Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Actions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
At a glance: Marion County school board approvals include calendar items, curriculum contracts and facility actions
Summary
The board approved a slate of routine and project items by voice vote, including agenda approval, graduation dates, acceptance and award of surplus bids, multiple contracts (including a $7.57M ATC construction contract), curriculum and professional development plans, and a motion to enter closed session to discuss proposed litigation.
The Marion County Board of Education handled a series of routine and substantive approvals during its regular meeting.
Key actions the board approved by voice vote included: • Approval of the amended April 16, 2026 meeting agenda. • Shortened school day approvals for designated students (items 19‑026 and 20‑026). • Marion County High School graduation date set for May 23 at 11:00 a.m.; another campus graduation set for May 22 at 6:00 p.m. • Acceptance of surplus weight room equipment bids and award of the surplus weight room equipment to Levi Hayden for $1,578. • Award of the Marion County Area Technology Center Renovation and Addition contract (BG25‑341) to Calhoun Construction for $7,567,125 (alternates 1–4). • Approval of pay application number five to McCain Brothers for the Marion County Schools parking lot (BG25‑345). • Approval of a contract with Ross Tarrant Architects for the new Lebanon Elementary School (BG24‑285). • Approval of school year 2026–2027 software and menu support service fees (small increase) and continuation of an operating contract with a slight price decrease. • Approval of a three‑year Common Lit curriculum contract and the phase four district professional development plan. • Approval of continuation of the phase four NTI (non‑traditional instruction) plan with a directive to gather community feedback and review data. • Approval of the phase four English Learner (EL) plan presented by Dr. Veronica Dicken. • A motion to enter closed session pursuant to KRS 61.810.1(c) to discuss proposed litigation.
Where the meeting recorded voice votes the board typically asked “All in favor?” and the response was “Aye”; the transcript records a five‑member presence earlier in the meeting. For one contested item in the NTI discussion a board member stated they would vote no while others voted aye; the board nonetheless approved the NTI continuation while asking staff to pursue community input.
The board acknowledged donations and field trips and adjourned into closed session for discussion of proposed litigation.
