Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Audit Budget Legislative topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Auditors give Minnetonka a clean FY25 opinion; district posts amended FY26 budget and previews legislative asks
Summary
CLA auditors reported an unmodified FY25 audit opinion and a $179,000 corrected food‑service receivable. Executive director of finance presented an amended FY26 general operating budget of about $178.4 million and a projected $3.9M surplus, but noted FY28 risks tied to state special‑education changes; district staff recommended 2026 legislative priorities including restoring prior local levy capacity and indexing local optional revenue for inflation.
Auditors from CLA presented the Minnetonka School Board with the results of the fiscal‑year 2025 external audit on Nov. 20 and identified no material exceptions.
"Our audit opinion is unmodified," said Trey Gabler, summarizing the firmpresentation. Auditors said they provide reasonable (not absolute) assurance, noted an accounting correction that increased a food‑service revenue receivable by about $179,000 and flagged an internal‑control reconciling item tied to that fund. The auditors also discussed accounting standards changes (GASB statements) that affected reporting of compensated absences and other disclosures.
Executive director of finance Paul Bourgeois presented an amended FY26 general operating fund budget of roughly $178.4 million and a projected FY26 surplus of about $3.9 million, driven in part by higher than projected enrollment (an additional ~147 students) and a one‑time special‑education revenue true‑up. Bourgeois said the district's unassigned general‑operating fund balance is projected to be roughly $21.9 million (about 13.5% in the operating‑fund subset) under the amended forecast.
Board members questioned the assumptions underlying the projections, including enrollment trends and transportation‑contract escalation. Bourgeois said the projection assumes 11,502 students and highlighted long‑range risk from a statutory special‑education cross‑subsidy reduction that could remove roughly $1.6 million annually under current law; combined with other adjustments that could total several million, that change could push the district into a projected deficit by FY28 without further action.
The finance team also reviewed the district— proposed 2026 legislative platform planks: (1) allow local optional revenue to be indexed for inflation (restore purchasing power of prior levy amounts), (2) restore a $300 per‑pupil operating‑referendum component removed in 2019, and (3) increase special‑education cross‑subsidy funding. Board members asked for plain‑language graphics and a one‑page advocacy brief for legislators and the community.
No formal budget adoption took place at the study session; the amended budget materials were provided for board review ahead of an approval vote at an upcoming meeting.
