Santa Rosa board approves $15 million fiscal stabilization plan, clearing path to major staff and program cuts

The Santa Rosa City Schools Board of Education approved a fiscal stabilization plan on Feb. 11 aimed at closing roughly a $15 million structural deficit, voting 6–1 after hours of public comment and trustee deliberations.

Superintendent Lisa August and Chief Financial Officer Luz Casarez told the board the district can meet immediate cash needs from internal onetime sources and does not expect to require a state emergency apportionment this fiscal year. Casarez said the budget solutions before trustees include both one‑time cash steps and multi‑year reductions intended to rebuild reserves and avoid state receivership.

The plan enacted by the board includes significant personnel and program changes proposed in the staff packet: a substantial reduction in school‑based therapists (reducing the current team to a smaller core focused on legally mandated services), changes to special‑education models (shifting some co‑taught classes toward push‑in models and relying more on instructional aides and outside service providers), and adjustments to vice‑principal staffing ratios at secondary schools. Casarez warned the board the district spends well above state averages in the 5,000 series ledger—largely transportation, nonpublic agency/school expenditures and property/liability insurance—and that higher IEP rates are a major cost driver.

Board members pressed staff for implementation detail and legal clarity. Trustees asked how the district will provide required services under revised staffing models; staff responded that legally mandated services will continue but may be delivered differently, that planning and metrics (attendance, IEP progress, grades) will guide course corrections, and that March 15 notices require early personnel decisions in order to meet statutory timelines. Staff also outlined steps to pursue additional revenue through Medi‑Cal/CYBHI billing and to negotiate lower rates with nonpublic agencies.

The board’s approval followed extensive public testimony from students, parents, teachers and union representatives who urged the board to protect counselors, therapists, children’s services and specialized programs that attract families to the district. Multiple speakers warned that eliminating site‑based mental‑health staff and co‑teaching models would increase caseloads, trigger program collapses and could drive further student departures.

In voting, Trustee De La Torre registered the sole vote against the plan, citing concerns about the depth of impact on special‑education and mental‑health services and urging continued review of alternatives. Supporters of the plan said the reductions are painful but necessary to regain local control and avert state receivership.

The board directed staff to continue outreach to community partners and county agencies to seek funding and capacity to mitigate direct impacts. Staff committed to returning with metrics, a schedule for implementation, analyses of IEP identification trends by grade, and site‑level staffing details as the plan moves into execution.

The approval begins a transition period in which the district will issue required notice letters for possible reductions while continuing to plan for implementation and possible course corrections. The board and staff emphasized that legally required services will continue to be provided and that details about timing and site impacts will be reported back to trustees and the public.

The next procedural step is the budget adoption cycle in May, when updated multi‑year projections and any refinements to the plan will be considered; staff said they will also present monitoring metrics and follow‑up analyses in interim reporting.