Unification of Lake County School Districts

R1

The county should explore how best to use the remaining AB109 monies, as well as identify other potential funding sources and alternatives, to address overcrowding at the jail. (F1, F2)

R6

The County Committee convenes one or more public hearings to gauge the electorate support for such unification/consolidation pursuant to Education Code Section 35700(a) and 35721(a). (F1) Request for Responses:  County Commission for School District Organization (60 days)  LCOE Superintendent of Schools (60 days)  All Lake County School Districts Boards of Trustees (60 days)  Lake County Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2012-13 Bibliography: “Progress of the Lake County School District Reorganization Feasibility Report”, Lake County Civil Grand Jury, Final Report June 30, 2012, pp111-113 “Twin Rivers Unified School District Police Department”, Sacramento County Grand Jury, Final Report 2011-2012,pp 46-93 “Lake County School District Reorganization Feasibility Report” Lake County Board of Supervisors Resolution 2009-15, October 14, 2009 Escondido Union School District Unification Study, March 8, 2011 “Achieving School District Efficiency Through Consolidation”, 2009-2010 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Informational Websites For further information please see: Santa Clara Report URL www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civilian/gj/2010/SchoolDistrictConsolidation.pdf Escondido report URL www.eusd4kids.org/10-11_Budget/030811EUSD_final_report-838.pdf Twin Rivers Sacramento Unification http://www.asbj.com/TopicsArchive/TwinRiversUnification 2012-13

R1

The county should explore how best to use the remaining AB109 monies, as well as identify other potential funding sources and alternatives, to address overcrowding at the jail. (F1, F2)

R2

Maintenance at the jail should be a higher priority than outside projects and scheduling of personnel should reflect that. (F3) Request for Responses:  Sheriff (60 days)  Board of Supervisors (90 days) 2012-13 BLANK -13 Lakeport Police Department Oversight Summary: The Public Safety Committee of the Lake County Civil Grand Jury conducted an elective oversight of Lakeport Police Department whose boundaries of responsibility are the city limits. Background: The Lakeport Police Chief has 23 years in law enforcement and has held his current position since May 18, 2011. Prior to becoming chief, he held the position of interim police chief for six months. The police lieutenant has a total of 18 years experience of which 15 have been with the Lakeport Police Department. He was recently promoted from sergeant on December 1, 2012. A town marshal served the Lakeport City from 1886 to 1927 at which time the Lakeport Police Department was incorporated. Procedure: On December 4, 2012 the committee met with the Chief of Police and Police Lieutenant. The committee received a copy of the department’s budget and personnel roster prior to the visit. (Appendix A) Copies of the Police Department’s budget, personnel roster, city web page and Mission Statement were reviewed during a committee meeting. Discussion and Facts: The chief stated the department is dedicated to providing a safe environment by working with city government and the community. The income for the City of Lakeport has not kept pace with the rate of inflation over the past four years. The budget for Lakeport Police Department has decreased several hundred thousand dollars during this time period. This has adversely impacted the department, especially since incidents of crime in the community have been steadily increasing. As a result of the Police Officer’s Association recently re-negotiating a two- year contract with the city, morale within the department has improved, according to the chief. There exists a positive working/mutual-aid agreement with the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the California Highway Patrol and the Clearlake Police Department. The chief dispatches officers to a mutual-aid operation in 2012-13 Clearlake when needed. Lastly, the department has a strong volunteer program of nine individuals. 1. The department has eight full-time and two part-time sworn officers plus a paid Reserve Police Officer. At the time of the oversight one of the full-time officers had given notice, having taken employment elsewhere. 2. The department purchased new vehicles three years ago with a life expectancy of seven years. Their fleet consists of ten marked units with two or three older marked vehicles used by the volunteers. There are four unmarked vehicles which are used by police detectives and for out-of-county training. All but one of the marked vehicles have the Mobile Audio Visual (MAV) units used to document incidents as they occur. 3. The morale has improved with the adoption of the Police Officer’s Association contract with the city negotiating a 3% retirement per year worked at age 55. 4. The department received a $4,000 grant from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be used toward the $9,000 purchase of police bullet proof-vests. Each vest has a life expectancy of five years, at which time the department is planning to reapply for the DOJ grant. 5. The department lost their School Resource Officer (SRO) grant which funded the $25,000 part-time position. The schools no longer have their assigned officer which has resulted in a decrease in student security and fewer law enforcement educational programs. 6. Due to budgetary cuts the department’s canine program has also been discontinued. Police canines are commonly trained in protection, prevention and drug enforcement. 7. Crimes within Lakeport city limits have steadily increased over a ten-year period. The chief stated there were 8,000 incidents in which 4,000 were reported by the community and 4,000 were initially observed by on-duty officers. This resulted in approximately 1,200 written reports and 500 arrests. These statistics are from the first eleven months of 2012. 8. The chief is currently considering establishing the “You Are Not Alone” (YANA) program, to be administered by volunteers, for senior citizens and/or those in need of assistance. The program consists of a daily phone call to such individuals at a scheduled time thus building a rapport within the community. If the person 2012-13 being called does not respond, an officer is dispatched to the residence for a welfare check. Findings:

R3

Find community-based funding for a K-9, preferably cross- trained for protection and narcotic detention. (F3)

R4

Initiate the YANA program. (F4) Request for Responses:  Lakeport Police Department (90 days)  Lakeport City Council (90 days) 2012-13 BLANK -13 Public Services Committee  Oversights Financial and Educational Benefits To Be Derived From the Unification of Lake County School Districts. Oversight of Educational Transportation in Lake County 2012-13 Financial and Educational Benefits To Be Derived From the Unification of Lake County School Districts Summary: The Public Services Committee of the Lake County Civil Grand Jury (PSC) reviewed the cost of Lake County having seven separate school districts operating under seven seemingly identical administrations and revisited the benefit of consolidation. With this report, the PSC established a cost estimate of the potential savings through consolidation/unification of these seven school districts into a single centrally administered school district. An estimated $40 million+/- of Lake County school expenditures between 2011 and 2015 has been and will be (under present circumstances) spent on redundant administration costs within the seven Lake County school districts. The PSC reached its cost estimate using audited Lake County Office of Education (LCOE) data as reported to the California Department of Education. Background: In 2009, the Lake County Board of Supervisors (BOS) adopted resolution #2009-15 requesting the Lake County Board of Education (LCBOE) form a committee for a preliminary exploratory study on school district reorganization for Lake County. A task force was formed and on December 8, 2009, it presented the “Lake County School District Reorganization Feasibility Report” to the BOS meeting. Per Lake County Resolution 75-309 (1975) the BOS transferred any duties and functions relative to the organization or reorganization of school districts to the LCBOE. There appears to have been no further action taken. 2012-13 In the 2011-12 Lake County Civil Grand Jury Report the question of consolidation/unification of the Lake County school districts was again raised before the 2012 Lake County Board of Supervisors. Their response was: “any action recommended by the Office of Education, which requires Board of Supervisors action, will be brought forward at the appropriate time.” and that: “the Board of Supervisors do (sic) not support the expenditure of funds to place a non-binding advisory vote on the ballot.” It appears no further action was taken. The PSC considered the following in its review:  Using the data released by the California Department of Education there appears to be academic underperformance in Lake County schools.  Financial restrictions in the various districts has resulted in deletion of many programs and services.  Other school districts in the state have unified for financial benefit.  Lake County School District Superintendents, in 2012, averaged over $100,000 in base pay (not including benefits packages and incentives) as opposed to the average base pay (not including benefits packages and incentives) of teachers which is about half of that wage. The Civil Grand Jury in Santa Clara County’s 2009-2010 report [see Informational Websites on pg 7] on the effect of consolidation savings regarding teachers was summarized as: “The average total compensation (salary plus benefits) for an administrator in one of the existing unified districts is $200,000. The average total compensation for a teacher in that same district is approximately $80,000. At this rate, for every $1 million in savings, 12.5 teachers could be retained or hired.” [Websites pg 7] Procedure: The PSC approached the Lake County school districts as a system. 2012-13 The reason for approaching it as a system is to employ a comprehensive understanding of the processes for providing education to Lake County students. The system can be functionally divided into three levels: 1. Executive Administration: LCOE is the authority the seven school districts report to and which prioritizes and assures that the costs of providing educational opportunities to the students is allocated according to governmental requirements. 2. District Administration: Consists of district superintendents, assistant superintendents, the district’s school board, directors/department heads of district departments, administrative secretarial staff and other administration support staff. 3. Teaching: Defined as direct educational operations pertaining to education of students within Lake County schools. The Teaching function encompasses Certified Teaching staff supported by necessary teaching assistants and classified maintenance support staff. For the purpose of this report, the PSC accepts that the Teaching staff serves to the best of their ability and within the resources provided by the school districts in which they are employed. The seven individual LCOE school districts were contacted and data on their individual district administrations (financial information including but not limited to salaries, job descriptions, budgets and benefits packages) were obtained. The PSC reviewed this documentation but found data variances district-to-district made data interpretation problems difficult. By utilizing “object codes”, which define expenditures, the PSC was able to track all spending on education within Lake County schools. These records are online for public reference; www.cde.ca.gov [see Appendix A] On 5/16/13, the PSC contacted the LCBOE to discuss the County Committee on School District Organization and obtained copies of the minutes of the last twelve meetings. 2012-13 Discussion and Facts: 1. The seven Lake County school districts are: Kelseyville, Konocti, Middletown, Lakeport, Upper Lake Elementary, Upper Lake High School and Lucerne Elementary. The first school district in Lake County was established in 1884 (Upper Lake Union Elementary District). The other six school districts were formed prior to 1925. 2. Lake County has seven school District Administrations some of which serve as few as 200 students. Most district administrations are comprised of district superintendents, assistant superintendents, members of the school board for each district, directors/department heads of district departments, administrative secretarial staff and other administration support staff. There are costs associated with Lake County District Administrations that include wages and salaries plus medical plans, retirement benefits and other incidental expenditures and benefits. 3. Most, if not all, of the Lake County schools are educationally underperforming academically, when compared to other school districts of similar demographics [source: California Department of Education www.cde.ca.gov]. 4. Several other California counties have unified/consolidated school districts and eliminated their administrations, with positive financial returns applied to the servicing of teaching. [For reports on this please see Bibliography and Websites pg 7]. 5. Lake County has a total population of approximately 64,000, with 9,242 reported K-12 students in seven school districts with an ADA (average daily attendance) of approximately 8,400. 6. The seven school districts are all within an hour drive from LCOE which is located in Lakeport. 7. There are seven separate school boards each with stipends, allowances and benefits as reported by the LCOE for the approximately 28 board members. [Appendix A] 8. Other California counties have utilized the state laws to consolidate their school districts. [See Websites pg 7] 9. The legal statutory procedures required to consolidate Lake County school districts are lengthy. Estimates are that the process, once started in 2013, would not conclude for at least two years. 10. LCOE currently has in place an administrative structure which permits them to take responsibility for all of the administrative and 2012-13 organizational tasks of a single unified and consolidated LCOE school district. 11. LCOE would require an updated and expanded Management Information System coupled with an Information Technology upgrade, using California Department of Education approved software. Additional costs will be incurred. 12. Further savings in school district expenditures could be realized from elimination or liquidation of collateral overheads (real estate, buildings and equipment) required to maintain existing school district administrations. 13. LCOE already acts as a reviewer for the seven school district’s cost reports and is responsible for transmitting the reviewed data to the California Department of Education. 14. LCOE has reported that many educational and vocational training programs (e.g. most fine arts, career technical programs, computer training, music education, etc.) have been lost due to cost-cutting within the seven school districts in Lake County. 15. Although school safety and security is paramount in the county, it is not addressed in this report. LCOE, with the cooperation of District Administrations and law enforcement, are in the process of establishing a Resource Officer Program county-wide. 16. PSC recognizes each of the seven Lake County school districts has their own unique identity and characteristics (e.g. sports and other competitive programs). 17. PSC sought clarification of expenditure and budgetary data for LCOE school districts from them to validate data and findings. It was discovered that the Sacramento County Twin Cities School Consolidation report and the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report concerning consolidation of Santa Clara school districts indicated that significant cost savings had the potential to be realized through school district consolidation. [See Bibliography and Websites pg 7] 18. California Education Code Section 4000 states: “There is in each county . . . a county committee on school district organization.” Section 4020 further clarifies that: “Upon the petition of the county committee on school district organization of a county . . . the State Board of Education may order the county board of education to act as the county committee on school district organization for that county.” Lake County is one of the counties that the LCBOE acts 2012-13 as the County School Committee on School District Organization (County Committee). 19. The California State Legislature has enacted into law a statutory scheme regarding the reorganization of school districts. It can be found in The California Education Code Sections 35510 – 35787 (for specifics please refer to Appendix B). PSC has found relevant sections of the code regarding the issues contained in this report are as follows: Section 35512 defines the “County Committee” which is referred to in some of the following Code Sections is defined as the “County Board of Education”. Reorganization/unification/consolidation of all of the Lake County School Districts can be initiated by any of the following: Section 35700(a) provides that an action to reorganize one or more school districts can be initiated by at least 25% of the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be reorganized. Section 35700(d) provides that an action to reorganize one or more school districts can be initiated by a majority of each of the members of the governing boards, i.e. district school boards, that would be affected by the proposed reorganization. Section 35721(a) States: “On receipt of a petition signed by at least [ten] percent of the qualified electors residing in any district for a consideration of unification or other reorganization of any area, the county committee shall hold a public hearing on the petition at a regular or special meeting.” Section 35721(c) provides that a majority of the Lake County Board of Supervisors can adopt a resolution and if so adopted, the “County Committee”, i.e. the Board of Education, shall hold a public hearing on the proposal at a regular or special hearing. Actions which are to be taken or have to be taken after the hearing are in the codes. Section 35721 (d) provides that “following the hearing, the county committee shall grant or deny the petition. If the county committee grants the petition, it shall adopt a tentative 2012-13 recommendation following which action it shall hold one or more public hearings in the area proposed for reorganization.” It is important to note that there are numerous directives and/or alternatives available which are written into the statutory scheme including appellate review by the California Department of Education. The intent of the PSC by providing the above brief description regarding initiating the process of unification/consolidation is meant to provide a focus only. Anyone wishing to further examine the process or needs further clarification, should consult the statutes cited herein, refer to Appendix B, or consult with an attorney. Nothing contained in this report is to be construed as the final word on the legal directives contained in the law. Findings: