Silver Creek leaders outline $62.9 million in proposed projects, warn of tax increase if voters approve referendum

Silver Creek School Corporation leaders on April 8 laid out proposed construction and renovation projects that together would be financed in part by a potential referendum and bond issuances, and described how the district’s tax rate and construction timelines would change if voters approve the plan.

The presentation, given by Dr. Briggs (Superintendent) and Dr. Balmer (district administrator), detailed proposed projects — a primary school addition, a new elementary school, middle school modifications and grade reconfiguration, a high-school addition and renovation including an auditorium and band-room work, and a possible field house — with an estimated construction and soft-cost package tied to bonds of $62,856,250 for the proposed projects and a total project budget the district has previously presented near $103 million.

District leaders said three of the corporation’s four schools are operating over capacity and that failing to add space could increase class sizes or require more modular classrooms. “Our buildings are in very good shape. The problem is they’re not big enough,” Dr. Briggs said. He told the audience the projects are coupled to current and projected enrollment and that the district will continue to use a tax calculator posted online to show how individual parcels would be affected.

Why it matters: If voters approve a referendum to fund the projects, property owners would likely see a rise in assessed taxes tied to bond levies. Dr. Balmer walked through past bond issuances that have funded athletic and high-school work and gave specific tax-rate history the district has recorded: a 2021 tax rate of 0.7851, a 2022 rise to 0.8404 tied to 2021 bonds, a 2023 decrease to 0.7391 after older debt fell off the levy schedule, and later increases associated with the 2023 bond issuance. Using a $300,000 example, the district’s materials show a modeled increase of roughly $629 annually (about $52 a month) for a typical residential property that receives standard and supplemental deductions under the proposed referendum model described by district staff.

The district described flexibility in bond timing: the proposed project total can be issued over multiple bond series rather than all at once. Dr. Balmer said bond series are typically repaid over about 20 years and that the district may issue only portions of the total ask at different times to limit near-term levy pressure.

Board members and staff emphasized cost-control measures the district has used after earlier bids came in higher than expected. Dr. Balmer described a rejected 2023 bid that exceeded estimates by about $15 million, a value-engineering process and a shift from a construction-manager-at-risk model to a construction manager/advisor approach to reduce costs before rebidding. He also outlined budget line items on the high-school project (hard costs, soft costs, contingency) and reported spending to date for the high-school addition and renovation: $72,460,560.69 spent through February 2025 with roughly $16 million remaining on budgeted items.

The district will hold a public work session and town hall at 7 p.m. April 17 in the high-school auditorium; officials said Stifel (the district’s financial advisor) will attend to answer tax-modeling questions. Dr. Briggs and Dr. Balmer said the meeting will be primarily for questions from residents and that additional information, including the district tax calculator, is on the Silver Creek website.

Public comment at the meeting included sharply different perspectives. Resident John Colburn told trustees: “you, the elected school board, and the administrators of Silver Creek School Corporation have mismanaged our money so badly that [this plan] necessitated an immediate influx of astronomical amounts of capital.” In contrast, another resident described the referendum’s likely effect on low-income families and urged the board to consider community hardship: “This referendum would nearly take a whole month of their income,” a speaker said, citing data on economically disadvantaged students and household emergency savings.

Discussion vs. decisions: The board did not vote at the April 8 meeting to place a referendum on a ballot; instead trustees approved meeting minutes and a consent agenda of personnel items (see separate Votes at a glance). The board scheduled the April 17 town hall to take public questions; officials said they will publish answers and follow up where time runs short.

What’s next: The district will continue community outreach and host the town hall April 17. If the board proceeds with a referendum, the district’s timeline and levy impact will depend on how much is issued at each bond series and on state-level tax and funding changes the presenters said remain possible this legislative session.

Ending: District leaders urged residents to use the online tax calculator for parcel-level estimates and said they would post answers to submitted questions on the district website after the town hall.