Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carmel Clay Schools outlines looming funding gap and seeks voter approval for combined referendum
Summary
District leaders told the board that changes in state tax policy will significantly reduce local referendum revenue and described a proposed 8‑year combined operating/safety referendum (sample maximum levy shown) to preserve staff, programs and safety funding; board members pressed administration for assumptions and contingencies.
Carmel Clay Schools’ superintendent and finance team told the school board during a June 10 workshop that state tax changes will shrink local referendum revenue and that voters may be asked in November to approve a combined, eight‑year referendum to maintain current staffing, safety and programs.
Dr. Tom Orike presented data modeling from Policy Analytics and district financial staff showing the district’s state basic grant at $7,047 per student — about $687 below the state average, he said — and warned that supplemental homestead deductions and new unfunded taxpayer credits in SEA 1 will reduce referendum collections. The administration showed projections that total referendum revenue losses could average in the millions annually and cited an example where the district is down roughly $2.8 million this year and could see larger reductions in later years.
Why it matters: the district relies on referendums to fund operating costs that property tax and state formula dollars do not cover; administrators said the proposed ballot would combine expiring referendums and seeks an eight‑year renewal to preserve school resource officers, mental‑health supports, teacher retention and other student services.
At the workshop the administration presented three scenarios for a maximum advertised levy (a conservative “low,” a middle and a higher “maximum” figure used for long‑range projection). Finance staff and the superintendent said the advertised maximum is intentionally conservative because the board sets rates annually when it adopts budgets and approves tax levies. CFO Mr. McMichael described the maximum as a legal ceiling, not an immediate tax rate the district must collect.
Board members asked detailed questions about the assumptions used in projections: enrollment trends, assumed annual expense increases (health insurance and salary pressures), how the district modeled net assessed value growth, and whether the district could cover shortfalls by cutting costs rather than increasing taxes. Finance staff and the superintendent said models use historical expense trends, expected modest annual increases in operating costs, and parcel‑by‑parcel tax base modeling performed by Policy Analytics; they estimated about a 4% annual growth assumption for the local referendum portion in their baseline projections but warned forecasts become less certain farther into the eight‑year horizon.
The presentation explained timing and budget mechanics: even if voters approve a referendum in November, new referendum revenue would be recognized on the calendar year and incorporated into the district’s 2027 appropriations and budget process; administrators cautioned that bargaining and any salary decisions must consider cash flow and that recurring salary increases should not be funded with one‑time reserves.
Next steps: the board debated which maximum levy to advertise, requested clearer public messaging on what the referendum would preserve, and signaled additional board discussions before deciding whether to place a question on the ballot. The workshop concluded with the administration offering to provide additional detail on scenario inputs and the board planning further public outreach before a final decision.
