In late March, the Gorham-Fayette Board of Education voted to let the seven-mill operating levy expire. It wasn’t a unanimous decision. In fact, one board member resigned his post in protest.

Fast-forward to June and the issue is back on the table. Last week, two board members spoke about putting the issue on the ballot for voters to decide.

Superintendent David Hankins expects to see the first of a two-step process to begin at the July meeting when trustees vote on whether a need exists for the levy. Once again, the motion is not likely to draw unanimous support.

If the motion passes in July, and if the board approves in August a motion to go forward with the levy renewal, voters will make their choice on the issue in November.

When the decision was made in March, the board had just received notice of the $3.9 million settlement with DH Holdings regarding contamination on school grounds. With the large infusion of cash, the majority of trustees voted to allow the levy to expire as a way to return money to taxpayers.

But is this really something the board can afford to do? Is this a revenue stream that can safely be dropped? The budget forecast suggests otherwise.

In the fiscal year ending this week, spending exceeded revenue by about $100,000—the first deficit budget since 2002, the year the operational millage was approved.

Without the cash settlement, the district would have used up all its reserves just two years down the road. With the settlement figured in—after legal fees, bus purchases and $400,000 for features at the new school under construction—2011 is expected to be the final year before cash reserves run dry. At that point, there will be no more savings left to absorb year after year of projected deficit spending.

With a projection such as that, allowing the levy to expire doesn’t appear be the best course of action.

Those who favor expiration will explain their reasoning at the July meeting and perhaps they’ll garner enough support that taxpayers will get their break.

Perhaps we’ll be convinced of the argument, too, but for now, it certainly doesn’t seem like the time to reduce revenue. Expenses are likely to continue moving upward; revenue needs to follow.