REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Santa Rosa City Schools
February 11, 2025
Hybrid: Santa Rosa High School Auditorium
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
6:00 p.m. – Open Session
Hybrid: Zoom / Santa Rosa City Hall
*** streamed ***
Video Board Meetings through a link on this district webpage. (It is often changed right before the meeting.)
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.
Members attending online are encouraged to add SRTA to the front of their Zoom client name.
Closed Session Items:
A.1. Public Comment On Closed Session Agenda Items To comment, email Melanie Martin at mmartinsrcs.k12.ca.us.
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the board on Closed Session items only.
Without specifics on closed session agenda items, it is impossible for the public to know when to provide insights for items being reviewed.
B.1. Student Expulsion (Case No: 2025/26-11)
B.2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.3. Conference With Labor Negotiator – Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organizations: SRTA, CSEA Santa Rosa 75, Teamsters Union 665
B.4. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Title of employee being reviewed: Superintendent, Associate Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, Principals, Vice Principals, Assistant Principals, Directors, Coordinators)
C. RECONVENE TO REGULAR OPEN SESSION (6:00 p.m.)
D. REPORTS (Bargaining Units, Sup, and Board)
E. Public Comment on Non Agenda and Consent Items
SRTA Members are invited to complete ‘blue cards’ at the board meeting in order to make public comments. Online comments have been suspended. Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items NOT on the agenda are addressed at this time, with the exception of consent items (See section F.)
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.
Speakers are limited to just those in person (unless a board member attends online.)
Comments are most impactful when they are well spoken, composed and reasonable.
F. CONSENT ITEMS
All consent items are enacted by the Board in one motion, unless a Board member requests that an item be removed and discussed separately.
F.2. Approval of Personnel Transactions
EdJoin shows a total of sixty-one current postings for one-hundred thirty-two jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one more than last month) for nine teaching positions and two other certificated positions. There are forty-six current classified postings for one-hundred seventeen job openings (one more than the last meeting.) There are three certificated and one classified management positions posted.
Summer School Admin jobs have been posted.
SRTA heartily welcomes Prosper Tengepare (MHS). We welcome back Johnathan Wright (RHS.)
We bid farewell to Alexandra Evans (HLES), Olivier Begue (FACS), Antoine Machillot (FACS), Emilie Carret Machillot (FACS), and Manon Czuckermand(FACS) who resigned taking eleven years of experience with them.
Congratulations to Corinne Naro (FACS) and Gail Gagliano (H&H) who have announced their upcoming retirements, after a combined thirty-six years in our district.
Changes to classified staff includes two new hires, one rehire and two resignations. They leave taking with them six years of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
There is one admin resignation who sadly takes over a decade in experience with them. SRCS must restructure how they treat our staff and site admin so that they can do a better job retaining them. Hiring and training new people is markedly more difficult. It can be impossible to keep afloat with constant turnover, let alone make significant strides toward new goals.
Are the funds not spent from positions we are unable to fill adjusted for in the second interim report? If the two unfilled Facilitator positions could be closed, those funds could open up $200,000 from restricted funds that could be redirected, now. If SRCS were to hire folks, they’d hardly have time to orient before the end of the year, and it is presumed that these positions are not being renewed. End the posts.
F.4. Approval of Contracts over $15,000
| # | Provider | Cost | Description |
| Elementary | |||
| 1 | Mendocino Woodlands | $16065 | Proctor Terrace Outdoor Ed |
Total value of contracts = $16,065.
F.5. 5. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Lease-Leaseback Agreement with Wright Contracting LLC for the Elsie Allen High School Roofing and HVAC Project
This establishes the Guaranteed Maximum Project Price and authorizes the project to proceed in accordance with the approved contract documents.
Fund 21, Measure C: $19,190,099.00
Total Project Estimate: $25,000,000.00
F.6. Approval of Contracts – Bond
The new last column lists the total cost of the project.
| # | Contractor | Site | Service | Cost | Project Total Cost |
| Elementary | |||||
| 2 | Mobile Modular | BHES | Portable Removal | $34,477 | $80,000 |
| 3 | Golden State Electric | BHES | Disconnect Portable Electrical | $45,000 | $80,000 |
| Secondary | |||||
| 1 | Stocksdale Inspection Services | EAHS | Roof | $21,300 | $25,000,000 |
| 4 | RGH Consultants | SRHS | Geotechnical test and labs | $6,135 | $5,000,000 |
| 5 | Greystone West Company | EAHS | Project Management | $1,285,691 | $25,000,000 |
Measure C = $1,313,126.00
Measure G = $79,477.30
Total = $1,392,603.30
Measure C and G Implementation Plan
F.7. 7. Approval of PBK Architects, Inc. Master Architectural Agreement
PBK Architects was one of the firms that was included in the approval of the original pool of firms in 2023. While no project assignments have been executed to date with PBK, SRCS is executing a Master Agreement as it anticipates bringing project assignments forth in the future for PBK.
F.8. 8. Approval of Community Advisory Committee for Santa Rosa City SELPA
Renee Blair (Parent)
Allison Budlong (Staff)
Margaret Buhn (Staff)
Erin Burleson (Parent)
Aubrey Diehm (Staff)
Brittany Engelke-Affronti (Parent)
Carrie King (Parent)
Lauren Lindstrom (Parent)
Julie Mawod (Staff)
Sarah O’Connor (Staff)
Nora Parajon (Parent)
Kateland Pinella (Staff)
Kendra Sullivan (Parent)
Jennifer Yang (Parent)
What are the obligations and responsibilities for this committee? Do they hold any decision making power, or are their recommendations non-binding?
SRTA members are concerned that District Administrators are already overwhelmed with their current job responsibilities and adding SELPA requirements to their duties will make their jobs completely unmanageable.
G. BOARD POLICY UPDATES / FIRST READ
Clarification is sought about the desired process for board policy updates. When is the time for discussion, questions and suggestions? Is this an informational item only, or is the first read the appropriate time for input?
G.1. Board Policy 1445: Response to Immigration Enforcement
The attached BP and AR are the CSBA sample policy.
G.2. Board Policy 6146.1: High School Graduation Requirements-CTE Industry Concentration Certificate Update
This revision will also provide clarity and guidance to staff, students, parents/guardians, and the community, and support greater access to CTE Pathways and CTE Completion.
H. Discussion/Action Items
The expectation was made clear at the Saturday Study Session that agenda items should contain all pertinent information when the agenda posts. It is expected that this will be the last agenda with statements such as “Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board meeting” which appear on most items that follow.
H.1. Education Services Calendar
H.1. a. Public Comment on Education Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H1 agenda are addressed at this time
H.1. b. (Discussion) Board Recommendation for A-G Requirements Supporting Docs/Links attached to this item
This item is to direct the Superintendent (or designee) to collaborate with teachers, instructional leaders, department chairs, counselors, and instructional staff to review current A–G graduation requirements and related student support structures, and to return to the Board with recommended adjustments that promote equity, access, and successful graduation for all students.
SRTA Graduation Requirements Resolution, Adopted Dec 5, 2023
SRTA members support providing students with academic options which meet them where they are, and support them in getting where they want to go. Even in these turbulent times, there are likely educators willing to serve on this committee, if they are assured their efforts will not be in vain.
H.2. Finance Calendar
H.2.a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the H2 agenda are addressed at this time.
H.2.b. (Discussion/Action) District Consolidation: Recommend Support of a Three District Model
It is unclear which three district Model this resolution supports. The earlier study had two scenarios which may be what is being suggested.
Scenario 2: Split SRCHSD Into Two School District Areas.
• A Santa Rosa City Unified with SRCESD, Bellevue, Roseland, Bennett Valley, Wright, and 63% of the high school district.
• A Rincon Valley High School District and Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District under one common administration.
o An alternative would be to create a Rincon Valley Unified School District that includes Rincon Valley and approximately 37% of SRCHSD’s students. The existing elementary districts of Mark West, Kenwood, and Piner-Olivet would remain independent to limit the loss of basic aid community funding. A common administration for the four districts, like the current Santa Rosa City elementary and high school arrangement, is suggested to save the most costs instead of a full unification.
Scenario 3: Consolidation of Elementary School Districts Under Common Administration with SRCHSD.
• Santa Rosa City Union Elementary School District would merge Bellevue, Roseland, Bennett Valley, and Wright with Santa Rosa City Elementary Schools under a consolidated administration with SRCHSD.
• A Rincon Valley Union Elementary School District would merge Rincon Valley, Piner-Olivet, Kenwood, and Mark West and send secondary pupils to SRCHSD under one common administration.
Redistricting requires the approval of other districts, and creates new districts with new names, boards and administration. The process is not rapid.
There is a growing ground swell supporting a restructuring of the elementary districts in Santa Rosa. The model that the board was attracted to when this came up was not immediately financially sound. The other options were more financially attractive. The idea of giving the area a fresh start, with more funding that new districts would provide is appealing on many fronts.
H.2.c. (Action) Fiscal Stabilization Plan and Recommendations to the Board
In discussing the Fiscal Stabilization Plan, the Board should evaluate both the immediate and long-term financial impacts of the recommended actions, including expenditure reductions, revenue enhancements, organizational restructuring, and efficiency measures.
Round 2- Ongoing Budget Solutions
There are grave concerns about the negative impact these changes will have on students, site cultures and staff. Without any understanding of when finances would be expected to improve, or when services could be restored, or the manner in which those decisions would be made, it is very difficult to feel motivated to endure this chaos. Especially when it feels like the decisions were far from the classroom, but the impact will be most felt there.
SRCS will not be seen as a destination district for students or staff. While prohibiting transfers within, or out of the district are expected to stabilize enrollment, in truth this can further exacerbate the problem, and allow those with the knowledge and means to explore ways around the denials, to enroll their students where they want them to go.
Asking district staff, “Will this work?” does not equal substantial evaluation of the plans prior to implementation. Educators have shared their numerous, significant concerns, and feel like they are being ignored. There are no implementation plans of any kind for these changes. This does not build confidence.
If implemented, how will these changes be evaluated? How will finances be tracked to verify if cost savings match projections? How are we monitoring enrollment? How does SRCS validate the expectation that denying transfers will result in enrollment in neighborhood schools?
Transparent SRCS shows income outpacing expenses until the last three years. The one time solutions appear to be fixing three years of fund misallocation, redirecting expenses from the general fund to instead utilize restricted funds. This awareness erodes trust in those leading the district fiscal decisions for the past three years.
Where else could funds be found? There are no cuts proposed for district staffing from the Business Services department. Services and Other Operating Costs are 25% of the budget. There are NO proposed cuts from this realm. From last year’s budget to this year’s budget, service contracts have been increased by $8.5 million dollars. SRCS must fix what is broken.
H.3. Human Resources Calendar
The ongoing practice of not having required documents prepared in time for the release of the Board Agenda is deeply troubling. The board has asked that this practice be discontinued, as the absence of attachments prevents both the board and the public from reviewing the information and preparing responses. Board members must have the necessary context to make informed decisions.
H.3.a. Public Comment on Human Resources Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on the H3 agenda are addressed at this time
H.3.b. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-52 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Certificated Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.c. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-53 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Classified Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.d. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-54 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Supervisory and Unrepresented Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.e. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-55 to Adopt Seniority Date Tiebreaking Criteria to Determine the Order of Termination Among Teamsters Local 665 Employees with the Same Date of Paid Service
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.f. (Action) Approval of Proposed Job Description for Assistant Superintendent of Student Support
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.g. (Action) Approval of Proposed Job Description for Coordinator of Mental Health
Reduce 1.0 FTE Director to 1.0 FTE Coordinator is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $23,795 and restricted savings of approximately $25,778.
Fiscal Savings: $49,573
Supporting documents will be attached by the 2/11/26 Board Meeting.
H.3.h. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-57 Reduction in Classified Work Force due to School Closures for the 2026-27 School Year
The financial impact of eliminating Steele Lane Elementary School listed classified positions and Hilliard Comstock Middle School’s listed classified positions is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $1,858,708 and restricted savings of approximately $1,091,702.
This resolution cuts is 35 positions representing 25.1 FTE
Fiscal Savings: $2,950,410, or $117,546 per FTE.
SLES HVMS Classified Savings.pdf
CSEA 75 List of Classifications and Salary Schedule
District leadership states positions being cut are just part of position control, eliminating positions tied to schools/classes that are being closed. Many positions will be recreated for the new classrooms at other campuses and for the additional new positions of assistants for push-in support. Because so many jobs will transfer sites with students, it is disingenuous to state that there is a savings from the elimination of these positions. Including the elimination of a Director at the district office also seems inappropriate. The savings stated by the district average to more than $117,000 per position.
The attached SLES HVMS Classified Savings.pdf spreadsheet calculates listed positions as if the employees were all at step 5, utilizing posted FTE percentages of salaries, and deleting the district level director salary. These reasonable manipulations brings the total savings to $1,388,574. $338,000 of that represents the minimum cost for positions moving with the students (expected to be re-created), bringing the actual savings to $1,050,000. Upholding staffing ratios may actually cause the real savings to further decrease.
If there is a desire to actually build trust, SRCS will share district staffing ratios. This would include the ideal ratios that are being sought, as well as the actual ratios being staffed. Stakeholders need to understand the reasons for deviations from ratio expectations for certain positions at certain sites.
The SRCS board needs to be stewards. When and how does the board evaluate the decision to close sites? When are the expected savings compared with actual savings? When is the lost enrollment evaluated? Providing the public with documentation of actual financial savings from recent site closures would build understanding and support for efforts to continue to close sites. Without this information, there is not a willingness for sites to subject themselves to the chaos of tearing their school communities apart.
H.3.i. (Action) Resolution No. 2025/26-58 Reduction or Discontinuance of Certain Particular Kinds of Services (PKS) Administrative Positions for the 2026-27 School Year
The financial impact of eliminating Steele Lane Elementary School Principal Position, Hilliard Comstock Middle School Principal Position, and Hilliard Comstock Middle School Vice Principal Position is a general fund unrestricted savings of approximately $540,429.
Will moving Comstock students to PHS require another VP at PHS? If so this stated savings will not be realized.
H.4. 4. (Action) Update to Santa Rosa City Schools Governance Handbook with the Addition of Board Training and Orientation
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Jan 28, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
Dec 17, 2025 Minutes and Supporting Documents
Jan 7, 2026 Minutes
Jan 14, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
J. BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
Prior requests awaiting board agendized responses
Medina- AP instruction data with number of years of experience of Teachers
-Clarification about board policy adoption requiring a majority of board membership versus a majority of those present/voting
– consider E-sports clubs or teams
Caston- Site funding finance report with various amounts and sources
-strategy of athletics program across the district
-update 3510 policy around reducing waste as a discussion item
– how different sports programs are supported with rallies, etc.
Prak – Turf fields maintenance level report
– update on sports at MS level
Kirby – add an assistant wrestling coach for women?
DeLaTorre- facility fee, possible reductions?
Jenkins – Update on transportation for middle school sports
K. INFORMATION ITEMS
K.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items:
- LCAP Mid-Year Review (from Jan 2026)
What is the process for this annual evaluation? Is it part of an ongoing system to revise and update the LCAP? Why is this not done in collaboration with stakeholders?
- 2025/26 Second Interim Report
- Should include update on savings put in place this year
- Update on fiscal stabilization plan for items from the 5000’s
- Update on savings from site closing/consolidation
- Study Session: Priority 2-Safety and Security
- Approval of BP 1445: Response to Immigration Enforcement
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
- CCLA Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 2026)
Is this charter extending to 12th grade, to allow it to stay on the Cook Campus? What will that change entail in practice?
- SRACS Charter Renewal Public Hearing (delayed from Jan 2026)
Will this include a material revision request as extending to fourth grade was under consideration? Will all communication with RVUSD be shared in this item?
- Cell Phone Policy Presentation (delayed from Sept 2025, and again from Jan 2026)
Staff was given the opportunity to complete a survey about cell phones. All questions were required to be answered, while options for answering did not always allow for an accurate response. Because of these faults, valuable input is not included in the results.
- Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) Update (Dec 2025)
- Panorama and Youth Truth Survey Data (August 2025)
- Restorative Practices Data (March 2025)
- VAPA Program Highlights (Feb 2025)
- Plan and timeline for implementation of Dr. Gillespie’s recommendations around Special Services (January 2025), New FCMAT Study on SRCS SpEd Program
- First Draft of the District Safety Plan (delayed from September 2024)
- Sharing the Library Master Plan with implementation expectations
- Officially Closing Learning House, and other sites
- 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 continues to diminish as time passes.
- Student Voice Policy
J.3. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
- Thursday, March 5, 2026 Facilities Master Plan (FMP) Update Study Session
- Wednesday, April 1, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
- Saturday, April 11, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
SRTA members are appreciative of this transparency.
J.3. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
- Monday, March 2, 2026
- Monday, April 6, 2026
- Monday, May 4, 2026
- Monday, June 1, 2026