MSD of Shakamak operating referendum

What a vote means

A yes vote

Adds up to $81 a year for a $100,000 median home (ballot). The district expects to start near $0.18, about $58 a year (our calculation).

A no vote

No new tax. The district lists possible staffing cuts, larger or combined classes, fewer courses and less transportation, with no set timetable.

On the ballot

In full

Shakamak is asking voters for the first time to approve an operating property tax, of up to 25 cents per $100 and no more than $499,000 a year for eight years (2027-2034). The small rural district says the 2025 property-tax law (SEA 1), rising costs and tax-cap losses are squeezing its budget and that its cash balances are projected to turn negative by 2033. It expects to start at about 18 cents ($391,137 in 2027) and says the board would set the rate publicly each year.

What is being asked for

Most it could charge

$0.25 per $100 of assessed value ^[1][2]

Most it could raise a year

$499,000 ^[1][2]

For how long

8 years

What it replaces

Nothing. This is the district’s first operating referendum, so it would be a new tax on top of current rates ^[6][9][10]

On a median home

$100,000 (median household assessed value certified by the Clay and Greene County Auditors, rounded up to the next $50,000) ^[1] — +$81 a year at the $0.25 maximum (ballot). Net change vs. today (our reading: no existing referendum levy): the same +$81 at the maximum. The district says it expects to start near $0.18, which by simple proportion would be about $58 a year for the same home (our calculation, not a district figure) ^[1][5][6]

If it passes

• New levy of up to $0.25 and $499,000 a year for 2027-2034, added to current school taxes; the board would vote on the actual rate each year ^[2][5]
• Spending plan at the $499,000 maximum: recruiting and retaining teachers and staff $241,400; maintaining class sizes $105,000; academic programs $93,000; educational operations $40,000; safety $19,600 ^[3]
• Expected 2027: rate of about $0.18, raising about $391,137 (district) ^[6][7]
• Cost: +$81 a year for a $100,000 median home at the full $0.25 (ballot); there is no current referendum, so this is the net change at the maximum ^[1]
• Charter sharing: none planned; the district says acting in 2026 'would allow more of the locally approved revenue to remain with Shakamak' because a levy first imposed after 2027 may have to be shared, and its model assumes Shakamak reaches the sharing threshold in 2028 ^[2][6][16]

If it fails

• Nothing is added to tax bills; there is no existing referendum to expire ^[9]
• District: 'There is no predetermined list or immediate timetable of cuts', but as pressure grows it 'may have to consider staffing reductions, larger or combined classes, fewer course offerings, reductions in some transportation services, extracurricular and field-trip opportunities, delayed bus replacement, student technology replacement, and programs such as after-school care' ^[6]
• District: 'Closing is not inevitable' ^[6]
• Retry: the next possible vote is November 2028, with a levy first on 2029 bills that could be subject to charter sharing ^[6][16]

How it got on the ballot

• June 18, 2026: the board approved the referendum tax levy resolution 4-1 on a motion by Jeremiah Faulk, seconded by Jodi Barton; David Smith voted no. No patrons spoke at the meeting ^[4]
• The resolution states that, based on revenue calculations for 2027-2034, the district 'will not be able to carry out its public educational duty' without a levy of up to $0.25 and $499,000 a year, and that it does not plan to share referendum revenue with charter schools ^[2]
• June 26, 2026: DLGF received the resolution and the Clay and Greene County Auditor certifications; June 29, 2026: DLGF approved the ballot language ^[1]
• The district lists its reasons as reduced taxable assessed value from SEA 1; rising costs for utilities, insurance, transportation and benefits; growing 'unfunded credits and circuit breaker losses'; and limited revenue growth in a small rural district ^[5]
• The district says it worked with Policy Analytics, Baker Tilly and legal counsel on forecasts, and that Ice Miller bills hourly for referendum legal work ^[5][6]
• Sept. 2026: the Greene County Voter Registration Office listed the question as Public Question #3 for MSD of Shakamak residents, after the two statewide constitutional questions (noting public questions were not yet certified) ^[17]

The district's own numbers

• Enrollment (IDOE): 768 in 2017-18, 741 in 2018-19, 650 in 2020-21, 679 in 2024-25, 675 in 2025-26 (-12% since 2017-18) ^[13]
• Fall 2025 transfers (IDOE): 753 state-funded resident students; 67 transferred in, 187 transferred out, no Choice vouchers; net -120 ^[14]
• Staffing: two elementary and two junior-senior high positions were eliminated through attrition over the last two school years; a beginning teacher earns about $45,000 and an experienced teacher up to about $70,800 (district) ^[6]
• Cash: the district says its forecast shows cash balances declining and becoming negative by 2033 ^[6]
• Assessed value 2026: about $89.1M in Greene County plus $95.2M in Clay County; total school tax rate $1.2488 (2022) and $1.1229 (2026), including operations $0.6193, debt service $0.4223 and pension debt $0.0813 in 2026 ^[11][12]
• 2027 budget notice: estimated school operating max levy $1,378,788; property tax cap credit estimate $192,000; referendum fund budget $391,137 ^[7]
• SEA 1: the district says DLGF and Policy Analytics both estimate about $193,000 lost to property-tax credits in 2027; LSA (2025) estimated net levies about $59,110 lower in 2026, $61,300 in 2027 and $64,260 in 2028 than prior law (about -3.5%) ^[6][15]

What came before

• No prior operating, safety or construction referendum by Shakamak appears in DLGF lists (2009 onward); Chalkbeat/WFYI list it among five districts seeking a property-tax increase for the first time in 2026 ^[9][10]
• Nov. 13, 2025: after a hearing with no public comment, the board unanimously adopted an additional appropriation resolution and a final bond resolution; the district says Baker Tilly’s planning work led to a 2025 bond issue ^[6][18]
• The district says the board has not adopted a resolution to consider consolidation, ‘as that has not been the desire of its constituents’; it shares staff with Linton and belongs to regional cooperatives ^[6]

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

• If the district expects to need about $0.18, why ask voters to approve up to $0.25?
• Which positions or programs would be cut first if the question fails, and when?
• How much of the $241,400 for recruiting and retaining staff would go to raises versus keeping current positions?
• What does the cash-flow forecast show for each year to 2033 with and without the referendum?
• Would the district consider sharing services or boundary changes to broaden its tax base?

What we could not find

• WTWO coverage of the district’s referendum meeting could not be read (bot challenge).
• The district’s financial forecast and presentation slides were not found as documents; figures come from the district Q&A.
• Teacher pay scale and audited cash balances were not reviewed.

Sources