School District's Plan For Acquiring GRC Administration Building In Jeopardy

Members of a task force that will guide the future of the Glenwood Resource Center as the state prepares to shutter and then hand over ownership of the nearly 400-acre campus to the local group gave an update to the Glenwood Community School District Board of Education in a special meeting last Monday.

That update, however, offered more questions than answers.

The school district has long targeted the acquisition of the GRC’s administration building located at 104 Lacey Street as its new home for its central administrative offices and future innovation center. Those plans appear to be on hold at best, and out all together at worst, following last Monday’s meeting.

Larry Winum and Mark Lincoln, who both serve on the task force, spoke with the board, at Glenwood Superintendent Devin Embray’s request, for nearly an hour.

The task force is in the process of incorporating as the Glenwood Re-Development Corporation to formalize management of the facility once the state hands over the property June 30, 2024. A study conducted by HDR, Inc. last summer imagined a re-developed GRC campus as a 900-unit multi-use and residential neighborhood.

The price tag for that plan, Winum told the board, was deemed too high for the state and the task force was asked to re-think its development plan. That financial question and on-going questions related to the facility’s antiquated utilities, has put a monkey wrench into any plan to keep the Glenwood Community School District on the campus.

“The goal all along was to get this building turned over to the school district,” Winum said.

The biggest challenge facing that plan, Winum explained, is the GRC’s power plant. The 146-year-old facility has its own power grid. The system, however, is over 60 years old and considered an “antique” by modern utility standards.

“The bottom line is there is no way we are going to be able to maintain that power plant; it costs too much money,” Winum said. “If we have two or three buildings left on this campus when we’re all done, to either put in housing or the innovation center or anything else, it’s going to be impossible to maintain that power plant. The capacity will not be there, and the inefficiencies will be ridiculous.”

Winum said the task force anticipated having the money and state support to maintain the power plant “for a while” but feels that sentiment has changed. He didn’t rule out the power plant being used to just power the buildings for the district’s needs once the handover takes place, but he seemed skeptical the economics – or mechanical capacity of the power plant infrastructure – of that prospect are probable.

Winum hopes the task force will have at least some of those answers - good or bad - by January.

Lincoln said he was there representing the task force to let the school district know what obstacles exist – and that the plan remains for his group to do everything they can to support the school district.

“We’re not here to battle with you,” Lincoln said. “We’re here to inform you of what the problems are.”

The information about the long-term use of the power plant came as a surprise to Embray.

“I am less passionate about that building right now moving forward than I was before,” the superintendent said during the meeting. “I just don’t know how many dollars we want to invest into that building before we’ve even touched a wall or a ceiling or anything to make it innovative.”

Embray said the district did solicit a cost estimate to put the administrative building on its own power, which came in around $1 million.  He did not have official estimates for what getting on sewer and water lines could cost but did say that number is expected to approach an additional $1 million.

Embray confirmed in a follow up interview with The Opinion-Tribune, “The district will be looking at alternative plans that don’t include being on the GRC campus.”

The prospect of the power plant shutting down next summer was not on Embray’s radar prior to Monday’s meeting, adding, “We were led to believe we would have a new landlord, but the power plant would still be functioning for us until 2026.”

The district does have two, one-year leases on its current central office and Kids Place building, located at 103 Central on the campus, that runs through 2026. But that contract is also in jeopardy, according to Embray, is at the state’s discretion,

“Hearing they don’t know if they can operate the power plant July 1, 2024, let alone another year, rattled me a little bit just because we don’t have anywhere to go by July 1, 2024,” he said.

Embray hopes over the next few months the district and the task force can get a better understanding of how long the power plant can remain on and what its capacity is to be utilized for just the district’s needs.

“We thought for sure we were going to have a GRC building, and we’d be able to move into it and have our own power plant and water and sewer would be fine,” Embray said. “But then hearing the infrastructure for water and sewer may be compromised in the near future and they’d have to bring up new water and sewer (lines) the campus and that would be way more money than the heat and air. We may not have the money to do that. Those are the new ripples.”

Since Gov. Kim Reynolds’ announcement in April 2022 that the residential center that cares for Iowans with intellectual and developmental disabilities was closing, the state has been in discussions with the school district about maintaining its presence on the hill.

With that prospect appearing less and less likely, the district is already discussing its facilities options. One of those options the district could look at is an existing vacant building in the district for lease or sale.

“It would have to be big enough to hold all of our programming currently in this building, plus the new programming of the innovation center we’re expecting to start.”

Embray didn’t rule out splitting those needs among multiple buildings.

Another option, Embray said, is another bond issue.  In fact, two bonds – a general obligation bond and a revenue bond.

In November, voters said no to the district’s plans for a $40 million general obligation bond for a complete renovation of Northeast Elementary, including a new Kids Place wing, as well as improvements at West Elementary and Glenwood Middle School.

Under the latter plan, Embray laid out, the district would return a scaled back general obligation bond to voters in November 2024 that excludes the Kids Place addition from the Northeast renovations, saving the district $5 to $6 million.

A revenue bond is an alternative financing option that is paid for out of a portion of the annual allocated one-cent Iowa sales tax, or the Secure and Advanced Vision for Education – or SAVE – revenue the district collects. The district’s annual SAVE revenue is approximately $2.6 million.

The district could seek a revenue bond to cover the cost of constructing a pre-fab building on a parcel of land the district owns northeast of the high school to house kids place, the innovation center and the district’s central office.

Embray estimates a 35,000 square foot building would cost between $5 and $6 million and take 12 to 18 months to construct.

A revenue bond would not require voter approval, but the district would have to gain approval from voters to extend its related Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS) to issue a revenue bond.

The district’s current RPS, which governs its ability to allocate SAVE funds for projects ranging from HVAC and roof repairs to its 1-to-1 technology program, expires in 2031.  The RPS can be extended to 2051 but would require voter approval.

A vote on the RPS would have to occur in March of 2024, meaning the district has a short window to decide if they will put the measure to public approval.

Embray said the district would be “transparent” on its intention to use the 15-year revenue bond to build a structure to hold the programing currently housed on the GRC campus and the new innovation center.

“If we passed it for another 20 years we could continue to annually fix and work and repair and purchase all of the things we’ve done and been doing with our SAVE funding,” Embray said. “We’re frugal with that. We try to hold back as much of it as we can in case, we need to do something or put money towards something that comes out of the blue.”

In November’s elections, thirty-five Iowa school districts across the state voted on and passed similar extensions, according to Embray.

In the past, the district has used revenue bonds to finance portions of the auxiliary gym at the high school and the activities complex. The gym is scheduled to be paid off in four years and the activities complex in six. Those two projects are included in the district's annual SAVE expenditures totalling $2.1 million annually.

Embray isn’t worried about voter appetite for a second attempt at a scaled back general obligation bond and a revenue bond so close to the previous bond’s failure.

“I think this could be more palatable for people,” Embray said. “Property taxes won’t be affected by having a daycare doing it this way. And I think that was a big thing for voters. A lot (of voters) felt like they shouldn’t have to pay for a daycare facility. With (using) sales tax it feels more like a choice.”

Embray did caution the district hasn’t zeroed in on any plan and more questions on facilities, the GRC campus and financing remain. But all options are on the table.

“I’m not sure there aren’t other options other than to just not do it,” he said. “And I don’t think that’s an option that sets us up for success in the future.”

The district has until the Jan. 8, 2024 regular board meeting to decide if it will pursue a voter-approved extension of its Revenue Purpose Statement.

Embray said the district did solicit a cost estimate to put the administrative building on its own power, which came in around $1 million.  He did not have official estimates for what getting on sewer and water lines could cost but did say that number is expected to approach an additional $1 million.

Embray confirmed in a follow up interview with The Opinion-Tribune, “The district will be looking at alternative plans that don’t include being on the GRC campus.”

The prospect of the power plant shutting down next summer was not on Embray’s radar prior to Monday’s meeting, adding, “We were led to believe we would have a new landlord, but the power plant would still be functioning for us until 2026.”

The district does have two, one-year leases on its current central office and Kids Place building, located at 103 Central on the campus, that runs through 2026. But that contract is also in jeopardy, according to Embray, is at the state’s discretion,

“Hearing they don’t know if they can operate the power plant July 1, 2024, let alone another year, rattled me a little bit just because we don’t have anywhere to go by July 1, 2024,” he said.
Embray hopes over the next few months the district and the task force can get a better understanding of how long the power plant can remain on and what its capacity is to be utilized for just the district’s needs.

“We thought for sure we were going to have a GRC building, and we’d be able to move into it and have our own power plant and water and sewer would be fine,” Embray said. “But then hearing the infrastructure for water and sewer may be compromised in the near future and they’d have to bring up new water and sewer (lines) the campus and that would be way more money than the heat and air. We may not have the money to do that. Those are the new ripples.”

Since Gov. Kim Reynolds’ announcement in April 2022 that the residential center that cares for Iowans with intellectual and developmental disabilities was closing, the state has been in discussions with the school district about maintaining its presence on the hill.
With that prospect appearing less and less likely, the district is already discussing its facilities options. One of those options the district could look at is an existing vacant building in the district for lease or sale.

“It would have to be big enough to hold all of our programming currently in this building, plus the new programming of the innovation center we’re expecting to start.”

Embray didn’t rule out splitting those needs among multiple buildings.

Another option, Embray said, is another bond issue.  In fact, two bonds – a general obligation bond and a revenue bond.

In November, voters said no to the district’s plans for a $40 million general obligation bond for a complete renovation of Northeast Elementary, including a new Kids Place wing, as well as improvements at West Elementary and Glenwood Middle School.

Under the latter plan, Embray laid out, the district would return a scaled back general obligation bond to voters in November 2024 that excludes the Kids Place addition from the Northeast renovations, saving the district $5 to $6 million.

A revenue bond is an alternative financing option that is paid for out of a portion of the annual allocated one-cent Iowa sales tax, or the Secure and Advanced Vision for Education – or SAVE – revenue the district collects. The district’s annual SAVE revenue is approximately $2.6 million.

The district could seek a revenue bond to cover the cost of constructing a pre-fab building on a parcel of land the district owns northeast of the high school to house kids place, the innovation center and the district’s central office.

Embray estimates a 35,000 square foot building would cost between $5 and $6 million and take 12 to 18 months to construct.

A revenue bond would not require voter approval, but the district would have to gain approval from voters to extend its related Revenue Purpose Statement (RPS) to issue a revenue bond.

The district’s current RPS, which governs its ability to allocate SAVE funds for projects ranging from HVAC and roof repairs to its 1-to-1 technology program, expires in 2031.  The RPS can be extended to 2051 but would require voter approval.

A vote on the RPS would have to occur in March of 2024, meaning the district has a short window to decide if they will put the measure to public approval.

Embray said the district would be “transparent” on its intention to use the 15-year revenue bond to build a structure to hold the programing currently housed on the GRC campus and the new innovation center.

“If we passed it for another 20 years we could continue to annually fix and work and repair and purchase all of the things we’ve done and been doing with our SAVE funding,” Embray said. “We’re frugal with that. We try to hold back as much of it as we can in case, we need to do something or put money towards something that comes out of the blue.”

In November’s elections, thirty-five Iowa school districts across the state voted on and passed similar extensions, according to Embray.

In the past, the district has used revenue bonds to finance portions of the auxiliary gym at the high school and the activities complex. The gym is scheduled to be paid off in four years and the activities complex in six. Those two projects are a part of the district's annual expenditure of $2.1 million from its SAVE fund.

Embray isn’t worried about voter appetite for a second attempt at a scaled back general obligation bond and a revenue bond so close to the previous bond’s failure.

“I think this could be more palatable for people,” Embray said. “Property taxes won’t be affected by having a daycare doing it this way. And I think that was a big thing for voters. A lot (of voters) felt like they shouldn’t have to pay for a daycare facility. With (using) sales tax it feels more like a choice.”

Embray did caution the district hasn’t zeroed in on any plan and more questions on facilities, the GRC campus and financing remain. But all options are on the table.

“I’m not sure there aren’t other options other than to just not do it,” he said. “And I don’t think that’s an option that sets us up for success in the future.”

The district has until the Jan. 8, 2024 regular board meeting to decide if it will pursue a voter-approved extension of its Revenue Purpose Statement.