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:
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-percent 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 Schools 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.
Carl Sampson
Noblesville
I want to clarify my earlier comments and address what is really at stake with the Noblesville Schools referendum.
I did not say Denise Dye accused the district of “gross mismanagement.” My point was that 38 school systems seeking referendum funding should make us look more closely at the challenges facing public education across Indiana with legislative and funding changes.
What happens if Noblesville voters say no? The district loses approximately $25 million annually. That is about 20% of its operating funding. This isn’t hypothetical money for some new building or luxury project.
The district has identified potential consequences including approximately 20% staffing reductions, potentially 145 fewer teachers, larger class sizes averaging around 30 students in elementary classrooms, cuts to school safety and mental health services, fewer bus routes, reduced career and technical education, and even the potential closure of an elementary school. Again, these are potential cuts, not final decisions, but the financial deficit is real.
And these consequences reach beyond families with children in schools. Strong public schools help attract families and employers, support property values, develop our future workforce, and strengthen the local economy. Losing these programs and educators would affect the entire Noblesville community.
Let’s also be honest about the referendum itself. This is primarily a continuation of funding for existing programs and services, not a request to build new schools or fund athletic facilities. Noblesville voters have supported operating referendums since 2010. The current 37-cent rate expires at the end of 2026, and the new proposal would authorize a maximum rate of 57 cents for eight years. The school board has committed to a lower starting rate of 38.5 cents in 2027, with planned annual increases limited to four cents under its resolution.
Yes, taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability. We should examine the proposed rate carefully and ask tough questions. But we also need to acknowledge that state funding and tax policy have put pressure on local school budgets, and rejecting this referendum does not make the $25 million shortfall disappear.
The real choice is between continuing to invest in the schools our community has built and accepting the consequences of losing 20 percent of their operating funding.
Chris, you make the point that strong schools attract businesses and employers, and I agree. But shouldn’t we also be asking whether Noblesville has done enough to attract the commercial and industrial investment necessary to support our growing community?
Noblesville Schools is our city’s largest employer. That alone should prompt a serious conversation about the balance between public-sector employment, private-sector growth, and the taxpayers ultimately responsible for funding these institutions.
School employees and their families have every right to support a referendum that affects their livelihoods. However, their significant stake in the outcome makes it even more important that the financial interests of homeowners, retirees, small-business owners, and other taxpayers receive equal consideration.
Mayor Jensen and city leadership should be answering some difficult questions about how economic development is translating into meaningful, long-term property tax relief for residents. At what point do we stop turning to the same taxpayers to absorb rising costs?
I value our schools and the people who work in them. But supporting education should never mean giving any publicly funded institution a blank check or placing the financial burden on residents without rigorous accountability.
We need responsible school funding, greater transparency, and an economic development strategy that produces measurable benefits for the taxpayers who make it all possible.