Santa Rosa City Schools board certifies negative budget and approves first round of stabilization cuts
Loading...
Summary
The board voted Dec. 10 to certify a negative 2025‑26 first‑interim report and approved a first round fiscal stabilization plan focused on $1.9 million in district‑office management reductions; staff said further rounds of solutions and a demographic check will follow.
The Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education on Dec. 10 accepted the district’s first‑interim financial report and entered a negative certification, acknowledging that without further action the district cannot meet its obligations for the current year and the next.
Luz Gaceres, the district fiscal lead presenting the report, told trustees: “We are certifying ourselves as negative,” and described a combination of restricted‑fund moves, tighter salary projections and one‑time revenue shifts the district is using to protect cash while longer‑term solutions are developed. She warned that, “if there is no action…we will not be able to meet our financial obligations in the current year or next.”
Trustee Medina moved to approve the first interim report with a negative certification; the motion was seconded and passed on a unanimous roll call vote. The negative certification triggers the district’s published process for bringing back specific reductions and timelines before the next reporting window.
As a follow‑up action, the board approved a first round of fiscal stabilization measures that staff said would produce about $1.9 million in savings by restructuring district‑office management positions. Staff described Round 1 as “100% District office, 100% management,” identifying those organizational changes as the minimum the district can take now to reduce ongoing costs while preserving student‑facing services when possible.
Trustee De La Torre moved the stabilization plan and Trustee Jenkins seconded. After a discussion and a failed amendment to retain a standalone multilingual director position, the board approved the plan by majority vote. The district said it will return with more detailed job descriptions, a timeline for personnel actions and Round 2 budget solutions in January and February that could include additional transfers of one‑time funds, contract reviews and other reductions.
Union representatives and dozens of public commenters told the board the community is counting on transparency and on protecting student‑facing programs. A CSEA representative urged local control and immediate action, saying the negative certification shows “SRCS is in a negative financial position so severe that students’ programs, services, and opportunities are now at direct risk.”
Board and staff repeatedly emphasized that Round 1 addresses organizational structure only; specific personnel actions would be brought to the board later with updated job descriptions and implementation plans. Staff also said the county office and the Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) are reviewing the district’s materials, and the State Controller’s Office will decide whether to assign a fiscal adviser by Dec. 15.
What’s next: staff will present Round 2 options in January and return in February for action intended to be reflected in the second interim report. The board also requested that forthcoming demographic and program studies be used to refine any future decisions.
