The concept of student representation took center stage as the board considered the potential integration of student voices into its governance framework. Katie Clerwood, the Minnesota School Boards Association director of board development, along with Dr. Jen West Morland and student representative Claire Fischer from the Hopkins School Board, provided insights into the advantages and models of student involvement. Clerwood explained that although Minnesota does not mandate student representation, many districts have embraced the practice, emphasizing the importance of diverse student voices in decision-making processes.

In describing the Hopkins School District’s model, Dr. West Morland highlighted the evolution from a small group of representatives primarily delivering reports to a more inclusive system featuring nine to ten student representatives. These students, drawn from various grades and educational programs, participate in board committees, contributing to policy discussions on issues such as gender inclusion and religious holiday accommodations.

Claire Fischer further elaborated on the role of student board representatives, noting their active involvement in shaping school policies and bridging communication gaps between students and educators. The representatives engage with younger students and district leaders, providing feedback on policies and ensuring that student perspectives are integrated into board decisions. Fischer underscored the collaborative nature of the program, which not only amplifies student voices but also enhances their leadership skills.

The board expressed interest in exploring various models, emphasizing the importance of adapting to evolving student interests and community needs.

Parallel to the student representation discourse, the board addressed the preliminary 2025 payable 2026 levy certification. Trevor Peterson, Executive Director of Finance and Operations, led the presentation, detailing the complexities of the levy process and its implications for the district’s fiscal planning. Peterson explained that the levy is divided into voter-approved and other local levies, with adjustments based on enrollment and inflationary factors.

The proposed levy, totaling approximately $100,885,586.29, represents a 4.74% increase. Peterson highlighted the importance of flexibility in the levy process, allowing for adjustments before final approval in December. He clarified that while the levy increase might suggest a broad tax hike, individual property owners would likely experience a smaller increase due to the expanded tax base.

A key discussion point was the impact of various levies on the district’s budget, including capital project technology levies and long-term facilities maintenance levies. Adjustments in these areas were noted, reflecting fluctuations in expenditures and state-mandated calculations. The lease levy also featured prominently, with ongoing corrections from the Minnesota Department of Education influencing its final figures.

The finance team and the Community Finance Advisory Committee (CFAC) were acknowledged for their collaborative efforts in navigating the levy process. Their engagement with community members and clarification of financial intricacies played a role in fostering transparency and understanding.