Legislation designed to level the playing field for school districts across the state might have been driven by good intentions, but each district’s situation is unique and that also needs to be taken into consideration.

As part of the education package approve in the 2014 session, legislators expanded the local option program. Previously restricted to a handful of counties, the program is now available to every school district in the state.

Under the program, districts may collect up to $424 per pupil without voters’ consent. In fact, districts have to notify the state if they don’t want the additional revenue, which is funded by increased property taxes, or it will automatically be added to their levy.

The new legislation comes on the heels of the Student Achievement Levy, which permitted districts to collect up to $300 per pupil through an excess operating levy without voter approval.

The combined impact to the legislative acts is that districts would be able to collect up to $724 per student without the voters’ okay.

Lawmakers say the legislation addresses inequities in education because districts with tax bases and substantial property wealth are more successful in passing operating levies. But such reasoning ignores the fact the operating levies were rare before the state began tinkering with funding for schools. The state has started to address that issue by funneling more money into education, but it’s still placing a bigger share of the burden on local property taxes to fund this critical need.

Consider the case of St. Louis County, where district residents now pay for three additional levies besides the school’s regular operating levy. They’re paying for a nearly $79 million bond issue, and a $3 million lease levy in addition to the Student Achievement Levy, of $300 per student. The bond issue was narrowly approved by voters, but the board added the lease levy and excess operating levy on its own.

The impact has been dramatic. The St. Louis County School District now has a nearly $8 million levy, the highest of any school district in the region north of Duluth. Taconite tax relief and the extraordinarily high property value in the north half of the district help mute the impact, but it’s still noticeable to taxpayers.

Even so, St. Louis County School Board members are considering accepting some or all of the local option revenue available to them. There are projects, including improvements at athletic fields or the construction of a bus garage, that could be funded with those dollars, they say.

But there’s another way to generate more dollars for those projects without tapping taxpayers. Why not try cutting costs? The Timberjay recently reported on the extraordinary legal costs paid by the district, which has been in court with contractors and the public over issues that could have been settled for a fraction of the legal fees squandered on disputes it could have settle early on.

We’ve also been critical of the district’s extremely high administrative costs, which far exceed the average for districts of similar size.

Some judicious budget trimming would free up more money for projects and avoid having to make taxpayers take another hit to their pocketbooks.

Ratcheting up taxes without public input also strikes us as unfair. It eliminates a critical check from the system. Sometimes voters’ reluctance to support operating levies is driven by concerns over how a district has spent money, not because of their reluctance to fund education.

The fairness question takes on added dimensions in ISD 2142 when two-thirds of the school taxes are being paid by the northern half of the district while the southern half reaps the bulk of the benefits. ISD 2142 is a single district from South Ridge to North Woods, but the impact of any tax hike will still fall harder on residents in the northern half of the district.

What’s more, the district has already benefitted, along with every other school district, from the substantial increase in state aid approved by the Legislature over the past two years. Instead of constantly turning to taxpayers for more money, the board should be looking at what the district can do to spend the plentiful funds it already collects more wisely and to set priorities instead of checking off items on an expanding wish list. Taxpayers already have enough pressure from the county, state, city, township and other entities without the school district piling on more. We would strongly urge that the district opt out of the local option revenue.