Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the District Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Santa Rosa district projects multimillion‑dollar shortfall; board opens public hearing on 2025–26 proposed budget
Summary
At a June 11 public hearing district staff presented a proposed 2025–26 budget showing a structural deficit and a projected unrestricted general‑fund shortfall that leaves the district below its 3% reserve; staff described steps to monitor cash flow and continue rightsizing measures.
Santa Rosa City Schools staff on June 11 presented the district’s proposed 2025–26 budget and a multi‑year projection that shows a material structural deficit and an unrestricted general‑fund position below the board’s 3% reserve threshold.
Interim Superintendent Lisa August and Executive Director Joel Dontos (presentation assisted by an external FCMAT partner) told the board the proposed budget was prepared using the Governor’s May revision assumptions and legislative proposals then under negotiation. The presentation noted uncertainty in state revenues, the timing of Expanded Learning Opportunities Program funding and other one‑time grants; staff said they were using conservative assumptions while awaiting the Legislature’s final action.
Interim Superintendent August cautioned trustees and the public that the district is operating “on the razor thin edge” and that the projections require continued rightsizing, close monitoring of cash flow and a renewed fiscal stabilization process. The district’s financial advisor and FCMAT partner, Tammy Montero, said staff had used the state’s ProjectionPro multiyear tool to model enrollment declines, cost drivers (STRS, PERS) and the impact of prior local decisions on staffing and consolidation.
Staff described the multiyear projection as showing a negative ending unrestricted general‑fund balance relative to the required 3% reserve under current assumptions. They said the district expects positive cash through June of the next fiscal year using interfund borrowing and the established county line of credit, but stressed that cash position and budget balance are distinct and both must be managed.
Trustees and members of the public raised questions about how the projected savings from previously announced school consolidations and closures are reflected in the numbers, and requested clearer itemization when the budget returns for adoption. Trustee Jenkins, Trustee De La Torre and others voiced support for recruiting and retaining students, improving attendance, and marketing the district’s signature programs as ways to increase revenue without further cuts.
The board opened and closed the public hearing; staff said the budget will return for action at a subsequent meeting after final state budget actions. Staff also said they intend to reconstitute or expand the Fiscal Stabilization Advisory Committee and continue site and community outreach over the summer.
The June 11 presentation included estimates for bond borrowing rates on Measures C and G and a statement that recent bond pricing came in under earlier estimates, producing approximately $1 million in estimated interest‑cost savings compared with a prior pre‑pricing call. The recommendation to adopt a final budget will follow the board’s review after state budget adoption and staff analysis of carryover balances.
