The most contentious topic was the proposal to implement a four-day school week, a measure projected to save approximately $250,000. This idea sparked varied reactions among board members and attendees. While some saw it as a necessary step to alleviate financial pressures, others expressed concerns about its impact on families and educational quality. The proposal included the potential reduction of two teaching positions and transportation adjustments, though these savings estimates were acknowledged as uncertain.

Supporters of the four-day week highlighted positive feedback from other districts that have adopted similar schedules since 2011, noting high satisfaction levels within those communities. However, the board acknowledged the need for more research and community input before making a final decision. There was a consensus to begin exploring the feasibility of this change, emphasizing transparency and thorough communication with the public to mitigate potential misunderstandings, especially as the decision could influence the outcome of an upcoming levy vote.

Concerns were raised about the implications for student care, especially for families dependent on school supervision. The board discussed the possibility of providing childcare services on the fifth day, though funding such services without impacting the overall budget posed a challenge. Additionally, the pedagogical impact of condensing the curriculum into four days was debated, with questions about whether educational quality might suffer.

The meeting also addressed potential staffing pressures due to budget cuts, particularly the impact on building principals who may need to assume teaching responsibilities. This highlighted the need for thorough mapping of roles and responsibilities to ensure that educational quality is not compromised. The board considered whether administrative restructuring could contribute to cost savings, though such changes were deemed complex due to existing licensing requirements and seniority issues among staff.

Another discussion point was the list of proposed budget cuts, which included the elimination of several teaching and staff positions. These cuts were aimed at reducing the number of sections in first and second grades, likely leading to larger class sizes that exceed recommended guidelines. Board members expressed concerns about the potential negative impact on educational quality and student retention, emphasizing the need to balance financial constraints with maintaining a high standard of education.

The board also contemplated increasing activity fees and rental fees at the Community Collaboration Center (CCC). The proposed hike in activity fees would place the district at the top end of the scale within the conference, prompting discussions about the potential ramifications for student participation. Similarly, increased rental fees for the CCC raised concerns about losing revenue if entities opted for alternative facilities, potentially impacting the projected $18,000 revenue from the fee increases.

In addition to these measures, the board explored the sale of district assets, including buses and the CCC. While selling older buses was considered, the minimal return on investment made this option less appealing. The CCC, with its operational costs of around $30,000 annually, was debated as a potential asset for sale, either privately or transferred to the city. Concerns were noted about losing a valuable community resource and the difficulty of replacing its utility if sold.