PPEL debated at forum

By Sonja Young
Herald Staff Writer

March 03, 2006 10:30 am

— CLINTON — Both supporters and opponents of the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy aired their views during a live forum hosted by KROS Radio Thursday. The levy will be put before the voters on Tuesday.
Representing the Clinton School District were Superintendent Randy Clegg and school board members Jim Bruhn and Jim Tuisl. Opposing the issue were community members Dick McLane and Pam Pickens. KROS News Director Dave Vickers moderated.
According to Clegg, PPEL funds can be used for capital improvements — land and/or building remodeling or major repairs as well as school buses and technology.
“General fund dollars cannot be used for capital improvements. Only the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy.” Clegg explained. “But the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy, on the other hand, cannot be used for day-to-day operations such as utilities, salaries, textbooks and those types of items.”
Pickens said a lot of people don’t understand that the PPEL is two parts. “One is voter approved and one is board approved. The board-approved amount is 33 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation. That is in place whether we vote down the other portion or not. That is my understanding.”
Pickens contends with the board approved portion there is $2.2 million available to the school district over the next 10 years regardless of whether the voter-approved PPEL is passed.
“Part of my problem with the whole campaign has been if we don’t approve the PPEL the children will suffer, school buildings will fall down, roofs will cave in and that’s absolutely not true,” she stated.
She believes the board-approved $2.2 million will be more than enough to cover whatever breaks down. She said there is enough money for the roof, pavement and building repairs.
Both Pickens and McLane see huge problems with the middle schools they believe are not being addressed with the PPEL.
According to McLane, the 2000 Facilities Task Force identified $8 million of work that needed to be done just at Washington Middle School.
“To date, very little has been spent at Washington,” McLane said.
But Bruhn said over the past 10 years, PPEL has generated $7.4 million with approximately $1.57 million spent for repair work at Washington and Lyons middle schools.
“With $11 million of (current) needs and $6.5 million in PPEL funds available we have to prioritize and make some cuts,” Bruhn explained.
Tuisl said the development of athletic facilities is a priority if the PPEL is extended because no improvement has been made in CHS athletic facilities going back as far as Yourd Gymnasium, which was completed in 1960.
“After some discussion with our parents and several of our groups who have brought ideas to us, the board decided that we should be leading the charge as far as developing athletic facilities for our whole community,” Tuisl related.
The board has earmarked $2 million of PPEL revenue as seed money for that purpose if the levy is renewed.
Pickens feels there are a lot of needs not being addressed.
“To put sports facilities seed money at the top of the list seems a little irresponsible to a lot of voters,” she asserted.
But Bruhn said having quality athletic and physical education facilities is not only a safety and health issue for the students but it’s an integral part of public education and the community at large.
McLane also is concerned with the economic impact of the PPEL.
The levy already is in place and school district officials said there would not be increased burden on the taxpayers. A home valued at $50,000 would cost the owner $5.59 per year; a $110,000 home would cost $12.30 each year and a $190,000 home, $21.24 per year.
In regards to the income surtax, Bruhn said demographically, in Clinton the average gross household income is around $35,000 to $37,000, which through the 2 percent PPEL surtax would cost a resident approximately $30 a year.
According to Tuisl, most people on Social Security don’t pay Iowa income tax.
“It takes about $30,000 to $32,000 of income before they have to start worrying about income tax.”
In conclusion Pickens said “We have to take care of the buildings. We have to take care of all of the children first. And the sports facilities have to come in a distant second.”
Clegg noted that “shortchanging facility development today will cost you much more in the future.”