Iowa City School Board Members Call Talk of $90M Plan 'Premature'

Two members of the Iowa City School Board call it "premature" to go into details about planning for new schools, expansions and updates even as voters will be called to support the district's vision for the future as early as December.

This comes after a fellow board member caused a stir by getting specific on Tuesday about the rough draft for a 10-year building plan that could total $90 to $110 million and may very well guide the substance of the ballot request. Expansion has been a divisive topic in the community for years, as the district deals with overcrowding, population growth, equity and old buildings.

There's two issues holding up the discussion, in the view of some: the district must first decide where the money will come from to determine how much they have, and the district is still studying what the districts needs are.

"Until we get those, we can't have a solid plan," school board member Tuyet Dorau said on Wednesday. "For anyone to be out there to say we have a plan, is premature."

Board member Sarah Swisher made the rounds to parent groups at a couple of schools on Tuesday, talking optimistically about the scope of the rough draft: multiple new elementary schools in the next few years, expansions at the elementary and junior high levels and a new high school in North Liberty towards the end of the 10 years.

Read more:

Board member Jeff McGinness also said he thought Swisher's comments were premature, although he thought she was well intentioned.

"It is premature to be discussing it at this point," McGinness said on Wednesday. "It is a very rough plan. We need to fill in the blanks as we get more information and data."

Still, the rough draft would seem to go hand-in-hand with funding options for buildings. The board is expected to dive into that very topic with recommendations from district administration on Thursday. Members may be called to vote on the funding options at their next formal meeting on Tuesday.

What ever funding option the board ultimately chooses, the community at-large will be called to vote -- and sooner rather than later -- on the school district's direction.

McGinness said he likes the direction of the rough draft plan, but on some points, such as addressing Americans with Disabilities Act in older schools, making promises now is not fair to the public. That particular item is very much in flux, he said. For example, is it worth the cost of bringing them into compliance versus replacing the buildings on site?

McGinness said they just don't have enough information yet to know which is the best route.

"Overall, my reaction is that it addresses both needs we have in the district in terms of facilities, and also equity for older schools," McGinness said of the rough draft.

Dorau declined to get into aspects of the rough draft.

All seem to agree the district has needs that must be addressed, but here in-lies another wrinkle.

Craig Hansel, the district's chief financial officer, said if he is asked for a long-term financial funding plan for new buildings, he can't provide that because of a new state law that has changed a funding stream for school buildings from local sales taxes to statewide sales taxes through something called "secure an advanced vision for education fund" or SAVE.

If the district doesn't act, in 2017 the district will no longer have discretion of how it spends sales tax revenue, and as such Hansel said he can't create spending plans beyond that point. That money, which now comes from the state rather than the county level, would go to pay off levies.

The district plans declare how they plan to spend the tax money through a Revenue Purpose Statement, which voters must approve. The statement has not yet been developed. If approved, the district then has discretion for how to use tax revenue out to 2029, Hansel said.

Up next for the board is to decide which funding mechanism they'd like to use for long-term projects, he said. One option is securing general obligations bonds, which would also have to go to voters for approval.

A second option is something called a TARB or Tax Anticipation Revenue Bonds. This would allow the district to borrow at a time when interest rates are low against future sales tax revenue out to 2029. But, this would require voters to approve the Revenue Purpose Statement.

McGinness and Swisher said they expect the district to recommend the TARB approach, which would be easier to pass because it needs a simple majority approval on the school board and at the polls, and it will not directly increase taxes. Hansel said he is still developing the recommendation.

The district has until Oct. 19 to request an item for the December ballot. February and April are the next opportunities for a special election after that.

The district is currently seeking proposals from consultants to assess the district's buildings, population growth and other factors and then offer recommendations. School board members hope to use that information to guide the long-term planning.

"If the community grants us permission to plan long-term using the new revenue statement," Hansel said, "... it will allow us to present a 10-year plan to the board. They asked the superintendent before that they would like to see a report like that with a little more detail behind it."