Opposition forms to Cedar Rapids school district Sept. 10 tax levy vote

NOTE: Early voting on the 10-year PPEL extension begins Aug. 21 at the Linn County Public Service Center, 935 Second St. SW. Office hours are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday-Friday. See more information about the election on the Linn County Auditor’s website.

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa – Some of the driving forces behind the defeat of last year’s Cedar Rapids Community School District bond referendum are drawing attention to the district’s upcoming Sept. 10 Physical Plant and Equipment Levy vote.

Dean Soenksen, who was among opponents to speak out against the $220 million bond referendum that failed last November, said he and others are questioning how the district has managed its funds and plans to vote against the measure, known as PPEL, on Tuesday, Sept. 10, 2024.

Soenksen, a semi-retired truck driver, and his wife have three adult children who attended both private and public schools in Cedar Rapids and Marion, who describes himself as a concerned Cedar Rapids taxpayer.

“PPEL is for maintenance,” Soenksen said, citing what school district officials are touting to convince voters to renew the levy. “But the PPEL money isn’t being used for what it should be used for and they’re not using the money they have now wisely.”

He pointed to the school district’s use and proposed use of more than $100 million in Secure an Advanced Vision for Education, or SAVE funds, that have or will go to building new elementary schools, without voters having a say in the use of those funds.

Both PPEL and SAVE have the same purposes for school infrastructure, which means the district could use SAVE funds for maintaining buildings, without having to go to the taxpayers, but the school board has used the money without taking the construction of new schools to the voters as other districts do, he said.

Soenksen cited structural problems at Taft and Harding middle schools that arose right before last year’s bond vote that should have been addressed before they became safety issues, as well as the use of PPEL funds for demolition and for rent and upgrades to the Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance building, which the district does not own.

He also questioned the sale price of Garfield Elementary School, which the district sold to a developer for far under its assessed value, despite a higher offer from a private school, as well as the five approved new elementary schools – three of which have been completed – with each now expected to cost $30 million.

Read more: School Board rejects higher offer for Garfield Elementary

“It’s mismanagement of the money,” Soenksen said, pointing to meetings that focus on new buildings, rather than curriculum or other educational priorities. “All they care about are jobs, they don’t care about education.”

Despite touting a need for transparency, earlier this year, the School Board dissolved its Master Facility Plan Oversight Committee, which reviewed uses of PPEL funding and other matters related to spending on facilities.

Last year, the School Board overturned a task force recommendation to update Harrison Elementary, and instead voted to demolish the historically significant school, a decision cited by a number of residents during a survey seeking reasons for the overwhelming defeat of the $220 million bond referendum.

Though promised, the district has still not made public the survey responses, many of which cited lack of trust in the School Board in voting against the referendum.

And just last week, the board scheduled a “special” meeting, posted just two days before the meeting was held, in which they voted to demolish Van Buren and Hoover elementary schools to build two new schools.

Related: School District proposes two new schools

If approved – the PPEL measure only requires a majority vote, as opposed to the 60 percent approval needed to pass a bond referendum – property owners would pay $1.34 per $1,000 in taxable property valuation for the next 10 years.

“We have heard no objections to renewing PPEL,” the Gazette editorial board wrote in endorsing renewal of the PPEL, but Phil Krejci, another opponent to last year’s bond referendum, questioned that statement.

Krejci has sent two letters to the editor, citing his opposition to the PPEL extension, neither of which has run in the newspaper.

He noted that district leaders give misleading statements in promoting PPEL, by failing to note that if the levy expires, property taxes would actually be lowered.

To earn his vote, Krejci said the School Board needs to preserve Harrison Elementary and Wilson Middle School, and to be forthcoming about where it wants to build a new middle school.

“In a former facilities master plan the board showed a cost for the school and a price for the land where it would be built, so it knows where it will be built,” he wrote. “The board doesn’t want to tell us. Don’t you want to know why? So do I. The board’s dishonesty should not be rewarded with a yes vote in September.”

Opposition to the PPEL vote is a grassroots effort, Soenksen noted.

“There’s no formal group,” he said. “There’s just concerned citizens about fiscal responsibility.”