This is an area where I disagree with you, likely a first for me since following your blog.
While I agree that using a bogus standard as a baseline is well, bogus. However, since all other districts in the state use that same bogus standard means that it really is the STANDARD, the BASELINE for comparison.
Seeing that most of us send our kids to public schools, then we are all subject to the same bogus baseline. Thus, the bogus or validated discussion, becomes irrelevant. What does matter is how OLSD's "cost to build" compares to other surrounding districts using the same standard.
Assuming OLSD is building at a rate lower than other districts, it is fair to advertise that as sound use of our tax dollars. We, as tax payers, would be subjected to that same bogus standard if we lived in Hilliard, for example. However, in Hilliard, we wouldn't see near the return on our tax dollars that we do up here in OLSD becuase they spend more frivolously than we do. Does that make it right or validate spending on Corian counter tops for example? I suggest that it doesn't. Does that make the standard "right?" I agree with you and say "No!" But we can't fix the entire Ohio High School Education Association and I can't afford Private Schooling. So my only option is to ensure that OLSD is getting more than everyone else for the same buck, which it seems they are.
So long as they continue to do that, we're winning the losing battle.
The problem is that as average costs rises locally and throughout the state, district costs can rise with the tide. And, in the face of costs rising at more than twice inflation, the district can claim that it is cost-efficient.
So, what to do? The district commissions a report that looks at cost drivers based on programs. The board reviews the report and presents the findings to the community. The board then uses the report to lower costs, and lower taxes.
Funny, the district did commission such a report; a report that was buried from board and community.
This report -- The State Standards Analysis Report (I uploaded most of it in prior posts) looks at costs by program. Now, there are problems with the report. It only addresses the operating fund, ignoring costs from other funds; costs associated with running a district (i.e. the cost of facilities is not included in (say) atheletic programs).
In addition, it does not apportion all costs to their cost centers (i.e. the salary of (say) the athletic director is not apportioned to the individual athletic programs).
Regardless, the report is a starting point.
What to do? Make changes. Look for ways to outsource functions, such as food service, transportation, custodial, etc.
Now, don't give me the "only public employees care about kids" line. That's like saying that the pharmacist at Wal-Mart is the witch to the local Hansels and Gretels (local children).
But, as long as you look to peer districts, and as long as you accept inefficient and wasteful state standards, the longer you will see rising tax bills.
In business, the rule is that when one store raises prices, others watch. But, when one store lowers prices, all lower the same day.
In government, the exact opposite is true, and will be true, as long as you allow the system to run by its own rules.
 Cost defined as cost relative to the taxpayer; increased taxation.