ICCSD Forecasting · unofficial analysis

ICCSD financial-KPI scorecard

ICCSD vs. its own board targets and large Iowa peers

Key indicators required by board policy 701.5R1 – Financial Metrics (adopted 12/12/2023), scored against the board's own target ranges and the large-Iowa-district peer set. Source: ICCSDAdvocacy benchmarking (audited ACFRs + Iowa DOM filings).

FY2024–FY2025 ICCSD ACFRs are not yet issued, so audited solvency, fund balance, and GO debt for those years are unavailable. UAB and enrollment (state filings) run through FY2025.

Want to check the math? The source-trace report recomputes every number below from its raw audited components and links each one to the primary source document (ICCSD ACFR / Iowa DOM filing).

ICCSD trend vs. board targets

Policy 701.5R1 sets explicit targets for solvency and UAB (below); two further targeted commitments — total GF balance vs. unspent authority, and the categorical-net UAB — plus the reported enrollment indicator and the statutory debt limit follow in the next sections.

Fiscal yearSolvency ratio %UAB ratio %Operating margin %
Board target (701.5R1)10–15% (≥5% floor)5–10%
FY20204.211.17-1.98
FY20216.351.682.89
FY20222.820.12-2.76
FY20232.45-1.210.77
FY20241.64
FY20252.31

FY2025 UAB ratio — ICCSD vs. large Iowa peers

RankDistrictUAB %
1Waukee CSD29.87%
2Burlington CSD28.51%
3Pleasant Valley CSD22.83%
4Johnston CSD20.66%
5Muscatine CSD20.49%
6Davenport CSD18.59%
7Des Moines Independent CSD18.14%
8College CSD (Prairie)14.14%
9Ankeny CSD14.01%
10Cedar Rapids CSD12.96%
11Dubuque CSD11.08%
12West Des Moines CSD11.00%
13Linn-Mar CSD10.27%
14Waterloo CSD7.54%
15Iowa City CSD2.31%

Peer median 16.14% vs. ICCSD 2.31% (target 5–10%). ICCSD ranks last of 15 and was negative (-1.21%) in FY2023.

Total GF balance vs. unspent authority — policy metric #4

Policy 701.5R1 commits the District to "a total general fund balance at least equal to its unspent authority" so it can cash-flow its full legal spending limit.

Fiscal yearTotal GF balanceUnspent authorityBalance ≥ authority?
FY2020$11.2M$2.0M✅ yes
FY2021$15.9M$3.2M✅ yes
FY2022$10.1M$0.2M✅ yes
FY2023$10.2M$-2.5M✅ (authority ≤ 0)

Read with care. ICCSD has technically met #4 — but mostly because its unspent authority is near zero or negative (the very problem the UAB metric flags). It is easy to hold more fund balance than authority when you have almost no authority left. As the forecast shows the GF balance falling toward ~$1M (FY2026), this cushion is effectively gone.

Enrollment trend — reported indicator (no target)

Policy 701.5R1 requires reporting the enrollment trend because funding follows the student.

Fiscal yearCertified enrollmentYear-over-year
FY202014,285.0
FY202114,571.6+2.0%
FY202214,283.8-2.0%
FY202314,395.0+0.8%
FY202414,439.8+0.3%
FY202514,378.7-0.4%

Enrollment has been roughly flat — about 14,379 in FY2025 vs. a 14,572 peak — sturdier than the statewide decline, but with no growth to lift per-pupil revenue.

General-obligation debt vs. the 5% statutory limit

Iowa caps a district's outstanding GO debt at 5% of the actual value of taxable property.