Sampson provided an in-depth explanation of how school revenue is primarily derived from pupil units and highlighted the distinction between operating levies and school building bonds. He noted that while operating levies fund operational costs, bonds are restricted to facility improvements. The superintendent stressed that Minnesota’s per pupil funding falls short by an average of $1,356 when inflation is considered, attributing this gap to the state’s inconsistent funding.

The financial strain has compelled the district to align staff positions with current enrollment, increase class sizes, and rely on its savings, which now stand at about 3%—well below the recommended 12% to 16% range. Sampson warned that this approach is unsustainable, explaining, “We have been using some of our savings account as well during that time frame and these are no longer an option at this point.”

Sampson also analyzed the tax implications of the proposed levy, estimating a $216 annual increase for homeowners with properties valued at $300,000. He noted that Cannon Falls ranks in the bottom third for district funding and shared the results of a community survey conducted in March with 992 responses. The ballot will ask voters to revoke the existing $500 per pupil levy, replacing it with a new $1,250 per pupil levy. Sampson warned that failure to pass the referendum would necessitate $500,000 in budget cuts for the 2025-2026 school year, likely resulting in larger class sizes and reduced student services.

The board also discussed potential budget cuts, including the elimination of elective courses and advanced placement opportunities, and reductions in athletic, fine arts, and co-curricular programs. Increasing participation fees and delaying maintenance projects were also considered. A participant expressed frustration with the lack of reliable state funding, noting that schools often receive only a fraction of the substantial federal education budget.

Unfunded mandates were another point of contention, with questions raised about their financial impact on the district. Specific costs such as a $50,000 bill for third-quarter unemployment for hourly workers were highlighted as concerns. The discussion then shifted to the implications of failing the proposed referendum, with participants expressing concerns over delayed maintenance and its potential effects.

A query was raised regarding the demographics of survey respondents, focusing on how many who voted yes on the levy do not pay taxes, particularly renters. Discussions also touched on class sizes, with participants noting disparities and questioning the district’s staffing and class size guidelines.

In addition to financial matters, the board addressed technology funding and community developments. Clarifications were made regarding the use of operating dollars for technology and the possibility of employing a capital bond or tech levy. Updates on community projects included a new Quick Trip store and a data center expected to benefit the school district through increased enrollment.