IBJNews

Schools weigh options after voters nix tax hikes

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

School districts across the state continue to struggle in their attempts to win voter approval for operating money or building projects, which a researcher attributes to continued worries about the economy.

Four of the seven school referendum questions that were on the ballot were defeated during Tuesday's primary, according to Indiana University's Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

More than 80 percent of the voters in the Oak Hill United school district voted down a proposal to fund construction of a $28 million school that would have brought all elementary grades together under one roof. Leaders of the district split between Grant and Miami counties some 50 miles southwest of Fort Wayne don't know what they'll do next.

"I have an estimate on my desk for $138,000 to replace 1959 water equipment," district Superintendent Joel Martin told the Chronicle-Tribune of Marion. "Can we find the money? Do we do preventative maintenance or do we find money to replace equipment? That all has to be decided."

The school referendum process has only been around in Indiana since 2008, when a state law was passed letting voters decide whether to give more money to school districts.

Oak Hill district resident Chris Jackson said he voted against its tax request because he didn't see enough justification for it.

"We know there are repairs that need to be made," Jackson said. "We want to see reasonable estimates for what needs to be done. Let's see what it will actually cost to repair things."

Voters have rejected 40 of the 67 school referendums in that time, but districts will likely continue asking for property tax increases since state funding isn't keeping up with their costs, said Terry Spradlin, director of education policy at the IU center.

Besides the Oak Hill rejection, voters also defeated referendums for Franklin Township schools in Indianapolis, the Avon school district and the North Adams Community Schools in Decatur. Voters approved requests from the Crown Point schools and requests for operating and construction increases in the Perry Township district of Indianapolis.

"The results are indicative of shaky consumer confidence and the economy," Spradlin said. "And still, an anti-tax increase climate remains."

Crown Point School Board member Scott Angel said voters' approval of the additional money will help avoid the potential layoffs of 48 teachers and demonstrated support for the schools.

"There'll be no cuts. Everybody should be able to retain their jobs," Angel told The Times of Munster.

In Franklin Township, more than 60 percent of the voters opposed a tax referendum after a similar request lost there in 2009.

District Superintendent Walter Bourke said the results closely followed the demographics of the area in that the majority of residents don't have children in the school system.

Bourke said he expected the district will move forward with plans to cut about 80 teaching jobs, close three schools and eliminate bus transportation.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT