Santa Rosa staff outline costs, timeline for forming a local SELPA
Loading...
Summary
District staff told the Finance Subcommittee that forming a Santa Rosa SELPA would shift several services in‑house, require new MOUs with county providers, and carry estimated costs — including $65,000–$80,000 per non‑public placement and roughly 2 FTE to serve about 45 DHH students.
Santa Rosa City Schools staff told the Finance Subcommittee on April 6 that the district has progressed on plans to form its own Special Education Local Plan Area (SELPA) and is finalizing cost estimates and staffing plans.
The update, delivered by Jonathan, said staff has dug into data on students currently served by the Sonoma County Office of Education and expects to negotiate memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with county providers. "We can develop an MOU with the Sonoma County Office of Education to provide services," Jonathan said, adding that the district would aim to build local capacity over time.
Why it matters: forming a local SELPA would shift some services now provided by the county to district control, creating both new responsibilities and potential flexibility in how services are delivered.
Key details and numbers: staff reported about 15 visually impaired (VI) itinerant students and about 45 deaf or hard‑of‑hearing (DHH) itinerant students who currently receive county services. Jonathan said serving roughly 45 DHH students would equate to about 2 full‑time equivalent positions. For students placed in non‑public school settings (including foster placements such as Valley of the Moon), staff estimated individual placement costs in the range of $65,000 to $80,000 and gave a conservative annual budget range of roughly $500,000–$650,000 depending on which students the district would serve locally.
On timelines and legal steps: staff said an agreement in principle with providers could be reached quickly and that attorneys would follow with contract language. Jonathan also noted that the new SELPA would require the district’s director to attend a state SELPA committee eight to nine times a year and that staff are planning for the additional fiscal and data reporting obligations that come with SELPA operation.
Dispute resolution and prevention: staff recommended developing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) capacity—training case managers and site administrators to resolve conflicts early to reduce litigation. "ADR is about prevention," Jonathan said, explaining that many disputes can be addressed at lower tiers through improved communication and training.
Next steps: Staff proposed filling or posting an executive director of special services position and upgrading data and fiscal support to meet state reporting requirements. The committee asked for MOUs, cost templates and more‑detailed fiscal projections as the district proceeds to a board discussion.
The subcommittee approved its agenda and recessed to closed session; no formal SELPA action was taken at the meeting.
