Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Finance Referendum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ehlers advisor outlines referendum and capital-levy tradeoffs, tax impacts for Marshall district
Summary
Shelby McVay of Ehlers presented operating‑referendum and capital‑project levy options, timing requirements and example tax impacts; board heard details about per‑pupil caps, aid offsets and election timelines but took no formal referendum action.
Shelby McVay, a public‑finance adviser with Ehlers, told the Marshall Public School Board that districts generally have two primary ways to raise additional annual revenue from voters: an operating referendum (a per‑pupil ask) and a capital project levy (a tax‑rate ask).
McVay said operating referendums are capped by statute (this fiscal year’s cap cited in the presentation was $2,266 per pupil for most districts) and can be authorized for up to 10 years (with a statutory option for one renewal). She explained capital project levies cannot be used for salaries, are levied on net tax capacity rather than referendum market value, and may show a smaller home tax impact in districts with large agricultural or nonhomestead values.
Using the district’s tax base figures, McVay showed example impacts: a $200,000 home currently pays about $682 annually in school taxes; raising roughly $1.5 million could be achieved by an operating referendum of about $575 per pupil (approximately $19 per month for the average home) or by a capital project levy that converts to roughly $10 per month for that home. McVay also showed that larger asks exhaust available state aid tiers and shift more burden to local taxpayers.
McVay described calendar and procedural deadlines: a board must call for a November referendum by Aug. 12 to appear on the November ballot, revenue collection for a November 2025 question would begin in January 2026 and first support the 2026–27 school year, and capital project levies that plan to raise more than $2 million and spend on more than technology require a review and comment submission to the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) in early August.
Board members asked whether including annual inflation in ballot language affects passage rates; McVay said most districts seeking operating referendums currently include inflation but she had not compiled a definitive pass/fail breakdown tied to that specific choice. Jeremy and board members discussed next steps for community engagement and noted the board would need to adopt a resolution by the statutory deadline if it chooses to pursue a November referendum.
McVay’s slides included sample ballot language and comparative tax tables; the board did not make a referral or call an election at this meeting.
