NOTE: Early voting on the 10-year PPEL extension begins August 21 at the Linn County Public Service Center, 935 Second St. SW. Office hours are Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. For further information on the election, please visit 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 turning attention to the upcoming Sept. 10 vote on the building and equipment levy.

Dean Soenksen, who was among those opposing last November’s failed $220 million bond referendum, said he and others questioned the district’s management of funds and planned 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. He 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 is not being used for what it should be used for, and they are not using the money they have now wisely.”

He cited the school district’s use or planned use of over $100 million from the Secure an Advanced Vision for Education (SAVE) program to build new elementary schools without voters having a say in how those funds are spent.

Maple Grove Elementary in August 2024. The Cedar Rapids School Board voted without a public vote to demolish schools and build new buildings, including Maple Grove. (Photo/Cindy Hadish)

PPEL and SAVE both have the same goals when it comes to school infrastructure, meaning the district can use SAVE funds to maintain buildings without having to go to taxpayers. However, the school board used the money without consulting voters about building new schools, as other districts do, he said.

Soenksen pointed to structural problems at Taft and Harding middle schools that arose immediately before last year’s bond vote and that should have been addressed before they became safety issues, as well as the use of PPEL funds for demolition and to lease and upgrade the Cedar Rapids Metro Economic Alliance building, which is not owned by the school district.

He also questioned the sale price of Garfield Elementary School, which the district sold to a developer for well below its estimated value despite a higher offer from a private school. The five approved new elementary schools – three of which are already completed – are also now expected to cost $30 million each.

Read more: School board rejects higher offer for Garfield Elementary

“This is mismanagement of money,” Soenksen said, pointing to meetings that focus on new buildings rather than curriculum or other education priorities. “All they care about is jobs, not education.”

Despite all the emphasis on the need for transparency, the school board earlier this year disbanded its Master Facility Plan Oversight Committee, which had reviewed the use of PPEL funds and other matters related to facilities spending.

Last year, the school board rejected a task force recommendation to modernize Harrison Elementary School and instead voted to demolish the historically significant school, a decision cited by numerous residents in a poll seeking reasons for the overwhelming rejection of the $220 million bond referendum.

Despite promises, the district has still not released the survey responses, many of which expressed a lack of trust in the school board, which voted against the referendum.

And just last week, the board called a “special meeting,” the announcement of which was made just two days before the actual meeting. At the meeting, they voted to demolish Van Buren and Hoover elementary schools to build two new schools.

Related topics: School district proposes two new schools

Hoover Elementary is one of two schools that the Cedar Rapids school district plans to demolish and replace with a new building. (Photo/Cindy Hadish)

If passed—the PPEL measure requires only a majority vote, unlike the 60 percent approval required for a bond referendum—property owners would pay $1.34 per $1,000 of taxable property value over the next decade.

“We have heard no objections to the PPEL extension,” the Gazette’s editorial board wrote, supporting the PPEL extension. However, Phil Krejci, another opponent of last year’s bond referendum, questioned that statement.

Krejci wrote two letters to the editor expressing his opposition to the PPEL extension. Neither letter was published in the newspaper.

He found that county leaders made misleading statements in promoting the PPEL by failing to mention that property taxes would actually be reduced if the levy were to expire.

To get his vote, Krejci said the school board must preserve Harrison Elementary and Wilson Middle School and disclose where it wants to build a new middle school.

“In a previous building master plan, the board included the cost of the school and the price of the land it will be built on. So they know where it will be built,” he wrote. “The board won’t tell us. Don’t you want to know why? Me too. The board’s dishonesty should not be rewarded with a yes vote in September.”

The resistance to the PPEL vote is a grassroots initiative, noted Soenksen.

“There is no formal group,” he said. “There are only concerned citizens who are worried about their fiscal responsibilities.”