Garfield Heights board to pursue November renewal after narrow levy loss

The Garfield Heights City School District board signaled on May 12 that it will pursue a renewal levy in November after a recent renewal attempt lost by about 48% to 52%.

District leaders said the proposed measure would be a renewal, not a new tax, and that the language is expected to mirror prior ballot wording. "We fell short, and it was pretty close, 48 to 52%," said Dr. Reynolds, a district official, describing the recent vote. Board members said they plan more community outreach — including videos and "coffee and conversations" — to explain that the levy is intended "to keep the lights on."

The discussion placed the levy decision in the context of the district's broader finances. Board members said Garfield Heights has not asked for new local tax money since 2012 and that traditional levy cycles run roughly every five years. Officials described a pattern of one-time federal and other funds used for facilities and pointed to efforts to cut recurring expenditures: "Our spending that we've been doing actually, we've cut spending about $2,500,000 over the last 3 years," an administrator said.

Levy mechanics and related budget items were discussed. Staff said the district expects to propose establishing an "035" severance fund to hold obligations for teacher severance payments so those liabilities are not counted against the general fund cash-balance cap. A district official explained the 30% cash cap applies to general fund balances and that the 035 fund is "only for severance costs." The board was told an average teacher severance could be about $50,000 and that documenting transfers into 035 would show a plan for paying severance obligations.

Officials also outlined near-term budget items the board will address: a May 19 five-year forecast presentation, workbook approval, and transfer resolutions in May and June to clean up grant funds and move money into the 035 fund. On levy sizing, staff said they expect the millage to remain similar to the previous measure and suggested it would likely be about 9.8 mills, though the exact ballot language and figures would depend on state procedures.

Board members emphasized outreach to reduce confusion about ballot language and how the levy rate is presented (per $100,000 rather than per $1,000 under current state formatting). They asked staff to prepare explanatory materials, and the board indicated it would move forward to place a renewal measure on the November ballot.

The discussion was informational; no final levy resolution or ballot placement vote was recorded at the May 12 session. The board agreed to return with formal resolutions and explanatory materials at subsequent meetings.