Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Back plant and equipment levy

February 3, 2013

It’s time to go to the polls to provide our town’s public school system with the resources it needs to keep an excellent educational system strong....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Feb-03-13 12:29 AM

I thought dropping Hilcrest, Riverside, Fair Oaks, and Phillips were supposed to cost saving measures. Why do we need to increase this again?

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-03-13 12:53 PM

Wonder what that FIRST $30 million would have accomplished repairing and updating the buildings Ft Dodge already had? Ivy League Universities are still using structures CENTURIES older than those Dodge abandoned. Didn't realize my kids were actually deprived. Cost savings, indeed, SharonO, how dare you?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 10:38 AM

Anderson, I'm not sure if this is correct on my part, but by the "FIRST $30 million" are you referring to the amount spent on building the new middle school? If I am correct, the funding source (Local Option Sales Tax money) cannot, by state law, be used on maintenance issues and the PPEL funds, which are property tax dollars, cannot be used for new construction, again, as delineated by state law. It is not one whole pot from which the school district can decide to draw for whatever reason.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 11:45 AM

I'm inclined to say that only Iowa could have such a stupid law, bullet, but then when I consider all the stupid laws an regulations Washington has placed upon what should be a free people, such stupidity must be endemic in politics. Thanks for the info, but lordy, such waste.

5 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 12:58 PM

Anderson, it is the system in which we must currently live and operate. How a school district uses money is closely regulated by the state. The amount of the levy of $1.67 is the maximum amount which can be levied under the PPEL. And even at that level, it will only generate about 40% of the needed funds for this area.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 4:59 PM

I understand, bullet, but why prevent use of such funds for maintenance when it is clear that needs of different districts may be quite different. That seems to be the typical one-size-fits-all mentality of centralized control. Now, expand that to the federal level in a country as vast and diverse in so many different ways as ours, and you have absurdity in spades, missing the mark as often - or more so - as hitting it. So Dodge has to increase other taxes now.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-04-13 11:40 PM

How dare I ask a question? I am confused. I thought that's what people did to become more informed....

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-05-13 12:21 AM

I think Sharon is upset that nobody directly answered her I will attempt to satisfy her quest for more information. Riverside is still a school in our district, known as the "Early Childhood Education Center" as it houses PK-K. Phillips and Fair Oaks are being replaced by the "new middle school". Hillcrest was dropped and Butler expanded. So the costs were shifted not avoided. The cost to maintain a new school is much cheaper than that of an old one. The cost to bring up Fair Oaks and Phillips to par was going to be about $50 million, and the cost to build the new one was $30million. The infrastructure needs yearly are near $4 million/year and the increased levy is still not enough to cover that. So the reason for the increase is to cover the ever rising cost of repairs. A roofer, plumber, electrician, etc, etc cost more now than they did 10 years ago and they will cost even more 10 years down the road.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-05-13 12:23 AM

So if it passes PPEL would generate $1.5 million/year and if not $300K/year. So lets put things into perspective...a $30 million dollar new middle school, a high school that would cost at least $30 million to build and lets just value the rest of the elementary schools at $40 million combined (very low estimate but I want to keep the math simple), which brings us to a total of $100 million in buildings. So if we don't pass PPEL there will be $300k to keep these up...and if it does pass there will be $1.5 million for this up keep. So what is a realistic figure to keep up a $100k house? Would you rather have $300/year or $1500? Don't forget in addition to building up keep from this yearly amount you will also need to up keep your computer, phone, and car. Now fast forward ten years...what is your house, computer, phone and car going to look and operate like? And now, what do you want your school system to look like in ten years?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-05-13 8:58 AM


0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-05-13 10:20 AM

Sarcasm, Sharon, that's sarcasm! With the sloppy way things in Dodge are run, were I a Dodger, I'd be on MY high horse most of the time, as well.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-05-13 10:18 PM

winner...winner...chicken dinner

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Feb-06-13 10:39 AM

AND 17% of the electorate decide...

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 13 of 13 comments


I am looking for: