The Robbinsdale Area School Board spent the majority of its Dec. 1 business meeting discussing proposals administration says are needed to meet the district's statutory operating debt (SOD) targets for year one, including a proposed $1.7 million reduction in magnet-school transportation and recommendations about school consolidations.

Superintendent Salo framed the discussion as part of an ongoing process that began with a study session, telling the board the administration has assembled a package of measures that together exceed an $8 million target for year one. "There are no good decisions," Salo said. "We're trying to help support the best of the worst decisions possible." The administration emphasized it would supply additional data in writing and at upcoming meetings, including a study session on Dec. 8 and a decision hearing on Dec. 15.

Board members raised a range of concerns. Director Hillenbrand noted demographic differences between magnet and neighborhood schools and questioned equity implications of removing transportation. "On average, the parents, the families who attend the magnet schools are significantly more affluent on average than the families who attend our neighborhood schools," Hillenbrand said, urging careful review before taking transportation away.

Several board members proposed alternatives to outright eliminating magnet routes. Director Wuto and others asked staff to examine transportation "hubs" and fee-based options that would use a sliding scale tied to federal poverty indicators; another director asked administration to produce a written option that could charge magnet families directly. Directors also asked whether legal risks would arise from providing transportation to some schools but not others; staff said magnet schools are choice programs without attendance boundaries and that the district is not legally required to provide transportation to choice schools in the same way it must for neighborhood students.

The board also pressed administration about the IB program. Multiple directors said they have not had a substantive board-level conversation about programming and warned against removing IB without a discussion of what would replace it. "To just cavalierly decide that we're gonna stop doing IB, in my opinion, ... I find very disturbing," one director said. Administration characterized some program changes (scheduling and staffing realignment) as administrative actions, while transportation and school-closure decisions would require board votes.

Logistical constraints were part of the conversation: staff warned that adding an additional school for possible closure and meeting statutory posting requirements would likely push any vote beyond the Dec. 15 hearing. Directors repeatedly asked administration to return with clear options, justifications, and the data that underlies each savings proposal.

Public listening sessions and written messages informed the board's deliberations: directors said they had received multiple, detailed emails from families and community members asking the board to preserve programs, keep specific buildings open, or find other cost savings. Several directors said they supported exploring alternatives rather than immediately endorsing transportation cuts.

Next steps: administration will provide written answers to outstanding board questions, return with alternative savings scenarios (including hub and fee options) and present revisions and supporting data at the Dec. 8 study session and the Dec. 15 hearing where the board may act.

The discussion closed without a motion to adopt any of the SOD proposals; board members asked staff for more analysis and wider documentation of the options they considered.