The URL can be used to link to this page

Memo - HISD Excess Operating Levy Renewal ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MEETING DATE: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Rick Getschow, Hopkins City Manager U4 October 18, 2005 v / Hopkins School District Excess Operating Levy Renewal Background: Hopkins School District representatives will be at the meeting to provide a presentation on the excess levy referendum that they are seeking approval for at the November 8 election. There is also a Council resolution, along with background information, that has been provided by the District that seeks formal Council support for the operating levy referendum renewal. CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION 2005-099 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE HOPKINS SCHOOL DISTRICT 270 EXCESS OPERATING LEVY RENEWAL WHEREAS, Hopkins School District 270 and its schools, students, families, and staff members are a vital part of the City of Hopkins community; and WHEREAS, the strength of our community is built on the foundation of our quality school district; and WHEREAS, excellent schools contribute to the quality of life enjoyed by all City of Hopkins residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Hopkins Mayor and City Council support the Hopkins School District's excess operating levy renewal referendum, which is set for Tuesday, November 8, 2005. Adopted this 18th day of October, 2005. Eugene Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Terry Obermaier, City Clerk Excess Operating Levy Renewal Referendum Fact Sheet Hopkins School District 270 is asking for a renewal of three existing operating levies, which is money that the District is already using to pay for its educational programs. What? The Hopkins School District has three operating levies, which are due to expire in 2008, 2010, and 2012. These three levies total about $12 million, or approximately $1,366 per student. State law allows the District to rescind all three of those levies, combine them into one levy, and renew that single levy. This means that the School District won't have to ask residents to support operating levy renewals in three separate years. The renewed combined levy would then remain in place for 10 years. At the same time, the District can ask for an inflationary increase on its operating levy. There are two ways to receive this inflationary increase: 1. It can come through the inflationary increase that was granted by the legislature in 2003, amounting to $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006 (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating levies for taxes payable 2004 through 2006), and $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. 2. Beginning with taxes payable 2008, it can come through the partial use of the $200 per-pupil levy increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year-that was approved by the legislature in 2005. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. This will enable the District to address its ongoing inflationary funding needs and help provide the District with some financial stability. On the ballot, the renewal and inflationary increase will appear as a single per-pupil revenue increase for each year of the excess operating levy. When? The excess operating levy renewal referendum will be conducted from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 8, 2005. Why? Approval of the excess operating levy renewal will allow the District to continue using the $12 million generated for its educational programs and services. A renewal does not generate new dollars for the School District. The inflationary increase will generate about $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006, $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007, and then $31 per pupil each year after that until 2015. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. What is an excess operating levy? An excess operating levy gives school districts the ability to levy dollars over and above the per-pupil funding allocation provided by the state of Minnesota. An excess operating levy provides school districts with money for their general fund operations, which includes maintaining or enhancing the quality of existing educational and instructional programs and services. The Hopkins School District's general education revenue per student is $6,504, with $5,138 of that in the form of state aid, and $1,366 from voter-approved, locally generated excess operating levies. In June 2001, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins to seek voter approval for limited inflationary increases on their existing excess operating levies. Those allowable increases were designed to provide for inflationary increases retroactive to 1994. In November 2001, Hopkins asked its residents to support a $225 per-pupil-the maximum allowed-excess operating levy increase. Voter approval of that excess operating levy increase is generating about $2.1 million annually for the Hopkins School District. During the 2003 legislative session, approval was again granted to school districts to ask residents to support inflationary increases on their operating levy. For Hopkins, that amounts to $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006 (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating levies for taxes payable 2004 through 2006), and $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. The District has waited until now to seek voter approval for that increase because of the pending need to renew the District's existing operating levies. In the 2005 session, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins, which previously had been prohibited or "capped" from seeking any additional voter-approved operating levies, to seek up to $200 per pupil in new operating levy authority. The November 2005 excess operating levy renewal request includes using a portion of the $200 per-pupil increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year, beginning with taxes payable 2008-to address the District's ongoing excess levy inflationary needs, which will help provide the District with some financial stability. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. Impact? Failure to renew the operating levy will result in the School District cutting $12 million from its budget over the next few years, which would be on top of the $18.2 million worth of budget reductions and adjustments it has made over the past six years. Passage of the renewal will help the District maintain its fiscal integrity in the wake of: · Six years of budget reductions totaling $18.2 million · A negative fund balance Limited additional funding from the state for three consecutive years until the recent 2005 legislative session · Higher than inflationary increases-double-digit percentage increases-in some budget areas such as liability insurance (11 percent), transportation (18 percent), and fuel and energy costs (18 percent) The projected tax impact for the excess operating levy renewal and inflationary increase is $25 a year on a home valued at $175,000; $37 a year on a home valued at $250,000; $44 a year on a home valued at $300,000; $60 a year on a home valued at $400,000; and $74 a year on a home valued at $500,000. The increase would first appear for taxes payable in 2006, and first affect the School District's 2007 fiscal year budget (the 2006-07 school year). What You're Paying Now Cost of Renewal + Infl !'Ylncreas~ Cost Increase Per Year MarketValue $175,000 $250,000 $300,000 $500,000 $232 $331 $397 $662 $257 $368 $441 $736 $25 $37 $44 $74 What will the ballot say, and what does it mean? The Board of Independent School District 270 (Hopkins) has proposed to revoke its existing referendum revenue authorization of $1,366.22 per pupil and replace that authorization with a new authorization that will apply for 10 years unless otherwise revoked or reduced as provided by law. The proposed increased revenues per pupil are set forth below: 2006 $141.09 $830,692 2007 1,551.52 $44.21 $389,225 2008$1,590.31 $38.79 $30.63 $341,507 2009 $1,630.07 $39.76 $62.07 $350,047 2010 $1,670.82 $40.75 $94.33 $358,763 2011 $1,712.59 $41.77 $125.37 $367,743 2012 $1,755.40 $42.81 $128.45 $376,899 2013 $1,799.29 $43.89 $131.71 $386.408 2014$1,812.17 $12.88 $102.93 $113,396 2015 $1;821;54 $9.37 $69.59 $82,493 "The maximum amount that the School District would levy each year, which is based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will grow by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. Inflationary increase since 2003 Inflationary increase of 2.5% per year Prepared and paid for by Hopkins School District 270, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins, MN 55305 This Referendum 2005 Fact Sheet is not prepared on behalf of any ballot question. Referendum 2005 Excess Operating Levy Renewal A special publication of Hopkins School District 270 October 2005 What is an excess operating levy? An excess operating levy gives school districts the ability to levy dollars over and above the per-pupil funding allocation provided by the state of Minnesota. An excess operating levy provides school districts with money fOf their general fund operations, which includes maintaining or enhancing the quality of existing educational and instructional programs and services. The Hopkins School District's general education revenue per student is $6,504, with $5,138 of ifiatin the form of state"aid, and $1,366 from voter-approved, locally generated excess operating levies. June 2001 inflationary increase In June 2001, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins to seek voter approval ' for limited inflationary increases on their existing excess operating levies. Those allowable increases were designed to provide for inflationary increases retroactive to '1994. In November 2001, Hopkins asked its residents to support a Levy: To Page 3 For additional information, call the Referendum Voicemail Line at 952-988-4128 send an email to referendum_2005 @hopkins.k12.mn.us or visit the Web site at www.hopkins.k12.mn.us Excess operating levy renewal scheduled for Tuesday, Nov. 8 Hopkins School District 270 is asking for a renewal of three existing operating levies, which is money that the District is already using to pay for its educational programs. What? The Hopkins School District has three operating levies, which are due to expire in 2008, 2010, and 2012. These three levies total about $12 million, or approximately $1,366 per student. State law allows the District to rescind all three of those levies, combine them into one levy, and renew that single levy. This means that the School District won't have to ask residents to support operating levy renewals in three separate years. The renewed combined levy would then remain in place for 10 years. At the same time, the District can ask for an inflationary increase on its operating levy. There are two ways to receive this inflationary increase: 1. It can come through the inflationary increase that was granted by the legislature in 2003, amounting to $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006 (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating levies for taxes payable 2004 through 2006), and $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. 2. Beginning with taxes payable 2008, it can come through the partial use of the $200 per-pupil levy increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year-that was approved by the legislature in 2005. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. This will enable the District to address its ongoing inflationary funding needs and help provide the District with some financial stability. On the ballot, the renewal and inflationary increase will appear as a single per-pupil revenue increase for each year of the excess operating levy. ,,~;:The levies total:' $12 million of current funding that is already being used to provide quality .. ~ducation programs.., and services. When? The excess operating levy renewal referendum will be conducted from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Thesday, Nov. 8, 2005. Why? Approval of the excess operating levy renewal will allow the District to continue using the $12 million generated for its educational programs and services. A renewal does not generate new dollars for the School District. The inflationary increase will generate about $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006, $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007, and then $31 per pupil each year after that. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. Impact? Failure to renew the operating levy will result in the School District cutting $12 million from its budget over the next few years, which would be on top of the $18.2 million worth of budget reductions and adjustments it has made over the past six years. Passage of the renewal will help the District maintain its fiscal integrity in the wake of: · Six years of budget reductions totaling $18.2 million · A negative fund balance · Limited additional funding from the state for three consecutive years until the recent 2005 legislative session · Higher than inflationary increases-double-digit percentage increases-in some budget areas such as liability insurance (11 percent), transportation (18 percent), and fuel and energy costs (18 percent) Tax impact? The projected tax impact for the excess operating levy renewal and inflationary increase is $25 a year on a home valued at $175,000; $37 a year on a home valued at $250,000; $44 a year on a home valued at $300,000; $60 a year on a home valued at $400,000; and $74 a year on a home valued at $500,000. The increase would first appear for taxes payable in 2006, and first affect the School District's 2007 fiscal year budget (the 2006-07 school year). e a Value WhafYou'rePaying ~Qw Cost of Renewal + Inflationary Increase $175,000 $232 $257 $250,000 $331 $368 $300,000 $397 $441 $500,000 $662 $736 Cosflncrease Per Year/PeTMonth $25 (about $2 a month) $37 (about $3 a month) $44 (less than $4 a month) $74 (about $6 a month) e mp~(!t()fthis renewal andinftationary incre~ munity residents living in an averag(t-valued ho ict-$300,QOO-is $44 per year {less than $4 a Iq, Page 2 Hopkins-School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal What will the ballot say, and what does it mean? Hopkins School District 270 is proposing to revoke its existing referendum revenue authorization of $1,366.22 per pupil and replace that authorization with a new authorization that will apply for 10 years. The proposed increased revenues per pupil are: What's included in the revenue per pupil (not on the ballot) Portion ofthe $200 per-pupil levy increase needed to cover average rate of . inflation (projected to be 2.5%) Annual increase per pupil Increased Revenue* . "The maximum amount that the School District would levy each year, which is based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will grow by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. ."~ilegaI vote or election by' citizens on any issue is called a. ". referendum. ' There are two types of , voter-approved levies that are commonly used by school districts to supplement specific areas of their budgets-excess operating levy and down payment levy. School district residents must approve these tax levies, which generate additional funding to support their schools, by agreeing to pay the levies through increases in their property taxes. A capital bond involves voter approval for school districts to sell general obligation bonds, which also are repaid through taxes levied against school district property owners. The additional revenue generated from the levies and capital bond can only be used }, 'fOl; Jheir specific designated purposes. Levy: From Page 1 $225 per-pupil-the maximum allowed-exce~s operating levy increase. Voter approval9f that excess operating levy increase is generating about $2.1 million'annually for the Hopkins School District. 2003 permission to seek ; inflationary increase : granted by the legislature: ",. During the 2003 legislative session, approval was again granted to school districts to ask residents to support inflationary increases on their operating levy. For Hopkins, that amounts to $830,692 forJaxes payable in 2006 _ (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating : levies for taxes payable 2004 through , 2006), and $389,225 for taxes-payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. The District has waited tmtil now to seek voter approval for that increase because of the pending need to renew the District's existing operating levies. 2005 legislative authority to seek up to $200 per pupil in new levy authority . In the 2005 session, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins, which previously had been prohibited or "capped" from seeking any'additional voter-approved operating levies, to seek up to $200 per pupil in new operating levy authority. The November 2005 excess operating levy renewal request includes using a portion of the $200 per-pupil increase- about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year, beginning with taxes payable 2008-to address the District's ongoing excess levy infl,ationary needs, which will help provide the District with some financial stability..The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal Page 3 Money from a down payment levy and capital bond can only be used for their designated purposes, and not to pay for the general operations and expenses of the School District. {.: Oth~r levies ~ how they can be used Down payment levy A down payment levy gives school districts the authority to spread out the purchase of items over a specified number of years or to set money aside for specific capital uses at a later date. For example, some school districts use this levy to set aside money- accumulate a down payment-for new building construction. Down payment levies also are used by school districts to purchase items such as curriculum and technology materials. Spreading the purchase of these items out over a period of years reduces the likelihood of them becoming obsolete. ,In Novc;\wber 2001, District 270!' asked its residents to support a $20 million down payment levy-$2 million per year for: 10 years-":for the purchase of curriculum and technology. The District is using this money to repla~e curriculum, make technology upgrades, replace technology equipment, and develop new initiatives such as the one-to-one computing pilot project. The District has also charged about $500,000 in legitimate technology.,- related expenses from the general fund to the down payment levy, reducing the need to cut deeper from the general fund over the past six years. Other Levies: To Page 5 Some Questions & Answers Did the state just provide money for schools? Yes. Action taken by the 2005 legislature increased funding for Hopkins School District 270 by 3 percent or $2,056,742 for 2005-06, and by an additional 3.2 percent or $2,209,654 for 2006-.07. The majority of the increase will be in the general fund. There are some restrictions on how some of the general fund revenue increase can be spent- on gifted and talented programs and services, and staff development. Hopkins School District 270's 2005-06 budget, which was approved by the Hopkins School Board in June 2005, includes a projected increase in state aid of $702,962. There is an increase in revenue for alternative teacher compensation. The Hopkins School District's application to participate in Q-Comp, an alternative compensation program, was approved in early September. The District will receive $260 per pupil in 2005-06, all in state aid, and $190 in state aid and $70 in levy per pupil in 2006--07, totaling $260, to implement the Hopkins Compensation Model in Hopkins Public Schools. That money can only be used to implement the District's alternative compensation program, and not to pay for general fund expenses. Another potential increase in revenue is through referendum cap relief of up to $200 per student. The November 2005 excess operating levy renewal request includes using a portion of the $200 per-pupil increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year, beginning with taxes payable 2008-to address the District's ongoing excess levy inflationary needs, which will help provide the District with some financial stability. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. Does the additional funding from the state help Hopkins Public Schools? Absolutely, particularly after six consecutive years of budget reductions totaling $18.2 million, and three consecutive years of no increases in funding from the state. Does the additional funding mean that Hopkins School District 270 will be able to restore programs? No, the increase in funding does not mean that the Hopkins School District will be able to restore any of the programs and services reduced or eliminated over the past six years. Is the Hopkins School District OK financially? Due to the increase in state funding, the District may not have to look at budget cuts for a couple of years. This analysis is based on some assumptions: that there are no major catastrophic events, which would have a significant negative impact on the economy; that the School District would not be capable of adding new programs and services; and that the state would provide an inflationary funding increase in fiscal year 2008. Are levies unusual? No. The state legislature first allowed voter-approved operating levies 30 years ago. It used to be that these levies paid for those educational extras deemed important to and by the school district's residents. Approval of the levies was a way for residents to say, "This is important to us for the education of our children, and we're willing to tax ourselves to pay for it." Nearly 90 percent of Minnesota's school districts now rely on voter-approved excess operating levies. However, what once paid for extras now pays for core academic programs. School districts now depend on excess operating levy money to pay for their basic education needs. The days of using excess operating levies to fund extras are long over. For a copy of the complete comprehensive Questions & Answers document, call the Referendum Voicemail Line at 952-988-4128 send an em ail to referendum_2005 @hopkins.k12.mn.us or visit the Web site at www.hopkins.k12.mn.us and then go to the referendum menu to download a PDF. Page 4 Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal How has the District used op In the past, Hopkins Public Schools has used excess operating levies to pay for programs and services that residents said were important, and which made the School District unique. This has included elementary world languages, elementary music such as band and orchestra, and lower class sizes. Gradually, due to multiple years of budget reductions, some of these programs have been reduced or eliminated. Excess operating levy money is now used to pay for the District's core academic programs. rating levies in the past? xcess operating levy money is now used to pay for the District's core ~ademic programsiOm What budget issues has the District faced in recent years? Over the past six years, the Hopkins School District has made budget reductions totaling $18.2 million, including: · 2000-01-$2.8 million in reductions removed the elasticity from the District's budget · 2001-02-$4.2 million in cuts resulted in across-the-board reductions of programs and services · 2002-03-$2.4 million in reductions and adjustments despite the successful passage of a $2.1 million operating levy increase · 2003-04-$3.1 million in reductions and adjustments · 2004-05-$3 million in reductions and adjustments · 2005-06-$2.7 million in reductions and adjustments This continuum of budget adjustments and modifications has resulted in the reduction or total elimination of programs and services. In the past, the District has strived to keep those cuts as far away from the classroom as possible. The District has: · Made significant reductions in support areas such as administration and leadership, business services, transportation, materials and supplies, and buildings and grounds. · Spent down budget reserves. · Creatively used alternative funding sources to lessen the impact of cuts on the District's general fund. · Imposed activity and athletic fee increases. · Sought new sources of revenue such as fund-raising for student activities and athletics, entrepreneurial ventures such as Royal Cuisine, and the rental of facilities including the conference center spaces at the Eisenhower Community Center and the auditorium/dining room at Hopkins High School. · Eliminated, reduced, or modified some programs such as elementary foreign language, and elementary band and orchestra. · Reduced course offerings and increased class sizes at the junior high and high school level. · Participated in the STAR (Securing Teachers & Resources) parent-led, volunteer- based, fund-raising effort that raised one-time funds of more than $200,000, which was used in the 2004-05 school year to offset some class size increases and program reductions. Why has the District had to make these reductions? There are a number of factors contributing to the District's budget problems, including: . Funding from the state not keeping pace with inflation. · A state budget deficit that resulted in no additional new revenue for schools. · A slight decline in enrollment. . Expenses that continue to increase at a higher rate than inflation such as property liability insurance, fuel and energy costs, and medical insurance costs. · The loss of funding due to legislative action, particularly the elimination of the inflation factor for special education, which represented a loss of about $900,000 for the 2004-05 school year. Levies: From ,Page 4 Capital bond A capital bond referendum seeks voter approval for school districts to sell general obligation bonds. Proceeds from the safe of those bonds are used to supplel1}ent school districts' capital outlay funds. Capital outlay money can only be used for what are commonly called "bricks and mortar" improvements such as infrastructure and building maintenance projects, health, safety and security enhancements, and other facility and equi pment needs. Geneml obligation bond sales frequently are used by school districtswhel1c !llajor building projects are needed. The general obligation bonds are repaid through an annual tax levied against the , school districts' property owners. A capital bond referendum can be conducted at any time during the school year. Capital fund dollars cannot be used for general operating: expenses of a school district such as employee salaries. In December 2001, District residents approved a $59.768 million capital bond for building, remodeling, maintenance, and new construction, projects throughout the District. As much as,the District might have wanted, to use some of the $59.768 million for its education programs and services, avoiding the need to cut from the District's geneml fund budget over the past six years, under state hlw, it could not do so. " 'apIial ~bon dollars cannot be used for general operating expenses of a school district such as employee . salaries. .,~. Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal Page 5 Why should community residents who do not have scnool-aged children support this referendum? Quality schools make a quality community. Good schools are a wqrthwhile investment for all community residentS, even if they don't have school-aged children. Today's students are the leaders and the work force of this new century. ' Tn addition, real estate agents who work in the Hopkins School District community attestJ9. the fact that the quality of Hopkins Schools and its ' reputation for excellence are key factors in maintaining high property values and attracting a constant, healthy influx of new families. District 270 has always maintained a strong commitment to lifelong learning, providing extensive learning opportunities for residents of all ages, from infants to seniors. All of the District's levies, while differtmt in nature, are related in that they focus on student learning and achievement. The levies reflect the District's commitment to equity and excellence, and its mission of instilling in each learner a passion for learning and a commitment to; reach one's potential throughout Ii/e. The levies focus on helping tlie District maintain its fiscal integritY so it can avoid further significant program reductions and class size increases. What measures has the District taken to contain costs? As part of Hopkins School District 270's ongoing response to its current budget crisis, the Hopkins School Board has taken a number of steps to use the District's monies wisely. It has implemented a variety of cost-saving measures intended to directly benefit the education of students and reduce the overall administrative expenditures for the District. These initiatives, which span the areas of human resources, maintenance services, transportation, energy, grants, and partnerships, are needed to help the District meet its budget requirements for the current fiscal year and the immediate future. Will support of the excess operating levy renewal result in Hopkins School District 270's taxes being unusually high? Taxes in the Hopkins School District traditionally have been among the lowest in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The District's tax rate currently ranks in the middle of six surrounding school districts- Edina, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. Even with the passage of the excess operating levy renewal, the District's tax rate would still rank in the middle. In recent years, the District's portion of residents' tax bills has actually decreased. What impact will the excess operating levy renewal have on student achievement? The greatest accountability indicator for any school district is the impact of its education program on student learning. Hopkins students continue to show high student achievement. In 2004-05, the School District examined how its learners in the middle are doing. This analysis clearly showed that the District's student population is skewed toward high achievers. The District's Advanced Placement (AP) program continues to grow with close to 800 AP exams administered in 2005, the third largest number of students taking AP exams in Minnesota. The District'sAP success is attributed to a rigorous and articulated curriculum that challenges students in their pursuits and achievements in Hopkins. The District continues to develop its vision of providing data to aid instruction at all levels. District teachers soon will be provided data that will allow them to adjust instruction and curriculum to ensure that all students are achieving in all curricular areas. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, an informed assessment plan will motivate the District to provide just-in-time assessments to elementary teachers in reading, mathematics, and writing. Science assessments will follow close behind. Teachers and administrators are using data to evaluate intervention programs targeted at increasing student achievement at every school. Several programs continue to successfully launch low-achieving students toward their fullest potential in school. The 2nd-grade initiative at Katherine Curren, Eisenhower, and L.H. Tanglen elementary schools is working with identified students who need additional support in math and reading achievement. Read 180 is used at the intermediate grades, junior, and senior high schools for students lacking reading skills. Read 180 is accelerating students, especially students of color, into successful mainstream programs. At Hopkins North Junior High and Hopkins High School, math and reading classes have been established for students with limited formal schooling. Intervention programs have been established to support 7th- and 8th-grade students in reading and writing. The secondary schools also provide several programs to support students in achieving basic skills. Hopkins High School has sheltered basic skills classes in mathematics, writing, and reading. It also offers programs through the Academy for Student Excellence and additional learning time, called 5th Block. At the junior high schools, Zooming to Success, a program for incoming 7th graders, is designed to accelerate students struggling to learn basic skills. Hopkins students", continue to show high achievement. Page 6 Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal What defines Hopkins as a school district of excellence? The Hopkins School District has a well-established tradition of educational excellence and community commitment to high expectations and support. National awards have been earned by a variety of programs, including art, writing, community service, and technology applications. Every year, students receive numerous national honors in areas such as music, writing, visual arts, creative problem solving, video production, business education, mathematics, and other subjects. Hopkins students also consistently outperform their counterparts in the region, state, and nation on standardized tests. The District annually is a state leader in the number of students honored in National Merit Scholarship competitions, and in the number of Advanced Placement scholars. District staff members have received numerous state and national awards, honors, and accolades for their accomplishments and contributions to their particular fields of expertise and to the field of education in general. At the elementary level, specialists support the basic education program in physical education, art, vocal music, orchestra, band, media, computer applications, and gifted services. The junior high schools use an alternating-day block schedule designed to meet the unique needs of middle-level learners and enhance learning opportunities with 88-minute class periods. The program is broad, exploratory, and experiential in nature. The senior high school offers an extensive array of electives in a four-period day. Accelerated, Honors, and Advanced Placement classes, Independent Study, and alternative high school programs provide additional flexibility. Approximately 85 percent of Hopkins High School students continue their educational careers after graduating from high school. The Hopkins School District also offers educational opportunities that are designed to meet the needs of its youngest learners. Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) offers programming for children ages birth to kindergarten and their parents. ECFE supports the important role that the family has in the development of the child. The District offers two preschools. Kaleidoscope Preschool is a fee-based preschool program for children ages 3-5. Classes are designed to enhance the development of the whole child through guided discovery learning opportunities. Stepping Stones is an all- day, year-round program for 4 year olds. It promotes school readiness and is designed to help prepare children for kindergarten. Hopkins offers a nationally accredited extended-day program- Kids & Company-in each of its seven elementary schools. Kids & Company's daily programs enhance literacy and language development. Kids & Company's Extended Kindergarten, a half-day service for kindergarten students, offers a holistic approach to learning. There are opportunities for students to develop skills, including practicing letters, writing their names, color, number, and shape recognition, and counting. The Hopkins School District's comprehensive network of advisory committees provides for community input into each curriculum area and into nearly every facet of District operations. Extensive parent involvement has a strong tradition in Hopkins Public Schools. Through its Community Education Department, District 270 provides fall, winter, and spring sessions of lifelong learning opportunities for people of all ages, interests, and abilities. Programs include youth programs, adult enrichment classes, adult continuing education classes, basic skills and English classes for adults, diploma classes, and parent-education opportunities. In addition, cooperative planning provides programs for seniors at the Hopkins Activity Center and the Minnetonka Community Center. Royal Cuisine continues to be a comprehensive, full-service culinary department delivering the national school lunch and breakfast program to students, and providing healthy lunch and a la carte options. It has become a local leader and role model for other school districts. Royal Cuisine's priority is to reverse the trend of poor eating habits by offering District 270's students For a complete copy of the comprehensive Questions & Answers document or for additional information about the excess operating levy renewal, please call 952-988-4128, send an emaH to referendum....;2005@ ,hopkins~k12.mn.us, or visit the School District's Web site at www.hopkins. k12.mn.us. k'''il...'ere's;':.n ,:.........,....... ",;: r . A Chan~nge coordinator in each school helps provide , ,'. rvices for gifted and talented studen", ..A child-study team of specialists provid special education services. · All schools have computer centers with regular use beginning in kindergarten.. , .. There are nurses, counselors, and social work' , , available in each school. ~t Secondary schools have technology labs wh,'" '/' students study applications like , ,biotechnology, robotics, meteorology, :gital imaging, and telecommunicatio ~, ~ A variety of athletic and ,..... 'permc extracurricular acp,viti " ble to students at all 1',' ',' ........ .... .. Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal Page 7 Where to vote Hopkins Residents 1. Zion Lutheran Church 2415thAvenueNorth 2. Living Waters Church 1002 Second Street Northeast 3. Hopkins City Hall 1010 1st Street South 4. Hopkins Activity Center 33 14th Avenue North 5. Alice Smith Elementary School 801 Minnetonka Mills Road 6. Katherine Curren Elementary School 1600 Mainstreet 7. St. Theresa Southwest 901 Feltl Court Minnetonka Residents 1A. Glen Lake Elementary School 4801 Woodridge Road lB. Old Apostolic Lutheran Church 5617 Rowland Road 1 C. Cross of Glory Baptist Church 4600 Shady Oak Road ID. Faith Presbyterian Church 12007 Excelsior Boulevard IE. St. Paul's Lutheran Church 13207 Lake Street Extension IF. Minnetonka Community Church 13215 Minnetonka Drive 2A. Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard 2B. Ridgedale Hennepin County Library 12601 Ridgedale Drive 2C. Oak Knoll Lutheran Church 600 Hopkins Crossroad 2D. St. David's Episcopal Church 13000 St. David's Road 2E. Lindbergh Center 2700 Lindbergh Drive 3C. Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard 3F. Minnetonka Lutheran Church 16023 Minnetonka Boulevard 4F. All Saints Lutheran Church 15915 Excelsior Boulevard 4G. Glen Lake Activity Center 14350 Excelsior Boulevard Eden Prairie Residents 2. Eden Prairie Assembly of God 16591 Duck Lake Trail 8. Wooddale Church 6630 Shady Oak Road Golden Valley Residents 2. Valley Presbyterian Church 3100 Lilac Drive North 3. Meadowbrook Elementary School 5430 Glenwood Avenue 5. Southeast Fire Station 400 Turners Crossroad South 8. Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway Plymouth Residents 18. Plymouth residents of Precinct 18, Christ Memorial Church, vote here: Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway 19. Plymouth residents of Precinct 19, Wayzata East Middle School, vote here: Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway Edina Residents lA. Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, 500 Blake Road South lB. Edina residents of Precinct lB, Chapel Hills Congregational Church vote here: Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, 500 Blake Road South 5. Edina residents of Precinct 5, Highland School, vote here: Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church, 500 Blake Road South St. Louis Park Residents 9. Aldersgate Methodist Church 3801 WooddaleAvenue 14. Westwood Lutheran Church 9001 Cedar Lake Road Referendum 2005 Excess Operating Levy Renewal Hopkins School District 270 1001 Highway 7 Hopkins, MN 55305 952-988-4024 Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Penmit No. 160 Hopkins, MN 55343 * * * * * ECRWSS * * Postal Customer Prepared and paid for by Hopkins School District 270, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins, MN 55305. This newsletter is not prepared on behalf of any ballot question. Page 8 Hopkins School District 270 Excess Operating Levy Renewal Questions & Answers Excess Operating Levy Renewal Tuesday, Nov. 8,2005 Prepared and paid for by Hopkins School District 270, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins, MN 55305. This Q&A is not prepared on behalf of any ballot question. 1 This page intentionally left blank 2 Index General Information Page 1 What? Page 1 When? Page 1 Why? Pages 1-2 Impact? Page 2 What will the ballot say and what does it mean? Voter-Approved Levies Page 3 What voter-approved levies are available to school districts? Pages 3-4 Definitions of and uses for excess operating levy, down-payment levy, and capital bond Page 5 Chart of District's voter-approved levies since 1999 Pages 5-7 How does the Hopkins School District compare to other districts in the amount of revenue received from local, voter-approved levies? What is the difference between AMCPU and RMCPU? Is it unusual for school districts to have excess operating levies? How has the Hopkins School District used excess operating levy in the past? Page 8 Pages 8-9 Page 9 Budget Issues Page 10 Page 10 Pages 10-12 Page 12 Pages 12-13 Page 14 Page 14 Page 15 Pages 15-16 Pages 16-17 Pages 17-18 Page 18 Tax Impact Page 19 Pages 20-21 What budget issues has the Hopkins School District faced in the past? Why has the Hopkins School District had to made these reductions and budget adjustments? What measures has the Hopkins School District taken to contain costs? Will the money raised from the excess operating levy renewal restore any of the programs that were trimmed in the budget-cutting process carried out the last six years? What impact will funding decisions made by the 2005 legislature have on Hopkins School District 270? How and on what does Hopkins School District 270 spend its general fund money? What are the District's administrative costs? How does the Hopkins School District compare to other school districts in general fund expenditures per student? What are the components of Hopkins School District 270's athletic program? How is the athletic program funded? What are the Hopkins School District's different funds, and what are they used for? What impact does open enrollment have on Hopkins School District 270's budget? What did a recent state auditor's report reveal about school district financial trends? Will support of the excess operating levy result in Hopkins School District 270's taxes being unusually high? Have my sChool district taxes gone down in recent years? Impact on Student Learning Page 22 How is Hopkins School District 270 accountable to the community? Page 22 What impact will the excess operating levy renewal have on student achievement? Pages 23-24 What defines the Hopkins School District as a school district of excellence? Page 24 What are the Hopkins School District's class sizes? Pages 24-35 How has Hopkins School District 270 changed in the past 10 years? Community Support Page 26 How has the Hopkins School District tried to gauge the level of community support for the excess operating levy renewal? What do residents think about Hopkins Public Schools? Why should residents who do not have school-aged children support this referendum? Pages 26-32 Page 32 If the Referendum Fails Pages 33-35 How will the Hopkins SChool District proceed if the excess operating levy renewal fails? 3 Other Issues Page 36 Voting Page 37 Page 37-39 Pages 39 4 Has the Hopkins School District looked at offering formal all-day kindergarten? What does the ballot say? Where do I vote on Nov. 8, 2005? How can I vote by absentee ballot? General Information What? Hopkins School District 270 is asking for a renewal of three existing operating levies, which is money that the District is already using to pay for its educational programs. The Hopkins School District has three operating levies, which are due to expire in 2008, 2010, and 2012. These three levies total about $12 million, or approximately $1,366 per student. State law allows the District to rescind all three of those levies, combine them into one levy, and renew that single levy. This means that the School District won't have to ask residents to support operating levy renewals in three separate years. The renewed combined levy would then remain in place for 10 years. At the same time, the District can ask for an inflationary increase on its operating levy. There are two ways to receive this inflationary increase: 1. It can come through the inflationary increase that was granted by the legislature in 2003, amounting to $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006 (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating levies for taxes payable 2004 through 2006), and $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5% annually. 2. Beginning with taxes payable 2008, it can come through the partial use of the $200 per-pupil levy increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year-that was approved by the legislature in 2005. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. This will enable the District to address its ongoing inflationary funding needs and help provide the District with some financial stability. On the ballot, the renewal and inflationary increase will appear as a single per-pupil revenue increase for each year of the excess operating levy. (More detailed information on the ballot language and what it means can be found on Page 2, including the maximum that can be levied by the School District each year.) When? The excess operating levy renewal referendum will be conducted from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 8,2005. Why? Approval of the excess operating levy renewal will allow the District to continue using the $12 million generated for its educational programs and services. A renewal does not generate new dollars for the School District. The inflationary increase will generate about $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006, $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007, and then $31 per pupil each year after that until 2015. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. Impact? Failure to renew the operating levy will result in the School District cutting $12 million from its budget over the next few years, which would be on top of the $18.2 million worth of budget reductions and adjustments it has made over the past six years. Passage of the renewal will help the District maintain its fiscal integrity in the wake of: Six years of budget reductions totaling $18.2 million A negative fund balance Limited additional funding from the state for three consecutive years until the recent 2005 legislative session Higher than inflationary increases-double-digit percentage increases-in some budget areas such as liability insurance (11 percent), transportation (18 percent), and fuel and energy costs (18 percent) The projected tax impact for the excess operating levy renewal and inflationary increase is $25 a year on a home valued at $175,000; $37 a year on a home valued at $250,000; $44 a year on a home valued at $300,000; $60 a year on a home valued at $400,000; and $74 a year on a home valued at $500,000. The increase would first appear for taxes payable in 2006, and first affect the School District's 2007 fiscal year budget (the 2006-07 school year). Home WhatYou'rePaYingN6W Costof Renewal Cost Increase MarketVallle + Inflationarylll~rease PerYear $175,000 $232 $257 $25 $250,000 $331 $368 $37 $300,000 $397 $441 $44 $500,000 $662 $736 $74 What will the ballot say, and what does it mean? The Board of Independent School District 270 (Hopkins) has proposed to revoke its existing referendum revenue authorization of $1,366.22 per pupil and replace that authorization with a new authorization that will apply for 10 years unless otherwise revoked or reduced as provided by law. The proposed increased revenues per pupil are set forth below: 2006 $1,507;31 $141.09 $830,692 Inflationary 2007 $1,551.52 $44.21 $389,225 increase since 2003 2008 $1,590.31 $38.79 $30.63 $341,507 Inflationary 2009 $1,630.07 $39.76 $62.07 $350,047 increase of 2.5% 2010 $1,670.82 $40.75 $94.33 $358,763 per year 2011 $1,712.59 $41.77 $125.37 $367,743 2012 $1,755.40 $42.81 $128.45 $376,899 2013 $43.89 $131.71 $386.408 2014 $12.88 $102.93 $113,396 2015 $1;821.54 $9.37 $69.59 $82,493 "The maximum amount that the SchOol District would levy each year, which is based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will grow by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually. 2 Voter-Approved Levies What voter-approved levies are available to school districts? A legal vote or election by citizens on any issue is called a referendum There are two types of voter-approved levies that are commonly used by school districts to supplement specific areas of their budgets - excess operating levy and down paY11U!nt levy. School district residents must approve these tax levies, which generate additional funding to support their schools, by agreeing to pay the levies through increases in their property taxes. A capital bond involves voter approval for school districts to sell general obligation bonds, which also are repaid through taxes levied against school district property owners. The additional revenue generated from the levies and capital bond can only be used for their specific designated purposes. Excess operatin~ levy An excess operating levy gives school districts the ability to levy dollars over and above the per-pupil funding allocation provided by the state of Minnesota. An excess operating levy provides school districts with money for their general fund operations, which includes maintaining or enhancing the quality of existing educational and instructional programs and services. The Hopkins School District's general education revenue per student is $6,504, with $5,138 of that in the form of state aid, and $1,366 from voter-approved, locally generated excess operating levies. In June 2001, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins to seek voter approval for limited inflationary increases on their existing excess operating levies. Those allowable increases were designed to provide for inflationary increases retroactive to 1994. In November 2001, Hopkins asked its residents to support a $225 per pupil-the maximum allowed-excess operating levy increase. Voter approval of that excess operating levy increase is generating about $2.1 million annually for the Hopkins School District. During the 2003 legislative session, approval was again granted to school districts to ask residents to support inflationary increases on their operating levy. For Hopkins, that amounts to $830,692 for taxes payable in 2006 (includes the inflationary increase on the District's existing excess operating levies for taxes payable 2004 through 2006), and $389,225 for taxes payable in 2007. This inflationary increase expires with taxes payable 2008. These numbers are based on the economic assumption that the per-pupil funding formula will increase by 2 percent each year, and that the rate of inflation will average 2.5 percent annually..The District has waited until now to seek voter approval for that increase because of the pending need to renew the District's existing operating levies. In the 2005 session, the state legislature approved allowing school districts like Hopkins, which previously had been prohibited or "capped" from seeking any additional voter-approved operating levies, to seek up to $200 per pupil in new operating levy authority. The November 2005 excess operating levy renewal request includes using a portion of the $200 per pupil increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year, beginning with taxes payable 2008-to address the District's ongoing excess levy inflationary needs, which will help provide the District with some financial stability. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. Down payment levy A down payment levy gives school districts the authority to spread out the purchase of items over a specified number of years or to set money aside for specific capital uses at a later date. For example, some school districts use this levy to set aside money-accumulate a down payment-for new building construction. 3 Down payment levies also are used by school districts to purchase items such as curriculum and technology materials. Spreading the purchase of these items out over a period of years reduces the likelihood of them becoming obsolete. In November 2001, District 270 asked its residents to support a $20 million down payment levy-$2 million per year for 10 years-for the purchase of curriculum and technology. The District is using this money to replace curriculum, make technology upgrades, replace technology equipment, and develop new initiatives such as the one-to-one computing pilot project. The District has also charged about $500,000 in legitimate technology-related expenses from the general fund to the down payment levy, reducing the need to cut deeper from the general fund over the past six years. Capital bond A capital bond referendum seeks voter approval for school districts to sell general obligation bonds. Proceeds from the sale of those bonds are used to supplement school districts' capital outlay funds. Capital outlay money can only be used for what are commonly called "bricks and mortar" improvements such as infrastructure and building maintenance projects, health, safety and security enhancements, and other facility and equipment needs. General obligation bond sales frequently are used by school districts when major building projects are needed. The general obligation bonds are repaid through an annual tax levied against the school districts' property owners. A capital bond referendum can be conducted at any time during the school year. Capital fund dollars cannot be used for general operating expenses of a school district such as employee salaries. In December 2001, District residents approved a $59.768 million capital bond for building, remodeling, maintenance, and new construction projects throughout the District. As much as the District might have wanted to use some of the $59.768 million for its education programs and services, avoiding the need to cut from the District's general fund budget over the past six years, under state law, it could not do so. The process for determining the capital-bond projects, which were recently completed, involved more than 100 people. They worked for more than a year and a half to examine and prioritize all of the District's capital needs and to develop the framework for a referendum. Committee members included representatives from the District, community, School Board, parent leadership, principals, parents, advisory committees, teachers and other staff members, and athletic community. From this large group, a smaller group of people, called the Hopkins Bond Referendum Committee, then worked to refine the priorities and develop a proposal for the School Board to consider. This committee also was representative of different segments of the Hopkins School District 270 community. These committee members utilized a mission/vision-based planning approach to help develop the recommendations that ultimately were included in the 2001 capital bond. They began by defining and prioritizing the stakeholders and their expectations. Stakeholders were identified as learners, parents, staff members, and taxpayers. The top three expectations for these stakeholders were identified as quality instruction, financial responsibility, and safe and secure schools. Committee members prioritized the list of improvement options the larger facility committee had developed and that were ultimately included in the 2001 capital bond. Since the passage of the capital bond and throughout the construction at each of the District's buildings, District officials, working in partnership with teams of staff and parents at each site, were frugal in their approach to all of the building projects. The teams spent months analyzing each project before final designs were approved. The ultimate goal was to ensure that the School District followed through on its commitments to the community - giving residents what they voted on in December 2001. A recent review of the building projects indicates that the District has followed through on its commitments. 4 Hopkins School District 270 has three excess operating levies that total about $12 million, which were approved by residents in 1999 and 2001. These current levies are set to expire and would need to be renewed in 2008, 2010, and 2012. The dollars at risk are $6.1 million, $3.9 million, and $2 million, In November 2005, the District will ask voters to rescind these three levies, and approve the renewal of one combined levy, which would remain in place for 10 years. Voter Approved Taxes 13,200,000 13,000,000 04-05 I. General Fund. Voter Approved Taxesj How does the Hopkins School District compare to other districts in the amount of revenue received from local, voter-approved levies? Hopkins School District 270 receives 15 percent of its general fund revenue, which is used to pay for teachers, other School District staff, and classroom instruction, from voter-approved excess operating levies. Overall, Hopkins Public Schools is ranked 61 in total revenue per student among the state's 343 public school districts. However, when the revenue generated from referendum levy is subtracted from that total, Hopkins ranks 335 in per-pupil funding aid that it receives from the state. 5 The following chart shows how Hopkins compares to others school districts in the state for the amount of money it receives from the state and the amount it receives from local referendum levy. Fiscal Year 200 I Education Funding per . sted Ma st Pupil Unit (AMCPU) Most components of general n revenue are computed using Adjusted Marg The exception is referendum revenue, which is computed using Resident Marginal C Total Aid Associatiol'fof (Total Revenue Metropolitan. School Rank for -Referendum Rank for Referendum Districts tal Revenue levy) TotalAid levy Bloomington 117 $4,903 322 $872 Brooklyn Center 53 $5,827 67 $382 Burnsville 124 $5,015 289 $745 Chaska 164 $5,014 290 $636 Eden Prairie 179 $4,754 336 $831 Edina 92 $4,723 341 $1,209 Fridley 118 $5,166 245 $644 Hopkins AMCPU $6,218 $4,987 335 $1,305 RMCPU $6,583 $5,217 $1,366 Inver Grove $5,852 125 $4,979 300 $801 Mahtomedi $5,435 247 $4,860 330 $483 Minneapolis $7,265 18 $6,587 21 $457 Minnetonka $6,172 66 $4,720 342 $1,387 Mounds View $5,870 121 $4,908 320 $856 North St. Paul $5,895 116 $5,053 281 $749 Orono $5,585 203 $4,724 340 $729 Richfield $6,199 63 $5,251 207 $842 Robbinsdale $6,035 88 $5,159 250 $777 Roseville $6,144 71 $4,856 331 $1,170 Shakopee $5,727 159 $5,168 243 $458 South St. Paul $5,852 126 $5,142 258 $630 Spring lake Park $5,97 102 $5,098 272 $747 St. Anthony $5,637 194 $4,739 337 $812 St. louis Park $6,434 43 $4,898 325 $1,430 st. Paul $6,869 26 $6,528 25 $187 Wayzata $5,690 178 $4,738 338 $843 West St. Paul $5,900 114 $4,889 328 $892 Source: Minnesota Department of Education, November 2004, What IF 2005, ranks based on 343 school districts Total revenue includes Basic, Extended Time, Compensatory, Limited English Proficiency, Sparsity, Transportation Sparsity, Operating Capital, Training & Experience, Equity, Transition, Referendum, Alternative Attendance Adjustment, and Pension Adjustment The following chart shows how Hopkins compares to other metro area school districts in the amount of referendum revenue per pupil unit. 6 Hopkins School District No. 270 St. Louis Park Edina Minnetonka Hopkins Orono Eden Prairie Bloomington Wayzata Robbinsdale Burnsville Referendum Revenue per Pupil Unit, 2005-06* Comparison to Other Districts 1,561 1,366 1,200 1,200 $0 $400 $800 $1,200 Revenue per Pupil Unit $1,600 * Referendum allowances shown above represent the best estimates currrently available from the Minnesota Department of Education. These revenues represent the amount approved by the voters, and for some districts, the revenue available for 2005-06 may be limited by the state cap. Allowances are still subject to minor adjustments, based on changes in final pupil counts for the 2003-04 school year. 7 What is the difference between AMCPU and RMCPU? Basically, Adjusted Marginal Cost Per Units is how the School District receives money from the state. It includes all of the School District's students, including students who open enroll into Hopkins Schools. Most components of the general education revenue from the state to school districts is computed using AMCPU. The exception is money that school districts receive from voter-approved operating levies, which is computed using Resident Marginal Cost Pupil Units (RMCPU). RMCPU is strictly based on the number of students who live in the School District and who attend Hopkins Public Schools. It does not include open-enrolled students. The state of Minnesota has a complicated system for funding its public schools; however, below are some other definitions used to determine how much money schools districts receive from the state: · Average Daily Membership (ADM) = average number of pupils enrolled in the school district throughout the school year · Resident Weighted Pupil Units often called Weighted Average Daily Membership (W ADM) = the resident ADM x the pupil weight. A student is not equal to a student. The state funding formula for schools applies different weights to different students, because it costs more to educate different students at different age/grade levels. For example, 7th-12th grade students are weighted at 1.3, while kindergarten students are weighted at .557, 1st-3rd grade students are weighted at 1.115, and 4th-6th grade students are weighted at 1.060. · Adjusted Pupil Units = resident W ADM + the W ADM of students who enroll into the schools district - the W ADM of students who open enroll out of the school district · AMPCU = the greater of the current year's Adjusted Pupil Units or.77 x the current year Adjusted Pupil Units + .23 x prior year's Adjusted Pupil Units Is it unusual for school districts to have operating levies? No. The state legislature first allowed voter-approved operating levies 30 years ago. It used to be that these levies paid for those educational extras deemed important to and by the school district's residents. Approval of the levies was a way for residents to say, "This is important to us for the education of our children, and we're willing to tax ourselves to pay for it." Nearly 90 percent of Minnesota's school districts now rely on voter-approved excess operating levies. However, what once paid for extras now pays for core academic programs. School districts now depend on excess operating levy money to pay for their basic education needs. The days of using excess operating levies to fund extras are long over. 8 1 000/0 90% 80% 70% 600/0 500/0 400/0 30% 200~ 10% 00/0 ~~ ~OJ Percent of Districts with Operating Referenda ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Note: The dip in 2003 was caused by a conversion of $415 in referendum authority to $415 in the basic formula. Sources: 1) Crowe, Greg "A History of the School Operating Levy Referendum," Money Matters, December 2002. Fiscal Analysis Department, Minnesota House of Representatives. 2) Minnesota Department of Education. How has the Hopkins School District used excess operating levies in the past? In the past, Hopkins Public Schools has used excess operating levies to pay for programs and services that residents said were important, and which made the School District unique. This has included elementary world languages, elementary music such as band and orchestra, and lower class sizes. Gradually, due to multiple years of budget reductions, some of these programs have been reduced or eliminated. Excess operating levy money is now used to pay for the District's core academic programs. 9 Budget Issues What budget issues has the Hopkins School District faced in recent years? Over the past six years, the Hopkins School District has made budget reductions totaling $18.2 million, including: 2000-01-$2.8 million in reductions removed the elasticity from the District's budget 2001-02-$4.2 million in cuts resulted in across-the-board reductions of programs and services 2002-03 - $2.4 million in reductions and adjustments despite the successful passage of a $2.1 million operating levy increase 2003-04-$3.1 million in reductions and adjustments 2004-05-$3 million in reductions and adjustments 2005-06-$2.7 million in reductions and adjustments This continuum of budget adjustments and modifications has resulted in the reduction or total elimination of programs and services. In the past, the District has strived to keep those cuts as far away from the classroom as possible. The DistriCt has: Made significant reductions in support areas such as administration and leadership, business services, transportation, materials and supplies, and buildings and grounds. Spent down budget reserves. Creatively used alternative funding sources to lessen the impact of cuts on the District's general fund. Imposed activity and athletic fee increases. Sought new sources of revenue such as fund-raising for student activities and athletics, entrepreneurial ventures such as Royal Cuisine, and the rental of facilities including the conference center spaces at the Eisenhower Community Center and the auditorium/dining room at Hopkins High School. Completed a community readiness assessment to determine the feasibility of conducting a $10 million endowment campaign. Eliminated, reduced, or modified some programs such as elementary foreign language, and elementary band and orchestra. Reduced course offerings and increased class sizes at the junior high and high school level. Participated in the STAR (Securing Teachers & Resources) parent-led, volunteer-based, fund-raising effort that raised one-time funds of more than $200,000, which was used in the 2004-05 school year to offset some class size increases and program reductions. Why has the Hopkins School District had to make these reductions and budget adjustments? There are a number of factors contributing to the District's budget problems, including: Funding from the state not keeping pace with inflation. A state budget deficit that resulted in no additional new revenue for schools. A slight decline in enrollment. Expenses that continue to increase at a higher rate than inflation such as property liability insurance, fuel and energy costs, and medical insurance costs. The loss of funding due to legislative action, particularly the elimination of the inflation factor for special education, which represented a loss of about $900,000 for the 2004-05 school year. What measures has the Hopkins School District taken to contain costs? As part of Hopkins School District 270's ongoing response to its current budget crisis, the Hopkins School Board has taken a number of steps to use the District's monies wisely. It has implemented a variety of cost-saving measures intended to directly benefit the education of students and reduce the overall administrative expenditures for the District. These initiatives, which span the areas of human resources, maintenance services, transportation, energy, grants, and partnerships, are needed to help the District meet its budget requirements for the current fiscal year and the immediate future. 10 Health Care Initiatives: The District's health and dental plan initiatives included increasing the deductible amounts in order to maintain and control the cost of premiums. The District bid its insurance contracts with a consortium of districts in order to maximize cost-savings. As a direct result, the District was able to control the annual rate increase to 0 percent in 2004--05 and 2005-06. Most school districts experienced a 10 percent to 13 percent increase in medical insurance costs. Buildinl! and Maintenance Savin1:s: In an effort to control maintenance costs, the School Board approved the consolidation and move of the maintenance grounds facility to Eisenhower. As a result, the District is saving about $100,000 annually. The District also established an efficient team-cleaning plan that saved more than $70,000 last year, which is the equivalent of about two full-time employees. Ener~y Mana~ement Plan: Through an aggressive energy management plan, the District is saving about $400,000 a year in electricity and other utility costs. Transportation Revisions: The District's Transportation Department negotiated new bus service contracts for its regular and special education transportation service, saving $350,000. Grants: The District has aggressively sought various grant programs, resulting in significant increases in funding for specific programs. For example, the School District received a renewal of a $300,000 national grant for its participation in the Reduce the Use program. In October 2004, the United States Department of Education awarded $548,294 in federal funds to the Hopkins School District through the Carol M. White Physical Education Program discretionary grant. The purpose of this program is to make physical education improvements and increase students' physical education achievement. Community Partnerships: The Hopkins School District has continued to increase partnership programs with various cities in order to maximize the benefits to the community and students. Some of the partnerships are the Hopkins Pavilion, Lindbergh Center, Hopkins Center for the Arts, Ronald B. Davis Community Center, and Hopkins Minnetonka Area Family Resource Center. Sharin!: of Services: With the establishment of the Joint Cities and School Board Committee, the District is meeting with local mayors and city managers to develop ongoing negotiations aimed at improving services and efficiencies throughout the District. By potentially sharing services and programs such as plowing, lawn work, mechanical repairs, and various other services, savings could potentially reach more than $50,000 a year, and immediately benefit all those involved. Special Services Cost Containment: The District's Special Services Department has developed a number of cost-containment initiatives designed to reduce out-of-district tuition expenses. Programs have been developed that are designed to provide services to students with special needs at Hopkins' schools and facilities. For example, Special Services has reduced the number of referrals to Intermediate School District 287, making more than $844,000 in tuition program cuts since 1998. Alternative Compensation: A hallmark of the recently-adopted, two-year contract with the District's teaching staff is the inclusion of a Hopkins Compensation Model (HCM). The HCM builds on an alternative compensation two-year pilot project conducted by Hopkins Education Association and District representatives. The Hopkins School District's application to participate in the state's alternative compensation program called Q-Comp was approved in early September. This means that the District will receive $260 per pupil in 2005-06, all in state aid, and $190 in state aid and $70 in levy per pupil in 2006-07, totaling $260, to implement the Hopkins Compensation Model in Hopkins Public Schools. That money could only be used to implement the District's alternative compensation program. 11 Hopkins School District 270 is the first school district in the state to be approved to participate in the state's Q-Comp program, an alternative compensation model for teachers. Hopkins' journey toward the development of the Hopkins Compensation Model (HCM) began more than five years ago, and started with teachers working on a District wide committee looking at best practices across the country that were focused on compensating teachers differently. The Hopkins Compensation Model (HCM) revises the traditional compensation system, which includes automatic yearly salary increases based on experience, and replaces it with a performance-based system. The performance-based system includes alternative career paths for teachers, salary increases that are based on meeting performance expectations, and student-performance assessments. Under HCM, teachers will receive salary increases and enhancements that will be based on proficiency as teachers, students' success, and meeting building-level, student-achievement goals. The teachers will be evaluated using the "Hopkins Framework for Effective Teachers," which is based on the effective-teachers research done by Charlotte Danielson. This framework has been used for nearly eight years to evaluate the District's non-tenured teachers. A team of "master teachers" who are well-trained in observation skills, principals, and mentors will observe teachers in the classroom multiple times throughout the year. Each school has building-level student achievement goals, which are based on data from a variety of student-achievement measures, including standardized national and state tests. While the goals are specific to each site, the overarching goal is for all students to have success in all academic areas, and for all staff working with students to be involved in their success. Printinl: Reductions: The School District undertook an in-depth analysis of its printing needs, evaluating the number of printers being used in the District, and the cost of making paper copies. The District intends to reduce the number of computer printers, encourage paperless communications via computer, Web site, etc., and reduce the number of printed copies being made. The estimated savings is between $250,000 and $500,000 annually. Athletic Business Enterprise: Only about $430,000 of the District's student activities and athletic budget is supported by the general fund. The rest of the money for the programs, more than $639,000, must come from participation fees, ticket sales, and fund-raising efforts that must reach a goal of about $180,000. In today's environment of diminishing resources, Hopkins School District is committed to providing the best programs and services possible, and to ensuring that it is looking carefully at ways to reduce expenditures. Will the money raised from the excess operating levy renewal restore any of the programs that were trimmed in the budget-cutting process carried out the last six years? No, unfortunately. Approval of the excess operating levy increase will not restore any of the budget cuts-reductions to programs and services-that have been made over the past six years. What impact will funding decisions made by the 2005 legislature have on Hopkins School District 270? Action taken by the 2005 legislature increased funding for Hopkins School District 270 by 3 percent or $2,056,742 for 2005-06, and by an additional 3.2 percent or $2,209,654 for 2006-07. The majority of the increase will be in the general fund. There are some restrictions on how the general fund revenue increase can be spent-on gifted and talented programs and services, and staff development. Hopkins School District 270's 12 2005--06 budget, which was approved by the Hopkins School Board in June 2005, includes a projected increase in state aid of $702,962. There is an increase in revenue for alternative teacher compensation. The Hopkins School District's application to participate in Q-Comp, an alternative compensation program, was approved in early September. The District will receive $260 per pupil in 2005--06, all in state aid, and $190 in state aid and $70 in levy per pupil in 2006--07, totaling $260, to implement the Hopkins Compensation Model in Hopkins Public Schools. That money can only be used to implement the District's alternative compensation program. Another potential increase in revenue is through referendum cap relief of up to $200 per student. The November 2005 excess operating levy renewal request includes using a portion of the $200 per-pupil increase-about $31 per pupil in additional funding each year, beginning with taxes payable 2008-to address the District's ongoing excess levy inflationary needs, which will help provide the District with some financial stability. The most that would be used is a projected $132 in 2013. Does the additional funding from the state help Hopkins Public Schools? Absolutely, particularly after six consecutive years of budget reductions totaling $18.2 million, and three consecutive years of no increases in funding from the state. Does the additional funding mean that Hopkins School District 270 will be able to restore programs? No, the increase in funding does not mean that the Hopkins School District will be able to restore any of the programs and services reduced or eliminated over the past six years. Is the Hopkins School District OK financially? Due to the increase in state funding, the District may not have to look at budget cuts for a couple of years. This analysis is based on some assumptions: that there are no major catastrophic events, which would have a significant negative impact on the economy; that the School District would not be capable of adding new programs and services; and that the state would provide an inflationary funding increase in fiscal year 2008. Funds Wha 005 E-12 Education Bill Does cation Bill Specific impact on Hopkins School District 270 General fund Increases basic funding formula by The formula would have had to 2005-06 4%-$182 per student for 2005-06, and increase by $332 for 2005-06 and 3% increase in funding $191 per student for 2006-07. $208 for 2006-07 to keep pace with $2,056,742 inflation. 2006-07 3.2% increase in funding $2,209,654 Special Education Increases special education excess cost Does not erase the significant Amounts to $286,429 for aid by $23 million over the biennium. cross-subsidization of special 2005-06, and $275,941 for education programs with general 2006-07. education revenue. Early Childhood Increases early childhood family This is less than the $18 million in the Amounts to $24,608 for education funding by $5.5 million. original House bill, and $35 million in 2005-06, and $24,608 for the original Senate bill. 2006-07. 13 How and on what does Hopkins School District 270 spend its general fund money? Hopkins School District 270 spends most of its money, 84 percent, on where it matters most - student instruction, including teachers, curriculum, materials, supplies, testing, and teacher training. Use of Funds o Allocated for Student Services (Teaching & Learning) II Capital Investment II Community Service I!!l Debt Service What are the District's administrative costs? Hopkins School District 270's administrative costs are about 5 percent. 14 How does the Hopkins School District compare to other school districts in general fund expenditures per student? The general fund includes teacher, administrator, and other staff salaries and fringe benefits as well as all operations and maintenance activities, transportation, and capital expenditures. FiscalVear 2004 General Fund Expenditures Per-Pupil unit LOUIS PARK 9354 HOPKINS 8307 EDINA 9000 10000 ROBBINSDALE BURNSVIl...LE BLOOMINGTON MINNETONKA WAYZATA EDENPRAIRIE ORONO What are the components of Hopkins School District 270's athletic program? How is the athletic program funded? The athletics program in the Hopkins School District is composed of 30 varsity programs at Hopkins High School and six adapted athletic programs that are operated in cooperation with the Robbinsdale and MoundlWestonka school districts. Each program has multiple levels of development such as junior varsity, B-Squad, and/or freshman teams. There are also programs at each of the two junior high schools for 7th and 8th graders in 14 different activities. In all, there are more than 2,400 participants in the athletic programs in the three secondary schools. The Hopkins Royals have a very strong tradition of excellence in athletics. Teams have won 54 state championships since 1944, and have won 13 of those state championships since 2000. There is a strong level of commitment and passion for the athletic programs in the Hopkins community. The Athletic Department is attempting to become more self-sufficient in terms of funding for the operation of the programs, and recently hired a full-time person to work on fund-raising and development. 15 The current budget for athletics is $1.1 million. That budget includes salaries for staff, coaches, equipment manager, athletic trainer and officials; transportation; intramural athletics; equipment and uniforms; entry fees; equipment and supplies for the sports medicine program; and participation in state events. The District currently provides $450,000 from its general fund for athletics. The participation fees paid by those involved in the programs are expected to generate $350,000 for 2005-06. Another $75,000 is expected to come from ticket sales at athletic events. The remaining $225,000 is projected to come through an annual fund-raising campaign. What are the Hopkins School District's different funds, and what are they used for? General Fund: The general fund includes teacher, administrator, and other staff salaries and fringe benefits as well as all operations and maintenance activities. Since salaries and benefits make up more than 80 percent of the District's expenditures, the general fund is the major operating fund for the School District. Projected revenues for the general fund, which primarily come through the state's per-pupil aid and the District's excess operating levy, are $79.846 million for 2005-06. Expenditures are budgeted at $79.174 million, which should result in a projected fund balance of $101,000 by the end of the fiscal year. The general fund also includes transportation and capital expenditures. The transportation budget is $3.853 million for 2005-06. Transportation activities, many of which are mandated by state law, include: o All regular transportation between home and school for students living farther than 1 mile away o Transportation for students who may live one mile from the school but live near or along hazardous roads or streets o Noon kindergarten transportation o Late activity bus transportation o Transportation between schools o Special services transportation o Transportation for the West Metro Education Program and The Choice is Yours Program o Transportation of private school students Capital expenditures include health and safety, disabled accessibility, facilities and equipment, and capital project levy (formerly called the down payment levy for curriculum and technology). The 2005-06 budgeted expenditures are $5.832 million, with most of the revenue for the fund coming from levies that must be used for their designated purposes. o Health and safety revenue can only be used to correct safety hazards o Disabled accessibility revenue can only be used to eliminate barriers at District facilities for people with disabilities o Capital project levy (down payment levy) can only be used for curriculum and technology o Deferred maintenance: With recent additions to school district buildings, the Hopkins School District now qualifies for the state's Alternative Facilities Bonding & Levy Program. This means that the Hopkins School District can use general obligation bonds to cover the costs of specific deferred maintenance projects. Food Service Fund: The food service fund pays for all food service operations, including lunches, milk, and snacks. This is a stand-alone, fee-supported fund, which is not supported by revenue from the state or taxpayer dollars. It is a fee-based fund. Hopkins School District 270's food service program, Royal Cuisine, emphasizes nutrition and health education. Royal Cuisine is a comprehensive, full-service culinary department delivering the national school lunch and breakfast program to students, and providing healthy lunch and a la carte options. It provides hands-on experience to students in nutrition, culinary arts, business, marketing, and hospitality education. It also provides culinary and business services to the District and community through multiple venues 16 and options. Expenditures for this fund are budgeted at $4.329 million, and revenues are projected at $4.366 million. Community Service Fund: Community Education programs and services are designed to meet the needs of all segments of the community, preschoolers through senior citizens. It includes education services as well as recreation, cultural and civic affairs, social services, and neighborhood and community issues. It also includes Kids & Company, the School District's in-school child care program, and early childhood health screening. Funding for Community Education comes through levy authority from the state amounting to $5.25 per person, some state funding for early childhood education, and fees, permits, leases, and facility use and rental. The Community Service Fund expenditure budget for 2005-06 is $7.44 million. Debt Redemption Fund: The debt redemption fund pays for the District's bonded indebtedness such as the 2001 capital bond. When a bond issue is sold, the School District must levy a general tax upon the District's property owners to repay the principle and interest on the bonds. Budgeted expenditures in 2005-06 for this fund are $8.8 million. Trust Fund: The trust fund includes District scholarship programs, endowments, and gifts. This is a small account with budgeted expenditures of $22,450 in 2005-06. Building Construction Fund: This fund exists when building construction has been authorized by a bond issue, i.e., the $59.768 million capital bond that was approved by residents in 2001. Once all of the building projects are completed, this fund ceases to exist. What impact does open enrollment have on Hopkins School District 270's budget? Students are the heart and soul of any school district. They are the reason schools and school staff exist. To provide students with the highest quality and most appropriate education, school districts need resources. Under current funding formulas, the lion's share of that funding is directly tied to student enrollment. In other words, more students mean more money. And more money enables a district to hire more staff, provide more classroom resources, and target efforts to individual student needs. Hopkins, like many school districts, is currently in its fifth year of slight enrollment decline-a trend projected to continue well into the future. While many factors related to enrollment are beyond the School District's control (i.e., birth rate, housing availability, etc.), there are measures that it is taking to encourage increased enrollment. Hopkins School District 270 is being proactive and vocal in communicating its messages and offerings to families, and providing families with the information needed to make good decisions on behalf of their children. Hopkins School District 270 is doing everything it can to ensure that it is providing the services families need and want, in addition to retaining current students. Currently, open enrollment is keeping Hopkins' student enrollment stable. Parents of open-enrolled students traditionally have been a strong and active group in the School District, both at the school and District levels. Hopkins Public Schools is a popular choice for parents considering where to send their children. In 2004-05, the School District had 1,138 students open enroll into its schools, and 501 resident students open enroll into other school districts or schools. One component of the District's open enrollment is The Choice is Yours (TCIY) program, which is a state-funded program that provides access to open enrollment options in suburban school districts for low-income Minneapolis families. Participating suburban districts include Columbia Heights, Edina, Hopkins, Richfield, Robbinsdale, St. Anthony, St. Louis Park, and Wayzata-all members ofthe West Metro Education Program (WMEP), a voluntary school integration consortium. Minneapolis students who are eligible to receive free or reduced-price lunch may participate in the TCIY program, which provides bus transportation to and from their suburban schools. The program operates under the auspices of the state's open enrollment law. Hopkins School District receives state per-pupil funding for each enrolled TCIY student. As well, TCIY transportation 17 costs are reimbursed by the state. The District also receives state integration revenue (about $750,000 in 2005-06) as a result of its participation in the West Metro Education Program and The Choice is Yours program. For 2005-06, District 270 will have about 225 students from Minneapolis attending Hopkins Public Schools as TCIY program participants. About 1,198 students are projected to open enroll into Hopkins schools in 2005-06, an increase of 61 students over 2004-05. Open enrollment has stabilized the District's overall enrollment for 2005-06. What did a recent state auditor's report reveal about school district financial trends? The following information was published in the July 2005 AMSD Connections, a news and updates newsletter published by the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, and is reprinted with permission. Hopkins School District 270 is a member of this organization. In June 2005, the Minnesota state auditor released a report summarizing school district financial trends between 2000 and 2004. The report is titled The Financial Trends of Minnesota School Districts and Charter Schools. The complete report can be found at www.osa.state.mn.us/default.aspx?page=rptGid04SchoolDistrict. Some key findings in the report include: Changing demographics, particularly increases in the number of students receiving special education services, pose challenges for school districts The property wealth of a school district has little correlation with its general fund revenues School districts spend the majority of their revenues on classroom instruction while the percent of expenditures on administration has decreased According to the state auditor's report, between 2000 and 2004, total enrollment for public schools declined 1.4 percent. During this same period, the number of students receiving special education services, increased 6 percent. The report highlights the fact that school districts are being asked to do more with less. The report notes, "When the number of special education students or the costs involved is growing, funding could be less than what is needed." The analysis found that between 2000 and 2004, both increased. The number of students receiving special education services increased by 6 percent and per pupil spending on special education grew by 31 percent. The state auditor's report shows that Minnesota has nearly erased funding disparities between property poor and property wealthy districts. The report states, without equivocation, that the property wealth of districts has very little correlation with the general fund revenues of the district. According to the report, "If the goal was to limit the importance of property wealth in education funding, Minnesota has accomplished it." In addition, property tax revenues for education have decreased significantly over the past five years. Between 2000 and 2004, property tax revenues per pupil declined from $2,164 to $1,395. This represents a decrease of 36 percent. The state auditor's report notes that the vast majority of school funding goes directly to classroom instruction. According to the report, expenditures on instruction accounted for 70 percent of operating expenditures statewide. In addition, the portion of expenditures spent on instruction has increased since 2000. Also, a group of west metro business people and parents found that the school districts they surveyed used around 95 percent of their general fund for teaching, learning, and transportation. At the same time that instruction expenditures have increased, the administrative cost portion of expenditures declined from 8.5 percent in 2000 to 7.9 percent in 2004. The state auditor's report highlights the consequences of the severe cuts in education that have taken place in recent years. In 2000, the average number of students per teacher was 15.4. By 2004, that ratio had increased to 16.2. While overall enrollment declined by 1 percent between 2000 and 2004, the number of teachers fell by 6 percent. The report explains that proportionally more teachers are laid off as enrollment falls because "districts that experience declining enrollment often are not able to reduce expenditures at the same rate resulting in an increasing per pupil expenditure." School boards were not only forced to layoff teachers and other staff, they were forced to exercise extreme fiscal restraint in negotiating contract settlements. The average teacher salary in Minnesota did not keep pace with inflation during the period from 2000 to 2004. 18 Tax Impact Will support of the excess operating levy renewal result in Hopkins School District 270's taxes being unusually high? Taxes in the Hopkins School District traditionally have been among the lowest in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The District's tax rate currently ranks in the middle of six surrounding school districts-Edina, St. Louis Park, Robbinsdale, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie. Even with the passage of the excess operating levy renewal, the District's tax rate would still rank in the middle. In recent years, the District's portion of residents' tax bills has actually decreased. The projected tax impact for the excess operating levy renewal and inflationary increase is $23 a year on a home valued at $175,000; $33 a year on a home valued at $250,000; $40 a year on a home valued at $300,000; $53 a year on a home valued at $400,000; and $67 a year on a home valued at $500,000. The following chart shows how Hopkins School District 270 compares on the amount of school district taxes an owner of a home valued on $275,000-the average in the Hopkins School District-pays. Hopkins School District No. 270 Total School Taxes, Payable 2005, on a $275,000 Home* Robbinsdale 1,301 Minnetonka 1,171 st. Louis Park 1,091 Edina 997 Hopkins Eden Prairie Burnsville Wayzata Bloomington Orono 582 $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 School Property Taxes Payable in 2005 * The above figures do not include the impact of the homestead credit, which will decrease the school portion of property taxes by varying amounts. 19 Have my school district taxes gone down in recent years? Yes. School District taxes for most property owners have gone down in recent years. Part of the decrease is due to the shift in how the state pays for public schools, from property taxes to other less-stable forms of tax revenue. Hopkins School District 270 is also experiencing some growth in property development, which has lessened or stabilized the tax burden for more property owners. Hopkins School District No. 270 Estimated Changes in School Property Taxes, 2001 to 2005 Based on 8.0% Annual Increases in Property Value Example 1: Residential Homestead Property Example 2: Residential Homestead Property $1,200 r-- - - I- - $1,064 $793 c- $852 - $815 $660 c- - - $700 .. $600 :l as $500 I- ~ $400 .. c. e $300 $563 $538 $578 $552 Jl. '0 $200 $449 0 .<: '" $100 VI $0 Year Taxes Paid 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Taxable Market Value $128,830 $138.921 $150,034 $162,037 $175,000 Example 3: Residential Homestead Property " $1.000 .. " .. ... $800 ~ .. e $600 ll. g $400 .<: " III $200 $0 Vear Taxes Paid Taxable Market Value 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 $183,757 $198,458 $214,335 $231,481 $250,000 Example 4: Residential Homestead Property $1,800 l:l $1 ,600 " $2,500 ~ $1 ,400 .. ~$1,200 a $2,000 ~ .. $1,000 1,73 ~ $1,500 $2.737 c. $800 0 0 Ii D: $600 $942 - 1,13 1,21 1,16 '0 $1,000 $1,757 "0 0 $1,640 $1,676 $400 .<: $1,364 0 " $500 .<: $200 III '" VI $0 $0 Year Taxes Paid 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Taxes Paid 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Taxable Market Value $257,260 $277,841 $300.069 $324,074 $350,000 Taxable Market Value $367,515 $396,916 $428,669 $462,963 $SOO,OOO 20 Hopkins School District No. 270 Estimated Changes in School Property Taxes, 2001 to 2005 Based on 8.0% Annual Increases In Property Value Taxable Actual Taxable Actual Taxable Actual Taxable Actual Taxable Actual Change Market Taxes Market Taxes Market Taxes Market Taxes Market Taxes in Taxes Value for Payable Value for Payable Value for Payable Value for Payable Value for Payable 2001 to Type of Property 2001 Taxes in 200f 2002 Taxes in 2002. 2003 Taxes in 2003+ 2004 Taxes in 2004. 2005 Taxes in 2005. 2005 $110,254 $423 $119,075 $379 $128,601 $453 $138,889 $486 $150,000 $465 $42 128,630 563 138.921 449 150,034 538 162,037 578 175,000 552 -11 Residential 147,006 730 158,766 520 171,468 623 185,185 669 200,000 640 -90 Homestead 183,757 1,064 198.458 660 214,335 793 231,481 852 250,000 815 -249 202,133 1,232 218,304 731 235,768 878 254,630 943 275,000 902 -330 220,509 1,399 238.150 801 257,202 963 277.778 1.034 300,000 989 -410 257,260 1,734 277,841 942 300,069 1.133 324,074 1.217 350,000 1,164 -570 294,012 2,068 317,533 1,083 342,936 1,302 370.370 1,399 400,000 1,339 -729 330,763 2,403 357,225 1,223 385,802 1,472 416,667 1,582 450,000 1,508 .895 367,515 2,737 396,916 1,364 428,669 1,640 462,963 1,757 500,000 1,676 -1,061 Apartments $294,012 $3,652 $317,533 $1.475 $342,936 $1,665 $370,370 $1,611 $400,000 $1,532 -$2,120 (4 or more units) 441,018 5,478 476,299 2,212 514.403 2.497 555,556 2.417 600,000 2,299 -3,179 588,024 7.303 635,066 2,949 685,871 3,330 740,741 3,223 800,000 3,065 -4,238 735,030 9,129 793,832 3,687 857,339 4,162 925,926 4.028 1.000,000 3.831 -5,298 Tax Rates Tax Capacity Rate Referendum Market Value Rate 44,220 0,18074 15.034 0,19380 20,588 0,17666 22,203 0,15754 19.176 0,14342 + Figures above for taxes payable in 2002 through 2005 are for property in the City of Hopkins. Since the portion of the homestead credit deducted from school district taxes varies across municipalities, school taxes payable in 2002 through 2005 may be slightly different than shown above for homestead property in other portions of the school district. General Notes 1. The figures in the table are based on school district taxes only, and do not include tax levies for the city or township, county, state, or other taxing jurisdictions. 2. For all examples of properties, taxes for 2002 through 2005 are based on an increase in the taxable market value of 8.00% from the prior year. 21 Impact on Student Learning How is Hopkins School District 270 accountable to the community? Hopkins School District 270 is accountable to the community on many different levels, including: Sharing information on its budget o Inviting residents and business people to provide input into its budget o Working on the development of an easier-ta-understand budget reporting system Engaging residents and business people on site, department, program, and School District advisory committees Providing information to the community about student achievement Engaging the community in seeking solutions to problems and issues facing Hopkins Public Schools and its families and communities What impact will the excess operating levy renewal have on student achievement? The greatest accountability indicator for any school district is the impact of its education program on student learning. Hopkins students continue to show high student achievement. In 2004-05, the School District examined how its learners in the middle are doing. This analysis clearly showed that the District's student population is skewed toward high achievers. When removing the lowest- and highest-achieving students from the population in the analysis, the remaining learners in the middle continue to show high achievement on the state's Basic Skills Tests, Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments, and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. For those middle learners, the achievement gap among students of color and socioeconomic status is narrower. The District's Advanced Placement (AP) program continues to grow with close to 800 AP exams administered in 2005, the third largest number of students taking AP exams in Minnesota. The District's AP success is attributed to a rigorous and articulated curriculum that challenges students in their pursuits and achievements in Hopkins. The District continues to develop its vision of providing data to aid instruction at all levels. District teachers soon will be provided data that will allow them to adjust instruction and curriculum to ensure that all students are achieving in all curricular areas. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, an informed assessment plan will motivate the District to provide just-in-time assessments to elementary teachers in reading, mathematics, and writing. Science assessments will follow close behind. Teachers and administrators are using data to evaluate intervention programs targeted at increasing student achievement at every school. Several programs continue to successfully launch low-achieving students toward their fullest potential in school. The 2nd-grade initiative at Katherine Curren, Eisenhower, and L.H. Tanglen elementary schools is working with identified students who need additional support in math and reading achievement. Read 180 is used at the intermediate grades, junior, and senior high schools for students lacking reading skills. Read 180 is accelerating students, especially students of color, into successful mainstream programs. At Hopkins North Junior High and Hopkins High School, math and reading classes have been established for students with limited formal schooling. Intervention programs have been established to support 7th- and 8th-grade students in reading and writing. The secondary schools also provide several programs to support students in achieving basic skills. Hopkins High School has sheltered basic skills classes in mathematics, writing, and reading. It also offers programs through the Academy for Student Excellence and additional learning time, called 5th Block. At the junior high schools, Zooming to Success, a program for incoming 7th graders, is designed to accelerate students struggling to learn basic skills. 22 What defines the Hopkins School District as a school district of excellence? The Hopkins School District has a well-established tradition of educational excellence and community commitment to high expectations and support. National awards have been earned by a variety of programs, including art, writing, community service, and technology applications. Every year, students receive numerous national honors in areas such as music, writing, visual arts, creative problem solving, video production, business education, mathematics, and other subjects. Hopkins students also consistently outperform their counterparts in the region, state, and nation on standardized tests. The District annually is a state leader in the number of students honored in National Merit Scholarship competitions, and in the number of Advanced Placement scholars. District staff members have received numerous state and national awards, honors, and accolades for their accomplishments and contributions to their particular fields of expertise and to the field of education in general. At the elementary level, specialists support the basic education program in physical education, art, vocal music, orchestra, band, media, computer applications, and gifted services. The junior high schools use an alternating--day block schedule designed to meet the unique needs of middle-level learners and enhance learning opportunities with 88-minute class periods. The program is broad, exploratory, and experiential in nature. The senior high school offers an extensive array of electives in a four-period day. Accelerated, Honors, and Advanced Placement classes, Independent Study, and alternative high school programs provide additional flexibility. Approximately 85 percent of Hopkins High School students continue their educational careers after graduating from high school. The Hopkins School District also offers educational opportunities that are designed to meet the needs of its youngest learners. Early Childhood Family Education (ECFE) offers programming for children ages birth to kindergarten and their parents. ECFE supports the important role that the family has in the development of the child. The District offers two preschools. Kaleidoscope Preschool is a fee-based preschool program for children ages 3-5. Classes are designed to enhance the development of the whole child through guided discovery learning opportunities. Stepping Stones is an all--day, year-round program for 4 year olds. It promotes school readiness and is designed to help prepare children for kindergarten. Hopkins offers a nationally accredited extended--day program - Kids & Company - in each of its seven elementary schools. Kids & Company's daily programs enhance literacy and language development. Kids & Company's Extended Kindergarten, a half--day service for kindergarten students, offers a holistic approach to learning. There are opportunities for students to develop skills, including practicing letters, writing their names, color, number, and shape recognition, and counting. The Hopkins School District's comprehensive network of advisory committees provides for community input into each curriculum area and into nearly every facet of District operations. Extensive parent involvement has a strong tradition in Hopkins Public Schools. Through its Community Education Department, District 270 provides fall, winter, and spring sessions of lifelong learning opportunities for people of all ages, interests, and abilities. Programs include youth programs, adult enrichment classes, adult continuing education classes, basic skills and English classes for adults, diploma classes, and parent-education opportunities. In addition, cooperative planning provides programs for seniors at the Hopkins Activity Center and the Minnetonka Community Center. Royal Cuisine continues to be a comprehensive, full-service culinary department delivering the national school lunch and breakfast program to students, and providing healthy lunch and a la carte options. It has become a local leader and role model for other school districts. Royal Cuisine's priority is to reverse the trend of poor eating habits by offering District 270's students quality, and nutritionally-sound, food options. And there's more: A Challenge coordinator in each school helps provide services for gifted and talented students. 23 A child-study team of specialists provides special education services. All students with handicaps, except those with the most severe disabilities, are served in the regular school setting. All schools have computer centers with regular use beginning in kindergarten. There are nurses, counselors, and social workers available in each school. The secondary schools have technology labs where students study applications like biotechnology, robotics, meteorology, digital imaging, and telecommunications. A variety of athletic and academic extracurricular activities are available to students at all levels. What are the Hopkins School District's class sizes? One ofthe District's top priorities has been to maintain lower class sizes. One way that the District does this at the elementary level has been through the use of Learning Resource Teachers, who are second licensed teachers in the kindergarten and primary grades. However, due to its continuing need to make budget reductions, class sizes have gradually increased, particularly at the secondary level, and there have been reductions in the amount of Learning Resource Teacher time. In 2004-05 the average class size at the elementary level was 25 students, while the student-to-teacher ratio was 12: 1. The average class size at the secondary level was 26 students. Currently, for 2005-06, the average class size at the elementary level is 25 students. The student-to-teacher ratio at the kindergarten through 4th-grade levels is about 14: 1. How has Hopkins School District 270 changed in the past 10 years? The Hopkins School District is a place of dynamic change. District 270's school community is more diverse than ever before-racially, culturally, linguistically, and economically. This change is not unique to Hopkins; it is occurring to greater and lesser degrees throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area and in rural communities across Minnesota. State and metro population forecasts show a continuing, even accelerated, rate of demographic change well into the future. The charts below show how District 270's K-12 enrollments have changed over the past 14 years in three demographic areas: English Language Learners (ELLs)-more than 38 different languages are spoken in District 270; free and reduced-price lunch participation, as an indicator of poverty and a factor in increased student mobility; and race/ethnicity (students of color). While these three areas do not paint the complete picture of the Hopkins School District, they do reflect the areas in which the District has seen, and will continue to see, the most dramatic growth and change. As well, they provide a lens through which to view the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead as District 270 strives to eliminate historic racial achievement gaps and ensure that each and every Hopkins student is prepared for success in the 21st century. nt Demographics-Di ment) 1990-91 1995-96 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 English Language Learners 2% 2% 7% 6% 7% Free/Reduced-Price Lunch 9% 10% 17% 16% 18% Students of Color 6% 9% 20% 21% 23% 24 Selected Student Demographics-Elementary 1990-91 1995~96 2002~03 2003'04 2004.05 (% total enrollment) English Language Learners 1% 2% 9% 9% 9% Free/Reduced-Price Lunch NA 13% 16% 18% 20% Students of Color 6% 9% 22% 22% 24% ~el~cted~t@ent Demographics-Secondary 1990-91 1995-96 2002.03 2003-04 2004-05 (% tCltalenrollment) English Language Learners 2% 2% 5% 4% 5% Free/Reduced-Price Lunch NA 8% 14% 14% 18% Students of Color 6% 9% 19% 21% 23% 25 Community Support How has the Hopkins School District tried to gauge the level of community support for the excess operating levy renewal? The Hopkins School District has a long history of extensive community participation and input into School District operations and decisions through an elaborate network of citizen advisory committees, periodic surveys, and other means. Most recently, Decision Resources, Ltd., a Minneapolis-based research firm, conducted a comprehensive community survey. That survey, completed in June 2005, provides important information about the high level of support for District 270's schools, the quality of District programs and teachers, and confidence in the District's fiscal management. What do residents think about Hopkins Public Schools? Decision Resources, Ltd., contacted 400 randomly selected households in the Hopkins School District. Residents were interviewed by telephone between May 18-31,2005. The average interview took 26 minutes. The results of this sample may be projected to the universe of all adult residents of the Hopkins School District within :t 5.0 percent in 95 out of 100 cases. District Demographics The typical adult resident of the School District lived there for 13.8 years. Twenty-three percent resided in the Hopkins School District for less than 5 years, while 14 percent lived there for more than 30 years. Similarly, the typical adult resident is 50 years old; 15 percent report ages of less than 35 years old, and 18 percent are at least 65 years old. Women outnumber men by four percent in the sample. Twenty-nine percent of the households in the District contain Hopkins Public School students. Only 3 percent send their children to other public, parochial, or private schools. Twelve percent report the presence of preschoolers in their households. Thirty-seven percent report their children graduated from Hopkins High School; 11 percent, themselves, graduated from one of the high schools. Only 11 percent have high school or less formal education. Twenty-three percent took some post-secondary education, while 65 percent are at least college graduates. Twenty-one percent rent their present residences. The typical property owner reports a residential property value of $279,000. Twenty-seven percent post property values under $250,000, while 14 percent indicate property values more than $400,000. Thirty-four percent live in the city of Hopkins, 42 percent in Minnetonka, 16 percent in Golden Valley, and 9 percent in the remainder of the School District. Eighty-eight percent have access to the Internet at their home or their place of work. Findings Thoughts about School District At 23 percent, "high quality education" leads the list of the first thought that comes to mind about Hopkins Public Schools. "Good education," at 17 percent, and "excellence," at 15 percent, rank second. "Good academic preparation" follows at 12 percent. Five percent cite "good teachers," while four percent each point to "poor past spending" and "good reputation." In considering aspects of the School District that sets Hopkins Public Schools apart from other school districts, "good teachers," at 16 percent, tops the response list. Seven percent cite "excellence in academics," while 6 percent point to "high quality education." Five percent talk about the School District being "well-funded," and four percent each mention "strong community support," "success in sports," and "broad curriculum." But, 25 percent could think of "nothing" that differentiates the Hopkins School District from others.R 26 When asked to identify the most serious issue facing the Hopkins Public Schools, a very large 60 percent point to "lack of funding." Five percent each mention "drugs and alcohol in the schools," "lack of discipline in the schools," and "large class sizes." Quality of Education A very solid 87 percent rate the quality of education provided by the Hopkins Public Schools as either "excellent" or "good," while only 3 percent see it as "only fair" or "poor." Ten percent have no opinion. In fact, a very high 65 percent rate the quality of education as "excellent." Suggestions to improve the quality of education include "smaller class sizes," by 19 percent, "focus on curriculum basics," by 10 percent, and "recruit better teachers," also mentioned by 10 percent. Compared with three years ago, 43 percent report the quality of Hopkins Public Schools is "about the same." Eleven percent feel it is "better," while only 13 percent see it as "worse." A large 33 percent, though, are unable to respond to this question. Thirty-seven percent think the most important indicator of a high quality school district is a "broad curriculum serving all students, whether they are college-bound, vocational-training bound, or employment-bound." Further behind, 22 percent similarly regard the "percentage of high school graduates going on for further education." Ten percent point to "student scores on standardized tests." Nine percent opt for "reasonable class sizes." In evaluating the Hopkins Public Schools on the indicator of choice, 68 percent rate them positively, 12 percent think they are "average," and only two percent post negative evaluations. Sixty-four percent of the respondents think it is most important for the Hopkins Public Schools to be favorably compared with "high performance school districts, such as Minnetonka, Orono, Eden Prairie, and Edina." Eleven percent think is important to compare favorably with "private schools," while 6 percent want a positive comparison with "large suburban school districts, like Osseo, Mounds View, and Bloomington." In making the comparison with their selected basis, 54 percent regard the Hopkins Public Schools as "about the same," while 25 percent see them as "better" and 11 percent as "worse." By a significantly large 87 percent to 6 percent split, residents think, "our community receives a good value from its investment in local public schools." Only 7 percent are unsure. An even larger 91 percent say "I am proud of the Hopkins Public Schools and would recommend them to friends." Four percent disagree, and 6 percent are uncertain. By a 65 percent to 14 percent majority, residents believe "I get my money's worth from the Hopkins Public Schools." Twenty-two percent are uncertain. Financial Stewardship By a 56 percent to 14 percent margin, residents agree, "during the last couple of years, the Hopkins School District Board and administration have spent tax money effectively and efficiently." Thirty-one percent post no opinion. By an even larger 63 percent to 17 percent split, residents also think "when the Hopkins Public Schools ask voters to approve a property tax increase, it is only as a last resort after the Administration and School Board have considered all other budget alternatives." This time 20 percent are unsure. Looking into the past, a 66 percent to 11 percent margin agrees with "the Hopkins Public School District has been honest with residents about the ways in which they spend tax money." Twenty-three percent are uncertain about this statement. Considering recent financial decisions, a 54 percent to 19 percent split agree "the budget cuts the School District has made during the past few years have done a good job of containing costs while protecting the quality of education." Twenty-eight percent indicate no opinion on this assertion. And, in fact, by a very solid 89 percent to 5 percent majority, residents believe "the high quality of the Hopkins Public Schools increases home values for the residents in this district." Only 7 percent are unsure. 27 Residents post a very favorable rating of the financial management of the School District. Sixty-one percent rate it as "excellent" or "good," while only 14 percent rate it as "only fair" or "poor." But, 25 percent are unable to post a judgment. Openness Sixty-eight percent agree, "the Hopkins Public School Board and administration does a good job of involving community leaders, parents, and interested citizens in decisions about the schools." Ten percent disagree with this point, while 24 percent are unsure. Accountability Seventy-three percent think, "the Hopkins Public Schools are held accountable enough for the quality of education provided to their students." Ten percent disagree, while 18 percent are uncertain. Similarly, by an 85 percent to an 8 percent majority, residents say "I trust the Hopkins School District Board and administration to do what is right for the children in this District." Only 7 percent are unable to respond to this statement. Past Budget Reductions Fifty-five percent attribute the budget reductions of the past few years to "decreased revenue" received by the School District. Seventeen percent believe it is primarily due to "increased spending" by the Hopkins Public Schools. Eleven percent place the responsibility on "both equally," 1 percent, "on neither," and 16 percent are simply "unsure." The most likely cause, at 41 percent, is "the state legislature did not provide enough funding for public schools." Eight percent each point to "the federal government has not adequately funded the programs it mandates" or "the superintendent and administration did not plan carefully enough." Only 2 percent feel "the School Board did not make good decisions." School Facilities Contacts or Visits Thirty-eight percent report visiting or contacting a Hopkins Public School or administration building during the past two years. Hopkins High School, at 12 percent, accounts for the most contacts. Among those contacting School District staff, very high customer service ratings are posted. Ninety-three percent rate the "courtesy of the building staff' favorably, while 90 percent similarly rate the "waiting time for staff to respond to you." Eighty-eight percent rate the "ease of finding a staff member who could help you" as either "excellent" or "good." Aspects of the School District While 42 percent rate "class sizes" in the Hopkins Public Schools as "excellent" or "good," 24 percent more critically rate them as "only fair" or "poor." Thirty-five percent are unable to provide an evaluation either way. Among critics with children in the Hopkins Public Schools, 37 percent report large class sizes caused them to seriously consider sending their children elsewhere, while 63 percent did not do so. Sixty-nine percent rate "instruction in regular academics including reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies" as either "excellent" or "good," while 6 percent rate it lower and 26 percent are uncertain. Sixty-six percent rate "music, theater, and visual arts programs" highly, while 6 percent are more critical and 28 percent, unsure. Sixty-six percent also rate "access to up-to-date computers and technology" as either "excellent" or "good," while 4 percent rate it lower and 30 percent are uncertain. Sixty-three percent view "extra-curricular athletic and academic activities" as either "excellent" or "good," while 8 percent rate them as "only fair" or "poor," and 31 percent are "unsure." Fifty-seven percent rate "educational opportunities for academically advanced students" as either "excellent" or "good," while seven percent see it as "only fair" or "poor," and 36 percent, "unsure." Forty-six percent rate "special education programs and services for students with disabilities" highly, 28 while 6 percent are more critical, and 48 percent, uncertain. Forty-five percent rate "guidance services for students" as "excellent" or "good," while 13 percent see them as "only fair" or "poor," and 44 percent are "unsure." Thirty-nine percent rate "vocational and technical programs and services for students planning to attend technical college or enter the work force immediately" highly, while 7 percent are more critical, and 54 percent are "unsure." Meeting Learning Needs Eighty-four percent think Hopkins Public Schools meet the learning needs of "all" or "most students;" in fact, a significant 35 percent think they meet the needs of "all" students. There is no consensus, however, on which group of students' needs is not being met. Job Performance Ratings A solid 53 percent rate the job performance of the Hopkins Public School District Board as either "excellent" or "good," while 12 percent think it is "only fair" or "poor." But, 36 percent hold no opinion. An almost identical 51 percent positive rating and 11 percent negative rating is given to the School District superintendent and administration. A slightly increased 40 percent are uncertain. A solid 54 percent rate the job performance of School Principals and Administrators as "excellent" or "good," while only eight percent see it as "only fair" or "poor," and 38 percent are unsure. Finally, a very solid 73 percent rate the District's teachers and instructional staff as "excellent" or "good." A small four percent rate them as "only fair" or "poor," with 24 percent unsure. Tax Climate Only 8 percent of the sample report they "would vote against almost any tax increases for the schools." A much larger 25 percent "would vote for almost any tax increases for the schools." Sixty-one percent "would vote for a tax increase under some conditions, but against it under other conditions." At the outset of any referendum campaign, supporters outnumber opponents by 17 percent. Levy Referendum Proposal Two operating levy referendum proposals were discussed with respondents. First, residents considered a proposal to revoke and renew three existing operating levies for 10 additional years. Respondents were assured there would be no increase in property taxes if the proposal was successful. By a decisive 67 percent to 12 percent margin, residents support this proposal. Twenty-two percent are undecided. The key arguments in its favor include "makes sense to vote only once in 2015," "no resulting tax increase," "clear need," and "importance of education." Opponents base their decisions on "already high property taxes," "antipathy toward combining levies," and "poor past spending practices." Next, residents were asked about an inflationary increase for its current operating levies. The tax impact for three "price points" was also mentioned. By an overwhelming 74 percent to 11 percent margin, residents also support this proposal. Only 15 percent are uncertain this time. Supporters' major reasons include "reasonable cost," at 39%; "needed," at 19 percent; "education is important," at 11 percent; "keep teachers and programs," also at 11 percent; and, "makes sense for inflation," at 6 percent. Opponents' key reasons are "taxes too high," at eight percent, and "poor past District spending," at 5 percent. If the inflationary increase is part of the proposal to revoke and renew the existing operating levies and not a separate ballot question, 68 percent say, "it makes no difference." Twelve percent are "more likely" to support the combined ballot question, while 5 percent are "less likely" to do so. C0111l1lllnity Education Programs Nineteen percent report members of their household used Community Education programs offered by the Hopkins Public Schools. This level of participation is 10 percent less than the metropolitan area suburban norm. The most popular programs include "adult enrichment education," at 39 percent; Early Childhood 29 Family Education at 23 percent; driver's education, at 12 percent; and, youth enrichment opportunities, at 11 percent. Among participants, 96 percent are "satisfied" with the programs in which they participated. Principal Source of Information Twenty-four percent regard "local newspapers" as their principal source of information about the Hopkins Public Schools. "District newsletters," at 22 percent, and the "grapevine," at 20 percent, follow. The "Star Tribune" ranks next, at 9 percent, while "School District employees" are used by 8 percent. Four percent each rely upon "mailings" or "children." Eighty-five percent are "satisfied" with the amount of information they receive from the Hopkins School District. Twelve percent think they receive "too little information," while 3 percent are unsure. Sources of Information about a Levy Referendum Proposal A very large 34 percent will look to the "School District newsletter" for information about the referendum proposal. "Articles in the local newspaper" follows just behind, at 33 percent. Eleven percent would rely upon mailings from the School District as well as voter groups. Seven percent each would rely upon "mailings from the School District and voter groups" or "talks with friends and neighbors." Finally, "District staff and teachers" would be relied upon by 5 percent of the residents. Conclusions 1. Residents of the School District view the quality of education provided by the Hopkins Public Schools very positively. The quality rating is 10 percent above the Twin Cities metropolitan area norm, and places the School District among the top three ranked. Significant percentages view the schools as a valuable asset, feel pride in the schools, and regard it as a good investment. 2. The fiscal credibility of the School District is outstanding. Strong majorities think tax money is spent effectively and efficiently, while tax increases are considered only as a last resort. Recent budget cuts are viewed as protecting the quality of education while simultaneously containing costs. In fact, the financial management ratings given to the Hopkins Public Schools is among the highest in the metropolitan area. 3. The School Board, the superintendent and administration, and school building principals and administrators are rated positively. All three ratings are above the 50 percent mark, indicative of little polarization in the School District. In fact, there appears to be three well-defined opinion groups in the School District: generally positive residents are 55 percent; generally negative residents, at 20 percent; and, those holding mixed or limited opinions, at 25 percent. Finally, teachers and instructional staff post highly positive ratings. 4. With the exception of class sizes, residents highly rate all aspects of the educational enterprise, from the core academic curriculum to fine arts, technology opportunities, special education services, extra-curricular activities, and programs for the non-college bound. The dissatisfaction with class sizes reached 24 percent, unusually high for the Hopkins Public Schools. 5. The tax climate in the School District is generally benign. The core opposition to tax increases is 8 percent, while the core supporters of a school tax increase comprise a hard core of 25 percent. But, 61 percent of the residents can be persuaded, depending on the merits of the issue. 6. Overwhelming majorities support both operating levy proposals. By a 67 percent to 12 percent margin, residents support revoking and renewing to 2015 all three existing operating levies. Twenty-two percent are uncertain. And, by a 74 percent to 11 majority, residents also support an inflationary increase for its current operating levies. Fifteen percent are unsure of their position on this proposal. If the inflationary increase is part of the proposal to revoke and renew the existing operating levies and not a separate ballot question, 68 percent report it would make no difference to them. Twelve percent are more likely to 30 support the inflationary increase, while five percent are less likely to do so. These two proposals are in excellent position for passage in the coming November election. Some General Survey Results Hopkins Public Schools received excellent approval ratings, particularly its staff and educational quality and excellence. Below is sampling of some of the questions (Q) and responses (R). Q: How would you rate the quality of education provided by Hopkins Public Schools? R: 87 percent-excellent or good Q: I am proud of our public schools and would recommend them to friends. R: 91 percent agree or strongly agree Q: During the last couple of years, Hopkins School District 270's administration and School Board have spent tax money effectively and efficiently. R: 56 percent agree or strongly agree Q: I get my money's worth from the Hopkins Public Schools. R: 65 percent agree or strongly agree Q: Our community receives a good value from its investment in local public schools. R: 87 percent agree or strongly agree Q: The high quality of the Hopkins Public Schools increases home values for residents in this District. R: 89 percent agree or strongly agree Q: The Hopkins Public Schools are held accountable enough for the quality of education provided to students. R: 73 percent agree or strongly agree Q: I trust the Hopkins School District's Board and administration to do what is right for the children in this District. R: 85 percent agree or strongly agree Q: The Hopkins School District has been honest with residents about the ways in which it spends tax money. R: 64 percent agree or strongly agree Q: How would you rate the financial management of the Hopkins School District? R: 61 percent rate it as good or excellent Q: What, if anything, is the most serious issue facing Hopkins Public Schools? R: 60 percent said a lack of funding Q: When the Hopkins Public Schools ask voters to approve a property tax increase, it is only as a last resort after the administration and School Board have considered all other budget alternatives. A: 63 percent agree or strongly agree Q: Do you think the budget reductions made over the past few years have been primarily due to decreased revenue received by the School District, or increased spending by the School District? A: 55 percent decreased revenue 11 percent increased spending Residents gave high approval ratings to District staff and leaders, including: 31 Teachers- 73 percent excellent or good (24 percent didn't know or had no response) Principals and administrators-54 percent excellent or good (38 percent didn't know or had no response) Superintendent and District Office administrators-51 percent excellent or good (40 percent didn't know or had no response) School Board-52 percent excellent or good (36 percent didn't know or had no response) Why should community residents who do not have school-aged children support this referendum? Quality schools make a quality community. Good schools are a worthwhile investment for all community residents, even if they don't have school-aged children. Today's students are the leaders and the work force of this new century. In addition, real estate agents who work in the Hopkins School District community attest to the fact that the quality of Hopkins Schools and its reputation for excellence are key factors in maintaining high property values and attracting a constant, healthy influx of new families. District 270 has always maintained a strong commitment to lifelong learning, providing extensive learning opportunities for residents of all ages, from infants to seniors. All of the District's levies, while different in nature, are related in that they focus on student learning and achievement. The levies reflect the District's commitment to equity and excellence, and its mission of instilling in each learner a passion for learning and a commitment to reach one's potential throughout life. The levies focus on helping the District maintain its fiscal integrity so it can avoid further significant program reductions and class size increases. It is true that in the Hopkins School District, as in other well-established suburban school districts, only about 25 percent of its households have school-aged children. But it is also true that, according to comprehensive community surveys, District 270's residents strongly believe in and support their schools and the quality programs being offered. District 270's residents are committed to keeping that quality intact. 32 If the Renewal Fails How will the Hopkins School District proceed if the excess operating levy renewal fails? The Hopkins School District will prepare to ask voters to support the excess operating levy renewal in the fall of 2006. The Hopkins School District also will look at possible budget reductions, totaling $12 million, which includes the following possible scenarios: Budget/Program Area Projected Reduction if excess Impact 2006-07 Budaet oDeratina lew renewal fails Senior High Instruction $9,645,331 $1,488,495 . Eliminates 23,80 teaching positions . Eliminates 286 elective and required class sections . Increases the class size average to 36.5 students . Eliminates two counselor positions increasing the student-to-counselor ratio to 700: 1 . Eliminates the four-block schedule and moves the school to a traditional six-period schedule, resulting in the elimination of most elective programs in art, business, family and consumer science, music, physical education, technology, and world languages. . Eliminates learning labs . Eliminate two supervisorv paraorofessionals Junior High Instruction $9,580,911 $1,578,583 . Limits students to taking seven classes . Eliminates 10 teaching positions resulting in average class sizes of between 34 and 36 students . Eliminates all junior high world language instruction or all junior high music instruction . Reduces staff for the Area Learning Center . Reduces supply budgets by 50% . Eliminates the school activity buses Elementary Instruction $17,735,492 $3,208,679 . Raises the class size maximum from the current 30 students per elementary classroom to a range of between 35 and 40 (more than 60 classrooms would have more than 30 students). . Eliminates 28 classroom teachers . Eliminates the Learning Resource Teacher program . Eliminates the instrumental music program . Eliminates the art oroaram Special Education Revenue $11,598,143 $1,855,703 . Raises the issue of "maintenance of effort with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 2004 Additional funding $81,596" requirement to spend one dollar more every year. (not considered . Results in a dollar-to-cfollar cut in federal money mandated by state . Results in the loss of child-study secretaries, a and federal laws) reduction in the number Special Service $388,087 coordinators, and has an impact on 30 additional employees School Board contingency $200,000 $38,000 . Reduces the flexibility for the School Board and Superintendent contingency $100,000 $16,000 superintendent to make needed budget adiustments in the absence of a fund balance. Alternative Learning Centers $1,316,603 $210,655 . Eliminates elective course options (ALCs) . Reduces summer school program support . Increases class loads Instructional Support $2,542,444 $467,120 . Reduces support provided to teachers English as a Second Language . Cuts summer school and assessment . Results in the loss of building-level leadership positions . Reduces 4.60 employees in the office of Teaching and Learning 33 . Reduces ESL teachers, District leadership positions and paraprofessionals by an additional 3-5 employees Instructional Delivery $208,179 $38,752 . Reduces professional development opoortunities Challenge $786,736 $140,252 . Reduces junior high staff . Reduces Autonomous Learning Model classes for students, various competitive opportunities within and beyond the School District, support for Challenge clusters in the regular classroom, and support for regular classroom staff with differentiation and pre-Advanced Placement strate!jies, etc. Human Resources (90%) $707,329 $126,779 . Eliminates advertising budget Equity & Integration (10%) . Eliminates recruitment budget . Eliminates or reduces department personnel. . Eliminates data system technology support Governance/Management, $1,921,979 $343,157 . Reduces or eliminates state and national Communications, Technology governance memberships . Eliminates student teacher placement services . Eliminates annual report . Eliminates leadership and data retreat activities . Reduces or eliminates support for strategic planning . Eliminates personnel in the Communications, Technology and Information Services, Superintendent's and Administrative Services offices. . Discontinues support for the information and communication needs of our community nonprofits . Eliminates or reduces professional development . Eliminates instructional services curriculum support . Reduces or disbands the Alternative Learning Centers model . Reduces access to legal professionals . Curtails data management and technology inte!jration efforts Student Athletics (District $464,129 $464,129 . Eliminates District support for athletic programs supported) . Results in the elimination of our junior high athletic programs entirely . E!iminates all intramural programs . Eliminates 76 coaching, trainer, and staff positions, . Eliminates transportation for athletes to competitions Business Services $1,519,061 $261,631 . Reduces professional/technical services by 50 percent . Eliminates all professional development and travel . Results in the outsourcing of key functions Operations & Maintenance $4,988,139 $811,805 . Results in the loss of 23 custodians . Results in extremely severe cutbacks in frequency and quality of custodial/maintenance work . Increases workloads-employees would clean three times the square footage that they clean now. . Results in charging all programs using the buildings after-school hours for costs of set-up, supervision, and cleaning . Limits after-school activities to two buildings-all others would be closed at 4 p.m. or sooner . Closes all three swimming pools . Reduces classroom cleaning to two days a week . Eliminates several specialist positions . Results in restroom and nurses offices only being cleaned every other day . Reduces interdistrict mail to once a week 34 . Closes all buildinqs for the summer months Transportation/Census $439,980 $81,657 . Reduce two buses . Eliminates after-school buses and van transport . Results in the reconsideration of bus rider fees Early Childhood Education $51,773 $51,773 . Eliminates essential assessment and curriculum development and the strategic implementation of early learning options for the youngest learners . Restricts the District's capacity to mitigate the gap in achievement from the very start of formal education Total 75,750,525 $12,000,000 total reductions $63,750,525 budget after reductions Excess Operating Levy Renewal Failure Personnel Impact Please note: With 80 percent of its general fund budget for personnel, the need to cut $12 million for its budget results in the elimination of a number of employees. Program Area Number of Employees Administration/Governance 13 employees, including administrators, and communications, technology, and suooort staff Elementary 28 teachers 35 Learnina Resource Teachers Junior High 10 teachers 8 paraprofessionals High School 23,80 teachers 8 emplovees, includina counselors and paraprofessionals Area Learning Centers (K-12) 4 teachers 3 employees, including paraprofessionals and classified staff Special Services 30 teachers 21 employees, includinq child-study secretaries and coordinators Athletics 76 coaching, training, and support staff positions All intramural athletic supervisors Teaching & Learning 3 English as a Second Language teachers 8,1 employees, including coordinators, and technology, staff development, and classified staff Early childhood 2 teachers and suocort staff Other areas Human Resources 2 employees Transportation 2 employees Business Services 3.5 employees Buildings & Grounds 23 employees Total 303.5 employees 100.8 teachers 35 Learning Resource Teachers 167.7 other employees across all areas of the School District 35 Other issues Has the Hopkins School District looked at offering formal all-day kindergarten? After a lot of research and analysis, the Hopkins School District has decided not to offer an all-day kindergarten option to parents until a funding source that provides equitable and affordable access to all students becomes available. So while it waits for a funding source, hopefully from the state, the Hopkins School District intends to review its early childhood curriculum, and its Kids & Company program curriculum and materials to ensure that they support students' academic development in reading, writing, and mathematics. As background, the state of Minnesota currently does not fund all-day kindergarten. Most school districts offering all-day kindergarten are charging parents fees for that program, and not all students participate. Recognizing that there are educational advantages to all-day kindergarten, District 270 officials are concerned that learning gaps between children will widen if all students do not participate in an all-day kindergarten program. It would cost more than $345,000 for Hopkins School District 270 to offer full-day kindergarten and maintain equitable access to that program for all families, which is money that the School District doesn't have. 36 Voting What does the ballot say? The Board of Independent School District 270 (Hopkins) has proposed to revoke its existing referendum revenue authorization of $1,366.22 per pupil and replace that authorization with a new authorization that will apply for 10 years unless otherwise revoked or reduced as provided by law. The proposed increased revenues per pupil are set forth below: Taxes Payable In Authorized Revenue Per Pupil 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $1,507.31 $1,551.52 $1,590.31 $1,630.07 $1,670.82 $1,712.59 $1,755.40 $1,799.29 $1,812.17 $1,821.54 DYES Shall the increase in the revenue proposed by the Board of Independent School District No. 270 be approved? o NO By voting "yes" on this ballot question, you are voting for a property tax increase. Where do I vote on Nov. 8, 2005? Hopkins Residents 1. Zion Lutheran Church 241 5th Avenue North 2. Living Waters Church 1002 Second Street Northeast 3. Hopkins City Hall 1010 1st Street South 4. Hopkins Activity Center 33 14th Avenue North 5. Alice Smith Elementary School 801 Minnetonka Mills Road 6. Katherine Curren Elementary School 1600 Mainstreet 7. St. Theresa Southwest 901 FeltI Court Minnetonka Residents 1A. Glen Lake Elementary School 4801 Woodridge Road 37 lB. Old Apostolic Lutheran Church 5617 Rowland Road 1 C. Cross of Glory Baptist Church 4600 Shady Oak Road lD. Faith Presbyterian Church 12007 Excelsior Boulevard IE. St. Paul's Lutheran Church 13207 Lake Street Extension IF. Minnetonka Community Church 13215 Minnetonka Drive 2A. Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard 2B. Ridgedale Hennepin County Library 12601 Ridgedale Drive 2C. Oak Knoll Lutheran Church 600 Hopkins Crossroad 2D. St. David's Episcopal Church 13000 St. David's Road 2E. Lindbergh Center 2700 Lindbergh Drive 3C. Minnetonka Community Center 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard 3F. Minnetonka Lutheran Church 16023 Minnetonka Boulevard 4F. All Saints Lutheran Church 15915 Excelsior Boulevard 4G. Glen Lake Activity Center 14350 Excelsior Boulevard Eden Prairie Residents 2. Eden Prairie Assembly of God 16591 Duck Lake Trail 8. Wooddale Church 6630 Shady Oak Road Golden Valley Residents 2. Valley Presbyterian Church 3100 Lilac Drive North 3. Meadowbrook Elementary School 5430 Glenwood Avenue 5. Southeast Fire Station 400 Turners Crossroad South 8. Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway Plymouth Residents 18. Plymouth residents of Precinct 18, Christ Memorial Church, vote here: Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway 19. Plymouth residents of Precinct 19, Wayzata East Middle School, vote here: Brookview Community Center 200 Brookview Parkway 38 Edina Residents 1A. Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 500 Blake Road South lB. Edina residents of Precinct lB, Chapel Hills Congregational Church vote here: Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 500 Blake Road South 5. Edina residents of Precinct 5, Highland School, vote here: Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church 500 Blake Road South St. Louis Park Residents 9. Aldersgate Methodist Church 3801 Wooddale Avenue 14. Westwood Lutheran Church 9001 Cedar Lake Road How do I vote by absentee ballot? You may vote by absentee ballot for the following reasons: Absence from precinct Illness or disability Religious discipline or observance of religious holiday Service as election judge in another precinct You must be an eligible voter and maintain residence at the address given on application on election day. Absentee ballot voting begins on Friday, Oct. 7, and ends on Monday, Nov. 7. Edina and Plymouth residents may vote by absentee ballot at the Hopkins School District Administrative Offices, 1001 Highway 7, or at Hopkins City Hall, 1010 1st St. S., Hopkins. All other voters should vote by absentee ballot in the respective cities where they usually vote. Applications for absentee ballots are available on most city Web sites (except Eden Prairie). Web site addresses are: · Eden Prairie: http://www.edenprairie.org · Hopkins: http://www.hopkinsmn.com · Golden Valley: http://www.ci.golden-valley.mn.us/ · Minnetonka: http://eminnetonka.coml · St. Louis Park: http://www.stlouispark.org/ Prepared and paid for by Hopkins School District 270, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins, MN 55305. This O&A is not prepared on behalf of any ballot question. 39