Trustees split over pausing high‑school closures; elementary boundary changes advance

SANTA ROSA, Calif. — The Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Trustees debated two competing plans to reduce a projected budget shortfall during a tense meeting on Feb. 19, 2025, ultimately rejecting a boardmotion to pause high‑school closures and approving a set of elementary boundary adjustments that officials said are needed under either plan.

The dispute centered on two scenarios presented by district staff and discussed with fiscal oversight from the Sonoma County Office of Education: a “3‑3 pause” scenario that would delay any high‑school closure for a year or two while the district pursues negotiated staffing changes and attempts to stabilize enrollment, and a “3‑3‑1” scenario that would close a single comprehensive high school in year one — staff identified Elsie Allen High School (often referred to in the meeting as “LC Allen”) as the site that would be shuttered under that option.

Board members and staff said the choices are driven by an immediate and longer‑term fiscal reality: the district is projecting multi‑million dollar shortfalls and must reach roughly $20–24 million in savings to avoid deeper state intervention. Lisa (fiscal team) told trustees the two secondary scenarios yield different year‑one savings totals — roughly $10.6 million under the larger‑savings plan versus about $8.6 million under the pause model — and that converting schedules and transportation patterns also affect the results. District staff said changes in busing and a potential negotiated change to a seven‑period versus six‑period teacher day for one campus are part of the calculations. An MOU mentioned in the presentation governing a seven‑period day at Elsie Allen runs through June 2027 and would have to be bargained to change staffing costs.

Trustees cast two formal votes during the meeting. Trustee Jose De La Torre moved — and Trustee Jessie Manieri seconded — a motion to adopt the 3‑3 pause with an amendment to develop an equity evaluation matrix; that measure failed in a 4‑3 roll call (ayes: Student Board Member Zuniga, Trustee De La Torre, Trustee Vannieri, President McNally; noes: Trustees Casten, Kirby, Jenkins). Later the board voted to approve elementary boundary changes that are common to both scenarios — a narrower action staff said is needed to implement either plan. That boundary motion passed on a roll call of 5‑2 (ayes: Trustees Casten, Jenkins, Kirby, De La Torre, President McNally; noes: Student Board Member Zuniga, Trustee Manieri).

Throughout an extended public‑comment period, more than 80 speakers — students, teachers, parents, alumni and local advocates — urged the board not to close Elsie Allen High School, saying it is the only public high school serving Southwest Santa Rosa and arguing that its students are among the district’s most vulnerable. Speakers described Elsie Allen as a community hub that provides health services, English learner supports, career‑pathway programs and a two‑million‑dollar private endowment created by a local foundation. Several commenters warned of likely declines in attendance and increases in transfers to other districts if the school were closed; district staff told the board that student losses to neighboring districts would reduce average daily attendance (ADA) and therefore revenue. A student‑speaker representing a law clinic and others warned of potential legal challenges; public commenters explicitly cited the Brown Act, CEQA and Attorney General Rob Bonta’s guidance under AB 1912 as frameworks they expect the district to follow.

District staff said Sonoma County Office of Education (SCOE) fiscal staff were consulted and that SCOE suggested a pause could reduce the risk of longer‑term fiscal instability by preserving capacity to pursue potential revenue or enrollment improvements. Staff also warned that a pause would likely leave the district with a qualified fiscal certification for the short term and that failing to make deeper reductions could increase the risk of a future negative certification and greater county involvement. The staff presentation cited a roughly $1 million difference in transportation costs between scenarios and described how schedule changes and bargaining with employee groups (SRTA) could change year‑one savings.

Board members described the decision as a choice between deep, immediate programmatic disruption and a risk of returning next year to the same fiscal crisis if projected enrollment and revenue improvements do not materialize. Several trustees said they wished for more time and more outside analysis; others said delaying a decision would prolong uncertainty and harm students, staff and families. The board also discussed a plan to develop an equity‑centered metric or “matrix” to guide any future reconsideration of school configurations and to fold that work into the district’s broader strategic planning.

The meeting concluded after late‑night procedural votes. Staff reminded the board about legally required staffing‑notice timelines: if the board does not adopt specific school closures before March 15, broader preliminary notices for potential layoffs may still be required to meet state timelines for personnel actions. Trustees ended the session without adopting a secondary‑school closure; they did adopt the elementary boundary changes that will be used in either path forward. Staff said they will continue to coordinate with SCOE and return with additional fiscal and programmatic detail as requested.

What’s next: the board signaled it intends to continue discussions in the coming weeks and pursue the equity‑matrix and strategic‑planning work referenced during the meeting. Staff also said they will send notices and do targeted outreach to families impacted by the elementary boundary adjustments approved on Feb. 19. The district’s next steps will include monitoring ADA, finalizing any negotiated changes required to achieve savings and reporting back to the trustees and public as new information becomes available.