The Seneca Valley School Board has a problem with the funding formula for capital projects at the Butler County Area Vocational-Technical School, and Seneca's reaction is expected to cost the vo-tech an extra $2 million in interest costs on an $11.5 million renovation and expansion project slated to break ground this summer.

Seneca Valley wants to pay a lower percentage of the cost of the project. Seneca's issue is with the current funding formula for major capital projects, which includes a component based on assessed property values in the school's member districts.

The funding formula for capital projects means Seneca is expected to pay more than a district with lower property values but similar numbers of students enrolled in the vo-tech program. The funding formula for annual operating budgets does not include a property value component. It is based solely on student attendance.

The funding formula for capital projects was agreed to by all participating school districts when the vo-tech program was begun. In 1997, the formula was modified and again agreed to by all districts.

While some might argue that funding based only on student attendance is more fair, others will argue that factoring in property values is fair because it is based on ability to pay.

This is the theory behind a graduated federal income tax as well as Pennsylvania's basic education reimbursements being higher for school districts with lower property values. These systems are based on the belief that those people with higher income or higher property values have a greater ability to pay.

Seneca Valley would prefer that the vo-tech capital budget funding formula disregard property values or ability to pay, relying only on student vo-tech attendance. If such a program were in place, Seneca would pay less, but other school districts would pay more.

Disagreements over vo-tech funding formulas are not unusual. Outside of Boston some communities are challenging the formula for how the Northeast Metropolitan Regional Vocation High School is funded, with some of the wealthier districts wanting to go back to a formula based on student attendance only.

And in eastern Pennsylvania, there is a dispute quite similar to what's happening here.

Both sides of these disagreements say it is an issue of fairness, but, clearly, it's about dollars.

Compelling arguments can be made for each approach to funding — including some component reflecting property values or basing participating districts' costs only on student attendance. Butler County's vo-tech uses both, attendance-based funding for normal operations but factoring in property values for large capital projects.

Seneca Valley should have been voicing its concerns about the capital budget funding formula well before this year's crucial votes on funding for the vo-tech project. By refusing to go along with the other districts, Seneca's actions will cost taxpayers in every member school district, including its own, $2 million more over 30 years. If Seneca had gone along with the other districts in approving the capital project, a higher bond rating would have resulted in lower interest costs for the construction-renovation bond issue.

The current formula has Butler and Seneca Valley paying roughly equal shares of the capital budget, despite Butler having about three times as many vo-tech students as Seneca. Still, the project is moving forward, but it will cost a lot more without Seneca's OK. And spending an extra $2 million on interest is a nonproductive use of taxpayers' money — it's a waste.

The normal vo-tech operating budget, which is based on student participation, is not at issue. Only the formula for larger capital projects factors in property tax values. After this major renovation and addition, it could be decades before the vo-tech again needs to deal with this issue.

Seneca Valley should reconsider its opposition and agree to go along with the existing formula. Seneca also should seek — and receive — an agreement that district superintendents will meet to consider another tweaking of the formula for future capital projects, as was done in 1997.

The actions taken, to this point, by Seneca Valley will cost taxpayers across the county more than is necessary for the important vo-tech upgrade and expansion. Given the strong reputation of Butler County's vo-tech program and the recognition of the value of a vocational- technical education in helping young people find well-paying jobs, every effort should be made to support this county's vo-tech program. Seneca's action is making a point, but will have a negative financial impact if it is not reversed.

Seneca's board should support the current funding plan, then make its case for an adjustment to the funding formula for future capital projects.