Noblesville voter examines school district’s budget

Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.

Dear Editor:

Here are some factual counterpoints to Chris Hartig’s letter (drawn from district documents, state audits/SBOA reports, S&P ratings, and public reporting):

The ballot is not a flat “continuation” of the current 37¢ rate. It authorizes a maximum rate of 57¢ per $100 of assessed value (roughly 54 percent higher) and a maximum annual amount of $43,842,578, well above the ~$25 million the district says it needs annually. The board’s August 2026 resolution committing to start at 38.5¢ in 2027 with no more than 4¢ annual steps is non-binding and can be changed by a future board; the ballot ceiling cannot.

The district’s “about $1.88 more per month” figure for a $350,000 home is an average projection over eight years that assumes the district will not levy the full authorized rate each year and factors in SEA 1 homestead credits/deductions. Indiana’s required ballot language estimates a larger increase (roughly $955 per year for a median home versus no referendum). Independent calculations of the full 57¢ rate produce higher potential costs (on the order of ~$19 per month at the ceiling on a $350,000 home before certain credits).

Enrollment has been declining for multiple years, per the district’s own 2026 Budget Book Fall ADM figures: 10,480 (2021-22), 10,379 (2022-23), 10,352 (2023-24), 10,312 (2024-25), and 10,100 (2025-26). The district itself cited declining enrollment (lower birth rates, fewer school-age families, and more graduates than entering Kindergartners) as a driver of its multi-million-dollar deficit when it announced staff reductions in February 2026. Area population has grown while school enrollment has not.

The district already moved to cut spending and staff before the current referendum expires. In February 2026 it announced targeted staffing reductions aimed at saving over $3 million annually to address a multi-million-dollar 2026 deficit driven by declining enrollment funding, inflation, and SEA 1 effects. The superintendent stated the district was “not in crisis mode” due to prior savings and management but needed to realign with current revenue.

The district holds substantial cash reserves. Recent S&P analyses and State Board of Accounts financial statements show combined cash/investment balances in the mid-$40 million range across the Education, Operations, Operating Referendum Tax Levy, and Local Rainy Day funds (examples: ~$43.5 million to $44.9 million in recent reporting periods). Formal policy targets 8 to 15 percent of certain expenditures; management has indicated a preference for higher. The district carries an AA credit rating and is described among the stronger financially managed Indiana districts. Key funds have maintained positive ending balances.

The 2018 referendum was marketed to voters as raising about $50 million over eight years (~$6.25 million per year), primarily for safety, mental health, and teacher salaries. Assessed-value growth produced substantially higher collections from the Operating Referendum Tax Levy (audits show annual receipts in the $20+ million range in recent years; cumulative tracking by critics exceeds $100 million well before the end of the period). Most of the excess was spent rather than reserved.

The district’s overall property tax rate has decreased for seven consecutive years (to $1.2510 per $100 of assessed value in 2026, per district financial highlights). Higher overall tax bills for many homeowners have been driven primarily by rising assessed values rather than rate increases by the school corporation. The referendum levy is an additional local tax.

A record number of Indiana districts (reported as 38) have referendums on the November 2026 ballot, attributed largely to SEA 1 revenue reductions and new state rules restricting referendums to even-year general elections. That statewide context is accurate but does not eliminate the relevance of local enrollment trends, prior collection amounts, existing reserves, or the difference between the marketed rate path and the ballot authorization.

The district’s total proposed budget is on the order of $170 million. Salaries and benefits constitute the large majority of Education Fund and Referendum Fund spending. State funding formula rankings and cumulative tax-cap losses (district cites roughly $41 million since 2015, plus further SEA 1 impacts) are part of the district’s stated rationale for seeking continued local referendum revenue.

Sally Knopp
Noblesville