BOARD FINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE | 04/06/2026 – 03:30 PM Hybrid Format
Santa Rosa City Schools District Office (110 Stony Point Road, Suite 210 Santa Rosa, Ca. 95401)
The meeting begins when many SRCS employees and parents are still at work, unable to participate. Comments are only allowed in person.
3. DISCUSSION / ACTION
There are no attachments for these discussion items, so they are being considered without any referenceable data or details.
a. (Discussion) Communication and Framework Around Implementation of Budget Solutions
Provide a clear framework for implementing Board-approved budget solutions, outlining timelines, decision-making guidelines, stakeholder involvement, evaluation criteria, and monitoring—ensuring a transparent, structured approach aligned with the District’s priorities and long-term financial stability.
This item is intended to address a longtime void. It is unclear how much progress is expected on this item, with no proposed draft to launch the discussion.
b. (Discussion) SELPA Update
Executive Director Fischer will provide updated information about the status of SELPA formation, and the timeline going forward.
SRCS recently hired a consultant to evaluate Special Services and provide recommendations. Gillaspie identified major gaps in SRCS’s special education system, including lack of leadership, coherent structure, procedural guidance, training, and accountability. He recommended a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan with clear systems, oversight, and infrastructure.
While SRCS has taken some initial steps—such as forming a task force, beginning procedural work, and proposing coaching supports—progress has been limited, fragmented, and largely conceptual. The task force has not produced a roadmap or system-level changes, procedural development remains incomplete and voluntary, and staff continue to report inconsistent communication, unclear guidance, and lack of training.
The district has also moved toward inclusion and SELPA formation without first establishing the necessary systems, compliance safeguards, and service continuum. Staff report ongoing uncertainty about legal compliance, IEP practices, and where to seek support, while key elements like MTSS, accountability frameworks, and interagency coordination remain underdeveloped.
Overall, the core issue is not primarily fiscal but structural: SRCS lacks the cohesive systems, infrastructure, and implementation capacity needed to ensure consistent, legally compliant special education services before taking on expanded responsibilities.
SRTA members are united with the concerns raised by the CAC. SRCS is not in a position to successfully implement its own SELPA.
c. (Discussion/Possible Action) 7-11 Surplus Property Impacts
Receive information regarding the 7-11 Committee’s discussions and preliminary perspectives related to the potential disposition of surplus property and the allowable use of proceeds statutory requirements, and the District’s long-term financial and facilities strategy prior to formal recommendations being presented to the full Board.
d. (Discussion) Long Term Planning
Discuss developing a comprehensive, multi-year financial planning framework that promotes fiscal stability, aligns resources with district priorities, and ensures long-term sustainability. This includes establishing consistent reporting on implementation plan progress, planning for and maintaining a 10% reserve level in accordance with best practices, and creating a structured process for evaluating and incorporating future costs, obligations, and programmatic priorities into the district’s budget.
SRTA members understand the desire for 10% reserves. However in the present moment, the idea of further sustained cuts to create a reserve seem unwise. SRCS needs systemic stabilization before building up a reserve. The district can not continue to exist if it is repelling families, and eroding enrollment.
e. (Discussion) Transparency for Fiscal Consent Items
Establish a clear, consistent process to evaluate the fiscal impact of proposed programs before Board approval, ensuring decisions are financially viable, sustainable, and aligned with the district’s budget.
This includes early fiscal review, standardized cost summaries, alignment with current and multi-year budgets, identification of ongoing financial commitments, clear funding sources, and transparent communication to support informed decision-making.
This item also intends to address a longtime void. It is unclear how much progress is expected on this item with no proposed draft to start the discussion.
4. APPROVAL OF March 2 Minutes
REGULAR BOARD MEETING
Santa Rosa City Schools
April 8, 2026
Hybrid: Santa Rosa City Hall Council Chambers
4:00 p.m. – Closed Session
5:00 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 Expulsions (Case Nos: 2025/26-12, 2025/26-16)
B.2. Public Employee Discipline/Dismissal/Release
B.3. Conference With Labor Negotiator (Name of designated rep attending: Dr. Vicki Zands (SRCS); name of organization: SRTA CSEA 75)
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 OPEN SESSION (5:00 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 G.)
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 fifty-six current postings for one hundred eighty-three jobs in SRCS. There are eleven certificated opening postings (one more than last month). CTE are the only positions posted for next year. There are forty-five current classified postings for one hundred sixty-nine job openings (three less than the last meeting.) There are three certificated and no classified management positions posted.
SRTA members wonder about the three identical CTE jobs posted for three different high schools. What are the transparent parameters for having the same course at multiple sites versus only allowing a course at one or two sites?
We bid farewell to Gem Santiago Ramirez (WAE), Ryan Branche (MCHS), Glenda Lowery (CCLA) who resign at the end of the year taking seven years of service and experience with them.
We bid a fond farewell to Joseph Davis (MHS) who is retiring at the end of the year, after eight years of service to our students and families.
Changes to classified staff includes two hires and two resignations. They leave taking with them three and one-third months of knowledge and service to our staff and students.
F.4. Approval of Donations and Gifts
F.5. Approval of Contracts – Bond
| # | Provider | Site | Description | Cost | Total Cost |
| District | |||||
| 1 | Golden State Electric | DO – Warehouse | Electrical Work for Portable Generator | $21,340 | 9,750,000 |
| 2-13 | Grassetti Environmental Consulting | various | CEQA Exemption Qualification 12 projects @ $950 | $11,400 | Varies |
Measure C: $22,868.40
Measure G: $9,871.60
Total: $32,740.00
F.6. Approval of Amendment 1 for the SRHS DeSoto Hall Modernization & Theater Roofing Project
Measure C, Fund 21: $7,579,730.00
SRTA members are concerned about the expense to make DeSoto Hall middle school student friendly. The FMP identified more facility needs than bond funds could provide before the 7-12 consolidation idea. There has not been a clear and transparent review of the financial impact of the current 7-12 mergers. When do we pause and consider reopening Slater with SRJH and MJH students combined?
F.7. Approval of Updated Resolution 2025/26-47 Authorizing Personnel to Sign Orders on District Funds Accounts
SRCS is unable to retain a stable staff in Fiscal Services. The change in personnel requires an update to account signatures.
G. DISCUSSION / ACTION ITEMS
G.1. Charter School Calendar
G.1. a. Public Hearing: Santa Rosa Accelerated Charter School Charter Renewal
A seven year renewal is requested for this high performing school. There is no material revision to the charter to include fourth grade.
With SRACS existing inside RVUSD boundaries, is it now necessary to obtain their permission to continue to have the school at its current site? How is that being addressed?
G.2. Student Services Calendar
G.2. a. Public Comment on Finance Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on G.2. agenda are addressed at this time
G.2. b. (Discussion) Mobile Devices on Campus Update and Presentation
This discussion item is designed to share community engagement in the Cell Phone policy discussion since Spring, 2025.
California’s Phone-Free School Act (AB 3216), signed in 2024, mandates that all school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education adopt a policy restricting or prohibiting student smartphone use by July 1, 2026. Policies must limit phone use during school hours, with exceptions for emergencies, health needs, or teacher permission.
The data is clear that social media has a negative impact on academic performance.
The Stop It App data has no parameters, which impairs the usefulness of this information. It looks like about 200 uses were recorded. Which sites was this for, over what time period?
G.2. c. (Discussion/Possible Action) Second Read of Board Policy 5131.8: Mobile Communication Devices
G.3. Special Education Calendar
G.3. a. Public Comment on Educational Services Calendar
Comments will be limited to 60 seconds. Only items on H.3. agenda are addressed at this time
G.3. b. (Action) Second Read of Local Plan for Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
No cost savings have been included in budget projections to date. If approved, the actual financial impact will be updated for the third interim report. Conservative estimates show savings exceeding $250,000.
If the motivation for this item is financial, is it not reasonable that a detailed financial impact be provided to the board?
SRCS recently hired a consultant to evaluate Special Services and provide recommendations. Gillaspie identified major gaps in SRCS’s special education system, including lack of leadership, coherent structure, procedural guidance, training, and accountability. He recommended a comprehensive, multi-year implementation plan with clear systems, oversight, and infrastructure.
While SRCS has taken some initial steps—such as forming a task force, beginning procedural work, and proposing coaching supports—progress has been limited, fragmented, and largely conceptual. The task force has not produced a roadmap or system-level changes, procedural development remains incomplete and voluntary, and staff continue to report inconsistent communication, unclear guidance, and lack of training.
The district has also moved toward inclusion and SELPA formation without first establishing the necessary systems, compliance safeguards, and service continuum. Staff report ongoing uncertainty about legal compliance, IEP practices, and where to seek support, while key elements like MTSS, accountability frameworks, and interagency coordination remain underdeveloped.
Overall, the core issue is not primarily fiscal but structural: SRCS lacks the cohesive systems, infrastructure, and implementation capacity needed to ensure consistent, legally compliant special education services before taking on expanded responsibilities.
SRTA members are united with the concerns raised by the CAC. SRCS is not in a position to successfully implement its own SELPA.
Any decision of this magnitude should be phased in and implemented with clear evaluation metrics and a commitment to continuous, transparent review—so its effectiveness can be verified and adjustments made if it falls short of intended outcomes.
G.3. c. (Action) Second Read of Local Plan for Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) Formation
CAC Advisory Statement
The Community Advisory Committee (CAC) found significant gaps in clarity, transparency, and planning. Key concerns include unclear governance and oversight, insufficient detail on program implementation, lack of a fully established CAC structure, and limited accessibility of supporting documents in the SELPA plan. .
The CAC also raised major issues with the elimination of mild-to-moderate Special Day Classes, noting the plan does not explain how the district will maintain required placement options or ensure compliance with federal special education law. Additional concerns involve potential loss of independent dispute resolution, heavy reliance on costly outside services, and unclear fiscal planning in a district-run SELPA model.
Given these concerns—particularly around financial risk, reduced oversight, and incomplete planning—the CAC recommends that the Board not approve the Local Plan or move forward with forming a district-administered SELPA at this time.
Several areas of service are not provided by SRCS. They will have to be provided through contracts with others.
$22 million in restricted income
$68.4 million in projected expenses including $28.3 from 5000’s (services and other operating expenses) with $46.4 million supplemented from the General Fund. There is no clarification if the costs for the additional areas of service are included in these figures.
Local Plan Section B Final: Governance and Administration
Any decision of this magnitude should be phased in and implemented with clear evaluation metrics and a commitment to continuous, transparent review—so its effectiveness can be verified and adjustments made if it falls short of intended outcomes.
G.3.d. (Action) Approval of Proposed Job Description for Executive Director of SELPA and Special Services
Current Salary Range Certificated Executive Director $152,415–$174,103
Proposed Salary Range Certificated Executive Director SELPA $156,846 — $179,183
Approximate Annual Potential Impact $7,000 (including statutory costs)
SRTA members are certain that if we become our own SELPA the workload will require additional district level administrators, which is denied by those in charge. Current positions are already overwhelmed with their workload. There is no way they can adequately take on this additional work.
SRTA members rally around the need for SRCS to hire someone who has the necessary knowledge foundation to step in and run Special Services, implementing the many systemic changes recommended by Gillespie and identified by members in a recent survey. Adding to those requirements someone who has experience running a SELPA seems like looking for a unicorn. How can someone with that experience be attracted to SRCS?
This is not the time to hire someone who is expected to learn on the job. The tolerance for that is gone.
G.3.e. (Action) Second Read and Approval of Board Policy 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special Education
H. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
March 25, 2026 Minutes and Supporting Documents
I. BOARD MEMBER REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
J. INFORMATION ITEMS
J.1. Future Board Discussion Items
Future Agenda Items (tentative):
- Public Hearing CCLA Charter Renewal Petition ((delayed from Jan 2026 and April 8, 2026, now scheduled for April 22, 2026)
- Approval of Facilities Master Plan (FMP) (April 22, 2026)
- Child Nutrition Services (CNS) Update (April 22, 2026
- Approval of Classified Employee Calendar (April 22, 2026, delayed from April 8, 2026)
- Approval of Instructional Calendar (April 22, 2026, delayed from April 8, 2026)
- Approval of CCLA Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 2026)
- Approval of SRACS Charter Renewal Petition (May 13, 2026)
SRTA looks to the future scheduling of the following items:
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.
– Communication plan.
Prak – Turf fields maintenance level report
– update on sports at MS level
– Info about a non voting teacher on the board.
Kirby – add an assistant wrestling coach for women?
– Copies of the panorama and youth truth surveys.
DeLaTorre- facility fee, possible reductions?
-Waitlist plan- May is too late.
– Data on waiver’s impact on graduation rates.
– Info on how we identify College and Career readiness.
Jenkins – Update on transportation for middle school sports
– projected enrollment for next year.
– marketing plan update as committed to last year.
- Approval of Mental Health Coordinator Position (delayed from Feb 2026)
- 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), Requesting 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.4. Board Finance Subcommittee Meeting Schedule
- Monday, May 4, 2026
- Monday, June 1, 2026
J.5. Dates of Future Special Board Meetings and Study Sessions
- Friday, May 15, 2026 Special Board Meeting, Superintendent Search
SRTA members are appreciative of this transparency.
J.6. Updated AR 1220
This clarifies that this committee is not subject to the Brown Act. This allows the district to not provide information for the meeting ahead of time like the 72 hours required for board meetings.
Reg 1220 Citizen Advisory Committee
SRTA members would like SRCS to have more focus, allowing the capacity to provide complete information ahead of time in agendas to this and other committees, even if not specifically required by law. This allows meetings to be far more productive as participants have time to review items and information prior to the meetings.
K. Adjournment