FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

Yes. The district has a history of partnering with the community to address facility needs:

• 2016: A Facilities Usage Committee helped establish boundaries for Otsego E-8 and Twin Lakes.
• 2019: A Facilities Usage Team reviewed core facilities.
• 2023: A Facilities Review and Planning Committee examined long-term enrollment projections.

*2.24.25 School Board Work Session: History of Community FacilitiesCommittees

The School Board identified a critical need to address student population growth, particularly in the southern end of the District where buildings are nearing capacity. The Board and Task Force’s common goal is to create a long-term plan that ensures high-quality learning experiences for all students.

ISD 728 evaluates student enrollment and growth monthly at both the district and building levels. This process includes tracking:

• Current enrollments and grade-level movement.
• Kindergarten vs. graduating senior numbers.
• Housing data from city partners (zoning, approved starts, infrastructure).

Independent Analysis: In the Summer of 2025, the School Board also hired a private contractor that has been used previously to conduct an independent enrollment and growth analysis to compare against district projections.

These are all great questions - and the simplest answer is, yes, the District has more than 170 acres in northwestern Otsego that would be suitable for a high school. As you can see by the image (below), the land (highlighted in yellow and blue in the upper left of the photo) is bordered by Wright County Highway 39 on the north, and McIver Avenue (if extended) to the east. That would make it suitable for roads, entrances, signage and activity areas/parking that would accompany a large high school and activities complex, similar to Rogers or Elk River high schools.  

The land, which was acquired in 2023 and 2024, was purchased for about $8.27 million. It is roughly twice the size of the current Prairie View campus, which houses both our middle school and elementary buildings and various fields, lots and activity areas. 

That’s also a yes! ISD 728, through these planning processes, has purchased land in Zimmerman along 283rd Avenue Northwest (80 acres) and also has a parcel near the border of Otsego and Dayton off of County Highway 42 and Rawlings Avenue. This parcel in Otsego would be utilized for the proposed Early Ed through Grade 8 building if the Board pursues the referendum plan. 

The District has said, for nearly a decade now, that the south end of ISD 728 is growing at the fastest rate. 

• Population Context (2024): Otsego/Rogers has a population of approx. 38,368, compared to Elk River (27,606) and Zimmerman (6,772).

• School Enrollment: Schools in the Otsego/Rogers area serve significantly more students (6,651) compared to Elk River (5,113) or Zimmerman (2,326).

• Using historical data and current trends, projections for the 2030-2031 school year indicate severe capacity issues in southern schools if no action is taken:

  • Elementary Schools: Expected to be at 94% capacity.
  • Middle Schools: Expected to be at 116% capacity.
  • Rogers High School: Expected to jump to 133% capacity prior to the 2030 school year. 

It makes complete sense to expect that the influx of new residents moving into growing areas like Rogers and Otsego would generate enough additional tax revenue and state funding to cover the costs of the expanding student population.

However, the way public school finance is legally structured in Minnesota creates a significant disconnect between population growth and the ability to build new schools. Here is a breakdown of how the funds are currently being spent and why new development alone cannot fund new buildings:

When new families move into ISD 728, the additional revenue generated (both from local property taxes and state funding that follows the students) is allocated for daily operational expenses.

• Operational Costs: This funding goes toward the costs associated with operational expenses when physical buildings have been added to our system. The funding provided for additional students does not proportionally match the cost of operating new facilities. These operational expenses include utilities, maintenance, and support services that extend far beyond the cost of solely educating the students. In other words, because adding buildings introduces substantial overhead that isn't fully covered by per-pupil funding, the revenue from growth is quickly absorbed by the daily costs of running these facilities alongside the expenses of educating the children. 
• Local Dollars: Because the state does not provide upfront cash or lump sums for construction when enrollment increases, school boards have no alternative mechanism to finance new facilities. Local communities are expected to fund their own physical school infrastructure through voter-approved bond referendums. These local tax dollars stay local to build the schools in our district.

The ISD 728 School Board recognizes the burden on long-term property owners and has structured the 10-year facility plan to minimize the tax footprint:

1. Utilizing Existing Assets: The district is saving millions by planning construction on land it already owns in Otsego, rather than purchasing new, expensive acreage. The district was able to save enough money to purchase land for these school sites, but it would be unable to save enough to build the school buildings. 
2. The "Step-Down" Debt Strategy: Unlike a traditional home mortgage, general obligation school building bonds offer flexibility in how debt is structured. The district has carefully timed this referendum to line up with a drop in existing debt payments from past projects. By layering the new bonds into those dropping debt slots, we can address these severe capacity constraints without stacking the full, raw cost of construction entirely on top of your current tax bill.
3. Refinancing: Recent refinancing of eligible (callable) past bond debts has already shaved $3.3 million off the district’s existing obligations, giving that value back to the taxpayer footprint.

Having all the financial facts is exactly what voters should have before heading to the polls. Please contact the District at feedback@isd728.org if you have any further questions about the tax impact or the details of the proposed plan!

By the 1999-2000 school year, Elk River High School (ERHS) had significantly exceeded its intended capacity. The building was serving 1,900 students, creating an urgent need for additional high school space and district-wide infrastructure upgrades. At that time, the District presented a referendum vote to the public to address the overcapacity growth at Elk River High School.

By building Rogers High School and expanding the Zimmerman site to accommodate high schoolers, the district successfully redistributed the student population. This relieved the pressure on Elk River High School, bringing it back down to a manageable functional capacity.

The approved bond was comprehensive, focusing on expansion and modernization across the district:

• New Construction: Building the new Rogers High School and a new Elementary school.
• Additions: A High School addition to the Zimmerman Junior High site.
• Renovations: Major updates to Elk River High School and VandenBerge Junior High (VJH).
• Amenities: Construction of a district swimming pool.

Beyond immediate construction, the bond included funds to purchase land for three future elementary sites. This proactive approach allowed the district to secure property before land prices rose or available space disappeared due to residential development.

Though there are significant housing construction projects happening in Elk River and in Zimmerman, the growth is not keeping up with the replacement rate ISD 728 schools are experiencing, as older classes are being replaced by the new incoming kindergarten classes. 

Said differently, Elk River and Zimmerman are experiencing a maintained enrollment, or slightly declining rate, that is being maintained by the new construction additions in those communities.  Without that new construction, those communities would likely be experiencing a decline in school enrollments.

While an addition might seem like the quickest fix, the Board must look at the long-term viability of the RHS campus. The primary concern is whether the current site can support the massive infrastructure required for an additional 1,000 students without becoming a "temporary fix" that creates even larger problems in a few years.

Here is a video exploring the Rogers High School expansion discussion further. 

The current RHS acreage is considered undersized for a high school of the projected scale. Expanding the building footprint would trigger a "domino effect" requiring additional land for:

• Building Footprint: The physical space for classrooms and specialized labs.
• Traffic & Access: New access points and improved traffic control to handle the influx of hundreds of additional cars and buses.
• Parking & Fields: Existing parking lots and athletic fields would likely need to be destroyed to make room for the building, requiring them to be relocated to new, adjacent land.

The school doesn't exist in a vacuum; it is tied to the city's infrastructure. Key hurdles include:

• Roadway Capacity: The surrounding roads (such as the 141st intersection) may not be able to handle the increased traffic volume without massive, expensive upgrades.
• Adjacent Properties: Since the current site is small, the district would likely need to acquire neighboring land, which is not always possible or cost-effective.
• MDE Approval: The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) has strict guidelines on school site sizes and safety that an overcrowded campus might not meet.

Even if the land were available, the construction itself presents significant "hidden" costs and hurdles:

• Infrastructure Support: You can't just add classrooms; you must also expand "support spaces" like the cafeteria, locker rooms, gyms, and maintenance facilities to prevent bottlenecks.
• Storm Water & Safety: Larger buildings and more pavement mean more runoff, likely requiring expensive underground storm chambers. Additionally, new construction must meet modern storm shelter codes.
• Operational Strain: The school would have to function as a construction site for 3–4 years, which creates significant safety risks and educational disruptions for current students.

This is the core question for the Board. If the district spends tens of millions on an RHS addition today, but the population continues to grow, the campus will eventually hit a hard limit where no more growth is possible. In that scenario, a new high school would still be required, making the previous investment in an addition less efficient than building a new site from the start.

The 2025 Facilities Task Force and the ISD 728 School Board reviewed the option of boundary adjustments to accommodate the enrollment and capacity concerns in our Southern Schools. As the current and projected enrollments were reviewed, it was determined that boundary line changes alone would only be a temporary solution and would only last for roughly 5 years before the District-wide capacity would be over 100%.  In addition to the temporary nature of the solution, the impact on students, families, and communities is a concern.  While this concept is not completely off the table, the School Board has directed administration to develop more permanent and long-term solutions.

High School Examples:

ISD 728 Communications has created a video breaking down the Boundary Line Change option. 

The short answer is that with a "yes" vote to pass the referendum and utilize the Capital Projects Levy, class sizes are designed to stay the same—protecting our current competitive averages—rather than drastically increasing, which is what will happen if the referendum fails. Here is how the new buildings and the Capital Projects Levy work together to stabilize and protect class sizes across the district:

1. New Buildings Prevent the "Bursting at the Seams" Increase

When a school building exceeds its intended physical capacity, class sizes naturally skyrocket because there simply aren't enough physical rooms to spread students out. Without the new high school and E-8 building, our southern schools are projected to face severe overcrowding by 2030 (with Rogers High School reaching an estimated 133% capacity and middle schools hitting 116%).

By adding the new facilities, we lift that physical constraint. It ensures we have enough physical classrooms to maintain our current class size guidelines.

2. How the Capital Projects Levy Protects Class Sizes

A common concern when opening new schools is: “If you spend money to run new buildings, will you have to increase class sizes elsewhere to pay for it?” This is where the Capital Projects Levy comes in as a strategic financial tool.

• The Strategy: The district is moving existing building-related costs (like technology infrastructure, security hardware, and facility software) out of our main general fund budget and into this separate Capital Projects Levy fund. 
• The Impact on Class Sizes: By funding technology and security expenses through the levy, the district frees up vital space in its general operating budget. This newly available operational money is then protected and used directly to hire the operational staff needed to operate the new schools, and utilize the student-driven funding to be prioritized for classroom teachers and direct student service providers. This is a common approach school districts use when they have a Capital Projects Levy in place.

By using the levy this way, the district avoids having to stretch existing staff or cut teacher positions to cover the costs of the new buildings, keeping class sizes stable.

What to Expect: Realities of Class Averages

When we talk about maintaining class sizes, it is helpful to look at how the district structures averages. Class sizes naturally shift as students get older to maximize learning independence. As an example:

• Kindergarten: Kept deliberately small to focus on foundational literacy, one-on-one phonics, and social-emotional development.
• 2nd Grade: Transitions as students become more independent and focus shifts toward collaborative group work.
• 4th Grade: Larger group instruction becomes highly effective as students become self-sufficient learners.

The "No" Vote Scenario: A Guaranteed Increase

If the referendum does not pass, the district will be forced into a district-wide reboundary process to try and shift hundreds of students into central and northern schools that still have room. Packing more students into existing spaces and retrofitting non-classroom spaces (like media centers or labs) into makeshift classrooms will cause class sizes to rise and strain resources across the entire district, not just in the south.

Summary: The goal of this 10-year facility plan is not to drastically shrink classes below our current standards, but to defend and stabilize them. The combination of new physical spaces and the Capital Projects Levy ensures that our classrooms remain optimal, manageable learning environments for the next decade.

That is a very common question, and it speaks directly to the core of how we manage building space. It seems logical that if a school is overcrowded, the first step should be to stop letting outside students in.

The short answer is that ISD 728 does close schools to open enrollment when they are full, and our most crowded schools are completely closed to new open enrollment applicants. However, managing open enrollment is a delicate balancing act under Minnesota law, tied closely to how public schools are funded and how different regions of our district have completely different space realities. Here is a clear look at how open enrollment actually works in ISD 728:

1. The District Reality: Our Full Schools ARE Closed

Minnesota law allows school districts to deny open enrollment applications based on lack of space or capacity. ISD 728 aggressively monitors building capacities and enforces these limits:

• For the 2025–2026 and 2026–2027 school years, Hassan Elementary, Rogers Middle School, and Rogers High School are completely full and closed to both open enrollment and out-of-neighborhood in-district transfers. No new outside applications are approved for these schools.
• Open enrollment is only permitted in buildings and grade levels that currently have the actual physical space available to accept them without exceeding class-size guidelines.

2. Space Imbalances Across the District

ISD 728 is geographically massive, covering 94 square miles. Our crowding is not uniform; it is heavily concentrated on the southern end (Rogers and Otsego).

• While our southern schools are facing severe capacity strain, schools in our central and northern regions (like Elk River and Zimmerman) have remaining capacity.
• Closing open enrollment district-wide would mean turning away students in areas where we actually have empty desks. This would not relieve the pressure in Rogers or Otsego, but it would have a devastating effect on our overall budget.
• If our communities choose to reboundary our students and use the available space within our south-to-north schools, we would likely revisit and close many of the remaining buildings to open enrollment. 

3. Open Enrollment Revenue Protects Local Taxpayers

Under Minnesota's school finance system, state funding follows the student. When an open enrollment student attends an eligible school in our district, they bring state funding with them.

• This revenue goes directly into our General Operating Fund to pay for teacher salaries, curriculum, and classroom supplies.
• Because many operational expenses (like keeping the lights on, heating the building, and principal salaries) are fixed costs that we must pay regardless of whether a classroom has 22 or 25 students, open enrollment students provide vital "surplus" revenue.
• If we completely ended open enrollment in the buildings that have room, we would lose millions of dollars in state funding. To make up for that loss and maintain current classroom programming, the district would be forced to look at severe budget cuts or ask local taxpayers for higher operating levies.

Our policy is to prioritize resident students first. We do close enrollment where space is tight to protect our neighborhood classrooms, but we selectively utilize open enrollment where space is available to bring in the state revenue needed to keep our entire district financially stable.

The current capacity crisis in the southern end isn't happening because of outside students—it is happening because of the incredible influx of families moving directly into homes within our district boundaries. The proposed high school and E-8 facilities are specifically designed to build long-term stability for those resident families.

If the referendum does not pass, the district will be forced to look at a massive, district-wide redistricting backup plan to absorb overcrowding using our existing buildings.

Because the School Board’s guiding principles explicitly state we should avoid boundary changes unless all other options are exhausted, the district has not finalized a definitive map yet. However, the data gathered by our facilities planning teams shows exactly what a district-wide reboundary scenario would have to look like structurally to solve our space crunch:

1. The "Domino Effect" Shift (Moving North)

Right now, our severe capacity issues are heavily concentrated in the south (Rogers and Otsego), while schools in our central and northern regions (Elk River and Zimmerman) still have some available space.

To relieve the pressure without building new schools, the district would have to use a cascading boundary shift. Attendance lines would be pushed upward, meaning students would be assigned north to the next closest attendance zone:

• High-Growth Southern Areas would be rezoned away from southern (Rogers/ Otsego) schools and shifted north into central Elk River schools.
• Central Areas would subsequently have to be rezoned and shifted farther north into Zimmerman schools to free up the necessary room for maximum longevity in Elk River.

2. Massive Scope and Family Disruption

This wouldn't just be a minor adjustment for a few neighborhoods. To maximize the long-term impact of a boundary shift and legally balanced capacities, this proposal would change all attendance boundaries across the district, directly affecting approximately 2,000 students and families over a five-year period.

3. Evaluation on the Design and Solutions

The School Board would be faced with identifying the solutions needed to accommodate the entire district's capacity from top to bottom. They would have to weigh the domino effect of shifting boundaries against a multitude of complex, massive variables.  This could be done through a community facilities task force to comprehensively review all district space needs and make recommendations on how this process would be done.

• Determining which neighborhoods and students would need to be moved from Elk River to Zimmerman to balance out building capacities.
• Deciding which specific attendance areas would be rezoned to absorb the dense new housing developments continuously being built on the southern end.
• Figuring out how to solve our legally mandated Setting IV special education compliance emergencies without the proposed construction funding, which currently relies on repurposing Meadowvale Elementary as a backup plan.

4. A Short-Term, Temporary Fix

The biggest drawback to a pure redistricting proposal is that it does nothing to stop the rapid growth happening in our communities; it only rearranges where the students sit.

Even with a total, disruptive district-wide overhaul affecting thousands of families, our high schools would begin spilling over capacity again in just five years. By the 2030–2031 school year, the district would be right back in a space crisis, requiring another major capacity solution.

Why the School Board Recommends Against It

While a redistricting proposal has minimal immediate upfront expenses (mainly limited to adjusting transportation routes and minor building retrofits), the School Board strongly recommends not pursuing a district-wide boundary change option.

The board’s conclusion is that it fails to address our long-term needs, forces significant disruption onto families, and acts as a complex, temporary patch rather than a responsible, permanent solution for our students. A "yes" vote avoids this disruptive domino effect entirely by creating permanent, localized capacity right where the growth is happening. In essence, we want to keep our neighborhood schools just that - neighborhood schools.

This is a strategic, cost-saving compromise designed directly in response to the School Perceptions community facilities survey feedback. To ease the tax burden, we are building the "core" infrastructure (cafeteria, gym, auditorium, security, utilities) to a 1,900-student standard now. The classroom wings will initially house 1,500 students. This allows us to expand the school seamlessly with only classroom additions in the future without having to rebuild expensive core facilities from scratch. 

This is a comprehensive, district-wide plan. While the south receives capacity relief, this would also ensure that our schools in Elk River and Zimmerman continue to operate using a community schools model.  Meaning, without the district-wide boundary change that would fill all remaining space in ER and Zim schools, those buildings could continue as currently used and not experience the overcapacity pressures we are seeing in the south in the near future.  Also, the bond funds in this referendum would fund crucial Career and Technical Education (CTE) expansions at Elk River, Rogers, and Zimmerman schools. It also standardizes critical security and visitor-management entry points at Zimmerman Middle/High School and Rogers Middle School to align with modern safety standards. ZMHS and RMS are the two remaining schools that have not met this safety standard.

Yes, grade spans in ISD 728 schools affect the total capacity of each school building.  The Community Facilities Task Force and the ISD 728 School Board have reviewed grade-span options in light of enrollment and capacity solutions. 

2025-2026 ISD 728 Configurations:

*Southern ISD 728 schools made the change for 5th grade to attend Middle Schools in fall of 2022 to help address Southern school elementary capacity pressures. This action was part of the 2019 Community Facilities Committee recommendations.

Typically, class size in ISD 728 has been more impacted as we dedicate staff to student ratios. For example, in the 2019 referendum we made a commitment to maintain average class sizes at 25.4.  That being said, a district average of 25 doesn't mean every room has 25 desks. It means that across the entire district, we maintain a specific ratio of students to teachers. To provide the best environment for our youngest learners, we intentionally keep lower numbers in early grades (like Kindergarten), which necessitates slightly higher numbers in upper grades (like 4th or 5th).

We use a weighted approach to class sizes. Research shows that smaller ratios have the most significant impact during the foundational years of reading and social development.

Here is an example of how a "25-student average" might look across a typical elementary school:

The short answer is that the "students sitting in the auditorium" scenario was a temporary crisis response to an unprecedented, post-pandemic national substitute shortage.  It is not how our schools are normally staffed, and the district has moved away from that practice. Furthermore, building a new high school does not dilute our staffing; rather, it fixes the extreme physical overcrowding that makes staffing a single, massive school inefficient.

Here is a look at what actually happened, how staffing has changed, and why a new building is necessary:

1. The Reality of the "Auditorium" Strategy

During the height of the national labor shortage following the pandemic, school districts across the country faced an acute shortage of substitute teachers. When multiple teachers were away on the same day and no substitutes were available, ISD 728 High Schools temporarily utilized large spaces like the auditorium or media center to supervise combined study sections.

• This was an emergency supervision measure, not a permanent staffing model. * The district heard and shared the community’s concerns loud and clear. Over the past two school years, our building administrators have completely restructured their daily coverage plans to ensure that students are in regular classrooms with licensed educators whenever possible, moving away from large-group auditorium monitoring.

2. We DO Have the Teachers for Our Students

It is helpful to clarify a common misunderstanding about how school staffing works: Our teacher staffing levels are determined by the number of students we have, not the number of buildings we own. * When a new high school is built, the total number of students in the district does not double overnight; the existing student population is simply divided between buildings.

• The teachers who are currently teaching those students will transition alongside them. Because funding from the state follows the student, the operational budget to pay for those teacher salaries moves along with them. We are not trying to hire an entire district's worth of brand-new teachers from scratch; we are placing our existing staff into right-sized, manageable environments.

3. Overcrowding Makes Staffing Harder, Not Easier

Right now, Rogers High School is projected to reach an unsustainable 133% capacity by 2030. Packing nearly 2,000+ students into a building built for far fewer actually degrades the working environment for our educators, leading to higher burnout and teacher turnover.

• When a building is overcrowded, teachers often lose their dedicated classrooms and have to float from room to room with carts during their prep periods.
• By building the new high school in Otsego, we bring both buildings back to optimal capacity. Providing a modern, stable, and less chaotic physical environment is one of the single best tools we have to recruit and retain high-quality teachers and substitutes.

4. Protecting Staffing via the Capital Projects Levy

To ensure that running a new building does not drain resources away from hiring teachers, this referendum strategically includes a Capital Projects Levy.

• This levy moves existing capital, technology and security expenses out of our general operating fund.
• By funding software, network infrastructure, and security hardware through this separate levy, it frees up vital dollars in our main operating budget. This newly available money is strictly protected and dedicated to maintaining competitive staff salaries and hiring classroom teachers.

Absolutely not. We are legally mandated to provide compliant Setting IV special education services. Currently, these critical programs are scattered across multiple schools, including Meadowvale. Work done previously in the district has identified Meandowvale Elementary as the most cost-effective and space-conducive option for the repurposing of an existing school.  A Yes vote allows us to build a specialized, consolidated K-12+ facility on the Ivan Sand campus, providing these high-needs students with the tailored, modern environment they deserve. If the referendum fails, we still must meet federal compliance standards, and repurposing Meadowvale remains our only viable, yet highly disruptive, emergency backup plan. 

This is a very common question, and it is a completely natural way to look at finances. Most families and businesses operate on a "save up before you buy" philosophy, so asking why a school district can’t build up a savings account to pay for new facilities instead of asking for local tax increases makes perfect sense.

The short answer is that Minnesota public school districts are legally prevented from saving up for large construction projects due to state law, strict funding limitations, and the immediate financial pressure of daily operations.

Here is why accumulating savings to build a new high school or E-8 building is not an option for ISD 728:

• Operational Costs: This funding goes toward the costs of operating buildings to our system. The funding provided for additional students does not proportionally match the cost of operating new facilities. These operational expenses include utilities, maintenance, and support services that extend far beyond the cost of solely educating the students. In other words, because adding buildings introduces substantial overhead that isn't fully covered by per-pupil funding, the revenue from growth is quickly absorbed by the daily costs of running these facilities alongside the expenses of educating the children.
• The Local Option: Because the state does not provide upfront cash or lump sums for construction when enrollment increases, school boards have no alternative mechanism to finance new facilities. Local communities are expected to fund their own physical school infrastructure through voter-approved bond referendums.
• The ISD 728 School Board recognizes the burden on long-term property owners and has structured the 10-year facility plan to minimize the tax footprint.
• Utilizing Existing Assets: The district is saving millions by planning construction on land it already owns in Otsego, rather than purchasing new, expensive acreage. Through long-term planning and responsible financial management, the district purchased these parcels of land using existing funds. Because these strategic land acquisitions have already been made, the proposed referendum does not include any additional costs for land purchases.
•  The "Step-Down" Debt Strategy: The district has carefully timed this referendum to line up with a drop in existing debt payments from past projects. By layering the new bonds into those dropping debt slots, we can address these severe capacity constraints without stacking the full, raw cost of construction entirely on top of your current tax bill.
• Refinancing: Recent refinancing of eligible past bond debts has already shaved $3.3 million off the district’s existing obligations, giving that value back to the taxpayer footprint.

How the Current Plan Minimizes Tax Impact

Understanding that tax increases are a heavy lift for property owners, the School Board aggressively structured this referendum package to be as financially responsible as possible.

By utilizing existing district-owned land in Otsego rather than buying new, expensive property, and by restructuring previous district debts (refinancing to save millions), the district has worked to mitigate the overall tax footprint on local homesteads.

School districts are structurally and legally dependent on voter-approved bond referendums to build schools because the state does not give us a legal avenue to save up for them. A "yes" vote allows the district to access the necessary facility funds today to solve a current space crisis, while a "no" vote pushes the district into a complex, district-wide reboundary scenario to fit students into our existing schools. This means abandoning our community schools model.

The Capital Projects Levy is a specific financial tool designed to help fund and sustain our school district's infrastructure.

What is a Capital Projects Levy?

By utilizing this levy, the district is moving certain existing building-related costs out of our main operational budget and into this separate fund, which is created specifically for managing these types of capital expenses. These costs include:

• Technology infrastructure, software, and network operations
• Security hardware and building safety equipment

How does it support the new buildings?

Opening and running new facilities, like the proposed high school and E-8 building, naturally creates brand new operating and staffing expenses. The Capital Projects Levy supports this expansion through a strategic approach:

• Frees Up the General Operating Budget: By moving technology and security costs into this separate capital levy fund, the district frees up a significant amount of space inside its main general operating budget to support operating new school buildings.
• Protects Staffing and Class Sizes: This newly available money in the general operating fund is strictly protected and channeled directly into the classrooms. It allows the district to hire the additional teachers and operational staff required to open and run the new buildings smoothly.

By utilizing the Capital Projects Levy this way, the district avoids having to dilute existing resources, stretch current staff, or cut teacher positions elsewhere to cover the overhead of the new spaces. This ensures we can maintain our current competitive class sizes and keep learning environments stable across the entire district.

Yes, the district is still paying off bonds from previous voter-approved referendums (like the 2019 project). However, because older district debts are actively "stepping down" and being completely paid off, this new referendum is structured to take advantage of that dropping debt to minimize the net tax impact on local property owners.

Here is exactly how the district's existing debt intersects with this new proposal, and what it means for your taxes:

1. The "Step-Down" Debt Strategy

When school districts issue bonds for construction, those bonds are scheduled to be paid off over a set number of years, much like a home mortgage. As older bonds are fully paid off, the district's annual debt service payments naturally drop.

• The Overlap: Instead of just stacking new taxes directly on top of the old ones, the district has carefully timed this 10-year facility plan to line up with "step downs" in our current debt payments.
• By filling that dropping debt slot with the new bonds, the district can fund these critical capacity solutions while preventing the full, raw cost of construction from hitting your tax bill all at once.
• This 'overlapping' model reflects how school financing is structurally designed in Minnesota and mirrors our own local history, where the district has strategically aligned every new facility request to layer into dropping debt from prior referendums rather than stacking the full cost on taxpayers all at once.

2. Refinancing to Save Taxpayer Dollars

To further lessen the burden on local property owners, the School Board aggressively monitors interest rates and financial markets. Through recent refinancing of eligible past bond debts (the school district equivalent of refinancing a home mortgage for a lower interest rate), the district successfully shaved $3.3 million off its existing debt obligations. Every dollar saved from that restructuring is money given back to the taxpayer footprint, helping clear financial room for our current facility needs.

3. What Will This Actually Add to Your Taxes?

Because the School Board refined the final proposal—such as opting to build on existing, district-owned land in Otsego rather than purchasing new, expensive acreage—the projected tax impact was significantly reduced from original estimates.

The final approved package is designed to secure our district-wide facility needs for a full decade (through 2036) with a predictable, steady structure. Depending on your home’s market value, the estimated net impact is broken down into manageable monthly increments. For a typical residential homestead in our district.

4. The Cost of a "No" Vote: Hidden Tax Impacts

It is also helpful to know that a "no" vote does not mean zero financial impact for taxpayers. If the referendum fails, the district's legally mandated facility emergencies, specifically our Setting IV special education compliance requirements, do not go away.

Without voter-approved bond funding, the School Board may consider more expensive financial alternatives, such as board approved taxpayer lease levy. A lease levy can be implemented by the school board without voter approval to address immediate emergencies, but it lacks the long-term, low-interest advantages of a voter-approved bond, meaning taxpayers could still see an increase without getting the permanent capacity solutions (like the new high school or E-8 building) that our enrollment growth requires.

We are still paying for past investments that built and maintained our great schools. However, by refinancing past debt, utilizing existing district land, and timing this request to fill dropping debt slots, the district is working to keep pace with the 10-year capacity crisis with a responsible, stabilized tax footprint.

Three things every Minnesotan should know:

• The Permanent School Fund already exists.
• The amendment does not raise taxes.
• The proposal updates how the fund distributes money to schools.

For more information on the history of the Minnesota Permanent School Fund and the proposed amendment, please see this presentation by the Minnesota School Boards Association.

Is this a new funding source for schools? 

No. The Permanent School Fund already exists and currently provides annual funding to every Minnesota public school district and charter school. The amendment would not create a new funding source; it would modernize how distributions are calculated from an existing trust fund that has supported public education since 1858. 

Why is the fund being changed if it has been around for more than 165 years? 

The fund itself is not being changed. The proposed amendment updates how annual distributions are calculated. The current constitutional language was written when investment practices were very different than they are today. The Task Force found that the existing formula no longer reflects modern trust management and endowment best practices. 

Does this raise taxes? 

No. The amendment does not raise income taxes, property taxes, or sales taxes. It modifies the distribution formula for an existing education trust fund. 

Who benefits? 

All Minnesota public school districts, charter schools, and tribal schools receive distributions on a per-pupil basis.

How much additional funding could schools receive? 

A task force estimates suggest annual distributions could increase approximately 40%, though actual distributions will depend on future fund performance and individual school district performance.

How much new money would ISD 728 receive if this measure is approved?

Using an assumption of $96 of full-year earnings in the formula, ISD 728 would see an increase of $391,484.79.  As an example, this would result in less than a 1% increase to the 2026-2027 ISD 728 budget.

What if I don’t vote "Yes" or "No" on the constitutional amendment?

In Minnesota, if you leave a constitutional amendment blank on your ballot, it has the same effect as voting "No" on the amendment. For that reason, it is important to mark either "Yes" or "No" if you want your vote to be counted on the amendment.

We want to ensure that our school funding is predictable and stable for our communities and taxpayers. Over the last decade, even as average home values in our community grew from roughly $201,000 to over $410,000 (which ISD 728 has no control over), we kept a tight grip on the budget. Because of that fiscal responsibility, your school tax impact has actually become more favorable. In 2015, school taxes made up 0.58% of an average home's value. Today, we have successfully locked that impact in at a consistent, stable 0.50% for three years running. We are holding the line to make sure your investment in our schools remains steady and manageable.

In 2019, the community explicitly asked us to end the "every-other-year" cycle of referendum requests. We listened and promised that the 2019 bond would last 7 to 10 years. We have kept that promise. It is now 2026, and we are planning for the next decade (through 2036) to ensure fiscal predictability so we do not have to return to voters for another 10 years.

The frequency of these committees is actually proof of our rigorous, proactive planning. Because ISD 728 is the second-fastest-growing district in Minnesota, with enrollment climbing over 12% while more than half of MN districts are shrinking, constant evaluation is required to ensure we don't overbuild or underbuild. We also brought in an independent, private contractor in 2025 to verify our growth projections to ensure absolute accuracy.  The previous facility committees have been tasked with recommendations for the long-term capacity of our schools as well as other targeted projects like the attendance boundaries of Twin Lakes and the new E-8 building (Prairie View Elementary and Middle School).  Strategic Plan facilitates related outcomes, as well as recommendations and timeline planning for enrollment and capacity solutions.  All of these groups have made recommendations for long-term planning, and we are on target with those plans and recommendations.  (Example: the 2019 group recomended the purchase of land in the south for anticipated additional buildings in the near future)

If the referendum fails, the boundary shift backup plan will directly disrupt northern and central families. To relieve the southern pressure, hundreds of southern students will be rezoned into Elk River, and subsequently, Elk River students will have to be pushed north into Zimmerman to balance capacity. This "domino effect" would impact approximately 2,000 students district-wide. A Yes vote keeps growth localized where it is happening, protecting the stability of community schools for all families.

It is not a threat; it is a legal and operational reality. Legally mandated requirements, such as Setting IV special education compliance and emergency capacity issues (like adding space at Hassan Elementary), must be addressed. A lease levy is a tool the state allows school boards to use for immediate, non-voter-approved funding. However, it is a more expensive, higher-interest option that lacks the long-term, low-interest advantages of a voter-approved bonding. We want to avoid using more expensive band-aids when voters have the opportunity to approve a permanent, lower-interest solution.