Roseville Area Schools weighs $6 million annual technology and security levy for November ballot

Roseville Area School District officials on Tuesday, June 10 presented a proposal to ask voters in November to approve a capital projects levy of $6,000,000 per year to fund security systems, cybersecurity and technology needs across the district.

Business Director Sherry Thompson told the school board the district’s existing operating capital and general fund are not sufficient to cover rising technology and security costs. “We are looking for approval from the board to move forward, in hopes of, approving this, at your next meeting on, June 24, authorizing the ballot,” Thompson said.

District presenters said the levy would be used for four broad purposes: safety and security (cameras, secure entrances, card/fob access), cybersecurity and data privacy, student devices and instructional technology, and the underlying infrastructure and support staff that keep systems running.

Why it matters: staff said the district currently spends roughly $2,100,000 per year on technology software and support, about $406,000 specifically on security, and roughly $2,500,000 annually on technology capital. Thompson said the district generates about $1,800,000 in operating capital now and is projecting deficit spending of about $2,000,000 next year in its preliminary budget; a dedicated levy, she said, would reduce pressure on operating capital and general fund spending.

Ehlers, the district’s financial advisor, presented tax-impact estimates. Jody Zespa said an approval in November would affect taxes payable in 2026 and provide revenue for the 2026–27 fiscal year. Zespa said the district highlighted a $6,000,000 annual levy in illustrations; at that level she told the board the impact on the typical Roseville home (shown in the presentation at roughly $350,000) would be about $18 per month (about $218 per year).

The district’s pollster, Peter Leatherman, reported results from 400 random interviews conducted May 19–30 with a stated margin of error of ±5 percentage points. Leatherman said the $6,000,000 scenario tested at about $15–$21 per month depending on home value and that, when presented the plan, roughly 64% supported the levy in the survey before respondents heard arguments and 66% after hearing a set of tested arguments. He told the board, “So on a $300,000 home, it'd be $15 a month. And on a $400,000 home, it would be $21 a month.” Leatherman said persuadable voters were the largest group and that safety and security messages were most persuasive among undecided residents.

Board members pressed presenters on several points, including whether the $5,000,000 figure that staff originally described represented a current-year “bare bones” spending level and whether the recommended figure should be $6,000,000 to avoid returning to voters soon. Thompson and the presenters said $5,000,000 was a tight baseline and the administration recommended $6,000,000 as a more sustainable level.

The pollster and staff also discussed demographic and turnout issues: Leatherman noted that only about 23% of respondents had a child currently attending district schools and that “likely voter” profiles typically shift support upward; he cautioned that parents and other core supporters do not always turn out at off-year elections.

Speakers and officials also flagged external risks that could affect the levy’s chances: county or city tax increases, shifts in household financial stress, and broader state and local tax messaging. Leatherman said changes in local tax burdens and the larger economic picture are the main outside factors that could change support between an early survey and an actual election.

No final board vote on placing the question on the November ballot was recorded in the meeting minutes. Thompson said staff planned to seek formal authorization at the board’s June 24 meeting; board members and the administration noted the final deadline to place a question on the November ballot is August 12.

What’s next: the district’s finance advisory committee recommended moving the levy proposal forward; staff asked the board to consider formal authorization at the June 24 meeting so the district could finalize ballot language and timing ahead of the August 12 statutory deadline for putting a question on the November ballot.

Notes: presenters who discussed the levy included business director Sherry Thompson, technology information supervisor Tina Clawson, financial advisor Jody Zespa (Ehlers), and pollster Peter Leatherman. The board discussion included multiple directors who asked for clarifying calculations and the tax-impact presentation that Ehlers provided. The board did not adopt a ballot resolution during the June 10 meeting.