116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Home / Opinion / Staff Editorials
A clear and collaborative PPEL push
The Gazette Editorial Board
Jun. 13, 2014 1:00 am
Voters in the Cedar Rapids School District will get a second chance in September to vote on increasing the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy, or PPEL.
Currently, the PPEL levy adds 67 cents per $1,000 in taxable valuation to district property tax bills. The proposal on the ballot in September raises that to $1.34, the maximum under state law. The change would provide an additional $6.92 million annually for facility repairs and construction, transportation needs, technology and an assortment of other related uses.
Last September, voters overwhelmingly rejected the increase. The current PPEL expires next year unless voters extend it for another 10 years.
We're heartened by some of the changes the district is making in its approach to the issue and the special election. The School Board has dropped one confusing aspect of last year's plan that would have allowed some PPEL dollars to be raised through an income surtax.
Superintendent Dave Benson also said a citizens committee will be leading the charge, instead of the board and administration. We think that will be more effective than leaving the sales pitch solely in the hands of school officials.
We believe school leaders who say the money is needed. The list of repairs and maintenance was long last fall, and hasn't gotten any shorter in a district with several aging facilities.
But PPEL backers will need to be specific and transparent in explaining how the new tax revenues would be spent, and what happens if PPEL is defeated. What needs and projects are priorities? What are the educational implications of the levy vote, and how will these dollars figure into future facilities decisions? Voters will want to know what, exactly, they'll be getting for the larger tax bill.
Passage of a city local-option sales tax last fall after two failed attempts showed how better collaboration and clearer explanation can change the outcome. We urge the school district to learn from that example, and we're looking forward to learning more about its spending plans.
' Comments: editorial@thegazette.com or (319) 398-8262
Opinion content represents the viewpoint of the author or The Gazette editorial board. You can join the conversation by submitting a letter to the editor or guest column or by suggesting a topic for an editorial to editorial@thegazette.com