The St. Paul Public Schools board unanimously approved a property tax levy at 2% less than the one a year ago.

The approved levy amount for the 2026-2027 school year is $216.48 million, or 1.98% less than the previous year. At this point, the board can lower that amount but not raise it any higher. It will be finalized in December.

That doesn’t mean all homeowners will see a 1.98% decrease in their property taxes that go to the district, said Tom Sager, the district’s executive chief of financial services. That depends on factors such as property values, which can fluctuate depending on neighborhoods.

“And (property owners) really won’t know the impact that this is going to have until they receive that preliminary statement because this decrease in the school district property tax levy is only one of many, many variables that go into it,” Sager said, of overall tax bills.

Why is the levy being cut?

District officials attributed the reduction in the levy largely to changes in how the state factors costs for retiree health insurance, pensions, severance and unemployment payments, which reduced overall expenses for SPPS.

Plus, additional state aid for community service programs also offset some district costs.

Local property taxes account for around 20% of the SPPS budget.

A reduction in the district’s levy isn’t common. In the past five years, the district’s total property tax levy has increased on average by 3.5% annually.

November referendum

While Tuesday’s levy decision is part of an annual process, a November referendum will ask voters to increase the district’s general revenue by $1,073 per pupil for 10 years, beginning with taxes payable in 2026. The district currently spends more than $23,000 per pupil each year.

The result will cost the average St. Paul homeowner — with the median home valued at $289,200 — $309 per year, or $26 per month. The 10-year tax is subject to increase with inflation.

Voters approved similar referendums in 2018, 2012 and 2006. The 2018 levy referendum gave the district $1,180 per student, or $18.6 million per year plus inflation, in new revenue.

If approved by voters, the increase will generate approximately $37.2 million per year in additional revenue. The school board approved a $1 billion budget in June for 2026. An estimated $51.1 million budget shortfall is to be covered by $35.5 million in reserve funds and $15.6 million in budget cuts and new revenue, including funds from the levy.

What if the referendum is not approved?

If the referendum is not approved by voters, district officials say they expect to make at least $37 million in additional budget cuts.

Of the district’s overall budget reductions for 2026, 74%, or $11.5 million, come from cuts in central office departments. Central office departments make up 8% of the district’s total budget.

Drawing from the district’s fund balance for the budget shortfall maintains programs and services as much as possible, district officials said at the time the budget was approved. However, if the referendum is not approved by voters, anything is on the table for potential cuts, they say.

Why is there a shortfall?

District officials attribute the shortfall to state funding not keeping pace with inflation in the past 20 years as well as increased expenses.

If state funding kept pace with inflation each year since 2003, the district would receive $1,470 more per student than it currently does, or approximately $50 million per year, according to district officials

There also is uncertainty over potential cuts in federal funding.

The district board set its Truth in Taxation and budget hearing for Dec. 2 at district offices. The public can attend this hearing to learn more about the budget.

Related Articles

What do the MCA test scores mean and how should parents interpret them?

St. Paul: Early voting opens as mayor’s race, school levy overshadowed by high taxes, ‘stagnation’

Boys brought replica guns to St. Paul school, police say

How much will your taxes go up? St. Paul, Ramsey County, SPPS asking for hikes

Belwin opens $3.6M accessible outdoor-education facility with ‘first-class experience’ — for all

By BRUCE SHIPKOWSKI

Federal officials have sued pro-Palestinian demonstrators involved in a heated protest outside a New Jersey synagogue last year, citing a law created to protect abortion clinics from obstruction and threats.

Related Articles

Trump administration says Minnesota violates Title IX by allowing trans athletes in girls sports

Trump says his administration is close to reaching a deal with Harvard University

Judge rejects claims of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina state Senate districts

Judge finds Trump administration unconstitutionally targeted noncitizens over Gaza war protests

Pfizer agrees to lower prescription drug costs for Medicaid in a deal with Trump

Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said the civil lawsuit filed Monday against two pro-Palestinian groups and some demonstrators appears to be the first time the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act has been used against protesters outside a house of worship.

Monday’s lawsuit stems from a Nov. 13 demonstration outside Congregation Ohr Torah in West Orange, about 20 miles west of Manhattan. It occurred during a real estate fair that promoted the sale of homes in Israel and in settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The Justice Department, under President Donald Trump, has signaled it would use the 1994 law against pro-Palestinian demonstrators that have protested outside synagogues over the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

“No American should be harassed, targeted, or discriminated against for peacefully practicing their religion,” U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi said in a statement issued Monday. “Today’s lawsuit underscores this Department of Justice’s commitment to defending Jewish Americans — and all Americans of faith — from those who would threaten their right to worship.”

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act was passed during a time when abortion clinic protests and violence against abortion providers, such as the murder of Dr. David Gunn in 1993, was on the rise. It specifically prohibits the use of force and physical obstruction to interfere with people at both reproductive health centers or houses of worship.

Under Trump, however, the agency has curtailed prosecutions against abortion clinic protesters, calling them an example of the “weaponization” of law enforcement. The Republican has also pardoned anti-abortion activists, including a number involved in the October 2020 invasion and blockade of a Washington clinic.

Monday’s lawsuit claims the protesters interfered with the attendees’ civil rights to exercise their religion, claiming they physically assaulted worshippers and used plastic horns known as vuvuzelas to disrupt the event.

The lawsuit names two groups — The American Muslims for Palestine New Jersey and the Party for Socialism and Liberation in New Jersey — and three individuals. The groups did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment, and telephone numbers for the individuals could not be located.

The Justice Department’s lawsuit does not include the two pro-Israel counter protesters who were charged with aggravated assault and other offenses against pro-Palestinian demonstrators. A spokesperson for the Essex County Prosecutor’s Office said the agency doesn’t comment on pending prosecutions.

St. Paul’s Seventh Street will be temporarily renamed “97th Street” to honor Kirill Kaprizov’s NHL record eight-year, $136 million contract deal with the Minnesota Wild. His jersey number is 97.

A temporary sign renaming the street will be on top of the traffic signal at the intersection of Kellogg Boulevard, West Seventh Street and Eagle Street.

“Kaprizov didn’t just sign a record-breaking deal, he chose Saint Paul, he chose Minnesota,” St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter said in a statement. “We’re excited for the upcoming hockey season and to build momentum with the Wild and Grand Casino Arena, solidifying Saint Paul as the capital city of hockey.”

Preseason for the Wild ends Oct. 3. The team will begin its regular season on the road. Their first home game will be at the newly renamed Grand Casino Arena on Oct. 11.

City officials note that fans interested in taking pictures of the temporary sign should comply with safety measures and traffic laws.

Related Articles

Hynes sees more of Wild’s identity despite another preseason loss

Wild owner Craig Leipold pledges team will stay in St. Paul

All quiet at Camp Kaprizov as preseason rolls on for Wild

St. Paul: Housing, Grand Casino Arena remodel among roundtable topics

Mizutani: Kirill Kaprizov’s contract dispute is a distraction, though Wild say otherwise

HOUSTON — With the first U.S. government shutdown in almost seven years looming, the Trump administration is using official government communications to blame Democrats and promote the president’s policies.

At least one agency has posted a public warning blaming “the massive pain” of any shutdown on “The Radical Left,” provoking questions about potential violations of the Hatch Act, which restricts partisan political activity by U.S. federal employees.

While furloughs of employees have been part of previous shutdowns, federal agencies under President Donald Trump have also been urged to consider more permanent reductions in force for programs “not consistent with the President’s priorities.”

Here’s a look at the shutdown messaging coming from the federal government:

Housing and Urban Development website

Visitors to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s website on Tuesday were greeted with a pop-up message warning that “The Radical Left are going to shut down the government and inflict massive pain on the American people unless they get their $1.5 trillion wish list of demands.”

“The Trump administration wants to keep the government open for the American people,” the rest of the message read.

Asked about the banner on HUD’s website that accuses Democrats of trying to shut down the government, agency spokesperson Kasey Lovett said in a statement that “the Far Left is barreling our country toward a shut down, which will hurt all Americans.”

Some internet users suggested the message would violate the Hatch Act, an 80-year-old law that restricts partisan political activity by U.S. federal employees. HUD officials pushed back on those claims, noting the banner did not refer to an election, and did not mention any party or politician by name.

Messages to federal employees

Employees across the federal government have reported receiving messages noting Trump’s general opposition to a shutdown.

Employees at the Departments of Interior, the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Justice received a message noting that Trump “opposes a government shutdown, and strongly supports the enactment of HR 5371,” the GOP-backed bill to fund the government through Nov. 21.

“Unfortunately Democrats are blocking the resolution in the Senate due to unrelated policy demands,” the message went on. “If Congressional Democrats maintain their current posture and refuse to pass a clean continuing resolution to keep the government funded before midnight on Sept. 30, 2025, federal funding will lapse.”

Some agencies, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, posted more informational notices online, detailing planning for operating status changes “concurrently with the rest of the federal government.”

Furloughs and layoffs

Some federal employees would be furloughed during a shutdown, and the White House’s budget office has warned agencies to consider permanently cutting staff in some of the areas that would be affected, a new twist on the situation.

In a memo released last week, the Office of Management and Budget said agencies should consider a reduction in force for federal programs whose funding would lapse this week, are not otherwise funded and are “not consistent with the President’s priorities.” That would be a much more aggressive step than in previous shutdowns, when federal workers not deemed essential were furloughed but returned to their jobs once Congress approved government spending.

A reduction in force would not only lay off employees but eliminate their positions. That would trigger another massive upheaval in a federal workforce that has already faced major rounds of cuts this year due to efforts from the Department of Government Efficiency and elsewhere in the Trump administration.

___

Ali Swenson in New York contributed reporting.

Related Articles

Trump administration says Minnesota violates Title IX by allowing trans athletes in girls sports

Trump says his administration is close to reaching a deal with Harvard University

Judge rejects claims of racial gerrymandering in North Carolina state Senate districts

Judge finds Trump administration unconstitutionally targeted noncitizens over Gaza war protests

Pfizer agrees to lower prescription drug costs for Medicaid in a deal with Trump