We now know that Lawrence school administrators know how to sharpen their budget pencils.

Perhaps inspired by city and county commissioners who were working hard to keep property taxes down, school officials, who initially proposed a tax increase of about 3 mills, decided to take a second look at their budget figures.

What they found was enough to justify a slight decrease in the mill levy to fund local schools, which is good news for local taxpayers.

In the budget presented Monday, the district will proceed with a higher local-option tax levy needed to ensure it receives state funds to help pay district teachers. But it found more than enough savings in the capital outlay and bond and interest funds to offset the local-option levy.

After receiving less-than-enthusiastic feedback on a proposed 3-mill tax increase earlier this month, district officials zeroed in on the bond funds that are financing major construction projects, including the new South Junior High School. Because those projects had come in at or below the cost estimates, the district had been able to bank and earn interest on the extra money, according to Superintendent Randy Weseman. That meant the district could decrease its bond and interest mill levy to offset the general fund increase.

Although some taxpayers may wonder why this idea didn’t occur to district officials in the first place, we probably should just be pleased that the resulting tax proposal came a little late rather than never.

District officials took a look at other funds because they thought it was vital to preserve the general fund increase. The state requires local districts to maximize their “local option” tax levy in order to receive cost-of-living funds to supplement teacher salaries. For Lawrence, that means a local tax levy that’s equal to 30 percent of its general fund budget. State lawmakers came close to raising that figure to 31 percent in the last session, Weseman said, which would have meant an even higher local tax match.

School finance is complicated, but forcing school districts to raise local tax levies in order to access state taxpayer money seems like a questionable strategy. State and local governments should be working together to lower property tax levies rather than forcing them to increase.

At any rate, the message that property taxes are high enough seems to be getting through to local officials. Perhaps school district and county proposals for small mill levy decreases in the coming year will inspire city commissioners to produce a similar budget-cutting effort.