Robbinsdale Public School District presents $76.5 million proposed levy; residents press for levy-spending breakdown

Robbinsdale Public School District officials presented preliminary 2025-26 budget numbers and a proposed property tax levy of $76,522,867 at a Truth in Taxation hearing on Dec. 1, and community members pressed the district for clearer breakdowns of how levy funds have been spent. The School Board did not adopt the levy at the meeting; the hearing moved to a separate listening period that was scheduled to begin five minutes after adjournment.

Chief Financial Officer Kristen Hoheisel, who led the presentation, described the district's several funds and said the general fund — which covers most operations including teacher salaries, administrative costs and textbooks — is roughly $204.9 million in the preliminary figures. "Property taxes ... bring in approximately 24.3% of our general fund revenue," Hoheisel said, adding that state sources account for about 71% of general-fund revenue and local revenue about 1.6%.

Hoheisel presented drivers of the modest net change in the levy compared with last year, saying formula tweaks and abatements added roughly $44,729 to the certified maximum the board had previously set. She also cited a roughly $1.9 million proposed increase in the general fund levy and an approximately $2 million decrease in debt service tied to principal repayments. Hoheisel characterized the presented numbers as preliminary and said a revised budget would be provided to the board soon.

Members of the public focused questions on transparency and specific line items. Aileen White, a community member, asked, "If you're going to be asking us as a community to support referendum, support levies, why are we not seeing those monies in operation?" She asked the district to show how much of last year's technology and security levy was used for technology versus security and to include that breakdown in regular financial reporting.

Hoheisel responded that the district posts a 2025-26 preliminary budget book on its website and that the book includes descriptions of the categories; she said the revised budget will include additional detail. When asked by another resident about an apparent administrative decrease from one year to the next, Hoheisel said audited prior-year numbers and reductions adopted last spring account for roughly $3 million of reductions in administration and district support, and pledged to highlight exact line-item changes in the revised budget.

Board members also asked for clearer presentation of categories that fold administrative costs into district support. Director Bassett requested that when the revised budget returns to the board, items identified as "administration" be teased out from district support so the board and the public can understand what changed and how services may be affected.

Hoheisel pointed to particular expense drivers: the increase in pupil support is primarily due to higher transportation contract costs and contractual steps for employees (documented in the district budget book as an increase of about $2,005,792 versus the prior revised budget), and operations and maintenance showed an increase (about $3,009,631) tied to custodial staffing, road assessments and equipment purchases. Fiscal costs rose modestly for expected increases in property and liability insurance.

Board business during the hearing included procedural votes: the agenda for the Truth in Taxation portion was approved (motion by Director Wuto; second by Director Bassett), and the meeting was later adjourned (motion recorded in the transcript as moved by Director Ruto; second by Director Bowman). The transcript records the votes by voice; no roll-call tallies on these motions were provided in the hearing text.

The next procedural steps are a forthcoming revised budget with more line-item detail and the district's scheduled listening time, when community members may raise broader district concerns. Hoheisel told the audience the preliminary budget book is available online under Discover > Business Services > Budgets on the district website.

Actions recorded: approval of the meeting agenda and adjournment; no formal levy adoption was recorded during the hearing.

(Reporting note: quotations and attributions in this article are drawn directly from the meeting transcript and the speakers identified in that record.)