a formal construction authorization or rejection in December; and (4) any adjustments if the state changes special-education reimbursement rules.