David City board authorizes drawings for school additions and HVAC upgrades, OKs outreach to construction managers

The David City Public Schools board on a unanimous vote authorized Superintendent Dr. Danker to work with Clark Anderson to develop architectural and mechanical drawings for possible elementary classroom additions and HVAC and lighting replacement at Davis City Elementary and David City High School.

Board members spent most of the special meeting discussing project scope, financing and delivery method. Two conceptual layouts for four new elementary classrooms were shown: all four north of the gym or two north and two east, which could require moving playground equipment. Members repeatedly emphasized the HVAC replacement as an urgent need that will be required regardless of broader expansion plans.

Finance and timing dominated the debate. Board members noted the district intends to pay projects from the building fund rather than raising taxes; several members warned that delaying large projects can increase costs because construction inflation erodes purchasing power. One board member reported contacting Tim Rip of Clark Anderson for a ballpark figure for design fees: according to that contact, design fees are typically in the neighborhood of 7 percent of project cost, which the board member summarized could equate to about $850,000 to $1 million depending on scope.

Members expressed mixed views about long-term financing. Some favored moving ahead now and using a 20–25-year lease-purchase to preserve cash flow and leverage current fund positions; others cautioned long lease terms can limit flexibility for future boards and argued for staging projects to avoid committing decades of revenue. The board discussed that completing certain near-term projects would also free bond-levy capacity in future years.

The board then voted to grant the superintendent the authority to pursue the drawings; the motion was seconded and recorded as passing with six votes in favor. The meeting minutes and roll call recorded several yes votes by name (Casey, Dustin, Don/Donnie, Justin) though not every individual board member was named in the transcripted roll call.

After the drawing authorization, the board discussed contracting options and procurement. Staff and advisors described differences between traditional design–bid–build and a construction-manager-at-risk (CMAR) approach. They explained CMAR typically engages a construction manager early to provide estimates and phasing feedback, uses an open-book approach to subcontractor bids and can reduce delay-related costs; design–bid–build produces a single bid after full design and can be less flexible for phased work. Perry Law Firm was cited as the legal advisor recommended to assist with the RFP and procurement process.

The board voted to authorize Dr. Danker to contact potential construction-manager-at-risk firms to arrange interviews and to begin the RFP process. Board members were told the procurement cycle would likely include a pre-proposal meeting, a three- to four-week response window, shortlists and interviews with a decision likely in late August.

The board adjourned and said it would reconvene in two weeks. Next procedural steps are obtaining schematic drawings and setting procurement timelines for the construction-manager selection process.