Statutory Operating Debt (SOD) 2025-26

SOD-related School Board meeting history and archive

• Sept. 23: Business meeting / study session (Vision 2030 Team presentation and administration overview of timeline) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Oct. 6: Listening time / business meeting (Present information towards facility recommendations) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Oct. 13*: Business meeting / study session (Present information towards facility recommendations) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Oct. 20: Business meeting / study session (Present facility recommendations and SOD items) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Nov. 3: Listening time / business meeting / study session (Finalize facility recommendations and other SOD items) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Nov. 17: Business meeting / study session (Vote on facility recommendations for public hearing and SOD items) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Nov. 24*: Study session (SOD items and facility recommendations) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Dec. 1: Business meeting (Truth in Taxation public hearing; no SOD items scheduled) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Dec. 8*: Listening time / study session (SOD items and facility recommendations) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Dec. 15: Business meeting / public hearing (Board vote for facility closures and repurposing) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Dec. 22*: Special Listening Time [See the agenda | Listening Time not recorded]
• Jan. 5: Listening time / business meeting / public hearing (Board vote for additional facility closures) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Jan. 12: Study session (boundary changes, SOD draft review) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]
• Jan. 20: Business meeting / study session (Final draft SOD vote) [See the agenda | watch the meeting]

* indicates a meeting that was added to the Board's calendar for the purposes of SOD planning

What is Statutory Operating Debt (SOD)?

Statutory Operating Debt (SOD) occurs when a district’s year-end deficit exceeds 2.5% of its annual operating expenses. Because Rdale’s year-end deficit exceeded that threshold, state law now requires the district to submit a plan by Jan. 31, 2026, showing how it will eliminate the deficit and return to financial stability.

Why is Rdale in SOD?

Rdale’s deficit stems from multiple long-term financial pressures, not one single cause. Key factors include:

• Declining enrollment, which reduces per-pupil funding each year and widens the structural gap in the budget.
• The end of federal COVID relief funds, which had temporarily masked underlying financial issues during the pandemic.
• Rising costs and inflation, including contractual obligations and services that increased faster than state revenue.
• Prior errors when implementing the budget, which contributed to a shortfall when planned reductions did not occur.

Despite reducing more than $18 million over the past two years, the district’s deficit exceeds the threshold set in Minnesota law. Once a district enters SOD, the state requires a formal plan outlining how the deficit will be eliminated, which is why additional, structural changes are now necessary.

What is the current budget deficit?  

Rdale had a projected $19-21 million deficit coming into the 2025-26 school year based on the 2024-25 implementation error. Much of that was reduced via $15.8 million in cuts made before this school year began.

Here’s a brief timeline of where we’ve been and where we are now:

• In 2023-24 (two years ago), the district had projected a $17.4 million deficit for 2024-25. The School Board unanimously approved a plan to cut that amount, but only about $3.2 million was actually reduced, mostly from district administration.
• In 2024-25 (last year), the new superintendent and new chief financial officer discovered the compensatory funding implementation error. As a result of this $19-21 million deficit, the district made $15.8 million in cuts, mostly in the form of the previous year’s Board-approved cuts that hadn’t been reduced the year before. This is what caused the district to enter SOD.
• Currently in 2025-26, the district anticipates a deficit of approximately $8-9 million for 2026-27. This remaining gap is what the current SOD plan is designed to address.

Explain the $19-21 million compensatory funding implementation error

We have been transparent about what contributed to the $14.2 million shortfall in planned reductions for 2024-25. The district intended to cut $17.4 million for that school year, but only $3.2 million occurred because projected compensatory revenue—approximately $19 million—was inadvertently applied twice. There is no missing money, and the district has and continues to go through its annual, independent financial audit, as mandated by the state.

Even without the error, the district would still be confronting substantial financial challenges due to long-term enrollment trends and cost pressures.

What happens if the district does NOT reduce spending now?

Rdale does not have the option to submit an unbalanced budget, which requires a reduction in spending to eliminate its deficit. Should the Board try to submit an unbalanced plan, the plan would not be approved. SOD plans that are not approved may result in suspension of state aid per MN statutes 123B.83 until a viable Board-approved SOD plan is approved by the commissioner.

Why can’t we wait longer before closing schools or making cuts?

Minnesota law requires the school district to submit an approved plan to eliminate the deficit by Jan. 31, 2026. To meet that deadline, reductions must take effect in the 2026-27 school year, which means decisions—especially those involving schools, staffing, and transportation—must be made now so families, staff, and schools can plan for transitions.

Changes to the Jan. 5, 2026, Meeting Agenda

There was no last-minute change to the Jan. 5 meeting agenda. At its Dec. 8 meeting, the School Board voted to consider a plan to discontinue the FAIR Crystal middle school programming, transition those students to their boundaried neighborhood middle schools, and repurpose the FAIR Crystal building for elementary school. As part of that same action, the Board also approved publishing notice for consideration of closing the FAIR Pilgrim Lane building and moving its elementary magnet programming to the FAIR Crystal site. 

On Dec. 17 Board Chair Greta Evans-Becker and Vice Chair Caroline Long were part of the standard agenda setting meeting where final decisions on the Jan. 5 agenda are determined. The Board Chair, on Dec. 20, provided follow-up communication to all board members outlining the agenda, which included that action related to FAIR Crystal programming would occur prior to the FAIR Pilgrim Lane public hearing. While the initial Board packet posted on Dec. 31 included the agenda item “Continued Statutory Operating Debt (SOD) Planning/Site Consolidation,” the corresponding action item was inadvertently left off the agenda. That omission was corrected the following day, Jan. 1. The agenda update reflected what had already been discussed and documented with the Board, not a change in direction.

Why aren’t we cutting administrative positions instead of schools and programming?

We have reduced district administrative and ESC expenses (non-instructional staff) by more than 30% over the past two years, totaling $4.83 million in cuts. The SOD plan also includes an additional $500,000 in reductions to non-instructional staff moving forward.

Did the superintendent and other administrators receive raises or bonuses?

Superintendent Dr. Teri Staloch’s contract, which has been a public document since its inception, and was unanimously approved by the Board on June 24, 2024, includes a performance incentive of up to 10% of her base salary, which the Board also approved under the terms of that agreement. The only other contracts that have performance based bonuses/alternative pay, are the principals’ contract and teachers’ contract. 

The reorganization of district leadership has also been a public process at the Board table. Part of the process included a market rate analysis by an independent party, as well as an internal review of our comparative districts and internal comparables. The results of these analyses resulted in working agreement market adjustments in line with the district's past practice. The restructuring resulted in a combination of various reductions of positions as well as different positions being combined based on the leadership needs identified. Ultimately, the changes established a leadership team that resulted in an overall reduction of annual administrative cost to the district. 

Over the past decade, Rdale has experienced significant leadership instability, with six superintendents and six chief financial officers. To reduce turnover and attract and retain qualified leaders during a period of intense financial and organizational challenges, adjustments were made to ensure administrative roles remain competitive.

Were cuts to administration backfilled and administration expanded?

The district has reduced administrative and Education Service Center (ESC) positions by more than 30% over the past two years, totaling $4.83 million in permanent cuts. 

Why not move district offices into rented space instead of a school?

Renting office space would add ongoing costs to the district at a time when we must reduce spending. Leasing commercial space typically includes long-term rent, utilities, maintenance, and build-out costs, which can be more expensive over time than using space the district already owns.

Why not exit contracts for rented spaces to save fees?

Ending leased contracts early would not save money in the short term. As a result, exiting these leases would create new costs and operational challenges rather than meaningful savings.

How many administrative buildings does the district maintain now?

Rdale currently operates one administrative building—the Education Service Center (ESC). As part of the SOD plan, the ESC was approved for closure by the School Board, with staff relocating to a repurposed school building yet to be determined. The district also maintains a bus garage and a warehouse used by the district’s facilities and buildings and grounds departments, but no other standalone administrative buildings.

Why are school closures necessary?

Rdale has and will continue to experience declining enrollment, which means several neighborhood schools are operating far below capacity. Maintaining more buildings than we need is costly and inefficient. 

How has district enrollment changed over time?

Robbinsdale Area Schools served approximately 28,000 students at its peak in 1971. Today, the district serves about 9,900 students. Enrollment projections show this downward trend is expected to continue over the next decade, which is a key factor in decisions about school buildings, staffing, and long-term planning.

What data was used to identify which schools are recommended for closure?

District administration first reviewed a range of data to develop initial recommendations. This included utilization based on how the building was configured for current programming, current enrollment, operating costs, building conditions, and school locations across the district.

The School Board then reviewed this same information as part of its own study process and asked for additional data and clarification over multiple meetings. The Board also considered factors such as attendance boundaries and transportation, student demographics, future planning needs, program impacts, and the trade-offs associated with each option.

No single data point determined the recommendations. Both the administration and the Board looked at the full picture to balance financial realities with student needs and long-term stability for the district.

How much will the district save with building consolidations?

Earlier in the planning process, the district shared estimated savings ranges based on typical operating costs for elementary and middle schools, while noting that actual savings would depend on final transition costs, building needs, and how space would be repurposed.

The School Board has now approved the closure of Noble Elementary, Sonnesyn Elementary, Robbinsdale Middle School, and the Education Service Center (ESC). The Board also approved ending middle school programming at FAIR Crystal and relocating Robbinsdale Academy-Highview and Robbinsdale Virtual Academy (RVA) to the FAIR Crystal site. These changes will take effect after the 2025–26 school year.

The estimated annual savings from these school and program consolidations is approximately $3.8 million.

What is the site-by-site estimate of savings for impacted schools?

Because each school building has different operating costs, programming needs, and facility maintenance requirements, exact savings vary by site. To provide reasonable projections during the planning process, the district used average operating costs for elementary and middle schools and applied a conservative estimate that about 60% of those costs would be reduced after accounting for transition expenses and continued use of some space. Using that method, estimated annual savings are approximately:

• FAIR School Crystal: $1.19 million
• Robbinsdale Middle School: $1.24 million
• Sonnesyn Elementary: $636,000
• Noble Elementary: $636,000

These planning estimates helped inform decision-making. Final savings are reflected in the district’s overall consolidation estimate of approximately $3.8 million per year once all approved changes are implemented.

Why was there no formal public hearing regarding FAIR Crystal?

State law requires formal public hearings when a school building is being closed. At FAIR Crystal, the district discontinued middle school programming but did not close the building. Because the building itself will remain in use, a formal public hearing was not legally required.

To ensure community members still had an opportunity to share input, the School Board scheduled a special Listening Time on Dec. 22 that followed the same format as a public hearing, with an unlimited number of speakers and up to three minutes per person of speaking time. This was in addition to the regular Listening Time held on Jan. 5.

Why is the district relocating the Education Service Center (ESC)?

The current ESC building has more than $11 million in facility needs over the next 10 years, including nearly $9 million in urgent repairs. Rather than invest heavily in an aging administrative facility, the district plans to relocate ESC staff into existing school space to reduce both long-term maintenance needs and annual operating costs.

The one-time cost to prepare the new location is estimated at $500,000 and is expected to be offset by the future sale of the ESC building. The move is also projected to save $130,000–$160,000 per year in ongoing operational expenses.

Why weren’t elementary magnet schools considered for reduction?

Magnet schools were suggested as an option by the administration. Because of the timeline, it was not possible to thoughtfully expand and implement the arts and innovation programming found in magnet schools across all neighborhood schools by next school year. 

What will happen to closed buildings?

If a school building is closed, the district will evaluate options for future use. No final decisions are made at the time of closure. Any future use will consider cost, community impact, and long-term financial responsibility, and will follow required public processes.

Will future closures still be needed?

There may be a need to close additional buildings.

Why wasn't Robbinsdale Spanish Immersion School (formerly Sunny Hallow) considered for closure by moving the program elsewhere?

Specific to the Sunny Hollow site, there is not another option for the number of students that attend Robbinsdale Spanish Immersion (RSI) without other significant consequences.

If RMS is closed, can the auditoriums, art rooms, and performance spaces remain open?

In order to reduce operational costs associated with closing RMS, the building would not remain open for public use. Keeping the auditorium operational would add back the staffing and operational costs we are required to reduce, so we would work to identify alternate performance spaces for school programs.

Will there be significant boundary changes?

Boundary changes will take place due to the closures, and in an effort to balance building enrollments, however, the district will try to minimize student impact of the changes made for 2026-27. Update: See the new elementary and middle school attendance boundaries for the 2026-27 school year on our enrollment page.

Will school start and dismissal times change?

It is too early in the process to know whether start and end times will change. Any adjustments would depend on final decisions related to school closures, program locations, and transportation routing. If changes become necessary, the district will communicate them well in advance to ensure families have time to plan.

Will transportation still be provided if a student moves schools due to closure?

Yes. If a student is reassigned to a new school because their building closes, they will continue to receive district transportation consistent with existing transportation guidelines. Families will not be responsible for arranging transportation solely because their school was closed. Any changes to transportation services would be communicated well in advance and applied equitably across the district.

What happens with open-enrolled student transportation?

Beginning in 2026-27, the district will no longer provide transportation for students who open-enroll from Minneapolis. Transportation has not been provided for open-enrolled students from other cities, and that practice will continue. Families who open-enroll may still attend Rdale schools but will be responsible for their own transportation. 

Families who wish to request transportation from an existing district bus stop within the district’s boundaries may do so through a petition process. This process typically begins in mid-August, once routes and capacity are finalized, with requests reviewed once the school year has begun. Transportation cannot be guaranteed, and space will be very limited.

Why was magnet school busing being considered for reduction?

Because the district must make significant, immediate budget reductions, every major cost area required review. Magnet transportation costs approximately $1.7 million per year, and Rdale transports roughly 1,750–2,000 students to schools of choice. In a time of statutory operating debt, the Board examined whether continuing this level of transportation was financially sustainable. Reducing magnet busing was considered as one way to avoid even deeper cuts elsewhere—such as closing additional schools, increasing class sizes, or further reducing staff. Ultimately, the Board chose to preserve elementary magnet transportation for now, but the financial pressures that prompted the review remain.

Can’t the district charge for magnet busing or find outside funding?

A fee-based model would not come close to covering the full cost of providing magnet transportation. Charging families also creates equity concerns, adds administrative burdens and for those reasons, a fee-based or externally funded magnet busing is not a viable solution to the district’s financial challenges.

How do these decisions align with Vision 2030 and enrollment projections?

Our current enrollment assumptions, which the Vision 2030 team and administration used, are from the Hazel Reinhardt Demographic study that was shared with the board on Feb. 20, 2025. 

Does the district plan to propose a future bond referendum?

We anticipate the board taking up the discussion about the overall vision of the school district, to include facilities, programming, etc., early in 2026.  However, referendums are ultimately board decisions, and the soonest official notification for a referendum review and comment would be July 6, 2026.