Duneland voters to see operating referendum renewal in November
The Duneland School Board unanimously decided Thursday to place an operating referendum renewal levy before the voters on the Nov. 4 ballot.
The board voted to proceed at a brief special meeting held Thursday morning.
Superintendent Chip Pettit said the decision to go forward with the renewal in November was spurred by the recent property tax changes made by the Indiana legislature with Senate Bill 1.
School referendum votes are now required to be voted on in November elections. The Duneland School Corporation wanted to ensure that the funding would be available for 2026 and beyond.
The 8-year renewal would raise $8.9 million annually to retain funding to maintain the teacher class size, recruit and keep teachers and staff, continue essential student health and safety initiatives and to support academic programs and student services.
'It's not a new tax. It continues funding that the voters approved in 2012 and 2019, both with strong community support,' Pettit said.
The current 7-year referendum's term – which raises $8.9 million annually – would expire at the end of 2026.
The ballot will show that the amount to be collected with the renewal would be 39 cents per $100 in assessed valuation, which would be up from the current 22 cents per $100 in valuation.
However, the new state law changes the way that property tax bills are calculated.
Many homeowners will see little or no change in what they will actually pay, Pettit said.
An example cited by the Duneland School Corporation is the overall property tax bill for a median value Chesterton home, $319,000, would be reduced by $40 per year.
'We're committed to being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,' Pettit said.
Alayna Lightfoot Pol, who presided over the school board meeting because President Brandon Kroft wasn't in attendance, stated this was a decision that came after deliberation.
'We spent a lot of time looking and discussing, and I want to thank all the board members for their time and commitment,' Pol said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Ohio's controversial higher ed overhaul now in effect
Ohio's controversial new law banning diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education takes effect today, with a grassroots effort to repeal it failing to collect enough signatures to trigger a pause and statewide vote. Why it matters: Senate Bill 1 is a sweeping overhaul that also outlaws faculty strikes and dictates other ways that public colleges and universities operate. Some, including Ohio State, have already made changes to get in compliance amid the opposition campaign. Schools that don't comply now risk losing state funds. The latest: Campaign leaders had planned to turn in petitions to the Ohio Secretary of State's Office Thursday. But they canceled the appointment after coming in around 50,000 signatures short by Thursday's deadline, according to news reports. The law would have been put on hold if the state needed to count signatures — and potentially until the Nov. 4 election, had the group collected enough. Catch up quick: We recapped everything the law bans and requires after Gov. Mike DeWine signed it in March. Schools cannot endorse or oppose "any controversial beliefs or policies ... including issues such as climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion," it reads. The intrigue: The bill does not define DEI, but prohibits DEI scholarships and training. Zoom in: Ohio State will "remove official options to denote pronouns, alter professional participation guidelines and discontinue or modify programs to support any identity-based group," per WCMH-TV.
San Francisco Chronicle
4 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court delivers blow to transgender rights in Tennessee ruling
The Supreme Court allowed President Donald Trump to expel thousands of transgender troops from the U.S. military last month while it considers his request to ban them from service. So it came as no surprise Wednesday when the court upheld a Tennessee law, similar to laws in 26 other states that have restricted gender-affirming care for transgender minors. While the ruling is a major setback for transgender rights, it will not affect states like California that do not have bans on care for minors. The court also said this case raised different issues from those in its landmark ruling in 2020 that declared a federal law banning sex discrimination in employment also barred discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. In its 6-3 ruling Wednesday, the court said the Tennessee law does not discriminate based on sex or transgender status because males and females have access to the same types of treatment for other purposes. The court weighed in on the debate over the medical value of gender-affirming care for minors. Some recent studies have not found evidence that the treatments are beneficial. Chief Justice John Roberts said in his ruling that 'the voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound.' But shortly after the ruling, the American Academy of Pediatrics blasted it, saying, 'The Supreme Court's decision today does not change the science. Gender-affirming care remains evidence-based, medically necessary care that improves the health and well-being of transgender youth.' The unsuccessful legal argument against the ban on medical care — that it would violate a transgender youth's constitutional right to equal protection of the laws — is the same argument advocates have used in challenging other parts of Trump's agenda, such as banning transgender military service, cutting off federal funding for research on gender identity, moving transgender women to men's prisons, and refusing to allow people to change gender identification on their passports. The rollbacks are in line with an executive order Trump issued on his first day in office in January, declaring that the U.S. government recognizes 'two sexes, male and female,' as determined at birth. Lower courts have blocked some of those restrictions, but by rejecting the sex-discrimination argument Wednesday, the Supreme Court indicated that it is likely to uphold the president's orders. The ruling could make states like California a haven for transgender youths from other states, a role it has played for women seeking abortions since the court's 2022 ruling overturning the constitutional right to abortion. In response to the ruling, state Attorney General Rob Bonta said, 'In California, we will continue to promote and protect access to health care, not restrict it.' In Wednesday's majority opinion, Roberts said the Tennessee law, Senate Bill 1, is not discriminatory because it treats male and female patients equally. 'SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers and hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor's sex,' Roberts said. Because youths of either gender can still receive those treatments for other reasons, he said, the law does not discriminate based on sex. He cited an example raised in the dissent, of a minor girl with unwanted facial hair inconsistent with her sex seeking hormonal therapy to remove it, treatment that is not prohibited by the Tennessee law. And he said the state 'does not exclude any individual from medical treatments on the basis of transgender status but rather removes one set of diagnoses — gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder, and gender incongruence — from the range of treatable conditions.' In other words, a law that denies transition care to minors who identify as transgender does not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, or bans on sex discrimination. 'Tennessee determined that minors lack the maturity to fully understand and appreciate the life-altering consequences of such procedures,' the chief justice said, and 'there is a rational basis' for those conclusions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the author of the 2020 ruling on employment discrimination, joined Roberts' opinion, along with Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. In a separate opinion, Alito said there was 'no evidence that transgender individuals, like racial minorities and women, have been excluded from participation in the political process.' And Thomas said states 'may legitimately question whether such treatments are ethical' for minors. In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's other Democratic appointees, Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the law was clearly discriminatory. 'Male (but not female) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like boys, and female (but not male) adolescents can receive medicines that help them look like girls,' Sotomayor wrote. 'By retreating from meaningful judicial review exactly where it matters most, the Court abandons transgender children and their families to political whims.' Bonta, whose office filed arguments urging the court to overturn the Tennessee law, condemned the ruling. 'Across the nation, we've seen a rise in hate-fueled violence and intimidation against our LGBTQ+ community, and laws such as Tennessee's Senate Bill 1 only serve to exacerbate these conditions by blatantly discriminating against transgender youth,' California's attorney general said. State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, chair of the Legislature's LGBTQ Caucus, said the court 'is giving bigots like Trump a permission slip to make it impossible to be trans.' Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, recalled the court's 2022 ruling overturning its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion, and said the court 'has once again taken a wrecking ball to Americans' rights to make decisions about their own bodies.' But Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, whose office defended the law in court, described the ruling as 'a landmark victory … in defense of America's children.' And Carrie Severino, president of the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said the court had properly 'refused to engage in judicial second-guessing of democratic decision-making. Thank goodness the old days of judicial self-aggrandizement that defined the Roe v. Wade era are behind us.' The case is U.S. v. Skrmetti, 23-477.
New York Post
14 hours ago
- New York Post
Effort to repeal Ohio ban on college DEI programs, faculty strikes falls short
A petition drive seeking the repeal of a recent Ohio law banning diversity, equity and inclusion programs as well as faculty strikes at public colleges and universities has fallen short of the signatures needed to place it before voters, organizers announced Thursday. Surrounded by boxes of petitions, the organizers said they lacked the time and support to collect all 250,000 signatures needed to place a referendum on November's ballot seeking to overturn the bill, which makes several higher education policy changes including the ban on DEI programs. Absent those signatures, Senate Bill 1 is now free to become law on Friday, its initial effective date. A petition calling to repeal the Ohio law banning DEI programs lacked the necessary number of votes needed to force a referendum to be put on the November ballot. AP The legislation cleared the GOP-led Legislature and was signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in March. Supporters say it will protect 'intellectual diversity,' including welcoming more conservative voices on campuses. Opponents of the legislation numbered in the thousands. Educators and students delivered hours of opposition testimony and staged protests at the Statehouse, decrying the measure as an anti-labor government encroachment on academic freedom. Besides eliminating DEI programs, the bill prohibits schools from endorsing or opposing any 'controversial beliefs or topics,' which it defines as anything related to climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, DEI programs, immigration policy, marriage or abortion. Senate Bill 1 can now become an official law, effective Friday. AP It also outlaws faculty strikes, eliminates the voting rights of student trustees at The Ohio State University, requires every Ohio college student to take a three-hour civics education course, and imposes dozens of other programmatic and administrative changes on the state's 14 public universities and 23 community colleges. Schools that violate the measure would risk losing their state funding.
