Consolidated Final Report for Fiscal Year*

1. The District Code does not specifically address the process for responding to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. Agree.

3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 School Breaks and Holidays August 1 to 13, 2012 Teacher Flex Day August 14, 2012 Teacher Work Day August 15, 2012 First Day of School September 3, 2012 Labor Day Holiday October 15-19, 2012 October Break November 12, 2012 Veterans Day Holiday (observed) November 21, 2012 Minimum day November 22-23, 2012 November Break (Thanksgiving Holidays) December 21, 2012 Minimum day Dec. 24, 2012-Jan. 4, 2013 Winter Break January 21, 2013 King Holiday February 15 & 18, 2013 Presidents Holidays March 25-29, 2013 Spring Break April 1 & May 24, 2013 Snow Make up Days May 27, 2013 Memorial Day Holiday TBD Last Day of School - minimum day TBD Professional Development (staff only, no school) Key to Symbols: PD- Professional Development M - Minimum day T - Teacher Work Day H- Holiday S- Snow Day Make-up District Office Closed July 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 October 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 December 18, 18, 17, 18, 19 March 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 Addendum F • 2012-2013 Nevada Joint Union School District Negotiated and Adopted Academic Calendar • Email Correspondence – Superintendent Marianne Cartan to NCFA President Joy Haggart Nevada Joint Union High School District --Tentative Student Calendar Subject to Negotiations Nevada Union, Bear River, Silver Springs, Sierra Mountain, Ghidotti, 4/24/2012 Sierra Foothill, Earle Jamieson, Pioneer & NU Tech High School 2012-2013 School Year July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 H 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 H 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 B B B B B 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 31 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 H B B B 6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 H 16 H 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 H 22 23 24 25 26 23 H 19 20 21 22 26 19 20 21 H H 24 22 H H B B B 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 H March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 S 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 19 20 21 22 23 S 28 23 17 18 19 20 21 22 B B B B B B 30 28 29 30 26 H 28 29 30 31 29 24 25 26 27 28 31 30 School Breaks and Holidays August 15, 2012 First Day of School September 3, 2012 Labor Day Holiday October 15-19, 2012 October Break November 12, 2012 Veterans Day Holiday (observed) November 22-23, 2012 November Break (Thanksgiving Holidays) Dec. 22, 2011-Jan. 4, 2013 Winter Break January 21, 2013 King Holiday February 2013 - TBD Presidents Holidays March 25-29, 2013 Spring Break TBD Snow Make up Days May 27, 2013 Memorial Day Holiday TBD Last Day of School TBD Professional Development (staff only, no school) 1st Quarter Ends - TBA 2nd Quarter Ends - TBA 3rd Quarter Ends - TBA 4th Quarter Ends - TBA 180 days of student instruction 183 day teacher contract , Key to Symbols: PD - Professional Development H - Holiday S - Snow Day Make-up B - School Break To: Roxanne Gilpatric Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 2:24 PM To: Joy Haggart Cc: Joe Limov; Kathy Newton Subject: FW: NJUHSD calendar for 2012-2013 Attachments: calendar - 2012-13 final 6-1-2012.xls FYI From: Marianne Cartan [mailto:marcartan@njuhsd.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2012 11:49 PM To: Britta Skavdahl; Dan Zeisler; Debra Sandoval; Eric Fredrickson; Holly Hermansen; James Berardi; Roxanne Gilpatric; Scott Lay; Stan Miller; Susie Barry Cc: Richard Baker; Wayne Klauer; Georgie Coulter; Jim Adams; Katy Schwarz Subject: NJUHSD calendar for 2012-2013 Dear all, We have a calendar! FYI: The current plan is that NUHS will be having Collaboration Days on Mondays and all of the other sites will plan on Fridays (same as this year), ending the students' day one hour early. Please see attachment. --Marianne CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may contain non-public, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited under 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, or have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email or by telephone at (530) 272-9998 and delete all copies of this communication, including attachments, without reading, forwarding or saving them electronically. Thank you. E-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC SS 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. November 13, 2012 The Honorable Judge Tom Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, I respectfully submitted the response to the Grand Jury's findings and recommendations in a timely and complete manner. I was notified by the foreman that our responses that were, for the most part, aligned with the County Superintendent's responses, were not satisfactory. I have re-responded below from only the high school district's perspective and not through the whole 'school community lens' as was done in the previous letter. Our district's earlier submission was thoughtful and accurately reflected our position. However, I am sending this updated and revised response. As Superintendent, I am responding as the representative of the District, and have provided the following. Regarding the findings, my position, on behalf of our staff and our Board of Trustees, is that I support and echo the 'bigger-picture' responses that Holly Hermansen, Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, provided to the Jury. Her responses were factual, and I concurred with her positions. I have responded below, focusing on NJUHSD and, again, responding from our district's perspective. Findings: 1. The school age population of Western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially Agree The high school district closely monitors enrollment and projects enrollment from the local elementary school districts. The District has been in declining enrollment since 1999 and is projected to continue this decline. However, internal efforts are in place to attract students who are not currently enrolled in the District, and there are signs that the decline may be slowing. 2. Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially Agree Now that the Governor's budget has passed, we should not see further cuts to per-student revenues. However, we continue to receive funding below our statutory revenue limit and there are indicators that difficult fiscal times will continue for schools for at least three more years. 3. The utilization of school facility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially Agree NJUHSD has experienced declining enrollment and we have adequate space for increased enrollment. We have no plans to close any schools in the District at this time. 4. Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially Agree That may be the case (evidence?), and we are aware that some of the local elementary school districts are looking at the benefits and challenges of consolidation. There are currently no discussions regarding unification. The high school district continues to direct as much funding for student class sections as possible. 5. Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Agree Although this finding refers to local elementary schools, the high school district believes that it is incumbent upon all school districts to do so. 6. School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Partially Agree Again, the finding may be true. Some of the local elementary school districts are looking at the benefits and challenges of consolidation. The high school district is not involved in consolidation. 7. Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. The high school district is not able to respond to this finding other than agreeing with the county superintendent's response. 8. Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of Union Hill and Grass Valley School Districts is logical and desirable. The high school district is not able to respond to this finding other than agreeing with the county superintendent's response. 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. The high school district does not have information that allows it to respond to this assumption. 10. The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. Agree The county superintendent and the school district superintendents meet monthly and often explore ways to share services and increase efficiencies. 11. There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Partially Agree The school calendars are negotiated separately in each district, and if any county-wide calendar was to be developed, it would need agreement with all bargaining units in order to be implemented. 12. Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree Cost savings would be realized for those districts sharing transportation. Families that are affected are those with multiple students attending different schools. The High School District and/or feeder districts may experience loss of revenue (ADA) when vacation periods are different from feeder districts when parents choose to take their students out of school to enjoy a family vacation. Recommendations: 8. The Nevada 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; Partially implemented The topic of shared maintenance has been discussed at the superintendents' council. Continued discussions will be held regarding possibilities in this area and implications for collective bargaining. High School District personnel manage maintenance for the largest campuses in our county. While the High School District has an efficient, cost effective system, with the cutbacks over the last five years, to even plan to extend services to elementary school districts would be expensive and time-consuming for staff that can barely manage current responsibilities. • More centralization of curriculum experts; No regional plan for implementation Since 2005, when a vacancy occurred in the position of NJUHSD Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction because of retirement, the responsibility for Curriculum and Instruction (C & I) for the high school district has been assigned to the Superintendent. In July, 2012, the District partially restored this administrative position to assist the Superintendent with this critical area of work. New state academic standards are in the process of being integrated into our courses and state assessments are changing. There is a need for a full time position to serve the high school district, but the District's current budget situation does not allow for this additional support. • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; This recommendation will be implemented as necessary. NJUHSD will continue to consider the sharing of a teacher(s) should full-time assignment no longer be sustainable. • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services This recommendation has been partially implemented. NJUHSD provides internet access and email hosting to the majority of our local elementary school districts and the county schools office. The District also provides access to the SIS (Student Information System) for four local elementary school districts. NJUHSD collects developer fees for all of the school districts in the county. • Student transportation This recommendation has been implemented. There is currently a JPA with Durham Transportation Services with the four largest school districts. NJUHSD is one of the member districts in the Transportation JPA and is responsible for the administration of the JPA. We will continue to explore ways to share services in this area; however the uncertainty of the transportation funding in the state budget makes planning difficult at this time. 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. Each year the school districts in Nevada County attempt to increase coordination of calendars. However, this is a negotiated item and needs agreement with bargaining units to implement. I will participate in any discussions on this issue with districts in Western Nevada County and with our local teachers' union (NJUHSTA). Respectfully submitted by: Pleasant Ridge Union School District 22580 Kingston Lane, Gross Valley, CA 95949 • (530) 268-2800 • FAX (530) 268-2804 Britta M. Skavdahl, Superintendent October 8, 2012 The Honorable Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, California 95959 Dear Judge Anderson, This letter serves as the response to the Grand Jury Report of June 5, 2012 on School Efficiency. FINDINGS: 1. The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially disagree In the Pleasant Ridge Union School District, the sizes of grade level cohorts entering Kindergarten continue to be smaller than those graduating from eighth grade. However, the Kindergarten class entering school for the 2012-13 school year reflects approximately a 30% enrollment increase as of July 23, 2012. Should this trend continue the District would begin to experience increases in enrollment starting with the 2014-15 school year. 2. Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Partially agree Revenues for schools and across the State of California have declined due to sagging revenues brought on by the global recession. At this time the Legislature has charged a subcommittee to develop a new system for funding K-12 education in California and bring it forward for legislative action. At this time we have no way of knowing the level of funding for school districts in the state or how it will be calculated. 3. The utilization of school facility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially disagree The Pleasant Ridge Union School District is not able to comment on issues related to facility utilization in other districts. However, for the 2012-13 school year the district anticipates no less than a 90% utilization rate. As of this writing Alta Sierra School is slated to be at 89% of capacity with Cottage Hill and Magnolia Intermediate schools at 96% and 85% of capacity respectively. Should the need to add class sections arise, as anticipated, the utilization would increase. Likewise, based on trending we anticipate increases in the utilization rate in the 2013-14 school year. 4. Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially disagree In the Pleasant Ridge Union School District no less than 89% of the unrestricted revenue stream is directed to classroom instruction. School districts with high poverty, immigrant, second language learner, and other at-risk subgroups may have additional revenue streams that could be directed to classroom instruction. Without an in depth study, based on a statistically valid random sample of California school districts that controls for all revenue and function coding variables, it would be impossible to arrive at any valid conclusion. 5. Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Disagree The Pleasant Ridge Union School District is not able to comment on issues related to operational efficiency in other districts. With respect to the Pleasant Ridge Union School District numerous positions have been eliminated with job functions reviewed and either eliminated or restructured into remaining positions. Accordingly, administrative staffing has decreased by 30% with classified and certificated positions being reduced by 15% and 13% respectively. At the same time our class sizes have remained low in comparison to many, if not most, districts, test scores have been consistently high, and all co-curricular and extra-curricular student programs remain in place. With the economic downturn exceeding historical cyclical timelines and additional global issues hindering an already sputtering recovery our choices are increasingly limited. Further, solutions at this juncture are not an issue of efficiency, though we continue to look for additional strategies. In observing that school districts of all sizes across California are struggling with fiscal issues it would appear that district size is not the issue. Instead, the key issue is that school districts across the state have no real solutions without firm, defensible, decisive, long term fiscal decisions being made by the State Legislature who appear to lack the will and/or ability to perform their constitutional duties. 6. School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs, and enhance educational programs. Partially disagree The District would agree that public agencies should always be vigilant in seeking and implementing measures to make the most efficient use of funding streams. Further, the District would agree that increased revenue limit funding can occur as a result of consolidation. It should also be noted that achieving cost savings is not a reason to embark on a consolidation. In fact, at the Spring 2010 meeting on school district consolidation sponsored by the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools' Office, the presenter clearly stated that cost savings rarely, if ever, result from school district consolidations. The presenter went on to state that the best reasons to consider such an action would be those that result in providing a service more efficiently or enhancing program quality. 7. Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is a de facto part of GVSD. Disagree The Union Hill School District is a legal entity charged with providing educational services to students within their geographic boundaries. The fact that, over time or by other circumstance, the geographic boundaries of the Grass Valley School District have surrounded the territory serving the Union Hill District does not diminish Union Hill's standing as a school district. Further, an inter-district transfer is an agreement between two school districts in which students are allowed to attend school in a district other than the district serving the geographic area in which the student resides. The use of this process, nor a district that has a high volume of incoming transfers, in no way diminishes its standing as a school district. Certainly, it could not be argued that by accepting a high volume of incoming transfers the receiving district becomes a "de facto" subsidiary of the district students are seeking to exit. 8. Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of the GVSD and UHSD is logical and desirable. Disagree While increased revenues may occur due to a consolidation of the Grass Valley School District and the Union Hill School District, it is unlikely that there would be an offset in costs. Moreover, geography is not the reason families seek inter-district transfers to the Union Hill School District. Rather, families opt to attend Union Hill School District because they feel the smaller K-8 setting is desirable, other services available at the site allow for all children to be in one geographic location, and/or they believe the educational program best meets the needs of their children. A consolidation may serve only to drive those families who attend Union Hill to other districts, charter school, or private school options. 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. Partially disagree The Pleasant Ridge Union School District is not able to comment on issues related to how the sharing of administrative services between two districts, other than the Pleasant Ridge District, detracts from educational programs. However, if this issue refers to site administrators taking responsibility for district level functions such as assessment, coordination of programs, and issues of that nature, the Pleasant Ridge School District's experience is that such practices allow for administrators to have growth experiences that in turn set them up for career advancement opportunities. In the event that by the term "working two jobs" the practice of two small districts sharing a Business Manager or Superintendent is what is being referenced we would note that there are examples in many districts where this practice is both effective and sustainable. 10. The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. Partially disagree The Pleasant Ridge Union School District is open to exploring ideas for sharing or centralizing services when such an action will lead to cost efficiency or produce a higher level of service for our customers. However, central to taking such an action would be the realization of an attached cost savings. Moreover, in many respects this action would potentially result in a single employee being responsible for multiple functions or the same function over multiple districts which the Grand Jury appears, based on Finding 9, to find as an unsustainable practice. 11. There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Partially agree The Pleasant Ridge Union School District would prefer more coordination of school district calendars. Whether or not a "major opportunity" to increase the coordination of school calendars exists rests with level of willingness by the certificated bargaining units to either remove calendar from the negotiations process or present a menu of coordinated, jointly agreed upon calendar options that will be forwarded for review and selection by the Superintendents of the county's school districts. 12. Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially disagree The cost savings realized by coordination of district calendars would be limited at best. There may be cost reductions in the area of Home-to-School transportation by those districts that currently share services in that area. A second area of savings would be in the area of itinerant staff that services the needs of Special Education students across the county. In order for there to be increased planning on the part of families or allow for the scheduling of family vacations a calendar would have to be in place by January of the year before the school term was to start. Additionally, to maximize the family planning benefit there would have to be a "black out" of high school sports practices and activities. 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 consolidations with a view to petitioning the County Superintendent of Schools pursuant to Education Code Section 35700. The recommendation has been implemented. In the spring of 2010 elected representatives from all districts in western Nevada County participated in a presentation by the California Department of Education that oversees school district consolidations. Additionally, in the spring of 2010 elected as well as appointed officials, members of the public, and the 2009-10 Grand Jury participated in a facilitated round-table dialogue on this issue. Further, in the spring of 2011 these same parties met again to hear a report generated by School Services of California which examined only the revenue side of this issue. Lastly, the Pleasant Ridge School District Governing Board continually seeks opportunities in which services can be shared between districts. The Pleasant Ridge Union School District and Clear Creek School District reviewed the consolidation study done by the two districts in 1989. The study was updated with regard to revenue limit figures, educational design, costs, and transportation. The result, using the enhanced revenue limit provided by the 2011 study on school district revenue commissioned by the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools' office, was a decrease of approximately $400,000.00 in revenue. This decrease resulted in the fact that the new revenue limit is lower than the existing revenue limits of both districts. Further, we found that the cost of equalizing the salary schedules for certificated staff alone would be $70,000.00 before equalizing benefit packages. Moreover, the cost of providing an equal level of educational services across the newly formed district would generate new costs in excess of $250,000.00. Lastly, with the continuation of home-to-school transportation funding being uncertain layering on the additional cost of at least two additional bus routes was financially unfeasible. The message delivered by the spokesperson for the California Department of Education at the spring 2010 presentation was clear that cost savings virtually never materialize in a consolidation scenario and thus the best reason to consider such a move would be improved program. Hence the District would posit that in the event that the Nevada Joint Union High School District should decide to close Bear River High School it would be in the best interests of the South Nevada County students and community to reform the Pleasant Ridge Union School District as a K-12 agency to assure a quality educational product though it does not reduce the number of school districts in the county. 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 school district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The Pleasant Ridge Union School District and the Clear Creek School District revisited and updated a 1989 study on consolidation of the two districts. The findings indicated a loss of revenue and significantly increased costs. Therefore, the process will not move forward. The potential consolidation with Clear Creek was, and has been, the most logical pairing for students residing in southern Nevada County. All other pairings would result in significantly extended travel times and merging with school districts whose academic offerings and successes may not provide a parallel experience. 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; • 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 The recommendation has been implemented. At this time a number of western Nevada County school districts, including the Pleasant Ridge Union School District, are in the initial phases of studying a Food Service Joint Powers Agency with an eye toward increased efficiency in this area. This would be the most productive area to focus on at this time with other issues related to maintenance and landscaping being addressed at a later date. Currently, and for many years, the Pleasant Ridge Union School District in collaboration with three other western Nevada County school districts have a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) for the purpose of operating a common home-to-school transportation system. At any time additional districts are welcome, and encouraged, to become members of the JPA. Further, fiscal oversight and business services such as payroll are currently centralized with the Nevada County Superintendent of School's office. While documents are prepared for processing at the District level, the actual processing occurs through a centralized fashion which also serves as an additional layer of checks and balances. The Pleasant Ridge Union School District is unclear as to how enrichment programs could be centralized. Currently we offer a wide range of electives as well as sports and a comprehensive Band program for students in grades 4-8 as well as Choir and classroom music curriculum for all students in grades K-8. We have the needed staff to provide these services for our clients and no additional time to share with other districts. The centralization of curriculum experts is designed to rest within the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools' office. Currently, that office has an Assistant Superintendent for Instruction. In response to this area being recommended as an area of need, the Pleasant Ridge Union School District would posit that the issue of centralized service is not the integral factor in need of attention. Moreover, the Pleasant Ridge Union School District may, arguably, be the K-8 educational system in western Nevada County most aggressively and proactively readying staff and students for the new Common Core curriculum slated to be the basis for high stakes achievement testing in the 2014-15 school year. To that end we have consistently invited surrounding districts to trainings in this area, at no cost, and had no participants. Further, we are always open to sharing information and practices in the area of technology with other districts and do so on a frequent basis. 9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school calendars for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. This recommendation has been implemented. For the 2012-13 school year our calendar aligns for all the following school breaks: Fall Break, Winter Break and Spring Break and all legal holidays 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. Sincerely, Pleasant Ridge Union School District READY SPRINGS UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT PLEASANT VALLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE TO NEVADA COUNTY GRAND JURY REPORT DATED JUNE 5, 2012 SCHOOLS EFFICIENCY Approved by the Ready Springs Board of Trustees: August 7, 2012 Approved by the Pleasant Valley Board of Trustees: August 14, 2012 FINDINGS F.I.1 The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Agree F.I.2 Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline for the foreseeable future. Agree F.I.3 The utilization of school facility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Agree F.I.4 Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. Partially Agree This would depend on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, actual staffing costs, negotiated employee contracts, number of school sites, the size of a campus, litigation, etc. Consolidation does not necessarily reduce the number of employees; it might just mean that some titles and responsibilities are changed. F.I.5 Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Partially Agree We can only speak for Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley School Districts. When our two districts established the Shared Management Team in 2004 it was done to improve the educational experience in each school by ensuring that there could be a principal instead of a Superintendent-Principal in each district. Also, the Boards at that time felt that it was very difficult to not just hire entry level management. By sharing services the Districts would be in a better position to hire staff with more experience who could focus on specific areas that would improve student learning. Ready Springs knew that their District needed a full-time principal. Also this arrangement allowed the Districts to provide specialized support for students in areas that were lacking: for example, Director of Special Education, Director of Curriculum and Instruction, and Maintenance Supervisor. It also helped the two districts be more efficient. The Leadership and Budget Committees for both districts have acknowledged that a real benefit educationally might be the combining of our middle school programs which would allow us to offer more electives and sports. This could ease the transition for Penn Valley students into the high school. However, it might also mean that we would lose some of our students to other districts such as Grass Valley. Community conversations will need to be held regarding this. F.I.6 School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Disagree This is a very complex issue. Although on the surface it would seem that this should be the case, an increase in Revenue Limit income through consolidation is only one of the financial factors that must be examined. When districts consolidate there is a process that must be followed to adjust the salary schedule of the districts to the same level. Funding resources other than revenue limit may change, decrease, or actually be eliminated ( transportation funds, federal and state funding (i.e. Title I, Title II, Rural Education Achievement Program, After School Education and Safety Program, eRate funding) which are based on socio-economic levels of students, categorical block grants, etc.). For example, if we were consolidated we might not be able to receive the $150,000 in After School funding for Ready Springs or provide universal breakfast to all students at Ready Springs School. It should also be noted that while there might be an increase in revenue limit for the consolidated districts, that income might be allocated to changes in compensation packages in the newly formed district through the collective bargaining process. It is a reasonable assumption that the negotiating units in the district with the higher salary scale and benefit package would be unwilling to negotiate a lower salary scale for their employees in the consolidated district. The Districts are interested in finding out what the actual effect to the revenue would be through consolidation but we understand there could be a huge cost involved in getting this additional information. To verify that revenue would increase and costs be decreased would have to be examined further. The Districts are open to learning more and would appreciate any financial assistance with this. Enhancement of educational programs depends on what the staff and program do, not just the level of funding. "Who" you have is what is most important. The Districts have been able to hire more experienced and well trained staff through the shared management team than they would have as single districts. F.I.7 Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Not applicable to Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley School Districts. F.I.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. Not applicable to Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley School Districts. F.I.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. Partially Agree Our administrative staff do work very hard as each principal administers two schools, and district level staff (Director of Special Ed/School Psychologist, Superintendent, Business Manager, Administrative Assistant, Nurse, Technology Coordinator, and Clerical/Technicians) support both districts. The original design of this shared staffing was sustainable. However, with state budget cuts and declining enrollment, administrative staff has been reduced (i.e. Director of Curriculum and Instruction, one principal position, Maintenance Supervisor, technology and library support, and school site office staffing) which has increased the duties of each administrator and shared staff. There has also been an increase in the Superintendent's and Administrative Assistant's responsibilities due to the turnover in the business department (six business managers in four years). This stretching of staff resources means that staff do not always have time to dig as deep or investigate ways to do things better. Our conversations have focused on whether or not this design is sustainable. Over the past four years we have tried to streamline the responsibilities. There is a difference between a staff member doing two different jobs and doing the same job twice. For example, the accounts payable technician's job is more standardized since she only had to learn the tasks once and completes it separately for each district. Whereas the human resources and payroll staff have different salary schedules and different employee contracts to maintain for each district. If we did not have the shared management, we would not be able to financially provide enough support staff. The Superintendent would need to be a principal also and the Business Manager would handle all of the technician duties for the district. The inefficiencies that we have now center around double reporting (time, money, and sanity); different negotiated contracts for the four employee organizations; different medical and liability insurance carriers; different versions of board policies and administrative regulations; double school board meetings; and double memberships in education support organizations. We do not agree that our shared management team has detracted from or harmed our educational programs. The Grand Jury Report may be missing the benefits we have gained through our good leadership team. When the Districts work together, it benefits our students whether we are consolidated or not. We have actually seen benefits to our program through more experienced and trained leadership; more staff development options; and a greater focus on improvements in instruction and learning. Plus the shared management allows the Districts to maintain the needs of the individual populations and schools and communities we serve. The challenges of raising and educating children and preparing them for NJUHSD is universal. F.I.10 The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. Agree F.I.11 There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Agree F.I.12 Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Agree RECOMMENDATIONS R.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 partially implemented. The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools Office arranged two workshops related to consolidation for Nevada County School Boards during the past four years. Members of the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley Boards participated in both workshops. The first workshop was presented by a representative from the California Department of Education. During the second workshop our two boards were able to have a lengthy discussion about the successes of our collaboration and other areas we could explore for expanding our shared services/programs. The Nevada County Superintendent of Schools Office also initiated the conversation with School Services of California to conduct an initial study of consolidation in Nevada County. Through the report prepared by School Services of California, districts were provided with information about the effect various consolidation options would have on the revenue limits. However, this report addressed each district as if it was funded by revenue limit with no adjustment for those districts funded through basic aid. A further analysis would need to be made to determine if overall a specific consolidation would benefit the districts programmatically as well as financially. At this time the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley Districts must be very conservative with expenses of time and money. The Districts would be open to pursuing this analysis if it is not cost prohibitive. The Districts want to build on the gains we have made through our shared services. The Districts will pursue discussions with our community related to further collaboration between these two districts and possible consolidation. 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 such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to Education Code Section 35721(c). The recommendation has been partially implemented. At this time, this response can only address the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley Districts. Before the release of the Schools Efficiency Grand Jury Report, the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley Boards had informed their superintendent in their respective public board meetings that they wanted her to facilitate discussions between the two districts related to greater collaboration and/or consolidation options. In June, the RSUESD/PVESD Superintendent let the County Superintendent of Schools know that the districts would like more information on the fiscal effects of consolidation. R.7. 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. The recommendation has been partially implemented. As mentioned above, these discussions have started. Community input will be sought and an analysis (dependent on cost) will be conducted to determine whether or not this is feasible, fiscally sound and beneficial to the educational programs. R.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; • 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. The recommendation has been partially implemented. During the past three years, all superintendents have participated in discussions related to shared services and programs. At this time, this response can only address the Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley Districts. Any joint services and programs that we offer are carefully analyzed to ensure that they benefit our students. • Maintenance options will be explored if allowed through our collective bargaining agreements. RSUESD and PVESD had a shared Maintenance Supervisor until that position was eliminated due to budget cuts. Equipment, expertise, and assistance are still shared across the two district boundaries. • Options will be explored for curriculum experts. RSUESD and PVESD had a shared Director of Curriculum and Instruction until that position was eliminated two years ago due to budget cuts. These responsibilities are now shared across the two districts by the two Principals, the Superintendent, and the Director of Special Education. Staff from the two districts have participated in joint staff development in several topics including but not limited to autism spectrum disorder; Explicit Direct Instruction; Olweus Bully Prevention; training of instructional aides; Systematic Supervision; blood borne pathogens; child abuse prevention; sexual harassment; technology; transitional kindergarten; first aid/CPR, and special education. • Options will be explored for enrichment programs. RSUESD and PVESD both offer after school programs and we try to coordinate enrichment opportunities and training. The Penn Valley Family Resource Center also provides special opportunities for students from both districts and parenting classes. The two districts have worked cooperatively to implement a new program this year for middle school students from both districts, the Phoenix Academy. This program emphasizes academic improvement and helps these students achieve their full potential. • Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley already have centralized administrative services, including business and payroll. We have utilized our joint purchasing power for numerous contracts including propane, transportation, office and instructional supplies, technology, and transportation. • During the spring of 2012, Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley explored transportation options through Durham Transportation, but determined that it would not be a cost savings during the 2012-13 school year. This will be re-examined in the spring of 2013. R.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. The recommendation has been implemented. Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley have adopted a 2012-13 calendar that has a common start day, Fall Break, Winter Break, and Spring Break with Nevada Joint Union High School District. Both Districts examine the NJUHSD calendar which must be negotiated by the NJUHSD employee associations. In the past couple years the NJUHSD calendar negotiations have been completed very late in the school year. Also in recent years some districts, including NJUHSD, have negotiated furlough days. Ready Springs and Pleasant Valley have not had any furlough days and are not interested in reducing instructional time unless it becomes a fiscal necessity. Twin Ridges Elementary School District P.O. Box 529 North San Juan, CA 95960 (530) 265-9052 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: 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. The discussion of consolidation has taken place on multiple occasions within the regular Superintendent's meetings. The Twin Ridges Elementary School District Superintendent has also attended the meeting between the GVSD and NCSD as well as the individual district meetings when they were discussing consolidation. At this time the TRESD does not feel that it is our best interest to consolidate with any other district within Nevada County. 4. 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 will not be implemented at this time. The only district bordering Twin Ridges Elementary School District is the Nevada City School District. The TRESD Board of Trustees is not interested in consideration of consolidation with the Nevada City School District at this time. A resolution stating that fact will be sent to the County Committee on School District Organization. 8. The Nevada 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; This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. The Twin Ridges Elementary School District currently has two full time maintenance personnel at this time. These two people are responsible for maintaining four sites within the district. Two of these sites are currently not being used as schools but house a variety of other operations. The district feels that our staff has local knowledge that is unique to our sites. A rotating mobile service would not meet our needs. It is our best interest to have someone immediately available in case of emergencies. If there were an emergency we could not expect to get someone to our rural isolated site(s) in a timely manner. Our Facilities/maintenance people are our first responders when the alarm system goes off. They need to be able to get to the school in a timely manner. The district is also obligated to maintain these positions as they are negotiated union positions. However, continued discussions will be held regarding possibilities that might arise in the future. • More centralization of curriculum experts; This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Currently, only the county superintendent of schools employs a position specifically designated as a curriculum expert. This position provides countywide support and planning for math training, assistance in program improvement, staff development opportunities and other curriculum assistance. The position also provides coordination of regional curriculum activities. Information is shared at monthly superintendents' council meetings and at countywide principals meetings. The Superintendent/Principal currently acts as the curriculum director for the TRESD. At this time it is not economically viable for our small district to hire a designated curriculum expert. • More centralization of enrichment programs, including those in music and the arts; This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Due to our geographic isolation within the county, the sharing of staff is not economically viable. The cost of transportation to and from other districts will only increase the cost. Travel time is also a consideration that does not fit our district. • Increased sharing and centralization of administrative services, including business and payroll services; This recommendation has been partially implemented. Twin Ridges Elementary School District has already eliminated some administration by combining the Superintendent and Principal position. Currently the Superintendent/Principal acts as the sole administrator to both the schools in the district. TRESD's business and payroll services are sent to the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools office for back-up and internal control. Student transportation; This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Due to our geographic isolation within the county we are not included in the JPA that several other districts utilize. Washington School does not offer any bus services at this time because the school is located within walking distance to all students. Our second school, Grizzly Hill, does contract out with Durham Transportation. When our current contract with them expires at the end of the 2012-2013 year, we will be looking into a variety of alternatives. 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 will not be implemented at this time. Calendars are an negotiated item. The Twin Ridges Teachers Association put forth the current calendar that was adopted for the 2012-2013 school year. This item will be put up for consideration next year. Sincerely, James Berardi Superintendent/Principal Twin Ridges Elementary School District Susan Barry, Superintendent Union Hill SCHOOL DISTRICT A faculty of executive professionals 10879 Bartlett Drive Grass Valley, CA 95945 Ph. 530.273.0647 Fax 530.273.5626 www.uhsd.k12.ca.us September 5, 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 Union Hill School District's Board of Trustee's response to the June 5, 2012 Grand Jury Report on Schools Efficiency. Findings: F.I.1 The school age population of western Nevada County is declining and will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. Partially Agree The school age population of western Nevada County has been declining over the past decade. It seems speculative to predict that there is a foreseeable future of declining enrollment, as the local economy, job market, and affordable housing are key factors relating to local school enrollment. F.I.2 Revenues received by school districts in western Nevada County are declining and will continue to decline in the foreseeable future. Partially Agree State and federal education revenues have been reduced over the last five years. At this time future funding for education is unclear as we wait to see the outcome of the Governor's tax initiative on the November ballot. Recd 9/10/2012 F.I.3 The utilization of school facility capacity in western Nevada County is low and will continue to decline. Partially Agree Although Union Hill School has experienced declining enrollment, we maximize the use of our facilities by expanding our charter school program and by leasing classrooms to house students from the county special education programs. F.I.4 Larger school districts can devote proportionately more of their budgets to classroom instruction. N/A F.I.5 Public elementary schools in western Nevada County need to increase their efficiency if the educational experience is to stabilize or improve. Partially Agree Efficient school operations are one of many factors that contribute to improvements of educational experiences. F.I.6 School district consolidation can increase Revenue Limit income, decrease costs and enhance educational programs. Partially Agree Increased revenues due to consolidation may or may not occur, depending on the combination of districts consolidating. Costs associated with consolidation may or may not decrease, depending on the combination of the districts consolidating. F.I.7 Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Disagree Although Union Hill School District shares boundaries with Grass Valley School District, UHSD has been a separate established school district since 1868. The high number of inter-district transfer requests from families seeking attendance with the Union Hill School District exemplify that the two districts are perceived to have separate and unique school climates, philosophical foundations, and educational practices. F.I.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. Disagree The process for consolidating school districts depends upon local initiation and approval. Local stakeholders are the appropriate bodies to determine the merits of a potential consolidation. F.I.9 Most of the administrative staff in the RSUSD and the PVEST are working two jobs, which is unsustainable and detracts from the educational program. N/A F.I.10 The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. Agree F.I.11 There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Partially Agree The school districts in Nevada County attempt to develop aligned school calendars, however, the school calendar is a negotiated item and total alignment may not be feasible due to the unique issues of each district. F.I.12 Standardization of school district calendars would result in cost savings and allow families to plan for school closures and vacations. Partially Agree Cost savings through the standardization of school calendars has not been determined. Standardization of district calendars would assist families in planning for vacations and child care for school closure times. Recommendations: R.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 EC 35700. The recommendation has been implemented. Union Hill School District's Board of Trustees will attend the August 28, 2012 joint meeting between Nevada City School District and Grass Valley School District where district consolidation will be discussed. 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 such district with one or more other districts in western Nevada County, pursuant to EC 35721(c). The recommendation will not be implemented. On February 17, 2011, the Nevada County Superintendent of Schools in conjunction with School Services of California, presented a forum, Analysis of the Revenue Impact of School District Consolidations in Nevada County. While this forum addressed the revenue impact, it did not address the costs or multitude of other educational issues associated with consolidation. The Union Hill School District Board of Trustees feel that at this time there is not factual evidence to support school district consolidation in our county. R.6. 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. The recommendation has been implemented. Union Hill School District's Board of Trustees will attend the August 28, 2012 joint meeting between Nevada City School District and Grass Valley School District where district consolidation will be discussed. R.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, mobil 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. The recommendation has been implemented. Union Hill School District currently shares services with other school districts whenever it is economically feasible and supportive of the educational and fiscal needs of the district. R.9. All local elementary school districts in western Nevada County and the Nevada Joint Union High School District coordinate their school-year calendar for greater efficiency and publicly report their conclusions. The recommendation has been implemented. The school districts in Nevada County attempt to develop aligned school calendars, however, the school calendar is a negotiated item and total alignment may not be feasible due to the unique issues of each district. School calendars are publically adopted at a Board of Trustees meeting. Sincerely, SPECIAL DISTRICTS a Truckee Donner Public Utility District Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses 2011-2012 TRUCKEE DONNER PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT Summary The Truckee Donner Public Utility District is an independent special district providing electrical power and water services in and around Truckee, California. The Truckee Donner Public Utility District is governed by a Board of Directors elected by the district's voters. On April 19, 2011, the Nevada County Grand Jury received a complaint from a member of the public. The complainant asked the Nevada County Grand Jury to review the eligibility of a Director of the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District to serve on the Board of Directors. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District does not have written policy outlining procedures for an investigation of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds there was a lack of responsiveness to the complaint by the General Manager and the Board of Directors. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds; • the General Manager failed to advise the Board of Directors of the complaint; • the Board of Directors, when it learned of questions concerning the eligibility of the Director, failed to give direction to the General Manager or to seek advice from its legal counsel. The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District Board of Directors develop written policy which outlines procedures clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of the General Manager, the Truckee Donner Public Utility District's legal counsel and the Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. The Nevada County Grand Jury also recommends the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District improve communication among management, legal counsel and the Board of Directors of the Truckee Donner Public Utilities District. Reasons for Investigation On April 19, 2011, the Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint regarding a member of the Truckee Donner Public Utility District (TDPUD) Board of Directors (Board). The complaint requested the Jury review the eligibility of a Director to serve on the Board at the time of the November 2010 election or the date of the complaint. The Jury has the authority to investigate special purpose assessment or taxing districts, including those commonly known as special districts, in Nevada County. Background Special districts are a form of local government created by a community to meet specific needs. Most of California's special districts perform a single function such as sewage treatment, water services, fire protection, pest management or cemetery management. There are approximately 2,300 independent special districts in California, each governed by an independent board of directors elected by the voters of their district or appointed to a fixed term of office by either a city council or a county board of supervisors. There are approximately thirty independent special districts in Nevada County. The TDPUD is an independent special district responsible for providing electrical power and water services in and around Truckee, California. The TDPUD is a non-profit, publicly owned utility. The TDPUD is governed by a five-member Board. The Board is elected by district voters during the general elections held in November. In the general election to be held in November 2012, three of the five Directors will stand for election. The members of the Board serve four-year terms. The Board is responsible for setting policy and general administrative procedures. The Board selects and appoints a General Manager (GM). The GM is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the TDPUD and is accountable to the Board. The Board meets in regular session every month. These meetings are scheduled at 6:00 P.M. on the first and third Wednesday of each month and are open to the public. Procedures Followed The Jury interviewed TDPUD staff, four members of the Board, the TDPUD's legal counsel, United States Postal Service (USPS) personnel and residents of the TDPUD. The Jury also reviewed related documents provided by the TDPUD and the USPS. During the review of the complaint, the Jury also reviewed the policies and procedures of the TDPUD. The Jury's inquiry focused on the time period between August 2010 and June 2011. Facts F.A.1. The TDPUD is governed by a five-member Board elected by the voters of the TDPUD. F.A.2. Only residents of the TDPUD who are registered voters are eligible to serve as TDPUD Directors (California Public Utilities Code section 15952). F.A.3. There is a governing document for the TDPUD titled District Code. F.A.4. The District Code provides that; • the GM is selected and appointed by the Board and is accountable to the Board; • the GM administers the policies and procedures of the TDPUD as directed by the Board; • the GM is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the TDPUD; • the Board is responsible for establishing policy, approving plans and programs and delegating authority to the GM; • the GM is responsible for responding to citizens' complaints and requests for information; • the GM is to keep the Board informed of customer complaints; • the GM will inform the Board of significant problems so the Board can provide necessary direction to District staff. F.A.5. There is no written policy in the District Code outlining the roles and responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD's legal counsel or the Board when a complaint is made concerning a member of the Board. F.A.6. On December 15, 2010, the TDPUD legal counsel received a complaint questioning the residency of a member of the Board (Director). F.A.7. The Board met in a regularly scheduled meeting on December 15, 2010. F.A.8. At the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the Director made a public statement and said he was aware of questions regarding his residency status. He further stated he was a resident of Truckee. F.A.9. Prior to the Director's public statement, the GM was aware of the complaint which questioned the residency of the Director. F.A.10. The GM met with the Director and TDPUD legal counsel prior to the Director's public statement. At that time, the Director told the GM that he was a resident of Truckee. F.A.11. The GM accepted the Director's statement that the Director was a resident of Truckee F.A.12. The GM did not further investigate the complaint. F.A.13. The GM did not advise the Board of the complaint or of any actions taken to investigate the complaint in any open or closed session of the Board. F.A.14. After the Director's public statement at the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the Board failed to seek advice from its legal counsel regarding the issues raised by the Director's statement. F.A.15. After the Director's public statement at the December 15, 2010 Board meeting, the Board failed to give direction to the GM regarding the issues raised by the Director's statement. F.A.16. The Board met in a regularly scheduled meeting on February 16, 2011 F.A.17. At the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the Director made a public statement that he still considered himself a resident of Truckee. F.A.18. At the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, after the Director's public statement, the President of the Board stated the Board was glad to keep the Director on the Board, "as long as we can." F.A.19. After the Director's public statement at the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the Board again failed to seek advice from its legal counsel regarding the issues raised by the Director's statement. F.A.20. After the Director's public statement at the February 16, 2011 Board meeting, the Board again failed to give direction to the GM regarding the issues raised by the Director's statement. F.A.21. The District Code does not require the Board or the GM to notify the complainant of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. F.A.22. The TDPUD did not notify the complainant of any disposition of the complaint. F.A.23. The Director resigned from the Board on June 22, 2011. Findings F.I.1 The District Code does not specifically address the process for responding to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. F.I.2 The District Code does not specifically require the GM to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. F.I.3 The GM's failure to notify the Board of the complaint regarding the Director denied the Board an opportunity to address the complaint. F.I.4 After the Director's public statements at the December 15, 2010 and February 16, 2011 Board meetings, the Board showed a lack of engagement and responsiveness by failing to address the issues raised by the Director's statement. F.I.5 The District Code does not require the complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. Recommendations The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends: R.1. All members of the Board should seek out and attend training regarding the roles and responsibilities of Board members in special districts. R.2. The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel and the Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. R.3. The Board should amend the District Code to require the complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. R.4. The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. R.5. The Board should improve communication among TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. Responses Truckee Donner Public Utility District Board of Directors: Date : August 21, 2012 Truckee Donner Public Utility District June 8, 2012 The Honorable Thomas Anderson Presiding Judge of the Grand Jury 201 Church Street Nevada City, CA 95959 Directors Joseph R. Aguera Jeff Bender J. Ron Hemig Tony Laliotis Vacant Position General Manager Michael D. Holley Subject: 2012 Grand Jury of Nevada County report on the Truckee Donner Public Utility District Grand Jury Findings Note: TDPUD Response in Bold F.1.1. The District Code does not specifically address the process for responding to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. Agree. F.1.2. The District Code does not specifically require the GM to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. Agree. F.1.3. The GM's failure to notify the Board of the complaint regarding the Director denied the Board the opportunity to address the complaint. Disagree. The Board was given the opportunity to address the issue when Director Hillstrom made his statements in open session. Additionally, there is no requirement, regulation, or law for the GM to notify the Board in this circumstance. F.1.4. After the Director's public statements at the December 15, 2010 and February 16, 2011 Board meetings, the Board showed a lack of engagement and responsiveness by failing to address the issues raised by the Director's statement. Disagree. Director Hillstrom addressed the question of his residency multiple times in open session, indicated that he had consulted with legal counsel on this issue, and the Board was satisfied with his statements. The Board and GM were aware of their responsibilities regarding this issue, followed District code and State law, and took appropriate actions. The State of California, Office of the Attorney General and the courts, have jurisdiction regarding issues relating to residency requirements for local government officials. F.1.5. The District Code does not require the complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. Agree. Grand Jury Recommendations Note: TDPUD Response in Bold R1. All members of the Board should seek out and attend training regarding the roles and responsibilities of Board members in special districts. The recommendation has been implemented. The District has an on-going program to train Board members. R2. The Board should develop written policy which clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the GM, the TDPUD legal counsel and Board in response to a complaint concerning a member of the Board. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 120 days. R3. The Board should amend the District Code to require the complainant be notified of the disposition of a complaint made concerning a member of the Board. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 120 days. R4. The Board should develop written policy that requires the GM to keep the Board informed of a complaint concerning a member of the Board. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented within 120 days. R5. The Board should improve communications among TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. See the District's response to F.I.3 and F.I.4. The District strives to continually improve communications among the TDPUD management, TDPUD legal counsel and the Board. Feel free to contact me if I can be of any assistance. Regards, Tony Laliotis Board President Truckee Donner Public Utility District

NCRCD allowed its reserves (real estate and cash) to grow to an excessive level, nearly four times its average annual budget. Disagree • The NCRCD had conserved their reserves and grant administration monies, over many years, for a possible, future Agriculture and Natural Resources Building. This building had been part of the NCRCD Strategic Plan since 2005. Under Division 9 of the Public Resources Code, districts have the "right to own and manage land, easements, and property...Division 9 allows districts to purchase office space as well...they may also purchase land and a building to house the district."

NCRCD expenditures on public outreach have been inadequate. Disagree • The NCRCD has implemented a large number of public outreach events each year, using staff, volunteers, and directors to achieve that goal. Publications, printing, and outreach were done in house as much as possible. Ultimately, the NCRCD worked toward any project in the most cost efficient manner available.

NCRCD expenditures on programs have been inadequate in recent years. Disagree • The NCRCD has consistently maintained very cost effective programming to further the mission and vision of the NCRCD. Many of our programs were funded by grants that were efficiently managed by the NCRCD.

In conjunction with the Nevada County Board of Supervisors, secure the open walkway area at the Joseph Center, used to transport inmates into the court, with a fenced enclosure. 3x4 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not reasonable in the current fiscal environment. The Sheriff's Office would like to thank the members of the 2011-2012 Grand Jury for their participation and effort in preparing their reports. We are committed to providing the highest level of safety and security to our employees, the public, and inmates. Sincerely, Keith Royal Sheriff-Coroner cc: CEO's Office Board of Supervisors SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES ee Grass Valley School District Superintendent and Board of Trustees Nevada County Grand Jury Report with Responses 2011-2012 Grass Valley School District Superintendent and Board of Trustees Summary The Grass Valley School District is a public elementary school district responsible for educational services in Grass Valley, California. The Grass Valley School District is governed by a Board of Trustees elected by the district's voters. The Nevada County Grand Jury received a citizen's complaint regarding the Grass Valley School District. The complainant asked for an investigation into salary increases given to the former superintendent and to the former superintendent's administrative assistant. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds that the former superintendent of the Grass Valley School District received a salary increase which was not authorized by the former superintendent's employment contract and another salary increase which was not approved by the Board of Trustees. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds that the superintendent's unauthorized salary increases should not have been included in the calculations of his retirement compensation. This has resulted in the former superintendent receiving retirement benefits to which he is not entitled and increased retirement fund liabilities to the Grass Valley School District. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds that the Board of Trustees created the positions of Administrative Assistant I in 2007 and Administrative Assistant II in 2009 and has not approved defined job duties and responsibilities for these positions as of April 15, 2012. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds that the Board of Trustees failed to exercise financial responsibility when it promoted an administrative assistant, with an accompanying salary increase, retroactive for one year, one week prior to the employee's retirement date. The Nevada County Grand Jury finds that promotions and salary increases given to employees concurrently with their retirement gives the impression of "pension spiking." The Nevada County Grand Jury recommends that the Grass Valley School District Board of Trustees notify the California State Teachers' Retirement System of the unauthorized salary increases that were included in the calculations of the former superintendent's retirement compensation. The Nevada County Grand Jury also recommends that the Board of Trustees annually reconcile the salaries approved by the Board of Trustees with salaries actually being paid by the Grass Valley School District and ensure that all positions have defined duties and responsibilities. The Nevada County Grand Jury further recommends that the Board of Trustees ensure that future salary increases do not give the appearance of "pension spiking." Reasons for Investigation The Nevada County Grand Jury (Jury) received a complaint regarding the Grass Valley School District (GVSD). The Complainant requested the Jury review the actions of the GVSD Board of Trustees (Board) and the past Superintendent. Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 933.5 the Jury has the authority to investigate public school districts in Nevada County.

Due to geography and the number of inter-district transfers, UHSD is currently a de facto part of GVSD. Disagree While it is true that geographically UHSD is surrounded by the Grass Valley School District and that there are a large number of inter-district transfer students attending Union Hill. I disagree that "for all intents and purposes" UHSD is part of GVSD. Each school district is governed by a separate governing board with a separate and unique school culture, educational structure and history.

Due to geography, the number of inter-district transfers and the projected increase in revenue, a consolidation of Union Hill and Grass Valley School Districts is logical and desirable. Partially Agree Consolidation is a local decision. The school boards of each of the districts and the local constituents should make the decision of whether consolidation is logical and desirable. However, it is the responsibility of each of the districts to consider the possibility, including fiscal and educational benefits.

Most of the administrative staff in the RSUSD and the PVESD are working two jobs, which is unsustainable and detracts from the educational programs. Partially Agree While it is true that many of the administrative staff are serving two districts, this structure was created with the intention of sharing services, something that we strive to do across the county in many areas. However, after several years of implementation of this model, it certainly creates a challenging workload for the staff. I have no evidence that the model detracts from the educational programs.

The efficiency of local western Nevada County school districts can be increased by sharing or centralizing more services. Agree We continue to look for more ways to share services and increase efficiencies. This is a frequent discussion at school board meetings and the superintendents' council.

There is a major opportunity to increase the coordination of school district calendars. Partially Agree Each year the school districts in Nevada County attempt to increase coordination of calendars. However, this is a negotiated item and needs agreement with bargaining units to implement.

1 2 3 4 15 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 21 21 22 23 24 25 12 H 28 29 23 31 June 2018 S M T W T