Although provisional ballots are unlikely to alter the outcome of Tuesday’s school election, the closeness of the vote sends a powerful message on behalf of local taxpayers.

When counting was completed Tuesday night, a proposal to raise the Lawrence school district’s local option budget to the maximum allowed by state law was approved by just 53 votes. The election was characterized as “too close to call” because the validity of about 74 provisional ballots was yet to be determined. That will happen when the vote is canvassed on Friday, but the chances are slim that those ballots will be so unevenly divided that they swing the election to reject the tax increase.

Nonetheless, local taxpayers made their voices heard. The turnout was low, only about 11.6 percent. Such a low turnout usually is presumed to mean that most of the voters were either strong proponents or strong opponents of an issue. The proponents, in this case, most likely were those who can and do support local schools at almost any cost. The opponents were those who probably support local schools but were pushed one step too far by the school board’s continued insistence on maxing out its authority to levy local property taxes.

The tax increase would amount to about $14 a year for the owner of a $200,000 house. That is a relatively small amount. However, to say, as our school board president did after Tuesday’s vote, that “I would think the students would be worth a cup of coffee a month,” simply misses the point.

Tuesday’s negative vote was less a rejection of a small tax increase than it was a protest of a local school district property tax levy that rose by almost 11 mills between 2004 and 2007. It was an indication of concern that just about half of our local property tax levy goes to the school district and that nearly 70 percent of the local tax base is made up of residential properties. Voters were trying to tell the school board that enough is enough.

It is true that the local school district isn’t entirely to blame for this situation. Property tax is the only way for the school district to raise revenue, and increased dependence on local taxes has been forced on many districts by the decisions of the Kansas Legislature, as well as underfunded mandates ordered by federal officials.

Among the concerns voiced before Tuesday’s election was the disconnect between the district having $2.4 million to spend on improving athletic fields while seeking a tax increase to provide adequate salary increases for teachers. The fact that state law doesn’t allow the $2.4 million to be directed to salaries just seems wrong and like the district either isn’t using, or isn’t being allowed to use, taxpayer money to the best advantage. That makes it even more distasteful for many taxpayers to pony up even a few additional tax dollars.

It is unfair to portray those who voted against the levy increase as grouchy cheapskates who don’t care about teachers, schools or students. Most likely, they care passionately about all three, but they also have concerns, legitimate concerns, about how their money is used and their ability to pay ever-increasing property tax bills. Tuesday’s vote is an indication that their concerns are growing and that school board members and state legislators would do well to pay attention.