Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Robbinsdale Public School District presents $76.5 million proposed levy; board and public seek more budget detail
Summary
At a Dec. 1 truth-in-taxation hearing, CFO Kristen Hoheisel presented a preliminary 2025–26 budget and a proposed property tax levy of $76,522,867 and described a $204.9 million general fund. Board members and residents asked for clearer line-item detail; no levy was adopted at the meeting.
Robbinsdale Public School District Board of Education held a truth-in-taxation hearing on Monday, Dec. 1, where Chief Financial Officer Kristen Hoheisel presented the district’s preliminary 2025–26 budget and a proposed property tax levy of $76,522,867.
Hoheisel told the board and attendees that “for our general fund, you're looking at approximately $204,900,000,” and that property taxes account for about 24.3% of general fund revenue while state sources make up roughly 71% of the total. She described the district’s multiple funds — general fund, food service, community education, building construction, debt service and internal service funds — and said the levy figures are preliminary and based on the budget adopted as a preliminary in June.
The presentation explained levy mechanics: a school district may set a levy either by state formula or by voter-approved referendum. Hoheisel said the district certified a preliminary levy at the maximum in September and that only modest formula changes (adjustments and abatements) altered the levy since then — increases of roughly $44,729 compared with last year, leaving the district’s levy effectively flat (about a 0.06% change) in total dollars.
Board members and members of the public pressed for additional detail. Community member Aileen White 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 requested a breakdown of how the capital-projects referendum for technology and safety was spent and asked that levy and referendum reporting appear in regular monthly financials, not only in the budget book.
Director Bassett and other board members sought clarification on apparent changes in administrative and district-support categories. Hoheisel said reductions made last spring account for about $3 million in lower administrative/district-support totals and pointed to specific increases elsewhere: an approximately $2.0 million rise in pupil-support largely attributable to higher transportation contract costs and an approximately $3.0 million increase in operations and maintenance driven by staffing, road assessments and equipment purchases. She also said increases in fiscal costs reflect higher property and liability insurance.
Hoheisel referred attendees to the district’s preliminary 2025–26 budget book — available on the district website under Discover → Business Services → Budgets — and said the revised budget will include more detailed line items and explanations when it is presented to the board.
The board handled required procedural business: the agenda for the truth-in-taxation hearing was moved by Director Wuto and seconded by Director Bassett and approved by voice vote. At the close of the hearing Director Ruto (transcript alternate spelling) moved to adjourn; Director Bowman seconded and the motion carried. The hearing portion adjourned and the chair announced a five-minute pause before a separate listening time for broader public remarks.
Next steps: the district plans to publish a revised budget with itemized details; the board has the option to adopt the levy in a subsequent meeting when figures are finalized. The hearing did not result in an adoption of the proposed levy.
