Editor’s note: This story was updated to include comments from petitioners.

COLUMBUS — The Bowling Green Board of Education voted Wednesday to approve a resolution that will add to the Aug. 4 special election ballot a question on the transfer of territory within Milton Township to Patrick Henry School District.

The board vote came after the Ohio Supreme Court ordered on Monday that the question should be included. If the ballot question is approved by voters, the transfer would take effect with the 2021-22 school year.

Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, at issue was whether the question should appear on the ballot of the special election or on the Nov. 3 general election, depending on the timing of Bowling Green's decision that the transfer petition had met certain requirements.

State law requires such questions to appear on a ballot in an election occurring at least 90 days after their certification. The board ultimately approved the question on May 8, too late for the special election, prompting resident Jamie Cook to sue to force its hand.

“We conclude that the school board had the opportunity to certify the proposal for placement on the Aug. 4 special-election ballot, but declined to do so for reasons outside its authority,” wrote the court.

In March, Bowling Green received 12 petitions seeking the transfer of territories to five different school districts. Eleven of these were found to have enough valid signatures representing 10 percent of the voters in those territories.

The school board then forwarded the 11 to a title agent to confirm that each territory in question was adjacent to the school district to which it would be transferred, ensuring that the petition would not create a disconnected island within the borders of Bowling Green.

Seven of the petitions were ultimately found to have survived that test and were certified for the Aug. 4 special election along with maps of the territory involved.

But in the case of this proposed transfer to Patrick Henry, it found it did not meet the requirement, prompting its backers to revise and resubmit their proposal along with a new map. The new proposal was submitted 12 days before the May 6 deadline to get on the special election ballot.

But the title agent didn't confirm that it met the requirements until May 6. The school board didn't meet until two days later to certify it for the ballot, after the deadline had passed.

The school board argued unsuccessfully that the new petition and map should have been submitted sooner when it became clear there were problems.

These petitions come as the result of a law passed in October that allows residents to join adjacent school districts if the transfer receives enough votes on an election ballot.

According to David Conley, a financial consultant serving Bowling Green City Schools, petitioners seeking property transfers are motivated by a number of factors.

“It could be that people are unhappy with the quality of service that they’re receiving from the Bowling Green schools or the quality of programming that’s offered,” Mr. Conley said. He added that the desire to attend a geographically closer school can be a motivator.

“On a number of occasions, it could be financial where it’s just simply more expensive to be in the current district and you want to move to another district,” Mr. Conley said. “Though that’s not often the case when people look into it.” 

Mr. Conley said that sometimes an individual will request a property transfer if they would like access to a school in another district that does not offer open enrollment, or does not allow students who do not live in the district to attend.

“If you simply look at the fact that the other school districts offer open enrollment, a property transfer is frankly completely unnecessary, it’s an unnecessary endeavor simply to have your child attend another school district, because they have that right and flexibility as it is,” said Mr. Conley.

Two primary forms of taxes are in question when a property transfer occurs — property and income. 

According to Ginny Stewart, the president of the Bowling Green Board of Education, “It is important that the people involved, all of the people, over and above the people who are spearheading this, are aware of the financial ramifications of leaving the Bowling Green school district.”

Each of five school districts included in the petitions have an income tax that is higher than in Bowling Green. So if the transfer occurs, the residents newly included in these school districts will pay more than they do currently. According to Mr. Conley, the same would be true for property taxes in most cases. 

According to Grant Chamberlain, one of the petitioners, the people living in the affected areas primarily work in agriculture, and their numbers are declining.

“Our representation in Bowling Green and our influence on what Bowling Green can do is severely diminished,” he said. 

The petitioners would like to see their district levy taxes more heavily on income rather than property, which according to Mr. Chamberlain, is disproportionately felt by farmers with large amounts of property, but with income that fluctuates by the year.

Mr. Chamberlain also said that final numbers on the adjusted property tax rates for the properties affected by the transfer have yet to be finalized by the Wood County auditor, Matthew Oestriech, and that he believes the property taxes will be lower for those who change districts. 

First Published June 10, 2020, 11:55 p.m.