DISTRICT NEEDS TO GAIN VOTER CONFIDENCE

The Cape Girardeau School District is in the midst of a major building and renovation project. But the actual costs are coming in considerably higher than the estimates. The difference is about $5 million for the projects that have been contracted so far, and bids haven't been sought for some of the planned projects.

The district plans to submit a second $14 million bond issue in April for a new high school and additional renovation. In the months ahead, the district needs to demonstrate it has its financial act together as a way to instill confidence among voters.

Some voters may wonder how the cost estimates went so wrong. Part of the official explanation is that the district has done what was necessary to accommodate the education goals of the district. In other words, things were added that weren't anticipated in the 1996 master plan -- like new cafeterias for the elementary schools.

But the biggest difference comes with the new vocational-technical school. The master plan estimated the cost at $6.3 million. The bid was awarded for more than $9.8 million.

In fact, every renovation, new addition or construction project has come in higher than the 1996 estimate. As a way to hold down costs, the district has put three projects on hold: renovations to Franklin Elementary School, the existing high school and vocational school. Cost estimates for these three projects are estimated well over $1 million.

But even though the projects have come in well above estimates, the district has money to do the work. Part of this has to do with revenue the district gets because voters opted not to reduce local taxes as a result of Proposition C, which may have to help pay construction costs for longer than expected. Originally, the district hoped to move this revenue into program improvements fairly quickly. Proposition C was a statewide school-funding program in the early 1980s that required districts to lower taxes unless voters opted to keep the higher local levies.

The district's apparent deep pockets may be confusing to some taxpayers. Confusion arose last year when the district painfully cut about $1 million from its budget and then a few weeks later learned it was getting an extra $1 million from the state. None of the cuts were rescinded. The additional dollars went to boost year-end balances to comply with state mandates. But the whole exercise left a bad taste in the mouths of teachers and staff who received a pay freeze. It left many residents and voters wondering about the whole process.

As to the recent spending on school projects, inflation and a construction boom are also blamed. Overall, inflation has been extremely low for several years, but a construction boom has had the effect of increasing costs instead of making them more competitive. The district needs to find a better way of estimating projects so that voters can have more confidence in the numbers for a new high school and other projects still on the table.

The master plan adopted just months before the last bond issue election called for the following timetable:

Phase One (1997-2000)

Construction of a new elementary school and new area vocational school; renovations of Alma Schrader, Clippard and Franklin; renovation and expansion of Jefferson; closing of May Greene and Washington but with plans for other use; and renovation of the current vocational facility to house district offices, centralized maintenance and districtwide programs.

Phase Two (2000-2005)

Construction of a new high school; renovation of current high school and junior high buildings and closing of L.J. Schultz building.

In this phase, the master plan also calls for making the elementary schools strictly K-4, with a fifth- and sixth-grade center at the renovated junior high, seventh- and eighth-grade center in the renovated high school and grades 9 to 12 in the new high school.

The school district still has much work to do. The master plan would quickly grind to a halt without approval of the bond issue next April. The school board and administration needs to address these money questions head on. As the district constructs and renovates facilities, it must also build voter trust.