Responding to the Grand Jury:*

Recommendations 5

• R1
  dealt with the need for Cayucos Elementary and Coast Unified to negotiate terms and sign an agreement on fee splitting. State law requires such an agreement. The previous agreement expired in 2010. The parties agreed to implement this recommendation as of April 1, 2015.
• R2
  was that Cayucos Elementary, Coast Unified and the County Superintendent work together to agree on one location for fee collection so developers would not need to travel to two places to pay the fees. The parties have implemented this recommendation. The fees for Cayucos development are now collected by the administrative office of the County Superintendent.
• R3
  was the fees Coast Unified collects from Cayucos development should be used only at Coast Union High School for legally permissible purposes. California Education Code requires there be a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the development project on which the fee is imposed. While Coast Unified believes its use of developer fees has been within the law and therefore will not implement this recommendation, the 2013-2014 Grand Jury found no such "reasonable relationship" for many of the past expenditures of Cayucos development fees by Coast Unified. The Grand Jury strongly urges Coast Unified to comply with the California Education Code and its intent and not obfuscate by stating there may be case- by-case instances of exceptions. Without verifiable examples to back them up, there should be no exceptions.
• R4
  was to link the Agency's website to social media (Twitter, Facebook, et al). The Agency now has links to social media on their main webpage and has therefore implemented the recommendation. The Agency's response to Recommendation #5 was that it is not warranted. Its explanation is that the Award of Excellence Program provides incentives for practicing good food safety habits, and a list of recipients is included on the Environmental Health Services webpage. Additionally, the recipients can advertise receipt of the award on their websites, in their marketing and in their establishments if desired. However, the Grand Jury disagrees. It believes it would serve as an incentive for other restaurants and increase business if the recipient was recognized for the award by being more prominently featured on the County restaurant website. 3. DEVELOPER FEES: A SCHOOL LESSON IN JUSTIFICATION Recommendation Status: Implemented To Be Not Total Implemented Implemented 3 5 0 2 The 2013-2014 Grand Jury found the assessment of, accounting for and expenditures made with developer fees collected in Cayucos were neither in compliance with California Government Code sections nor with the policies and regulations of the school districts involved. The 2013- 2014 Grand Jury report made several recommendations to the Cayucos Elementary School District (Cayucos Elementary), the Coast Unified School District (Coast Unified) in Cambria and the San Luis Obispo County Superintendent of Schools (County Superintendent).
• R5
  advocated regulations in the Amendment regarding environmental impacts, public safety and community relations apply equally to all events. The Board rejected these 2012-2013 Grand Jury recommendations stating they were unwarranted and unreasonable because they infringed on the Board's legislative authority. Both the 2013- 2014 Grand Jury and the 2014-2015 Grand Jury disagree with the Board. The Board always retains the power to act or not act on recommendations. In this case, the Board chose not to act both on the Grand Jury's recommendations and on the proposed Amendment. No explanation other than "not warranted" was provided. Thus, the current ordinance, although ineffective and obsolete, remains in effect. Only Recommendation #2, "The Planning Department needs to streamline the permit process" is still pending. This recommendation was based on the assumption the proposed Amendment would be approved. Without the Amendment's specific standards, the Grand Jury cannot continue to advocate that the Planning Department streamline the permitting process. Thus, the Grand Jury finds no further action is warranted on this recommendation. No further action needed. TROUBLE IN TEMPLETON'S COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT The 2012-2013 Grand Jury investigated citizen complaints, employee concerns and news articles concerning alleged behavior of some Templeton Community Services District (TCSD) board members and the TCSD General Manager. The 2012-2013 Grand Jury found a number of problems and made nine recommendations to the TCSD Board and General Manager. Three of these recommendations (the need for comprehensive personnel rules and regulations, ensuring all employees have a yearly performance evaluation and timely posting of budget information and the minutes of the TCSD Board meetings) had not been fully put in place in 2014. All have now been implemented. Implementation completed.