Minn. senators debate removing 'you are voting for a property tax increase' from school referendum ballots

Senator Swadzinski introduced Senate File 1310 on March 17, proposing to remove the statutory ballot sentence that reads, “By voting yes on this ballot question, you are voting for a property tax increase,” for school‑district referendums. The sponsor said the line oversimplifies local finance choices and can insult voters who study personalized tax impacts before they vote. The committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill.

Supporters told the committee that district finance decisions are complex and a blanket sentence on the ballot can erase nuance. Shelby McQuay, a senior municipal advisor at Eller & Associates testifying for the Minnesota School Boards Association and the Minnesota Association of School Business Officials, said a yes vote does not always raise taxes compared with the prior year and that some renewals can be tax‑neutral or lower a property owner’s bill. “The required ballot language oversimplifies these complex financial decisions and can be misleading,” McQuay said.

Kim McLaughlin, treasurer of the Hibbing School Board, described her district’s experience: the district provided individualized tax calculators and notices but the ballot’s generalized wording created voter uncertainty at the point of voting while the district faced multimillion‑dollar shortfalls and staff cuts. McLaughlin said SF1310 preserves transparency while removing a sentence that can “unintentionally mischaracterize real tax impacts for voters.”

Other senators said the statutory sentence can be accurate in many renewal cases, where an expiring levy would otherwise reduce taxpayers’ obligations if not renewed. Senator Rehrig argued that when a renewal simply replaces an expiring levy, the ballot language warns voters that a continuing payment would otherwise end, and that removing the phrase risks obscuring that fact. Senator Holmstrom and others offered examples where a renewal can be tax neutral or even lower taxes when an expiring obligation is removed.

Committee staff clarified that the draft language targets school districts only and would not automatically remove similar language from other local governments—counties, cities or special taxing districts—unless those units requested changes or the bill were amended to broaden the scope. The sponsor said he would work with interested local governments if they sought the same change.

The committee did not take a final passage vote; Chair Kunish laid SF1310 over for possible inclusion in a future omnibus bill.