Brad Hollerbach is the Director of Information Technology for the Southeast Missourian. His opinions are his own and do not reflect those of the newspaper or its editorial board. He writes this blog primarily for his own amusement and to parody the absurdities of the world we live in. He lives with his wife and two cats that don't really care for one another in Cape.

Upcoming Bond Issue Is All About Preparedness

Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 12:00 AM

WARNING: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG ARE OPINION AND POSSIBLY BORDERLINE COMMENTARY AND SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND WHILE THE AUTHOR DOES WORK AT THE NEWSPAPER HE DOES NOT WORK IN THE NEWSROOM AND THE FOLLOWING OPINION / COMMENTARY IS IN NO WAY A REFLECTION OF ANY PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED OPINIONS / COMMENTARIES OF THE NEWSPAPER EDITORIAL BOARD WHICH IS THE NEWSPAPER'S OFFICIAL POSITION ON ALL MATTERS WHEREAS THIS BLOG REPRESENTS THE AUTHOR'S PERSONAL OPINIONS AND REALLY DOESN'T MEAN DIDDLY TO ANYONE BESIDES HIMSELF AND WILL LIKELY NOT ALTER ANYONE'S OPINION ON THIS OR ANY OTHER ISSUE.

Sorry for the legal notice, but I felt I needed to include it when writing about the Cape Girardeau School Bond issue.

I already hear some of you groaning out there.

"Why's Brad writing ANOTHER blog about the stupid school bond issue? It's not going to change a damn thing. How about writing about the Bicycle Beer Bandit or the Happy Hobo Hotel?"

Why? Because to paraphrase Richard Pryor, "Bond issues are inspirational." OK, that might be stretching the truth a bit, but I do find the process and the specifics of this particular bond issue interesting.

And the big news is that I have seen the light and am no longer a doubting Thomas regarding this matter.

Next Tuesday's bond issue is a great thing for everyone in the community and if you don't vote in favor of it, well, heck, you just haven't looked at the proposal close enough.

You see, I have studied it closely and I've come to realize that a lot of this bond issue is about being prepared.

Part of the bond issue is for critical things like fixing roofs and replacing aging HVAC units and upgrading electrical systems. That's smart preparedness. A leaky roof can cause a whole host of other, far more expensive problems. I was in favor of those portions of the bond issue from the beginning.

But I was a skeptical about the need to replace Franklin Elementary, and the need for a stadium and 16 extra classrooms and an auditorium at what I was calling the Too-Small-High-School. I came to this conclusion after reading the district's 65-page Master Plan and looking at census data and tracking down old newspaper stories from previous bond issues and other various kinds of "research." I've come to realize that that kind of stuff is really overrated. I didn't talk to actual people or attend one of the public forums. That's where I went wrong.

And really these specific portions of the bond issue are all about being prepared. For instance, the 16 extra classrooms at the erroneously called Too-Small-High-School are for the day when the high school actually does grow. We will be prepared for growth and in the meantime, I'm sure we will put those classrooms to good use.

Forget the fact that the overall district has lost 184 students over the last 5 year or that the school age population for the entire city of Cape Girardeau is less now than it was in 1980. That's an anomaly.

And forget that the district's Master Plan indicates the high school should have between 160 and 200 square feet per student and currently is in that range at 175 sfps. Those are just numbers meant to flesh out these types of documents. No one is actually supposed to look at those things.

And ignore the fact we're not currently using a single temporary classroom trailer due to lack of bricks-and-mortar space anywhere in the district. That just goes to show we've been fiscally responsible and aren't frittering away money, renting trailers.

As far as the "all school auditorium" at the high school that will only seat 2/3 of the current student body, that phrase in the bond issue literature was probably just a typo. Mistakes happen.

And let's not even bring up the January 1998 River Campus agreement between the city and the University that would allow the public school the use of University facilities at the River Campus including Bedell Hall as well as other auditoriums on the campus. Don't even think about using any of those facilities to put on school plays. Besides, Bedell is really not that nice of a venue.

In regard to Franklin, we should all just count our lucky stars that the building hasn't already collapsed. She's old people, so get with the program! We need to flatten the building NOW while there is still time rather than wait for a trembler or some Oldsmobile with spinning rims and the bass cranked up so loud you can hear it in Jackson to do the old building in.

And as for the stadium, well, if you don't see how a bunch of bleachers and concession stands are pertinent to the education of our students, I'm not going to explain it to you.

Actually, that one still needs explained to me even though a poster by the name of Scott tried really, really hard.

Comments

View 4 comments or respond

Community discussion is important, and we encourage you to participate as a reader and commenter. Click here to see our Guidelines. We also encourage registered users to let us know if they see something inappropriate on our site. You can do that by clicking "Report Comment" below.

I don't understand how you could have been against it in the first place, Brad. Were you not thinking of the children?! If you are not thinking of the children, you are not thinking of the future, therefore you are evil!

Nevermind that there's excessive and unnecessary spending, that doesn't matter... if you vote against it you're evil and don't care about our future! The end justifies the means, if we can get a little money for repairs but also get a stadium and auditorium that help the community... somehow... why not?

-- Posted by almighty on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 9:10 AM
It's a real conundrum, Almighty.

A vote against the bond issue means you don't care about our future, but if you vote for the bond issue it could be construed that you don't care about the past (since Franklin will be replaced) which is directly responsible for the present.

And I guess since the majority of the eligible voters won't vote, that means they just don't care.

Thanks for reading.

-- Posted by Brad_Hollerbach on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 9:22 AM
Wonder how many people can name the school board members in the district where they live?

-- Posted by IonU on Fri, Apr 2, 2010, at 10:46 AM
Towards the category of "things that make you go 'hmmm' " and in the spirit of this blog on preparedness -

One poster somewheres in all this school chatter mentioned the need for a new bond issue for building every 5-7 years - which somehow called the few remaining brain cells into action -

DESE lists 8 school buildings for Cape - http://dese.mo.gov/directory/DIST.xls. Depending on how one figures the expected lifespan of the building - one could see the need for a new building every 7-10 years on average, given an expected lifespan varying between 50 - 80 years. Some things are classic, some things are just old.

However, IIRC - Schrader, Jefferson, the now Jr. High were all built in the 50s so that each are pushing 60 years old or thereabouts; with Hawthorn/Clippard and the now Middle school being built in the 60s so that each are pushing 50 years old, or thereabouts. Franklin is the old man of the bunch at 80+ years, with Blanchard and the high school being the young'uns at about 10 or so.

1) Is there a master long-range plan for facilities replacement, given that five of the eight buildings are in the afternoons and sunsets of their respective expected lifespans, with one being either right at dusk or in pitch-black darkness? Hope so, though haven't heard anything about such a plan. Given the discussion about one old school, trying to envision the future ensuing chatter whenever 3 - 5 buildings arrive at the same point at about the same time, where they are deemed 'not worth fixing'.

2) Given one possible outcome that the current issue passes, and it happens to cover all building/infrastructure needs and foo-foo frilly fluffster wants for the next 20 years - then what, given that three buildings will be pushing 80 years old, and two will be pushing 70 y/o? Shoot-far, even the two new kids on the block will be pushing 30 y/o then, and likely well-due for their first round of major renovations, roofs, and rehabs on the original core structures.

3) Given the average expected need for a new bond issue / building proposition every 10 years or so, what is the general wisdom with having a bond's term extend longer than this timeframe?

Be Prepared - the motto of the Boy Scouts, and perhaps not such a bad line-of-thought for other organizations - looking for ongoing sustenance beyond their next Happy Meal opportunity.

-- Posted by fxpwt on Sat, Apr 3, 2010, at 11:51 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires a subscription.