The math, in plain sight
Every figure here comes from the district's own materials or public records. We show their framing and the counterpoint side by side — you decide.
Claim vs. counterpoint
| What the district says | What's also true |
|---|---|
| “It's a continuation of existing funding.” | The ballot authorizes a maximum 57¢ rate — up from 37¢ today. A true continuation would keep the rate at 37¢. |
| “About $2.30 more per month for a $350K home.” | That's an average and assumes the district won't levy the full 57¢ every year. Higher-valued homes pay more; the ballot permits the maximum. |
| The superintendent's video pledge of a “not-to-exceed 4¢ annual increase.” | That promise lives in a video, not on the ballot. The ballot authorizes the full 57¢ now, and a verbal pledge doesn't bind future boards or superintendents. Even if kept, 4¢ a year is still an increase every year — reaching 57¢ in about five years. See note. |
| “Roughly $25 million a year — about 20% of the operating budget.” | Accurate — and it's exactly why accountability for how that ~$25M is spent should come before a higher rate. The district's own referendum-fund reports are public. |
| “Noblesville is in the bottom 6% of the state funding formula.” | A statement about the state formula, not total resources. Local referendum dollars are precisely how districts offset it — the question is the right amount and rate, not whether to fund schools at all. |
| “$41.5M lost to tax caps, 2015–2025.” | Property-tax caps are a protection for taxpayers — the 1%/2%/3% constitutional caps. Money not collected because of the caps stayed with households by design; calling it “lost” assumes the schools were owed it. |
| “Without it, we face cuts and larger class sizes.” | Every budget request carries an “or else.” The useful test is whether existing dollars are prioritized to classrooms first — and whether the size and eight-year length of this ask are justified. |
District figures: Noblesville Schools — Referendum 2026 and Referendum Fund. Property-tax caps: Indiana DLGF.
About the “not-to-exceed 4¢ annual increase” pledge. In a district video, Superintendent Dr. Dan Hile describes a “not-to-exceed 4 cents annual increase” — a promise to phase the rate up gradually rather than jump straight to 57¢ (watch it here). But that promise is not part of the ballot question. What voters actually approve is authority to levy up to 57¢, and a spoken pledge doesn't legally cap the rate or bind a future board or superintendent. Note too that a “not-to-exceed 4¢ annual increase” is still an increase every year — the rate keeps climbing until it reaches the 57¢ maximum.
Read the district's own page closely
We're not paraphrasing here. The quotes below are the district's exact words from its official Referendum 2026 page. Placed side by side, they say less than they seem to.
1. Is $2.30 the cost of 57¢, or isn't it?
“Over the eight year referendum period, the proposed maximum 57 cent rate will mean an annual average increase of $2.30/month for a Noblesville home valued at $350K, depending on your specific property tax situation.”
“While the maximum allowable rate would be 57 cents, the district does not plan to take that full rate each year.”
One sentence ties the “$2.30” figure to the proposed maximum 57 cent rate. The next says the district won't actually charge that maximum. So is $2.30 the cost of the 57¢ on the ballot, or of some smaller rate the district hopes to levy? It can't be both. And note the district's own hedges — it's an “annual average” over eight years, “depending on your specific property tax situation.” An average smooths over the fact that the rate — and your bill — can climb in later years.
2. What voters approve is 57¢ — full stop
The ballot doesn't authorize $2.30, a spending plan, or a pledge. It authorizes a maximum rate of 57¢ per $100 of assessed value for eight years. “We don't plan to take the full rate” and the superintendent's “no more than 4¢ a year” are intentions, not limits — and neither appears on the ballot. If the district didn't want the authority to levy 57¢, it wouldn't be asking for it.
3. “Continuation” describes the district's dollars — not your tax rate
“This proposed rate is higher than the 2018 rate because new SEA1 property tax legislation reduces funding for schools. Noblesville Schools needs a higher maximum rate to bring in a comparable amount of money.”
To be fair to the district, this is the honest part of its page: the new state law (SEA1) shrank the tax base, so 57¢ is expected to raise roughly the same ~$25 million that 37¢ used to — not more. But that also gives away the marketing. The measure is sold as continuing current programs — “asking to continue to fund the current programs and services we offer” — while the district's own words concede the mechanism is a higher rate. “Continuation” refers to the district's budget, not the rate on your bill. Whether your taxes rise, and by how much, depends on how SEA1 changed your assessed value — which the page never shows you. Don't take $2.30 on faith: look up your own assessed value and run the 37¢ and 57¢ rates against it.
All quotations from Noblesville Schools, “Referendum 2026,” noblesvilleschools.org/referendum (accessed July 2026). Emphasis added.
Key facts at a glance
Election Day, 2026. The referendum is on the ballot for everyone inside the Noblesville Schools boundary.
Current rate vs. proposed maximum rate, per $100 of assessed value.
The authority runs through 2034 if approved.
Approximate annual amount — about 20% of the operating budget.
Work out your own number
Don't take anyone's average — including ours. Find your home's assessed value on your tax bill or at the Hamilton County Auditor, then compare the 37¢ and 57¢ rates against it. The difference between what's charged today and the authorized maximum is what's actually on the ballot.