Yes on Question 2: But insist on other reforms to upgrade schools

Clark County Question No. 2 is only a start in addressing public schools in need of repair and renovations.

Question 2 would increase the property tax bill of a typical $140,000 home by about $100 per year for six years, providing a maximum of $720 million to the Clark County School District for capital improvements. It's a pay-as-you-go program, not a bond issue, so the school district would have no interest costs and taxpayers would take on no new debt.

It's a lot of money, especially in an economy that struggling to recover. But the school district has indisputable needs at many of its older campuses. Much of the money will be used to replace air-conditioning, heating, plumbing and electrical infrastructure that pose health and safety threats at some schools. Two elementary schools will be replaced, two new elementary schools eventually will be built, and about 20 campuses will undergo major modernization upgrades to better incorporate technology.

However, one of the main reasons the school district finds itself asking for a tax increase is its inadequate maintenance funding. Maintenance costs and personnel fall under the school district's general fund. Over the years, the school district has cut back its maintenance budget to preserve teaching positions, classroom expenses and other programs. As a result, the school district now spends $1.52 per square foot per year to maintain its buildings, said Paul Gerner, associate superintendent for facilities. That's an inadequate funding level that invites bigger bills over the long term. According to the Building Owners and Management Association, it costs about $2 per square foot per year to maintain a typical private-sector office building.

Although the school district has spent billions of dollars on school construction over recent decades, capital funds - including any revenue generated by Question 2 - can't be used for routine maintenance or other operating expenses. But general fund revenue, which is far more flexible, can be shifted to capital costs.

The state's school districts must go to the 2013 Legislature to address maintenance funding. It's not enough to simply ask for more money. Maintenance funds should be walled off in the same way capital funds are. That would prevent School Boards from short-changing maintenance, and it would stop unions from demanding that such revenues be steered their way instead. The Clark County School Board also should empanel a committee of business leaders to advise the board on appropriate maintenance funding levels and schedules. More maintenance work should be outsourced.

Some of the school district's most urgent repair and construction needs are at campuses that aren't very old. The district must do a better job holding builders accountable for the shoddy construction that has led to these problems. And if they're not finding success in pursuing claims against these companies, the school district should ask some of the private-sector law firms that specialize in this kind of litigation for some pro bono help.

Public buildings aren't supposed to have these kinds of problems because they're built with union labor at inflated "prevailing" wages. Yet they always do. It's one more reason for the Legislature to get rid of the "prevailing wage" law, or at least provide an exemption for school districts, a reform that could stretch Question 2 money nearly twice as far.

With so many steps to be taken beyond passing Question 2, why should voters approve the tax increase? Shouldn't the school district first get its house in order before we give it more money? Especially when there's no correlation between facility age and student achievement?

The reality is, if Question 2 fails, in the coming years the school district will end up diverting more general fund revenue to capital projects that can't be delayed. Already at many schools, classrooms are constantly disrupted by building problems. It is these potential funding diversions, which will result in less money for classrooms countywide, that will have a substantial impact on learning and student achievement. Vote yes on Question 2.