Clark-Pleasant Schools operating referendum renewal

What a vote means

A yes vote

The rate falls from $0.10 to at most $0.09: about $14 a year less for the $300,000 median home (our computation).

A no vote

The referendum tax ends after 2026: $127 a year less for a $300,000 median home (ballot). The district loses about $4.2-4.4 million a year that funds its police and student supports.

On the ballot

In full

Clark-Pleasant asks voters to renew its 2018 safety-focused operating referendum for 2027-2034 at a slightly lower maximum rate, $0.09 instead of $0.10 per $100, with up to $4.4 million a year ^[1][6]. The money funds the district's own police department and student support services such as behavioral health and nursing ^[6][7]. Because the 2018 levy ends with 2026 taxes, a NO vote ends this tax: about $127 a year less for the median home per the ballot, and the district would lose the program funding unless voters approve a new levy in 2028 ^[1][2].

What is being asked for

Most it could charge

$0.09 per $100 of net assessed value (down from $0.10) ^[1]

Most it could raise a year

$4,400,000 ^[1]

For how long

8 years

What it replaces

Renews the Nov 2018 operating referendum ($0.10, levied 2019-2026), which expires with 2026 taxes ^[1][2]

On a median home

$300,000 ^[1][3] — (1) Ballot figure (renewal form): if NOT approved, a $300,000 median home's bill would decrease by $127 a year, which is the $0.09 rate on that home ^[1][3]. (2) Net vs. today if approved, computed by this study: the rate drops from $0.10 to at most $0.09, about $14 a year less for the median home (net AV about $141,000 implied by the ballot figure), before other changes ^[1][4]. (3) Net vs. today if rejected, computed: the full current $0.10 ends, about $141 a year less ^[1][4].

If it passes

• Levy continues 2027-2034 at no more than $0.09 and $4.4M a year ^[1][8].
• Spending plan, 2027 estimate $4,400,000: safety initiatives including the Clark-Pleasant police department $2,000,000; student support services and programming $2,400,000 ^[7].
• Tax effect: compared with today, the median home pays about $14 a year less (rate $0.10 to $0.09), computed by this study ^[1][4].
• Referendum levies are outside the 1%/2%/3% property tax caps (circuit breakers), so they are paid in full even by owners at their cap ^[18]; the new supplemental homestead credit (lesser of 10% or $300) does not apply to referendum taxes ^[19].
• Charter sharing: IC 20-46-1-22 (SEA 1 §222) requires sharing operating-referendum revenue with eligible brick-and-mortar charters only for levies imposed for the first time with taxes first due after Dec. 31, 2027, and only where at least the greater of 100 resident students or 2% of ADM attend such charters ^[20]. This levy would begin with 2027 taxes, so by the statute's text it would not be subject to that sharing, and the board resolution states the corporation "does not plan to distribute any revenue" from it to a charter school ^[8]. A renewal after 2034 would fall under the sharing rule.

If it fails

• The 2018 levy ends with 2026 taxes; the ballot says a $300,000 median home would pay $127 a year less (computed against today's $0.10: about $141) ^[1][2].
• The district would lose about $4.2-4.4M a year that funds its police department and student support services; no official cut list was found ^[4][7].
• Under SEA 1, school property-tax referendums may be held only at November general elections in even-numbered years, so the earliest re-try after a NO would be November 3, 2028, for taxes beginning in 2029 ^[21]. That would leave 2027 and 2028 without this levy.

How it got on the ballot

• June 15, 2026: the board adopted a "Renewal of Referendum Tax Levy Resolution"; the district says all five members voted for it ^[8][6].
• The Johnson County Auditor certified the $300,000 median and $127 decrease June 18, 2026 ^[3].
• DLGF received the resolution June 18 and approved the language under the renewal statute (IC 20-46-1-10.1) June 22, 2026 ^[1].
• Board President Kimberly Crawford: "We remain dedicated to fiscal responsibility, having reduced this rate - as well as the overall school property tax." ^[6]

The district's own numbers

• Enrollment: 6,866 (2018-19) to 7,095 (2025-26), +3.3% ^[12].
• Fall 2025: 191 transfers in, 1,017 out; 472 resident students used Choice scholarships; net outflow 1,298 ^[13].
• Certified net assessed value: $2.91B (2023) to $4.25B (2026), +46% ^[14][4].
• Referendum rate: $0.0773 (2023), $0.0856 (2024), $0.0888 (2025), $0.10 (2026, levy $4.25M); total school rate fell from $1.5481 (2023) to $1.2668 (2026) ^{[14][15][16][4]}.
• District: police department of seven full-time officers; referendum spending since 2018: salaries 53%, facilities 12%, equipment 11%, benefits 10%, vehicles 7%, other 7% ^[5].
• LSA estimated SEA 1 net levy change: -$1.84M (2026, -4.8%), -$1.82M (2027, -4.5%), -$2.05M (2028, -4.9%) ^[17].

What came before

• Nov 6, 2018: operating referendum at $0.10 for eight years passed; DLGF estimated about $1.68M in 2019 and a levy through 2026 ^[9][2][10].
• District: 2019 implementation added school police staffing, security improvements and expanded student support services ^[5].
• No other Clark-Pleasant operating or construction referendum appears on DLGF's historic lists ^[10][11].

What each side says

Other people's words and claims, not ours, each with the page it came from. Where we found no organised campaign on a side, the page says so rather than inventing one.

Questions worth asking

• What would happen to the district police department and school counselors/health services in 2027-2028 if the levy ends?
• Why is the maximum levy ($4.4M) higher than 2026 collections ($4.25M) when the rate is lower?
• How are facilities, equipment and vehicle spending (about 30% since 2018) tied to safety?
• Would the district seek a larger levy in 2028 if this fails?

What we could not find

• 2018 vote totals not found (Johnson County results not located; Daily Journal not readable).
• The spending plan quotes an earlier draft question ("in response to decreases in state funding and the expiration of the current referendum"); the DLGF-approved text says "in response to reductions in property tax revenue."
• The DLGF historic-results file for 2018 is titled "Clark County" though the district is in Johnson County.
• Teacher pay and cash balances not compiled.

Sources