Santa Rosa school board reviews closure and consolidation scenarios as district seeks $20 million in cuts

Santa Rosa City Schools trustees and staff spent a Feb. 7 study session reviewing maps, enrollment data and cost projections for multiple consolidation scenarios the district could use to reduce a projected budget shortfall that district leaders say totals about $20 million.

Superintendent Morales opened the special board meeting to explain that the session would be a workshop-style discussion focused on “school consolidations and closures,” then staff walked trustees through detailed fact sheets showing attendance maps, budgets and projected savings for several options, including a ‘‘3-1-1’’ plan (closing three elementary schools, one middle school and one high school), a range of ‘‘super‑elementary’’ consolidations, and more ambitious proposals to convert some high schools to 7–12 campuses.

The board and staff emphasized the practical limits that would affect any timetable to implement changes by the next school year. Emmanuel Bardelli, executive director of information and evaluation, summarized how the fact sheets were organized: “So every fact sheet starts with an attendance map,” and then shows projected enrollments, current capacity, and unrestricted general‑fund impacts. Lisa August, associate superintendent for business services, and facilities staff cautioned that physical capacity, portable classroom availability, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions and Division of the State Architect (DSA) approvals constrain how fast the district can move.

Why it matters

The choices under consideration would affect thousands of students, teacher and classified staffing levels, special education services and the district’s ability to meet legal funding requirements. Board members and staff repeatedly framed the exercise as practical problem‑solving: the district needs large, immediate reductions in operating expense, but trustees must weigh capacity, student safety, program continuity and legal constraints before making a final decision.

Scenarios and projected savings

Staff presented multiple scenarios with differing estimated savings: a version of the 3‑1‑1 scenario showed roughly $9.5 million in cost removal at the site‑level with a projected net general‑fund savings of several million dollars after some costs move with students; alternative consolidations that used a larger single elementary campus were projected to yield about $6.3 million in savings in another configuration. High‑school closures were estimated to remove roughly $4.0 million (Elsie Allen) to $4.6 million (Montgomery) in operating costs in staff projections, with the combined set of options on the table totaling roughly $10–$12 million in school‑closure savings depending on the exact mix and assumptions. Trustees and staff cautioned those figures are scenario projections, not final audited savings.

Capacity, transfers and boundary rules

Board members and staff discussed how attendance boundaries, intra‑district and inter‑district transfers, and charter enrollments would affect the district’s seat counts. Staff repeatedly said the projections assume current enrollment patterns continue next year; they also warned that some consolidation plans would create capacity shortfalls without adding portable classrooms or other construction. Eric Oden, executive director of facilities maintenance and operations, said many sites could accept portables but noted CEQA rules limit an exemption to adding fewer than 10 classrooms or less than 25% capacity expansion; exceeding that would trigger longer environmental review and delay.

Board policy and state law also shape how students are assigned after a boundary change. Trustees heard that continuing students receive the highest priority under district transfer policy and that the district will try to avoid displacing current students when redraws occur. Staff told trustees they cannot finalize attendance areas and open registration until the board adopts a final configuration because resident status depends on the new boundaries.

Public comment and trustee concerns

Public commenters — including longtime teachers and parents — urged the board to “put students first,” to protect staff, and to avoid decisions that would “break” communities. Mary Feige, a teacher of 34 years, told the board she feared communities could be pitted against one another and recommended following the least‑disruptive option previously identified. Natasha Deakins, a 25‑year district employee, said, “People make schools work, not programs or buildings,” and asked trustees to focus on people when weighing programmatic changes.

Trustees raised a mix of programmatic and logistical concerns: protecting continuing students, the logistics of mixing middle‑ and high‑school programs on one campus, access to science labs and arts/athletic spaces, restrooms and locker rooms, and the scheduling complications such moves would cause. Several trustees asked staff for specific alternative scenarios to model, including pilot 7–12 conversions limited to one campus so the district could test that model before a larger rollout.

Special education and fiscal/legal constraints

Staff emphasized that special education funding and state requirements limit the district’s flexibility. Lisa August explained the district must meet maintenance‑of‑effort rules for special education funding and that those calculations constrain how quickly special‑education expenditures can be reduced. Roderick Castro and special‑services staff described efforts to reduce out‑of‑district placements; they reported a plan with SCOE to return about 30 students from out‑of‑district placements this year (SCOE placement costs were cited around $104,000 per placement in staff remarks), which staff said would reduce some expenditures but is only one part of a longer plan to contain special‑education costs.

Next steps and timeline

Trustees asked staff to return within days with more focused feasibility work on a handful of configurations. Several board members asked for these specific follow‑ups: (1) feasibility and capacity analysis for a limited 7–12 pilot on the LC Allen campus; (2) versions of the 3‑1‑1 plan that substitute different high‑school closures (LC Allen, Montgomery or Santa Rosa High) so the board can compare fiscal and facility impacts; and (3) one or two ‘‘super‑elementary’’ consolidation maps with portable‑placement feasibility and DSA/CEQA implications. Board members noted they expect to vote on a final plan on or around Feb. 19 and asked staff to be ready with refined numbers and timeline impacts.

Trustees and staff warned that if school‑closure savings fall short of the district’s target, the remainder of the required reductions would have to come from staffing and district services; the district previously identified roughly $20 million in reductions needed overall, allocating about $12 million of that target to potential school closures and the balance to other staffing and program cuts.

What staff will return with

Trustees requested staff deliver: updated attendance‑boundary maps tied to specific scenarios, revised savings estimates that reflect realistic attrition and potential transfer losses, portable‑capacity and construction feasibility (including CEQA/DSA timing), and more granular special‑education cost projections tied to the district’s maintenance‑of‑effort calculations. Several trustees also asked for clearer analysis of how charter enrollments and intra/inter‑district transfers could change next year’s ADA and revenue recognition.

The board’s study session closed with staff and trustees acknowledging the time pressure and the complexity of choices that will affect students, families, staff and services districtwide. The board directed staff to return with the narrowed scenarios and technical feasibility analyses the trustees requested ahead of the vote in mid‑February.