Shasta County Grand Jury • 2004-2005

Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Consolidated Final Report3.23 MB*

Published: June 27, 2005 103 pages Consolidated Report
View Original PDF

Findings 17 findings

F1
A properly noticed ambulance fee increase ordinance (BFPD 2004-01) was introduced at the August 11, 2004, Commissioners' meeting. California Health and Safety Code #13916 dictates that fee increases can only be made to cover increased costs. At the meeting the BFPD's Fire Chief stated that fee increases were necessary because of rising fuel and worker's compensation insurance costs. In fact, worker's compensation costs were reduced because BFPD became self-insured. Therefore, fee increases that were adopted were not supported by the prescribed requirement. The one study done to justify the ambulance fee increase was a fee comparison with other ambulance service providers both in and out of the County. At the same August 11, 2004 Commissioners' meeting, the billing agency for the BFPD also recommended raising ambulance rates to increase payments from both Medicare and Medi-Cal. The billing agency benefits from any fee increase since it is compensated on a percentage of collections. As reported in the BFPD audits, actual ambulance expenses did not reflect all costs. According to the Fire Chief, expenses, such as his salary, are not pro-rated between fire protection and ambulance services. The ambulance service is a separate entity from fire protection since it is supported by its fee collections and grants, not taxes. The Board of Commissioners received a letter dated January 28, 2004, from its auditor stating that the ambulance service is a proprietary one, i.e., a separate cost center. The auditor recommended fire protection and ambulance expenses and income be reported separately. This has not been done. Consequently, the annual audit figures do not accurately reflect the allocation of costs between fire protection and ambulance service. Before the ambulance fee increase, as reported to the BFPD Board of Commissioners, the projected ambulance fee net income for FY 2004/2005 was $59,000. Without clarification, this profit is in violation of CaH&S Code #13916 because it far exceeds costs as currently identified. The BFPD Fire Chief stated that BFPD has neglected to charge for and recover costs for some medical supplies and other expenses. Nonetheless, BFPD Ordinance #04-01 was passed at the September 15, 2004 Commissioners' meeting.
F2
The BFPD has, via e-mail dated April 19, 2004, and later, demanded that CDF not respond to any fire or medical emergencies within BFPD boundaries, even when CDF is closer and may respond more quickly. However, CDF is mandated by law to respond to any wildland fire on private property. The BFPD Fire Chief informed the SCGJ that he is unconcerned about any liability resulting from the above. Assuming there is no liability, it is still in the public's best interest to have CDF also respond to calls in the BFPD because they often can respond quicker.
F3
The Grand Jury found that on at least one occasion, BFPD's ambulance service billed Medicare and a private insurance carrier for services not rendered and medical supplies not utilized.
F4
Violations of the law METHOD OF INQUIRY: The Grand Jury reviewed the following documents: • Memoranda of Understanding (RSA, SSHS, and UPS) • 2004 Internal Audits (RSA, SSHS, UPS, and SUHSD) • 2004 Outside Audit (RSA) • List of the 16 elements required for a charter school • The Charter Schools Act of 1992 (commencing at section 47600 of the Education Code) The Grand Jury conducted the following interviews: • Superintendent of the Shasta County Office of Education • Employee of the Shasta County Office of Education • Directors/Superintendents of the three charter schools • Superintendent of another Shasta County school district • Principal of a private school in Shasta County • Chief Business Official of the Shasta Union High School District • Superintendent of the Shasta Union High School District The Grand Jury toured the following facilities: • Redding School of the Arts • Shasta Secondary Home School • University Preparatory School The Grand Jury attended board meetings on February 8, 2005 and March 8, 2005: • Shasta Union High School District FINDINGS:
F5
The curricula for charter schools are diverse and not always the same as public schools. However, State Standards and the Education Code are followed with regard to attendance and standardized testing.
F6
Each charter school has an independent governing board of directors.
F7
Changes to the MOU between a charter school and the sponsoring district cannot be made unless both parties agree.
F8
Each of the charter schools currently operating within the SUHSD is highly dependent on the District for oversight and business/administrative services. They also rely on the District for their facilities. Costs vary based on the services and facilities provided (for example, SSHS provides its own upkeep and maintenance, while UPS is provided with food services).
F9
The District charges each charter school the following percentages of the annual school Block Grant revenues for “Supervisorial Oversight” based on their MOU: (a) Redding School of the Arts: 3% (b) Shasta Secondary Home School: 1% (c) University Preparatory School: 3%
F10
The District charges each charter school the following percentages of its annual school revenues for “Administrative and Other Services” based on their MOU: (a) Redding School of the Arts: 7% (b) Shasta Secondary Home School: 7% (c) University Preparatory School: 9% (12% once enrollment reaches 400)
F11
RSA has advised the SUHSD Board of Directors at a recent meeting that it is concerned about its relationship with the District. RSA representatives feel the school is being overcharged for services the District provides. Further, RSA representatives believe the school is not being kept informed of costs incurred and any changes with regard to those costs. RSA funds have been reduced substantially and unexpectedly because of these charges.
F12
A lack of communication between RSA and the District has placed the relationship in turmoil. RSA is exploring a change of its business and administrative services to another entity. If this were to occur, the District could raise the RSA oversight fee to cover the loss of revenue from the administrative fee.
F13
Both SSHS and UPS have a strong and satisfactory relationship with the District. The District has concerns regarding the financial viability and management of RSA.
F14
The continued growth of charter schools could have a negative financial impact on public schools and could cause declining enrollment in non-chartered schools.
F15
A reduction of district fees charged to the charter schools would have a negative financial impact on the District's non-chartered school funds.
F16
There is a public perception of a conflict of interest with regard to the spousal relationship between the Superintendent of the District and the Principal of UPS. This relationship could influence the objectivity of decisions regarding UPS as well as the allotment of classroom space for RSA and UPS at Shasta Learning Center.
F17
The charter schools in the SUHSD provide educational opportunities for students with unique talents and needs that may not be met by traditional public schools. The charter schools also provide a sense of competition between the schools, which could have a strong positive impact.

Recommendations 19

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.