Chisago Lakes board certifies 1.6% levy after Truth and Taxation hearing

The Chisago Lakes School Board on Dec. 19 certified its 2024 pay‑2025 property tax levy, approving a 1.6% increase after the district’s Truth and Taxation presentation and public comment.

Robin Bostford Dorgerson, the district’s director of business services, told the board and the public that the Truth and Taxation hearing is required by a 1988 law and must be held in November or later as part of the district’s annual levy process. Dorgerson said the levy certified tonight will be collected in 2025 but recognized in the district’s fiscal year 2026 budget.

The hearing reviewed the district’s current‑year budget and the proposed levy. Dorgerson said the district’s preliminary budget for 2024–25 included about $58.9 million in revenue and roughly $59.66 million in expenditures across all funds, and that about 82% of both revenue and expenditures are in the general fund. She described multiple levy components and noted the district uses two property tax bases (referendum market value and net tax capacity) and several levy categories that affect different funds, including the general fund, community education and debt service.

Dorgerson walked the meeting through items that produced changes from the preliminary levy: local optional revenue rising by about $49,000; an operating capital levy increase of roughly $65,000 that nets to a capital decrease of about $20,000 because state aid fell by about $85,000; a reemployment levy decrease of about $41,000 tied to lower unemployment expenses; and about $58,000 less for school‑aged care after adjustments to actuals. She also flagged a 3.63% increase in the district’s debt service levy.

“The state sets formulas which determine our revenue,” Dorgerson said. “A change in levy doesn’t always mean a change in budget for us.”

Why it matters: the certified levy is the amount the district tells the county auditor to use to compute school taxes on each property. Dorgerson emphasized that the county calculates taxes and that property‑value changes among individual owners shift how the levy burden is distributed.

Public comment focused on the impact of levies on household tax bills. A resident identified in the record as Megan said she was frustrated by the timing and size of the levy and described an increase she believed led to about $2,000 in combined levies on her property.

“This is just out of control. . . . $2,000 a year is a lot,” Megan said during public comment.

Board members and staff responded with clarifying explanations. Board member Robert (last name not specified in the transcript) explained that some levies are voter‑approved and some are mandated by state statute, and that many levy amounts are driven by student population, building age and allowable formulas rather than board discretion.

After the presentation and public comment, a board member moved and a second was given to certify the levy; the motion passed on a voice vote.

The board adopted the final levy that had been proposed in September with no change in the certified amount, Dorgerson said. The district will send the certified levy to the county auditor for property tax calculations; the board will approve the FY‑26 budget next June when levy revenue is recognized for the district.