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

Another vote

FD school district will ask Feb. 5 for renewal of levy to maintain buildings, transportation

January 24, 2013

Well-Informed Webster People held a forum Thursday at Light of the City Conference Center on the upcoming special election on the Physical Plant and Equipment Levy....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jan-25-13 2:53 AM

As I commented in the other story, make sure to get to the polls no matter which side of the fence you are on here. The turnout the first time around was much more pathetic than the outcome of the vote itself. It makes our town collectively look uneducated, uninformed and apathetic.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 8:27 AM

How many times do the people of FD have to vote this down? Declining enrollments, increased per pupil spending,lower test scores prove to many that the current system is not working. Keep throwing money at the problems though!!!

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 9:21 AM

I think the St. Ed's and the college both pay to use the stadium so now using this to double dip?

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 9:39 AM

From what I understand, they "rent" the stadium -- but do they help pay for the maintenance and upkeep of it? Because that's what we're talking about here.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 9:55 AM

Just an observer, Dodger, but could you explain the difference? When I RENT my winter digs, as I do now, the rent also covers "maintenance and upkeep" costs of the owner.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 10:29 AM

I love FDSH but when it come to the stadium it is time that the school become a little less territorial. They ask for money to support it from the entire community but they will not allow St. Edmond or ICCC to place logos anywhere in the stadium as it is DODGER stadium. If I were from St. Edmonds or ICCC I might feel a little put-off being asked for money when they are charged rent and not allowed to even put a logo in the stadium. It's time that the stadium truely become a "community" asset: not just when it needs money.

6 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 10:53 AM

How much money was spent on the stadium that was supposed to be ONLY donations that has not been recouped yet. The district paid for the new turf before and are still waiting for all these so called donations to come in.

11 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 1:02 PM

Maybe its just me, but doesn't it seem wrong to vote for something that has already been voted on? Typical Fort Dodge politics at its finest!

10 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 2:05 PM

Okay while I am hesitant to vote for this levy I want to make a couple of things clear: The comments about this being typical "fort dodge" for ya...this happens everywhere not just here. 2nd it is DODGER stadium and yes they pay rent to use it and no it does not cover the entire upkeep. 3rd this money does not go to instruction, teachers, or curriculum, so while leadership may not be good it has nothing to do with the building themselves. Now you can vote to help keep the building working properly or not but don't bring others issues into it.

12 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 4:56 PM

Again, explain, Whatever, whatever do you mean by "entire upkeep"? When you rent for partial occupancy should the "rent" cover the ENTIRE upkeep or just a pro rata portion? Dodgers better get someone working on this that understands real estate management and basic math if they don't already!

4 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 5:25 PM

As a St Edmond parent i have asked about the stadium rental and as explained to me we pay for the actual costs incurred by the school district for the time we are using the facility. For instance the district staff that is required to be on hand for the event, the maintenance staff hours to clean up the garbage and bathrooms, a prorated estimate of utility usage for lights, etc. i can tell you compared to many other schools that rent facilities this is a very fair deal so please quit trying to make a case using SE as your victim Anderson.

12 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 5:26 PM

The upkeep of which you speak is what we pay as taxpayers with things like this PPEL tax. I will be voting YES.

9 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 8:17 PM

FDPS should have purchase ground farther south and set the School building far back on the land and develope along the street next to the shopping center for future fast food and retail. I have seen such done and it was a windfall for the School system. Realizing it would take FD longer to develope it would soon pay for what this article mentions

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 11:15 PM

PPEL is more about the school building upkeep and less about the stadium. It's also buses and computers, which don't really factor into the Dodger Stadium rentals. The rental charged for the stadium is separate from PPEL funds.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 11:19 PM

I think people don't realize that this vote is about retaining a tax that has already existed for over 20 years. The increase they're asking for is keeping with the increase of labor, building, and equipment costs in the decade since this PPEL fund was voted on last.

7 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-25-13 11:33 PM

You could've stopped at "I think what people don't realize" Mercury. Our voter base is horribly uneducated in this town -- yet they collectively vote like they have a clue. Comments on this site are often a microcosm of that.

5 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 1:01 AM

this vote is for our community. let's think about what it does for our community and for the new stuff coming to town. why build a new school.and not have the money to maintain it .. look at 5th ave very poorly taken care

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 1:09 AM

this vote is for our community. let's think about what it does for our community and for the new stuff coming to town. why build a new school.and not have the money to maintain it .. loocare

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 10:31 AM

No choice of just maintaining the normal rate? It's doubled down or nothing which just adds more confusion. They warn us in advance that this is still not enough. Every community struggles with making ends meet, but I doubt they have a second vote, double down, dog and pony show like this happening. There's financial dysfunction here but it lies deeper than what is being presented. No amount of money will solve it unless the root of the problem is found. This isn't about everyone kicking in a little extra for a good cause. When the domino’s start tumbling, it creates even more serious problems with the rest of the infrastructure for the entire community. The real estate market is already reeling from past raises to the already high property tax problem in this town.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 10:55 AM

You misconstrue, workhorse; my PRESUMPTION was that the rent IS fair, but partial occupancy would not include the complete cost of maintenance and upkeep, only a FAIR pro rata share - which takes a bit of calculation, I admit, but most Iowans - Dodgers included - should be capable of (or at least they were before federal politicos got so involved in our public schools). So relax, smile a little, and do MAINTAIN all that you have, for it's usually the wisest thing to do.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 5:12 PM

I'm wondering if this is voted down, if the school system is going try again before the deadline. If they do, maybe they should also inform the public how much it costing each time. How much, $12,000/each time. Where does the money come from 1.) General Fund (school) or 2.) WE (Tax Payer) pays for it.

They should manage/budget the school fund money better than what they're doing.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-26-13 5:47 PM

There are a lot of questions i have here. If its not enough why arent they asking for enough? This article sounds as though they are "threatning" to lay off teachers and not provide our children with a proper education if we dont vote yes and that doesnt get me all fired up to give them more money. I thought the new middle school was supposed to help operating costs? Is that not true?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-27-13 10:15 AM

Sharon- Regardless of whether this PPEL vote passes, teachers will be laid off. The district has to cut 2 million from their budget. I have discovered that our district leaders are not well versed in properly informing the public. The same questions are being asked and yet no answers are given. The fact that they refuse to answer the questions is the reason the vote did not pass the first time. Since the Messenger favors the district they should offer to print a Q&A where the superintendent answers all the questions being asked. If the district does not step it up the vote will not pass again.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-27-13 3:36 PM

I feel that we are being lied to or kept in the dark, i think alot of others feel that way too. I am not impressed with what they have done with the money they have had. I cannot believe we have no schools west of 15th street any longer. Its like we are shutting down half our city. School placement plays a huge role in growth and development of a town and they are holding us back. They want our tax money but not our input, they dont seem to be operating in the best interest of our city.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-28-13 6:12 PM

Riverside and Feelhaver west of 15th st?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 29 comments Show More Comments


I am looking for: