Carmel Clay Schools recommends replacing prior referendums with single combined operating-and-safety question; board previews June workshop

Superintendent Dr. Orike presented the administration’s recommendation to combine the district’s operating and safety referendums into a single eight‑year ballot question and recommended the district seek the highest of three stair‑stepped scenarios (a maximum rate of 0.4274). The presentation explained revenue and expense projections developed by district staff and policy analytics, state funding assumptions and the projected impacts of recent state law changes that the administration said will reduce state support for local referenda.

Dr. Orike read a draft ballot question required by statute and acknowledged the language is difficult for voters to parse, saying the wording is prescribed by state law: “Shall Carmel Clay Schools increase property taxes paid to the school corporation for no more than eight years … by imposing a property tax rate that does not exceed .4274 and results in a maximum annual amount that does not exceed $72,667,288.” She cautioned the statutory example figure of $1.62 (the required sample calculation for a $500,000 median home) is misleading under the district’s existing referendums and said the district’s forecast shows the referendum portion of the tax bill would increase by less than $143 in the first year while, after accounting for state deductions and credits, the overall property tax bill for that example home is projected to decrease by about $263.

Staff outlined three scenarios: a lower scenario that would require staffing and program reductions and produce annual deficits of roughly $2 million to $8.5 million; a middle scenario that achieves a balanced budget in 2027–28 but risks reductions beginning around 2029; and the recommended “gold” scenario, which the administration said offers the best opportunity to maintain current staffing, programs and student services while recognizing continued disciplined budgeting would be required. The presentation stressed that salary and benefits account for roughly 93% of the education and referendum fund expenditures the district analyzed.

Trustees asked about legal and scheduling constraints (referendum timing tied to general elections and statutory wording), the prospect of explaining to voters that the new question would “replace” the existing referendums, and whether the board could modify the ballot “purpose” language that accompanies the statutory numbers. Mrs. Kok and Miss Wheeler emphasized that state legislators’ changes have made the ballot language more confusing and that the board must invest in clear community outreach. Mr. McMichael (district finance lead) reiterated that the board is approving a maximum rate and can choose to levy less than that maximum annually, and he urged the board to communicate that nuance to voters.

Board members expressed general support for placing a replacement referendum on the ballot so the community can decide, but several trustees stressed the need for continued analysis of the three rate scenarios and robust public education before finalizing a rate. The board scheduled a workshop for June 10 to continue outreach and refinements and expected an item to consider placing a referendum on the November 2026 ballot at the June 24 meeting.

Next steps: the administration will refine outreach materials, continue financial scenario analysis, and return to the board at the June 10 workshop and the June 24 regular session with refined recommendations.