REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Santa Rosa City Schools
February 26, 2025
Hybrid: Santa Rosa High School SOUTH GYM
4:00 p.m. – Open Session
6:00 p.m. – Open Session
Hybrid: Zoom / Santa Rosa City Hall
*** streamed ***
A live link will be posted on the SRCS website.
Board of Education / Video Board Meetings
Please take time to review the following abbreviated version of the agenda. Click here to see the entire agenda. It has live links on many items with more information. If you want to comment to the board about any upcoming items, email agendacomments@srcs.k12.ca.us. Please CC wearesrta@gmail.com on your email.
Closed Session Items:
A.1. Public Comment On Closed Session Agenda Items To comment, email Melanie Martin at mmartinsrcs.k12.ca.us.
B.1. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)
B.2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.3. Student Expulsions (Case Nos: 20224/25-20, 2024/25-21, 2024/25-24)
B.4. Conference With Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation (Number of potential cases: 1 – Certificated Employee 313)
B. 5. Conference With Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Case name: OAH Case No.: 2025120669)
This case involves special services.
RECONVENE TO REGULAR OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
D. Reports
E. Public Comment on Non Agenda Items
SRTA Members are invited to complete ‘blue cards.’ Online comments have been suspended unless a board member is attending remotely. Please be prepared to observe the three minute time limit or the imposition of a possible last minute reduction in the time limit. Recently comments have been limited to 60 seconds, with a limit on the total time spent on public comments. Only items NOT on the agenda are addressed at this time, with the exception of consent items, which may be commented on.
Comments are requested at the board meeting to bring a member’s perspective and share real experiences of the impact of district policies and practices on students and staff.
Please commit to watching or attending at least one board meeting this year, and speaking to agenda items that impact you or your students. Speakers are limited to those in person. Comments are most impactful when they are well spoken, composed and reasonable.
SRTA supports creating a Strategic Plan that defines this board’s vision of what SRCS can be in five or ten years, provides focus for utilizing our limited resources in ways that are most efficient, and delineates focused, doable tasks and metrics that are regularly monitored in a transparent way that will build community trust. SRTA expects metrics like academic performance (GPA) and attendance of students impacted by the closures, to be tracked, evaluated and transparently communicated, as part of the process of evaluating semester one before rolling out more changes the following year.
As SRCS transforms secondary education into a 7-12 model, SRTA looks forward to supporting the board in studying these efforts and achieving transparency in communicating the specifics of intention, as well as tracking the actual cost savings achieved and evaluating these measures. SRTA members are not aware of other large schools to use as examples for making this transition at such a rapid rate.
SRCS has long struggled with planning and implementation. The constant turnover with all levels of administration have added to the difficulties of having a plan and seeing it through. The success of these shifts requires effective implementation plans that will withstand changes in personnel. That requires documents, policies and systems that are captured in a way that is easily followed, including metrics and timelines that can be monitored, even as participants change throughout the years. And all of this must be done in a way that builds the trust of the community. This requires regular transparency and honest monitoring and clear communication.
Students being moved from a middle school campus to a high school campus for a 7-12 model deserve to not lose programs. Families are seeking other placements now out of fear. They need to be reassured that SRCS has a vision with specific plans that ensures their students will be safe and secure on SRCS high school sites. There is also a fear that the actual planning and work for creating the 7-12 sites will fall on site staff who are already operating at capacity. How much redesign is actually reasonable before August?
SRTA strongly supports the Fiscal Analysis Board Subcommittee. There is hope that this new structure will help the board to provide rational guidance. Next year’s budget will begin development soon. Can this committee also be charged with transparently tracking and evaluating the actual cost savings achieved, and evaluating the closure and staffing measures adopted by the board? Auditing all charter school income and expenses, and the amount moved to the general fund for each site would be prudent.
F. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
F.1. (Action) Resolution Recognizing March as Arts Education Month
We are continuing to provide a robust musical program for all of our 1st-6th graders, giving all 4th-6th graders their choice of instruments, materials, and instruction during the school day. This year we have extended offering guitar to our 4ht graders.
Our vocal music teachers have brought back the Barclay Memorial Concert with students from every high school vocal music program being represented.
- A great Visual and Performing Arts (VAPA) program can only happen with incredibly devoted educators. Eliminating 10.6 FTE VAPA teachers makes this resolution seem hollow.
- SRCS receives Prop 28 funding which provides additional support for Arts programs. There are many unanswered questions causing immense stress. Please explain how the Prop 28 money is not supplanting existing funding. Please explain how 10.6 positions can be eliminated while supporting a vibrant VAPA program?
F.2. (Action) Resolution Celebrating March as Women’s History Month
We celebrate the remarkable achievements of women and their impact on shaping the nation’s history. Women have made significant strides, reaching milestones their predecessors could only dream of. Today, women make up nearly half of the workforce and the majority of college students. They excel as astronauts, entrepreneurs, business leaders, and serve in top government positions and the Armed Forces. In honor of past trailblazers and with a focus on future progress, there is an ongoing commitment to addressing the remaining challenges and inequalities faced by women.
SRTA celebrates the women of education!
Once again, some are wondering the purpose of these board resolutions, and if they are the best use of the energy they absorb.
F.3. (Action) First Read and Possible Waive of Second Read for Board Policy 0420.4: Charter School Authorization
Board Policy Subcommittee: Medina, Caston and Manieri
This policy sets for the requirements for the board’s approval of a new charter school.
Out of District Charters:
“A charter school that established a site outside the boundaries of its authorizing school district, but within the boundaries of Santa Rosa City Schools, before January 1, 2020, may continue to operate that site until the charter school submits a request for the renewal of its charter petition. To continue operating the site, the charter school shall submit a request for the renewal of the charter petition pursuant to Ed. Code Section 47607 to Santa Rosa City Schools for consideration by the Board. The Board does not authorize approval of charter school renewal within its boundaries by any authorizer other than The Board.”
Charter renewal rules have changed. A charter needs the approval of their authorizing board as well as the approval of the board of the district that the charter resides within. SRCS can operate elementary charters within our elementary boundaries, and must authorize any other non SRCS elementary charters within those boundaries. Similarly, SRCS can operate secondary charters within our secondary boundaries, and must authorize any other non SRCS secondary charters within those boundaries.
This policy looks like the SRCS board will not renew any non-dependent charters. This proposal comes just days after a board member expressed interest in talking with Wright District about renewing the CCLA Charter, as CCLA is located in the Wright elementary district boundaries.
The board will need to oversee the movement of two charters to within district boundaries to avoid other districts not renewing these charters.
If SRCS intends to take over all local secondary charters, making them dependent charters, then there is work that needs to be done. There has been continual confusion with the running of our existing charters about the lines for local control and funding. Who gets to decide what? Who pays for what? How much control does the district vs the charter have about staffing and programs? How is the cost due to the district from charter funds calculated? What is considered covered by those funds? How are further costs from the charter to the district calculated? How are charter revenues calculated? Under what conditions are district LCAP funds utilized for charter schools? Fair and transparent policy and regulations addressing these types of matters must be established before adding more charter schools to the district.
F.4. (Action) Approval of California School Employees Association, Chapter 75 24-25 #6 MOU and Job Description for the Wellness Technician Classification
CSEA 75 24-25 #6 Wellness Technician Classification and applicable job description ( Certified Wellness Coach I)
This contract is to continue this position that was temporarily provided for by SCOE through Keystone Therapy. The eleven month Wellness Technician classification will help to support students in Wellness Centers and allow the opening of wellness centers in High School sites.
The proposed salary schedule placement is Range 26 at a monthly rate at step 1 of $4,380.44 to at step 6 of $5,590.63.
Supporting the development of Wellness Centers, while eliminating other established student mental health services, is cause for great confusion. What is the Wellness Center plan? How many people are expected to staff these centers? What will their various qualifications be? What are the requirements for providing supervision for these different providers? Who will provide that? How will community partners fit into this plan? How long will it take to get these centers up and running to capacity? What are these expected to cost? How will that be funded? How much money is expected to be recovered from insurance billing? How will everything be monitored and shared out? How will the success of these centers be measured?
F.5. (Action) Resolution No. 2024/25-29 Reduction or Discontinuance of Certain Particular Kinds of Services (PKS) for the 2025-26 School Year
| Certificated Position | FTE | Site Administration | ||
| Classroom | 60 | Elementary Principals | 2 | |
| Counselors | 1.5 | Charter Asst. Principal | 1.5 | |
| EL Specialists | 6 | MS Asst. Principal | 2 | |
| EL TOSA | 1 | MS Principal | 2 | |
| HS CTE | 5.6 | HS Asst. Principal | 5 | |
| HS English | 2.6 | Total | 12.5 FTE | |
| HS Math | 3.4 | |||
| HS PE | 2.2 | |||
| HS Science | 4.8 | |||
| HS Social Studies | 3.4 | District Admin. | ||
| HS VAPA | 5.2 | Coord State & Federal | 1 | |
| HS WOLA | 4.4 | Ed Services Director | 2 | |
| MS PE | 3.2 | Total | 3 FTE | |
| MS CTE | 0.6 | |||
| MS English | 2.2 | |||
| MS Math | 1.4 | |||
| MS Science | 1.6 | |||
| MS Social Studies | 2 | |||
| MS Spanish | 0.6 | |||
| MS VAPA | 3.6 | |||
| Nurse | 1 | |||
| Psychologists | 3 | |||
| Secondary Counselors | 22 | |||
| Site TOSAs – elementary | 4 | |||
| Site TOSAs – secondary | 3 | |||
| Specialty Teachers | 3 | |||
| Total 151.3 FTE | ||||
The cost savings, if all preliminary notices and reductions were to be finalized, would be approximately $21,852,000.
What is the vision that this employee purge supports? Where are the staffing ratios that are guiding this right sizing? How can trust be built without transparency?
The proportion of site staff being eliminated, as opposed to the three district administrative staff being eliminated, is unacceptable. The board asked for more than this. More than this is necessary to keep the impact as far away from the classrooms and students as possible.
Trying to imagine losing this many positions takes the breath away from SRTA members. Almost 30% of elementary teachers are getting RIF notices? Sharing an explanation of the plan for moving forward would help to allay people’s distress, as they try to imagine the void these RIFs will cause.
The loss of 22 secondary counselors is unfathomable. How will we maintain 400:1 ratios? If we are eliminating counselors for middle school students because they are not legally required, how will they be assisted choosing their courses? Who will support students with their academic plans? Who will attend IEPs? Who will case manage 504s? Who will support students with their emotional needs? Who will make referrals to other resources?
Are sites no longer able to hire TOSAs from their SPSAs?
Is the district no longer providing sections for TOSAs to oversee programs serving students on sites? If that is the case, what time and energy will be available to support those programs?
Why are we eliminating 3 psych positions when we have been short psychs most of this year, and we are taking back 30 more SCOE kids next year? Psychs are essential parts of the evaluation team. We will need the help of more psychologists to exit kids from their IEPs. Eliminating SRCS Psychs will almost certainly lead to having to hire outside agencies to provide psych services at a much higher cost than these positions themselves.
Data does not support mixing and matching admin teams. Teams that have worked together build effective practices and learn to balance each other. It takes time that we don’t have to rebuild that level of efficiency. Blueprint for High Performing Teams from Adam Grant’s Work notes that working with a great team is the most effective way to retain strong employees. Team members of open and honest teams were 80% more likely to report higher emotional well-being. Engaged team members have reduced absenteeism and higher productivity.
F.6. (Action) Resolution No. 2024/25-44 Reduction in Classified WorkForce for the 2025-26 School Year
| Classified Job | FTE | Classified Job | FTE | |
| Budget Technician | 1 | Library Technician II | 5 | |
| Campus Supervisor | 2 | Maintenance and Transportation Manager | 1 | |
| Child Care Assistant II | 6.125 | Maintenance Technician | 3 | |
| Custodian II-Night | 6 | Middle School Counseling Secretary/Registrar | 2 | |
| Custodian IV | 4 | Middle School Technician | 6 | |
| Data Management Analyst | 1 | Noon/Yard Duty Aide | 6.813 | |
| District Assessment Data Specialist | 1 | Payroll Technician | 1 | |
| Elementary School Office Manager | 2 | Program Acct. Tech I | 1 | |
| Elementary School Technician II | 1.5 | Restorative Response Specialist | 20 | |
| Family Engagement Facilitator | 21 | Senior Secretary | 3 | |
| Grounds Worker | 2 | Site Based Therapist/Social Worker | 5 | |
| HR Technician III | 2 | Student Advisor | 3 | |
| Instructional Assistant I | 4 | Student Engagement Activity Worker | 7 | |
| Lead Noon/Yard Duty Aide | 2 | Transition Kindergarten Instructional Assistant | 2.625 | |
| Library Technician | 2 | Typist Clerk IV | 4 | |
| Total: 113.18 FTE 138 People | ||||
The cost savings, if all preliminary notices were to be finalized, is approximately $8,176,000.
The staffing ratio guide is necessary to make sense of the elimination of these positions.
SRTA notices that those people, who in this last year, chose to remain Campus Supervisors or Student Advisors and not to become Student Safety Advisors are having their jobs eliminated.
The elimination of twenty Restorative positions, and moving the remaining few to operate from the district office, does not make sense to SRTA members. Effective restoration relies on relationships which will not be built if someone just occasionally drops in. Sharing the vision for how this would work would help lessen the anxiety that reading this list causes.
The elimination of twenty-one Family Engagement Facilitators will deny our Spanish speaking families the person they are most connected to on campuses. The inclusion provided to our Spanish speaking families by FEFs will not be replicated without these dedicated employees who create the sense of engagement and warm embrace our students and families deserve.
SRCS SBTs provided valuable support in the wake of the student deaths this weekend. Having a known entity to confide in bolsters students utilizing this service. The vision for supporting mental wellness is not clearly understood. Eliminating School Based Therapists is removing an integral part of our support program. These staff are providing necessary therapy to students. The district claims it can now collect fees for this service, which makes these eliminations more confusing.
F.7. (Discussion) Local Control & Accountability Plan (LCAP) Mid-Year Report
| Goal 1: SRCS will provide student-centered teaching and learning opportunities by increasing programs and services that maximize student growth toward meeting or exceeding standards with an emphasis in the areas of English Language Arts and Math. Mostly Partially Implemented | ||||||
| Action # | Action Title | Total FundsBudgeted | Mid-YearExpenditures | Remaining | Remaining % | |
| 1.1 | Assessment Systems TK-12 | $751,139 | $681,702 | $69,437 | 9.24% | |
| 1.2 | Curriculum Supports and College and Career Readiness | $1,463,158 | $576,832 | $886,326 | 60.58% | |
| 1.3 | Expanded Learning Opportunities and Interventions through Summer School and Afterschool Programs | $3,790,012 | $176,278 | $3,613,734 | 95.35% | |
| 1.4 | School Based Support for SPSA Actions and Implementation | $2,300,768 | $941,736 | $1,359,032 | 59.07% | |
| 1.5 | Multilingual Learners Site and Staff and Student Support | $1,085,613 | $618,734 | $466,879 | 43.01% | |
| 1.6 | Comprehensive and Collaborative Supports for Students | $1,512,964 | $612,862 | $900,102 | 59.49% | |
| 1.7 | Enrichment Music Programs for Students & IncreasedOpportunities for Collaboration | $1,140,171 | $555,980 | $584,191 | 51.24% | |
| 1.8 | New School Model Support | $933,531 | $630,858 | $302,673 | 32.42% | |
| 1.9 | Supports for Increased Inclusive practices | $300,000 | $252,710 | $47,290 | 15.76% | |
| $13,277,356 | $5,047,692 | $8,229,664 | 61.98% | |||
| Goal 2: SRCS, in partnership with our community, commits to developing safe, inclusive, culturally responsive learning environments to promote social-emotional wellness and address the physical needs of students, families, and staff. Mostly Fully Implemented | ||||||
| Action# | Action Title | Total FundsBudgeted | Mid-YearExpenditures | Remaining | Remaining % | |
| 2.1 | Panorama wellness survey and Youth Truth survey | $51,770 | $45,420 | $6,350 | 12.27% | |
| 2.2 | Mental Health Supports | $1,327,030 | $679,722 | $647,308 | 48.78% | |
| 2.3 | SEL and Anti Bullying Materials and Curriculum | $20,600 | $1,087 | $19,513 | 94.72% | |
| 2.4 | Increased Campus Student Engagement staffing | $3,668,661 | $2,347,248 | $1,321,413 | 36.02% | |
| 2.5 | Promoting Positive Attendance | $145,000 | $142,888 | $2,112 | 1.46% | |
| 2.6 | Elementary Counselors | $1,453,386 | $700,525 | $752,861 | 51.80% | |
| 2.7 | Wellness & Engagement administration | $389,875 | $199,585 | $190,290 | 48.81% | |
| 2.8 | Family Engagement Facilitators and MultilingualCommunity Engagement | $2,014,725 | $1,318,326 | $696,399 | 34.57% | |
| 2.9 | Extracurricular Wellness & Engagement | $95,000 | $66,131 | $28,869 | 30.39% | |
| $9,166,047 | $5,500,932 | $3,665,115 | 39.99% | |||
| Goal 3: SRCS commits to providing high-quality, relevant staff development that promotes professional growth and collaboration to increase student achievement. Mostly Partially Implemented | ||||||
| Action# | Action Title | Total FundsBudgeted | Mid-YearExpenditures | Remaining | Remaining % | |
| 3.1 | PD for Safety, Discipline, and Restorative and CulturallyResponsive Student Support | $55,000 | $3,282 | $51,718 | 94.03% | |
| 3.2 | Teacher training and collaboration to develop and implement effective strategies for differentiating instruction, aligning instructional approaches, and aligning literacy practices. | $240,000 | $100,842 | $139,158 | 57.98% | |
| 3.3 | Alternative Education Development and ProgrammaticImplementation | $315,000 | $19,875 | $295,125 | 93.69% | |
| 3.4 | Provide professional development for Staff | $1,900,778 | $1,900,778 | $0 | 0.00% | |
| 3.5 | Maintain four Director positions at district level | $589,840 | $359,267 | $230,573 | 39.09% | |
| 3.6 | Multilingual Learners Curriculum Training, Collaborationand department Professional Development | $35,000 | $10,070 | $24,930 | 71.23% | |
| 3.7 | Ethnic Studies Interdisciplinary Programs | $200,000 | $93,886 | $106,114 | 53.06% | |
| 3.8 | Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) ProfessionalDevelopment | $14,000 | $9,048 | $4,952 | 35.37% | |
| $3,349,618 | $2,497,048 | $852,570 | 25.45% | |||
| Goal | Total FundsBudgeted | Mid-YearExpenditures | Remaining | Remaining % | ||
| 1 | $13,277,356 | $5,047,692 | $8,229,664 | 61.98% | ||
| 2 | $9,166,047 | $5,500,932 | $3,665,115 | 39.99% | ||
| 3 | $3,349,618 | $2,497,048 | $852,570 | 25.45% | ||
| Total | $25,793,021 | $13,045,672 | $12,747,349 | 49.42% | ||
| California Dashboard | Lowest to Highest Colors: Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue | ||||||
| Elementary | Chronic Absenteeism | Suspension Rate | English Learner Progress | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||
| ALES | |||||||
| ABES | |||||||
| BHES | |||||||
| HLES | |||||||
| HVES | |||||||
| JMES | |||||||
| LBES | |||||||
| PTES | |||||||
| SLES | |||||||
| Middle Schools | Suspension Rate | English Learner Progress | English Language Arts | Mathematics | |||
| HSMS | no data | ||||||
| HCMS | no data | ||||||
| RVMS | no data | ||||||
| SRMS | no data | ||||||
| High Schools | Suspension Rate | English Learner Progress | English Language Arts | Mathematics | College Career | Grad Rate | |
| EAHS | no data | ||||||
| MCHS | no data | ||||||
| MHS | no data | ||||||
| PHS | no data | ||||||
| SRHS | no data | ||||||
| RHS | no data | no data | no data | ||||
| Chronic Absenteeism | Suspension Rate | English Learner Progress | English Language Arts | Mathematics | College Career | Grad Rate | |
| Entire District | |||||||
| Charters | Chronic Absenteeism | Suspension Rate | English Learner Progress | English Language Arts | Mathematics | ||
| SRCSA | no data | ||||||
| SRACS | no data | ||||||
| CCLA | |||||||
| FACS | no data | ||||||
SRTA notices these actions from the LCAP dramatically differ in remaining funds from the 50% expected half way through the year. Is the budgeted amount still expected, or have plans changed for these actions?
| LCAP Action # | Action Title | Total FundsBudgeted | Mid-YearExpenditures | Remaining | Remaining % | |
| 1.8 | New School Model Support | $933,531 | $630,858 | $302,673 | 32.42% | |
| 1.9 | Supports for Increased Inclusive practices | $300,000 | $252,710 | $47,290 | 15.76% | |
| 2.4 | Increased Campus Student Engagement staffing | $3,668,661 | $2,347,248 | $1,321,413 | 36.02% | |
| 2.5 | Promoting Positive Attendance | $145,000 | $142,888 | $2,112 | 1.46% | |
| 2.8 | Family Engagement Facilitators and MultilingualCommunity Engagement | $2,014,725 | $1,318,326 | $696,399 | 34.57% | |
| 3.1 | PD for Safety, Discipline, and Restorative and CulturallyResponsive Student Support | $55,000 | $3,282 | $51,718 | 94.03% | |
| 3.3 | Alternative Education Development and ProgrammaticImplementation | $315,000 | $19,875 | $295,125 | 93.69% | |
| 3.5 | Maintain four Director positions at district level | $589,840 | $359,267 | $230,573 | 39.09% | |
There is an expectation that SRCS is going to severely revise the LCAP for next year. The general fund is expected to cover required services while the revised LCAP will cover additional services that the district chooses to provide.
Reviewing all of this data should be part of the Strategic Plan process. We need a refined focus as a district. What is our top goal? How do we progress towards that? How do we know we are making progress? When will we have met the goal? Historically we have had multiple vague goals and too many action items. It is much more productive to be singularly focused with a clearly communicated plan, which includes reasons for everyone to join the efforts to succeed.
G.2. Approval of Personnel Transactions
EdJoin shows a total of 55 current postings for 119 jobs in SRCS. There are twelve certificated opening postings for fifteen positions (three less than last meeting.) There are forty-three current classified postings for sixty-one job openings (fifty-four less than last meeting). There are no certificated and no classified management positions open.
SRTA thanks the additional teacher who is stepping up to take on 0.2 more FTE to help out their site. This additional time is now paid at the per diem rate, which is far better than the old practice of underpaying. However the extra effort it takes to eliminate prep time from one’s regular schedule can only be fully appreciated by those who have done it.
SRTA welcomes Amanda Adams to Special Services.
SRTA bids a fond farewell to Nataly Estupinan Cano (EAHS), Jean-Philippe Ehrhold (FACS), Mikaela Woodbury (SRMS), Alexandra Hackbardt (EAHS), Austin Norris (MCHS), Nely Ogston (JMES), Jessica Wood (CCLA), Kelly Gil (MCHS), Jodi Peterson (MCHS), and Vela Millen (RHS) who all are resigning at the end of this year. They take over forty-nine years of experience and service with them, as well as a small bonus from SRCS.
SRTA celebrates the announced retirements of Katharine Norris (RVMS), Adele Johns-Diehl (FACS), Paul Fleischer (ELHS), Beth Lewis (HVES), Jill Jackson (HVES), Lina Hoyos-Berrios (MCHS) for the end of the school year after a combined one hundred twenty-two years of service. Thank you for your timely notifications.
How many resignations and retirements were noticed for the different levels of bonus payments? Statistics should be gathered to determine if these offers were enough to encourage early notifications.
Changes to classified staff include two new hires, one resignation and two retirements. They leave taking with them sixty-five years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
G.5. Approval of Contracts
Summary
| # | Provider | Cost | Description |
| Charter | |||
| 8 | Joe Culpepper | $10,315 | FACS magic and juggling classes in French. |
| 10 | BookWidget | $275 | Interactive software license for five CCLA teachers. |
| District | |||
| 6 | Mosyle Manager MDM | $20,215 | Mobile device manager for 3092 iOS devices (phones and ipads) |
| 12 | Wizix Technology Group | $35,400 | 6 month copier lease extension for DO copiers. Renewal will take copiers from closed sites into consideration. |
| Elementary | |||
| 2 | Pepperwood Preserve | No Direct Cost | HVES naturalist led hikes |
| 4 | Westminster Woods | $16,628 | CCLA 6th grade Outdoor Ed |
| 7 | GoGuardian | $510 | SLES GoGuardian license |
| 9 | NatureBridge | $8,992 | BHES outdoor ed |
| Secondary | |||
| 1 | Dr. Laura Flaxman | $2,800 | Consultant to support development of healthcare CTE pathway at each comprehensive high school |
| 3 | Examgen Inc. | $657 | MCHS Math test generator software |
| 5 | County of Sonoma | No Direct Cost | CAPE staff to provide substance abuse group and individual support on sites for 3 years from Measure O. |
| 11 | Epicenter | $9,000 | HSMS 8th grade field trip |
Total value of contracts = $104,792.18
G.6. Approval of Contracts – Bond
| # | Contractor | Site | Service | Cost |
| Elementary | ||||
| 1 | ZFA Structural Engineers | SLES | Structural Investigation to assess damage from tree falling | 1 |
Measure C = $0.00
Measure G =$500.00
Total = $500.00
G.7. Approval of the Contract for Piner High School Courtyard Drainage Project
The contractor will remove the deteriorating concrete pathways, re-grade the area, and install drainage inlets to mitigate seasonal flooding. Construction is slated for early summer to minimize disruption to site operations.
Measure C – $185,061.00
G.8. Approval of Contract with Butte County Office of Education for the Future Educator Support Program
This contract is to provide Math tutoring for Migrant Ed students.
Between January 20 and April 24, 2025, there will be up to 50 students @ $400 per student = $20,000 (not to exceed $20,000), which covers 5 teachers for 50 students x $400 per student = $20,000.
Students who are struggling in their first year of Math are in a precarious spot this late into the year. This support should be lined up at the beginning of the academic year to help students start the year successfully.
SRTA wonders why this work with our students is contracted out instead of using our teachers.
G.9.Approval of Critical Mention Agreement
This is for media monitoring and media contact database software. It provides a suite of tools designed to help users manage their earned media effectively. This includes Media Monitoring, Media Contact Database, Custom Reports, Sentiment Analysis, API Access, and access to Licensed Content. Tracks mentions across TV, radio, online news, podcasts, and social media in real-time. It provides instant alerts and in-depth analytics to help users stay updated on their coverage.
$5,800 annually.
Is this part of a strategic communication plan? The results of the communication audit have not been shared with the public.
H.1. Approval of Minutes
December 11, 2024 Minutes and Supporting Documents
Feb 7, 2025 Minutes and Supporting Documents
Feb 12, 2025 Supporting Documents
Feb 12, 2025 (2) Supporting Documents
Feb 18, 2025 and Supporting Documents
J.1. Future Board Discussion Items (not included in this agenda)
SRTA members are encouraged to prepare for the upcoming agenda items.
- Approval of 2024/25 Second Interim Fiscal Report
- Alternate Education Update
- VAPA Program Highlights
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
- 2025 Ballot for CSBA Delegate Assembly (Feb 2025)
- Plan for Strategic Plan and Equity Survey (Feb 2025)
- CTE Update (January 2024)
- Can this be incorporated into the CTE Tech Ed Resolution in future years? Can this item please include both historical and current enrollment numbers and budgets? Can the various grants be explicitly explained including financial resource utilization? Can there also be clear communication of which programs offer a third year capstone course.
- Updated Governance Handbook (January 2024)
- Deferred Maintenance Update (January 2024)
- Plan and timeline for implementation of Dr. Gillespie’s recommendations (January 2024)
- Alternative Education Update (December 2024)
- There is a strong need for Alternative placements for secondary students who need more services than our comprehensive schools are able to provide. How can SRCS meet the needs of these students during these tough financial times?
- Open Enrollment & Intradistrict Transfers Update (December 2024)
- SRCS students are applying to other schools outside our district in case their school is closed. How will SRCS expedite the enrollment and transfer process to retain as many students as possible?
- Superintendent Morales’ Listening and Learning Tour Update (November 2024)
- SRTA members would like to understand the expected impact from momentary drop ins, and how this use of time and resources is evaluated.
- Public Hearing and Approval of Teamsters Union 665 “Sunshine” Proposal (delayed from Oct 2024)
- First Draft of the District Safety Plan (delayed from September 2024)
- Board Update of Strategic Goals with input from sites (begun June 2024)
- Sharing the support plans for PIP and Variable Term Waiver hires. (Board request 8/14/24)
- Sharing the updated EL Master Plan with implementation expectations
- Sharing the Library Master Plan with implementation expectation
- Sharing the Communication report and plan
- Officially Closing Learning House
- SRACS Accelerated Charter Material Revision Request (delayed)
- Unification/Redistricting Decision
- Renaming of Sites Update/Decision
- Plan for Staff Housing support program from the proceeds of Fir Ridge
Until the district makes a decision, the proceeds from the sale of the Fir Ridge property are just sitting and losing value as the cost of housing continues to rise. Getting a program started could help SRCS attract and retain CSEA staff. The potential impact of the funds diminishes as time passes.
- Student Voice Policy
- BEST Plus Update
- Does SRCS still self identify as a BEST Plus district?
J.3. Facilities Projects Update
- Cabinet and Facilities Team will update Facilities Master Plan
- (Facilities Committee is a place for information sharing, not decision making.)
- New members are needed for the bond oversight committee. They approve past expenditures as appropriate to pay from the bond funds. If they deny an expense it is paid from the general fund. The committee is not involved with prioritizing projects or pre approving spending.
- Fourth DO Design Build contractor interviewed. Decision coming soon.
- Keyless entry contract awarded and work will begin this spring.
- PHSCourtyard Drainage is scheduled for this summer.
- PHS Fencing project coming to board for approval soon.
- JMES parking lot design complete. Will go to bid soon.
- All campuses not painted last year will be painted this summer.
- Design for SRHS, MHS and RVMS gyms being completed.
- Warehouse structure erected.
- SRHS portables removed.
- MHS building roofing begun.
- RVMS Well work starting.
- Classroom Modernization Project processing feedback.
- HVES has a new hydration station.
- ABES playground is installed.
- Summer roofing and HVAC planned for HLES, LBES, and RVMS.
- SRMS Fencing done.
- HVES MPR Abatement underway.
There is adamant sentiment against building a new district office. There is reason to wonder if public trust in district administration will be salvageable enough to pass another bond or a parcel tax in the foreseeable future if this project proceeds.