The Bowling Green City Schools Board of Education now has some numbers to go with a hypothetical
facilities plan.
The board met Saturday with financial consultant David Conley to narrow down the options on how to fund a
facilities plan, as well as get new operating money.
In a nutshell, each of the per-monthly options are less than the average cell phone bill, said Conley,
with Rockmill Financial Consulting.
He used the amount of $41 million for new facilities — stating that is more than the most expensive
option currently being considered.
A property tax is the least expensive option, as it is paid by 100 percent of district residents, he
said. A traditional income tax, by comparison, is paid by 70 percent (because businesses would not be
taxed) and an earned income tax is paid by roughly 50 percent (taking away businesses and senior
citizens).
The board needs to decide between basing its decision on the number of people impacted by the tax or the
type of taxpayer impacted, alluding to giving senior citizens a break.
“There’s no right or wrong on your approach,” Conley said.
Property tax is fairer, yet income tax puts the burden on more people, said Superintendent Francis
Scruci.
Conley used Bowling Green’s median home value of $161,300 and the median home income of $66,215 when
figuring facilities’ funding costs.
To raise $41 million through a property tax, it would take 3.4 mills for 37 years, and cost the median
homeowner $181.50 a year or $15.13 a month.
For a 32-year payment plan, it would take 3.47 mills and cost $196.07 annually or $16.34 monthly.
For a 30-year plan, the 3.6 mills would cost $203.15 annually or $16.93 monthly.
For a 28-year plan, the 3.75 mills would cost $211.47 annually and $17.62 monthly.
Scruci asked for the figures for a $35 million plan, which is more in line with the options favored by
the facilities task force.
That would be 3.07 mills and cost, over 30 years, $173.51 annually and $14.46 monthly. For 37 years, 2.74
mills would be needed and cost $154.93 annually and $12.91 monthly.
Conley also figured the cost for a tradition income tax for a $41 million project.
A 0.50-percent income tax would cost $331.08 annually and $27.59 monthly — or $10 more than the most
expensive property tax option. It would raise the total income tax paid by the district to 1 percent.

For a 1 percent earned income tax — which taxes wages only and tends to take the tax burden off senior
citizens — the cost is $662.15 annually and $55.18 monthly because it is taxing fewer people.
It has to be 1 percent, Conley explained, because the district would have to shift the existing
0.50-percent traditional income tax to an earned income tax.
Bowling Green currently collects $1,535 in property tax and $331 in income tax per property and person
based on those medians.
Conley made a comparison to Rossford school district, which has a median home value of $135,200 and
median income of $69,516, and is collecting $2,239 in property taxes but no income tax.
When looking at the affordability of living in each district — how much a resident is paying to its
school district — Bowling Green is at 2.81 percent and Rossford is at 3.22 percent.
In comparison, it is more affordable to live in Lake (2.50 percent), Elmwood (2.57 percent), Otsego (2.78
percent) and Eastwood (2.78 percent).
Based on the current property tax collection, Bowling Green is fifth on the affordability list for area
schools; adding the $41 million tax issue would drop that affordability ranking to 15th.
Conley also explored who pays income taxes in the district: by household income, the total number of
returns, and then the number of returns with senior citizen credit.
• 0-$25,000; 5,907; 729
• $25,000-$50,000; 2,961; 575
• $50,000-$75,000; 1,617; 345
• $75,000-$100,000; 992; 219
• $100,000-$150,000; 887; 210
• $150,000-$200,000; 281; 74
• more than $200,000; 239; 88
The lowest number likely is students, Conley said.
This becomes important when you start looking at income taxes and who will be impacted, he added.
He said that his goal for the board is to develop a tax that is fair and equitable for all taxpayers.
As for new operating money, Conley pointed out the facilities decision will impact that. The more
buildings in the district, the more it will cost to operate.
“We don’t have the answer to those questions yet,” he said. But, “everything you’re faced with is not
going to get less expensive.”
And even with the numbers, everyone has to remember there are kids in the picture, Conley added.
Board member Norman Geer contested the district’s ranking with the state among wealthy districts.
The math “is as simple as you can possibly get,” said Conley.
The state takes the total taxable property value ($667.27 million) and divides it by the number of
students (3,133). That puts per pupil spending at $213,005, making Bowling Green the 105st wealthiest
district in Ohio, out of 613. It does not take into account income.
Conley pointed out that the state, after being sued 20 years ago, is working on changing that formula, to
which Scruci just shook his head.
“There are clearly a lot of different ways to do it,” Conley said, but there is no appeal process for a
single district.
Another question was how much is the district currently paying for bonds.
The bond issue being paid off for the Performing Arts Center and other building renovations, passed in
2006 as 2.93 mills, is currently being collected at 2.32 mills. It will be paid off in 2034, Conley
said.
Geer said after the meeting that with everything he has learned, he has more questions.