Santa Rosa trustees review 2026 facilities master plan amid funding shortfall and community concerns

Santa Rosa City Schools trustees met March 5 for a special study session on the district’s 2026 Facilities Master Plan, receiving a site-by-site update from consultants and hearing public comment that challenged proposed school closures and use of bond funds.

The meeting, convened as a study session rather than a decision meeting, centered on plans to replace portable classrooms with permanent TK/K buildings, modernize aging classrooms and site facilities, and reposition some campuses to support newly configured 7–12 programs. Consultants told the board the master plan is an "aspirational document" intended to identify projects, estimate rough orders of magnitude and prioritize work over 10–20 years, with an implementation plan to sequence near-term projects. "Facilities master plan is, by design, an aspirational document," the lead consultant said.

Why it matters: the plan guides what the district may put in future bond measures and what it will seek for state matching funds. Consultants and staff also told the board the package as presented currently exceeds available bond dollars; staff showed an exercise indicating roughly a $52 million gap between proposed work and bond-level funding, not counting opportunities for state match, developer fees or property disposition that might reduce the deficit.

Public comment and equity concerns Rob Chandler, a community member who identified himself as serving on a community committee, urged the board not to use bond funds for a new district office. He said the district's materials showed $47 million allocated to a district office and argued that "all you need to do your job is a chair, a desk, and a computer," warning that voters expect bond funds to be used for schools. "If you don't have the trust of the community, you have nothing," he said.

Matt Minch, representing families tied to Steel Lane, warned trustees that closing Steel Lane would be costly and would fall hardest on low-income and Latino students. "Closing Steel Lane will pile another layer of injustice upon our underserved populations," Minch said, and he pressed the board for detailed busing, ADA and refurbishment cost estimates before moving ahead.

Jay Higgins, a longtime teacher and coach, urged clearer definitions of proposed athletic and CTE spaces, asking that replacement spaces be equal or larger than existing facilities and offering to consult on local design details.

Major proposal themes - Portables: Consultants said the long-term goal is to eliminate portable classrooms where permanent construction is feasible, replacing aging modulars with permanent TK/K classrooms at many elementary sites. Trustees pressed for interim housing approaches where capacity could be temporarily tight during construction.

- TK/K classrooms and early learning: Multiple elementary sites show new clusters of TK/K classrooms and attached play and restroom facilities; consultants said some TK allocations are already funded and under construction at several campuses.

- Safety and access control: Several site plans relocate administrative entry points or add front-facing office buildings to improve visitor control and perimeter security; trustees emphasized fencing and access control as high priorities at many elementary campuses.

- Secondary 7–12 configurations: For proposed 7–12 campuses, consultants proposed adding or upgrading gyms, MPR/NPR (multipurpose) spaces and support areas to address increased team and program needs. Trustees flagged lunch line congestion and bathroom capacity as recurring operational concerns to be addressed in design.

Enrollment and planning assumptions District staff and consultants presented demographic work combining two studies (King’s Consulting and MGT) and cohort-progression methods. Those projections were summarized for trustees: secondary enrollment districtwide is projected to decline from roughly 9,000 students today to about 7,000 by 2030, a drop of about 1,800 students (roughly 20%), with a potential plateau or modest uptick after 2030. Consultants warned that school-level distributions can be adjusted to account for new housing or program migration but said the district used consistent distribution assumptions to create the site-level capacity analyses.

Costs, phasing and next steps Consultants presented a draft implementation matrix that ranks projects by site and provides back-of-envelope cost estimates. The board discussed priorities—trustees repeatedly named safety/security, roofing and campus modernization among high priorities—and stressed phasing to keep schools operational and to be ready to apply for state matching funds. Consultants and staff said they will refine cost estimates (a fresh look from the district’s cost estimator was underway) and return a revised draft. The board also set follow-up items: more detailed capacity spreadsheets and demographic tables will be shared in upcoming board materials, and the Steel Lane/closure issue will be on the March 11 agenda for further discussion.

What the board did not do No decisions or votes were taken during the March 5 study session; the meeting was explicitly convened for review and feedback. Staff said final cost updates, programmatic clarifications and a revised draft will return to the board for action at a later date.

The meeting adjourned at about 8:30 p.m. The board indicated it will bring updated cost estimates, site-specific capacity worksheets and a revised implementation plan back for further consideration in the coming weeks.