Anoka‑Hennepin leaders propose $26M in reductions, offer referendum alternative

Anoka‑Hennepin Public School District leaders on Oct. 28 laid out Phase 2 of a multi‑step plan aimed at closing a district shortfall projected at roughly $26 million. Superintendent Mike McIntyre told the board the administration had set a Phase 2 target of $21 million, on top of about $5.1 million cut during Phase 1, and proposed a hybrid set of cuts and potential voter action to bridge the gap.

McIntyre said administration’s principal recommendation would concentrate a majority of reductions in central office while limiting classroom impacts: “This chart reflects the current recommendation number 1 for $12,250,000 at the elementary, middle, and high school level. It also includes a $13,750,000 total cut at the central office,” he said, describing the approach as intended to minimize school‑level disruption.

The plan submitted to the board projects modest increases in average class size if schedule changes are not adopted: middle‑school class sizes would rise by about four students on average, and high‑school class sizes by about five, while central‑office staffing would absorb the largest share of position reductions. Administration estimated the Phase 2 proposals would reduce roughly 90–100 additional central‑office positions (on top of 40–50 reduced in Phase 1), with total central‑office position reductions in the neighborhood of one‑third of that office’s staff.

As an alternative, administrators outlined a referendum option that would pause many school‑level reductions for a year by coupling central‑office cuts and the early sunset of one‑time strategic investments. McIntyre said doing so could help maintain a roughly 6% unassigned fund balance while using short‑term strategic investments and voter support to delay school impacts.

Board members asked for additional detail and analysis before committing. Director Odette raised a governance and policy question: the board’s written fund‑balance target is 10% unassigned, she said, and keeping a 6% level would conflict with that policy unless the board votes to change the target. Director Odette also pressed administration for deeper analysis of the management burden associated with restricted funding streams and whether accepting fewer restricted grants would reduce administrative complexity.

Other board questions focused on the effect of proposed reductions on legally required or mandated services. McIntyre and staff warned that some reductions in restricted or special‑education categories produce smaller general‑fund savings than the program size suggests (an example given was a roughly $2 million special‑education line that would produce only about $500,000 in general‑fund savings because of how the funding formula operates).

Administration committed to supplying the board with further detail and answers to submitted questions before the next work session. The board can expect more granular staffing and cost analyses, legal and contract guidance on collective‑bargaining implications, and modeled scenarios for maintaining either a 6% or 10% fund balance. Final recommendations and a potential board vote are scheduled to continue through November (work session Nov. 4; final action anticipated Nov. 25), aligning with staffing deadlines for the 2025–26 school year.