Cape's school finances

When the economy is strong, it is easy for school districts to manage finances. But when any number of financial factors suddenly shift, even the best of plans can be quickly thwarted.

The financial fortunes of the Cape Girardeau School District have had an up-and-down history for more than 30 years, once described as a "roller coaster" in this space. Here's a quick recap:

In 1967, district voters approved a bond issue for a new vocational-technical building. It was the last new building in the district until Blanchard Elementary School opened, more than 30 years later, in 1999.

A bond issue in 1976 for a new high school gym was the last bond issue to get voter approval until a $14 million bond passed, more than 20 years later, in 1997.

In 1992, 1993 and 1994, voters rejected proposals to increase the district's tax levy.

A plan for sweeping improvements in the district's aging facilities was born in 1996 when the school board, with assistance from special task forces, put together a plan for a bond issue for a new elementary school, a new vocational school and major renovations to other existing buildings, to be followed by another bond issue for a new high school.

The first bond issue and a 69-cent levy increase (30 cents for bonds and 39 cents for the general fund) were approved in April 1997.

Seven months later, the school board authorized borrowing up to $1.2 million to cover depleted balances due to deficit spending since 1995. The following March, the district said it needed to cut $1 million to correct the pattern of overspending.

In August 1998, the school board raised the district's levy by 3 cents. In August that year, estimates of the ambitious construction-renovation program were raised by $5 million, but officials said there were "ample" funds, thanks to the levy increases and earnings on unspent bond revenue.

In December 1999, estimates for the new high school rose to $25 million from $16 million. But district officials said the additional costs could be absorbed without a tax increase.

In April 2000, voters approved an $18 million bond issue for the high school. In December that year, the superintendent said a tax increase was needed to raise $22.5 million over five years for salaries and operational costs.

In July 2001, the district said it was no longer on the brink of a state takeover because of its low reserves. That same month, district finances got a boost when $1.8 million of state funds was released. The next month, voters approved a 58-cent levy increase that was to generate $19 million over five years. When district officials were urging voters to approve the 58-cent levy increase, officials said they hoped they wouldn't have to ask voters for another increase for five years.

Thirteen months later, district officials said they were considering a 6-cent levy increase to offset a decrease in assessed valuation. That proposal was later withdrawn.

Last year, the district said it needed to cut $2.2 million to balance the budget, but in December only $1.3 million of spending reductions were adopted.

Three years after voters approved the 58-cent levy increase, the district's newest budget anticipates more deficit spending, and officials say they may ask the board to authorize a 16-cent levy increase, which would not require voter approval.

Last week, the district entered into a $240,000 contract to correct heating and air conditioning problems at the 2-year-old Central High School building.

District patrons, particularly those who have supported Cape Girardeau's public education for a long time and have long memories, might wonder what's next for the district's financial roller coaster. They will, at a minimum, want good justification for any tax increase. As district patrons have repeatedly shown since 1996, any time the district makes a solid case for what it needs, the support is there.

A citizens committee was convinced last year that spending cuts were in order. Not all of that group's recommendations were adopted. Perhaps the district would be better served to revisit those reductions before adding more taxes.