Hopkins board weighs moving school board elections to even years to boost turnout and cut costs

The Hopkins Public Schools Board discussed on May 6 whether to shift its school board elections from odd years to even years, a move board members said could increase voter turnout and reduce the district's election-related expenses.

Board Chair Shannon Andreesen opened the discussion and turned the topic over to Treasurer Rachel Hartland, who co-chairs the district's Legislative Action Coalition. Hartland said the district's most recent school-board election drew "fewer than 7,000 people" out of about 40,000 registered voters in the district, a turnout she described as "very low." She told the board that "our district's estimated savings if we moved to even year elections are around $50,000," and later noted additional staff time and labor could increase that figure.

Why it matters: Board members said aligning school-board elections with state and federal contests could increase participation and spread election costs across more jurisdictions. Board members also raised operational concerns, including staffing capacity for running elections and the timing of any transition, which could require either extending or shortening current terms.

Board discussion and key details

Treasurer Rachel Hartland said even-year elections typically draw higher turnout and that neighboring districts who switched previously reported savings; the board discussed a range of cost estimates during the meeting. At various points presenters and board members described three separate cost figures: a rough baseline savings figure of about $50,000 tied to shared polling and materials; an additional approximate $15,000 tied to staff time for a district coordinator; and a combined working estimate that various speakers summarized near $63,000. After follow-up, board staff reported they were "adding up the various sources" and reached a current working estimate of roughly $65,000 in savings compared with running standalone odd-year elections, while acknowledging inflation and other factors could change those numbers.

Board members repeatedly emphasized uncertainty in the preliminary numbers. Director Chapinduca (District business services staff) said detailed, firm cost-sharing arrangements with partner cities would be needed to produce a precise savings estimate: "I can't give you a specific amount because... we definitely have to get into those arrangements," he said. Board members also noted that if Hopkins moved off the odd-year cycle while some neighboring municipalities stayed, cost burdens could shift among partners; several board members said alignment with the cities of Hopkins and Minnetonka would be desirable.

Timing and next steps

Board members discussed implementation options and legal constraints. Director Zhao asked whether the board could choose the timing; board members and staff said the school board would make the timing decision and that statute provides options for either extending current terms to shift the cycle or shortening terms, depending on the transition the board selects. Board staff identified a practical internal deadline: the board would need to act before the district's candidate-filing and election-notice schedule (the board's June 10 meeting and June 24 reserved meeting were named as decision points). One board member said, "I think the decision has to be made by July 1, and knowing that the board's final meeting for this school year is June 10. So, the board, we have to make that decision by then."

What the board did

No formal motion to change the election calendar was made. Instead the board took a nonbinding temperature check of members' preferences. Several members voiced support for moving to even years to reduce costs and staff burden; others requested firmer financial analysis and alignment with municipal partners before committing. Staff committed to return with more precise cost estimates and options on how to time any change.

Community and operational concerns

Board members flagged operational and equity questions: who would pay residual costs if partner cities did not move; how to communicate with voters and community groups (for example, the League of Women Voters reached out to the district earlier in the process); and whether staffing levels would support any change. Chair Andreesen said community outreach would be important and cautioned that a public temperature check should not be construed as a vote.

What remains unresolved

Board members asked staff to provide a firmer cost breakdown, to clarify which municipalities would need to align with Hopkins for cost-sharing, and to outline the statutory steps and timing choices for extending or shortening terms if the board decides to move ahead. No final decision was made at the meeting.

Ending

The board scheduled further discussion for June: staff will return with a more detailed financial analysis and timeline so the board can decide before candidate-filing deadlines if it wants to place a change into effect for the coming election cycle.