Renewal levy on ballot

The levy renewal would maintain the operational status quo.
WARREN -- Voters in the city school district will see a 4.25-mill, five-year renewal levy on the May 2 ballot.
First passed in 1986 and since renewed four times, the levy brings in almost $1.9 million a year for routine operating costs the district incurs for such things as salaries, curriculum materials, books and utilities. It costs the owner of a $50,000 house about $65 per year.
"We just feel a sense of responsibility, not only to current generations, but to future generations, in terms of making sure that they have a quality education," said Kathryn Hellweg, schools superintendent.
"Every day, all of us benefit from the education that our children are receiving today in terms of the quality of life in our community. Children who are in school now are going to be the future leaders in our community," Hellweg said.
"A vote for the levy is a vote in support of our kids, and it's a vote to continue to provide the quality programs that we have in the Warren City Schools," she said.
Restrictions
The May 2 levy will not pay for any new school construction, she said. The local share of the schools construction project comes from an unrelated bond levy passed in November 2003. The bond levy money can't be used to fund day-to-day operations, Hellweg said.
"We're being asked as a district to do more, and we're not really asking for any more money," Hellweg said, adding that the proposed renewal would raise the same amount of money as the levy did in 1986.
Given current economic conditions in the Mahoning Valley, Hellweg said it wouldn't be prudent for the district to seek new tax revenue. The district has not asked the voters for any new operating revenue since 1994, Hellweg said.
School officials have been good stewards of monies entrusted to them, she said. "In a time when most school districts are having extreme difficulty financially, the Warren City Schools are fiscally very sound," she added.
But, if the levy fails, the district would be short nearly $1.9 million in annual operating funds and would have to make cuts accordingly, Hellweg said. "You can't spend what you don't have," she concluded.