There’s a new wrinkle in the state’s debate about school funding.

Johnson County voters on Tuesday passed a quarter-cent sales-tax increase that’s expected to raise $45.2 million for six school districts in the next three years.

That’s a big change. Since 1992, Kansas’ 303 public school districts have been funded by a statewide property tax levy. Currently, a formula defines all school districts will be paid $3,840 per student.

Until now, districts haven’t had access to local sales tax revenues because wealthy districts  those in Johnson County, for example  would benefit more than those in less-affluent counties, creating an inequity that many have argued would be unconstitutional.

The Johnson County tax, which passed 61 percent to 39 percent, challenges those arguments.

“This is really going to benefit the schools in Johnson County, and for them it’s great,” said Mark Tallman, assistant executive director at the Kansas Association of School Boards. “But, unfortunately, it’s only going to help these six districts, and that is creating some equity issues that I’m sure will end up before a judge  or judges.”

The six school districts are Shawnee Mission, Olathe, Blue Valley, DeSoto, Gardner-Edgerton-Antioch and Spring Hill.

The tax, effective Jan. 1, 2003, will be dropped from the books after three years.

School officials in Wyandotte County have said they will challenge the tax in court. The Kansas Constitution mandates that the state has sole responsibility for education financing.

“Our intent has not changed,” said Carroll Macke, director of public relations for Kansas City, Kan., district.

Alan Rupe, a Wichita attorney involved in a federal lawsuit challenging other aspects of the state’s school-finance formula, said he, too, might seek an injunction to block the tax.

“I’m alarmed by the prospects of enacting a tax that would widen the gap between rich districts and poor districts,” said Rupe, who represents Schools for Fair Funding, a group of 14 mid-size school districts.

But Johnson County officials insist the arrangement is legal and, if challenged, will be upheld.

“Our legal counsel is very comfortable with it,” said Johnson County Commissioner Annabeth Surbaugh. “And we went out and got a second, independent opinion that said pretty much the same thing. We’re told it’s legally sustainable.”

That’s because the sales tax revenues don’t go directly to the school districts. Instead, they’re to be collected by the county in the name of economic development.

That’s perfectly legal, said Ron Wimmer, Olathe school superintendent.

“I’m not a lawyer, but for there to be a lawsuit I’d think there would have to be damages,” Wimmer said. “At this point, I don’t see how anybody’s been damaged. We’re not benefiting at the expense of another district.”

Wimmer said he regretted the likelihood of the tax being taken to court.

“We shouldn’t be arguing amongst ourselves when, really, we’re all trying to meet the same objective, and that’s adequate funding,” he said. “But the argument I’m hearing is that ‘Kids in my district don’t have enough to eat, so your kids should be starving, too.’ I don’t see that being much of a solution.”

Macke said the Kansas City Kansas school district wishes Johnson County no harm.

“The stance we’re taking really isn’t against them,” Macke said. “Our position is that adequate funding for public education is a state obligation. And when we create a situation where a handful of districts are allowed to benefit from something like this, we’re letting the Legislature off the hook. We’re letting them say it’s OK that some communities are wealthier than others, that some schools are more adequately funded than others.”