Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance Levy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge approval of Bowling Green operating levy, warn cuts would take effect in 2026 if it fails
Summary
At the Feb. 18 Bowling Green City School District board meeting, two residents urged voters to approve a May operating levy, saying the district has not received new operating dollars since February 2010 and that proposed cuts would take effect in 2026 if voters reject the levy.
At the Feb. 18 meeting of the Bowling Green City School District Board, residents Amy Simmons and Brenda Fite urged voters to support an operating levy on the May ballot and warned that proposed staffing and program cuts would begin in 2026 if the levy fails.
Amy Simmons, a Bowling Green resident at 421 Millwood Drive, told the board, “I appreciate the transparency that this group has offered our community.” Simmons asked the board to indicate if a set of facts she read were inaccurate. She listed that a bond levy to build a new high school is separate from an operating levy that pays day-to-day expenses; that the two funding sources cannot be cross-utilized; that voters have not approved new operating dollars since Feb. 2010; and that the board does not have to pay to place an operating levy on the May ballot. Board members signaled agreement with her statements during the public-comment exchange.
Brenda Fite, a parent and Bowling Green resident at 707 McKinley Drive, said she has returned to the community recently and urged residents to focus on current needs rather than past grievances. “Every day I see the benefits that sports and choir in particular provide to my son and to his teammates and friends,” she said, and added, “We can vote yes on the levy, and we can demand our state legislators do better for our public schools.” Fite said the high school building project is a separate, large expense that cannot be used to cover operating costs such as teachers, coaches, bus drivers, nurses and counselors.
Both speakers emphasized that bond proceeds intended for construction cannot be legally repurposed for operating costs, and they urged community support for the operating levy. Speakers also noted school funding pressure from the state level and encouraged residents to contact state lawmakers about school funding priorities.
No formal board action on the levy was recorded on the public record during the portion of the meeting covered by the transcript; the comments were part of the meeting’s public-comment period.
The public comment period also included recognition of student winners in a safety calendar contest earlier in the meeting, and the board later moved into an executive session on personnel (see separate article).
