By JEFF PICKELL 

Despite the district’s deficit spending last year, and its projected deficit for the current fiscal year, the Gorham Fayette Board of Education has chosen to spare residents a tax hike by seeking renewal of its seven-mill operating levy.

During its January meeting Monday, the board unanimously approved a resolution declaring renewal of the levy necessary. While the move was merely a part of the legal process of getting the levy renewal on the ballot, the wording of the measure should be taken quite seriously.

It is gravely necessary that voters pass the renewal issue, more so now than when it was first passed in 2002. Last year, for the first time since the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the district reported deficit spending—about $100,000. Don’t expect this number to drop—it’s getting more expensive to run the district, and schools are losing greater amounts of funding from a formerly reliable tax source each year.

During an October meeting, Ohio Department of Education fiscal consultant Robert Miller reported that, districtwide, salary and benefit costs have jumped $600,000 since 2003. Additionally, expenses incurred by the district’s lawsuit against DH Holdings will continue to rise until a verdict is rendered or a settlement reached.

As the Commercial Activity Tax (CAT), continues to be implemented over the four years, the school will collect fewer dollars from the tangible personal property tax for businesses. So far, CAT money has been used to reimburse the loss of revenue, but county auditor Nancy Yackee said that probably won’t be a continuing trend.

“In the next couple years, I look for it not to be the full amount,” she said.

What does all this mean?

1) The district currently has a general fund balance of $1,043,076.

2) Miller’s report projected a $216,526 deficit for the fiscal year ending in June.

3) If voters don’t approve the levy renewal, the deficit will jump to $517,697 by the end of the 2007-2008 year, leaving the district with only $183,853 in cash reserves.

Without the levy money, the district stands to lose more than 80 percent of its savings in just two years.

If all goes well—if the district wins its lawsuit and the state adopts a comprehensive, favorable plan for distributing

CAT money within the next few years—perhaps residents won’t have to renew the levy again when it expires at the end of 2012.