If Question 1 is approved, it will generate $2.9 million annually and the funds can only be spent on: 

• supporting student learning
• hiring and keeping high-quality teachers and staff 
• reducing class sizes

Our community and our task force said hiring and keeping high-quality teachers is our top priority. Ballot Question 1 states “Authorization to Hire/Retain High-Quality Teachers and Support Students.” If question 1 is approved, the district is legally obligated to hire/retain teachers to reduce class sizes. We will purchase more classroom supplies, books and learning materials to support students in the new teachers’ classrooms. We will provide additional support for students (this could be an aide or reading interventions or other supports).  

Starting with the grade levels that are most in need, the district will retain teachers and hire more teachers to lower class size.  Each spring, the district looks at enrollment projections for each grade level and sets class size targets and ranges. Presently all grade levels are at or above their targets. For example, in our 7th grade science and social studies classes, we have 36-37 students. To get to acceptable class sizes at our middle schools, we would need to hire four more teachers at each middle school. At lower grades, for example, Kindergarten, we would need to hire 5 new teachers to get class sizes down to 20. To add two teachers at every grade level to lower class sizes, it would require at least 20 teachers for grades K-8. 

It is increasingly difficult to find and hire in some hard-to-fill positions, and we are often competing with higher salaries in other districts and in private business. Currently, the fact is that Cambridge-Isanti teachers are paid the lowest in the area. Most teachers can drive 30 minutes south and make thousands of dollars more. Last year, we lost highly-qualified teachers to Anoka-Hennepin Schools and Elk River Schools (among others). 

In addition to hiring new teachers in support of student learning, we also budget $3,200 for classroom materials and instructional supplies (books, science equipment, etc)  for each additional classroom. Over the last three years, we have cut the curriculum and instruction budget 57%. So, we need to invest in our students in other ways such as designing curriculum and purchasing materials, instructional supplies and other classroom aides.  Project-Lead-The-Way (an introductory engineering program), is an example where we have kept the teacher, but cut the supply budgets in recent years; that class needs additional funds to support robotics and engineering hands-on learning kits.

It’s important to recognize that the referendum per-pupil funding is fixed and will not increase over time. Since labor costs and supply costs increase over time, the district will be conservative and only add teachers that we can sustainably afford to keep over time without creating future budget challenges. 

NOTE: This is an operating referendum, not a bond (construction) referendum; we are not funding facilities with this referendum. Facility improvements use Capital funds, Long-Term Maintenance Funding, or bonds (debt), which are different categories of school funding strictly regulated by law.

Question 2 states “Authorization to Support Vocational Technology and College Readiness.” We will be legally obligated to maintain (avoid cutting) and expand vocational and career technical classes, and we will increase opportunities to earn college credits while in high school. We will add apprenticeships and provide training and mentoring to prepare graduates for success in careers and college. Question 2 can only pass if Q 1 passes.

If question 2 is approved, we will work to hire more career technical education teachers and teachers qualified to teach college-credit courses in high schools, and develop more certification programs. (We offer welding currently, but could develop more in healthcare, computer sciences, trades, and/or human services fields). Funds would also pay for curriculum, acquiring specialized equipment or instructional materials. This plan does not include any building renovation; existing spaces at the middle and high school would be used.

After cutting $8.5 million over the last three years, we have cut all the fat and are down to the bone. We already know what the state has approved for funding for the next two years, and it will not keep pace with inflation. Last year, we had a $1.7 million deficit, and we used $700,000 in pandemic funding to maintain services to students. Without new revenue, we can expect another $1-$1.7 million in reductions. This will be the fourth year of budget cuts; we can’t trim around the edges. We need to look at significant restructuring and changes for the future. The Citizens Task Force prioritized the following: 

Schedule changes at the high school and elimination of more electives
Students currently register for 15 credits per year (60 possible credits over 4 years) with 52 credits required to graduate. Of the 52 minimum credits for graduation, 16 are electives. With additional budget cuts, electives would be reduced to up to 75%  (4-12 fewer elective credits) over the 4 years. Cuts would impact career-technical education, family and consumer science, personal finance, business, world languages, art, band, choir, physical education, and electives in English, math, science and social studies. Note that such a change will likely impact K-8 programming and schedules as well.

Who will decide what electives are cut? In part, the state, which has clearly defined requirements. A Minnesota diploma has minimum requirements in math, English, social studies, science, physical education, and fine arts. All other courses would be “market-driven” based on student enrollment choices.

Reduce academic support programs — those that provide a lifeline to students who are below grade level. Many of these federal or grant funded programs require matching funds from the district—and if district funds are eliminated grant funds are gone the next year. This includes targeted reading supports, smaller group interventions and supports, coordination and professional development of intervention/accelerated programming, and “second scoop” of academics that provide students who are below grade level additional instructional time in math and reading to accelerate their learning.

Increased facility use fees to cover utilities and increased custodial services for groups who rent or use facilities
Our youth sports teams are already struggling with fees imposed during the 2021 budget reduction process. However, fees are the only area the district has to collect additional revenue to cover costs for utilities, facility maintenance and custodial time.

Eliminate some middle school activities and increase activity fees
Some middle school activities have already been cut and combined with high school teams. More could be eliminated completely or fees would need to increase enough to cover the costs of transportation, coaches, referees, and equipment. This year First Bank and Trust of Cambridge donated $10,000 to avoid potential activity fee increases for students, and we appreciate their generosity.

Eliminate specialty choice programs and reconfigure school grade levels
Over the last two year, we eliminated the middle school year-round school (MN Center) and the year round schedule for School For All Seasons. Working with families from School For All Seasons, we were able to save the program, keep students together and continue its focus on science and the environment. However, without additional funding, this program can no longer be sustained. Consideration will also be given to reconfiguring grade levels at schools and possibly shifting some boundaries for increased efficiencies in administration, district supports, and transportation. For example K-4 schools, moving fifth graders to middle schools, shifting boundaries as more growth is occurring in the southern part of the district will all be on the table for discussion if additional cuts are needed in the future.

Two-Mile Walk Zone 
State funding is intended to pay for transportations for students who live two miles or more from school. In Cambridge-Isanti, we have historically provided transportation for students who live more than one mile from school. Without additional funding, we will begin considering a policy change to a two-mile walk zone.

Over the last three years, the district has reduced expenses by $8.5 million (on a $60 million budget). Budget reductions have resulted in larger class sizes, less individual attention for students, higher student fees, fewer teachers and staff, and reductions in critical supports for students who struggle.

No. $565 is not your cost. When voters read the referendum ballot, it will show a “per pupil” (or per student) increase. The per-pupil amount is not the cost to property owners. 

State law requires the ballot to be written as a “per-pupil” amount; schools receive funding based on per-pupil formulas, including referendum funding. Question 1 asks for $565 per pupil. Multiplying $565 (per pupil) by the number of children served will provide the school district $2.9 million. We agree, it would be easier for the ballot to ask to increase revenue by $2.9 million, but state law requires a per-pupil figure. Question 2 asks for an additional $121 per pupil, which generates about $636,000. Together the two questions will raise $3.5 million for the schools.

Sometimes, voters see the per-pupil amount and confuse it with the tax impact or cost to taxpayers. The $2.9 million and $636,000 that the district is asking for is divided among all the properties in the school district, based on property value, so the tax impact on individual properties is much less than the per-pupil amount. For example, a home valued at $200,000 will pay an additional $12 per month in property taxes if both Question 1 and Question 2 pass. We encourage property owners to check out our Tax Calculator to determine your individual cost.

Please take a look at the ballot below.

The Legislature determines how much state aid schools receive through formulas they enact in law. Cambridge-Isanti Schools doesn't qualify for some state aid categories. For example, there is state aid to cover the costs of some referendums, but we don't have a voter-approved operating referendum.

If the school district referendum is approved, we will qualify for about $500,000 in additional state aid— tax dollars that residents are already paying to the state, through income and sales tax. Those funds go to other communities right now, and if the referendum is approved, that money will come back to our community.

For the last ten years or more, Minnesota school districts have increasingly relied on local voter approved referendums to fund schools—this is according to a Department of Education School Finance Report. Most school districts collect millions of dollars from local voter-approved operating referenda. Cambridge-Isanti does not. C-I voters last approved a local operating referendum in 2004 and it expired in 2010 (during the Great Recession). So, the District has been going without a local operating referendum for more than a decade. That means going without an average of $6.1 million per year for the last 10 years. 

Up until 2010, the District had a healthy fund-balance or savings account because state funding formulas favored rural Minnesota, and the district budgeted conservatively. But after the Great Recession (from 2010-2013) the state froze education funding and the state even delayed school aid payments (forcing some districts to borrow short-term to cover payroll). So the District began deficit spending to avoid budget cuts. In essence, the District was using its savings account to pay for day-to-day expenses. This strategy can only work for a short time, eventually the savings are depleted. 

The District stopped spending from its savings in 2019 and has balanced its budget for three consecutive years by making budget cuts, totaling $8.5 million and eliminating 100 jobs. Class sizes have increased, student fees have increased, and we have lost highly qualified staff to other districts who have more stable funding and a local operating referendum.

The real problem is that the state counts on local school districts to pass local operating referendums, and C-I Schools is one district that doesn’t have one. The average operating referendum in Minnesota is $864 per student. Therefore, we receive on average $6.3 million less than other districts our size. In addition, we are leaving money on the table. If we had an operating referendum, the State would provide $500,000 in equalization aid to cover part of the cost. Those are state taxes our community is already paying (in sales and income taxes) that go to other communities because we don’t have an operating referendum. The district also receives less compensatory aid, doesn't qualify for integration aid and isn't part of the Q-comp/Alternative Teacher Professional Pay System — the latter two would require more local tax support. 

Here is an excerpt from the Department of Education School Finance Report (January 2021)

• General education basic revenue has lost 10% ($658 per student) of its buying power compared to Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjusted inflation since 2003; 
• State and local education revenue as percent of Minnesotans’ personal income has fallen from 4.4% in 2000 to 4.0% in 2021; with no inflation in the general education formula for Fiscal Year 2022 and Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, state and local education revenue as a percentage of Minnesotans’ personal income will decline further to 3.9 percent by FY 2023; as a result, total state and local revenue for preK-12 education will be $1.959 billion lower than it would be if the FY 2000 investment of 4.4 percent of personal income had been maintained; 
• Since 2000, Minnesota has fallen in states’ ranking of educational spending per pupil and the average teacher salary has fallen below the national average. 

There’s an old saying, “You get what you pay for.” Minnesota is paying less today for education than in the 20th century as a percentage of our personal income and getting–at best–uneven results 20 years into the 21st century.

The answer is private schools can’t. Private school tuition might be less, but “tuition alone does not cover the cost of a private education,” according to the school’s website. Gifts (large and small) bridge the gap between tuition and the actual cost of operating the school. Some costs, like transportation and student support services are funded through our public school district budget. With unpublished budgets, per/pupil expenses by private schools are unclear, but it is certainly higher than tuition alone. Private schools can also be selective in admissions and aren’t required to educate all students, which is the responsibility of public schools. We know that our C-I School’s general education cost per pupil is $8,225 which is significantly below the state average of $9,500. And we know that, after $8.5 million of budget reductions, we are the LOWEST spending district in the Mississippi Eight Conference and one of the lowest spending school districts in the state of Minnesota.

We agree that school funding isn’t perfect, and it’s frustrating and complicated to most people. What we do know is this: Cambridge-Isanti Schools per-student funding ranks #311 out of 327 Minnesota school districts. Most districts receive 20% of their operating budget from local property taxes, but only 10% of the Cambridge-Isanti operating budget is funded by local property taxes. We’re heavily reliant on state funding.

What we also know is that our community expects and deserves a strong educational system that provides career and college readiness for all students. We can’t do that alone. We have a long-standing tradition of partnering with parents, citizens, and business owners to provide excellent opportunities for all Bluejackets. 

Will more funding make a difference? YES. If the referendum is approved, we will hire and retain more high-quality teachers and lower class sizes. Teachers will have more time to provide indivdiual student support with fewer students in a class. We will maintain and enhance our vocational, technical education classes and expand career and college readiness opportunities. We will allow teachers, staff and leaders to focus on students and learning instead of a budget-cutting process next spring. 

Without this referendum, we will have to continue making budget cuts. That may mean more job cuts, fewer opportunities for kids, and increasing class sizes. Plus, we’re losing excellent teachers to other school districts who have more stable funding. We want our teachers to stay in the community. We want our graduates who pursue a career in teaching to teach here, in Cambridge-Isanti. This referendum won’t solve all of our state funding problems, but it will ensure we can continue to provide excellent opportunities for all of our students. We know that everyone is asking for more money, all the time, and we believe that the smartest use of dollars is to invest back in the community you live in and the children who live here. Funding your cities, your schools and keeping your businesses afloat is important—we’re all in this together. 

In our school, our community would like to have kindergarten class sizes of 18-20, which would require us to have 19 kindergarten teachers and classrooms. This year we only have 15 kindergarten classes with up to 24 students in each class. And two years ago, we eliminated kindergarten instructional assistants, so teachers do not have the additional support our students need. 

When we think about class size, think of it as a fraction of a teacher’s time and attention for each child. If we have a class of 25 students in middle school, each student should get 1/25th of that teacher's time and attention. But, now we have 36 in a class, and that fraction shrinks to 1/36th of the teacher’s time. Those 11 extra students reduce individual attention by more than 40%. Students won’t be able to get the individualized help they may need from their teachers. Additionally, classroom overcrowding increases disruptions and discipline issues, meaning the teacher may have even less time for instruction and also may not have enough space in the room for hands-on activities. A Cambridge-Isanti Schools teacher reports: “My class sizes (7th-grade science) are 34-37 and growing as kids move into the district. My budget for lab supplies is less than 1/3 of what it was when I started teaching here 17 years ago.” Cutting jobs and increasing class sizes put a strain on our teaching staff, and the District wants to retain the excellent teachers and staff we have.

We believe in a well-rounded education, and learning happens beyond the walls of the classroom. We know there are many students who come to school, not only for the math or science lesson, but the connection they have with teammates or coaches after school and the interest they have in a sport or activity. After-school activities teach students discipline, responsibility, perseverance and teamwork. They provide a sense of belonging—being part of something bigger than oneself. And activities provide students with a sense of purpose. Students learn to be accountable to their team and their coach or club advisor. Statistically, students who are involved in extracurriculars also earn better grades. In fact, of our teams/clubs and theatre groups, 22 have a 3.0 or higher cumulative group grade point average (GPA) and 14 are higher than a 3.5 team GPA.

Ask our alumni, and they will tell you that some of their most influential memories from high school were likely from co-curriculars. For example, in an interview this past December, Major General Shawn Manke, the star student in math, science and engineering, was asked what he valued most as a Cambridge-Isanti alumnus. His answer? The well-rounded opportunities he had in athletics, such as swimming and football. These programs taught him to be goal-oriented. He set goals, practiced and improved every day, and learned to be disciplined. Team sports like football provided him with a sense of belonging and camaraderie and taught him a sense of responsibility to others. 

While the basics are vitally important and the foundation of our academic day, co-curriculars help develop our students into who they will be as responsible citizens and future leaders of our community. Our community values co-curricular activities, and we want our kids involved in activities and to be well-rounded.

The school district charges participation fees to offset some of the costs of co-curriculars. In addition, this year, our local First Bank and Trust stepped up to provide a $10,000 donation so that those participation fees would not increase as part of our budget-cutting process last year. Our community values co-curricular activities and wants to ensure all students can participate.

School funding is set by the state and based on enrollment and state funding formulas, not property values. Schools do not get more money when property values increase or more homes are built.  When the total value of property increases in a school district, the set tax levy then gets divided among more property owners, so everyone’s share gets smaller. Therefore, it is a benefit to taxpayers, not the school district, to have new growth and development in the community. 

Schools are funded differently than cities and counties, and school funding is set by the legislature. Only a voter-approved referendum can increase the funding. 

Did you know that the school district portion (received by district) of taxes are less today (2021) than they were 20 years ago? Overall property taxes have increased, but the school portion of your property taxes has not.

What about assessed values increasing with the hot housing market? If everyone’s property value increases by 10%, the education funding remains constrained by state laws and funding formulas based on enrollment. So, if everyone’s property increases equally, there is no change in the amount each person pays. 

In summary, there is a limit on the amount that school districts can collect in taxes, based on the number of students in the community. If property values increase, the district is limited to setting its tax levy based on enrollment and the total tax levy remains the same amount as if values had stayed the same.

We are. We have balanced our budget each of the last three years by cutting expenses. We have cut $8.5 million, slashed our curriculum supplies budget by 57% and eliminated 100 jobs from our payroll. We are losing good teachers to districts that have more stable funding. We have 38 students in classes at the middle school and high school. With class sizes of 38, each student receives 40% less individual time and attention from a teacher than in a class of 25. 

Our school district now ranks #311 out of 327 school districts in Minnesota in per-student funding. And we spend less per pupil than any other school district in the Mississippi 8 Conference. We will have to cut another $1 million to balance the budget next year, if the referendum does not pass, and continue to do so into the foreseeable future. 

After $8.5 million in budget cuts over the last three years, we have large class sizes, fewer teachers and staff, fewer critical support systems for students, and limited career and technical learning and college credit opportunities for students.

Our district is in the bottom 7% in the state in per-student funding because we do not have a local referendum. Compared to neighboring districts, we rank LAST in per-student funding. We are losing quality teachers to districts with more stable funding. We have a revenue problem. 

An operating levy referendum is a levy for learning. It helps fund daily teaching and learning in our schools. This referendum is strictly focused on student learning, hiring and retaining high-quality teachers and staff, reducing class sizes, and supporting career and college readiness.

The resolution to hold a referendum is specifically written to be clear about how the money will be spent. Question #1 funding will be used to:

• Support student learning
• Recruit and retain high-quality teachers and staff
• Reduce class sizes

Question #2 funding, which is contingent on question 1 passing, will be used to: 

• support vocational-technical education and 
• increase opportunities for students to earn college credits
• add apprenticeships, training and mentoring opportunities to prepare graduates for success 

In January 2021, the District expanded the School Board’s Finance Committee to become a Citizens Financial Advisory Council and added community business leaders, to increase transparency, oversight and accountability.

The Board commits to continue maintaining the Citizens Financial Advisory Council over the duration of any approved referendum authorization.

In addition, the official resolution calling for the referendum specifically stated the funds will be used for student learning, hiring and keeping high-quality teachers, reducing class sizes, and enhancing career and college readiness. This language also appears in the title of the ballot question. This is a legally binding commitment by the School Board and is subject to independent financial audits.

No! The 2021 referendum is asking to hire more teachers, reduce class size and support student learning - including career and vocational-technical education. The legal language is very strict, and the board is committed to only using the new levy for learning.

There is a lot of misinformation on social media asking about a new high school or more school buildings. This is NOT a building or bond referendum; it is a levy for learning. Do you want students to have more personalized attention from teachers? Do you want kindergarteners in classes of 25 or 20? Do you want to lower class sizes in the high school from 37 or 38? We are asking for bare-bones, back to the basics funding.

Do you want our schools to offer shop classes, small motors, welding, wood working, and family and consumer science classes? None of these are required in existing state funding. If we want to offer these classes, it will require local support.

An operating levy is for learning, a bond referendum is for building. We’re asking for an operating levy — a legally separate funding stream that voters can approve to support classroom and educational programs, including day-to-day operating expenses. Operating levies pay for the things that really matter — quality staffing, quality curriculum and supplies, cleaning and safety. 

If Question 1 is approved, the funds will only be spent on supporting student learning and hiring and keeping high-quality teachers and staff. If Question 2 is approved, funds can only be used to maintain and expand vocational, technical and career classes; create more opportunities for students to earn college credits; add apprenticeships; and provide training and mentoring to prepare graduates for success in careers and college. Question 2 can only pass if Q1 passes.

If both questions are approved, property taxes would increase by approximately $12 per month on a $200,000 home. The Ehlers Tax Calculator will allow you to view your specific tax impact. Not all property types are taxed the same. 

To use the Ehlers Tax Calculator, scroll down to the third panel on the page and type in your residential or commercial property value; Ehlers will show you the tax impact.

If you are an agricultural property owner, you may see a slight decrease in property taxes if the referendum passes. Fill out the form below the Tax Calculator, and Ehlers will specifically calculate your property and send you a tax impact statement within three business days. Ehlers is an independent public finance advisor.

Only the value of the house, garage and one acre will be taxed for the school operating referendum, according to state law. The rest of your agricultural property is exempt from the proposed referendum. Seasonal recreational residential property (i.e., cabins) is also exempt and will pay no taxes for the proposed referendum.

When the Board voted to put a referendum on the ballot, they also made a commitment to reduce other tax levies to minimize the tax impact. The district will restructure and refinance some long-term bonds when the notes are callable in 2022.

Similar to refinancing a home mortgage, refinancing existing debt at a lower interest rate and stretching the payments out will lower debt service payments and therefore lower the tax rate for that debt, which makes room for some of the referendum cost.

Our Community Task Force, which has studied our budget and finances over the last eight months, met with Ehlers Public Finance Advisors and found this solution to be a win-win for the district and taxpayers.

Another benefit is to ag landowners. Agricultural land is not taxed for an operating referendum, but it is taxed on bonds payments. So when the bonds are refinanced and have lower payments, property taxes for Agricultural land will go down slightly. The district is committed to refinancing the existing debt if the referendum is approved.

No. The referendum amount is specifically $565 per student in question 1 and $121 per student for question 2; it will not change over time, unless revoked or replaced by a future vote of the electorate. The Community Task Force recommended that the ballot language be simple and clear, so there is no inflationary index.

State funding has not kept pace with inflation – in fact our general education formula has lost 10% of its buying power since 2003. Even this year when the legislature touted a 2.45% increase – that is not on pace with inflation.

Most school districts have a voter-approved referendum to fill the gap – the average referendum provides $858 per pupil — our students go without that funding. 

After cutting expenses by $8.5 million (on a $55 million budget), our class sizes are too high and students are not getting the individual attention they need. Cambridge-Isanti in the bottom 7% of per-pupil spending in Minnesota. Budget reductions have resulted in:

• Teacher layoffs and increased class sizes
• Reduced cleaning and custodial staff time (to an every other day rotation).
• Reductions in administration and delayed curriculum updates
• Eliminated innovation, instructional coaches and instructional assistant positions
• Layoffs for community education
• Increased student fees for activities

Just a few weeks ago the SEE (Schools for Equitable Funding in Education) came out with a new report and Cambridge-Isanti dropped in rankings again. Cambridge-Isanti Schools now rank #311 out of 327 in per pupil funding among all Minnesota school districts and LAST among our neighbors in the MIssissippi 8.

An operating levy referendum is a levy for learning. It helps fund day-to-day operations within our schools, which includes teachers, classroom supplies, instructional assistants, and instructional materials. We need to hire more teachers to lower class sizes and provide students the individualized attention they deserve..

The increased revenue will be used to maintain the high quality education we have come to expect, reduce class sizes, avoid more budget cuts and bring financial stability for the district.

There will be two questions (and only two questions) on the November 2 ballot. Each question has a YES or NO vote. You will fill in the oval to cast your vote.

NOTE: The ballot states the amount in terms of revenue per pupil (per student) that the district will receive. That is not the cost to taxpayers. The cost to taxpayers depends on the value and type of the property you own. For example, for a $200,000 home, the cost is $12 per month on property taxes. Agricultural and recreational/seasonal property is not taxed for an operating referendum, and if the referendum is approved, taxes on agricultural land will decrease slightly. 

Use the Ehler's Tax Calculator to determine the cost for your property.

Transportation is a challenge in our school district, with 246 square miles to cover and significant natural boundaries to navigate, like highways and the Rum River. In fall 2019 and again in October 2020 we conducted a survey of parents about transportation. We had been fielding regular complaints about students being on routes for up to two hours, and we had behavior issues stemming from the hub and transfer system that had been in place for years. In December 2020, our transportation director resigned. At that time, we reached out to CESO, a company that specializes in efficiency to direct more dollars to the classroom. We contracted with CESO for transportation management (replacing an administrator in the district). In doing so, we sought to decrease administrative costs and increase efficiency. CESO warned us to prepare for an impending driver shortage across the U.S.—a shortage we are experiencing today.

Our Community Task Force discussed the transportation difficulties in great depths. The task force concluded that the traditional single-tier system was not meeting the needs of our students and would be challenged even more to do so given the nation-wide driver shortage. We needed to prepare for the looming driving crisis and reduce ride times and behavior issues for students. At that time we also surveyed families about transportation. We outlined the pros and the cons of changing the hub and transfer system. We acknowledged that the prior hub and transfer system was economically efficient, but it was at the expense of children who had to ride the bus for up to four hours a day (2 hours each way). On May 21, 2021, we communicated the change in transportation — moving from a single-tier system to a two-tier system. 

We had the following goals for the change:

• Shorter bus rides for students
• Students riding buses with students closer in age
• Fewer routes helps with the driver shortage

There is no perfect solution for transportation. We prioritized shorter ride-times for students; many students participate in after-school activities, athletics, jobs, and help their families at home, and we feel it was important to put the kids first. Four hours a day on a bus was unacceptable to most families.

We have a bus driver shortage throughout the state and the whole country which complicates things. Had we not shifted to a two-tier busing model, we would have started this school year with an even greater driver shortage. At present, with every single eligible driver, mechanic, and office staff member driving, we do not have any room for error. If a driver can’t make a route, we have nobody to fill in. If we had maintained a single-tier system, 10-15 routes a day would have no driver. That would represent between 800-900 students who would not have transportation to school this year under the old system. This is not an isolated problem. Driver shortages are hurting every industry that relies on transportation.

There is a lot of misinformation in our community about our busing. We own our school buses, and we employ the drivers, mechanics, and office staff. We have contracted out for only routing and management of our transportation system.

We know there is a lot of frustration this year with transportation—we share in that frustration. We had a lot of changes to manage and we ultimately decided the routes were not done well and should be redone, which happened just before school started. This put added stress on our drivers and our families. We apologize for that.

In trying to save money and cut administrative costs, routing errors led to inefficient routes which we worked to improve (and continue to do so). However, the current two-tier part of the system has not increased costs. This part was a cost-neutral change.

To add to the challenges of this fall, we had more than 200 students added to routes in August (late enrollments) and experienced major road construction projects and detours that delay routes. These factors along with a transition to a new system created increased complexity and frustration for many.

We try to be as transparent as possible with all aspects of our organization, especially finances. If you have a finance question please email the Director of Finance, Chris Kampa, at ckampa@c-ischools.org to set up an appointment. We are more than happy to answer any questions, explain any decisions, and review any financial records of interest.

The Minnesota Department of Education sets formulas and guidelines for school district revenue. The only portions of revenue for which there is local control are local operating referendum funds and local fees. As a general rule, school districts can’t use funds from other designated areas (like Food Service or LTMF) to fund day-to-day school expenses.

In Minnesota, school funding is a shared responsibility among local, state and federal funding sources. Here is a short explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASSxa9Hn0m8

Cambridge-Isanti Schools receive less local, state and total revenue per student than the average Minnesota school district. Data released in August 2021 show that for the current school year, 2021-2022, Cambridge-Isanti Schools per-student funding ranks #311 out of 327 Minnesota school districts.  

On average districts receive about 20% of their operating budget from local property taxes, only 10% of the Cambridge-Isanti operating budget is funded by local property taxes. Cambridge-Isanti is more reliant on state funding as its primary source of revenue, which totals 84% of the operating budget.

The largest portion of a school district’s budget is the Operating Budget, which is funded by the state’s General Education Fund Formula. The Operating Fund provides teachers, classroom supplies, co-curricular, and utilities—all the day-to-day operations of a school. When we discuss budget reductions, the district is focusing on the operating budget.

The district has other funds (or buckets) that are strictly regulated or restricted. For example, there is the Food Service Fund, which is largely funded by the Federal Student Nutrition Program and families who pay for lunches. This fund must be self-sustaining and break even every year. Student nutrition staff, custodial services and some lunch-time supervisory staff are paid through the Food Service Fund.

Long-Term Facilities Maintenance Funds (LTFM), or building funds, are another fund that is tightly regulated and those funds can typically only be used for buildings.

Community Education (Fund 04) is outside the District’s general operating budget. Like the Food Services fund, it must be self-sustaining and receives a small local levy and fees from programs and services.

School Funding in Minnesota is complex and most people think the system is broken. The latest report from a School Finance Work Group called for changes, but the legislature could not agree on what changes to put into law. The work group reported a large disparity between top-funded districts and the bottom 10% — primarily due to locally approved operating levies in other districts. (C-I Schools falls in the bottom 7% in the state for school funding and does not have a voter-approved operating levy.)

Learn more: Legislator’s Guide to School Finance (PDF)

In Minnesota, school funding is a shared responsibility among local, state and federal funding sources. Here is a short explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASSxa9Hn0m8

Our community values local control, and school funding needs local support to prioritize things our community values — like vocational-technical courses, and career and college readiness.

Cambridge-Isanti Schools receive less local, state and total revenue per student than the average Minnesota school district. Data released in August 2021 show that for the current school year, 2021-2022, Cambridge-Isanti Schools per-student funding ranks #311 out of 327 Minnesota school districts.  

On average districts receive about 20% of their operating budget from local property taxes, only 10% of the Cambridge-Isanti operating budget is funded by local property taxes. Cambridge-Isanti is more reliant on state funding as its primary source of revenue, which totals 84% of the operating budget.

The largest portion of a school district’s budget is the Operating Budget, which is funded by the state’s General Education Fund Formula. The Operating Fund that provides teachers, classroom supplies, co-curricular, and utilities—all the day-to-day operations of a school. When we discuss budget reductions, the district is focusing on the operating budget.

The district has other funds (or buckets) that are strictly regulated or restricted. For example, there is the Food Service Fund, which is largely funded by the Federal Student Nutrition Program and families who pay for lunches. This fund must be self-sustaining and break-even every year. Student nutrition staff, custodial services and some lunch-time supervisory staff are paid through the Food Service Fund.

Long-Term Facilities Maintenance Funds (LTFM), or building funds, are another fund that is tightly regulated and those funds can typically only be used for buildings.

Community Education (Fund 04) is outside the District’s general operating budget. Like the Food Services fund, it must be self-sustaining and receives a small local levy and fees from programs and services.

The Minnesota Department of Education sets formulas and guidelines for school district revenue. The only portions of revenue for which there is local control are local operating referendum funds and local fees. As a general rule, school districts can’t use funds from other designated areas (like Food Service or LTMF) to fund day-to-day school expenses.

School Funding in Minnesota is confusing and most people think the system is broken. There is currently a Governor’s workgroup studying school finance. They have reported a large disparity between top funded districts and the bottom 10% (C-I Schools falls in the bottom 10% in the state for school funding.)

Learn more:

Legislator’s Guide to School Finance (PDF)

District voters last approved a bond referendum for $10 million in building safety and security improvements in 2013. 

District voters last approved a local operating referendum in 2004, the same year voters approved a $47.7 million bond referendum for two new schools—Isanti Intermediate School and Cambridge Middle School. The local operating referendum for $107 per pupil was for five years, 2005-2010; it specifically targeted start-up costs for two new schools being built. It has been more than 10 years since the district has asked voters to approve a local operating referendum.

The federal and state government mandated and paid for the free meals for children. The cost is being fully reimbursed to districts by the federal student nutrition program. This provides nutritious meals to students and keeps most of our nutrition services employees working.