FIELD TWP — The ISD 2142 St. Louis County Schools board reviewed a wide-ranging list of cost-cutting ideas submitted by district staff during a working session Tuesday at North Woods School, using the proposals as a starting point for a broader discussion of what options are realistic and what constraints may limit potential savings.
District staff compiled the list ahead of the meeting, with suggestions generally falling into several key categories, including facilities, staffing, operations, programming, and potential revenue sources.
A significant share of the proposals focused on facilities, including selling or closing the district office, relocating administrative staff into school buildings, consolidating space, or selling district-owned property. Other ideas targeted energy use and long-term building costs.
Staffing changes also figured prominently, with suggestions ranging from early retirement incentives and reductions in administrative roles to restructuring how certain responsibilities are handled across the district.
Operational efficiencies made up another major category, including reviewing contracts, adjusting transportation practices, reducing classroom consumables, and eliminating duplicate software or services.
A smaller set of proposals addressed classroom programming and instructional models, such as changes to curriculum, assessment systems, and the potential use of hybrid or online learning.
The list also included revenue-focused ideas, including fundraising efforts, partnerships, and expanded use of district resources, along with broader structural options like enrollment changes or school consolidation.
Taken together, the suggestions provided a broad starting point for board discussion as members continued to weigh options for addressing the district’s budget challenges, with board chair Lynn Hilde leading members through a selected list of the 60 suggestions submitted.
That discussion quickly moved beyond the ideas themselves and into the practical and legal constraints tied to many of the proposals.
Much of the conversation centered on the future of the district office, by far the most frequently suggested cost-saving measure.
“I think one of the big ones is closing the district office,” board member Jarrett Bundy said. “Looking at all these suggestions, probably 50 percent of them are to close the district office. We’re just going to have a fight to prove with facts (if the office isn’t closed).”
District finance director Kim Johnson said eliminating the district office isn’t as simple as cutting a building, noting that some current cost-saving measures depend on its central location. She pointed to the district’s internal courier system, which is used to transport materials such as paperwork, supplies, and food between schools.
“If the district office isn’t there, we are not going to be able to get rid of the courier, and the only reason we could do that is because the district office is in the center of the schools, and every school has a transporting van that brings kids to the Northland Learning center in Virginia,” Johnson said.
Johnson said eliminating the courier under the current setup would save about $15,000 annually.
Without a central location, the district would incur more, not less, transportation costs.
“There are things related to getting rid of the district office that you really wouldn’t think about. We’re trying to pull together information to provide you with some of the data,” Johnson said.
Administrators also emphasized legal restrictions that limit how proceeds from a sale could be used.
“There is state statute that tells us what we can do when we sell school district buildings. The first thing, if there’s debt against it, we have to pay off the debt. The second thing is it has to go into our operating capital account, which means it cannot pay for salaries, it cannot pay for teachers, it cannot pay for anything like that,” Johnson said.
Space constraints and infrastructure needs also surfaced as major barriers, particularly in response to suggestions that central office staff could be relocated into existing space within school buildings.
“The only one that’s big enough is Northeast Range and that would require a lot of remodeling. So, we’ll have to kind of figure out what the trade off there is,” Johnson said, adding that the cost for renovations could run into millions of dollars.
Board members pushed for more precise figures, saying general estimates were not sufficient.
“Millions? What’s millions? Two millions, three millions, four millions? I mean, it has no teeth. We really do have to look at what it’s going to cost to renovate a space,” board member Chris Koivisto said.
The discussion also highlighted practical challenges tied to suggestions that central office staff could work remotely rather than from a centralized office.
“Where do we have the files? I’m not comfortable having any files located at anybody’s home. It’s just not safe. So, then what do we do? Do we pay to have six years of data digitized and then continue to pay to digitize everything so it’s in the cloud for us?” Johnson said.
Some board members expressed skepticism about remote work as an alternative.
“I’m very much against working at home. I think you gotta be in the office. There’s a lot of things that go on,” board member Ron Marinaro said.
Beyond the district office, the board reviewed a range of additional ideas, including the possible sale of district-owned property.
The sale of the Cotton School Forest was also suggested, with one board member noting it was not currently being used.
Administrators said similar restrictions would apply.
“I mean, the same restrictions are going to be there on using those funds,” Johnson said.
In several cases, administrators noted that suggested changes are already in place or under review, with Johnson pointing to efforts to track and manage curriculum costs as one example.
“This is actually already being done. I keep track. I have a spreadsheet that keeps track of all the curriculum and what the vendor is, what the cost is, what it’s for and everything,” Johnson said.
Board members also questioned whether the list included many new ideas.
“There’s really not a lot of new stuff in here, unfortunately. If it was going to be easy, we’ve done that. We’ve done the easy stuff, and we have to look at the hard stuff on the list,” board member Ron Marinaro said.
That theme surfaced repeatedly as the board worked through suggestions ranging from operational changes to larger structural shifts, with one board member noting a need to separate immediate budget fixes from longer-term strategies to improve the district’s financial position.

MIB agreement
The board also approved a continued shared services agreement with the Mt. Iron-Buhl school district, outlining the costs for administrative and support services provided by ISD 2142.
Under the agreement, ISD 2142 will provide shared staffing and services across several departments, including the superintendent position, teaching and learning, transportation, payroll and benefits, and licensed nursing. In return, Mt. Iron-Buhl will reimburse the district for those services.
The estimated cost for the first year of the agreement, 2026-27, is $221,021.

Cherry concerns raised
During the regular meeting, the board also heard concerns from Cherry School parents and a student regarding the conduct of the school’s cheerleading coach, Laureal Brown.
Three parents and one cheerleader addressed the board, describing what they characterized as bullying and harassment within the program, and outlining complaints they said had not been adequately addressed at the building or district administrative level. They also raised concerns about the coach being habitually late for practices and games, and about students practicing stunts without appropriate safety precautions.
Board members did not engage in extended discussion during the meeting, but the issue highlighted broader questions about how concerns raised by students and families are handled within the district and when those concerns escalate to the board level.