Meeting is now called to order. Roll call. Mr. Brown. >> All board members are uh present tonight. Great. Please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America. and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Now read our Carmel Clay Schools mission statement. Carmel Clay Schools will provide opportunities for all students to realize their potential in an
everchanging world. Typically, next on our agenda would be public comment. However, no one has signed up for public comment this evening, so we will just keep on chugging. Uh next uh on our agenda tonight uh is our one agenda item which is the financial impact of recent funding changes and implications for the
2026 referendum. Uh so we're going to move down to the tables. Uh before we do so uh we're going to be a little less formal for this. It'll be more of a conversation. Dr. Orike will uh introduce uh the topic and who's going to be helping to co-present, but we'll
be more conversationally based. there is a presentation, but we'll sort of take questions and uh engage in a conversation. So, not necessarily Robert's rules, but we do have a whole bunch of slides to get through. So, we want to just be respectful uh and making sure we get all the information across to ourselves and to the public as we go
through it tonight. So, Well, good evening once again, President Shapiro, uh members of the board. I'm very pleased to be here tonight, uh as uh President Shapiro shared to talk about the financial impact of recent
funding changes and implications for the 2026 referendum. And so I'm very pleased uh with the presentation that we have for you this evening. Uh starting off who wore his caramel gear this evening which I'm very uh also very happy about.
Uh we have Barry Gardner with policy analytics and he is going to share some of our uh data that relates specific to funding some state level changes. Um and uh Barry and his team does this across the state of Indiana. And so he's been
to many uh school board meetings and executive sessions uh this year alone because of the complicated nature of what SEA1 brings not only to school districts but to cities, libraries, etc. Um after Barry's presentation, uh we're
going to turn it over to Mr. Mcichael, uh who is our associate superintendent and also Mrs. Kushar who is our director of finance and myself and uh we're going to talk about uh what those implications are for the referendum. And so at this
at this time I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Barry Gardner with policy analytics. >> Great. Thank you. Good evening. Appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. As Dr. Orike mentioned um with policy analytics um we are a firm
based out of Indianapolis. uh have been in place really for about 20 years. Uh we specialize in helping local government entities understand uh property taxes, assess value, taxpayer impacts. Uh we're are engaged now um and
about 120 school districts across the state uh and working with about 35 districts who are considering an operating referendum in the fall of 2026. So um we kind of specialize in in this work. Uh and so hopefully tonight the information we're able to provide
helps give you some better sense of what the district may need to consider as you uh look at a potential operating referendum in the in the fall as well. So uh as was mentioned, this is really conversational. Please feel free as we're going through to to stop, ask
questions, ask for clarifications. Really want to make sure that you feel comfortable about what you're seeing and and understanding. And um it is complex at the end of the day in these pieces. So so please feel free to to interject at any point.
With that, I'll go ahead and uh get started and >> Oh, there we go. >> All right. Oh, you just act like it. There you go. Thank you. >> And you're making me look good already. I love it. So, um, so the first thing I
I think tonight we just wanted to go through is really to understand some of the changes that were associated with Senate Enrolled Act One. Uh, Senate Enrolled Act One was passed last spring and signed in the by the governor on April 15th and really brought in a sweeping change when it comes to
property taxes in the state of Indiana and our property tax system. And you'll see all of these elements in the data as we move forward. uh but do want to highlight just really a couple of the broad themes that really have some impact not only for the district but for
for all entities. U so the first really is what we refer to as deductions. So if you're familiar with your property tax bill, you start with a gross assessed value which is similar to a market value of your home and then we've typically received a 35% supplemental deduction
and a $48,000 standard deduction. Well, part of the legislation was that that $48,000 deduction becomes worth less and less as my home value increases and the move was made to now make it a complete percentagebased deduction and phasing in
over the next five years that a home now will have at the end of the day a twothirds deduction by 2031 on their home. That is a much larger deduction than what the standard and 35% would have generated. And the real theme with
these is as we increase deductions, we're going to push down on the net assessed value of the home or the business or the various properties and we tax off of net assessed value. So that's one of the key kind of
correlations we need to to work through. They also introduced deductions for the 2% class which are apartments, long-term care, and farm farmland. and that class did not have any deductions structured before. That will move up to a one-third deduction by
2031. And so again, we're increasing deductions and driving down net assessed value. I'm going to skip to one um down the line and really talk first to this dimminimous business personal property exemption. So business personal property
is the equipment kind of inside or associated with a business. And prior to Senate Road Act One, there was a dimminous amount of $80,000. Meaning if I had a piece of equipment inside of my business that was worth $75,000, I did not have to report that
for state taxable purposes. In 2027, that moves from SE 80,000 to $2 million of investment level. So now if I have a million and a half dollar piece of equipment that I invested in starting in 2027, I don't have to report that for
state taxable purposes. That just pulls assessed value really out of the system. We'll show that in the data here in just a little bit. So again, additional impact on the net assessed value. And then finally, I'd say the the biggest we're talking really the broad strokes here is the new homestead residential
credit. And this is new this year. Uh started in 2026 that a home gets now 10% up to $300 is the maximum off of their tax liability. So it's not based on the assessed value of the home. It's what am
I paying in property taxes. So if I'm paying $3,000 in property taxes, I'm going to get $300 off of my tax bill and I'm going to pay $2,700. Well, that $300 that that taxpayer is now not paying is revenue that the local
units of government do not collect, right? And we'll show that again here in the data. And so, we've got a lot of these moving parts really at the end of the day that are going to influence what we're going to see overall within this piece. Thank you.
The other sweeping piece of the the uh legislation that was really specific to uh the referendum is, you know, prior we had the option as school districts to seek a referendum in May or November and we could do it within any given year. They have now
established that referendums can only be sought in the fall and in November in a general election in an even year. So now we look at a situation where we're going 26. If we don't go in 26, we can't go until 28 30 and so forth, right? And so that has changed
uh just some of the strategy and thinking, right, in terms of these pieces, uh because if a referendum for a district were not to pass, you now have a two-year gap before you can come back and seek that referendum again, right? And then that has impleances.
And so an important consideration at the end of the day. The other piece we'll probably tease out and I know Mr. Man may talk some later is just the form of the question. I'll highlight some of the financial pieces of the form of the question. Um but they've also changed form of the question at the end of the
day. And I'm going to I'll bring that out with the data because I think it'll be the time it's most impactful for for us to understand. Um but it's become a more challenging question and and reflective in that piece. And all of these are important because as you seek
to be transparent and you seek to talk with community members about the impact, there's some disconnect at the end of the day of what may actually be sought versus what might show up on that ballot question. And I think it's important to understand
one of the things that we do at policy analytics uh because it really begins to impact the data and the unique situation for each school district is to take a look at the assessed value composition of the school. And we really have these
broad categories uh as we look at this. And the way this chart reads left to right is on the left we're starting with gross assessed value. That's before any deductions. The middle chart is now we are looking at net assessed value. But in this case
we're actually including assessed value that is inside of a tiff district because that is accessible with a referendum. It is not accessible for your operations fund and debt service which is what's reflected on the far right uh in terms of your assessed value. And so that's where we see these
numbers shift a little bit. Um at the end of the day when we look at the net assessed value at least for your debt service fund, you're very residential, right? 85% residential in that higher value homes and a high concentration of homes. Doesn't mean that you don't have
those other areas. It's just the amount of homes and the value in that math problem adds up to take up a bigger piece of the pie. When we look at the referendum though there in the middle, you can see it's a smaller portion. Why is that? Well, that commercial sector gets much larger because what do we
typically find inside of a tiff district? It's usually a business, industrial, commercial kind of makeup, right? Because we in trying to invest in that redevelopment. So that's why those pies shift and those they have impact on that assess value which is what we're
going to end up taxing. >> Okay. >> Barry. >> Yeah. So if I'm reading this right and this is you said this tax base comparison is of Caramel Clay School District's tax base, right?
>> So we lose $3.1 billion in assessed value a year from the TIFFs that the city has approved. >> Correct. >> Good. Okay. And let me speak to that a little bit because we as policy analytics work to
on both sides of these pieces, right? And tiff districts are often a difficult component at the end of the day, right? And what's often used when discussing a tiff district is we say is a but for test. And really what we're saying in that is would the development have
happened if they hadn't tiff not tiff the district. Okay? And if it would have happened organically, then maybe a tiff might not be, you know, the most advantageous policy move. If it's a situation where the infrastructure was needed and the tiff district and the
tiffing of that was needed to in order to drive that, then it's a situation where a policy decision may make sense. And so it's always a tough one in those pieces. You know, eventually that rolls off and comes on your tax bill and that tiff expires. even if a new tiff is
established, it resets the baseline and you capture some of that growth, but it is a obviously a challenging calculation. >> That was going to be my question as a followup is because I know that some of the tiffs are going to expire shortly. Do we have a list of that with the district as to when those expire and
granted that would hit our operating fund as opposed to fully the referendum question? Um, just wondering if we have visibility to that from the city. Um, so it is data that we typically look at. I'd have to go back and confirm the
dates of when those roll off in that piece. Um, but we typically monitor that because it would have impact then on your debt service and operations fund. Um, because as again as that particular tiff expires to your point, it rolls off and comes on your debt service and operations fund rate even if they
establish. We didn't we don't have a list per se, but we know that they'll start coming off 2030. So, in the foreseeable future, >> and typically the thing to remember is if they 2030 is the year they expire,
you would not see those on your thing for two to 2032. It's typically a two-year window when those come on. I think I would add to that that um we also run the possibility that expiring tiff districts could be redistricked to
a new tiff possibly and I know like along the meridian corridor there's a lot of office buildings with a lot of parking spaces and that's kind of not this designs we're looking for anymore there the idea is you build parking garages and and make the place more dense and
they're more attractive so I I think it's it's hard to really know, isn't it, what we could see for TIFF districts, even though they're getting close to expiring. But I think to the question that Chris asked on the the net assessed value with
TIFF, that net assessed value may not have been at that amount had there not been Tiff. >> All right, moving on. I appreciate those. This is great questions. So, a lot of information on this slide and I'm going to walk you through it, right? I think in this piece. So, I'm going to
start in the top left. So, these are some assessed value projections specific for Carl Clay Schools. The green line is gross assessed value and you can see that that continues to trend upwards to the right and and grow over the years.
That is because the assessment system itself was not changed. Right? So a home that's worth $300,000 may be worth 310 320 in future years just like it has been in previous years. So the assessment system hasn't changed. That
is actually constitutionally in place. Right? So they cannot necessarily change the assessment system. It has to be market based defined by a Supreme Court case out of St. John's, Indiana back in 2011. They can change the deduction structure. That's what they did in this
legislation. they increase the deductions. And so that's where you see the teal line represents the referendum AV. The blue line represents your debt service and operations fund assessed value. And you see it decline. And we're going to outline that a little more in another chart. I just wanted to point
that piece out. The reason for that as we move to the bottom is now we are showing the new deductions coming in place. Okay? So the bottom left are the homestead deductions and again those are moving to a 2/3 67% by 2031. So you can
see the homestead deductions basically double over the next five years and if we're increasing deductions we're driving down net assessed value. The chart on the bottom right is that 2% class the apartments a long-term care. So again, 2025 is blank because there
were no deductions for that class and we see that grow to a little over a billion dollars by 2031. So again, we're increasing deductions. We're driving down net assessed value. And really what we're looking at over the next five years is about a three and a half%
decline annually in net assessed value. And we're going to kind of walk through that here um in a little more detail in these next couple of slides. So again, this is just really kind of that enlarged piece. So I know it was a little smaller chart there before where
again the green represents our gross assessed value. Um we at policy analytics project out trending assessed value for the gross AV. What we mean by that is we take a look at the historic we take a little longer lens. Okay? So
we take a 12 to 15 year look because there's obviously times where we had the great recession where we had little to no growth in assessed value and then we had the last few years where we had a little bit of a runup in assessed value due to some of the housing constraints u coming out of the pandemic that we saw
greater than normal growth in assessed value. So we take a little longer lens within that piece that equates here for the district to just about uh a little over 4%. It varies from year to year, but it's in the four to 4.3% range. That's important because that impacts
the future projections. If we did not project gross assessed value growth, then we would actually have even further decline in net assessed value. So, it's really important that we try to project what we believe is an accurate projection uh over the next piece based on some historical pieces. Right? So we
still see that growing despite that we see the impact to the net assessed value at the end of the day. As we look uh this next slide wanted to just take a pause to really highlight um the business personal property. This is kind
of that third leg of the stool we're talking about. Talked about the homeowners getting increased deductions. We talked about the 2% class. This is where businesses will see some benefit and really going to focus I think it's really fascinating data. Um when you
look at the two circled graphs the top graph shows the amount the number of specific parcels that are above or below this $2 million threshold. Now you may note it says 1.12 million. That's
because the $2 million is an investment not assessed value. And a $2 million investment at the end of the day equates to about a 1.2 1.12 million AB structure. So it says is 95% of the
parcels are actually below that $2 million investment threshold. But when we look at the chart below it in terms of the actual AV associated with it, 65% of it is above the $2 million threshold. larger pieces of
equipment, right, are going to drive that really AV. So a 100 parcels make up 140 million or 470 million of AV. We see though that 255 million of business personal property assessed
value will come out of the system in 2027 when we raise that dimminous amount from 80,000 to 2 million. Okay. And then on the bottom right you can see um the top 10 um taxpayers in terms of business personal property inside the school
district in those pieces. There's zero on the far right for the net AV because they're exempt right and those pieces we see those with hospitals that place as well. Um so this is again that third piece that's going to impact the AV at the end of the day. As we look at the
next slide, this sometimes is how we often talk, right? And year-to-year changes and net assessed value. This is specific to the referendum. Um, so you can see the darker blue on the left represents the growth over the last 10
years. Again, we see those 23, 24, and 25 having that larger than normal. That's again when we got into that housing crunch. Housing prices rose dramatically across the state and country. We're a marketbased system. So as prices went up, so did the assessed
value. Then we see in 2027, now we're outlining over the next five years, the decline in net assessed value due to those increasing deduction structures. You can see 2027 is slightly larger in terms of a decline. That's because we're pulling
out that business personal property in that year. And then in 2032, you see it actually come back to a positive. That's because at that point, we've really established a new floor. all the deductions are fully in place and we're really starting to grow from there. So, it is a bit of a roller coaster, so to
speak, in terms of assessed value over these next several years. Now, again, as we're going through all these, this is as we know it today, right? Um, it's how legislation was passed. It doesn't mean there might not be tweaks and things moving forward, but as we know today,
this is what we're looking at in terms of assessed value. This is going to get really important as we talk about the referendum, the referendum question. Yeah, just a a point on this chart. Um, these are the annual changes from year to year, but it's not doesn't show the
cumulative. So, we look at years 23, 4, 25, and 26. Those are cumulative rates. So, you know, if your house was valued at 100,000, it's growing at a slower clip, then it had the spike. But we're what it doesn't show is the
cumulative impact of net assessed values. Do you have a chart that would show that? >> We don't in this deck. It's data we could pull together if the board would like to see some of that. >> I'd like to see it. >> Followup question when you're ready.
So I had the same question Greg had. Just to make sure I'm clear, let's let's use 2025 as an example. If you go from from 2025 to 2026, when he says it's cumulative, is it you're adding you're the 4.1 goes on top
of the 9.8. >> Correct? >> And so when you're looking at 2027 dropping 4.6, you erase 2026, but as to compared to 2028, it's almost the same, about half a percentage off,
right? Say that last part again. >> So the 4.6 erases the 4.1 and half a percentage of the 9.8 >> all else being equal. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So A couple of things. One, this is
obviously the um combined piece of all taxing districts, right? So, this is not specific to homes. This is a combination of homes, apartments, businesses than those pieces, right? Um and so,
and because of the way the assessment system works, everyone's assessed value can look very different yeartoear. Um and so because they often do assessments kind of in a quarterly rotating basis, they don't assess every home every year full do a full assessment. They do it
also on sales ratio trending. So we can see some real variance when one homeowner to the next in these pieces. So this isn't just reflective of residential, it's a culmination of those. Um and then as um Steve was alluding to is the fact of as we showed
before this is including that 4% annual increase in gross assessed value. So we are still growing the gross assessed value and yet still seeing these declines in the net assessed value. >> That's a guess. The 4%. >> Uh I wouldn't call it a guess. It's
based onto educated >> based on the last 15 years of data. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> But it could be two, it could be six. It just depends a little bit how the auditor assesses are >> or the county assesses our not the auditor.
>> The market fluctuates within those pieces. Yes. And we're going to talk a little bit about that in because it is a piece to consider. These are projections. Again, they're based on um historic peace. If we took this chart farther back to my point earlier, you see the years when we had the recession
and it was much smaller, basically very little growth and then we see the spikes that we have here. And so it is a piece that do we know exactly how it's going to play out? No. Is it our best educated guess at this point? Yes. Okay. So this chart titled unfunded
credits is what we mean by unfunded credits is revenue that the district does not collect. And it's a combination of what we've known as traditional circuit breaker when the homeowner hits that 1% statutory cap and pays the max
in terms of state uh law and property taxes. It also includes this new 10% homestead credit. So that is after the cap. So again, that's that $3,000. I'm going to get $300 off my tax bill and only pay 2,700. When I add that up
across the district, it adds up pretty quickly within these pieces. So that's what we mean by unfunded credits. The starting in 2025, you really see it primarily in the dark blue in terms of circuit breaker. Um, and that is in your operations fund. So it's revenue that
you did not collect in your operations fund due to the circuit breaker. When we look at 2026, we see the dark blue circuit breaker go down. Talk about that here in a second. And then we bring on the light blue and the orange, which is the new 10% credit.
That again is going to be revenue that you don't collect. The reason in 26 that it is spread across the operations fund and the debt service fund, it's because that's the law way the law was written at the time. typical traditional circuit breaker. All of the impact really hit
the operations fund. The debt service fund was what we call protective. Why? They didn't want districts to and units of government to not receive their revenue in the debt service to be able to make their debt service payments. And so because you can only levy for your debt service payments at the end.
We had a feeling this would change and it did. In the most recent legislative session, they made the move to protect the debt service fund really in 2027 and beyond. So that's why you really see that orange go away in 2027.
There is a little bit of impact. You may ask, you see the referendum, which is the green and a little bit of orange moving forward. It gets into the weeds of this because technically the over 65 and veterans and disability credits are applied across all funds. and that has always been the case and continues to be
the case in this legislation. So that's why you still see those little snippets. This is an interesting piece where policy comes together. Um really what came out of the House of Representatives was the change in deduction structure
and part of that reason was as we increase um tax rates part of this legislation we'll show a little bit more in detail. as net assessed value goes down, we have to raise the tax rate in order to generate really the same amount of revenue. Take rate times AV gives me
revenue. So the mechanics of SEA1 pushes up tax rates. When I when that happens, what it ultimately does and was part of the goal of this legislation is it shifts the tax burden away from homeowners and more towards the two and 3% sectors.
They did that intentionally because over the last several years with the runup we saw in residential AV is the tax burden had started to shift to the homeowner. So it was an intentional move to do that. When that happens, we see the traditional circuit breaker go away. So that was the legislative policy that
really came out of the House of Representatives. What we also saw though was a push to reduce property tax liability and Governor Brun led the charge on that side and that's where we ended up with the 10% homestead credit. So now when we
see the 10% homestead credit come in, it really replaces what we saw in traditional circuit breaker. So, this is a really interesting piece where we see two differing policies come together that at the end of the day really return the district and I know we talked about
this to really more typical circuit breaker impact that you've seen over the last several years where you're not receiving around $3 million in operations fund levy moving forward. So, a lot of moving parts say with this legislation. It does impact because again all the funds ultimately end up
being tied together, right? terms of the operation fund seeing some revenue impacts know I said a lot there's a lot of questions on this >> all right I'll bite >> thank you >> because I didn't get it >> okay
>> so circuit breaker is constitutional right so you lost me at circuit breaker goes away like I don't understand the graph because circuit breaker can't go away >> it yes so it doesn't technically go away and what ends up. I probably didn't
frame that best way. When I shift when the tax rates increase, a homeowner who's already at the caps still can't pay any additional revenue. But businesses who aren't at maybe their 3% cap will pay more in property tax
revenue. And because of that, it really generates additional revenue that in effect causes the circuit breaker to go the traditional circuit breaker to go away.
Yeah. And it's a complicated mechanism. Okay. So, let's talk a little about the current state of the referendum. So this just really for for uh everyone's information combines and takes a look at the operating referendum
and the safety referendum. We have those two broken out in the rates in the bottom left and on the chart there uh with the tealish being the operating referendum, the orange being the safety referendum. Start there first and we'll talk about the green. So this again as
we know that assessed value is more than likely going net assessed value is going to decline. back to that math problem of rate times AV gives me revenue. If AV goes down at that same rate, my revenue is going to go down. And that's where you see those two bars declining between
now and 2031. We start to see them go back up. This is really a reflection of that referendum AV chart we showed you earlier, right? That's really what we're seeing play out here just in terms of of the revenue. And so ultimately, at least on based on current projections, the
district would receive about $7 million less in revenue between the two referendums in 2031 than they received in 2026. That obviously becomes a challenge because as we know expenses, the
referendums are often tied to salaries and benefits have an increasing inflationary factor that that revenue now declining really creates an even larger gap at the end of the day. Right? The green represents
what the district would have received in revenue using again that gross assessed value projection around that 4% at those 19 cent and 5-cent combined uh components. That is the revenue you would have received had they not passed
sea1. So you really can again see that gap and you can see it continue to grow and compound over those future years. Um and we were used to really all schools were used to situation that you passed a referendum at a particular rate and as assessed value grew you saw some revenue
grow and it had an inflationary component to it. why we often in many districts are just used to talking about the rate, right? We talked about a specific tax rate uh because we that was often stable in that that situation. This begins to make the conversation
more challenging because now we're talking about declining referendum revenue situation. >> Questions about slide? >> I have a question about combining this slide with the prior slide. So should we think of it as two components of loss of
revenue because of the light blue bar from the previous slide is hitting the operating funds u where the this slide in particular is more the referendums where holistically we need to combine them. >> Yes. And I think that's some of the work that uh the team has been doing as we've
been working through this data is yes it's have you have to step back and really look at both the impact on the operations fund with the unfunded credits we showed before and the impact on the referendum revenue ultimately really look at what is the levy that's maybe needed in order to support the
programs of students in the district. The other piece, and I've alluded to this within the data, um this is a look at the tax rate projections. Um keeping the combined 24
cents between the two referendums moving forward. Um and you can see the blue line across the bottom is the Caramel Clay tax overall school tax rate. And you see that grow from 84 cents to $1.13. That is back to as we increase
deductions driving down net assessed value we have to increase the tax rate in order to generate the same or similar amounts of revenue. Right? You see that as well for the state average. This is a a fact that all school districts are facing those around you and all across
the state is a situation that other local units of government are going to be facing because again it is a uh really a math problem at the end of the day. in order to generate those same amounts of dollars, you have to raise the rate. And that's the mechanics of of the bill. That's what also gets us back
to that question before of why we're seeing some of that change in traditional circuit breaker. We're shifting the tax burden really from the 1% towards the 3% as we increase revenues, excuse me, increase rates. Then really this just outlines to take a
look at a uh median homeowner uh here in uh Caramel. Uh I'm going to start on the box there on the the far right. Uh it really kind of lays out the the tax bill. Um this is again overall. So this is not specific to the school district.
This is the overall rate between the county, the city, the school district, a lot of the overlapping units of government. Okay. So we see in the top right there uh the median gross assessed value of the home in 2026 is 56,000. We see the deductions pieces beginning
to change. Uh, and we see that total tax liability there in the bottom. And you can see really the point of this slide is to highlight what's referenced as the postcircuit breaker credit in that bottom right. And you see that $300.
That is that 10% homestead credit uh coming into play um there. That is the new legislation from SCA1. Okay. The interesting piece in Carmel because of the way the math ultimately works is
that homeowners on average should see a decline in their total tax liability in 2026 compared to 2025. And that is that $300 credit coming into play. So that is why if you look at the
graph there on the left, you start 2025 with 5,333 and you see the projected 5,246 in 2026. That is based on them receiving that $300. So theoretically, had they not passed SCA1, that homeowner would have
paid $300 more in property taxes in 2026. questions there. All right. I know I've done Yes. Go. Please. >> You saw the wheel spin. >> Can you um This is off the fly, but can
you give some indication assuming there was no $300 credit? I mean, I just don't want to make this assumption. Um I don't know if it's fair for me to make this assumption. There was no $300 credit. this bill didn't pass what the next few years of this typical homeowners property taxes would
have looked like. We just assume $300 more per year over the next handful of years or is that not a fair assumption to make? What assumption would you make? >> So, uh, give me a little bit. We're going to have a slide a little bit later that we've run what we call the counterfactual of what would the tax
bill look like had they not passed SEA1 and compare it to some of the data moving forward. So, we'll have that and you'll be able to really visually see that here in just just a moment. Okay. I know that was a lot. I appreciate all of you working through that piece. Um, this is obviously very
complex legislation, has a lot of changes. Um, so I appreciate you walking through the weeds of that there with us. Now really what we want to shift to is what's this ultimately mean then for the referendum and what is what are the considerations for the district when it comes to a referendum and a potential
renewal uh that you may consider. And so one of the things that we worked with with just looking at the district um is what types again of levy may be needed to support the school district. And so on this slide,
um the orange line represent if you were to keep the 19 cent um really the combined the 24 cents. In this case, we're combining the operating and safety. If we split them out, the mechanics are all the same. So this is really just for ease and and looking at
the data. Um but we see that declining revenue structure with that orange line. Uh so the district just took a look at again I think back to the comment earlier when you factor in the impact on the operations fund. We factor in what we would have seen in terms of an inflationary component to support the
district to support potential you know staff support terms of salaries and benefits. Um looked really just at a few different scenarios really levy based. Um and so you can see those outlined there at this point. Again these are really for consideration as the district
works through those. Um but all of them were again we're looking more at a growing revenue structure that would mimic what has been in place for the last several years with the referendum that the revenue has grown over those course of those years. So that's where at least we're looking
at in terms of a combined between the operating and safety referendum. We look at the next slide. Now we start to look at well what would the rate be needed in order to generate those amounts of revenue in those future
years. And again you see um the referendum rate in all three of the scenarios uh increasing over the next several years. This is what we are seeing sea1 and the impacts of those
deductions because again we go back to the mechanics deductions increase net assessed value goes down as net assessed value goes down we have to increase the rate in order to generate the revenue that's needed. This is a situation so we had four school
districts that uh went out for an operating referendum in the fall of of last year. They're the first ones under the current legislation. All of them looked at a higher tax rate. A district that went from 22 cents to 39 cents, a
district that went from 17 cents to 26 cents and so forth. All districts looked at a higher rate because ultimately becomes a almost a backwards math problem. We have to look at really 2031 and say that is our lowest year of assessed value in the current structure.
What is the rate that's needed in that lowest year of AV to generate the revenue that's needed? Out of the 35 districts that we are working with, I think all but maybe two, and there's some really unique situations, are looking at a higher
potential rate when it comes to um a a referendum rate. So it's a piece where if we've had averages of referendum rates in the past, right, a state average, they're going to increase over the next several years because of the mechanics of SE, right? So this is not
uh something that Carmel Clay alone is facing. This is what any district that's seeking a referendum might be facing. So we look at this again, we start to potentially max out somewhere maybe around that 38 to 42 cent um referendum. Um, again, we'll get into a little bit
of the ballot question. In the referendum ballot question, you have to establish a max rate and a max levy that you will not exceed over the next eight years. That is a long horizon. Changes can
happen during those eight years. And so, I think as we consider that fact, it's a part of considering what the rate may need to be. Um, the district is not uh required to take the full rate. But on that particular ballot question, if we
looked at the yellow line, it would be we would want to put a 4274 or 43 cent referendum rate. So that would be our potential max. You know, you would not have to take those in those early years, but you cannot increase your ask once you set that on
that ballot question. You can only take less. So that's a consideration for the board as well. what's that appropriate rate and factoring it over the next eight years and what's the ref revenue lead needed and we'll talk a little bit about I think to your comment earlier um
of assessed value and how assessed value and what you maybe also need to consider when we think about assessed values as well uh so that's our potential rates that we're looking at uh in terms of that so that's that's different right in terms of this piece it's a it's a much higher rate at the end of the day the
next piece really that we start to look at then is what is the impact on homeowners. Um we work this for a lot of districts. We do it in a lot of different forms. For tonight, we're just looking at the median taxpayer. Obviously, at different levels, it's going to have some different impacts. Uh we just want to give some consideration
of what this would potentially look like. Again, you can see the orange line. If you kept the current rate, the referendum only impact declines. That's because the net assessed value of the home is declining. So, as we decline that net assessed value, we're going to
decline the liability. Um you can see again over the next several years um we see an increase in the referendum liability to support those levies. Um that again is somewhat similar to what we have seen in previous years. As we've
kept the 19 cent or the 24 cent overall rate combined as assessed value has gone up for the home. So has that referendum liability component. So again, it's very similar to what homeowners would be used to uh and the structure that we've been operating under for the last several years.
So this is one component of it is the referendum specific impact. Right? We also want to take a look and step back holistically. Um before we get there in that piece, then this looks at what the uh overall tax rate may be. Um, again,
you see that increasing overall rate. That's very similar to what we showed in the previous slide. Now, we're just incorporating the referendum rate, which obviously pushes it up a little farther because we're taking a 24 cent rate and we're increasing it over that time period as well. So, it's an interesting
situation where we're used to rates having a little more direct correlation with revenue and now we don't have that direct correlation as as cleanly as before because rates are going to increase but it doesn't necessarily mean additional revenue. The next piece I think is really
important. This gets to the question that was asked earlier. So, what is the total liability? Right? And so this is again looking at all units of government uh and the impact the lines um there again represent what the impact would
look like with those referendum levies of the 42 45 and 47 million. The hashed uh line that goes across is what we call that counterfactual. uh that is what the projected tax liability for a homeowner would have
been with the 24 cent referendum rate had they not passed sea1. So, we are in a situation that in any of the scenarios that you're potentially considering, they would the the median homeowner would still be paying less today and in
the next several years than what they would have had they not passed SCA1 and you would have kept the same 24% rate. That is a somewhat unique situation to districts that have high value homes because that deduction structure has a
larger impact. And we're talking now we're moving to a percentage. The higher the value of the home, greater that deduction is going to be. >> I think we just need to be clear that this is an isolation of the city not making any changes as well. So we have heard them just hypothesize as to them
having to do the same exercise. So I don't want the community to hear that it all go down >> because we are two separate taxes. >> Yeah. Let me um may walk through a couple things there. Uh so first and foremost we assume in our piece um that
the other government governmental units that have levydriven funds like your operations fund continue to take the max amount in those pieces which is based on the maximum levy growth quotion of 4%. So we're assuming those pieces there. We're assuming that they don't adjust their debt service levies that they're
keeping those steady. The difference I would say in terms of what the other units of government have that the school district have is other revenue sources. Specifically, local income tax. Uh they've made changes to the local income tax structure. Uh in the past, local
income tax was at the county level and that was potentially distributed out. The new legislation that was originally supposed to start in 2028 um has now been moved to 2029 establishes new local income tax provisions and it actually
expands it to more of the units of government. So the city would have an opportunity for a local income tax, EMS and fire services would have an opportunity for local income tax. So there's more opportunities for other we could see them taking advantage of that specifically in order to help with sea
one. um that the school district does not have that opportunity. Your opportunity is through the referendum where theirs is through a local income tax structure as states. So yes, we are making assumptions. Those are the assumptions at least we're making today and have a feeling that they may lean
into local income tax which does not change this calculation because it's income not property taxes. Yes, >> Larry. Just to piggyback slash clarify that question based on what you just said, the first opportunity for the city
or local EMS to do that would be 2029. >> Correct. It was original SEA1 had it established in 2028. Um it is as I think as they've worked through some of the data across the state uh it's a bigger shift um in some communities and some
school districts than I think was anticipated. Uh so they've pushed that back till 2029. I think it used the budget session to try to investigate that further and see what provisions >> again all hypothetically because things can change between now and then. Right.
Um, but hypothetically speaking, so this this the school district could make a decision about a referendum that would go into impact and then potentially there could be impacts that the city could implement that based on what we know today could go into effect in 2029.
>> Correct? >> Or things could change and the city does nothing, right? Um or this the legislature makes changes that then don't necessitate the city having to do anything. Correct. >> We could be hopeful. very um
piggybacking on Mr. Shapiro's piggybacking of Mrs. Cashion. So, I've heard it described and this is a very speaking very generally understanding that every taxing district and school district is different.
I've heard SEA1 described as really just forcing local taxing districts to tax in a different way if they wanted to keep the same amount of revenue. In other words, a CA1 was sold as a decrease in property
tax for certain classes. And I think that's true, right? But in order to keep city services, county services at the same level, I think they're going to have to do exactly what you describe.
Increase local income tax, maybe wheel tax, whatever is available to them to make up the difference. So, the net total tax savings may not be to your average citizen anything at all.
It just depends on where you live, what kind of home you have, whether you're a business, etc., etc. >> Yeah. So, I I would go back to um the summer of 2023. Uh they established what was referred to as the Salter
Commission. It was a look at local taxes and taxes across the state. And one of the things that was identified then was um a situation where there was an opportunity I think to lean into
income tax uh versus property taxes and some additional capacity there um that they felt might be more appropriate potentially. I think there's a lot of conversation to your point of what is that right mix uh and there seems to be a push towards income tax and trying to
create some property tax relief at the end of the day and yes it's going to be very specific on what the end result is over the and we most likely won't know that for the next several years. I just was going to have you reiterate
and make sure that we both heard it correctly. Um that looking at this graph, if we if we didn't have SEA1 and we were continuing at the current rate, you know, that's that higher line. So no matter what choice we make,
it will still mean less taxes than um for the average homeowner than prior to SEA1. >> Correct. U based on the assessed value assumptions we have in those pieces, which again we think are are accurate, um that homeowners should more than likely be paying less over the next
several years than they would have prior >> from a district perspective, from a school tax um from a school referendum perspective. >> Oh, this is overall look. So again, we have some of those factors, but yes, you're still at the end of the day, the homeowners paying less overall basically.
I think our last couple slides here gets into the question that was asked before. Okay. Um, so again, as as I've spoken, you know, policy analytics has been around for 20 years. We've been doing this modeling for 15 years. Um, so we have the database for every piece of
property in the state for the last 15 years. Uh, that being said, we're making projections, right? And we don't often know what may happen in the economy, what may happen in particular sectors that may cause swings in that. And so what we've been doing uh, in a number of districts that are talking about
referendums is really take a look at our projections uh, and then give really some guard rails. Right? And so what this chart attempts to show is we have the baseline which gets into that gross assessed value growing at that roughly 4%. And then we said, well, what would
happen if we grew by 2% more each year? What if we happen we grew by 2% less each year? And so that's what's outlined. The green line represents if we saw less assessed value than projected. The blue line represents if we saw greater assessed value than what
we're projecting. And so what does then that in turn mean? And really for you it's going to be a consideration around the rate. Right? So as we look at the next slide, this is just taking the one example, the $45.1 million levy just for
simplicity. And what it's really saying is, you know, as you look at 2034, so we have the numbers and that baseline scenario of what you would have seen before, you would have need around a 41 cent tax rate. However, if assessed value grows less than what we're
projecting, that 2% less annually, you would need a 47 almost 48 cent rate in order to generate that same amount of levy at that time. Right? So again, it's back to that AV times rate. Why is this an important consideration?
We're locking in something over the next eight years. Okay? And so if assessed value does come in lower than projected, um you may not be able to capture as much revenue because we're again on that ballot question you have to establish a
max rate. So in this case, if you established a max rate of 40 cents, really from 2030 on, you're not able to collect the full dollars that are projected. Right now, we are in no means suggesting that you jump to a much higher rate. Obviously, that's it's a
consideration in the overall scheme of things. We just paint this in the fact that it is projections. you are locking in things over eight years and we just want to be upfront and transparent of what some of the impacts potentially could be uh given this situation. this
wasn't prior really something we had to consider because at a rate assessed value grew revenue grew right and so is this part of this new paradigm that we're having to face around the rates and revenues with the referendum and so um we just want to make sure that have
that full consideration at the end of day within that um the last piece and I know may get talked about a little bit later when we get back to the ballot question and maybe talk about I'll talk about from the financial standpoint point you have to establish a max rate
and a max levy. Now right now um what has been understood from the department of local government finance the DLGF is those two do not have to be connected right so and and it's it's important
because if we took a if we tied those together it could limit the amount of revenue you're able to collect in later years. And so that's a benefit that you could say we want a 45 cent rate or 40 cent rate and we want that to have 47 million
in revenue. Why? Because if AV came in better, you might be able to collect some additional dollars to support the district. So we may want to again have a little higher piece of than that. Those are two components. Um it's going to be back to the fact then you're also going
to have to have a median homeowner. challenge here is you have a median home at least today as we're understanding the impact we're having some conversation with DGF of $56,000. You are forced to round that up to the next 50,000. So on that ballot question
it will read 45 cents and $550,000 and you don't mind going back to the taxpayer impact slides the amounts just a couple here. Nope. Yes. And again, this then would look at a
potential question that might say 45 cents, 550,000. And the impact is the full impact, not the increase. Right? So it wouldn't say the difference between $660 and $800 that it's a 200 increase. It acts if
there was no referendum in place. It's taking the max rate times the higher AV in 2026. So it's potentially that question could read 550,000 a 45cent rate and an $1,100 impact on a median tax when obviously you can see if you
take the staggered rate that is not the case and so I think this is a piece where the legislation creates an additional challenge in terms of communication and how you may potentially take the rate over the next several years and that the ballot question won't mimic truly what a median homeowner is in the district.
very far apart and so there's going to have to be obviously some additional communication in that because when we walk in the ballot question not reflective. So, I know there'll be some more legal pieces within that, but those are the financial numbers that we'll work with
the district to help kind of walk through when you start to fine-tune these pieces, but unfortunately, it's a situation we have to have some additional I >> Oh, don't leave Barry. Stay, Barry. Stay.
Okay. Uh, where did the $45.1 million levy number for 27 come from? >> That came from the administration and I know um Mr. Mcichael and they're going to walk through that here in just a little bit. Um, where that came from.
>> Okay. >> I have a quick question. Um, in terms Oh, sorry. >> I was going to say while it's on your mind. Um we we started with how much we're receiving now and then we you'll see it later I believe
it's looking at if nothing had changed and assume 4% I know assuming start more and with regard to the the other as you had that question comment on that. um in
23 you may remember I remember that we had declining enrollment and it had declined three years in a row to over 500 kids. So times $7,000. It happened that when we received close to a 13% increase in the
referendum levy in your tax bill u we lost about that same amount from the state because of lost enrollment. I'm talking about after we reduce staff. So, we honestly made a decision as to are we going to
recommend, you know, significant reduction in services to kids or are we going to keep them? And the referendum was to supplement inadequate state funding. All of them have been for inadequate state funding to begin with. So, we're a district like some of our
neighbors, we did not lower the rate, but we're also not in a situation, you know, millions of dollars deficit. So, I wanted to explain that because um it looks like well tax payment went up and
it did and and then we're building off of that and we have ever since. Um but it happened that that increased AV at a time where other negative things were happening, enrollment soth, not to mention, you
know, the funding was inadequate to begin with. So that's why we continue to keep the rate. >> Sorry, I hit the button. Nothing happens. >> Um, sorry, Roger. And I was saying um
not that we need to go in the weeds or you need to answer, but as you're kind of going through various scenarios to me, what might be helpful for the board to understand, at least the way my brain works, is like what does the number need
to be to maintain the status quo? What does the number need to be eight years from now to maintain the status quo with the cost increases we know are coming? And what does the number need to be to
fully pay our staff an increase that's in excess of what their out-ofpocket costs are for their benefits because I know in some years it's been a net loss because the benefits incre which is outside of our I mean you do the best you can but it's kind of
>> happened here >> okay it has happened other places and so I don't want it to happen in the future >> we don't either and that's exactly what we're doing everything you said I'll just do it so I can understand it. >> Maintaining the current excellent
program. >> So, so >> sorry. >> So, kind of eating off yours and the whole discussion since we locked things in for a period. If I'm reading like chart 15,
chose referendum rates, we would saying we would recommend that rate goes from 24 cents to we pick the middle number 40.7. So, so the ballot would say we're going to raise
and I will again just allude to the fact that um you will not be alone. I think surrounding area and across the state of districts that will have if they have a current referendum and they're renewing
that are not increasing their rate substantially >> and again it goes back to I'm sorry I was >> I was gonna say it just basically again goes back to the mechanics of Senate Act we're having declining net assessed value so the only way to generate the revenues that we're talking about is
forced to raise doesn't reflect how it Assuming we don't do any changes to budget, assuming we stay in the same trajectory on budget, and I think these are the tough questions we're going to have to look at
if if we have declining enrollment of some amount. I think we're down about 700 from the peak from from 2020. We grew the last grew the last two years until this year went down.
Okay. Um I I guess we'll have to look at talk and I think we need to have a working session too where we talk about enrollment. I don't have the enrollment tables from that period, but I, you know, going to the state dashboards, it looks like we peaked out
at 16,538. We just need to take a look at and it's got enough the numbers don't really I the point I'm trying to make is we we have to look at and you made the point that if enrollment is starting to taper down on top of uh SCA1 that's bringing
down property tax. We're getting hit on both major sources. One being the you know the basic grant from the state and the other being property taxes. So, I think we just need to take a look at what what kinds of adjustments would we
have to make. Let's say let's say we lose u whatever pick a number eight or$10 million over so many years. Uh if if we don't raise those rates, what would our budget look like? That's the point I was trying. >> Well, the dollars will go down already
and ours do. So, when we lost enrollment, we also reduced the number of teaching positions to correspond students. However, the challenge is is that that offsets about half of the loss. The other half is for everything else it takes that is not in a class
like our media specialist, social workers, principal, assistant princip. So, so we do have that, but it's not like we're not talking about the dollars staying the overall budget. They'll go down relative to
We're now projecting relatively few. So, and I think your 165 is about right,000. >> Anyway, >> yeah, I think we're down to 15,800 30 some number like that. So it it's
within you know five or 700 we could build numbers but looking at it from a taxpayer perspective is I think we need to to to take that perspective and say you know I look at from my personal residential that's I got a tax bill it shows me the school
amounts and then operating the safety referendum if I look at the last five years I've gone up over 50% on my own personal property tax. So, um, hoping to get some relief. Now, it it looks like the cities and schools are
saying, "Well, we're just we're doing a shift." I think you kind of made that shifting the taxes from from where it was coming before to where to more direct to it. So, is there any room relief? And and this is why I'd like to see that that one chart where we I like to see a cumulative because we have seen
dramatic increases in the last five years at least residential and uh You mentioned that they're shifting legislators were trying to shift that burden more to commercial and give us a little bit of relief but we may not get relief and I think we had talked that at some point we would be
able to show at a parcel level what the impact would be to a residential person or in business or whatever by running through some calculators to see what what will my tax bill look like if if we if I vote for a
42 cent tax over 24. I think we also have to look at what if we make this proposal and the voters uh don't approve it. I think there could take a lot of
discussions if we combine these two referendums together and we lose safety for example now what so yeah there's a lot more there's a lot more discussion >> well and I just want to add uh before we
get to Mrs. passion that uh part of working with policy analytics and uh Barry and also with our referendum consultant, but that parcel by parcel that you mentioned. So when people are out in the community talking whatever recommendation uh would be approved or
may be approved moving forward, then they can go to that website, they can see what their taxes were in 2025, what they were in what they are in 2026, what they will be in 2027. And I think that's a critical part and I'm grateful to the
board uh for moving forward on a referendum consultant uh so that we have these tools that our community hasn't had in the past. So you bring up a good point there. >> I just want to add one thing um just looking at the scope of what we're facing.
94 million that we will lose just in the referendum now and that doesn't include the $300 credit. So, it's just reallyational that >> and I think it's kind of building off of
all of that is that it would be helpful for us to see this holistically from the district level and I did go through this when we had the had the preview. Um, but like as we get into more detail to see what is that commulative budget look like from all sources over the same
projection period so that we can see that impact. Now granted, we know education fund is going to eb and flow with enrollment in state algorithms. Um, but like what do we project based on history for all of that to look like? If we did nothing today, what would that
gap then be? And then to Mr. Brown's point of what does that correlate to of if we had said no today, what does our community potentially see as the equivalent? no recommendations as to what would be cut, but if we have to cut $10 million, that is the equivalent of X
and Y. Um, just so that the community can truly understand when they are going to go to a ballot box for whatever we decide to put on there as what could potentially be lost if we have to do this exercise. Um, and then obviously the conversation we've had previously
too comes up of do you put both referendums separately on the ballot? What does that look like? What does that do from a consumer perspective versus just having one combined referendum and having that conversation too? I also think it's important to
watching now or watch us later. This is a work session opportunity for us to learn better understand where we are with this and what's at stake decisions being made discussion
issues apply both Mr. Brown and Miss Cash of things ass ways
responsible taxpayer dollar and we know that we know some of their teachers excellent district The other point I wanted to make is just when we make a determination, if we make
a determination about putting a question on the ballot, we have to set a rate that also doesn't mean that we're taking the maximum rate. So should we decide on 41 cents, it doesn't mean starting The other slide we saw is also
informative all the model show I don't have an opinion yet I have other information to share with us that I think directly correlate to how it >> um I just want to say I think the a lot
of the questions at the board in this discussion um you know because we have already agreed and and hired the referendum consultant. A lot of are you know maybe the things that we are trying to kind of figure out is is part of that job of the of the referendum consultant company to help us through this process
if it is what we decide to do to decide what you know help us to decide um the best way to get the information to the community. Um that's literally what they do for um for a living. So we can kind of leave it up to the experts to to help us with that.
>> Well, I wanted to say um that was it Dr. gardener yet or are we still at mister because I know you're working on your doctorate? >> Well, that that's also accountability and motivation as well for you to get that done because I I know you will. So, um so Mr. Gardner is going to stick with
us during the next part of our presentation. But I did want to share that um the board uh Miss Wheeler and board members had requested from us to kind of talk through kind of the history of school funding, the impact of funding
on the district throughout time. And in addition, we're also going to take a look at some of those referendum considerations as well. And so at this time, we're going to have Mr. Mcichael kind of kick us off. Uh he did some homework uh based upon that request. So, he's going to share some information
with us. Uh, Mrs. Kushar is also going to talk to us a little bit about what Mr. Gardner talked about that rate verse levy and taking a look at that as well. And then I'm going to finish up with some referendum considerations, kind of why now, um, and talk about what the uh,
next steps and what a timeline uh, may look like should the board uh, decide to move forward. So, Mr. Mcichael, >> thank you. So, I'll start with local uh funding and you'll see that in 2010 as was mentioned earlier is when the
circuit breaker caps took effect and as noted they're in the constitution. So, the likelihood they'll be changed anytime soon is not at all likely. So, that was 2010. Also in 2010 is when the uh the state took over funding what was
then the general fund. And by the way, they raised sales tax was raised from 6% to 7% which is the math of it 66.6% increase. Um not enough because in 2010 is when we had approved our first
referendum. We were amongst the first to have a referendum. There's now about 25 27% I believe the school districts that do but all around our neighbors do. So again, Hamilton County is not typical of the whole state. Um and then in 2025
uh we had this sea1 reform package that that is designed to lower property tax and you note at the top that u circuit breaker since 2009
24 total loss to the state of $4.1 billion. So our share of that as I believe was mentioned is tipping varies a little bit, but it's been about three million or so. I think it peaked at about 3.5.
Yes. So, then we go to state funding and and um so between 2012 and 2024, we had charter schools come in. Uh that's now $3.2 billion. And then most recently, in
a big way, we have essentially universal vouchers. So, And that's another $2.2 billion. So, and we had our first charter school, you can see in 2002. Um, and then by 2010, as I said, the state took over funding of the
general fund, excuse me, using sales tax. Now, the vouchers in the charter schools, that's coming out of that same 7% pot primarily, you know, state tax and sales and income taxes. So that has not been increased, but it's that it's
being distributed almost a billion dollars now is going to vouchers or free textbooks and other things. Not pro or con, but it's it basically comes out and what's left is distributed. And so the
amount was inadequate in the first place. So it's becoming, you know, it's more so now. So in 2012, um, when they started funding vouchers, but it was in 2023 that essentially passed legislation that made it, you
know, they raise income where it's basically universal vouchers and those are not students. 70% of them are not students that money follows the child because those children were never in public schools. It's just we're funding more students now
than we otherwise had in effect with the same bottom up. Um and then in 25 um well that's when they removed the income limit. So we're going to now see major impact. So tuition support um and you can see um
the bottom line is the actual so for six years after the state took over funding of the general fund the actual dollars as compared to 2009 were less. It wasn't. So, so it wasn't until So, it basically set a new base and then it
started to go up, but it first went down for six years. And that's the same time when we we passed a referendum at 16 cents initially um to offset that what otherwise would be a loss. And then we we're showing a line that if uh if the
tuition support were maintained um you can see it would it would go up considerably with four assuming a 4% annual growth. We're using 4% as kind of roughly inflation and we know sometimes it's been less
23 it was considerably high. And so then you see in the two boxes on the left in 2010 um it's a difference of you know funding 93% funded as compared to 2009 and now it's compared to 26 it's
funded at about 73%. So again that just reflects how it's less and less. So referendums in Carmel uh as I said we our community uh passed the first referendum referendum in 2010 uh and it
was at 16 cents and it was 58% approval but remember what happened in 2010 was the beginning of 100year recession and uh so in spite of that it was 58% and we weren't very good at it because we you know never I'm not sure we're very good
at it now we fire some help but I mean, we, you know, honestly, schools didn't have referendums. They did in the 80s a little bit, but but essentially, um, we did the best we could, but, um, but we were, you know, we weren't trained to sell referendums
to the community. And the questions were the questions changed every year and gotten worse and worse. By the way, um um, in the sense that if you read the question, I wouldn't vote for a referendum based on my taxes going up 28% what it said last time. and um
meaning if you didn't have a referendum of course that's not what it said and so now it's now it says you know 40 maybe 40 50 cent tax rate whatever um and you go well the math you know that's you know 100% increase and so that's why
we'll be talking you know for years we've talked about levy and we've or I'm sorry we've talked about rate and a level rate now we know that a level rate doesn't mean the money stays the same because the other half of the equation is the AB. So if it goes up, money goes
up. I thought it was a pretty good system for uh funding that was in our case 100% for salary and benefits for teachers because cost of living and people. So, so um at any rate we were we were happy
with the 58% at the time and then you see in 2017 with you know increased in adequate funding we raised it to n asked improved at 19 cents and it was at 89%. So um I don't know if our credibility
went up or we got better at promoting but we we're happy with the we were happy with the 89%. Then in 2019 we were um had the first safety referendum and still are amongst I think there may be two of them. Um and in 2019 when that
new legislation came in as were noted earlier uh we asked for 5 cents. The cap the maximum is 10 cents. So we asked as much as half of what we could have asked for. Um but we for the first three years we we uh established three and a half
cents because we didn't need the money. We don't tax to what the maximum is unless we feel we really need that maximum. And here we didn't and it's because it was primarily because it was a new program and so get all the SRO officers in place and so forth, you
know, took time and and the therapy program for students and so forth. So it took time. So we we only We we set the rate at what we felt we needed and and then eventually we have since increased it to up to the five cents. And then in 23 we asked for a
renewal at 19 cents and it passed at 68%. Somebody pointed out well that's not near as good as 89. And uh and I thought about that and I I believe that my opinion that some of a lot of that is with what's going on in in the country
really as it relates to public education and criticism and you know and assertions of all kinds of negative things and and certainly a certain percentage of the community agrees with that and and and it may reflect in how
they might vote and But still 69% or 68% uh is a clear majority is approving approved the referendum. And then uh finally then most recent in 26 we have the uh that begins the the sea1 changes
which we'll see later I believe but I mean it really impacts starting 27. Now this is um how well you can see that on the screen but this is all the referendums in the state and as I said there's about 20 27% of school out about
300 school districts have operating referendums and you'll note on the left I wanted to speak to that because this shows the Z the O is for operating C is for construction referendum and S for safety and then pass fail. I want to
emphasize uh particularly in a community like Carmel that we do not have construction referendums. We have which means we have not asked taxpayers to raise their taxes to pay for facilities uh is essentially what it amounts to and and we're pretty proud of that that
we've managed to maintain the facilities at the level that we do and provide the facilities that we do but within that 1% cap and and that's you can All of all of our contiguous neighbors have they have a
operating referendum, but they also have capital referendum and we're the exception and and we we with with those districts that have referendums, I'd say we're we're somewhat the exception around the state as well. So with that, I'll turn it over
to >> Thanks, Roger. Um I wanted to share something they will raise over the operating referendum funds and benefits about
uh that represents almost a quarter of the total number of teachers. The safety fun in each of our buildings with multiple usually
it funds our social workers and supports our partnership. Ultimately, these referendums are more than budget. They're direct investment that allow our students.
And I'll just add, we're grateful to our community for supporting those referendums uh that you just talked about and as Roger outlined since 2010 in our community. Um, so the next slide, I really think Barry did a really good job of
explaining referendum levy and how that conversation has changed and that we really need to focus on the levy. So I actually think that I don't think I can >> but if if you also look at that in the
past you can see Caramel has had the lowest tax rate um when you look at referendum total and when you look at that total school tax rate so Roger Mcichael and the board has masterfully u managed that throughout the years in
order to provide the outstanding educational programming that we do have here in Carmel. So, while we do have to shift our mindset going from rate to levy, um that rate that we followed uh for many many years, um has served the
district well and Mr. Mcichael has managed it very very well. And so, talking about referendum timing, why now? Well, you heard uh quite a bit from Mr. Gardner tonight. Um and the
timing of that certainly taking a look at our referend our safety referendum being up uh in 2027. We have to take at least the safety referendum to the community if we want to continue that investment that Mrs. Kushar just shared.
Um in addition, as uh Mrs. Kushar also shared um taking a look at a projected loss in referendum funding and this is not even talking about the $300 um tax credit that uh homeowners receive. That's another $2.96 million a year that
the district will not receive. That doesn't include this. We're taking a look at $94 million projected loss over the next eight years. I want to repeat that again. $94 million projected loss in those referendum funds over the next
eight years. And so, uh, we do need to consider at this time taking a look at that operating referendum if we want to continue the investment that this community has made into education here in Carmel. The other piece I want to
share, Barry mentioned this earlier, uh, but there will be at least 50 to 60 school districts in the state of Indiana that we've been made aware of that will be running referendums as a result of SEA1. So, this is not just a Caramel
issue. This is an issue across the state of Indiana. And as Mr. Gardner also pointed out every single neighboring school district around us is examining just like we are tonight of taking a look at um raising that operating
referendum rate or levy. I can tell you that from information that's been shared with me all of the districts are looking at at least that 40% rate in order to compensate for the significant loss because of sea one. all of our
neighboring districts here in Hamilton County. And so, um, as you know, a referendum will go for eight years, uh, upon being approved. And if we don't secure a local, um, a local solution now, then that is that is the impact.
Um, in addition to that, we talked about general elections. um in 2028, I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but I do want to bring it up because it is significant to all communities across the state, but in beginning in 2028, any
referendum passed at that time and moving forward, they must share referendum um contributions or referendum levies with charter schools. So, why now? We need to take a look at that because if we're looking at a
certain levy to continue the outstanding programs that we have here in Carmel and continue the great teachers that we have, um that rate, that levy may look different if charter schools would pop up because of that new law in our area
or in our community. So that's another consideration. And then finally, referendum fatigue. Um, we are one of only one We are one of only two school districts in the state of Indiana that has a safety referendum. We're not one of only two school districts that have
um SRO's in their schools. Many school districts will have SRO's in their schools. Not to the level and and commitment and investment of Carmel. Uh, not all of them have SRO's at the elementary level. Most of them are going to have SRO's at the high school level.
However, most of those districts may choose to pay for those SRO's with their operating referendum. And so referendum fatigue is a real thing because right now every four years, Carmel Clay Schools is going
for a referendum as you saw with the addition of the safety referendum. The safety referendum is critically important to the work we do supporting kids each and every day with their safety. And so, um, by com potentially examining the combination of an
operating and a safety, we can get the same things out of an operating referendum that we currently have out of a safety referendum, pass one for eight years, and then we're not in the referendum business every four years moving forward. And so,
our success is not accidental here in Caramel. We have a great investment in this community. Uh since 2010, due to inadequate state funding, our community has stepped up and said to us that education is important to Carmel. We
want to continue to have the educational programs, the opportunities, which is part of our mission that President Shapiro reads every single board meeting as we kick things off. We want to continue to have those opportunities throughout the school district for our elementary learners, our middle school
learners, and our high school learners. And so, this is a long-term investment that we are taking a look at. We are in examining at this time, and we'll have further conversation uh with the board, but our success is not accidental because it takes that investment to
continue the amazing programming that we have. If you look at um the uh recent niche ratings that came out that I mentioned to you at the last board meeting, Carmel Clay Schools was voted the top school to teach at, top school district to teach at in Hamilton County.
Um it's number one in the area for top school districts. It's top 100 of school districts in the entire country, either 10,000 or 20,000 out of 10,000 school districts. And so with that, we want to maintain that outstanding reputation.
But if we don't consider supplementing and uh taking a look at that operating referendum and that 94 million that were projected to lose, if we don't consider doing something, we will fall behind all the other districts who are considering
it at this time. from Zansville to Westfield to Noblesville to HSSE, all of our neighbors are considering that. I don't want to fall behind. And so that's why we're taking a look at that right now. Local control matters. And for me,
I want the same opportunities and the same educational programming that we had yesterday for our for our students tomorrow. And so I think it's really important that we're looking at this right now and that's why we're we're here tonight. And then I want to talk about resource management and diligent
resource management. So Carmel Clay Schools consistently manages taxpayer resources on an annual basis with care and with purpose. Mr. Mcichael mentioned one aspect of that because of the consistent leadership we've had here in
the district. Even though this is my first year as superintendent, it's my seventh year in the district. Mr. Mcichels been here for over 30. Dr. Dudley has been here, I'm not going to say, but she's been here a great a great long a great time with us. Um because of
that consistent leadership, we're able every single year to take a look at to look ahead to be responsive with um different um I don't want to say cuts, but to be responsive to um the
enrollment, to be responsive to what's going on operationally. You could you you saw from that chart that Roger showed earlier the amount of money we lost from 2010 for six years in a row. We've been tightening our belt since 2010 and we continue to look at that in
the district. And finally, we want to protect community value. Um Caramel Clay Schools, and you will hear this from um from our city leaders, you will hear this uh from our homeowners, and you'll definitely hear this from me. Um but in
Carmel um we are part of fueling that local economy. We are uh a number a top reason if not the top reason why people move to Carmel for the outstanding schools. And so we want to continue to secure and strengthen uh the reputation
of our community. And so that's why we're here tonight and that's why we're coming to you to share what are our challenges moving forward and what do we have to look like if we want to continue the educational programming that we've offered here in this community. And so
finally, I just want to share kind of what next steps uh and the timeline looks like. And so um we will continue to update the board. Um, we've already taken notes on some of the questions we've received today and we'll be getting the board that information. Um,
but we're looking at uh May 13th to have another uh work session if not before uh to engage with the board and to engage with the community. And I think in looking at that next uh work session, I Mrs. Castion, you brought this up, but um you know, what does it look like if
we consider uh running the question, you know, separately? Uh what if we combine it together? what if we just do the safety referendum and looking what uh that looks like on the ballot is going to be important to share with the board moving forward as well. Um in addition looking up at at the next steps and
timeline of moving forward through this work we would need to bring a recommendation to the board to consider by June 24th. Um and the board would need to um vote on that recommendation that we bring to you. a lot of
information we shared here with you tonight. Um, but by doing that, the board's not voting yes or no to uh move forward to actually vote on the actual referendum. The board is voting to place the referendum on the ballot to to have
the community vote to see if they want to continue whatever investment that we want to present to them. And so then should that happen and should the board approve um whatever that recommendation may look like, then there are specific
steps that we would work with policy analytics, our referendum consultant, ICE Miller, with bond council and take a look at uh what those pieces look like. And then there we have to follow the law on submitting all sorts of things um to
the county clerk and so on and so forth. So, and then obviously general election on November 3rd, early voting um sometime I think it says October um but early voting starts in early October. So, that concludes um the the why and
some uh historical uh aspects of uh the ref referendums here in Carmel Clay Schools. And at this time, uh the team would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Uh yeah, one question I have is uh is there any sense uh of where the general
assembly is uh looking at the impact of SCA1 now that it's been out companies like yourself and professionals have been able to look at it and assess the impacts and is there a satisfaction that it's where they want to be or is there potential that they
may want to come back and make some changes in the next coming years. >> Uh great question. Um so I think over the last several months um in the short session that we had is I think some more detailed information
were brought forward. So step back for just a moment. But when SEA1 was considered um there was legislative services agency produced a report on the potential impact within that they were in um and it's a bit of a tough spot because they had been working for this
for some for quite some time. So they actually were utilizing 2024 levies um which not were exactly reflectful reflective of our current time period. It also did not include the unfunded credits change in terms of the operation
impact and did not include some impacts of some of the local income tax provisions. Some of that has started to come to light which I think has brought up a number of questions uh at the legislative body that I think they're continuing to consider. Um I think what
we're hearing is there's some potential additional movement that may be considered in the budget session around property taxes. don't know what that means or or looks like. I think that gets into this idea of we're locking things in over the next eight years. Um and then I think hopefully we'll have
some consider continued conversation. Um policy analytics has actually been uh engaged by the Indiana Association of School Business Officials, ASBO. Um and so we are in the process of really working to update uh a statewide impact similar to that legislative services
report but utilizing 26 levies, the full local income tax, the full 10% credit to hopefully drive some conversation. So I think we're hopeful that there'll be some continued conversation. Uh I think there's some consideration we're hearing that might be. Um, I think the tough
part for you all in that is you have to make a decision really, as we're saying in June if you were to do this with a vote in November, not knowing what that might look like in the spring of of 27 and beyond. I think that's the real challenge. >> Yeah. And to add to that challenge,
because we have to go on even years or general elections, if we were to hope something would happen and it doesn't happen, then we're almost four years behind by the time we're able to go back to the community to ask for it for the
investment here in the district. And so that's why we're here tonight kind of looking at that. And in my mind, then we'd also have to do all of the work, as I see it, all of the work to run a referendum and get it on the ballot and have to share the proceeds, share the
revenue. >> And in a presidential year, >> thank you, Dr. O. Um, so understanding that June 14th is the date we adopt the I'm sorry, 24th. I looked at 24 and said 14th. >> Sorry, it's been a long day and it's
Monday. Um, so we don't generally adopt resolutions the same day they're presented. And I see there's a revenue spending plan like we've had before. Are we getting those documents we're voting on on June 24th on May 13th or when are
we getting those as a board? >> Yeah, we will we will be working with a referendum consultant on getting all of those pieces to you. I don't know that I have the exact date on that, but you you may speak. You have to go to the
podium and make sure the microphone's on, please. Uh coming up next is Steve Clink with First Tuesday Communications who is our referendum consultant. >> The uh the May on the May 13th will be the administrative presentation which
will include a recommendation for rate and um all of the paperwork is pretty formal and um that presentation will include a draft ballot question. Okay. So then over the course of the next
several things that you see there, there's conversations that have to go on with the auditor to make sure we've got the median home value right and things like that. And so on the 24th, you'll get the actual real legal paperwork. And
you'll get that like you normally do in advance of the board meeting. But beginning on the 13th, you'll have the information that you need to know from administration as to where we're headed and and a and a potential ballot question. And again, that ballot
question includes a maximum rate. So no matter what happens with the legislature or with AVs with the exception of uh a lowering AV, you are covered from the standpoint of you will evaluate each year what that rate is actually going to
be and can lower it. Now, if your AV goes down, you can't raise the maximum rate. So I guess that's helpful Mr. Clink but what I'm concerned about as a board member is if we are looking at various
scenarios as we've discussed like is it one you know is it one referendum or do we present two you know what is the total cap uh of the levy plus or minus 2%. you know, is it X sense plus Y or is
it Y sense? When are when do you have feedback from the board on those very important issues because what it looks like on your timeline and go ahead Mr. Shapiro if you >> I I see you like when do we provide that
feedback because I don't want to get a resolution all due respect where the administration has picked a path and what happens if we don't as a board agree with that path. I don't want to find that out on June 24th and I want to work through that before then.
>> And I can tell you that won't be the case. I mean, having Greg and I having gone through a referendum process in in 2023, it was a very cooperative process um with, you know, that's the board that has to pass it, right? That the resolution to put it on the ballot and so that's on the board. Um so it definitely was a process that we were
involved in. >> Yeah. >> No, no, no. >> Right. No. I I'm if I'm hearing what you're saying and I don't disagree with anything you've said. It it what it sounds like to me is there needs to be another conversation between now and May
13th where we're talking through the different situations the scenar some of the scenarios that Miss Cashion outlined because there's there's some discussion that needs to happen before we even look at you know an administrative presentation on a referendum renewal because
that referendum renewal could look like three different things right now right I mean I understand what Mr. Clink outlined and that sounds great. That's making an assumption that we're sort of on a a similar page and I don't right now I I don't know. I don't think we're on the same page. Not in a bad way, but
>> Right. We might be in a month. >> We're in the right. We're sort of in the table of contents right now. We haven't gotten to the first chapter yet. >> Yeah, we will definitely be having additional meetings between now and then to present this information to you and to have further conversation throughout the process.
>> I just think to I think where M. whether we're starting is that, right, typically there's like a reading before we get to an approval, right? And so, and this is a little bit more complex than just passing a new policy. Um, and so we just want to make sure we're leaving ourselves ample time because we're
backing into a date by which we need to approve a resolution. And again, just to clarify, us approving a resolution is not any of us signifying our approval or disapproval of a referendum. It is us saying we want to put this on the ballot. I just want to make that clear
um because we haven't even determined what that question would be yet or what it would include or not include >> the other part of that question in addition to the rate which is what we're kind of focused on here is the purpose to which we get to determine that. So we'll have recommendations for that.
We'll have community input to share with you in the week before the May 13th uh uh piece as well so that you have a feel for for their reaction. >> Yeah. One thing uh we had a bit of a
discussion on um what would the impact be if it doesn't pass? Whatever it is, we don't know yet. Um, and I I if I recall right, Hamilton Southeastern did something when they were passing their referendum a couple years ago, if it's two or three, but
they had laid out like if this doesn't pass, they had done a due diligence analysis of well, we're going to this is where we're going to have to make cuts. It was very it wasn't specific to the number of uh dollars precisely but you it was done in a way you can understand
that whether it be these many teachers many bus drivers this money whatever those budget elements would be is that I I think at some point um you mentioned that ballot questions can be rather obtuse and misleading. I think it would be very helpful to
present it in that way is that if this if whatever we're putting on the ballot to pass doesn't pass then this is this will be the next steps that we take and I think it's important be to start thinking about that now go ahead I had another question
>> well with of course we've been thinking about it um um but we and we will provide information uh I wouldn't intend to provide like we would cut this this and this but as you maybe alluded alluded to um it takes about 11 teachers
for example to to less teachers to um uh generate a million dollars. So you know so if we look at you know how much would be eventually we were saying we'd like to have this much versus where it's at now. Um then you start to do the math.
It takes you know twice that many at least custodians to equal the same amount and four times that many you know 40 some IAS to 4 million. So, and so you you begin to pick and choose, but it does help, I think, to to understand the magnitude of
what we're talking about and and we're certainly not going to maintain our current program by, you know, belt tightening. Um, we do that. I I'm paid to do that. I'm paid for to get at it. So, if I'm not doing it, you ought to you'll think about that. But, but, uh,
we do that constantly and and I didn't need state legislation to start doing it now. Um and so and and by the way our taxpayers four time said raise my rate. So asking if they want to continue to you know
maintain or maintain the current program um seems like a good question but so but we will provide that type of information but not some districts say well if we don't if this doesn't pass we'll cut this or cut that. Um, but I will tell
you it would um it won't it won't come all out of the operations fund. The operations funds $50 million a year and I think the board certainly knows generally what it covers but you know 12 million of that's transportation. Um, and you don't have to have transportation, but that's, you know,
you're going to reduce services to to children. Uh, or we would be, uh, because we simply cannot, um, become efficient to the extent of $94 million. And as as was said, that's that's just the referendum fund. That's not the
operations. >> Roger. I think those examples are really helpful because I know last time when we did the operating referendum renewal, we focused a lot on like we would have to lose one in every five teachers. And I do feel like sometimes that feels like such a like your problem, not my problem
type of thing where someone's like, well, it's not going to be my school. But when you start to say 11 teachers equal $1 million and we're losing $10 million next year and you could quantify exactly. So, not to say that we'd cut it, but to your other example you just gave, which was awesome, of $12 million
of transportation. We're certainly not going to cut our buses, but that's the size of impacts that we're talking about when we're talking about a $10 million loss. I think those things really quantify to the community what it truly means. And transportation is an example to where um
you you can't deliver the same service unless you have fewer, you know, with save, you know, meaningable amounts of money unless you're going to pay fewer bus drivers, which means you're going to have fewer buses. Um you could pay them less. Um and there's examples across the state where, you know, usually the
administrators are the first to have their salary frozen, for example. And uh I don't happen to believe that uh because the state legislature felt that taxpayers who didn't ask to have their taxes lowered in Carmel at least I don't believe a majority of them did. We know a majority of them have asked to have
them raised. Um but um we're not we're not going to solve this problem. Uh I wouldn't recommend you'd solve the problem on the backs of our employees. They're not volunteers. um they have families um and you know cost goes up and so forth. So, but
that's usually where it starts and so that'll you know we'll have to consider all those things. Um but there's not a there's not a painless way out of this um is what it amounts to. >> I appreciate that. I appreciate what you said. I think that's super helpful if
I'm remembering correctly. Wrote it down. 300 tax credits to $2.8 million. >> Yeah. Almost $3 million. >> Right. So, right. So, do the math. That's 33 teachers. >> That's not a part of the 94.
>> Correct. Well, again, but just using I'm just they're more tangible examples and again not not that we're suggesting that these are the things we're going to do, right? >> But I I think it makes it very a lot more realistic. for people to understand. Transportation is a
sensitive issue for lots of families in this community. Wasn't very many years ago those of us who have kids that are old enough that the district made changes to no walk zones and no bus zones and things like that out of necessity, right? So that's not something that we want to mess with
any further. So again, I think having the ability to speak to the community everyone understands what some of the potential is. And again, not suggesting
that we're all the other way, but understand what trying to make decisions for all the reasons that Dr. outlined. I'm one of those people 15 years
at the same time. So have to make decisions that are in the best interest of the community. I think we as a board are tasked with that balance right how do we make the best decision
being able to verbalize and demonstrate in a way that we've never had to. That's the bottom line. This is unprecedented. Public education funding many years as was outlined
earlier, but not situation. operating off exact. >> Thank you, Roger. I'm with you on the not doing it on the backs of our employees mostly because my mom would
come back and haunt me. She she was a kindergarten teacher for those who don't know that. But I want my comment is really um for Dr. and tying what we're doing to our strategic plan and um thinking about that as well because we
didn't become the district that we are uh statewide and nationally by just maintaining the status quo. We continue to do better than that. And so I would appreciate it if you and your team would think about some of the things in our
strategic plan such as um expanding our workplace um learning opportunities uh looking at um preschool provisions all I mean there are so many
things in that strategic plan and I realize it wasn't our intent to check every box over a three-year plan. But part of the things that keep me up at night are we make decisions today and maybe two years from now, you have to
say, "Oh, I I'm sorry, Miss Wheeler. I'm sorry, board. We can't do what we wanted to do because we made a decision two years ago." And if that's part of the decision making that our administration makes in your recommendation, just tell
us, right? just, you know, and you do anyway. I know you do. >> His recommendation, >> right? His recommendation, just to be clear, but no, you know what? You know what I'm Does that make sense? >> Yeah. Um, >> the buck stops right there. >> Hey, I'll take it. Uh, that's an
excellent point, Miss Wheeler. Every every conversation, every point we talked about tonight relates directly to our strategic plan. Um, you look at our work-based learning, the internships our students are having across all businesses and industry, uh, the
polytechnic additions that we put on with our construction trades classes, our culinary arts, our engineering and uh, technology, our automotive. This district has invested in those opportunities. And when we don't have
$94 million moving forward, yes, those are things we are going to have to make very difficult decisions on um and will impact everyone in our community. And so everything we do relates to that
strategic plan. And um I I really like what you said there because I could point to I could flip through it and stop on any page like when you spin the globe when you're little and see where you want to live or where you travel. Globe that ages me because I don't know that many people have globes nowadays.
Um but I could flip through that strategic plan, point to any one of those key initiatives and it would be something we would have to examine. I want to make sure >> there is a lot to digest and there's there are several opportunities and and and I think it is important to realize
that we're we're just preparing what's going to go before the voters and u we need to you know architect it in a way that's responsible and I think we have to you I I was glad to see when the city went through this, they immediately jumped on, you know, budget cuts,
freezing various things and had to put a budget out there and uh demonstrated that they were very uh diligent in in trying to do everything they can to hold cost back, hold the budget back. And I I
think we need to do that rather than what I'm saying is we don't want to just make it look like, well, we have this challenge, so we're just going to recommend increasing the rate. I think we need to look at, you know, we're looking at everything. Um, we would have to, like we've been talking about, cut certain things or do different things or
look at our school districting and and all the different things that have to happen if we don't do it. But I think we also need to demonstrate that we're looking at everything and going to make we if we've been making tough decisions, got to look at it and say we went
through everything and and we're we're tight. We can't go There's nothing we can just cut off and save $10 million unless you know something. >> I don't and um >> but but you know what I mean. What what I'm saying >> I know exactly what you mean and I my my
opinion is is that as school districts and school administrators feel it necessary to identify reductions. Um that's where any number of people will point and say that's the waste because
that's what you put on the list and we will say that's not waste. Something had to go and and so that becomes the question. And so if you ask the community, you know, do you want do you want to
you want to continue to, you know, do you know, do you want to have an a voice in this? Because they didn't have a voice with SEA1 that was applied by state officials across the state and and and the same in every community. and and
um in spite of the fact that we talk about local control and board members, I mean, if you're raising school taxes where 40% of the bill, I suspect some, you know, some voters don't like that. They might not vote for you and and so but that didn't happen.
And so, so, um, one, as I said, we don't, this is not a district that's, you know, has major waste going on, but we we we look all the time. um short of taking services away from children. My
whole division is only here, you know, to support education. It's not here to provide us jobs. And so if we're not doing that, then you got the wrong person. I >> I think that's kind of what Greg is saying though is to kind of make that a little more public. Is that what you were saying? To make to to let the
community know that that is already what the district is doing. Is that >> kind of what I heard you say? like if you if you know and I think that's what he was saying he you know we know that you work really hard and your and your team does and and so maybe just a thought and I think that's your thought
that just letting the community know that we are already as lean as we can get >> we'd absolutely Cheryl you know that examples of some of the things that we >> Yeah that's my point I'm just trying to make it uh you were coming off a period where residential property taxes went up
a lot the last five years then it turned right and say, "Well, now we're going to take the rate from whatever 24 cents to 41, 42, whatever." You know, it's without saying that, hey, we've done everything. We're skin and bones
or, you know, the cuts are going to really be difficult and you probably don't want to make them as a voter. So, I think we just need to put our our perspective in the mindset of the voters so that, you know, they can make a decision as to, okay, you're going to save yourself $300 a year, but what's
the real impact to your your property value? You know, or your kids that are in the schools. >> Um, President Shapiro, I just want to say thank you, a special thank you to uh Mr. Gardner for his um data analysis and
presentation today. um is uh great information for not just the board to uh uh learn about tonight, but also our community and those that are watching. Um also want to a special thank you to Mr. Clink uh with First Tuesday Communications uh who we'll be working
with moving forward. Um I want to thank Mrs. Kushar, Mr. Mcichael for all the time uh that it took to uh put this presentation together and look through everything. Um also special thank you to Mrs. Bower uh for putting together the beautiful presentation for us as well.
Um and just appreciate our community. We appreciate the continued investment um in Carmel Clay Schools as we look at this new normal of what this reset has done with tax reform and with taxes and
taking a look and uh moving forward on uh what we feel is uh best with the educational programs we provide in this community. So, President uh Shapiro, thank you very much. >> Thank you, Dr. O. Thank you to Mr. Gardner. Appreciate everybody's time.
Certainly a lot for us to chew on and think about as we continue to think about next steps and what comes next. So, a motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> All right. Meeting adjourned. Thanks
everybody.