Task force members spent a workshop segment generating options to respond to declining enrollment and the condition study, including grade‑band restructuring, selective consolidation, repurposing large sites and leasing or selling buildings.

Multiple small groups reported support for moving eighth grade out of the high school and testing grade‑banding scenarios (examples discussed: K–2, 3–4, 5–6, 7–8 or other variants). Group proposals included using Brookside as a consolidated pre‑K/K center or shifting ALC/pre‑K into underused buildings. One group flagged Sibley’s small capacity and kitchen logistics as complicating factors for closure or repurposing.

Members emphasized the non‑financial impacts of these options. Speaker 5 cautioned against oversimplifying expected savings, saying, “I don't think it's inaccurate to say that closing a building is not going to solve a future fiscal deficit,” and urged that the public be told pros and cons so recommendations are defensible. Others noted community pushback is likely — one member referenced a prior grade‑banding proposal in the 1990s that “did not go over well.”

Why it matters: Any recommendation that involves closures, reassigning grade spans or repurposing buildings will affect transportation, child supervision patterns, program continuity (special education and interventions) and staffing. Task force members repeatedly requested comparative cost and educational pros/cons analyses to be prepared before the group forwards recommendations to the school board.

Next steps: The task force will collect and synthesize the small‑group options, ask administration to run cost/benefit tests (including busing and staffing implications), and return to the group with pros/cons worksheets at the next meeting; public listening session feedback will be folded into those analyses before any formal board recommendation.