Our view: Measure A a big issue after the vote

In a curious reversal of the norm, the school district's $25 million bond levy seems to be generating more controversy after the election than it did before the Nov. 4 vote.

There was no organized opposition to Measure A while a $30,000 campaign was mounted in its favor. No one even bothered to put a contrary statement in the local voters' pamphlet, although one sitting board member and one board candidate spoke openly about their opposition.

The levy garnered 57.6 percent of the ballots cast. But since then, if letters to the editor are any indication, the opposition has belatedly hit its stride. The critics fall into two camps, and the School Board should pay attention to both of them.

The first is comprised of those who seemingly weren't paying attention before the election and are only now discovering that a property tax increase is in the offing. It would be easy to dismiss such 13th-hour discourse as sour grapes, if not for the fact that voters have approved this measure at a time of great economic difficulty. As the financial news worsens, even Measure A supporters who studied the issue before casting their ballots may be gulping at the prospect of paying an additional $55 for every $100,000 of assessed valuation on their property.

That doesn't mean the School Board should reverse course and not issue bonds for the district's construction and maintenance projects. But it does underscore the need for a conservative approach that maximizes efficiency and tackles only work that is truly necessary.

Which brings us to the second category of newfound Measure A critics: those who believe School Board members are already messing up by not ensuring they hire local, or who believe the wrong projects are moving to the top of the to-do list. Or both.

Certainly every dollar of the bond levy that can appropriately be spent on local labor should be — from architectural design to pounding nails. After all, one of the selling points of Measure A was that its projects would boost the local economy while improving school facilities.

Architectural design obviously comes at the front end of this work, and the School Board appears to be focused on two out-of-town firms. District officials did advertise locally for bids, and have discussed the needed work with one or more local architects. When a final decision on awarding initial architectural contracts is made next month, the district owes the public a clear explanation of how it came to its decision. Hiring local is preferable where prudent, but there may be logical reasons to look elsewhere in some cases to ensure taxpayers get the best deal.

There's also been some Monday morning quarterbacking over the School Board's stated inclination to use some bond money early on for fencing and an underground sprinkler system at Del Norte High School. Jay Chernak wrote in an opinion piece Tuesday that he would come to regret his "yes" vote on Measure A if "you throw away this money on lawns and fencing trying to make the schools look pretty."

We disagree with Chernak on that point. Some of this money should be used to make the schools look "pretty," if that means sensible measures to improve the appearance of the buildings and the grounds. The physical state of our schools is a source of community pride. It's also an important means of evaluation for potential newcomers to the area, including employers and much-needed professionals such as doctors.

Board members also have indicated they'd like to move early on construction of a gymnasium at Smith River School. That community has long sought its own school gym and supported it with myriad fundraisers. The district would do well to place this project high on its priority list.

A delicate balance is needed right now in which we carefully monitor but don't micro-manage the school district's moves to start selling bonds and get projects rolling.