Brainerd Public School District administrators presented a strategic-plan-linked decision rubric and a long list of potential reductions intended to address a forecasted multi-million-dollar budget shortfall. Board members and staff spent most of the workshop debating which items should remain on the table, what counts as an "absolute no," and how much of the district's reserve should be used to soften cuts.

The rubric: Staff described a matrix that scores proposed reductions against four strategic-plan goal areas—student achievement, student and staff safety, fiscal responsibility, and student and staff well-being—with an additional community-support consideration. The rubric uses a 0'5 scoring scale per criterion; staff said the tool is intended to guide, not replace, board judgment.

Middle-school activities: Administrators warned that moving grades 5'8 activities to community education is more complex than initial estimates suggested because the nature of programming differs by grade (fifth grade commonly intramural, sixth grade transitional, seventh/eighth competitive). Staff said the earlier $420,000 savings estimate depends heavily on program design and personnel changes. "The 420,000 that we thought we could save becomes really difficult because we weren't clear about what does fifth grade do, what does sixth grade do," a staff presenter said. Several board members said the option should be removed from consideration if the board does not want to pursue it.

Elementary closures and fifth-grade placement: Board members and administrators reviewed district enrollment and "available seats" figures from the district's planning blueprints and identified Harrison, Garfield and Lowell as lower-enrollment neighborhood schools with significant available capacity. Administrators outlined the complex steps required to close a school: public hearings, boundary redrawing, transportation impacts, staffing reassignments and potential elimination of some FTEs. Several board members said they want the administrative team to analyze impacts and return with detailed recommendations; others said they were not willing to close neighborhood elementary schools.

Reserve fund and levy options: The board discussed dipping into the district's reserve (reported roughly as $10 million) to soften near-term cuts while pursuing long-term revenue options such as levies or revenue-generating programs (e.g., expanded early-childhood seats, proposed community daycare/learning-service models). Estimates discussed in the meeting included using $1 million as a conservative starting point up to $5.5 million to cover the projected next-year deficit; board members expressed concern about depleting reserves to levels that trigger state thresholds.

Health insurance and other structural costs: Board members flagged district health-insurance costs as materially higher than state averages and suggested negotiations or benefit redesign as a major potential savings area. One board member said the district's per-student insurance cost is roughly double the state average; staff confirmed health-insurance renewals and contribution assumptions will affect next-year budgeting.

High school scheduling and course-enrollment review: Administrators said they are asking high school leaders to analyze course enrollments, the number of students taking seven classes versus six, PSEO/online course participation, and open-hour usage to evaluate whether a six-period day or other schedule changes could reduce staffing or course-cost exposure without harming graduation or core offerings.

Board direction and next steps: The board asked staff to prioritize a short list of items for immediate attention, to mark items that a majority of board members do not want pursued, and to return with detailed financial and enrollment analysis on middle-school activities, elementary school impacts (including boundary maps), health-insurance cost scenarios and high-school schedule implications. Staff committed to provide more complete data at a forthcoming work session.

Quotes: "If we're saying that there's one classroom that's got two kids in it, well, we're full. That makes no sense either," a board member said while discussing seat counts and specialized programming. Another board member summarized the approach: "If there's a majority of no's, don't go there. Move on. If there's a majority of yes, take aim at that."

Clarifying details: Staff cited district blueprint seat capacities and enrollment figures (examples discussed: Riverside ~405 enrolled vs. 625 available seats; Garfield showing ~177 empty seats under the blueprint counts). Administrators said early-childhood programs are revenue-generating and that not expanding space limited current slots (staff said the district was about 22 seats short for early childhood due to not expanding to Riverside this year). Board members noted the district has been deficit-spending and discussed structural remedies (levy, revenue programs) alongside reductions.

Impact and next steps: The board and staff agreed to use the rubric and prioritized data to guide decisions; staff will return with targeted analysis on items that the board deems worthy of deeper inquiry before any formal decisions are made.