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:
I wanted to respond in detail to Denise Dye for Noblesville School Board’s Letter to the Editor, and respectfully disagree with her position about how “a no vote is not a vote against our children.”
I think we all should agree with her points that Noblesville taxpayers deserve accountability, transparency, and responsible financial stewardship. Our families are struggling with rising costs on almost everything, and concerns about another tax increase are understandable. National economic policies and decisions from the Statehouse have added to the financial pressures we feel. We should never dismiss those concerns. However, let’s also discuss what happens if the Noblesville referendum fails.
The school district has shared that approximately $25 million in annual funding, or 20 percent of the operating budget, will expire at the end of 2026 without continuation of the referendum. These negative consequences are significant from a potential 20 percent cut. It is estimated that 145 teachers and 45 instructional assistants, plus a closure of an elementary school, likely would happen. Larger class sizes (of about 30 students) for elementary schools with less resources will impact our children.
The district has also identified potential reductions to the award-winning STEM program, career development, special education support, art and music, athletics, school counselors, mental health services, school resource officers, and bus transportation. These are not minor budgeting adjustments. They are programs, people, and resources that directly affect our children every day.
Denise’s letter argues that a “no” vote is not a rejection of our children or our teachers. I am sure that is not the intention of every voter who opposes the Noblesville Schools referendum. The vote still has consequences. If 20 percent funding disappears and these difficult reductions become a reality, then our students will feel the impact no matter how voters felt about their intentions.
Yes, we should examine spending and taxpayers deserve transparency. Our school district must continue to demonstrate that every dollar is being used responsibly. The district has reported millions in cost reductions and staffing adjustments. Those savings cannot account for the approximately $25 million a year at risk.
Demanding accountability is reasonable. Understanding why legislation and budget funding has added strains to public schools is essential. It is not gross mismanagement that 38 Indiana school systems are requesting referendums. Suggesting that additional reviews alone can replace that funding, without identifying a realistic alternative to preserve the programs and educational resources our families expect, is not a viable option for our children.
Nobody wants school referendums. Indiana’s school funding legislation, property tax changes, and increased operating costs have made it challenging for school districts to maintain the quality of educational programs we expect. The Noblesville referendum is an investment in Noblesville’s future.
Our Noblesville officials have shown the data of how strong public schools help attract families and businesses, support our local workforce, and contribute to the long-term growth of Noblesville. Programs in engineering, robotics, health care, manufacturing, and other fields help prepare students for real opportunities. Counselors provide support with challenges for youth that we never had to navigate as children to influence learning. Our teachers need normal class sizes to give students a better opportunity to individually learn.
Taxpayers should carefully review the cost of the proposed referendum and use the district’s published tax calculator to understand its potential impact on their own property. The district estimates for a home valued at $350,000, the proposal would average approximately $1.88 more per month than what residents currently pay. That estimate should be considered strongly with the potential consequences of losing the 20 percent funding.
This overall return on investment is why I believe a yes or no vote is a consequential choice for the future of Noblesville and our children.
Chris Hartig
Noblesville Democratic Chair, Precinct 9
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% 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/year for a median home versus no referendum). Independent calculations of the full 57¢ rate produce higher potential costs (on the order of ~$19/month at the ceiling on a $350k 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–$44.9 million in recent reporting periods). Formal policy targets 8–15% 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.
Chris Hartig’s reply to Denise Dye deserves a response, because he gets some things right and leaves out the parts that matter most.
He’s right that the cuts the district listed are real. If the referendum fails, the current 37-cent levy expires and the district loses about $25 million a year. Under the 2025 law, the next chance to vote is November 2028. I won’t pretend that’s painless.
But that all-or-nothing choice was the school board’s doing, not the voters’. The board could have asked us to renew the 37-cent rate. Instead it put 57 cents on the ballot, a 54% increase for eight years, with a maximum levy of $43.8 million against roughly $25 million today. A NO vote doesn’t reject funding. It rejects the size of this ask.
Mr. Hartig repeats the district’s “$1.88 more per month” for a $350,000 home. Here’s where that number comes from, using the district’s own calculator: take the 2034 bill, subtract the 2026 bill, and divide by eight. That isn’t the average monthly increase. The calculator’s own year-by-year figures average $8.19 a month above today’s bill, and $9.37 if the rate climbs as fast as the board’s August resolution allows. By 2034 it’s $15 to $18 a month.
Even those numbers understate the referendum’s own price, because they count the state’s new property tax cut (SEA 1). Compare 57 cents with 37 cents in the same year and the referendum alone costs about $19 a month on that $350,000 home. Bills look nearly flat only because the tax relief the legislature just passed is being used to absorb the increase. So the honest question isn’t “will my bill go up?” It’s “who keeps the state tax cut, my family or the school district?”
Renters, landlords and small businesses get no homestead relief at all. They pay the full increase.
Mr. Hartig also argues against something Ms. Dye never said. She didn’t allege “gross mismanagement.” She asked for an independent audit and a spending review before an eight-year commitment. That isn’t a radical position. And the money isn’t as locked up as we’re told. State transfer reports show Noblesville moved about $54 million from its Education Fund (the one that pays teachers) to its Operations Fund between 2021 and 2025. That’s legal, but it shows the district has more flexibility than its message suggests, and that money has been flowing away from teacher pay.
Voters also aren’t told that Noblesville already has a second voter-approved levy: an 8-cent debt referendum from the 2010 and 2013 bond votes that runs through 2032. The district’s referendum page doesn’t mention it. If the new rate reaches its cap before 2032, the combined referendum rate is 65 cents.
To be fair, the board passed a resolution in August limiting increases to 4 cents a year. That’s a real commitment and I give the board credit for it. But it fixes only 2027. After that it limits the yearly step, not where the rate ends up, and it says the 57-cent maximum may be reached “if ever.” A future board can repeal a resolution with one vote. The 57-cent rate on the ballot can’t be changed.
Mr. Hartig is right that many Indiana districts need referendums. Since 2009 the state has paid for classroom operations, and a referendum is the only way local money reaches teacher pay. Nobody serious disputes that. The question in front of us is narrower: is 57 cents for eight years the right amount, and has the district made its case clearly? On the numbers, it hasn’t.
Ms. Dye said it well: “We should never have to choose between loving our schools and holding them financially accountable.” Voting NO is how we ask for a more honest number.