10:06Call to Order1min
1.10:08Roll CallProcedural
20:18Welcome1min
31:38Annual Board Officer's Rotation15min
3.1President of the Board of Trustees
3.2Vice President of the Board of Trustees
3.3Clerk of the Board of Trustees
3.4Representative to San Mateo County Committee on School District Organization
3.5Liaison to California School Boards Association and the San Mateo County School Boards Association
3.6Secretary to the Board of Trustees (Superintendent)
4Changes to the Agenda1min
56:57Approval of the Agenda (Action Required)1min
67:19Public Comment
Patricia Renderos (2min) — Requested increased support for teachers and students and urged the district to avoid making staff cuts that disrupt continuity of education.
Agustin Espino (2min) — Thanked outgoing President Wells for his service, congratulated incoming President Weekly, and apologized if past comments were perceived as disrespectful, reaffirming his collaborative intent to support student success.
Maria Stockton (3min) — Raised concerns about staff surveys lacking true anonymity, expressed worry about increased classified staff workload due to reductions, and requested that the district consider workload formulas for classified staff.
7Discussion Items30min
7.116:05First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 5125.1: Release of Directory InformationDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 5125.1: Release of Directory Information. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. CSBA has revised this policy to include that student directory information shall only be included in the minutes in accordance with Board Bylaw 9324. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.216:43First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 6162.51: State Academic Achievement TestsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 6162.51: State Academic Achievement Tests. This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has existed in CSBA, but has not been added to the RCSD board policy manual. This policy discusses the importance of the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) according to Education Code 60660-60649. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.317:32First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special EducationDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 0430: Comprehensive Local Plan For Special Education. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This existing RCSD policy has been updated to include that the Superintendent or designee shall provide the Governing Board any data regarding special education funding in accordance with Education Code 56836.148. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.418:44First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159: Individualized Education ProgramDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159: Individualized Education Program. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has not yet been implemented by RCSD. CSBA has recently updated this regulation to reflect AB 438 (2024) and AB 1938 (2024) and the policy highlights that the students are referred to as "students with exceptional needs." The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.519:46First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159.2: Nonpublic, Nonsectarian School and Agency Services for Special EducationDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159.2: Nonpublic, Nonsectarian School and Agency Services for Special Education. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy has existed for CSBA, but has not been implemented into RCSD. This policy states that the Governing Board may enter into a contract with a nonpublic, nonsectarian school or agency to meet the needs of students with exceptional needs. The most recent update includes foster youth in this policy. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.619:56First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159.3: Appointment of Surrogate Parent for Special Education StudentsDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 6159.3: Appointment of Surrogate Parent for Special Education Students. This policy and regulation were reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD, but has previously existed in CSBA. This policy and regulation reflect 20 USC 1415(b)(2), which states that the district shall appoint a "surrogate parent" to represent a student with exceptional needs. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
7.720:05First Reading and Discussion of Board Policy 5145.11: Questioning and Apprehension by Law EnforcementDiscussion
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractRevisions resulted from changes from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) and suggestions from Redwood City School District (RCSD) staff.
RationaleIt is the Administration’s recommendation that the School Board read and discuss Board Policy 5145.11: Questioning and Apprehension by Law Enforcement. This policy was reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. This policy is new to RCSD, but has existed in CSBA. The policy applies only to questioning of students by law enforcement and does not apply to district personnel in connection with school discipline issues. The Board of Trustees has requested that a marked version and a clean copy be attached to each board memo. The marked copy contains the edits reviewed by the Board Policy Committee. The red edits in the marked copy indicate changes from the CSBA. The highlighted texts indicated in the board policy are suggestions made by RCSD staff and the Board Policy Committee. The clean version contains no markups.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact on the District at this time.
822:37Approval of Consent Items (Action Required)1min
8.122:37Approval of the November 21, 2025, Board Meeting MinutesAction (Consent)
Item details
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the November 21 Minutes for the Special Board Meeting, as submitted.
RationaleThe board meeting minutes have been reviewed by the Clerk, Superintendent, and the Administration.
Financial ImpactNo financial impact.
8.222:37Approval of the Amended September 18, 2025 Board Meeting MinutesAction (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractAfter approval of the minutes from the September 18, 2025, board meeting, it was identified that the record of roll call was incomplete. Specifically, the minutes did not list the trustees who were absent from the meeting.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the amendment to the September 18, 2025, meeting minutes to ensure the official record accurately reflects trustee attendance.
RationaleThe September 18 Minutes for the Regular Board Meeting were previously approved at the October 8, 2025, board meeting. The amendment updates the roll call section to accurately reflect attendance. Correction: The approved minutes did not include the names of the absent trustees. Amended Text: The roll call section will be updated to include the names of the absent trustees.
Financial ImpactNone.
8.322:37Acceptance of DonationAction (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractDuring the year, the School District and schools receive donations from parents, staff, and community members to help improve student achievement throughout the School District.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board accept a donation on behalf of Jacklyn Selby for Orion Alternative School STEAM/Makery Program.
RationaleThe Redwood City School District received an in-kind donation valued $400 consisting of a 3D printer, tapes, and related accessories.
Financial ImpactNone.
8.422:37Approval of Annual Developer Fee Report - Fiscal Year 2024-25Action (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractThe Administration recommends approval of the 2024–25 Annual Developer Fee Report, which provides required public information on developer fee collections, expenditures, and remaining balances pursuant to Government Code §§66006 and 66001. The report was made available for public review on December 2, 2025. In 2024–25, the District expended $239,340 in developer fees, and the ending Fund 25 balance as of June 30, 2025, was $6,122,434.40.
RecommendationThe Administration recommends that the School Board approve the attached Annual Developer Fee Report for fiscal year 2024-25.
RationaleA school district collecting developer fees is required to make available to the public information on the status of developer fee collections and expenditures and to make periodic findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted, in accordance with Sections 66006(b)(1) and 66001(d)(1) of the Government Code. The notice of the meeting and the availability of the Developer Fee Report for public review was posted on December 2, 2025, at the Redwood City School District, 750 Bradford St., Redwood City, CA 94063, and on the District website in accordance with Government Code requirements.
Financial ImpactThe total developer fees expended in the fiscal year 2024-25 were $239,340.00. The developer fees ending balance in Fund 25 - Capital Facilities Fund as of June 30, 2025, was $6,122,434.40.
8.522:37Authorization to Declare Outdated Kitchen Equipment as Surplus and Approve DisposalAction (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractAs part of the District’s ongoing efforts to modernize facilities and support student nutrition programs, a number of outdated kitchen and cafeteria equipment items have been replaced with newer, energy-efficient models. These upgrades enable Food Services staff to operate more efficiently, maintain compliance with health and safety standards, and provide better service to students. The older units, including ovens, stove tops, and miscellaneous pots and pans, have reached the end of their useful life. Many of these items are inefficient, costly to maintain, unsafe to use, or no longer meet current operational standards. Retaining this equipment places a burden on storage space and creates unnecessary maintenance risk.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the Board of Trustees approve the declaration of the outdated kitchen equipment as surplus and authorize staff to proceed with the sale, auction, or appropriate disposal.
RationaleThe decommissioning of outdated equipment and preparing it for sale will help reduce costs and may generate limited proceeds that can be returned to Cafeteria Fund 13. When items no longer hold value, offering them at a nominal price prevents the accumulation of unused equipment on school grounds and is more cost-effective than arranging specialized disposal services. In accordance with California Education Code §17545–17546, staff recommends declaring the above items as surplus. Functional items will be sold or auctioned, while non-functional units will be recycled or disposed of properly in compliance with health, safety, and environmental standards.
Financial ImpactProceeds from the sale of surplus equipment are expected to be modest but will be returned to the Cafeteria Fund to support the food service program.
8.622:37Approval of the Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee MembershipAction (Consent)
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractMr. Hanni applied on September 20, 2025, to serve on the Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) as a representative of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Because that membership category is already filled, he is being recommended for appointment to the Member-at-Large position. His application details are included in the attached summary.
RecommendationIt is the Administration's recommendation that the School Board approve the appointment of the following citizen to serve on the Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC): 1. Anthony Hanni: Member-at-Large
RationaleMr. Hanni applied on September 20, 2025, to serve on the CBOC as a representative of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. As that representation is already filled, he is being recommended to serve in the Member-at-Large position. Detailed application information, including occupation, educational background, employment history, civic involvement, and statements of interest, is provided in the attached application summary. Background On November 3, 2015, voters approved Measure T, authorizing the issuance of up to $193 million in General Obligation Bonds for district facility improvements. State law requires the district to maintain a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee (CBOC) to ensure bond proceeds are spent only on allowable purposes and to provide public transparency. Required Membership Categories Per Education Code requirements and district practice, the CBOC must include members representing the following: Business Community Representative – A member active in a business organization representing the local business community. Senior Citizens’ Organization Representative – A member active in a senior citizens’ organization. Parent/Guardian & PTA/School Site Council Representative – A parent or guardian of a child currently enrolled in the district who is also active in a parent-teacher organization such as PTA or a school site council. Taxpayers’ Organization Representative – A member active in a bona fide taxpayers’ organization. Parent/Guardian Representative – A parent or guardian of a child currently enrolled in the district. To maintain impartiality, no district employee, official, vendor, contractor, or consultant may serve on the committee. On November 8, 2022, voters approved Measure S, authorizing up to $298 million in additional bonds. In March 2023, the Board adopted Resolution #30, consolidating oversight of both Measures T and S under a single committee for efficiency and consistency. Current Vacancies Business Community Representative — Still vacant; recruitment ongoing CBOC Membership After Tonight's Selection Rick Hunter — Member-at-Large — Term expires June 30, 2026 Anthony Hanni — Member-at-Large — Term expires June 30, 2028 (Pending Approval) Janet Borgens — Senior Citizen Organization — Term expires June 30, 2027 Jennifer Givens — Parent/Guardian — Term expires June 30, 2027 Alan Hansen — Taxpayer Organization — Term expires June 30, 2027 Carl Landers — Parent/Guardian/PTA — Term expires June 30, 2027 Jitpal Sahai — Parent/Guardian — Term expires June 30, 2027 Vacant — Business Community Representative
Financial ImpactNone.
9Action Items (Action Required)45min
9.122:59Approval of the 2025-26 First Interim Budget Report for RCSDAction
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractThe Administration recommends approval of the District’s 2025–26 First Interim Budget Report with a Positive Certification, indicating that, based on current information and projections, the District is projected to meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and the subsequent two fiscal years. As required by Education Code section 42130, the First Interim report reflects the District’s financial condition as of October 31, 2025, including updated revenue, expenditure, and fund balance projections, and is presented in the state-prescribed format for public review. The report is supported by the First Interim Book, Multi-Year Projections, and the accompanying presentation.
RecommendationThe Administration recommends approval of the attached 2025–26 First Interim Budget Report with a Positive Certification, indicating that the District is projected to meet its financial obligations for the current fiscal year and the subsequent two fiscal years.
RationaleEducation Code section 42130 requires the Superintendent of each school district to submit two interim financial reports to the governing board during each fiscal year. The First Interim report reflects the financial and budgetary status of the District for the period ending October 31, and the Second Interim report reflects the period ending January 31. Each report must be approved by the governing board no later than 45 days following the close of the reporting period. The First Interim Budget Report presents updated financial information based on actual activity through October 31, 2025, and revised projections for the remainder of the fiscal year and the subsequent two fiscal years. The report is prepared in accordance with standards and criteria for fiscal stability adopted by the State Board of Education and reflects the District’s status as a Community-Funded (Basic Aid) district, with local property taxes serving as the primary revenue source. The report incorporates known cost drivers, current enrollment and staffing assumptions, and multi-year projections that maintain the minimum required reserve for economic uncertainty in all projection years. Unidentified fiscal stabilization measures are included in the out-years and will be further evaluated and incorporated as part of future budget development.
Financial ImpactSince adoption of the 2025–26 budget in June 2025, General Fund revenues and expenditures have been updated based on actual activity through October 31, 2025, and revised projections for the remainder of the fiscal year and the subsequent two fiscal years, as reflected in the Fund 01 summary tables, Multi-Year Projections, and the attached First Interim Budget Report.
1053:58Board and Superintendent Reports10min
11Information
11.11:00:49Information on San Mateo County Investment Fund - November 2025Information
Item details
Quick Summary / AbstractIn compliance with Education Code requirements, all district funds are deposited into the County Treasury, pooled with other public agencies in the County Investment Pool. The County Treasurer manages investment decisions, and earnings or losses are distributed proportionally to participants, a standard practice among San Mateo County school districts.
RationalePursuant to Education Code Sections 41001 and 41002, all funds received by or apportioned to a school district must be deposited into the county treasury and credited to the appropriate district fund. In accordance with Education Code Section 41015, a school district may invest all or a portion of the funds held in a Special Reserve Fund, as well as any surplus monies not immediately needed for operational purposes, in authorized investments outlined in Government Code Sections 16430 and 53601. Historically, school districts in San Mateo County, including this District, have deposited all funds with the County Treasury. The County Treasurer has managed investment decisions on behalf of the districts, a practice that is common throughout California. These district funds are pooled with those of other public agencies in the County Investment Pool, with earnings and losses distributed proportionally based on each participant’s investment share.
Financial ImpactGross pool earnings for Month ending November 30, 2025: 3.92% The current average maturity of the portfolio is 2.59 years, with an average duration of 2.33 years. The portfolio continues to hold no derivative products.
121:01:09Correspondence1min
131:01:55Other Business/Suggested Items for Future Agenda1min
141:02:37Board of Trustees Meeting Reflection10min
151:08:17Board of Trustees Meeting Calendar1min
161:09:36Adjournment (Action Required)1min