Shakopee board approves resolution to place two-question operating levy on Nov. 4 special election

The Shakopee School Board voted July 28 to adopt a resolution calling a special election Nov. 4 on a two-question operating levy that would ask voters to authorize a $620-per-pupil levy and, if that question passes, an additional $310-per-pupil request to reach the statutory levy cap.

Superintendent Dr. Redmond presented the resolution and explained the two parts: “That is the $620 per pupil, the amount that is tax neutral on a $400,000 home,” and the second question is $310 per pupil (adjusted for CPI for taxes payable in 2026), which would be contingent on approval of the first question. The board approved the resolution by roll-call vote after a motion by Vice Chair Peterson and a second by Johnson; the motion passed.

Nut graf: District leaders say the levy is meant to offset a predicted $7 million to $9 million budget shortfall in fiscal 2026–27 stemming from state funding that lagged inflation and from enrollment declines. Approving Question 1 would shift roughly $5.0 million in community tax dollars from an expiring construction debt levy to district operating revenue in calendar 2026; Question 2 would add about $2.5 million more and move the district to the statutory referendum-cap level.

Board members and staff stressed the timeline and practical effects for taxpayers and the district. Dr. Redmond said the district expects the first year of levy revenue to appear in fiscal 2027 (July 1, 2026–June 30, 2027). He showed tax-impact tables stating that, for a $400,000 homestead, Question 2 alone would add about $105 annually (approximately $8.71 per month) and that the combined package was presented as roughly tax-neutral for many homeowners when replacing the expiring debt levy. Dr. Redmond and district finance staff noted that construction debt is collected on a different tax base (net tax capacity) than operating levies (referendum market value), so the replacement is not a dollar-for-dollar swap for all property types.

The board also approved a companion notice of special election and a PMA-prepared financial summary that the district will use in outreach. Board members set the canvass of election results for 6 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 13, and approved a temporary “constructive feedback” committee to advise on communications about the ballot question.

Discussion: Board members asked for clarifications about the projected revenue amounts, how the referendum market value basis affects various property types, and the projection assumptions (enrollment forecasts and tax-rate baselines). Finance staff said the $5.0 million and $2.5 million figures are based on the district’s projected enrollment and current referendum market values and that the CPI update for the second question had been incorporated into the published resolution and tax schedules. The board identified that if Question 1 fails, the results of Question 2 will not be considered — Question 2 is contingent on passage of Question 1.

Next steps and community outreach: The district plans public forums (Sept. 16 and Oct. 23) and to post explanatory material on the district’s website. Dr. Redmond said the district will continue to make $3.0 million in permanent expenditure reductions irrespective of the election outcome and that, if voters do not approve Question 1, the district anticipates making additional cuts (approximately $5.0 million for 2026–27 and a further $2.5 million in 2027–28 unless the voters approve the levies).

Ending: The board’s action formalizes the June 23 conceptual vote into the legal steps required to put the questions before voters in November. The district will publish the PMA financial summary and tax tables and hold two community forums before the election to answer questions and collect input.