Analysis of the Revenue

R1

Residents of western Nevada County review the Nevada County Grand Jury’s report in its entirety.

R2

The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700.

R3

The County Committee on School District Organization formulate plans for the consolidation of local elementary school districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35720.

R4

The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c).

R5

The Nevada County Board of Supervisors adopt and deliver to the CCSDO a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of local elementary school districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c).

R6

The Boards of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the two districts.

R7

The Boards of Trustees of the Ready Springs Union School District and the Pleasant Valley Elementary School District begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the two districts. 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury

R8

The County Superintendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping; • More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services; • Student transportation.

R9

All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. Responses Nevada County Board of Supervisors: Recommendation 5 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Nevada County Committee on School District Organization: Recommendation 3 – Due Date: Septmeber 10, 2012 Nevada County Superintendent of Schools: Recommendation 8 – Due Date: August 10, 2012 Chicago Park School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Clear Creek Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Grass Valley School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Nevada City Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Nevada Joint Union High School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Pleasant Ridge Union Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Pleasant Valley Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Ready Springs Union Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Twin Ridges Elementary School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 Union Hill School District, Board of Trustees: Recommendations 2, 4, 6, 8, 9 – Due Date: September 10, 2012 2011-2012 Nevada County Grand Jury Chicago Park School District 15725 Mt. Olive Road , Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 346-2153 Fax (530) 346-8559 Dan Zeisler SuperintendenUPrincipal Augu st 17, 201 2 The Honorable Judge Tom Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, Please find attached, Chicago Park School District's Board of Trustees response to the June 5, 2012 Grand Jury Report on Schools Efficiency. Iy submitted, avis President, Chicago Park School Board Response to Grand Jury Recommendations Chicago Park School District 2. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. The recommendation has been implemented. In 2010, two members of the CPSD School Board attended a meeting held at the Nevada Union High School cafeteria which included board member representatives from all western Nevada County schools to learn about and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of consolidation. Four current school board members attended an informational meeting on February 17,2011 conducted by School Services of California where an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact of School District Consolidations in Nevada County" study was shared. In the study (p. 11) it shows that if Grass Valley School and Union Hill School District were to consolidate, there would be an increase per ADA of 7.99% per student. However, if Chicago Park School consolidated with both of these Districts, the increase in ADA for all students would .09% less. In addition, there would be increased costs in providing transportation to our rural campus. Chicago Park currently does not provide transportation. If consolidation occurs and CPS is no longer serves K-8 students, those that live within a five minute bike ride of our campus, may be put on a bus for up to 45 minutes one-way to get to and from school. The CPSD Board of Trustees is knowledgeable of the benefits and disadvantages of consolidation and finds that the disadvantages far outweigh the advantages at this time. 4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education code Section 3S721(c). The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The only district bordering CPSD is Grass Valley School District. The CPSD Board of Trustees is not interested in preparing a resolution proposing the consideration of consolidation with the Grass Valley School District at this time. 8. The County Superintendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping - CPS currently employs one part-time person to conduct all grounds keeping and general maintenance duties on campus. His knowledge of our site (electric panels, water and gas shut offs, irrigation valves, etc.) make it imperative for safety purposes, that we have someone familiar with our site here as much as possible while students are in attendance. We would readily consider consolidating specialized services such as HVAC, plumbing and electrical jobs beyond the scope of what our one person can manage. • More centralization of curriculum experts - We are not really sure what you mean by this and request more information on what this configuration would look like. Our Superintendent does attend monthly Curriculum Leaders Council meetings which is a collaborative effort among all district superintendents and the County Schools Office to stay updated on cutting edge changes such as Common Core Standards. • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts - We already share a music teacher with another district and subscribe to our local art docent curriculum. After school and summer enrichment programs are open to students from any district when space is available. • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services - CPSD has found that the most efficient way to handle our business needs is through a part-time individual who is housed on-site. • Student Transportation - CPSD does not provide transportation to or from school, therefore there is no need to explore shared service options. • Other - In addition, Chicago Park School also shares nursing services with Union Hill School. This recommendation has been partially implemented, and will continue to be whenever it benefits cost savings to the District. 9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publically report their conclusions. The recommendation has been implemented. For the past several years, CPSD has aligned their school-year calendar with the high school's in the following key areas: • First day of school • Fall Break • Winter Break • President Day Holidays • Spring Break CPSD will continue to align our calendar with the high school whenever possible. August 14, 2012 To the Honorable Thomas Anderson, Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury: We, the Board of Trustees of the Clear Creek Elementary School District, wish to express our appreciation for the efforts you have made examining the issue of school district consolidation in Nevada County. We agree that in times such as now, with the unprecedented pressures placed upon schools and their budgets, all angles should be explored in order to protect our students and their educational future. We also believe that great care must be taken so that in our endeavors, we don't apply a blanket solution that might turn out to be more harmful than beneficial. Therefore, in our exploration of the recommendations made by the Grand Jury, we have found some to be quite helpful, so much so that we have been in the process of implementing them for some time now. Others, we feel, while worth keeping in mind, might have the opposite effect and be detrimental to the students and district we have been elected to serve. Thank you for taking the time to consider our responses. GRAND JURY REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS: 2. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County consult with the other local elementary school districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700 The recommendation has been implemented. Nevada County School District boards meet last year with the purpose of reviewing consolidation. It was found to not be beneficial, educationally or financially, by the Clear Creek School Board at that time. Consultation with other schools will continue in the future as circumstances dictate. 4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 3S721(c). The recommendation will not be implemented at the present time. The Clear Creek School Board of Trustees feels this would not make sense for our district due to a number of factors. First, in contrast to most other districts in the county, we have seen a student increase of 68% since 2000. Second, we are one of the only districts in Nevada County to project a positive fund balance next school year even ifthe November education ballot fails. Third, 58% of our student population comes from other districts. We are a school district of choice for these students and their families. If we consolidated with our neighboring districts, it is highly unlikely these students would want to be part of a system they left. That would most likely result in them going to charter schools or home school situations. Either case is not going to help the traditional public schools in Nevada County. Fourth, the LAO report quoted in the Grand Jury Report states that a school district should not consider consolidation if it has a negative impact on the district (p. 7). Since our enrollment is up, our budget is sound, and we are a district of choice, combining with another district that does not meet that criteria, would only have a negative impact upon the students of our school district. If any or all of the above factors were to change, Clear Creek School would reconsider consolidation. 8. The County Superintendent of Schools, the board of trustees of all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shared services in the following areas: • Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service that can be rotated through each school site, including electrical, HVAC, plumbing and landscaping; • More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; • Increased sharing and centralization of administration services, including business and payroll services; • Student transportation. This recommendation has been implemented. For the past 21 years, Clear Creek School has looked to shared services to reduce overhead costs as long as there is not a negative impact on the student body. For instance, in the 2011­ 2012 school year we shared a music teacher with Chicago Park School District, a nurse and business services with the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools office, and a speech/language pathologist and psychologist with Auburn Union Elementary School District in Placer County. We will continue to look at all opportunities for shared services where they make educational and financial sense. 9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. This recommendation has been implemented. We always try to coordinate our calendar with the high school district and neighboring school districts. Roadblocks in the past have included the varying school days due to furlough days in other districts and the prolonged negotiations at the high school district regarding the school calendar. We have every intention to continue our efforts to coordinate the school calendar with all districts in the future. Thank you for providing Clear Creek School district another opportunity and perspective under which to examine potential consolidation. Respectfully, Clear Creek Elementary School District Board of Trustees grass 'Varrey Schoorrnistrict Eric Fredrickson Superintendent 10840 Gilmore Way, Grass Valley, CA 95945 (530) 273-4483 Fax (530) 273-0248 November J3, 2012 Honorable Judge Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Re: Re-submittal of Grass Valley Schnol District's Response to the June 5, 2012 Report of the Nevada COUll Grand Ju on the sub '~ct of Schools Effic~ncy. Dear Judge Anderson: As directed by Keith Overbey, Foreperson of the 2012-2013 Nevada County Grand Jury, the Board of the Grass Valley School District hereby re-submits this formal response to the Grand Jury's Report on Schools Efficiency. The Board's September 5, 2012 response has been revised, consistent with the requirements of Penal Code section 933.05(b), that the Board provide the timeframe for implementation for each Grand Jury recommendation or an explanation why a recommendation wi ll not b~ implemented. Findings: 1. The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for tbe foreseeable future. Paniallv agree · It is true that the school age population has been declining since 1994, but there are signs that kindergarten enrollments are beginning to increase. In 1994 Grass Valley School District's enrollment was 2,416 students. This year our district's enrollment is 1,697. Although this is a significant drop in enrollment over the last 18 years, there are some signs of hope. This year's enrollment is lip by 20 students from last year and we currently have 15 more kindergarten students enrolled this year than we did at this time last year. The challenge with detennining the impact of declining enrollment of school age children in the county is the number of students attending other districts on inter-district transfers and students attending charter schools, private schools and home school programs. 2. Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially agree We agree that State revenues have been declining since 7008 , and districts that have been facing declining enrollment have experienced an additi0nal reduction in revenues. Although the futW'e outlook looks grim, even with the governor's tax initiative on the Bell Hill Academy Scotten School Lyman Gilmore Middle Schod! Grass Valley Charter School Child Development Office (530) 273-2281 (530) 273-6472 (530) 273-8479 (530) 273-8723 Preschool/Before & After School Programs (530) 273-9528 ballot for November, we can't antlcipate what the state budget will look like in the upcoming years. We also can't predict whether student enrollment will continue to decline, which has an impact on the amount of revenue a district receives. One of the biggest issues negatively effecting school districts at the present time is the impact on cash flow due to the state deferring payments to districts. 3. The utilization of school fa cility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially Agree Although we agree that most districts in the county have been declining in enrollment and have more capacity, with the reconfiguration of the Grass Valley School District programs last year, the district has experienced an overall increase in district enrollment and the current facilities are being used efficiently. 4. Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially Agree There are too many unique circumstances that impact a district that can influence the amount of funding that is dedicated to classroom instruction. If a large district that is experiencing declining enrollment is compared to a smaller district that is not experiencing declining enrollment or is experiencing increased enrollment, the smaller district would be able to dedicate more funding to classroom instruction. There are too many vruiables to consider to adequately respond to this finding any further. 5. Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Partially Agree The Grass Valley School District has made a concerted effort to examine its operational practices and school configurations to improve efficiency and maximize its educational delivery and have made substantial changes in achieving that goal. Although efficiency is a desirable outcome, it is not a guarantee for educational success. 6. School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Partially Agree There are many factors and variables that determine whether consolidation would increase the Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. The consolidation of some school districts in our county could produce an increase in the Revenue Limit that would be worth considering, while other combinations would be minimal. (See the School Services of Califomia 2011 Study" Analysis of the Revenue 2 Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County"). Even if a consolidation of some districts could generate an increase in the Revenue Limit, there are other funding factors that could have a n gative unpact, such as a reduction in state and federal categorical funds that are determined by student populations e.g., students that qualify for free and reduced lunch. Whether costs could be decreased by consolidation, a more detailed analysis would have to be conducted. It stands to reason, that each school district's governing board has the fiduciary responsibility to examine whether consolidation is a viable consideration for their school community. 7. Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Partially . • ree Geographically speaking, it makes total sense that the Union Hill School District should be part of the Grass Valley School District. The impact on families that live in the Grass Valley School District and must drive by Union I-lill School to reach their school of residence in the Grass Valley School District places an illogical demand on families, and puts the Grass Valley School District in a very tenuous situation with parenis who question this logic. It also prohibits the ability of the Grass Valley School District to create a neighborhood school environment in that area of the district. Geographically, if the Union Hill School District were part of the Grass Valley School District, it would provide the opportunity for the Grass Valley School District to establish a school closer to the families residing on the Hwy. 174 corridor. As far as the impact of inter-district transfers, approximately 70% of the students who attend the Union Hill School District are attending on an interdistrict agreement, witt> the majority of those students corrilng from the Grass Valley School District. Of the 70% of the students on inter-district transfers, between 200-300 of those students, or nearly60%, of the ,tudents on inter district contracts are from the Grass Valley School District. Although Union Hill School District's boundary lines are surrounded on each side by the Grass Valley School District, and geographically it makes sense for the Union Hill School District to be part of the Grass Valley School District, the Union Hill School District is its own distinct school district, with its own governing board, and there are many other factors that have to be considered besides the geographic location. 8. Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of GVSD and UHSD is logical and desirable. Partially Agree Although we believe there would be many positive benefits to tbe consolidation of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District, further analysis needs to be conducted to detennine the actudl cost benefit and impact ~hat consolidation would have on the two districts. The Grass Valley School District encourages the Union Hill 3 ----- School District's governing board and its stakeholders to engage In examInmg the possible consolidation of the two districts. 9. Most of the administrative staff in the RSUSD and the PVESD are working two jobs, which is unsustainable and detracts from the educational programs. No Response Since the Grass Valley School District has no oversight over these two districts and does not know the sp cifics of each district's operations, we do not feel qualified to respond to this finding. 10. The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. A ree Although there has been a concerted effort over the years to share and centralize services such as transportation, food services, staff development, and special education services, there is always room for increased efficiency. 11. There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Because each school district determines its own calendar, it would stand to reaS0n that by districts consolidating there would be less likelihood of conflicting calendars. Over the years, the Grass Valley School District has made the effort to align its calendar as closely with the Nevada Joint Union High School calendar as possible. Given the fact that the calendar mLlst be negotiated with various employee groups as well as the need for each district to align its calendar with its specific strategic plans, it is not always feasible to align calendars. 12. Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree With a standardized calendar there would be a cost saving for districts that share transpcrtation. Families that have children in both an elementary school district and the high school district would benefit from a standardized calendar. Families that have children attending only one disttict would not be impacted by a standardized calendar. A standardized calendar would improve the opportunity of schooi disiricts to coordinate professional development opportunities, which could lead to better learning opportunities for staff and could reduce of the cost of professional development. Recommendations: R 2. The boards of trustees for all local elemental], school districts in western Nevada County consult with tbe otber local elementary scbool districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. This Recommendation has been partially implemented with respect to the Nevada City School District; however, implementation with regard to Union Hill School District and the other elementary districts is not currently reasonable. During the 2010/11 school year, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools contracted with School Services of California to complete an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County". Following the completion of this report a joint meeting of the school boards in western Nevada County was held at the Nevada City Council Chambers to review the study and discuss the findings. The Grass Valley School District Governing Board directed the District's Superintendent to inquire with the other superintendents in the county to see if their boards were interested in having a conversation regarding consolidation. At several monthly superintendent meetings, the District's Si..Iperintendent expressed his desire to meet with the other elementary school governing boards and has on numerous occasions made it clear that the District was open to having a discussion with any other school districts' governing boards in western Nevada County. In response to th.ese overtures, Nevada City School District's superintendent expressed interest in discussing cons01idation. As a result, Grass VaUey School District is currently working with Nevada City to identify consolidation opportunities. However, because the issues related to consolidation are lIumerous and complex, Grass VaUey cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in an agreement to formally pursue consolidation, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for implementmg consolidation should both districts agree t move forward. In addition, because the Grass Vall"y School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the District, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Aside from Nevada City, the other local elementary school districts in western Nevada County have not responded affirmatively to Grass Valley's gl)od faith attempt to discuss consolidation, and Union Hill's superintendent specifically informed Grass Valley's Superintendent that Union Hill had no interest pursuing consolidation. Thus, consistent with Penal Cade section 933.05(b)(4), implementation of Recommendation No.2 with respect to the Union Hill School Distnct and the other districts in Western Nevada COllnty is not reasonable, based upon the faci: that the recommendation requires the cooperation of each of these other districts. Other than Nevada City School District, none of the other school districts have expressed any interest in discllssing consolidation 5 with Grass Valley and Grass Valley has no authority to require these other districts to consider consoiidation.

R10

The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. A ree Although there has been a concerted effort over the years to share and centralize services such as transportation, food services, staff development, and special education services, there is always room for increased efficiency.

R11

There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Because each school district determines its own calendar, it would stand to reaS0n that by districts consolidating there would be less likelihood of conflicting calendars. Over the years, the Grass Valley School District has made the effort to align its calendar as closely with the Nevada Joint Union High School calendar as possible. Given the fact that the calendar mLlst be negotiated with various employee groups as well as the need for each district to align its calendar with its specific strategic plans, it is not always feasible to align calendars.

R12

Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree With a standardized calendar there would be a cost saving for districts that share transpcrtation. Families that have children in both an elementary school district and the high school district would benefit from a standardized calendar. Families that have children attending only one disttict would not be impacted by a standardized calendar. A standardized calendar would improve the opportunity of schooi disiricts to coordinate professional development opportunities, which could lead to better learning opportunities for staff and could reduce of the cost of professional development. Recommendations: R 2. The boards of trustees for all local elemental], school districts in western Nevada County consult with tbe otber local elementary scbool districts to identify opportunities for consolidation with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. This Recommendation has been partially implemented with respect to the Nevada City School District; however, implementation with regard to Union Hill School District and the other elementary districts is not currently reasonable. During the 2010/11 school year, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools contracted with School Services of California to complete an "Analysis of the Revenue Impact on School District Consolidations in Nevada County". Following the completion of this report a joint meeting of the school boards in western Nevada County was held at the Nevada City Council Chambers to review the study and discuss the findings. The Grass Valley School District Governing Board directed the District's Superintendent to inquire with the other superintendents in the county to see if their boards were interested in having a conversation regarding consolidation. At several monthly superintendent meetings, the District's Si..Iperintendent expressed his desire to meet with the other elementary school governing boards and has on numerous occasions made it clear that the District was open to having a discussion with any other school districts' governing boards in western Nevada County. In response to th.ese overtures, Nevada City School District's superintendent expressed interest in discussing cons01idation. As a result, Grass VaUey School District is currently working with Nevada City to identify consolidation opportunities. However, because the issues related to consolidation are lIumerous and complex, Grass VaUey cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in an agreement to formally pursue consolidation, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for implementmg consolidation should both districts agree t move forward. In addition, because the Grass Vall"y School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the District, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Aside from Nevada City, the other local elementary school districts in western Nevada County have not responded affirmatively to Grass Valley's gl)od faith attempt to discuss consolidation, and Union Hill's superintendent specifically informed Grass Valley's Superintendent that Union Hill had no interest pursuing consolidation. Thus, consistent with Penal Cade section 933.05(b)(4), implementation of Recommendation No.2 with respect to the Union Hill School Distnct and the other districts in Western Nevada COllnty is not reasonable, based upon the faci: that the recommendation requires the cooperation of each of these other districts. Other than Nevada City School District, none of the other school districts have expressed any interest in discllssing consolidation 5 with Grass Valley and Grass Valley has no authority to require these other districts to consider consoiidation. R.4. The boards of trustees for all local elementary school districts in western Nevada County adopt and deliver to the County Committee on School District Organization, a resolution proposing consideration of consolidation of sueh district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section3572.1( c). This Recommendation cannot be implemented at this time The Grass Valley School District is in the process of discussing consolidation with the Nevada City School District, and, in conjunction with the Nevada City School District, has invited the other districts in western Nevada County to participate. As stated in the District's response to Recommendation No. 2, other than Nevada City, none of the other elementary districts have been willing to discuss consolidation. In adclitiol1, it is impOitant to note that while Grass Valley and Nevada City are working together to explore conso!idation, the issues are numerous and complex. As a result, Grass Valley cannot assert with any reasonable certainty whether its discussions with Nevada City will result in the presentation of a resolution for consolidation to the County Committee on School District Organization, nor can Grass Valley provide a timeframe for the adoption of a resoiU[ion for consolidation should Nevada City agree to move forward. Since the Grass Valley School District is governed by an elected board of trustees accountable to the voters of the Dis1rict, continued discussion with Nevada City is crucial for the Board to determine whether pursuing consolidation is in best interests of its District's students and families. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933.05(b)( 4), t.he District responds that Recommendation No. 4 will not be implemented, based upon the fact that the recommendation requires the cooperation of all the elementary schoo! districts in western Nevada County, and other than Nevada City, none of the districts have agreed to discuss consolidation, much less present a resolution for consolidation to the County Committee on School District 0 ·ganization . . R.6. The Boal·ds of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School Di trict begin, or continue, discussions regarding the consolidation of the hvo districts. The Grass Valley School District has made good faith efforts to implement this recommendation, but without the cooperation of Union Hill. implementation of this recommendation is not reasonable. As set forth in the District's responses 10 Recommendation Nos 2 and 4, Grass Valley School District has openly offered to meet with the other school districts in western Nevada County, aTJd has specifical!y invited the superintendent and governing board members of the Union Hill School District to discuss the benefits of consolidation. Grass Valley' s efforts in this regard began in early 201 1 after attending a meeting sponsored by 6 the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools and the Nevada County School Boards Association on the "Analysis of the Rev nue impact on School District Consolidation" report conducted by School Services of California, in 2011. As part of this oLltreach effort, the Union Hill School District's governing board and superintendent attended the August 28, 2012, consolidation discussion between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City Scbool District. Although the Union Hill School District goveming board chose to not officially palticipate in the discussion, they did attend the meeting. During this meeting the Grass Valley School District Governing Board continued to encourage the Union Hill School District to participate in the process. However, after the August 28, 201 2 meeting, Grass Valley School District's Superintendent received an email from Union Hil!'s superintendent stating that UnlOo Hill was oot interested in even discussing consolidation. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933 .05(b)( 4), the District is unable to implement Recommendation No. 6, because impiementation is not reasonable in the absence of any interest or cooperation on the part of the Union Hill School District. R.8. The County Supet'intendent of Schools, the boards of trustees of all local elementary school districts in westet"n Nevada County and the Board of Trustees of the Nevada Joint Union High School District actively pursue increased shal"cd services in the following areas: Maintenance, particularly a centralized, mobile service thaI can be rotated ttuough each school site, including electrical, BVAC, plumbing and landscaping; More centralization of curriculum experts; • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music ar.d the arts; Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services; Student transportation. This Recommendation has been partially implemented, and Grass VaHey is committed to continuing its discussions with all western Nevada County school districts on sharing services where feasible. The superintendents of each school district meet monthly for the Superintendents' Council meeting, hosted by the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools. During these meetings the superintendents frequelltly strategize with one another regarding ways to share services. Maintenance, particularly centralized, mobile services: This is an area that the Grass Valley School District is will ing to have ftllther discussion. However, it is a very complicated issue, as most of the employees that provide these services in the various districts are represented by the California School Employees Association (CSEA) and each district has its own specific coilective bargaining agreement that defines the terms and conditions of employment for the classified employees serving in maintenance and grounds classifications. Centralized curriculum experts: The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools employs an assistant superintendent, who serves in the capacity of a countywide curriculum expert. This position provides countywide support and planning for math training, assistance in Program Improvement (PI), and other professional development and curriculum support. As part of the current discussions being held between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City School District regarding consolidation, one of the positives of consolidating would be the possibility of creating a position to coordinate curriculum and professional development [or a combined district, thus enhancing the opportunities for students and staff. Centralized enrichment programs: The evada County Superintendent of Schools provides countywide support in music through partnerships with the Music in the Mountains education program, In Concert Sierra, and Center for the Arts. The County Superintendent of Schools office also coordinates a county·-wide art docent program which includes providing materials and training to volunteers who are deployed to give art lessons in elementary classrooms. As part of the current discussions being held between the Grass Valley School District and the Nevada City School District regarding consolidation, an additional benefit of consolidating would be the possibility of offering a richer elective program for students in both of these districts. Incl"cased sharing and centralization of administrative services: The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools is currently providing various forms of services for three school districts. Because of the unique nature of each school district's operation it is very challenging to share services. The most efficient method of centralizing administrative services is through consolidation or unIfication of districts. Transportation: For many decades, the Grass Valley School District, Nevada loint Union High chooi District, Pleasant Ridge School District, and the Nevada City School District have been pal1ies to a Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) for transportation and have contracted with Durham Transportation for home to school transportation services. In addition, Durham provides coordinated transportation service~ for western Nevada County special education students who are part of the Nevada County Special Education Program. These: cooperative efforts between the school districts in western Nevada County have resulted in cost savings for these districts. Food Services: For many decades, the Grass Valley School District has provided food services for the majority of the school .districts in western Nevada County. Currently, the Grass Valley School District's Central Kitchen is providing food services for nine districts in western Nevada County. The foregoing demonstrates that the scho{'ll districts of western Nevada County have made considerable eHorts to share services. However, while this recommendation has been partially implemented, and while Grass Valley School District has every intention to 8 continue to explore additional ways to share services, Recommendation No.8 cannot be fully implemenkd in that it requires the cooperation of all of the local school districts, each of which has its own unique needs and contractual obligations with exclusive bargaining representatives such as CSEA and/or pw-suant to the Transportation lPA . R.9. All local elementary school disb-kts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. This Recommendation has been partially implemented. As stated in response to Findings Nos. 11 andI 2, the Grass Valley School District has made an effort to coordinate its school year calendar with Nevada Joint Union High School District, but due to the requirements in collective bargaining agreements applicable to both certificated and classified employees in each district, as well as the specific indjvidual interests of each district, it is not always possible to totally align the calendars. The Grass Valley School District distributes copies of its approved calendar to all stakeholders and publishes the calendar on the District's website. Therefore, pursuant to Penal Code section 933 .05(b)( 4), the District responds that it is not reasonable t(l ful!y implement Recommendation No. 9 based upon the fact that it not only requires the cooperation of all the school districts in western Nevada County, but also agreement with the unions representing certificated and classified employees in each district. The Board of Trustees of the Grass Valley School District appreciates the time and dedication of the Grand Jury members in providing the District with its report and recommendations. The Board will implement the Grand Jury's recommendations to the extent and in the manner set forth above. . If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank: you. Sincerely, £~r V~~ Pre<;i.dent, Governing Board 9 Twin Ridges Elementary School District P.O. Box 529 (530) 265-9052 North San Juan, CA 95960 FAX (530) 265-3049 August 24, 2012 The Honorable Judge Tom Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as my response to the June 5, 2012 Grand Jury Report on Schools Efficiency. Recommendations: