Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Rolling Green topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Urbandale board votes 5–2 to demolish Rolling Green and build new administration office
Summary
After hours of debate over costs, community impact and future needs, the Urbandale Community School District board voted 5–2 to demolish the Rolling Green building and construct a new administration office on that site; staff will schedule neighborhood meetings and begin design planning.
The Urbandale Community School District board voted 5–2 to demolish the Rolling Green building and construct a new administration office on the site, ending a months‑long discussion over renovation versus new construction.
The decision followed a detailed presentation by consultant Eric on options, costs and timelines. Eric explained the two primary paths under consideration: renovating about 24,000 square feet of the existing structure while leaving roughly 11,500 square feet as a warm dark shell, or demolishing the building and starting a new roughly 20,000‑plus square‑foot administrative facility. "That number would be about 11,500 compared to the total Rolling Green facility," Eric said when comparing renovation and shelling options.
Board members were split on trade‑offs. Supporters of a new build argued it yields a modern, efficient workspace with room for future growth and avoids repeated renovation costs. Opponents favored renovation to preserve neighborhood character and reduce construction disruption. One board member said renovation preserves district history and limits heavy construction impacts on neighbors, while another warned that renovation can be a "Pandora’s box" because hidden structural or hazardous‑materials problems can dramatically increase costs.
The vote sequence began with a motion to renovate (project A) that failed on roll call. A subsequent motion to demolish Rolling Green and build a new administration office (project B) passed 5–2. After the vote the board directed staff to schedule community meetings and to publicize next steps: "Now that we know what the board is going to do, Eric and I will get together, including Brandy, and get a meeting set for the community," Superintendent Dr. Daca said.
District staff provided preliminary budget context but emphasized that specific funding decisions will follow design work and a public process. Randy (district finance staff) told the board the district can borrow against SAVE dollars and estimated borrowing capacity in the $13–15 million range depending on scope and timing. Staff also noted the district pays roughly $169,260 per year in rent for current office space and that PPEL and SAVE funds could be used for building or equipment costs.
Eric outlined a typical schedule: roughly a six‑ to seven‑month design phase followed by bidding and approximately 12 months of construction for a new build (shorter for a renovation). He also recommended staged public engagement and neighborhood meetings to explain timing, parking and mitigation plans.
The board emphasized minimizing community disruption during demolition and construction and pledged continued public outreach. The district will return with design specifics, alternates (for example, a warm dark shell that could be finished later), and updated cost estimates as planning moves forward.
