State Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, in taking aim at the Seneca Valley School District’s application for a waiver to allow a big 2012-13 property tax increase without voter approval, also is focusing overdue attention on the weak tax-reform law that would permit the increase.

Under the law in question — Act 1 of 2006 — Seneca Valley is permitted to impose up to a 2.11-mill tax hike for the coming fiscal year, which begins July 1, without a voter referendum. However, a tax hike well above that rate — without voter approval — is one of the options being considered by the district, thanks to a lenient provision in the law.

The district projects a $4.8 million budget deficit when the current fiscal year ends on June 30. The district reportedly will have a fund balance exceeding $8 million that could erase that deficit without the need for a higher tax rate. However, the school board prefers not to draw down the fund to that extent, keeping that money as a safety net for future needs.

The state Department of Education would rule on the exemption, if Seneca Valley moves forward with its request.

Metcalfe has labeled the district’s attempt to avoid a referendum Seneca Valley’s “latest scheme” to raise taxes rather than make the tough decisions to balance next year’s budget.

Act 1, which was signed in June 2006 by former Gov. Ed Rendell, has done virtually nothing to give voters a voice regarding higher-than-inflation-rate tax increases. For the current fiscal year, all 228 Pennsylvania school districts that applied for referendum exceptions were granted a waiver, although some ended up not actually needing to raise taxes to the extent originally anticipated, or not at all.

Even a measure signed into law last June 30 by current Gov. Tom Corbett, reducing to three from 10 the number of permitted exceptions to the law’s requirement for a voter referendum for tax increases above the cost of living, carries minimal benefits to property owners.

That’s because, as the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition notes, the three remaining exceptions account for most of the waivers that the Education Department has approved.

The coalition is dedicated to equitable tax funding of schools in the commonwealth.

The three exceptions that remain are special education costs that increase by more than the cost-of-living index; increases in retirement payments, fallout from the General Assembly’s unconscionable 2001 pension grab, which Metcalfe downplays; and school construction.

Metcalfe’s lobbying against an exemption for Seneca Valley — by way of a letter to Corbett asking the governor to reject it — raises another important fact:

If school boards are going to be virtually asssured of getting a referendum waiver anytime they seek one, there’s no reason for Act 1 to be on the books.

Metcalfe asked Corbett to “strongly encourage your administration to carefully scrutinize” what he termed Seneca Valley’s “latest maneuver” to raise taxes without a referendum.

If Act 1 isn’t going to allow district voters to rule on an above-inflation-rate increase, as the law provides, the law should be stricken from the books, ending the illusion of voters having a voice.

Unfortunately, Act 1 has proven to be a sham.

As long as Act 1 remains in effect, Seneca Valley voters should be allowed to rule on whatever big tax increase the school board chooses. So should voters in other districts.

Taxpayers must live within their means; why not school districts?

Metcalfe is right to address the issue, but the lawmaker also should acknowledge state government’s role in school dis-tricts’ budget problems, particularly the costly impact of the 2001 pension boost — an impact that is destined to worsen, not get better.