Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Timing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wayzata board hears options to move school-board elections to even years; clerk outlines costs, timelines and trade-offs
Summary
District election clerk Amy Geis briefed the Wayzata board March 3 on a proposed state bill and local options to shift school-board elections from odd years to even years, describing cost savings, transition choices and a June decision deadline if the board wants the change to affect 2025 ballots.
Amy Geis, the district administrative assistant who also serves as the district election clerk, told the Wayzata Public Schools Board of Education at its March 3 work session that legislation under consideration would move odd‑year school-board and city elections to even years and that the board has three main local options if it wants to act sooner.
Geis said the district incurred roughly $81,000 running its 2023 odd‑year election and that neighboring districts that piggyback on county or city elections typically report much lower per‑election costs (she cited an average of about $5,700 for districts in the same area when ballot space is rented from a county). “If you’re piggybacking on other elections, the cost is mostly for ballot space,” Geis said.
Geis outlined three options for the board: (1) change future individual seat terms so that the next two scheduled odd‑year elections would use three‑year terms to move the district into an even‑year cycle over time; (2) pass a resolution to extend the current terms of all seven board members by one year and immediately shift to even‑year elections (if adopted before July 1, it would prevent a 2025 election and move the next election to 2026); or (3) take no action and wait to see whether the legislature enacts a statewide change — if the legislature does so, enactment would likely take effect January 2026 and it is unclear whether the state would force a different transition timeline.
Board members asked about legal and political implications. Several members said they valued the distinct community focus of odd‑year school-board elections and worried that folding school-board races into even‑year state or federal contests could reduce attention to local education issues. Board member Dan Genestra said he was concerned about losing “an entire election cycle to ourselves.” Other members noted that districts that have moved reported little voter pushback and some local districts found low additional cost and improved turnout when combining cycles.
Geis said MSBA (the Minnesota School Boards Association) and AMSD (Association of Metropolitan School Districts) have expressed no formal position and have urged local control; both organizations provided model resolutions and transition language that districts can use. Geis recommended the board consider whether it wants to act before July 1 to affect 2025 ballots; she offered to return with additional turnout data comparing odd‑ and even‑year results if the board wanted it.
Ending
The board did not take action at the work session. Members asked staff to prepare more comparative turnout data and to schedule follow‑up discussion if needed; Geis said a June decision would be required if the board wants the even‑year change to apply immediately to the 2025 cycle.
