Minnetonka Public Schools — Transcript
Thursday, December 11, 2025
Story
Minnetonka Schools approves $73.7M tax levy, bond sale
Sale Program Update (Students Achieving Independent Life)
New Course Proposals
Community Education Programs and Fee Adjustments
Policy Revisions
Authorization of Sale of 2026A General Obligation School Building Bonds
Adoption of 2025 Payable 2026 Property Tax Levy
Approval of Fiscal Year 26 Amended Budget
Acceptance of Fiscal Year 25 Audit
Approval of 2026 Legislative Position Statements
Board Reports
Superintendent's Report and Chair's Farewell
Votes (12)
Approval of New Course Proposals
Dissent: None
Moved by Unknown [0:26:31] · Seconded by Megan [0:26:40]
The Director of Instruction presented new course proposals, name changes, and deletions, which had undergone prior review and vetting. There was an acknowledgement of student enthusiasm for the new offerings. The board's approval enables these courses to be listed for student registration for the 2026-27 school year.
Approval of Minnetonka ECF 0% Fee Increase Proposal for 2026
Dissent: None
Moved by Sally [0:30:26] · Seconded by Camarie [0:30:44]
The Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) program proposed a 0% fee increase for the upcoming year. This decision was supported by consistent enrollment numbers, effective utilization of a sliding fee scale ensuring accessibility, and positive engagement with PTO board members on financial transparency.
Approval of Minnetonka Preschool 5% Fee Increase for 2026-27 and Explorers Fee Increases (K-5 5%, Juniors 10%)
Dissent: None
Moved by Dan [0:36:10] · Seconded by Megan [0:36:26]
The community education team presented the need for fee increases for Minnetonka Preschool (5%) and Explorers (5% for K-5, 10% for Juniors). The Preschool increase was attributed to teacher contract changes, while Explorers' differentiation was due to staffing requirements and lack of state levy funding for the junior program. Significant progress was reported in reducing the Explorers waitlist. The board approved both fee proposals.
Approval of Revisions to Policy 719 (Nutrition Services)
Dissent: None
Moved by Camarie [0:39:19] · Seconded by Mike [0:39:27]
Policy 719 was revised to accurately reflect the district's current practice of providing free breakfast and free lunch to all students, replacing outdated language that only referred to lunch. The revision also clarified that eligibility for meals remains even with account balances.
Approval of Revisions to Policy 535 (Assignment to Schools)
Dissent: None
Moved by Sally [0:40:48] · Seconded by Mike [0:41:00]
Policy 535 underwent significant cleanup and clarification. Changes included aligning the purpose statement, delineating superintendent/administrator authority for school assignments, clarifying middle school pathways, adding Tonka Online as an assignment option, and incorporating language for reassignments due to educational or safety reasons. Outdated voluntary open enrollment language was removed.
Approval of Changes to Policy 210 (Conflict of Interest) and Sunset of Policy 433 (Nepotism)
Dissent: None
Moved by Dan [0:41:51] · Seconded by Mike [0:42:04]
Policy 210 was replaced with a more comprehensive conflict of interest policy, which now incorporates the content of Policy 433 (Nepotism), leading to the sunsetting of the latter. The new policy provides clearer expectations for district personnel regarding financial conflicts, gifts, and perceived conflicts, retaining purchasing authority and vendor conflict information, and noting state reporting requirements.
Approval of Revisions to Policy 429 (Leaves of Absence)
Dissent: None
Moved by Megan [0:43:24] · Seconded by Camarie [0:43:32]
Policy 429 was revised to clarify its title and language, updating references to 'collective bargaining agreement' and aligning with new state statutes on paid family and medical leave. Discussions regarding setting a minimum number of hours for intermittent leave were deferred to be handled through individual union agreements rather than board policy. The board thanked staff for their collaborative work with union partners.
Authorization of Sale of 2026A General Obligation School Building Bonds
Dissent: None
Moved by Mike [0:44:42] · Seconded by Dan [0:44:52]
Executive Director of Finance and Operations, Paul Bourgeois, proposed a revised bond issuance plan to sell $55 million in general obligation school building bonds in a single tranche. This change is projected to yield an additional $550,000 in interest earnings for construction, without altering the previously communicated zero net tax increase for the public. The board swiftly approved the resolution.
Adoption of 2025 Payable 2026 Property Tax Levy
Dissent: None
Moved by Mike [0:46:42] · Seconded by Dan [0:46:50]
Following a truth in taxation meeting, Paul Bourgeois presented the final recommended property tax levy for 2025 payable 2026. The proposed amount of $73,736,113.36 represents a 5.09% increase over the previous year and is set to fund fiscal year 2027. The board adopted the levy as presented.
Approval of Fiscal Year 26 Amended Budget
Dissent: None
Moved by Dan [0:50:09] · Seconded by Camarie [0:50:20]
Paul Bourgeois provided a summary of the fiscal year 2026 amended budget, indicating a projected $3.9 million surplus for FY26 and a $3.6 million surplus for FY27, largely due to higher-than-expected special education funding and student enrollment. However, he cautioned that fiscal years 2028 and 2029 are projected to face structural imbalances, emphasizing the need for continuous long-term financial planning. The board approved the amended budget.
Acceptance of Fiscal Year 25 Audit
Dissent: None
Moved by Sally [0:54:10] · Seconded by Mike [0:54:20]
Lenny Pophagen from Clifton Larson Allen presented the fiscal year 2025 audit, confirming an unmodified ('clean') opinion with no significant exceptions. A minor internal control finding in the food service fund was noted as immaterial to the overall budget. The district's unassigned general fund balance was healthy at 7.99%, and it was highlighted that the district achieved its 29th consecutive ASBO certificate for financial reporting excellence. Board members sought clarification on fund balance calculations.
Approval of 2026 Legislative Position Statements
Dissent: None
Moved by N/A · Seconded by N/A
Paul Bourgeois presented three financial planks for the 2026 legislative platform, addressing future fiscal challenges, including increasing local optional revenue, restoring an operating referendum cap, and boosting special education cross subsidy. Board members emphasized the importance of involving the Community Action for Student Education (CASE) committee in the platform's development to ensure broad community input and alignment with advocacy efforts. Due to this, the board decided to defer final approval to a special meeting in mid-January.
Notable Quotes (31)
one of the first questions was the excitement from a student who was aware of this and said, "Will all of those courses be prop or be approved by the board?" And I said, "It's pretty likely that that'll happen." And there was there was much satisfaction in the room.
So tonight, we're here to seek um final support and approval so that we may place those courses in the skipper log so that come registration time, late winter, early spring, our students are able to register for those courses starting SY 2627.
Dad Lab is designed to really um provide a place for we have a lot of dads that come to ECF and talk about feeling, you know, they'll go to the DMV and someone's like, "Oh, you're watching your kid." And he's like, "Yeah, dad, that's my job.
Our census data this year will indicate that we'll have a little bit of a bump in our ECF levy, which is nice.
I know that when I was on ECF and preschool um for the when they had the meeting and they talked about this with the parents, there was support for a prior increase. I'm assuming that that was discussed again with that group and was was there support within that group?
At this time last year when we presented to you we had 289 students on our weight list. Um our update as of Tuesday for this year's weight list is 85. So we're feeling really good about that.
And for our K through five program we do receive levy funding through the state to support um our staff that support students with additional needs. And we are not able to um use that funding for our junior program.
I just have one quick question about the registration fees. Do those fees if if the students enroll go toward their enrollment or are they just like placeholders?
this policy really reflects the changes that constitute that we provide free breakfast and free lunch to our students. So we revised that language to show meals instead of just lunch.
We clarified current practice about which middle school students will attend based on their homeschool and elementary pathway. We also added Tonka online as a school that students may be assigned to because it wasn't in existence when this policy was created.
You'll see that this policy is more comprehensive than our previous one. Um, it clearly provides district personnel expectations for financial conflicts, gifts acting in the public interest, um, and more, including perceived conflicts of interest.
Doesn't mean you can't take a leave of absence without pay, but we just don't want to give the impression that that's the only type of leave.
I I just wanted to comment. Thank you very much for the additional work on this and for reaching out to our union partners on on this to get the clarification. Um, really helpful.
So um so if you are talking about intermittent leave with the different bargaining units, does that mean it will come back to us or is that going to be separate because it'll be encompassed by the agreements?
by instead of doing a $5 million trunch and then a $50 million trunch in June, if we do them now, we'll actually earn an additional $550,000 of interest earnings that can go towards construction.
But it will not impact uh the the actual payment structure that we presented to the pop to the public and uh maintain that zero no net tax increase on our general obligation bonds.
We are asking uh you to approve a final levy of 73,736,113.36 for the 25 pay 26 levy, which will help fund fiscal year 27.
It's the 10th year of our additional operating referendum dollars and we don't have um any f we have well we've extended that level of of funding through 2020 uh through fiscal year 36 but uh we don't have the ability to raise more and we've been trying for about 10 years.
Our teacher salaries are about 67% of of all of our expenditures, and that's the way it should be. uh we're here to teach students.
for fiscal year 26 uh we are projecting $178.4 million in revenues, $174.5 million of expenditures. That's about a $3.9 million surplus compared to the adopted budget.
Fiscal year 28 which is the next bianium uh things start getting a little tighter. So we have work to do. You can never solve a district's financial uh situation for the long term. You always have to keep working it.
So uh we issued a clean opinion on the financial statements. So basically unmodified is kind of the the accounting jargon for that. Um but basically means we had no exceptions um within the financial statements.
Overall um you know $179,000 adjustment on $170 you know million budget. Um so certainly you know the house is in order. I mean is what I what I would say.
So that is now um 29 years in a row. So, um the 2425 audit in front of you this evening is going to be going in for that same um kind of program and and judgment again uh from ASBO. So, um we're going to go for 30. Um why not, right?
The cost of education um that Minnotonka Public Schools is spending on a per student basis is $21,384 per student.
I do have one question related to the unassigned fund balance um percentage and and it's sort of a discrepancy between the amended budget we were looking at earlier and what's um stated here in the report.
The reason it's so important is uh for a couple of our proposals if we don't get legislative action in well we need to get legislative action in the 2026 legislature because the proposals would need to be included in the 26 pay 27 levy which funds fiscal year 28.
The average Minnesota school district gets $2,194 more per pupil in state aid than Minnotonka. 21% more.
Our district, we were the first ones to propose this and then it was picked up and AMD AMSD has really carried the torch and we've gotten Mazbo to also carry the torch, but we were the first district to actually hone in on this one and put it into our plank.
I really would like for that group to have an opportunity to consider not just the financial planks but anything else that we might want to bring to the legislators and and really how it's all framed.
I just visually compared to previous legislative positions, I feel like this is um very digestible. So I just wanted to commend that. Like I think the bulleted versus full sentences is easier for people to take in.
Ordinances & Resolutions (22)
Nutrition Services policy revised to reflect free breakfast and lunch
Assignment to Schools policy revised for clarity, authority, and inclusion of Tonka Online
Conflict of Interest policy, revised to be more comprehensive and incorporate nepotism
Nepotism policy, sunsetted as its content was moved into Policy 210
Leaves of Absence policy, title and language clarified, aligned with new paid family leave statute
Course catalog for student registration
High school programming philosophy, extended to Sale
High school student outcome profile, extended to Sale
Individualized Education Program team, used at Sale
Financial instrument for facility improvements
Document for bond issuance approval
Annual property tax amount to be certified
Revised district budget for the current fiscal year
Forecasted budget for the subsequent fiscal year
Annual financial review by an outside agency
Award for high quality financial reporting
Term used in audit for calculating fund balance
District policy regarding general fund operating budget
District's advocacy platform for the state legislature
State's financial forecast for the biennium
Legislative priorities of the Association of Metropolitan School Districts
Legislative committee of the Minnesota Association of School Business Officials