Bowling Green City Schools is asking voters to support an additional income tax to keep the district from making cuts to balance its budget.
A 0.75% continuing income tax will be on the Nov. 5 ballot. Passage would bring the income tax paid to the school district to 1.25%
The last time the district asked for new operating money was in 2010 and the funds from this continuing tax are needed to help keep the district operating in the black past fiscal year 2028-29.
“Fourteen years is a long time to go with not approving new dollars for operating,” said Superintendent Ted Haselman.
Social security will not be taxed, neither will welfare benefits, child support, workers compensation, or disability and survivor benefits. Wages, tips, interest and dividends, pensions, capital gains and IRA distributions will be taxed.
The 0.75% income tax is projected to collect $7.3 million in the third year and would allow the district to begin to offset its current deficit spending through fiscal year 2029-30 when the tax is projected to collect $8.5 million.
It takes three years for an income tax to reach 100% collection and the revenue fluctuates.
Last year collection of the current 0.50% income tax was down 3.1% but two years ago it was up 16%, according to numbers supplied by Treasurer Matt Feasel.
The school board voted to make the income tax continuing in order to address voter fatigue.
“We know this need is not going to go away,” Haselman said. “Five years from now, we’re still going to have the need for these dollars.
“The need is real, and our district cannot continue to have the same services we have today without additional operating dollars,” he said.
During the past 10 years, the district’s revenues have increased at an average annual rate of 1.75%. The costs of products and services necessary to conduct day-to-day operations have increased at an average annual rate of 2.42%, Haselman said.
The district started deficit spending and using its cash reserves in fiscal year 2022-23 and without new revenue, it will use up those reserves in fiscal year 2027-28 as it continues to spend more than it takes in.
Haselman said there were two ways to balance a budget: increase revenue or decrease costs.
Cutting costs “will definitely change the look of the school district in the ways we provide services to our students and families,” he said.
If it fails, “we’ll have to look very closely at (spending) because right now it will be pretty tight,” Haselman said.
Potential cuts usually come in the area of staff and student programming, he said.
Fiscal responsibility is one of the district’s highest priorities and expenses are analyzed and reviewed often, he said.
This operating levy is different than the bond issue approved for a new high school last fall. Bond levies pay for capital projects and cannot be used for day-to-day operating expenses.
This levy will pay for classroom supplies and textbooks, utilities, transportation and bus fuel, facilities maintenance and personnel costs.
To continue to provide the same services, the district needs these operating dollars, Haselman said.
In a video posted on the district’s website, Haselman pointed out the starting salary for a teacher in 2010 – when the last request for operating money was approved – was $33,306. Today, that amount is $48,051.
He also compared the cost of a new bus, at approximately $84,000 in 2009 to $134,000 today.
If the levy fails next month, Haselman said he expected another request in the spring.
Feasel explained if the income tax fails, the district will not collect $395,000 in addition revenue this fiscal year. Even with passage in the spring, because of collection times, he projected the district will not collect $4.8 million of additional revenue during the 2025-26 fiscal year.
The district is deficit spending at about $3.2 million this year, and without the new funds, the unencumbered balance is projected at $13.24 million at the end of this fiscal year.
Those unencumbered funds are exhausted by the 2027-28 fiscal year, when the district is $2 million in the red.
It is “responsible to (request funds) before we get in a situation where we have to make reductions,” Feasel said. “We can’t put it off any longer.”
About the income tax, “We need to get it passed, otherwise things are going to start falling behind and we’re going to play catchup,” he said.
The board of education debated a 0.25% and a 0.50% income tax but determine they wouldn’t collect enough to get the district to cover deficit spending. A 1% income tax would have generated an estimated $11.5 million and create a cash balance of $35.4 million in six years.
“That is not responsible. …” Feasel previously said.
“This is a need for the school district,” Haselman said. “It’s not a want.”
“I believe the students at Bowling Green City Schools receive a good education … and these operating dollars will continue to allow our district to flourish,” he said.
