Meeting is called to order. Roll call. Mr. Brown. All board members are in attendance. Great. Please stand 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. Uh typically next on our agenda would be public comment.
However, no one has signed up for public comment this evening. Uh we have one item on our agenda this evening. Talk before that or after that. Okay, great. We're going to move down to the uh tables for our work session this evening.
All right. Well, good evening, President Shapiro, members of the board. Uh, pleased to be here tonight to continue our conversation on Carmel Clay Schools continuing to look at a referendum and the financial outlook of the district uh
due to SEA1. Uh, before I turn things over to Mr. Gardner of policy analytics uh this evening to uh share some information. I want to start with uh saying thank you uh to our team here uh at Carmel Clay Schools for all the work
that you put into tonight's presentation in collaboration with policy analytics. In addition, I want to say congratulations to our teachers of the year and to our support staff members of the year today. Our team, the entire team that you see here minus Mr.
Gardner, of course, uh has spent the last two days surprising our teachers and support staff at all 15 of our buildings, and we're very proud of our outstanding teachers across the district and support staff. I specifically want to thank all of our school board members
here tonight for participating with us. Last year, this year, uh we had incredible turnout from the board. At one school, we had four board members that uh were able to participate in celebrating our teachers and support staff. And I appreciate each and every
one of you for your dedication uh and your continued work on recognizing those in our district who are doing great work. Yesterday and today was such a fun day, such a an engaging day, a positive day, and uh we love our teachers and we
love our staff. And I just want to say thank you to our board members specifically uh for participating with us and recognizing everyone. And so um in addition, one last thing I do want to mention before we dig in here. Um last night I had the great honor to attend
the Carmel High School orchestra concert at the palladium. And I heard uh the Philarmonic and the symphony. And if you would go to the palladium and close your eyes, you would not know that that's a high school orchestra. that is how
incredible uh that they are in our young musicians. And then to kick off the 8:00 concert, um, we had our United Sound perform and that is our students with disabilities who perform with our
orchestra students and they are on stage at the palladium uh sometimes making their uh debut, their concert debut at the Palladium in Carmel. and they did such a phenomenal job and it was wonderful seeing their parents beaming
in the crowd uh of the music making that was going on from all of our students last night. So, it was just such a positive event. I had to give a shout out to all of our orchestra teachers, all of our parents uh who continue to support the arts and in everything we do. And so, wanted to start there. So,
thank you for the opportunity tonight. This evening, as I said, we're going to look at continued exploration, financial outlook of the car of a Carmel Clay Schools referendum. I want to thank the board once again uh for all of your feedback, your questions that you've
had. I will share that our team has been working feverishly um to get information for all of you tonight. Uh this presentation has been modified no less than probably 25 times just to let you know because we want to ensure we're meeting the needs of our school board
members tonight. And so with that, we're going to turn things over to uh Mr. Gardner uh from policy analytics. He's going to kick us off this evening as he's been modifying uh some of those slides based upon your feedback in tonight's presentation. and then uh
questions at any time. Uh and then uh we'll turn it over to myself, Mr. Mcichael, Mrs. Kushar. Uh we'll have some short followup and then lots of discussion and questions tonight that we're looking forward to. So, any questions for me before I turn it over uh to Mr. Gardner. All right, sir. Here
you go. Great. >> Well, thank you. It's good to be back with all of you uh again tonight and uh walk through uh some of this information uh together again. as Dr. Orike mentioned a little bit deeper dive into a couple of places of maybe some additional questions that have come up
some overview right again uh as we often talk in our world uh especially around SEA1 um it's hard to hear it too many times because of just the how in depth it is and all the changes and so again just some overview we want at the end of the day again you feel comfortable with
the information you see and have your questions answered and as always as mentioned if we're going through the presentation if some questions come up please don't hesitate to to ask and try to address those in the moment if if we can as as well tonight. So with that
we're gonna there we go. So again just want to walk through uh a brief overview of SEA1 uh we had in this time last year or this last meeting talked about some of the new changes with Senate rolled act one and the
impacts and the first is the new homestead deductions. again. So, this is a change in for our homeowner, a taxpayer. Uh we have a gross assessed value of a tax bill that's supposed to be marketbased, right? So, it's going to be similar what the home would sell for.
And then you get deductions off of that to get to a net assessed value, what you actually are taxed against. And we've typically had a standard deduction of 48,000 and a 35% supplemental. SEA1 phases out the standard deduction and moves to a twothirds supplemental
deduction at the end of the day, which is a much larger deduction, right? So, it's actually going to drive down the net assessed value of a homeowner uh their property. Right? So, that's one of the big changes that's going to have impact on revenues and tax rates that we're going to talk in in more detail
about. The second is they introduced um uh deductions for the 2% class. Those are our apartments, long-term care, a sectors. Those have not had deductions in the past. They ramp up to a one-third deduction. And again, anytime we
increase deductions, we're going to push down on net assessed value. The third major uh component was the homestead residential credit. So, this is a 10% credit up to $300 on the tax liability for a homeowner. Again, if I'm paying
$3,000 in property taxes, I'm going to get $300 off of my tax bill and only pay 2,700. It's a great piece for obviously of a taxpayer. The issue is that's $300 of revenue that's no longer collected by the local units, right? So, that's going to have impact in the end of the day in
terms of the revenues that you collect ultimately in the operations fund. The last one that we just highlight a little bit because it is a fairly significant amount is the dimminimous business personal property exemption. Business personal property is the equipment inside or associated with a
business. Um that has had a dimminimous amount of up to $80,000 that I did not have to report for state taxable purposes. So if I have a $75,000 piece of equipment, didn't have to report it. That moves in 2027 to a $2 million investment level. So now if I have a $
1.5 million piece of equipment, I don't have to pay state taxes on that starting in 27. That pulls out uh I think I wrote it down $255 million of assessed value in 27 just out of the system. So again, now we're pulling down on assessed value which is going to have impact on rates
and revenues at the end of the day. So those are the major uh changes that at least impact Caramel Clay Schools. There's some other pieces that were were in those, but and we'll see those in the data as we we walk through. Um, so a lot of numbers on this chart, I know, but I it's one of these charts I
really love because it really talks to SEA1 in a lot of detail. Um, the top left, I'm going to just touch briefly because I have a couple of follow-up slides, but it's really our assessed value projections. The green line represents gross assessed value. Uh, and you can see that continuing to trend up.
At Policy Analytics, we still have historic trending assessed value, meaning we think a home that's worth 300,000, maybe worth 320,000, 340,000, what we're always used to. They didn't change our assessment system. The teal line represents the referendum
AV and the blue line represents your certified assessed value, which is with your debt service fund and your operations fund. So, that's why we have a two a little bit different there. uh the referendum AV has access to the increment AV inside of a TIFF district. So that's why it's a little bit larger.
We'll talk a little bit more as well of that. So again, you can see that downward slope because we're projecting about a three and a half% annual decline in your net assessed value for the next five years. The reason for that are really driven by the two charts below. At the bottom left
hand side, we're looking at the homestead deductions in totality across Carmel Clay Schools. So you can see from 2025, they go from 6.5 billion in deductions to almost 14 billion in deductions. So almost double the amount of homestead deductions. So again, as
we're driving up deductions, we're going to push down on net assessed value. The chart on the right is the 2% class. You can see 2025 is blank. That's because that class didn't have deductions. and that ramps up to that one-third which ultimately comes to about 1.3 billion in
deductions. So again, some major changes in the deduction structure and that's what's pulling down on net assessed value at the end of the day. So I want to pull this chart out just to spend a little bit more time here in this and this is I think one of the the questions that was asked a little bit.
So let's dig into this. So again the green line represents gross assessed value. So again, our assessment system is market based. Okay? So again, it's going to typically follow the value of like a home in that sense. This is going to include all properties inside of Caramel Clay Schools, businesses, homes,
equipment, all those components together. And again, we have that that continuing to trim trend upwards because again, historically assessed value, gross assessed value has grown to about by about three to three and a half% annually over the last 15 years. And we
take that historic lens and saying we're going to expect that yes, we may see spikes or dips right from time to time and we'll kind of talk about those. We saw a dip in 2009 during the Great Recession where assessed value was basically flat and even came down slightly and then we've had years like
we've seen the last few where we had the runup in residential. And so that three and a half kind of takes all of that into account that we know we're going to have those es and flows. But we continue to project that to uh move forward and that's an important component right to make our projection as realistic as
possible because that has impact then on the net assess value. Again the teal represents uh the solid teal line represents your referendum assessed value and the blue represents the debt service and operations. And you can really see again that declines from
you know 2026 downward to 2031. uh we see it come back up starting in 2031, excuse me, in 2032 and beyond. That's because all of the deductions are fully in place in 2031. We establish a new floor and then we start to see really
some growth from there as gross assessed value growth. So, it's a little bit of a roller coaster that we're we're facing within that. The last kind of addition here is this uh dash line that you see continuing to kind of slope upwards. that would
represent the referendum net assessed value projections had they not passed sea one. So that's again that trending components that we pull from Caramel Clay Schools here, your district specifically of that assessed value growth. And so we would have seen that
AV continue to trend. Why is this a really important distinction? Well, again, typically in the past when you've had your set referendum rates, as that assessed value grew, so did the revenue associated with those referendums. And
it was an inflationary component in some regards. Okay? And so now, as assessed value is going to decline, it counteracts that situation that we had before in terms of that growing revenue. And we're going to dig in and show those revenue figures again here in just a
moment. But just wanted to show I know there's a question of what we would have seen and so you can see that gap really as it grows over those years of where you would have seen the assessed value for the school district had SEA1 not been passed to what it would we at least
project it to look like as we sit today. Know there's a lot here in this piece. I'm happy with any questions along the way. So digging in again a little bit. This was uh just a different way of looking at this chart or this information. So this
is the year-over-year change. It's how we sometimes talk in in schools finance of what our AEV grew within a given year. The solid or the navy I call it blue on the left represents your historic growth over the last 10 years.
And then again you see the projections for 2027 and beyond. uh as we move forward, you know, as we look back, and this is specific to your referendum net assessed value. And while it's pretty similar to the trends we'll see with your certified, there is a slight difference because we're bringing in
other commercial properties into that are in a tiff are pulled into side of this pro these projections and the actual changes. So when we look from 2016 to 2026, the district has seen about a 6.2% 2%
annual increase in net assessed value associated with the revenue. That is a combination of home values going up, new homes coming on board because as we have new homes come in that grows our assessed value base. So
some of the growth that the district saw in terms of new homes being built and coming on the tax roles. any commercial development that has come on over the last 10 years are factored into those those components as well. So again, it's a holistic piece that at times we look
at this and maybe put our lens to homeowners because it is our largest class of assessed value, but there's more to this piece than just the homeowner component, especially in a district that has had seen growth in terms both commercially and residentially over the last 10 years.
Right. Please and what you just said. So if if we look at the past on this chart, you know, two 2016 to 2026, that that average is out at a 6.2% average growth, correct? >> And then I think last time we met on talked about this chart going forward
from 2027 to 34 that was a 4.1% growth in gross assessed value was the assumption. >> Say those years again. Say that again. I'm sorry. the future years. Yeah. 2027 forward. That was assuming a 4.1% growth
gross assessed value. >> Uh yes, I right in that range in that piece. Yes. >> So that that would indicate that we had a a steeper growth curve coming up to 2026, but we're projecting
gross assessed value that's going to be as >> So when we're talking gross and net, this chart's representing net. Um yes you probably have seen greater growth in your net assessed value than we we would have projected moving forward right in
terms of that the reason for that is again if you look at the years 23 24 and 25 we really saw I mean you saw AV growth that was historically an anomaly really at the end of the day and that was again driven by kind of the housing
crunch and home prices rising. So for us to grab those years and extend that kind of growth moving forward, we feel like would be a little bit aggressive in terms of our overall projections. So that's where we again at policy analytics tend to take a longer range
that 15-year look because again in that component is we're trying to project out for you um one we're not over projecting and if there is some sort of pullback in the market and we do see assessed value maybe flatline um not projecting that
now but if that does happen we didn't necessarily project the great recession either right it's why it's in those pieces and so it's really to to ne navigate those components and to be honest uh policy analytics we do create a little bit of conservativeness in that
trending gross assess value growth. Reason for that is we would hesitate to come in and say that we're going to project you to continue to grow by six or 7% annually and you build your budgets around those and the growth comes in closer to four to 5% and you've
overextended yourself. So, we want to be cautious in that that we feel like they're realistic projections based on historic data and realistic at the end of the day, but we're not overextending maybe that shorter end curve. >> Thank you.
>> Does that answer? Okay. >> Yeah. And I this is a question honestly we get in a lot of places um you know especially because when you look at the last few years that's a hard piece right in terms of that and the other reason I would say we have started to I think
feel um the need to again lean back on that historic is we have seen um and I may have mentioned this last time one of the the data sets we look at is the change in median sales price year-over-year because our assessment system is uh market based
And during the years that you're seeing and really the two assessed value has a two-year lag and from when the home sells to when the assessed value comes on in the years leading up to those large growths we were seeing 10 12 15% increases annually in the median sales
price and you all saw it in the housing market. We're seeing across counties in a lot of places where that's now in the two and 3% or flat, which starts to tell us that it doesn't mean homes aren't going to continue to sell quickly, but the home prices continuing to grow
probably is beginning to plateau. And if those start to plateau, so will the residential AB that's driven a lot of the growth the last few years. So that's the other data point that we keep an eye on as part of our long range projections as well. Other
questions? >> Yeah, not a question but a comment is that um since our last meeting special session we all a lot of us got our tax bills and looking at the gross assessed value >> ours went up like 14.4%.
>> And so that's a lot more than the 4.1. So I I'm just cautioning. I I don't know we're talking about projections but u it is concerning that we've had four maybe five years now of a actually six years a person of continued gross assessed
values in the 10 to 14%. So I guess the big question is like you said is you know what what will the market be driving houses and consequently assessed values but uh it's just interesting now that we have a tax bill come out and I I see a colleague here has one
and uh so yeah go ahead. No, and it's a great question and I think one that was also alluded to um we got the tax bill a little bit later but I can really address it now is the median home value went up around 6 and a half%. And that
is really again pulling all 29,000 homes across the the district and what their assessed value movement and we get this question a lot because the assessment system um first of all is
uh secular. So every four years they do a full assessment on about 25% of the county. Okay. So the way the county assessor works and it's not like they go to the northeast corner and do that one year, the northwest corner the next
year, it is spread throughout the entire county and they're pulling different pockets that get the full assessment. In those off years, they're using sales ratio data and some trending pieces. And so at times you get a point where you get the full assessment and you can see a large jump in your gross assessed
value because you have that full assessment piece. Um which then leads to situations like that that we see where it comes in greater than maybe the overall average at the end of the day. U and then again there are homes that were below that 6%. That saw growth in their
gross assessed value that was less. That's what gets that average ultimately to that 6% at the end of the day. So, it is a hard part. We see it in pockets. Um, unless you really pull all 29,000 parcels. Um, it's hard to get that full
piece of what's playing at the day, but it's not surprising to hear that. We hear that at different times. Um, you tend to hear that a little bit more than people coming forward that their assessment went down because they noticed that it went up because it has an implication of paying a higher tax bill, right, in in that piece. And so,
we realize that. It's a great question. Any others? >> I was just going to say I'll come clean. Mine went down about 4%. No, >> it did. >> It did. >> Well, for the first time in like years and years and years.
>> Those taxes are due here soon, Roger. >> I don't I don't recommend opening it if you think you might. I was shocked. >> Um, good. continue on. Um, so again, all of that, right? All these this talk about the deductions
increasing, driving down net assessed value and our projections as we we've laid out that has an implication then on your referendum revenues. And in this case, you know, we've outlined the operating referendum and the safety referendum and the teal and
the orange. And again, you can see the amount of dollars that that would generate at their current rates, the 19 cent operating and the five- cent safety decline over the next five years because that assessed value is projected to
decline over those years. Uh the green there at the top is are the unrealized revenues that the district would have received had sea 1 not been passed and you would have continued moving forward
with a 19 cent operating referendum and a 5-cent safety uh referendum. And so you can see that grows pretty substantially over those years that gap and that's really correlates back to that assessed value. go back to that one we showed where would have projected AV
to go to where prior to SEA1 to where we're seeing it today that gap just widens because it compounds upon it itself times and so that is one of the real challenges as the district you know considers the referendum moving forward your overall finances is the current
referendum rates are not going to generate the same amount of dollars and that is a very different structure than before when we had our rates And if we saw assessed value growth, it generated those additional dollars that again had some inflationary components protection
so to speak that we often say, right? As salaries go up, utility costs go up, all those kind of components, it brought a little additional dollars, especially in places where you may not see the full 4% um or you capped at the 4% in your u operations fund. Operations fund is
defined by the maximum levy growth quotient which has been 4%. Uh but we've seen a lot of inflationary pieces, utilities for sure that have been greater than that 4% component, right? And so it's been a little bit of a buffer for districts that have had a referendum. Um the other stat I think we
had mentioned last time we did s study statewide about 75% of your operations fund dollars are taken up by utilities, property casualty insurance, and transportation. does not leave a whole lot of room for technology, maintenance
of buildings, all those other pieces. And in districts where that has that pressure, that's where referendums come in, right, to help push back against some of that pressure. So again, I think that's kind of the long range financial consideration as the district.
The last piece uh I think in terms of just overall SEA1 mechanics is the fact that the math problem at the end of the day in in local government finances assessed value times a tax rate generates
revenue. And if I need to keep my revenue the same for like my debt service payments or my operations fund revenue as assessed value goes down the rate has to go up in order to generate those same
dollars. That's the mechanics of SEA1. And this is not just a school component. This is a local government component. So counties are facing this, cities are facing this. So rates are going to go up. You always say really irregardless of what the district does. Uh and the
county as well and that was that was the intended mechanics of SEA1 at the end of the day. So it is just important to understand we've moved to this piece where we started talking more about levy or revenue that's needed versus rate because again you could get the same
amount of levy or revenue but your rates going up and that often doesn't make sense right because as rate goes up we would expect revenue to maybe go up uh in that same regard so it's a new paradigm I think for all local government units to deal with
this is the last piece and again this we're going to talk. I know he discussed a little bit about the median uh p change for that 6 and a half% what some of the taxpayers are are seeing. Uh this is the median taxpayer here in Caramel assume the 24 cent rate kind of
continuing. You can see the detailed tax bill there on the the right. Um really the difference here we see a little bit of sea 1 come if you look at the chart you can see the supplemental deduction go from 160,000 to 183,000 increasing
that supplemental deduction slightly this year and so that's going to drive down what they they're taxed against. Uh the biggest piece here in this is you see that postcircuit breaker credit. That's that homestead credit at 10% of the $300. Again, because this individual is paying greater than the 3,000,
they're getting the full $300 off. And so, you know, in this case, if they saw that six and a half% growth in their AV, they would see a slight decline in their tax bill. If they saw a larger than that, then they may not see a decline in in their tax bill, right? It's going to
depend on what their AV growth was with their individual home. But regardless of that, they are paying $300 less than what they would have paid had they not passed SCA1. That is a credit that's after the fact, after at the end of the
day, their tax liability. So, it is a true impact of SEA1 that a homeowner is seeing a $300 credit. Any questions on the tax bill component? Yeah. Uh just a question on the supplemental deduction. Was that impacted by SEA1 as well?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Both those two components not just >> it is and and if I had a chart that would show you in future years what you see happen is that standard deduction 48,000 I think it goes to 40,000 27 and 34,000. It continues to drop but
as it is that percentage is increasing. So that supplemental deduction for that homeowner will continue to grow to the point where the net assessed value in 2031 is dramatically less for that home is today. And that's so that's what's
driving the the supplemental deduction is this big especially in communities that have higher value homes because the $48,000 was a flat deduction. So as my home value grew, that deduction kind of became worth less and less each year. Where if I now base it on a percentage,
as the home value grows, so does that deduction. And that was the intent of the legislation. That was Chairman Thompson. He wanted to to adjust as a part of it. And we see that play out with mechanics. So again, um, as we look at some of the referendum considerations we we talked a
little bit about last time, we'll go through some of these, you know, here again. Uh, this was the work of the district team and and policy analytics as we work to to pull some of these pieces together. Uh, so at least for simplicity, because at the end of the day, the the math doesn't change. We
just combined the operating and safety referendums um because the math on it is is still the same if we separated them or we combined them together in terms of the projections. uh really looking at a few different levy scenarios uh with the intent and I know um the team will get
into this later trying to again offset the impact of of SEA1 specific to if you go back to that referendum chart when we saw that teal revenue that would have been collected in future years the district not collecting that uh and again I think also some components in
terms of the education fund and so I'll let them kind of speak to those in in more detail but that's what you know holist holistically Drew was I think um addressing I think it was about 119 million in total loss over the next eight years and trying to make up for
some of that by an increased levy scenario here and so that's what we've really played out here within this uh is just a few scenarios for the district to consider uh at the end of the day uh when it comes to this again I think the piece to highlight um I overdoing this but if you look at the current rate of
that 24 cents you see that revenue decline over the next um you know five in that piece. Then that really correlates to the rate that is needed. And this again is one of those shifts because as net assessed
value goes down, we have to increase the rate in order to generate those revenues. And you're seeing this really across the state um that districts who are considering referendums are going for much higher rates than have been considered in the past. I think I
alluded to we had a district that went last fall went from 22 cents to 39 cents. We had a district that went from 16 cents to 27 cents. Um we are seeing many districts um that have been considering in the 30 and 40
cent range but some pretty large jumps. And again it's the mechanics of you again and it's really based off of 2031. when that AV is at its lowest point, I have to have that rate high enough in order to generate that additional revenue. And that's what's really
driving that. So that's why you see that stair step up is we're increasing the the levy to support the district and then we're having to account for sea one and mechanics there. The other reason this is an important piece of consideration is the the ballot question
uh has you put a maximum rate and a maximum levy. So ultimately again if the district were decide to move forward with this uh and depending on the scenario that you would select easiest one's just to grab the yellow line because it's the top you
know the district would have to put potentially a 4274 maximum rate on the ballot question. Even if you can see in this scenario, the district's only considering maybe needing to take 31 cents in that first year because 31 cents generates the
revenue that you need. Right? Again, if we're going to this levy or this revenuebased kind of thought process, we only need 31 cents. We don't need to take more than that. Unfortunately, because the mechanics of the question, we have to put that highest rate. That highest rate also corresponds when when
a homeowner has the largest deductions. that's when all 67% of the full supplement deduction place, right? So, that's that's the challenging piece of that that ballot question at the end of the day. Um, so that's one piece that the district would just have to consider once you settle decide to move forward
and settle on a referendum and move it forward what that rate or rates ultimately are uh in determining that highest component over those next eight years. This is also really a challenge um because we are having to make decisions that we're going to lock
ourselves in for for eight years, right? When we've seen numerous changes legislatively over the last several years, there could be some additional legislative changes in 27. 27's a budget year, right? When it comes to our gen
years going general fund, education fund um in this piece uh our education fund dollars and what those We don't know what that's going to look like and so we're forced in this situation to then make that decision over the next eight years and that just creates a more
complicated equation really at the end of the day in terms of what the levies needed, what the rate is needed. Then as we look at uh what does that then impact when it comes to the referendum on an annual basis u you can see the current uh 2026 this is again
that median homeowner is paying $660 for the referendum just to highlight that current rate if you continue that current rate that liability goes down because their assessed value is going down again that's what generates fewer dollars and
then you see the three scenarios um you that you are that you may consider at the end of the day. And so that ranges there from the 744 to the 833. So again looking at a potential increase over what's currently being paid, you know,
of 80 to, you know, $120, $140. Challenge here again comes back to the ballot question in that the ballot question would read that max impact and it shows the full impact. It does not recognize that there's currently a referendum in place that they're
currently paying towards that referendum and it's maybe a differential of 80 to $100 annually what they're currently paying. It's going to show that full 833 or more when we actually get down to mechanics. So again just another challenging communication piece at the
end of the day. >> However, one of the things then we step back. >> Yeah. Yeah. just to make sure I understand chart I'm looking at um this kind of goes back to your earlier chart that had the example of a average uh
medium medium homestead taxpayer and it showed referendum tax liability across those two years 641 and 660. So that that's what's showing up here on the first two years. So that's that's what
the taxpayer was would be paying and has paid. And then this would show the four lines show what that amount of the referendum would be to a typical medium tax. >> Correct.
>> So instead of paying 626 next year, they'd be paying some number between 744 and 833. Okay. The other component though that we wanted to step back and take a look at is just the overall tax liability for a
homeowner. And so I know these lines are a little bit kind of mushed together, but they represent the scenarios, right? So the three scenarios that the district is considering, the dash line, orange line there across the top represents what the home median
homeowner would have seen in total tax liability moving forward at the current 24 cents in total referendum rates had sea 1 not been passed. Right? So this is taking a step back and saying if SEA1 had not happened, the district continued
forward with your current referendum rates, this is what that median homeowner would pay. And so again, you can see it even when considering all three scenarios, at the end of the day, that median homeowner is looking at paying uh less overall and total
liability than what's being proposed with the three referendum scenarios. And that again really plays into that homestead credit, right? That extra $300 that is coming off that created revenue that the district's not going to collect. That's a big piece that's
driving down because that's not just a 2026 impact. That $300 is offset 2026 moving forward till they decide if they want to make a change. Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to re reiterate that
one more time. So what you just said is no matter, you know, if we choose one of those levy scenarios, no matter which one we choose, it would the taxpayer would still be their liability would still be less than what it would have been without SEA 1. So at the current
kind of rates that we are now, >> that is correct. Holding um you know, our assessed value projections and that piece. Yes. And again, all this is going to vary for every homeowner because every homeowner is going to have a different story when it comes to their assessed value journey as it moves forward, right? From going up more than
what we thought to maybe going down, right? So, it's that's the difficult part, right? In this we're holding some constants, right? In terms of some of these variables. So, we are at least assuming again roughly that 4% growth each year. So, we're still planning within that. If they were to see, you
know, eight to 10% growth, then this chart might might look a little different, but again, based on what we feel is realistic. Last few slides here. I know there's some questions around tip districts. Uh, and just kind of wanted to address a little bit of that tonight, uh, with the
board. Uh there's a lot that goes into u this but just to try to start at a high level and maybe dig down a little bit more. Uh so just really wanted to level set just a little bit how tiffs work right. So um first of all from an assess
value component a tiff district when it is established if we take took a vacant land and we established as a tiff that land already has an assessed value associated with it. That's what we call the base assessed value. And that's what the district would be have receiving an
assessed value that you would tax against. As it is tiff, any growth inside of that land is captured in what we call the increment assessed value. So we come in and we put a building on that land and now it's gone from a million dollars of assessed value to $10 million
of assessed value. That nine million in growth is collected by the redevelopment commission and the tiff to pay off the bonds they may have used to develop the infrastructure on that site to promote the commercial uh bill. Okay. The district still gets the million dollars
of base throughout the entire time. You just don't get the growth until that tiff expires. When that tiff expires, any income growth, you can see as this chart kind of moves up to the right and becomes blue again, then gets folded
into the base AV which is associated with your debt service fund and your operations fund. And so we often get the question, well, what if they retify, you're still on that far right of the chart where you get that growth. It resets the base is what we call it.
Right? So again, that's the the idea is we've developed the area, we've used some of that to grow the overall value, commercial value or assess value, and then eventually it returns back into the overall system for the good of the community. TIFFs then also have a rough timeline
within these and these have evolved over the last few years uh because uh there were some extensions on TIFF that made them longer than maybe might be best practice, right? Um, but typically now a TIFF has a 25 year shelf life to it and
it's actually this is where the the fund so to speak gets in is it's not when the TIFF is established. It's when the first payment on the bonds are made. So sometimes a tiff may be established let's say in 2026 but they don't make their first bond payment until 27 or 28.
That clock doesn't start until that first payment is made. Right? So that's where you have to get into the kind of minutia of the details of when does that tiff officially expire within there. Um we did do just a quick glance in this piece. The district does have uh several
tiffs that are set to expire uh and would roll onto your base. So kind of reset that base beginning around 2033 2034 uh with with what we've seen. Now we need to really get into that. We need to do a little more work with the city
because we're um DLGF has some base knowledge, but there's just uh again depending on when the bond was issued, our first payment was made. Um certain sections of tiffs can sometimes roll off before others. And so you have to really kind of pull all of those
those pieces out. Um, and there's a piece that some of the recent legislation, House Enroll Act 1210, uh, we're thinking may potentially have impacted some of the expiration dates, and that's some of the stuff we're working with. So, all that to say, we're
probably looking 2033, 2034 before any tiffs would expire and really come on to the base, right? So, what does that really mean, at least in the context of the things we're discussing here tonight? Um well first this pie chart just attempts to show assessed value. So
the left we're talking gross assessed value. Again that's before any deductions. The middle uh shows the net assessed value after deductions but includes the increment AV. Okay. So that is including the tiffs. So that is your referendum assessed value as it
currently stands. The TIFF district or excuse me the chart on the far right is your debt service and operations fund um which does not include the TIFF assessed value because again that's pulled in captured inside
of that that increment. You can see the commercial and apartments get smaller in those pie charts. Why? Because what do we typically find in in tiff districts? commercial development, apartment type developments, right? And those and so thus, if we're pulling those out, the
that piece of the pie is going to get a little bit smaller. So then what happens then when in 2033 or 2034 a tiff district expires and it moves from that middle pigraph over to the right hand side and becomes a part
of your operations fund and your debt service piece. And this is just an illustrative chart that we've used in the past just to also on some sometimes understand the relationship between tax rates assessed values. So really what it
says is if assessed value goes up one of two things can happen. The rate can go down and you can generate the same amount of revenue which is kind of that second line in the chart. And then the third line says the assessed value could go up. I could keep my rate the same and
I could generate additional values. Those are really the the two mechanics, right? So, as let's say one of those tiff expires and it comes on and increases your assessed value associated with your operations fund. Well, the challenge there is that your operations
fund is driven by the MLGQ and the revenue inside of the operations fund can only grow by the MLGQ which has recently been capped at the 4%. So if that AV comes on, all that is going to to happen in that sense is that the
operations fund rate is going to go down. It's not going to generate any additional dollars for your day-to-day expenses inside of the operations fund. U now that rate going down could have some impact on taxpayers, right? If I have a lower rate, uh if I'm not at the
cap, I could see a reduction potentially in my my tax bill because there's a greater assessed value. uh the debt service is slightly different and you do have some control over that. So that kind of gets into this situation that as that rolled on the debt service you could look at either lowering that debt
service rate and still generating initial or the same amount of dollars or you could keep your rate where it is at capture some of that increment assessed value and maybe increase your capacity inside of debt to do projects if needed. Right? Those are really all decisions
come 2033, 2034 when those start to roll off. So they don't have impact on the referendum today because you already have access to that assessed value inside the referendum, right? And they really don't have an impact on your operations fund because you're not going to see any additional revenue inside of
your operations fund, which is the day-to-day expenses that we typically associate our referendums with. So while the tiff rolling off can be a positive for the district and potentially the taxpayer at the end of the day in today's context in terms of the referendum uh and considerations it
really has call it little impact uh because it's not at least from a revenue standpoint it's not going to generate additional dollars. questions on that. I know that's a lot. >> Yeah. Uh question on the debt service fund is um now I understand the
operations fund is basically it's levy based the tax rate doesn't really mean anything to us and so as you pointed out if if uh we have a lot of districts expiring and base goes up and doesn't really affect us operations but now you
said something on the debt that I I don't quite understand that we have some control over the rate we we could potentially increase the debt service Could you explain that a little bit? >> So ultimately, school districts across the state um have the ability to set their debt service rates. So typically
it's based on the bond payments that are needed to be made which are based off projects that the district has chosen to do. So a district has the ability if let's say you're going to do an additional project and need additional dollars to pay for those projects to
increase your debt service rate. Conversely, if you have projects that are falling off and you don't have those bond payments, you can lower your debt service rate. You have control of where you set that versus where the operations fund is set for you because it's a
relation of the assessment. >> Yeah, I guess I didn't understand that. that that would imply that if we wanted to issue uh build another high school or something, we could go ahead and issue uh bonds that would generate enough debt
service funding requirement that we could just go ahead and raise that up. That in other words, it sounds like it works a lot like a regular referendum if we can go in and control the rate without even the taxpayers voting on it. I'm not sure what I said is true, but it sounds like your implications. We we
have some control over how much money we want to spend on capital projects, then there's not really a cap. >> Yes and no. You have some control, but there are legal limitations. So once you hit certain um valor thresholds is when you move into potentially a petition
remmonstrance project process or referendum process in order to do that. So your example of going out and building a high school, you would not you'd have to go through a legal process that the voters would have an opportunity to have some in that you could just raise the rate. So there are legal steps.
>> So there is some kind of a cap there. >> Yeah, if I could comment simply because I know exactly what he's saying and and we know how we operate. >> So your your in assumption is essentially
correct. uh we're so below um the states, you know, they talk about a 70 cent rate and ours is 30 some or something. So now this whole discussion is going to raise rates, but I don't believe that'll be a problem
for us in terms of referendums or remmonstrance and all that. I would recommend to the board, I'll say this a couple times because down the road I won't be here, but but I would be perfectly fine uh with a
self-controlled, you know, 4% growth, and I'm using 4% as as my that's my reflection of inflation. So whether it's three and a half or four and a half or whatever it is, but but a 4% growth. Some of us have recommended to the state that they put the same MLGQ
concept on the debt service because taxpayers we've talked about rate and you know and you correctly said well the rates the same doesn't mean the money is the same. I'm pleased to hear that we're going to quit talking about rates and talk about money because when you write
your check, that's money. And when we get it, you know, it's called levy in this case, but when we get the levy, it's the money. So, because we do work consistently and with facilities and so forth, um we can very
well manage basically an inflationary increase. Um sometimes that doesn't work. construction cost goes up double what the inflation is. You can see how that's a problem. But long term, as Barry has said in several cases, I I would be
comfortable with a 4% increases and a self determined cap because otherwise, yes, we could we could choose to go well beyond that. We still wouldn't be in an issue with the state because
we're because we have such a high assessed value that our rates And even even as it increases, it'll still be lower than most places. And so so I would look at that choose to look at debt service the same as we look at at our operating fund there. We don't
have a choice. Uh but we could apply that same standard be self-disciplined enough to do that. We've already are the uh only district in Hamilton County that does not that has referendums that does not have a construction referendum. So every
everything we're doing for facilities, we've said we're not going to ask you to raise your taxes. We're going to live under that cap, you know, the 1%. And so I wouldn't see any reason to change. >> Thank you. Uh I just wanted to thank Mr.
Gardner because I know I had a lot of questions on tiffs um for following the city over time and following the schools over time as well. So, I appreciate the due diligence you've done there. The only thing I wanted to add to that is you had made the comment about this being a referendum conversation and while it is and that's where we have to
make a decision at the end of the day, it is important to be looking at the budget as a whole and knowing that we do move some money from the education fund to the operating fund that does still play a role at the end of the day coming into the decision-making process. Um, the MLGQ was something new that I
learned um understanding that limitation that we have. So, I really appreciate that due diligence and following up on those questions. >> And I just want to add Mr. Brown's example uh was just an example. We are
in no way, shape, or form looking at building another high school. For the record, if there's anyone out there watching right now, I just want to want to be clear on that. It was just an example. >> Yeah, that thanks for pointing that. I probably should have come up with another example, but it would have been
it would have put alarms on no matter what. >> Yeah, exactly. >> That's everything I that's everything I had uh tonight to to present. I'm more than happy to answer any other questions that maybe I didn't address or
and as they may be thinking because I can see some wheels turning, I also wanted to thank you, Mr. Gardner for uh being responsive to the feedback uh from the board and the questions. Uh we tried to take all of the feedback and questions and put it into a digestible,
understandable uh presentation for you all tonight. We still have a little bit more to go. Um and Mr. Gardner is going to stay throughout the entire presentation. Uh if any other questions come up, but just want to just as Mrs. Cashen uh shared, uh thank you for all of this work and for sharing this with
our community. So um this Go ahead, Mrs. >> K. Uh, I just wanted to say thank you for this. I I think this gives us a really good snapshot on on what we need, the information, the data we need to make a decision right now because that's what
we have to to make the decision on. You know, making assumptions about what could happen or what the legislature could do or things we can we can that's great for a discussion and I think we need to talk about that, but this gives us really great actionable data to look at to make a decision. I think we all
really appreciate being able to see the the different the different decisions we have to make. >> Not to sound like a broken record. >> Um no, I also appreciate it especially um you know we all come to this with different levels of understanding,
right, of school finance, of how taxes work, how tiffs work, all of those different things. And I I think it it also um you know irony or not with getting our tax bills um but but it's helpful for the conversation, right?
Because we're we're operating off of you know average taxpayer in Carmel, right? My tax bill looks different than other people's tax bills. You know, I'm not the average taxpayer in Carmel. I brought it in because it would be great to follow along as you're talking
through this. Um, you know, and Greg saw his assessed value go one way, mine went up, but not quite that much. Um, but more than the average. So, you know, it's it's helpful because we have to put ourselves in the we are in those shoes. That's number one. You know, we're
making it's not like we're making these decisions in a vacuum and we're not impacted by them. Um, you know, speaking for myself, I'm going to be making a decision and my child will not be in the Caramel Clay schools anymore. this decision will still impact me as a
taxpayer and as a resident of Carmel, but who's also benefited by having my child go through these schools for 12 years. I think that's an important thing that we all have to keep in mind. Um, the one question that is not necessarily maybe for you, but it might be for for
Roger and Amanda to answer as they talk about it is we've seen these varying rates and the explanation is is we want to make up to get to where we would have been. um had SEA1 not been enacted, but there's
three different levies on there. And so when you get there, you don't have to answer it now. So I'm assuming it's maybe in there because I I think we've we've a few of us have asked a little bit more for a little bit more explanation around that. So that that's one uh piece that is is still tinkering
around in my brain. So if you can help talk through that with us, that would be super helpful. Thank you again. in the operation. That's right. So the third the third and fourth line
we're allowing the rate to go up as well. And so in the situation where the math of your operations fun Right? So if I have a 4% operations fund, MLG, if assessed value, so my revenue is
going to grow by 4%. If my assessed value is 8% growth that year, my operations fund rate is going to go down. And so that calculation is actually driven off of what your assessed value is.
So, and then conversely and what we're seeing in and now in SEA1 is now when my MLGQ is maybe 4% and my assessed value is potentially negative, my operations fund rate is going to have to go up in order to generate
>> uh to my comment earlier. I think it's you can't hear this enough as you're >> right. I I agree. >> Happy to answer. One question that I think is important to get on the record too is like you had indicated that we would need to utilize that max rate essentially if we wanted
to fill the gap even though we wouldn't be taking it. The process still involves the district working with the board each year to determine what rate is going to be utilized that year. So this isn't a hey we're going to set a rate and then for eight years someone could just move
forward setting it. It still comes back to the board. It is still an active conversation. Uh and that is the benefit of having the transparency so that we can collectively say hey remember we agreed to do this we don't need to do this and having it in community input.
And to your comment, not to overstep, but it's your budget process every year. Just like it always, it would come before as you set your budget, you would set your referendum levy and your referendum rate and that annual review process. So yes, it would come before the board every year for consideration. And the beauty of that too is to
something Barry talked about is should the legislature decide to revisit and make some changes and then we don't need to take, you know, even if all of that, you know, the projections are 100% accurate because Barry knows what he's talking about. Um, and we set the rate
at whatever. Um, and and we do revisit it every year if the legislature makes changes because they see what the impact is a year or two down the road. we, you know, we still get to revisit it. Um, and that's the beauty of this is and and that's happened. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but that is what happened with the safety referendum when it first passed. So, thank you for making sure that that was set out. >> All right. Well, we're going to move up, Mr. Brown. You know what I'm gonna do when I go
Make sure your sometimes it's easy to turn those off. All right, I'll start over. >> Yeah, it was that one. The button was wasn't even working sometimes. So, we may want to put that in a different bin than with all the rest.
>> I'll try to summarize what I just said in five minutes. So, you know, some some tax bills have gone up and some have gone down. And what I've noticed is the ones the the few that I've spoken to where it's gone down, their gross
assessed value went up dramatically last year, particularly like 20 to 25%. Those kind of numbers. And like I said, mine's been more gradual. So, I I was starting to see a pattern in my, you know, my unrealistic sampling, but it was pretty good size that um the people that are
seeing the savings are still grumbling because they their tax bills went up so much, not just last year, but the other years, too. But last year was a a monumental year for some reason for some homes. And I I just think we all need to be aware and and being the head of the
taxpayer that even though like even in the example that you gave us here, the the median taxpayer is getting a 1.4% reduction which is pretty nominal because people were thinking back well I've just had a in my case 60% increase over the last six years. So I think we
just need to consider that is that you know yes if you look at starting today you know these numbers pan out but you know there's been a you know five or six year some odd history that the taxpayers have been uh really experiencing really
greatly in increasing rates and a lot of the homeowners in Carmel uh are retired. I've heard numbers like 60%. That's unvalidated, but someone told me that. It's probably wrong, but it's it's a big number. So, those people are sitting in homes that are increasing in value and
their tax rates are going up. A lot of them are maybe on fixed income. So, we just have we have that mindset we have to deal with is that it might logically make a lot of sense and when you aggregate it at a total level, it it makes a lot of sense. So, um, but you know, at the end of the day, if we're
going to be putting something, we will be putting something on the ballot. You know, they need to really, it needs to be done with a lot of homework. We need to look like we've done what we can do to make sure we've cut costs where we can cut costs intelligently. We're not
laying off a bunch of teachers, but we just need to be really careful on understanding how the taxpayers are looking. I think that's probably a good segue for the next uh the next presentation from looking having looked at it.
>> Absolutely. All right. Well, uh Mr. Gardner did such a great job of explaining his. You're going to see a little bit of overlap as we uh continue on throughout the presentation. And so last time, and we're going to have Mrs. Kushar and Mr. Mcichael speak a little
bit. Uh we shared that SEA1 uh is going to uh result in a $94 million loss uh over the next eight years. However, um it is actually $119 million loss. And so
uh Mrs. Kushar and Mr. Mcichel, do you want to address that now uh as we go forward? >> Yes. Or well, if you'll go to the next slide, then you can go back. >> Okay. Thank you. That way they can reference. So, you've seen this before, but the light green is is the assumed
loss, which has been stated two or three times, $119 million. That had previously been commented at, I believe, 94 million because we mistakenly assumed that the three do $300 tax credit was in that green bar. So, we took it out. If you
add this up, it'll be 119 million. Uh, not so just to make that clear. Uh, that 119 is the loss and gets to be my turn. Um I will comment on the three I think you asked about kind
of the good, better, and best in terms of the scenarios and but I'll >> All right. So to clarify, it is a $119 million loss and really what SEA1 has done is it's created that structural
loss uh for the district and for cities and government entities and such. And so in looking at that, that's on average that's about $15 million a year if you look at that over the next eight years. So it can't be remedied with situational
reductions. A little bit here, a little bit there. Uh first of all, we're very proud of what we we've accomplished in Carmel Clay Schools when it comes to student outcomes, when it comes to our educational programs, and truly when it comes to our mission of providing
opportunities for our students to realize their potential in an everchanging world. And so we've had high achievement here in Carmel with historically low taxes, as Mr. Gardner really went through last time and then touched upon this time. And uh we are
and Mr. you hear especially during budget time you hear this from Mr. Mcichael that we're among a small group of districts with the highest bond rating in the state and we're very proud of that and I do want to say because of consistent leadership here in Carmel
Clay Schools with Mr. Mcichael being in the district for over 30 years and because of the financial oversight he has provided, the board has provided and in being responsive to changes over the years. You saw a chart that uh Miss
Wheeler um shared with us last time going back from 2009 and districts losing money from 2009 and that gap that it's been created and now we're essentially experiencing something similar. uh with SEA1, but because we've
had proven financial oversight in this district, we are proud of what we've accomplished and what we continue to do. And so our financial teams, our long-term planning has set us up successfully over the years and we've we've re we've we've had those re um
results that we see from year to year to year, especially driven staffing efficiencies as well. We're not a district because of the consist consistency of leadership with the Dr. Dudley. This is my seventh year in the district, Roger Mcichael. Because of that, we don't sit back and just say,
"Okay, you know, the um enrollment's changing. We're just going to keep the same amount of teachers year in and year out. We make those adjustments year after year in after year." And because of that, you hear some of our neighbors who are cutting 47 teachers next year. Uh and you're going to hear that more
and more across the state. We've been responsive and I'm proud of the work that we've done. Additionally, looking at Carmel voters, as you saw in what we presented at the last time in the one of our special sessions, they we have a strong track record of referendum
approvals here in the here in the Carmel, but SEA1 has decreased the level of support without voter input. And so, um, uh, Mr. Gardner said it very well taking a look at we want to give our um
he didn't say this part but we want to give our community an opportunity for what they approved in 2023 they approved a certain levy and this is the part where he said very well even that levy that was approved in 2023 even with the different options we're looking at now
that Mr. Mcichael and Mrs. Kush are going to get into they would pay less um if we did not have sea 1 um at all. And so we're going to look at that. I already talked about that $15 million average gap that starts in 2027. We're going to take a look at uh not a lot
examples but some of what a million dollars would generate to look at. And we believe um that our voters deserve a chance to decide if they want the same level of opport educational services, programs, opportunities that our
students experience yesterday to experience those tomorrow and going forward. >> Mr. Mcichael. >> Okay. Well, as I I said previously, the the loss from the referendum, we're projecting $119 and
>> million $119 million and uh I think it's subconscious. >> I'm trying to be optimistic, but um what we haven't talked about so se SEA1 is the entire conversation, but remember there's also the inadequate state
formula, which is why we have a referendum in the first place. current and I I'm going to specifically talk about the oper operating referendum, not the safety referendum. So the taxpayers starting in 2010 agreed to give us additional money to supplement that
inadequate funding. Well, the current current there's continued to be more and more money taken out of the educational pot, if you will, because that's primarily sales and income tax, and they've not been changed since 2010. But almost a billion dollars has been taken
out of that pot uh for such things as uh vouchers. That's the biggest one. Um but also and charter schools, but also more recently in a couple years a year or two ago, textbooks. So for textbooks for us, that's $2.5 million. I think 160 million
at statewide. So So thus the inadequate funding has gotten worse. So, as we talk about a referendum, keeping in mind that the taxpayers repeatedly have approved raising their taxes to to give us the operating referendum to
supplement that, we need a little more, not a lot more. It depends. I don't want to say a lot or a little because that's relative, but but uh as we look at this um and I'll get to the I believe one of these slides will be that the three
exams, three scenarios. Um so, And you remember that last year uh the board approved a a salary increase, a modest salary increase, minimal salary increase my opinion. And it's we still ended up with a $2 million deficit,
which 2 million on 150. So I don't I mean it's still $2 million, but but it's not it's smaller than anybody else that I know around. and and um but I also our budget was also built with no salary increases
um no insurance increase and and frankly we don't really have a choice in that if you know if the cost goes up we're self-funded by law we have to be fully funded and so both of which I believe are unrealistic and and and
at least unreasonable in terms of of salaries oftentimes and we're going to see this Um this whole legislation in many instances will be put on the backs of employees. By that I mean their salaries will be frozen, their salaries
can be reduced. There's, you know, the state law would allow that. And and so I've said pretty, you know, loudly that I at least don't recommend that. And so
so in order to and that's the little bit more because the the estimated loss to Caramel schools for that billion dollars uh is about $13 million. So we're not asking to make up $13 million because we do constantly
do the best we can to reduce expenses that are not in the classroom. And I think I'm going to comment on that just a little bit because we've talked about belt tightening and so forth, but but we will and I'll show you in a minute on the next slide. Um those three
scenarios >> and the and the bottom line as Roger has said the math has changed. >> Yes, >> SEA1 has done this to our district, right? If we didn't have SEA1, that total tax liability is still going up
and still going to be less as we're looking at those options as he said. But this has happened because of sea one. >> Yes. So I'll finish these first. I want to go back to the belt tightening just just at the end. >> But you
good. >> Okay. >> Yes. No. Go to the next one. Okay. So um with the $15 million annual reduction um we we've given examples just to kind of understand the scope of that and said
and you'll notice this is all personnel by the way and that's because 96% of our budgets as you know are salary and benefits. If we had major major cuts anytime I've ever been involved with that in my career there will be reductions in non-personnel but that's
not where the money's at. you can freeze all the travel budgets which you probably would I would and because well because it all adds up but but it's insignificant. So I've used personnel just as the example not because I think
we're going to get to this point but I'm trying to explain the scope of the of the problem really that we have. And so you see 11 teachers and 25 bus drivers. Each of these would give you a million dollars. So if we need 15 million it's like you pick and choose uh and you'll
see an example in a minute um as we go down to 40 instructional assistance and so forth. So now let's go to the next slide. So here we're this is an example. Um we just said well if it were 10% of each 10 11% of each department. Now
again I I am sure that the goal would be to minimize direct in the classroom or teachers and others out in schools. Um but just as an example and so then you see that if it were 10% those are the numbers. Um and we showed the total
employees. Now a question was raised but could we give specifics? I'm I do not recommend giving specifics because whatever I say I can say it's an example but as soon as I say cut social workers
social workers are going to get all upset and people will say that's what they would cut and it won't matter how many times you say no that was just an example. I don't think it's wise to put out examples and then find yourself in you will find yourself in a defensive
position whatever examples you give which is why I've given the 10% and so forth at the same time I appreciate trying to understand the scope of it so I would use one example bus drivers I think it was 16 bus drivers to give you
to to help understand the impact of that um we currently have 1500 students that do not have bus service. And we all know about no bus zones, right? So 16 fewer drivers translates to 2,000
student 2,000 more students. So if you've heard about people that don't have bus service from the 1500 students, add a couple thousand more more to that. That's the impact. That's a that's one million. We need another
14. So you see that's kind of how that goes. Um, and so again, this is an example not this isn't you to to come to a decision to cut millions of dollars. I can tell you that you will need a long time.
However, you'll be pressured because you don't have a long time because the money is still being spent. And so if the money is not there, you can't take too long. Um, but I've in past examples, I've I've I've seen it work. It could
take months and it should. I mean, if you're if you're you're talking about, you know, that kind of money with personnel that's educating the community's children, certainly that's a very very serious uh consideration
and a very difficult. So, I think is that my last? So, so uh but let me comment just briefly. It's not up here, but uh it came up about um what are we doing before we ask for more money? And
so I give you two or three examples. Um we have, as you know, we have a nationally recognized uh wellness center. Our third party data analytics company says we're saving $8 million. So in other words, we're not we've not
looked to like cut this or cut that. We we've done our best to operate as efficiently, by that I mean as much money into the classroom as that's the reason we're here. And so there's $8 million. We've talked about utilities.
We spend $6.2 million on utilities. Um we have I'm not I do not know of another district that has the low if we look at that to on a per pupil basis. I don't I'm not aware of another district in the
state that spends less per pupil on utilities than Caramel. Lawrence Township is one example and I'm not picking on Lawrence Township and Lawrence Townships does not have, you know, 100-y old buildings and all that. So, I think it's, you know, it's a
reasonable comparison. Their utilities on a per pupil basis are 30% more than ours. 30%. That's $2 million that is spent on utilities, thus not
spent in the classroom. That's that's basic if you look at it that way, it's either at the classroom or it's not. The state has a standard that's well publicized. Um that they they want you want us to spend 65% of the revenue. You
may have heard that percentage on in the class say in the classroom. have any idea what Carmel is? It's 77%. I don't know of another district that has that high of a percentage. So the
difference between 77% and 65% is 16.5 million. So as we reduce things to provide more money in the classroom, because that's what
we're talking about. We're not talking about, you know, your first choice won't be to cut teachers. Um, it would be to cut things outside the classroom. We're $16.5 million. Um, just in that in that percentage as compared to what the
state recommends. So, we've cut. And so, I've been resistant. Uh, and I don't think it should be your financial officer anyhow. uh because if I give you a list of cuts, I'm deciding what's what's uh the priorities are around
here. And so I take I try to man manage the money, but actually if there's ever something that the board's responsible for or or determines is what what does this community value as it relates to education? And so I have an opinion.
So, but I don't think that's where you'd want to get the opinion. So, um, so I've been reluctant again because if we we create a list and you've seen it all all all over the state going to lay off teachers going this, you know, don't
get money or or we do nothing and we've not done that. Um, I wouldn't I would not recommend that uh because that will be the waste list that pe people will say there's the waste and good thing the state legislature passed legislation so
we made them you know, display their waste. We don't have any waste. We have waste in in I mean, there's always potential. We don't have kind We don't have $15 million worth of waste or any anywhere close to it. And we again all the time we're looking um to to see ways
that we can reduce non-classroom expenses. I gave you two or three big ones. Um there are others of course propane buses and all kinds of things but I wouldn't recommend that and and again you're hearing about when you hear
about somebody um saying this is what will happen that's threatening and I say things that are that it's threatening but if I'm not a I do not threaten as an idol threat I guess I
would say to say well if you don't do something the sky is going to fall and here's what's going to happen. Generally what happens that that doesn't happen and and it destroys credibility and um so I don't recommend that
if if we do nothing or if the taxpayers if we put a referendum out and they say no then you'll get a then you'll get an amount and then we'll have to have those hard conversations. But I would recommend that we not have them in any kind of specifics before
fact. Before the fact because people people want to know, well, if you don't get this, what are we going to lose? The answer is I don't know. You're going to lose $15 million. But specifically, I don't know. The question was, well, what what does it do to class size? Well, if
you cut staff that's not in the classroom, won't do anything to class size such as not to pick on the social workers, but social, but they're not related to, you know, having, you know, a classroom. So, things like counselors, I'm talking just teachers. Um, but we
have a lots of teachers, instructional coaches, for example. Um, but they all matter. They put all that together is is why caramel is caramel. You know, we do a lot more than reading, writing, arithmetic. >> And I'm going to add to that, we believe
in the educational program that we currently offer and we get the results here in Carmel, uh, with student outcomes from our from our students. So, uh, with that, I wanted to share first of all, we'll take lots of questions. However, I do want to thank the team for
being responsive to all of the board feedback and the questions and tiff information and all of those pieces. So, I appreciate you all very much and uh, Mr. Gardner and also Steve Clink, our referendum consultant. Um, but at this time, we'd be happy to take uh any questions the board may have. And I'm
going to start with Miss Wheeler uh because she looks like she's ready to go. >> I'm ready to go. I even got my green button going first. Um, Amanda, could we please go to Roger's previous slide or or the group's previous slide? No, wait, sorry, one more. The uh Yeah. Uh, so Dr.
O said something to me and it crystallized something in my mind and I want to make sure it's correct. If we look at for example the 2026 bar in this graph, we are not, you know, these are current
referendum amounts, correct? And our taxpayers decided how much money uh they were willing to invest in our schools through these referendums. And what this bar says is in 2026,
we did not get 7.7 million of what the community, the taxpayers said we could get. Is that right? Or that safety? What's above that? What's the the green impact?
>> Three million. So it was 3 million that year. 27 it'll be six. So, they authorized us to get the full amount should we need it, should that board at that time decide. And we're not getting we're not even getting what the
community said they wanted us to invest in our schools right now. Like I I completely agree with Mr. Brown that we need to let the taxpayers decide if they want our students to have the same services
tomorrow as they have today. But what this bar graph tells me is they're not even getting today what they were supposed to get. And I think that's significant. Um, and then I think my next question,
Roger, was really on the on the what have we done. Please know that I know that you've done a lot. I'm not sure the public knows how much we've done. It's more for me of a and you just did it and gave a few very good examples, but for
me it's let's let's have an answer to that question. You do have an answer to that question. You know, let's make sure we're clear. Not only have we cut, we're not getting what we're supposed to get and it's going to get worse. I think that's a
a really um compelling story. >> You're absolutely right. And um when both counts um we're not great at advertising ourselves I guess in in a situ well and in situ well in
situations like this though that is that is a a you know a challenge because people don't know if nobody tells them. >> Yep. Exactly. And then my last comment was I think you're right about you know we can't say we're going to cut X number
of this kind of staff. I do however think it's compelling what you said about the number for example the number of kids who uh would not have potentially would not have bus service. I absolutely understand why we have walk
zones. Um I support that that decision was made you know before I was a board member. I understand we cannot get bus drivers um that we need to to um have as many buses as we'd like to have. That said, I know of nothing more hated than
our walk zones. >> I know. >> And you know, I think our parents are going to want to know, hey, >> a couple thousand more kids are going to be in a walk zone. So maybe that means our walk zones go from one mile to a mile and a half. I don't know what that looks like. Or more. More. Oh, good
gravy. >> Well, it took a mile. It took took a mile to get a thousand. It took a mile to get We need another 2,000. >> Yeah, that's how we get it. >> That's really I I'm envisioning the map of our district and I don't know how you do that. I really don't. >> And that's the number of what we would
have to reduce plus impact. So you have if you're taking the bus driver example, there's a number, but there's also an impact to that. If you take the teacher example, that's a number, but there's also an impact to that. So that's a good that's a good point you made. So thank you. >> Yeah. And I mean another example um you
know if we lose IAS and that's a consequence. There are many children that need that one- on-one IIA support or they need the reading specialist report support. The impact that you're talking about to me is a child who doesn't have the services they need to
be successful in our district. And maybe the result is you know we don't have as many gains in iLearn. We have more third graders who have to be held back. That's awful. I mean, those consequences and outcomes are not the type of outcomes
that we're looking for as a district. We're looking for the opposite. >> Thank you, Roger and Amanda, um, for all of this. I would agree a lot with what Chris had to share. Um I appreciate the examples and I know we don't want to get
committal on things but I also what was important for me um was some sense of how we make it how will this feel um because and not because we're trying to make people feel anything. I can't make
anybody feel anything but um but I I think a different depth of level of understanding of of potential impact um the example you were just giving with instructional assistance. Let's not just think about that one or two ch children
that the instructional assistant is working with but the impact on the rest of that classroom. Yeah. >> Right. So it's not just those right there's there's a ripple effect here that's also year one. Right. So We're talking about the multiplication of having to do this over
the course of several years. Um, and that's it's just going to multiply. It's it's troubling to have to think about it in that regard. Um, I want to remind you about going back to the rate slide at some point. Um, just because I
I don't want to forget about that. That would be helpful for me. Um, but I I really want to also drive home the point that Chris made about having community have the opportunity
for at least a few more years based on what we all voted on a couple years ago, a referendum renewal that we're not even getting what we all what 70% of the community roughly voted on was a certain level of funding that we're
so important And what we are discussing again as a reminder just as Jennifer mentioned it earlier that the board would get to set the rate. The same thing that we are deciding now is whether or not we're putting the question on the ballot is
the decision that this board has to make. We are not making the decision as to whether or not there it will happen or not. We are making the decision as to whether or not the community gets to make that decision. And then in November everybody gets to go to the ballot box, which you should do. It's an election
year uh and you get to decide among a whole bunch of other things whether or not you live in Caramel would support referendum for the next eight years. >> Um John, I put the the levy slide up instead of the rate slide since we're trying to move conversation towards
levy. Um so you see three different scenarios and as we talked about there's a lot of different factors to consider, a lot of unknowns to consider, a lot of things that might change. Um so the first thing that of course we looked at is the loss from SB1 and so how can we
recover that loss and then we're looking at um why we have a referendum in the first place. So state funding um how do we continue to supplement that with local support um what else might we need there? And then the third piece is really the strategic plan and the things
that we outlined that we wanted to do there. Um academic achievement and being able to offer um classes that are what kids need. um technology, what do we want to be able to offer there? So, we are looking at those pieces to try and come up with, you know, what what is the
amount of money that we need to be able to achieve those things? And that's where those scenarios came from. Um and so I think we're still looking at it, but likely where we would land is the the red or the yellow line. Um and we're looking at those numbers to really see
and come to a board recommendation at Mid Bay. So I have a quick question on that because so my assumption was that the yellow line keeps us whole from where we anticipated being where the red line would then result in less than what we
would have gotten and we might still have to have some conversations then as to how we reduce our expectations of what we would have achieved. So, without going for the yellow lines levy rates, um there would still have to be conversations. And John, I appreciated
that you added on to Chris's about that impact because to me, one of the reasons for asking for the examples is because I think the community needs to understand that in this scenario, there would be no one left unharmed, right? Um, a great example is when we were at the Clay
Center PTO meeting and someone asked about the safety referendum and said, "If it fails, do all the SRO's go away?" And Dr. O said, "No, they wouldn't all go away." And you heard a collective sigh in the room. And then he said, "But all the elementary school SRO would go
away." And everyone panicked. So, I think everyone assumes that if there is harm, it will not come to their front door. Where it was important for us to be able to communicate that a $15 million annual loss will hit every single family that goes to Carmel Clay
Schools. Um, and back to the IIA comment, too, because for me, that is what I continually hear across our district is how we need more, not less. that we are not meeting the needs of all the kids in the classrooms who might
need extra help. Um, so it's terrifying to think of even just keeping what we have when I know that is feedback that we're continually getting of how that would be so much more beneficial to the community. So that's part of the conversation as well. >> And sorry, it's a conversation, so I'm
just going to jump in. Someone else can cut me off if they want to. Um to that point, I think about the work that this board has done just in the last couple of months and the importance that we're putting on special education and the efforts that we want to make to be more
engaged there and engage more of our community. And I think if we're not improving that in that area, then it's antithetical to to that work. And I think we've we've talked over the last couple years and seen the increase in the number of
students with special needs and how this board certainly in the last few months have said this is a priority area. We want to not every single family in this district will beed
if we're not doing something. And just I know the answer to this question, but I'm going to say it. I'm gonna ask it because I've seen it out in the community. um us doing construction projects or not doing construction projects. Um what is the impact of us
choosing to do construction on on any of this? >> Well, as I said earlier, uh we're one of the few districts that uh all the con in spite of all the constructions, including the niatorum, I might as well just put that right out there. Um uh we
we are doing that under the cap which means we're not going you're not paying more than 1% no matter what we're doing because because it's we operate that under the cap. Um and when it comes to construction it depends
kind of what you're talking about but but uh we one of the projects for example was polytech. Now we didn't have to do polytech but we all know in this room what's happening in that area. um in commercial, you know, the kitchens that we had were built in the '9s to be
to teach young people how to cook at home. So, they're, you know, ranges and so equipment just like in your house. We're very similar. Uh not commercial equipment. U but that's what the students are taking now is and not just
to be chefs, but to be um food and beverage managers and hotels, all kinds of things besides just cooking. Um, so you don't you don't have to do that. Uh, those are I use >> explicitly. We we couldn't use that money for something like our teachers.
>> We cannot co-mingle the funds. >> Yeah. So that's what I just want. >> That's a good point. So yes and so if we reduce uh our expenditures in debt service >> um one most of that money is
with the exception of the example I gave where it's an expansion but otherwise it's maintaining the you know millions and millions of dollars of the community's facilities that we should be responsible to take care of them and we use nice terms like deferred maintenance
but that just means like, you know, don't change the oil in your car or whatever. So, it's the same thing. And so, um, facilities have to be maintained. It's we spend less money doing that because we do it on a consistent basis and don't wait till they get cleared, you know, at the
bottom and then spike the tax rate or or the levy uh to to get them back up. And so, but if we if we did reduce expenses, it would re it would help the taxpayer. It would not help any of this other discussion. as I've said, um, can't take
debt dollars and pay salaries. >> I just I wanted to add to your comments about special education because I know again that's been a continuing conversation. Um, and as we know, as we've learned from board reports over the the past three and a half some years we've been on the board that there's
been an increase in students receiving special education. And I think I just wanted to point out so that part of that conversation is um I know administration is aware as uh Indiana Medicaid is cutting down on ABA hours um ABA hours are being cut and limited to a maximum
of three years. We are going to be getting those students in our schools. It's going to be a pretty market increase um in students and we are going to have to have the staff um to appropriately to make sure that they get their their adequate education. The um uh so that was my one point. Um, my other thing is I feel like I hear kind
of everybody saying that what we what we feel like the community wants to see is to continue to tell the story of what we're already doing. So what we as a district are already doing that the excellence part, but also the what what we do, how we are already saving money, how we are already doing better than
maybe other districts. maybe maybe not compare ourselves to specific districts um in in you know communications but but that telling that story um and I think part of that is to Miss Cashion's point you know giving potential implications
of what would happen if we if these referendum would not pass. Um because giving an example like there would be 2,000 more students without bus routes would be that would be a response for sure from the community. But just giving them
those giving examples I think is is really that tangible example like you said is what the community that helps them see the big picture I guess and but I agree with you. I know it's just an example and that might be run with in the wrong way but that that's the feedback I think a lot of us hear from the community is they need to know why
why are we going to vote for this? One of the things you might do, I'm still resisting that example, but uh I'm doing it respect, but but um what I you might consider, for example, if we say there's 44 IAS in
kindergarten classes, right? 43 or 44. So, we need 40 to get and that's $1 million, not 15. and the two and the 2,000 kids is $1 million if just to use to pick on transportation or pick on IAS
or whatever. So, so um not examples exactly, but all the social workers in the school district and I think we all have pretty good idea of the value of our social workers and and second, you know, and then counselors as well, but I don't know the number off the top of my
head, but it's, you know, it's a million and a half dollars. I do know that number um or thereabouts and so again no social workers you know million and a half dollars. uh not recommending we use that we would eliminate social workers
but if we elim you know we eliminate all of them we got a long way to go but but and likely you wouldn't I mean you you try to take 10% or you take three or four or whatever but as you said this amount of money everybody's touched
and so because sometimes when it's less than that it's only a problem for the people it affects if I'm if my child's in kindergarten and and there's no more kids in there, you know, I don't have a problem. And or if I don't take my kids don't aren't
taking a foreign language, then that's not there anymore. I don't have a problem. Everybody's going to have a problem with this kind. >> I think it's I I think you're I appreciate your point about for a number of reasons being cautious
about examples. one is to not create alarm where there's not a need to create alarm and two because I'm you know a glass half full type of person and I'd like to think that we are not going to find ourselves in that position um because I
I I would like to think we are we as a board are going to make an educated decision which is part of the reason we are continuing to have these conversations. um so that we can make the best decision for our community about what question
we might put on a ballot and then let the community make the decision that they feel that they want to do to support their schools. At the same time, I I think there's an opportunity for us to um to go back maybe to where Dr. O strike was starting the conversation,
you know, is to talk about the things and the reasons why all of us, I believe, chose to send our schools our children to the schools in Carmel, right? I mean, many of us made the decision to to raise our children in
this community for a very specific reason. I think that's that's part of the selling point. Also, I I could have made a decision to live in a township school, you know, or pick another district in in the county, but I didn't.
And that was a very conscious decision. So, you know, there's an expectation that I think this community has for our schools and for the quality of education and the quality of programs. And I think that's the part of the point that Roger and Dr. were also both making. And I
think that is something that also needs to be part of this conversation. as yes there will there will be there could be loss however there's there's there is these opportunities that we have come to
expect as the norm that if you go to plenty of other places in Indiana and across the country it is not the norm we have something very special here those of us who've had the chance to go to schoolboard conferences those of us who grew up in other parts of the country or
went to other schools in other places know that this is not the norm. Um we have to this is one of those I think really hallmark moments where we have a really important decision to make that
certainly is going to shape the next 8 to 10 years. I mean almost a full uh lifetime of of a generation of students that are going to go through our school district. Not to put any pressure on all of us but it's true. I mean it is it is
true. So it's hugely important. So I just urge us to to think it through. Make sure we ask all those questions. We're quite fortunate to be in the place that we are in.
I reserve the right to make more comments. Mr. Brown. And I'm going to take a position kind of like I did earlier of taxpayer with no kids in the school system. I say grand kids in school
system. This is we just need to be really aware of that voter community. So with that said, uh okay, tax rates have gone up, my tax bills gone up, went up 27% and it's still going up. I got a
little bit saved this year, but when we look at this chart. So Chris mentioned $119 million kill that one. There you go. >> Um the reason that total line is there is
because we've experienced really I'm going to say kind of a windfall in in assessed value growth. So, you know, we've grown to follow that growth and assess value and we've expanded the program. I'm not being I don't I'm not trying to be at all critical the program elements we have.
>> We didn't expand the program. I want to make that clear. Um we did we did benefit when the AV went up as you're describing the last three or four years and and I've said this before, but I want to say it again. We chose many some
of our neighbors chose to lower their referendum rate because it went up. The same neighbors are now millions of dollars deficit and they're talking about the layoffs and the cuts and so and they will be talking about renewing referendums. I'm not being critical of
them. I'm just want to make the point that we at the same time that the AV went up. Totally coincidental. Um, but it was the same time, if you remember, that we were losing enrollment right after COVID and and you you kind of know how the state formula works. So we were
losing $7,000 per student and completely coincidence but when it went up 13% that increase from a typical 4% or thereabouts happened to be about the same amount of money that we lost after
we reduced staff to to reflect students because half of the money goes to art, music and PE teachers, principal assistant princip schools, they don't get reduced until
you unless you lose enough students to close a building or something and then everybody, right? So, so it happened that our choice was either make a million dollars or whatever the amount was, but that's close. Make a million dollars worth of
cuts. So, we're not adding to the program. The choice was cut the program or keep keep the uh the windfall, if you will, from the assessed value. and this district chose to keep it. And um it's also though the same community that
chose to give us $30 million um to supplement the state inadequate funding. And so honestly, personally, I felt that our community, if we said we're not going to keep the
referendum money, we'll go back to the taxpayer and ask them if they'll give us more because we're losing enrollment and and the funding's, you know, we can't keep up with the program with the funding. But it's but we did not add anything. As a matter of fact, uh if anything, it went the other way because
because of the, you know, the declining enrollment. Um, we looked at every place we could if anything to reduce and keep in mind by the way that our our s salary increases and so forth have been one or 2% uh on average in the last 15 years.
Um, so we're not and that's where 96% that's where the money's at. And so and and we're not growing cash. We have the lowest cash balance reserves of any district in Hamilton County. Um, so
So, we're not taxing the most we can get and dispending whatever we can get is what I want to emphasize. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Let me continue then. U again I'm I'm trying to present a a
perspective of a lot of our voter community and and pretty well guess that not many people in Caramel are going to watch this board meeting hear all this conversation. So that does we've talked about communication does need to get out in in
a comprehensive way not just to the school parents but the other community members in the school to be heard. We we can sit here and convince ourselves, but that's the point I'm trying to make is that, you know, there's a lot of taxpayers that are saying this just keeps going up and I see buildings going
up and all these improvements and and I'm I'm getting clobbered here on everything goes up at my income kind of a thing. So, I just wanted to mention that that we like I said, we can convince ourselves here. We can hear all these good points, but you know, if if there's
a lot of taxpayers that would need to hear that to have their minds changed, and that's what we need to think about. That's how we're going to do that. And I I've also I think something we also need to realize is that we talked about 96% of the education operating referendum budget goes to classroom kinds of
expenses. But we do peel off this year, I think we're going to peel off almost $19 million of that for operations. So maybe you could talk to that a little bit. >> I would love to because that's completely misleading. No, because people don't understand it and I'm not
sure most people do. I understand it. And here's the here's the truth. Um the state of Indiana, as you know, changed the general fund to an education fund. They narrowed that fund on today's money about $18 million.
By that I mean custodians had to move to operations, utilities had to move to operations. A total of $18 million of non-classroom expenses move to operations. Right? But they continued,
they aren't that oblivious. The state legislature continued to give that $18 million to the education fund. Now they want to put you on the naughty list. If you have the money, follow the expense. And so,
and the expense we're talking about is what we've been talking about. Bus drivers, custodians. I mean, you know, we have 44 custodians. There's I believe it's four in each elementary school. Um, if we don't do
the transfer and and the operations funds got a levy cap of 4%, that's the levy. The transfer is on top of that, by the way. And so, if we don't transfer the money, then every, you know, then you're going to have to cut over here.
you're going to have to do something because the because the state bureaucracy said move the expenses and then they want to shame you if you had the money follow those expenses to pay for them. And so it's very important that people understand that we are not
choosing to, you know, it's not like and we're looking, you me, you've alluded to it. Maybe TIFF could, we wouldn't have to transfer as much. I wished it worked that way, but it doesn't. So that whole structure was by design in my opinion.
>> I think one of the things that would help reframe it is that like we're constantly talking about your taxes are going down where they would have been. It's more of your taxes aren't going to go up as much as they could have been. I think that's the proper way to really frame it. Um because they're not going
down because to Greg's point, if we don't have a referendum or it fails, your taxes actually go down a lot. Um so I don't want to misconstrued anyone in the community thinking, well, your taxes are going to go down. No, they're just not going to go up as much as they would
have under the past operating referendum approval. So, I think reframing that conversation also helps. But I understand um what Mr. Brown is trying to say is there are a lot of us in the community that have seen that significant increase in our assessed
values. But Roger, you alluded to it too and what I had said earlier in regards to not just looking at referendum but our entire budget is if we did feel that there were other ways that we could in the future alleviate budget concerns like if we didn't maintain our buildings
at the same rate. we might have longer term consequences there. But those are choices that we can make collectively when we're looking at a total tax liability to see if there's one way to save our teachers and save that quality of education, but maybe
have some relief on a tax bill somewhere else. And I want to emphasize that I at least I know others here that I work with are absolutely uh aware of the taxpayer and and we really are not a bunch of bureaucrats that just say hold our hand out and say give me money. Um
we I know I know what the tax increases are and I consider that as and again do the best we can to to manage that on behalf of the taxpayers best we can. Um the fact is is these last you know I a lot of things are after co but the last
three or four you saw the bars that's you know before that it was you know we didn't we didn't have any of this discussion at least not that I heard of I mean I'm not saying every taxpayer was happy I'm just saying that that but when it when it went up 13% you know that caught everybody's
attention and then it's then it still was 9% and I believe 7% well above the 4% I want to emphasize as we talk about referendums we've talked repeatedly about a 4% % increase in the money. Now,
um I'll soon be on that fixed income and I don't know if I can manage that 4% or not, but but the point is is um our referendum and this whole conversation is not spiking your tax rate. It is trying to to neutralize the impact of
legislation that our community had no input on. It is absolutely that's what we're trying to do. and and we're 40% of the tax bill because somebody said, "Well, what about the city's going to raise taxes as well?" Well, I don't know that the city's going
I'm going to speak for the city, but I don't they I believe they what I've heard is they're they're talking the same thing we are. They're not talking about raising taxes. They're trying to keep keep it at at the level that it has been as opposed to it going down. So
maint So that none of which helps lower the tax bill to your point. Um and so that that's where the the dilemma is at. But in the school business um lowering that tax bill translates to taking
services away from kids and and um our job is to advocate for kids. And it's not that those taxpayers, by the way, don't like children, but they only have so much money. So I fact that they, you know, want their taxes to go down, you know, I don't
begrudge that or feel like, you know, they don't care about kids because I know they do. Whether they have kids in school now, they probably had kids, but even if they didn't, I mean, most people do care about children. And so it's not that it's that balance. But somebody said it um at the end of the day rather
than coming out of Indianapolis schools and a school board has the opportunity every year um to be sensitive to that in relationship to being sensitive to what children need and and that's the budget uh as we
present it. And so I think it would have been a better system uh because all the governmental units or most of them certainly the city and the schools have have a local elected officials um but folks in Indianapolis saw fit to
to speak on everybody's behalf the same across the state and every 300 school districts. We're not all and communities more communities than that. We're not all the same. And so My opinion is is it would be better. It
would have might have been better if the local elected officials you talk about local control and all of that. I think that's a pretty good idea. But that's not what happened. >> Need a mic? Certainly can microphone.
This is this addresses your tax bill and your concerns too. >> Got talk. >> Okay. Um when you when you talk about the tax bill you have now and and all the hype about SEA1 is it's lowering
your tax, but it only lowered net assessed value by 4% this year. Next year it's 10.86%. If you're V went down 108 10.86% this year. What do you think your tax? >> I don't know. Mine went up.
>> Yeah, but yours went up by 4%. Right. So now if the net AV goes down by 10.86%. >> On the referendum it's completely linear. That means your referendum dollars go down by 10.86%. And the next year it's 17.7 and the next year it's
23.5. Next year it's 30 till the home is only worth one third of its value. That's that supplemental deduction you were asking about. It goes from 37 and a half up to 23 off of your gross sav. So that tax bill that you have now is not
representative of what sea really does and it's it's going to go down over time. Net AV what we tax on is going to go down. The levy adjusted funds are controlled by that 4%. But that referendum fund is completely linear
with that. It goes down by the same amount. So just want to make sure you understand how those >> correct me if I'm wrong with the but mine at least says for it's the taxes for year 2021. Correct. The bill we just received is a 2026 tax bill. I mean I
don't have to pay mine so I didn't I open mine but it goes to escrow as I think a lot of ours does. But it was for the 2025 year. So, so yeah. So, we So, the assessed value. So, yeah, we aren't really seeing that. >> Well, you're this is pay 2026. So, you
saw a 4% decline in the way. >> That's super helpful information. I think that is also a necessary piece of the education process that potentially needs needs to happen to to Mr. Brown's
point and and not just for the people that do not have children in the schools for everyone in the community to understand what the impact of this may be moving forward. But I I was going to say before Mr. Clint shared that I do think that I mean I this was a
conversation with referend renewal a couple years ago you know and every time the school district has this conversation is how do we make sure that the community understands what's going on particularly the people that are not directly connected to the schools and this is no different than any of
those times because again people open this up they look at percentages they see that school district is the largest percentage of their property tax bill and they don't completely understand and again Mr. just made a hugely important point that of what is going to happen over time. Right now it looks a certain
way and over time it may it will look different assuming nothing changes but again that was a huge burden on communication and how that gets >> all right any other questions before we wrap things up? me
>> yes >> process question because I I know communication is a huge thing but that's not really the board's role to figure out that communication um it's to figure out what do we want to put on the ballot and my understanding is after this
meeting is when Mr. Clank's team is supposed to go do their polling. Don't we have to decide what that rate is that we want him to go pull or where do we go from here? Like so you're testing so for those who
couldn't hear him he's testing within the range that was presented from the three scenarios that were on the PowerPoint slide. So you are testing all three scenarios. Okay. Okay. So it's a if they say this, we say that type of scenario. So I just because
I guess I'm just trying to get an understanding as to at what point does the board need to fully decide what the rate. I think we all agree there's something going on the ballot this year because of the fact that the safety referendum is up for renewal. Um so what that rate is when are we fully deciding
that rate >> June >> the timeline from our from our last meeting >> from our la the last time we talked about this we we had drafted looking at a first reading of a potential
>> draft at our May 13th meeting and then we have to we have to vote on it by June. >> So I think my understanding was just like that was once we had already had a rate decision and that was more of the wording and the ballot versus >> what I just heard is we have until June 24th actually decide on the rates.
>> Okay. >> But I but I know we have another conversation schedule. >> Yes. You can change the number of years, the purpose, and the amount you're asking for. I'm just recounting for the microphone. >> Okay. Thank you.
So I I think there's an assumption going forward that I'm hearing is that we will recommend we haven't decided on the rate yet, but we've we've decided to combine the two referendums to bring the operating I mean if if he's going to be doing
polling based on that based on that polling >> yeah based upon that polling um he is able to test those different questions you have with regard regards to combining the referendum or looking at
other options as well. Okay, thank you. Any other questions this evening? All right. Well, I once again I want first of all I want to thank the board for all of your feedback, all of your questions, and also for holding uh these public meetings so our community here in
Carmel knows what we're considering, what we're talking about uh what's at stake in our community when it comes to education and educational programs. I also want to thank the team. I want to thank Mr. Gardner. I want to thank Mr. Clink um for putting together uh the
presentation and providing additional information and answers to questions for our team here in Carmel. And then I want to uh end the evening uh with wishing our outstanding school board and also the superintendent's executive assistant
a happy administrative professionals day to Mrs. Colleen Novas. And with that, I'll with that, I'll turn it over to President Shapiro to go ahead and I can give you this one here. I got it. >> Need a motion to adjurnn, please.
>> I move to adjourn the meeting. >> May I have a second? >> We're adjourned. 88. >> Thank you. >> It's all right. Thank