The Bowling Green City Schools Board of Education has taken its first step to placing two renewal levies
on the March ballot.
Both, however, will be for a continuing time rather than five years, which has been the norm in the
district.
At the end of an hour-long special meeting Tuesday night, the board unanimously agreed to ask voters to
support its 4.2-mill operating levy for a continuing time and to substitute its $1 million emergency
levy, also for a continuing time.
There were 42 people at the meeting.
School district voters last week rejected a 1.6-mill property tax that would have collected $20 million,
and a 0.25% traditional income tax that also would have collected $20 million. The funds would have been
used to build a consolidated elementary on the main Poe Road campus.
Both of the levies discussed at Tuesday’s meeting expire Dec. 31, 2020. The deadline to place an issue on
the March 17 ballot is Dec. 13.
Board President Ginny Stewart said it was a relief to have made a decision.
“It’s a lot of information with a lot of details,” she said.
Stewart said it was her idea to bring financial consultant David Conley back for a refresher on the
district’s options.
She said the district has never tried a continuing levy, but it has a 100% passage rate on other levy
renewal requests.
“I think it makes sense to do it this way for the stability and to free up some of this capital we have
and to get rid of some of the debt we have,” Stewart said.
By going to a continuing term, the district safeguards $3.4 million in revenue that in the past has been
renewed every five years. That money will be lost if these two issues are not approved in 2020.
“To do without any of this money would be a detriment to this district,” Stewart said.
At the end of fiscal year 2019, there was about $15 million in the district’s cash reserves, and of that
amount, $6.8 million was on hold to protect the district if any of its three operating levies are not
passed, Conley said.
By going with a continuing term, that frees up money that could be used and stretches out the life cycle
of needing new money, he said.
Conley stressed that despite the wording, neither tax will collect more than it is collecting now from
existing residents.
A $1 million emergency levy would gather only $1 million even as the district grows – and everyone’s
share drops, he said. A substitute tax will collect more as homes and businesses not previously taxed
are added, but there would be no change to existing taxpayers.
“It is not an increase of taxes to taxpayers,” Conley said.
“The most conservative position you could take is to just simply renew the taxes as they are today for
five years,” he said. “Just stay with the model you have. It would be the most familiar to the community
… but it does not address the issue of the repetitive coming back to the voters.”
If the levies are changed to continuing, they will always be in place, would eliminate voter fatigue and
protect the rollback savings, he said.
Both continuing options preserve existing rollbacks for residents, which has been a high priority as the
board has continued to discuss its levy options.
Keeping the property tax rollback — which is a 12.5% savings in property taxes for homeowners — would
require the renewal of existing levies, Conley explained. The state then reimburses the district that
same amount.
That rollback is paid by the state, but once a district passes a new or replacement levy, the rollback is
gone and the taxpayer pays 100%.
By going with continuing levies and guaranteeing that revenue stream, the district should be able to push
back when it will have to ask for new revenue. Right now, the estimate is between 2022 and 2024 for a
new-money request.
There are two ballot options in 2020 — in March and in November. But if either is not renewed, rollbacks
will be lost on any new ballot requests in 2021, Conley said, and taxpayers would pay more since they
would lose that discount.
Conley did warn the board about the confusing ballot language for a substitute levy.
“Shall a tax levy substituting for an existing levy be imposed …” is how it begins.
“It’s not a clear-cut ballot language,” he said. “In reality it’s a renewal, you’re just changing the
term.”
“It’s a renewal. No new taxes,” board member Bill Clifford said.
“We are going to have to, once again, educate the community through media, through board meetings and
maybe by a grassroots organization to get the word out we’re not asking for more money,” Stewart said.

Tracy Hovest, who was elected to the board on Nov. 5 and will start her new post Jan. 1, said she
approved of the proposed March ballot issues.
“I think it’s good for the district,” she said. “It makes sense and it’s no new taxes for the voters and
it’s looking ahead and trying to free up our cash balance so we can use it.”
By stabilizing the district’s revenue flow and not worrying about losing funds every five years with a
levy renewal, the district will be able to save more money to use on personnel, debt or capital
improvements, said board member Norm Geer.
Predictability, at least from the state, “is a wonderful term that we can’t presume,” said Clifford.
“That’s why we have to continue to have to look at our levies locally to support what we’re doing. Going
continuing would provide predictability in revenue that I know that the state … I don’t know what to
expect.”
He was concerned with educating the community to understand this is no new taxes despite a change in
language.
District Treasurer Cathy Schuller has been tasked with updating the five-year forecast showing how it
would look with these two levies being continuing. She will also look at the suggestions and show the
board where the stable revenue flow can best be used. This information will be presented at Tuesday’s
school board meeting.
“We don’t know yet,” Stewart said about where that money would be spent. “We need to take a good hard
look at where the money can be spent and where it would be best used.”
The board also has a 0.50% traditional income tax levy that collects $3.4 million and expires in 2022.
That levy was only briefly discussed Tuesday.