Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

2002-2003

6 reports

Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: In a November 9, 1999 letter of resignation, the HSA administrator warned the Board of Supervisors that it should exert greater fiscal oversight over the HSA. He stated, “Given that the budget of the Health Services Agency is in excess of $70 million with approximately 85% of the budgetary support coming from non-County sources, it is even more essential that the health administration and fiscal management be closely monitored.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The former HSA Director was concerned that the Chief of Administration did not have a strong fiscal background in terms of health cost reports, claims, and audits. This was remedied when this individual retired and a health finance manager with extensive experience was hired to be Director of Administration. The current HSA Director was recommended because of her strong fiscal as well as clinical skills by the former HSA Director.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should spend more time overseeing HSA’s spending recommendations. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The Board and the County Auditor-Controller have stringent spending policies, and oversight is regularly performed as part of the budget process. The HSA has worked to increase revenues significantly compared to other Departments and has saved many positions and programs by these efforts. Using consultation for the projects described is a routine part of good business practice in health systems.
F2: ECG Management Consultants, Incorporated (ECG): ECG serves as a consultancy firm and is based in Seattle, Washington. It specializes in “hospital and physician The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 85 relationships, strategic and business planning, and the complexities of the healthcare enterprise.”2 Total Compensation for 2001-2003: $597,565 A. In the 2000-2001 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ budget hearings, the HSA argued for the need of a new software program to replace HSA’s COSTAR billing system and the set up of an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system for the county clinics. The HSA pointed out that federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The Board authorized HSA to proceed with a new computer system for the clinics. To fund the system the Board authorized $535,000 from the state audit settlement of $2,156,430 to be placed in the County’s Technology and Productivity fund for use toward the computer upgrade. The state audit settlement resulted from HSA’s increased billings for county mental health psychiatrist visits under the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) designation that the county clinics received starting in 1988 as a result of a healthcare services for the homeless grant. The state questioned the increased billings and had not funded its share of costs. The state allowed the increased billings using the FQHC designation, which resulted in the settlement of $2,156,430. Thus, clinic physicians generated most of this money, which was derived from Medi-Cal revenues. B. The HSA also looked into creating a clinical practice management information system (MIS) network, which would incorporate the new computer system to link the two county clinics to the Santa Cruz County community clinics. The community clinics consisted of the four Planned Parenthood clinics (South, Westside, Cabrillo, Valley), Salud Para la Gente, Women’s Health Center, and Dientes. The linked clinics could share information from patient medical and pharmacy records, as well as laboratory and radiology results. The HSA contacted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and a former HSA administrator for advice on how to proceed. HRSA and the former HSA administrator pointed out that the Oregon Community Health Information Network (OCHIN) based in Portland, Oregon was in the process of finalizing its vendor selection for setting up a community clinic network, which would link the EMR of the community clinics throughout Oregon. OCHIN had selected Epic Systems Corporation (Epic) as its software vendor. The HSA staff met with OCHIN and ECG representatives. ECG had acted as a consultant to assist OCHIN in setting up its MIS network. HSA learned that OCHIN had received its network financing through a federally funded 2 ECG Web site. - 86 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s Community Access Program (CAP) and Healthy Community Access Program (HCAP) grants. C. In the 2001-2002 budget hearings, the HSA asked the Board of Supervisors to approve the hiring of ECG to assist the agency on the medical information technology upgrade project. The HSA pointed out that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The HIPAA requirement for an EMR system did not extend beyond individual clinics and did not require a linked MIS between clinics. D. The HSA contracted with ECG without getting bids from other companies. ECG signed the first of two contracts with Santa Cruz County on August 28, 2001. The cost of the first contract was not to exceed $130,000. ECG’s rates were $375/hour for the project officer, $270/hour for the project manager, and $185/hour for their associate. This contract stipulated that ECG would provide consultant services to the HSA related to development, analysis, evaluation, and selection of a MIS for the county clinics. E. In October 2001, ECG initiated the MIS vendor selection process. HSA staff (at an expense of $2,000 per person) and ECG consultants attended a Medical Group Management Association conference in San Antonio, Texas. F. In November 2001, ECG and the HSA narrowed the choice of vendors to four: Companion Tech.; McKesson, Inc.; Medical Manager Health Pro; and NextGen, Inc. In that same month the HSA sustained a loss of revenue from a decrease in federal and state money to FQHC clinics and the repeal of the utility tax for the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. G. In December 2001, the four vendors presented and demonstrated their products in Santa Cruz. In January 2002, NextGen returned to present its full product demonstration. H. In March 2002, the HSA proposed expanding ECG’s role to include a study on management assistance “to implement operational and organizational solutions that will enhance efficiency and improve clinic performance.” The proposed fees would be $34,000/month for an estimated time period from four ($136,000) to six ($204,000) months. I. On April 9, 2002, the HSA argued before the Board of Supervisors that cost reductions to the clinics could be achieved through ECG’s evaluation of The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 87 clinic productivity and efficiency. The board approved the expansion of ECG’s study. The HSA stated at the same meeting that the primary mission of the agency was to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. J. On October 24, 2002, the second contract expanded ECG’s scope to include the clinics’ practice management system consultation, clinics’ operations assessment, clinics’ operations implementation, and contract facilitation and negotiation, with hourly rates from $185 to $410. The additional cost of $85,000 brought the total to $215,000, which would come from the $535,000 allocated earlier by the Board of Supervisors. K. On May 7, 2002, the HSA submitted the CAP grant application to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the first year of funding. The application stated “we have prepared the safety net clinics and hospitals to cooperate on an unprecedented level by implementing common EMRs and clinical messaging, improving both the efficiency and quality of care provided to the County’s safety net clinics.” NextGen was listed as the HSA’s software vendor. HRSA approved the $1,403,450 grant, which included $601,000 for information technology software. L. On September 24, 2002, the HSA informed the Board of Supervisors of ECG’s recommendations to improve clinic/Medi-Cruz finances and services. At that same meeting, it was noted that reduced funding resulted in reductions in the care capacity for Medi-Cruz patients. M. On November 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional contract amendment for ECG, which added $268,000 for consultation, clinic software and operational charges. The cost of ECG’s services now totaled $483,000. ECG’s original estimate of $130,000 had now increased by $353,000. N. On January 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional ECG contract amendment for ECG’s consultation on clinic operational charges, which amounted to $95,000. The total cost for ECG’s consultancy services now reached $578,000, which exceeded the $535,000, the Board of Supervisors had allocated for an upgraded EMR system. O. On August 25, 2003, the HSA applied for and received approval from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP) grant, which funded years two and three after the first year of funding of the CAP grant. HSA’s practice management system vendor changed from NextGen to Epic software. The OCHIN network had agreed to add the Santa Cruz County community - 88 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s health MIS network to its Epic system, which eliminated the need for the NextGen system. However, as of January 2004 due to delays in the set-up of the OCHIN network, the Santa Cruz system is not in operation. Negotiations are underway to determine the costs of the linkage to OCHIN. P. Both the CAP and HCAP grants required in-kind funding which has not been arranged as of January 2004. The CAP grant money for the MIS has been partially spent on the set-up of the Axoltl physician messaging/dictation/ pharmacy/lab system. Q. In the meantime, an additional charge by ECG amounted to $19,565. On November 19, 2003, the HSA presented to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors the implementation of recommendations of ECG to increase the productivity of the County clinics. The Board of Supervisors accepted the findings of the report. R. The original ECG timeline targeted a completed practice management system conversion and implementation by July 2002, which has not been met. The HIPAA deadline of October 2003 has passed, and very few of the national healthcare entities are in compliance. S. As of January 2004, only two of the community clinics, Salud Para la Gente and the Women’s Center Clinic, have agreed to link with the county clinics. More than half of the community clinics (the four Planned Parenthood clinics and Dientes) have not signed up to be part of the network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. The Health Service Agency was facing two significant challenges which ECG helped to address--a failing data system and operational problems which were driving up costs. First a specialized ECG information technology team assessed the automation needs of the clinics related to the practice of primary care in a public health environment. The clinic data system was installed in 1983 and was very difficult to change and maintain. It generated many expenses for the clinics in terms of staffing because of its lack of flexibility. Registration, appointments, eligibility, billing, posting, and reconciliations were all very labor intensive. For the clinics to survive with new requirements and demands and limited new revenues, the clinics had to be as efficient as possible. It is important when making a significant purchase of a new data system to have a comprehensive assessment of your needs, as well as expertise in the available software and the reliability of software vendors. No County Health Departments have this type of internal expertise. ECG had conducted a very similar assessment for the Oregon community clinics network and was well respected by the Oregon The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 89 Counties and community clinics that participated in their software selection process. It was important to have a consulting firm which understood public sector needs in a clinic environment as well as the business of practicing medicine in this era of managed care. Oregon staff invited Santa Cruz to come observe their process. The Santa Cruz clinic team was very impressed with the knowledge and expertise of the ECG Information technology team. The County contracted with the ECG information technology team for several completely different scopes of work. The Grand Jury findings imply that the original contract of $130,000 was for everything needed to implement the new computer system. This is incorrect. Phase one of the work with ECG was an assessment of the current system and extensive review of all components of clinic business and clinical operations to define the ideal functionality of a new software system. The clinic staff clearly needed a strong practice management system with automation of many of the current manual functions, good tracking systems and reports, electronic systems for billing and posting, and good management of schedules and support resources for clinical providers. Staff from all levels of clinics gave input into the ideal software functionality and its user friendliness. Once this phase of work was complete, the next phase of work was a “request for qualifications and proposals.” ECG was responsible for developing this and sending it out to the software vendors in the field. As part of this phase of the process, a team of staff went to a meeting of the “Medical Group Management Association” in Texas because all the software vendors were going to be there demonstrating their products. Customers would also be there to whom County staff could talk about customer service, reliability, etc. This phase of the process was very time consuming because the County received 10 proposals. ECG staff worked with clinic staff and the HSA and County data staff to review the proposals in depth and narrow the focus to four vendors. Again all types of staff (business office, reception, medical records, nursing, physicians, and medical assistants) in the clinics needed to be involved to get the best evaluation of the products. Next there were actual demonstrations from the vendors which were a full day or more each. Again this required extensive time to review and evaluate each component of the software from each vendor. During this time ECG did extensive customer reference checks in and out of California. Finally the HSA data group recommended NextGen as the best match for the clinic’s needs. The clinic staff had been interested in Epic all along after seeing it in Oregon, but Epic generally works with systems with a million visits per year or more. Kaiser and Sutter have this software as it is considered one of the best in the medical field. - 90 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s ECG then recommended the County see the software in action live and be able to talk to staff using it. NextGen was an East Coast company whose nearest clinic was in Texas. So staff from clinics and data support went to Texas for several days to see the system up and running and talk to the clinic program staff who used it. The team felt the software was able to meet the need of the County and contracted with ECG to do the negotiations and develop contract language to meet clinic needs and protect the interests of the County. Again, this added to the scope of work of this contractor. This was a difficult phase for the project particularly where customization was needed for California specific billing systems. After several months, things were not moving and the County approached the Oregon Community Clinic Information Network (OCHIN) to see if Santa Cruz might join and get access to Epic software at a reasonable price as well as share overhead with them and other clinics. The response was favorable and negotiations began to explore the viability of this data partnership. At this point ECG developed a detailed feature/function check with additional specifications from our needs and asked OCHIN and NextGen to submit new bids on the software purchase, support, and maintenance as well as customization. OCHIN proposed the most favorable package to the County and ECG then focused exclusively on contract specification and governance issues with OCHIN. Santa Cruz County wanted a seat on the Board of Directors as part of the partnership. This was approved in the final arrangement which went to the Board for approval in December 2003. This concluded the work of the ECG information technology group for the County. The Epic practice management system went live on June 28th in the County clinics. With billing outstanding in the old system, it will take approximately 18 months to be completely off of the old software. The clinic and data staff are to be commended for all the hard work they did to get to this point. The program is already experiencing benefits of improved automation. Separate from the data project, ECG medical management team was hired to do a comprehensive assessment of the business practices, costs, and work flows of the HSA clinics to improve efficiency and quality. This consultation was to examine how the make the clinics more productive with the resources available and increase patient flow and satisfaction. The medical management team did an extensive assessment, which was concluded in 2003. ECG was asked to stay on and help the clinics with implementing the many complex system changes outlined in the report. They worked with an implementation team from clinics for 7 months and then assisted on a limited basis after that on technical issues. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 91 The report which went to the Board of Supervisors in April 2004 shows the tremendous job the clinic staff have done changing and improving health systems in the clinics. Clinics have increased the patient visits from 1.7 per hour to 2.2 which resulted in significant new MediCal revenues. Costs were also reduced in pharmacy and administration by over 1.7 million dollars. The clinic established physician treatment teams with dedicated support staff. Patients now have a specific ongoing relationship with a doctor or team. There are new billing practices for accounts receivable and new collections systems are being analyzed. Productivity improved across all teams, and patient satisfaction improved due to reduced waiting times, staying open at lunch, and same day appointment systems. The rest of the ECG
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
R4: The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F3: The HSA used two out-of-state consultants (ECG and the former HSA administrator) for advice to set up the Medical Information System network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG did 98% of the work on the information technology implementation. Elinor Hall worked largely on revenue, grants, and legislative issues benefiting the County and community clinics.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
F4: A former HSA Administrator and a former HSA Medical Director The former HSA administrator now acts as an independent healthcare consultant based in Oregon. The terms of her January 5, 2001 contract with Santa Cruz County indicated an hourly rate of $125. This consultant was to be reimbursed at this rate for hours worked and for travel time between Portland, Oregon and Santa Cruz. Additionally the contract states, “Compensation for necessary per diem, travel, mileage and other costs necessary to accomplish the work done under this agreement is included in the CONTRACTOR’S hourly rates. Travel to California shall be at COUNTY direction for purposes of supporting COUNTY issues.” The former HSA medical director contracted with the county to be paid $80/hour as a consultant. The appendix delineates the yearly payments and work projects of the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. - 94 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s The Health Services Agency has used specialized consultants conservatively and in a manner similar to other Health Departments. Ms. Hall worked with County and safety net clinics to bring in over $3.5 million in new health revenues to the County while the County spent an average of $46,000 per year on her services, a tremendous return on investment. All of the start-up funds for the new Healthy Kids insurance product were raised by her foundation work on HSA’s behalf, and new opportunities for federal and state matching funds for local money raised for healthy kids insurance are in final phases of development. Her technical expertise included FQHC, Medi-Cal, Bureau of Primary Care grants and funding, Medi-Cal Administrative Funding, Targeted Case Management funding, federal waivers, and funding issues linked for federal designation such as physician shortage areas, etc. This expertise has proven invaluable over and over again in licensing, audit, and claim disputes as well as finding new funds for critical needs. The Federal Bureau of Primary Healthcare, the California Healthcare Foundation, Counties and other States have also found her assistance extremely valuable. In addition, with her knowledge of local issues and needs, little orientation was needed before grants and projects could be undertaken. Dr. Wolfe, the former medical director, has also been of great assistance to the County. He has worked on issues related to health policy and planning in the community and within HSA. He participated in planning, development and implementation of the Healthy Kids program, with special focus on ensuring provider participation. He has been the County’s lead person in responding to the problem of under-reimbursement of Santa Cruz County physicians participating in the Medicare program. He formed a coalition to respond to a request for proposals from the California Endowment, resulting in a $500,000 grant to Salud Para La Gente for a two-year program. He planned and facilitated the closure of the county- run prenatal clinics, with establishment of that service at Sutter, saving the county $30,000 per year. He helped develop successful funding grants for dental disease prevention. Internally, he updated and redrafted the HSA Illness and Injury Prevention Plan and the Bloodborne Pathogen Plan for the County. He helped develop the county’s plan for smallpox vaccination to medical and health personnel using Bioterrorism grant funds, and developed a panel of specialist consultants to deal with adverse reactions to smallpox vaccination. Dr. Wolfe’s many years of experience in the county and his reputation and relationships with local and state health professionals have made his contributions very valuable. His health planning activities are eligible for state and federal Medi-Cal administrative claiming reimbursement. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 95
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The current staff does not have the expertise or the time to do all these additional grants and revenue projects that benefit the County and the community. Targeted consultation on specialized projects is used statewide to assist Health Departments with grants, new requirements, and initiatives. The test of its effectiveness is whether it works to deliver the product or program or funding desired. The performance of Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall on the basis of added value is clear upon review of their accomplishments. It is important to note that during the time that Dr. Wolfe and Ms. Hall worked at the Health Department consultants were also used for specific projects. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 99
R4: The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F5: A Summary of the Cost of the Health Services Agency’s Three Consultants YEAR ECG Former HSA Former HSA Yearly Total Administrator Medical Director 2000-2001 $130,000 $13,125 $49,320 $192,445 2001-2002 $85,000 $59,844 $61,620 $206,464 2002-2003 $268,000 $88,281 $60,840 $417,121 2003-1/2004 $114,565 $12,250 $13,120 $139,935 Total $597,565 $173,500 $184,900 $955,965 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. ECG has completed the work that HSA needed and no further work is anticipated at this time. If the need arises in the future for additional consultation services from ECG, a new contract will be submitted to the Board for approval. HSA will continue to use the highly skilled former HSA Administrator and HSA Medical Director on a project-by-project basis as needed. It is common practice in both government and private industry to use experts as consultants, and the value, utility and cost-effectiveness of this utilization speaks for itself. Letters have been received from the following persons expressing support for the County’s decisions to use expert consultants in expanding health care access and community services: (Grand Jury note: the letters are not included in this document. To view them go to the Grand Jury website.) Terry B. Lapid MD FACEP, FAAEM, Chairman, Santa Cruz County Emergency Medical Care Commission. Mark A. Riley, MPA, Executive Director, Dientes Community Dental Care. Wells Shoemaker MD, Medical Director, Physicians Medical Group of Santa Cruz County. Jennifer Hastings MD, Physician at Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Debbie St. John RN, Center Manager, Westside Health Center, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte. Cynthia Mathews, Associate Vice-President for Public Affairs, Planned Parenthood, Mar Monte.
F6: Funding Sources to Pay the former HSA Administrator and the former HSA Medical Director: A. The source of the funds to pay for the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director is less clear than that for ECG. The HSA gave these answers on the funding sources for these consultants who were identified as independent contractors: “Each year in the budget there are line items for various [independent] contractors.” The former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director “had contracts approved by the Board [of Supervisors].” “In building the budget, HSA identifies and puts in amounts for ongoing [independent] contractors. These amounts were in the original budgets and augmented if needed for new activities with appropriate approvals from the CAO’s [Chief Administrative Officer] office and/or Board if using new appropriations or transfers. Contractors are never allowed infinite amounts of funds. These are negotiated and approved in advance.” The grants written by the former HSA administrator “(CAP, HCAP, and others) include routinely 10% for administration.” Given that the former HSA administrator “brought into Health [HSA] approximately $3.5 million in funds, she was able to pay for her time out of admin (administration) funds.”3 B. According to the HSA, the former HSA medical director may have “charged some of his time to the Bioterrorism grants but otherwise to our central admin [administration] distribution. Central admin is charged out to all of our funding sources through the programs. Approximately 15% of the 3 The Health Services Agency gave the Grand Jury two figures. The second figure was $6,160,000 with no explanation. The correct figure is closer to $3 million. The CAP and HCAP grants awards totaled $2,582,870. - 96 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s funds are County and the rest are Medicaid, Medicare, grants, and various state and federal allocations.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES. Funding for Ms. Hall is from a variety of different revenues from central administration. Some hours were eligible for reimbursement from administration categories in the CAP grant. Other hours are eligible for reimbursement through the Medi-Cal Administrative Claim (federal/state). The balance of funds are from state realignment and county funds. Dr. Wolfe’s time related to health planning was reimbursed through Medi-Cal administrative claiming. Dr. Wolfe did also have a specific number of hours dedicated to smallpox immunizations from a federal grant. The balance is State realignment funds and County funds. The work Dr. Wolfe is doing on Medicare reimbursement rates (locality 99) will improve reimbursement for the whole County and result in $4-5 million in new revenues for community clinics and physicians. It will also help with recruitment and retention of physicians.
F7: Over the past 20 years, the Board of Supervisors has allocated the same amount of money to the Medi-Cruz program. HSA has developed increasingly more stringent eligibility criteria for Medi-Cruz patients. Response: The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. The County has increased funding by approximately $1.5 million over the last 20 years. The State has basically kept the program flat with increases of approximately 1% per year while medical inflation has been 6-12% per year. If adjusted for medical inflation over the last 20 years, the MediCruz program would have a budget of $17 million from the State allocation instead of the current amount of approximately $5 million. Conclusions
F8: Some of the former HSA medical director’s compensation came from funds derived from patient revenues, which could have been used for indigent medical care.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: A priority should be to prevent decreased medical care available to indigents. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County finds the findings above that relate to this goal inaccurate in terms of increasing services for indigents.
R5: The HSA stated to the Board of Supervisors that the HSA’s primary mission is to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. If so, the HSA should be more concerned about medical care of the indigents of Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. HSA is very concerned with the medical care of indigents and delivers services to this population to the extent that resources are available. The fact that the need for services exceeds the resources available does not mean that HSA is any less concerned about care to indigents.
F9: The Medicare reimbursement project done by the former HSA medical director largely benefits private physicians because county clinics see very few Medicare patients. The HSA and the Board of Supervisors accepted the argument used by the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation (SCMF) that an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates would increase physician retention in the community and would benefit the HSA. The SCMF did not guarantee increased county indigent care, if the former HSA medical director helped its campaign. By working with the SCMF, the HSA spent county monies to enrich SCMF, not the county. On another occasion, the Health Services Agency did not give full credit to the employee who wrote a report for the HSA. - 98 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: A priority should be to prevent decreased medical care available to indigents. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES. The County finds the findings above that relate to this goal inaccurate in terms of increasing services for indigents.
R5: The HSA stated to the Board of Supervisors that the HSA’s primary mission is to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. If so, the HSA should be more concerned about medical care of the indigents of Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. HSA is very concerned with the medical care of indigents and delivers services to this population to the extent that resources are available. The fact that the need for services exceeds the resources available does not mean that HSA is any less concerned about care to indigents.
R6: The HSA and the Board of Supervisors should review more carefully proposals from the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation. - 100 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES. This recommendation implies that proposals submitted by the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation to HSA and the Board of Supervisors were not carefully reviewed, which is not the case. The Santa Cruz Medical Foundation has not submitted proposals to the County. The proposals submitted to the County by Sutter Health dealt with the Access to Medical Care Agreement. The Health Services Agency and the Board of Supervisors reviewed these proposals carefully, and they were presented in public forums subject to public comment. Santa Cruz Medical Foundation is not a party to this Agreement, as it merely provides support services for many of the physicians that are on staff at the Sutter Maternity and Surgery Center.
F10: The HSA deleted two county physicians’ positions, while spending almost a million dollars on consultants.5 The shift of the chief of clinical services to the position of chief of detention services left the county clinics with no chief until that position is filled.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Health Services Agency Physicians’ Association should be commended for pointing out the human and economic costs of physician lay-offs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES. All the staff in Clinics and Administration who work on improving indigent care should be commended.
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: In a November 9, 1999 letter of resignation, the HSA administrator warned the Board of Supervisors that it should exert greater fiscal oversight over the HSA. He stated, “Given that the budget of the Health Services Agency is in excess of $70 million with approximately 85% of the budgetary support coming from non-County sources, it is even more essential that the health administration and fiscal management be closely monitored.”
F2: ECG Management Consultants, Incorporated (ECG): ECG serves as a consultancy firm and is based in Seattle, Washington. It specializes in “hospital and physician relationships, strategic and business planning, and the complexities of the healthcare enterprise.”2 Total Compensation for 2001-2003: $597,565 A. In the 2000-2001 Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors’ budget hearings, the HSA argued for the need of a new software program to replace HSA’s COSTAR billing system and the set up of an Electronic Medical Records (EMR) system for the county clinics. The HSA pointed out that federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The Board authorized HSA to proceed with a new computer system for the clinics. To fund the system the Board authorized $535,000 from the state audit settlement of $2,156,430 to be placed in the County’s Technology and Productivity fund for use toward the computer upgrade. The state audit settlement resulted from HSA’s increased billings for county mental health psychiatrist visits under the Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) designation that the county clinics received starting in 1988 as a result of a healthcare services for the homeless grant. The state questioned the increased billings and had not funded its share of costs. The state allowed the increased billings using the FQHC designation, which 2 ECG Web site. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 59 resulted in the settlement of $2,156,430. Thus, clinic physicians generated most of this money, which was derived from Medi-Cal revenues. B. The HSA also looked into creating a clinical practice management information system (MIS) network, which would incorporate the new computer system to link the two county clinics to the Santa Cruz County community clinics. The community clinics consisted of the four Planned Parenthood clinics (South, Westside, Cabrillo, Valley), Salud Para la Gente, Women’s Health Center, and Dientes. The linked clinics could share information from patient medical and pharmacy records, as well as laboratory and radiology results. The HSA contacted the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and a former HSA administrator for advice on how to proceed. HRSA and the former HSA administrator pointed out that the Oregon Community Health Information Network (OCHIN) based in Portland, Oregon was in the process of finalizing its vendor selection for setting up a community clinic network, which would link the EMR of the community clinics throughout Oregon. OCHIN had selected Epic Systems Corporation (Epic) as its software vendor. The HSA staff met with OCHIN and ECG representatives. ECG had acted as a consultant to assist OCHIN in setting up its MIS network. HSA learned that OCHIN had received its network financing through a federally funded Community Access Program (CAP) and Healthy Community Access Program (HCAP) grants. C. In the 2001-2002 budget hearings, the HSA asked the Board of Supervisors to approve the hiring of ECG to assist the agency on the medical information technology upgrade project. The HSA pointed out that the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) imposed a deadline of October 16, 2003 for healthcare clinics to develop EMR systems. The HIPAA requirement for an EMR system did not extend beyond individual clinics and did not require a linked MIS between clinics. D. The HSA contracted with ECG without getting bids from other companies. ECG signed the first of two contracts with Santa Cruz County on August 28, 2001. The cost of the first contract was not to exceed $130,000. ECG’s rates were $375/hour for the project officer, $270/hour for the project manager, and $185/hour for their associate. This contract stipulated that ECG would provide consultant services to the HSA related to development, analysis, evaluation, and selection of a MIS for the county clinics. E. In October 2001, ECG initiated the MIS vendor selection process. HSA staff (at an expense of $2,000 per person) and ECG consultants attended a Medical Group Management Association conference in San Antonio, Texas. - 60 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s F. In November 2001, ECG and the HSA narrowed the choice of vendors to four: Companion Tech.; McKesson, Inc.; Medical Manager Health Pro; and NextGen, Inc. In that same month the HSA sustained a loss of revenue from a decrease in federal and state money to FQHC clinics and the repeal of the utility tax for the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. G. In December 2001, the four vendors presented and demonstrated their products in Santa Cruz. In January 2002, NextGen returned to present its full product demonstration. H. In March 2002, the HSA proposed expanding ECG’s role to include a study on management assistance “to implement operational and organizational solutions that will enhance efficiency and improve clinic performance.” The proposed fees would be $34,000/month for an estimated time period from four ($136,000) to six ($204,000) months. I. On April 9, 2002, the HSA argued before the Board of Supervisors that cost reductions to the clinics could be achieved through ECG’s evaluation of clinic productivity and efficiency. The board approved the expansion of ECG’s study. The HSA stated at the same meeting that the primary mission of the agency was to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. J. On October 24, 2002, the second contract expanded ECG’s scope to include the clinics’ practice management system consultation, clinics’ operations assessment, clinics’ operations implementation, and contract facilitation and negotiation, with hourly rates from $185 to $410. The additional cost of $85,000 brought the total to $215,000, which would come from the $535,000 allocated earlier by the Board of Supervisors. K. On May 7, 2002, the HSA submitted the CAP grant application to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the first year of funding. The application stated “we have prepared the safety net clinics and hospitals to cooperate on an unprecedented level by implementing common EMRs and clinical messaging, improving both the efficiency and quality of care provided to the County’s safety net clinics.” NextGen was listed as the HSA’s software vendor. HRSA approved the $1,403,450 grant, which included $601,000 for information technology software. L. On September 24, 2002, the HSA informed the Board of Supervisors of ECG’s recommendations to improve clinic/Medi-Cruz finances and services. At that same meeting, it was noted that reduced funding resulted in reductions in the care capacity for Medi-Cruz patients. M. On November 5, 2002, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional contract amendment for ECG, which added $268,000 for consultation, The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 61 clinic software and operational charges. The cost of ECG’s services now totaled $483,000. ECG’s original estimate of $130,000 had now increased by $353,000. N. On January 10, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional ECG contract amendment for ECG’s consultation on clinic operational charges, which amounted to $95,000. The total cost for ECG’s consultancy services now reached $578,000, which exceeded the $535,000, the Board of Supervisors had allocated for an upgraded EMR system. O. On August 25, 2003, the HSA applied for and received approval from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for the Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP) grant, which funded years two and three after the first year of funding of the CAP grant. HSA’s practice management system vendor changed from NextGen to Epic software. The OCHIN network had agreed to add the Santa Cruz County community health MIS network to its Epic system, which eliminated the need for the NextGen system. However, as of January 2004 due to delays in the set-up of the OCHIN network, the Santa Cruz system is not in operation. Negotiations are underway to determine the costs of the linkage to OCHIN. P. Both the CAP and HCAP grants required in-kind funding which has not been arranged as of January 2004. The CAP grant money for the MIS has been partially spent on the set-up of the Axoltl physician messaging/dictation/ pharmacy/lab system. Q. In the meantime, an additional charge by ECG amounted to $19,565. On November 19, 2003, the HSA presented to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors the implementation of recommendations of ECG to increase the productivity of the County clinics. The Board of Supervisors accepted the findings of the report. R. The original ECG timeline targeted a completed practice management system conversion and implementation by July 2002, which has not been met. The HIPAA deadline of October 2003 has passed and very few of the national healthcare entities are in compliance. S. As of January 2004, only two of the community clinics, Salud Para la Gente and the Women’s Center Clinic, have agreed to link with the county clinics. More than half of the community clinics (the four Planned Parenthood clinics and Dientes) have not signed up to be part of the network.
F3: The HSA used two out-of-state consultants (ECG and the former HSA administrator) for advice to set up the Medical Information System network.
F4: A former HSA Administrator and a former HSA Medical Director - 62 The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s The former HSA administrator now acts as an independent healthcare consultant based in Oregon. The terms of her January 5, 2001 contract with Santa Cruz County indicated an hourly rate of $125. This consultant was to be reimbursed at this rate for hours worked and for travel time between Portland, Oregon and Santa Cruz. Additionally the contract states, “Compensation for necessary per diem, travel, mileage and other costs necessary to accomplish the work done under this agreement is included in the CONTRACTOR’S hourly rates. Travel to California shall be at COUNTY direction for purposes of supporting COUNTY issues.” The former HSA medical director contracted with the county to be paid $80/hour as a consultant. The appendix delineates the yearly payments and work projects of the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director.
F5: A Summary of the Cost of the Health Services Agency’s Three Consultants YEAR ECG Former HSA Former HSA Yearly Total Administrator Medical Director 2000-2001 $130,000 $13,125 $49,320 $192,445 2001-2002 $85,000 $59,844 $61,620 $206,464 2002-2003 $268,000 $88,281 $60,840 $417,121 2003-1/2004 $114,565 $12,250 $13,120 $139,935 Total $597,565 $173,500 $184,900 $955,965
F6: Funding Sources to Pay the former HSA Administrator and the former HSA Medical Director: A. The source of the funds to pay for the former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director is less clear than that for ECG. The HSA gave these answers on the funding sources for these consultants who were identified as independent contractors: “Each year in the budget there are line items for various [independent] contractors.” The former HSA administrator and the former HSA medical director “had contracts approved by the Board [of Supervisors].” “In building the budget, HSA identifies and puts in amounts for ongoing [independent] contractors. These amounts were in the original budgets and augmented if needed for new activities with appropriate approvals from the CAO’s [Chief Administrative Officer] office and/or Board if using new appropriations or transfers. Contractors are never allowed infinite amounts of funds. These are negotiated and approved in advance.” The grants written by the former HSA administrator “(CAP, HCAP, and others) include routinely 10% for administration.” Given that the former HSA administrator “brought into Health [HSA] approximately The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 63 $3.5 million in funds, she was able to pay for her time out of admin (administration) funds.”3 B. According to the HSA, the former HSA medical director may have “charged some of his time to the Bioterrorism grants but otherwise to our central admin [administration] distribution. Central admin is charged out to all of our funding sources through the programs. Approximately 15% of the funds are County and the rest are Medicaid, Medicare, grants, and various state and federal allocations.”
F7: Over the past 20 years, the Board of Supervisors has allocated the same amount of money to the Medi-Cruz program. HSA has developed increasingly more stringent eligibility criteria for Medi-Cruz patients. Conclusions
F8: Some of the former HSA medical director’s compensation came from funds derived from patient revenues, which could have been used for indigent medical care.
F9: The Medicare reimbursement project done by the former HSA medical director largely benefits private physicians because county clinics see very few Medicare patients. The HSA and the Board of Supervisors accepted the argument used by the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation (SCMF) that an increase in Medicare reimbursement rates would increase physician retention in the community and would benefit the HSA. The SCMF did not guarantee increased county indigent care, if the former HSA medical director helped its campaign. By working with the SCMF, the HSA spent county monies to enrich SCMF, not the county.
F10: The HSA deleted two county physicians’ positions, while spending almost a million dollars on consultants.5 The shift of the chief of clinical services to the position of chief of detention services left the county clinics with no chief until that position is filled.
Additional Recommendations 7

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors should spend more time overseeing HSA’s spending recommendations.
R2: A priority should be to prevent decreased medical care available to indigents.
R3: The current HSA administrator and current HSA medical director could have done most of the work performed by the hired consultants. The HSA should give credit to and utilize more of the skills of the county’s information technology and grant- writing employees, rather than hiring consultants. On another occasion, the Health Services Agency did not give full credit to the employee who wrote a report for the HSA. 5 $955,965. The Santa Cruz County Health Services Agency’s - 65
R4: The HSA should stop utilizing the services of ECG, the former HSA administrator, and the former HSA medical director.
R5: The HSA stated to the Board of Supervisors that the HSA’s primary mission is to protect the community from communicable diseases and health issues that threaten the community. If so, the HSA should be more concerned about medical care of the indigents of Santa Cruz County.
R6: The HSA and the Board of Supervisors should review more carefully proposals from the Santa Cruz Medical Foundation.
R7: The Health Services Agency Physicians’ Association should be commended for pointing out the human and economic costs of physician lay-offs.
Findings & Recommendations 10 findings
F1: The members of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors make it a widespread practice to provide direct input into the day-to-day operations of the Planning Department. Communications from Supervisors to all planning levels ranged from phone calls and e-mail to personal meetings and detailed memos. During the time period investigated, there were thousands of emails and memos between the Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. Some of the memos simply stated that the Supervisor had no specific input for a particular permit. One Supervisor has a scheduled bi-weekly meeting with the Planning Department. The amount of intervention in the planning process varied by supervisor. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa -65 The County concurs that many contacts occur between individual Board members, their staff, and Planning Department staff but cannot confirm the number of emails and memos between the Supervisors and Planning Department staff without knowing the specific time period referenced by the Grand Jury in which it conducted its inquiry. Also, it is not clear what is meant by the term “intervention.” It is true that the amount of contact with staff varies among Supervisors. However, contact does not necessarily indicate intervention. Frequently, Supervisors’ communications are focused on inquiries regarding the status of an application or issue. Often the communications consist of no more than a request that staff respond to constituent inquiries or questions. Sometimes Supervisor contacts consist of efforts to facilitate meetings between constituents and staff from several County departments, including Planning. Also, and perhaps most importantly, communications address issues concerning neighborhood responses to development proposals, and correctly so. The Supervisors, as the elected representatives of the area, are uniquely well positioned to assess and communicate neighborhood concerns.
F2: The planning staff testified that they are under pressure to comply with the directives given them by the members of the Board of Supervisors. The planning staff does not like the interference because it disrupts the orderly completion of their tasks. The Grand Jury review of the relevant emails and memos also found that the tone of many of these were condescending and abusive. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Planning staff's role in the county's land use policy and development review process is to expedite and facilitate informed decision-making. The process is structured to maximize the opportunity for input by various interested parties, including individual Board members who choose to provide comments regarding specific permit applications. Decision-makers, including the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors as a whole, are not bound in their decision-making by the staff's
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Grand Jury strongly recommends Santa Cruz County adopt an ordinance similar to that of San Diego County regulating the communications between the County Board of Supervisors and the Planning Department staff. The example ordinance in the
F3: San Diego County has an ordinance prohibiting the members of the Board of Supervisors from communicating with planning department staff regarding public hearings on permit applications, except within the context of public hearings themselves. See the appendix for details. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -66 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa
F4: Some red tag1 violations are more important than others. They can reflect health and safety issues as well as the more mundane issues such as fence heights, shed placement and even designs. There is a backlog of approximately 3,000 red tags, some of which go back many years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES At the time that the Grand Jury conducted its inquiry, the backlog of Code Compliance cases may indeed have approximated 3,000. However, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003, the number of unresolved code compliance cases has been reduced to 2,127. Also, as reported in the June report, staff continues to identify and implement alternatives for achieving further reduction and ultimate elimination of the backlog case inventory.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Planning Department should immediately formulate and execute an equitable, prioritized plan to close the entire backlog of over 3000 neglected or unreasonably delayed red tag violations in the County. This should be accomplished by the fair exercising of all existing codified options including amnesty, correction, dismissal, public hearings and penalties in whatever combination will eliminate the backlog not later than December 31, 2004. Either the red tags are valid issues that need enforcement, or they are not. Since fines and penalties are designed to cover the bulk of the enforcement costs, the current budgetary problems should not be at issue. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. The Planning Department has been critically reviewing its policies and procedures over the past two years in an effort to streamline the enforcement program and to reduce the inventory of unresolved code compliance cases. Over this period of time, the Board of Supervisors has considered a series of reports from the Planning Department including specific recommendations to accomplish these objectives. In turn, the Board has approved numerous policy changes that have since been implemented, including: • Shifting the administration of the hearing officer process from County Counsel to the Planning Department. • De-emphasizing the pursuit of civil penalties in routine cases in favor of negotiated compliance agreements that set forth specific compliance milestones including a timeline for compliance with penalties waived if compliance is achieved. • Approval of a limited enforcement response for minor violations. -70 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa • Enactment of a focused enforcement response where the initial investigation is restricted to the violation reported, related violations, and health and safety hazards. • Approval of a non-enforcement policy for older violations in existence prior to 1980, with certain exceptions. • Amending Chapter 12.01.070 of the County Code to expand the criteria where the Planning Director may approve the issuance of a permit on a property where a violation exists. • Amending the Uniform Building Code to expand the list of work that is exempt from the requirement to obtain a building permit. • Approved specific criteria for closing older, inactive cases. • Amending County Code Chapter 19.01.070 regarding administrative appeals of Code enforcement actions. • Approval of an outreach program for illegal second units. • Approval of several other caseload reduction strategies, including directives to study the site standards in the rural area, and to propose revisions to the regulations governing minor structures associated with residential uses. As a result of the implementation of these significant changes in policy, along with other administrative improvements, the Planning Department has reduced the active and inactive caseload by 52.9 %, as reported to the Board of Supervisors on June 3, 2003. In addition to this overall reduction in the code compliance caseload, the department has also improved the efficiency of the process. The department will continue these efforts in the coming year.
F5: The Santa Cruz County Planning Department requires that all red tag and use permit violations for a given property be resolved at the same time. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. Santa Cruz County Code Section 12.01.070 C requires that all code compliance violations be resolved before issuance of a building permit.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Planning Department should not, without some compelling reason, require the resolution of unrelated issues when deciding a course of action on any particular issue. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will implement this recommendation as allowed under the County Code.
F6: The winery in question is operating under a use permit issued in 1976. All agree that the permit was loosely and poorly worded. The winery and the county disagree as to whether or not current operations violate the 1976 use permit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F7: The initial complaints against the winery began in 1993 and the first code compliance red tag was issued in 1997. The winery has applied for permits to resolve some of the building permit related red tags. However, the Planning Department will not resolve the building violations until they can reach a new agreement on the scope of the current and still valid use permit. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES A number of complaints have been filed on this property with the Planning Department’s Code Compliance section alleging violations of Use Permit conditions and other violations of the County Code. Code Compliance staff investigated the complaints and determined both that violations, in fact, exist and that clarification of the 1976 permit’s conditions of approval is needed concerning activities having significant implications relative to adverse impact on adjacent residential land uses. Pursuant to the authority set forth in County Code Section 18.10.136, the Planning Department prepared a report to the County Planning Commission that discussed the issues of non-compliance and recommended that the Planning Commission initiate the process to amend the Use Permit for the winery to address those issues. After consideration of the staff report, and 1 A “red tag” is an official notice of violation of a building code. If not attended to, it is filed at the County Recorder's Office and thereby blocks new title insurance policies. This prevents the refinancing or sale of a property. Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa -67 following testimony by the neighbors and winery representatives, on July 23, 2003, the Planning Commission continued consideration of the review of the use permit until September 24th to allow the property owner an opportunity to file an application to amend their permit to address the range of issues that have been raised.
F8: A Supervisor directly interfered in the normal handling of the code violation complaint against this winery. It was done in a sincere attempt to mediate between factions having trouble finding a middle ground, but in the process the ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was subverted three times. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The ordinary procedure of code compliance hearings was not subverted. The Planning Department believes that the permit was validly issued, but concedes that it could have been written more clearly. The lack of clarity has probably contributed substantially to the current disagreements between the winery, nearby residential properties, and the County. This case is currently, and properly, before the Planning Commission for resolution, and the ordinary compliance hearings were not subverted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The complaints and violations regarding the winery should be – immediately and without further delay -- adjudicated by the means prescribed in the county codes: a fair and impartial public administrative hearing, with proper advance notice to all interested parties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Due to the issues mentioned above concerning language contained in the permit, a code compliance administrative hearing is not the appropriate forum to resolve the issue. The matter is now properly before the Planning Commission.
F9: The code violations alleged in the complaint were valid and supported by photographs, and by county records in the possession of the County Supervisors, the County Planning Department and other entities. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that the validity of issues raised in the complaint remain the subject of review.
F10: The planning and code compliance staff, below the level of Planning Director, attempted to carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. They were directed to do otherwise by their superiors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The Planning Director did not direct the planning and code compliance staff to do other than carry out their responsibilities and enforce the code. The code compliance staff conducted investigations and filed a Notice of Violation on the winery property before the Planning Director had even been aware of the issues related to this property. Furthermore, staff had also already secured the winery property owner's cooperation in correcting several of the uncontested alleged violations before the matter had been brought to the attention of the Planning Director. The Planning Director's involvement was related exclusively to two issues: 1) reviewing the code compliance staff's conclusion that language describing the need to regulate certain aspects of the winery operation, which was in the accompanying staff report but not included in the 1976 permit, was not, in fact, a part of the permit, and; 2) whether a vehicle, other than pursuing resolution of the violations through the administrative hearing process, court, or amendment of the 1976 permit could be utilized to address issues never contemplated or included in the 1976 approval. -68 Obstacles to the Orderly Operation of the Santa The Planning Director concurred with the code compliance staff's assessment that the permit, and not the staff report, was the basis of evaluation of whether or not violations exist regarding the winery operation. Aware of the neighbors’ concerns and the winery owner’s reluctance to open up the 1976 permit in order to accommodate possible new approval conditions, the Planning Director tried, unsuccessfully, to get all interested parties to a point where equally effective alternatives to amending the 1976 permit could be explored. The matter presently before the Planning Commission for consideration involves questions beyond the code enforcement efforts of the department. To the extent that code compliance actions could be taken, they were and without impediment. The Commission is properly exploring the question of what to do about a permit, issued by the County, that some believe does not adequately delineate or provide protections for surrounding land uses from the activities authorized by that permit. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: The purpose of the MAVCD is to monitor breeding grounds, regulate the mosquito population, and control the spread of mosquito borne disease. The district carries out these duties by: a) conducting various educational programs b) monitoring known breeding grounds c) sending frozen mosquitoes to UC Davis for testing d) sending chicken blood samples to the VDRL state lab for disease testing e) applying larvicides and distributing mosquito eating fish Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The District does not routinely send mosquitoes to an outside lab for testing, but would do so in the event of mosquito-borne disease found in the County. Besides the use of larvicides and fish, the program controls mosquitoes through other Integrated Pest Management measures such as property-owner education and source reduction.
F2: West Nile Virus and other forms of mosquito borne diseases are a threat to all of Santa Cruz County according to the CDC and Santa Cruz health officials. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F3: The south portion of the county, Supervisorial Districts 2 and 4, is currently included in the MAVCD. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F4: The MAVCD is funded by a property tax assessment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F5: The cost of extending the MAVCD to the unincorporated areas of Supervisorial Districts 1, 3, and 5 is expected to be $340,000 the first year to increase the staff from 3 to 6 and to purchase new equipment. The annual future cost is estimated to be $270,000. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should extend the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District to the entire county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Steps are being taken to determine feasibility of implementation. The County has hired a consultant to conduct a public opinion survey to measure property owner support for possible expansion. This survey has been implemented, and the results, analysis and recommendations will be reported to the Board of Supervisors in September. The County will also contact the City of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley and the City of Capitola to inform them of the survey findings and determine their interest in possible annexation to the District. Further steps would depend on the outcome of the survey and may result in a decision to proceed with a ballot measure in all or some parts of the County.
F6: The combined cost for the three cities (Capitola, Santa Cruz, and Scotts Valley) not currently covered by the MAVCD should be approximately $220,000 a year. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. This cost of extending the district is estimated to range from $130,000 to $220,000. Staffing needs would depend on type of services requested: mosquito operations only with advice on other vectors, as is current practice, or with other vector services such as rodent and yellowjacket control.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should extend the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District to the entire county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Steps are being taken to determine feasibility of implementation. The County has hired a consultant to conduct a public opinion survey to measure property owner support for possible expansion. This survey has been implemented, and the results, analysis and recommendations will be reported to the Board of Supervisors in September. The County will also contact the City of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley and the City of Capitola to inform them of the survey findings and determine their interest in possible annexation to the District. Further steps would depend on the outcome of the survey and may result in a decision to proceed with a ballot measure in all or some parts of the County.
F7: The cost to cover all of Santa Cruz County (unincorporated areas and the cities) as of March 17, 2003 will be paid by an estimated property tax assessment of $8 to $10 per parcel. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Since the last analysis of estimated costs per parcel for a countywide program, upon which the Grand Jury finding was based, actual program operating costs have increased and the revised estimated per parcel charge is $10 - $11.50. This is an approximate range; actual costs, of course, may vary depending on cost efficiencies from serving large areas and the level of service required for certain parts of the County. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should extend the Mosquito Abatement and Vector Control District to the entire county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Steps are being taken to determine feasibility of implementation. The County has hired a consultant to conduct a public opinion survey to measure property owner support for possible expansion. This survey has been implemented, and the results, analysis and recommendations will be reported to the Board of Supervisors in September. The County will also contact the City of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley and the City of Capitola to inform them of the survey findings and determine their interest in possible annexation to the District. Further steps would depend on the outcome of the survey and may result in a decision to proceed with a ballot measure in all or some parts of the County.
Findings & Recommendations 24 findings
F1: A threat assessment was recently completed by OES using a Department of Justice grant. The assessment found that although there are not many attractive terrorist targets in Santa Cruz County, there are plenty of potential natural disasters. Monterey has possible targets but none compare to San Jose, San Francisco or Los Angeles. Potential convergent refugees fleeing from emergencies outside the county—along with hazards that might come into the county such as radiation—are issues that require planning. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F2: Escape from a disaster is hindered by traffic. At capacity, only 1800 cars per hour per lane can travel on Highway 1. The population of Santa Cruz County as reported in the 2000 census was 255,602. Residents alone have 227,345 cars. Imagine the nightmare if everyone tried to leave a crowded location at the same time. (Santa Cruz County Transportation Commission) (2000 U.S. Census) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F3: The County HSA is responding to medical issues specific to bioterrorism. A coordinated response will be conducted with fire, police, health care providers and other public agencies. Surveillance is being expanded to detect unusual or suspicious disease occurrences. Information about unusual diseases that might be the result of a bioterrorist attack is being distributed to emergency rooms and to medical personnel in the county. (cdc Web site) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F4: The Command Post is in an isolated location but must get information quickly about county issues. An aerial view of a disaster site using a Civil Air Patrol plane, Coast Guard helicopter, a Fire Services plane, or a helicopter volunteered by a local citizen, would help in developing an appropriate plan. Currently, there is no way to transmit an aerial view to the command Post. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Aerial information is a valuable tool in the coordination and management of emergency events. We have recently developed and are in the process of implementing an aerial reconnaissance capability with the Civil Air Patrol where digital images can be radioed directly to the Emergency Operations Center. -16 Emergency Preparedness
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: OES should acquire digital cameras for the Command Post for use in the field with a wireless method of transmitting the images. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Digital cameras have been acquired with grant funds and a method of transmitting digital images from the field directly to the Emergency Operations Center has been developed, tested and is projected to be fully implemented by the end of calendar year 2003.
F5: The Grand Jury observed that many computers at the Command Post were non-functional during the annual disaster drill. Since our visit, newer computers with maintenance contracts arrived at the Command Post. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES All computers in the Emergency Operations Center have now been upgraded.
F6: EMS would like access to information when at the Command Post. For instance, the California Highway Patrol’s (CHP) website may indicate calls for road closures. Hospitals need this information if a patient must be transported over the hill to a trauma center and Highway 17 is closed. A new software system is needed so that this type of information can be quickly and easily distributed to the Command Post. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: OES should purchase communications software for the Command Post that will function during emergency situations and facilitate information access and sharing. Emergency Preparedness -21 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be implemented. While “communications” software is not a priority need, OES is in the process of acquiring incident management software for the Emergency Operations Center through Homeland Security Grant funding. As well, these grants will provide funds for acquisition of the same software in each of the city’s Emergency Operations Centers, County Fire’s Emergency Communications Center, as well as the Sheriff’s Office and City of Santa Cruz incident command vehicles to allow all emergency management team members a vastly improved ability to share and manage real-time information and resources. Acquisition, installation and training is scheduled to be completed by the end of calendar year 2003.
F7: In a localized emergency, Santa Cruz County can get outside help. However, if a disaster affects a larger area, county residents will be on our own for some time. In any case, parts of Santa Cruz County are isolated and terrain restricts access. Supplies and resources will go to larger metropolitan areas first. It is impossible to cache all of the supplies and equipment needed in the event of a major disaster. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F8: An emergency may require an urgent need for medication. There is no cache of emergency medications including antibiotics in the county as hospitals and pharmacies obtain them as needed. A medication cache requires rotation of stock before expiration dates. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: EMS should establish a local supply of enough emergency medications to last for at least three days to be kept at a central location. Stock should be rotated as needed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. HSA maintains an inventory of selected medications held by local pharmacies. This inventory shows very limited supplies of agents that might be needed in a disaster or bioterrorist event. The Strategic National Stockpile (SNS) is maintained at regional sites in the nation, and should be available within 24 hours to our county for a bioterrorist or disaster event. The county's All-hazards Response Plan includes procedures to access the SNS. HSA, through its EMS/Homeland Security funding and in consultation with the Emergency Medical Care Commission and our ambulance partner, AMR-West, is establishing a cache of equipment and medical supplies, including selected emergency medications, in support of our rapid response capability. Numerous items already have been ordered from the current HSG grant. HSA, with continued grant support, will work with adjacent counties and local medical institutions to identify and build up a supply of critical medications, and to rotate the stock in a timely manner to prevent expiration and wastage. This plan is a deliverable within our Bioterrorism Response Plan.
F9: With only two emergency hospitals in the county, staff, resources and beds are inadequate to deal with a disaster. In an emergency, Disaster Designated Medical Facilities supply medical care for patients with minor injuries to prevent overloading hospital emergency rooms. Disaster Dedicated Medical Facilities are asked to have materials on hand to care for 50 patients for three days; however, they have not made that financial commitment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F10: Homeland Security has given two small grants for first responders, administered by OES. Local officials identify the emergency needs of the community and request support from both the state and the federal government. FEMA is a funding contributor but the State OES, and the County OES, coordinate local disaster relief efforts. (OES Web site) (Emergency Management Plan) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Emergency Preparedness -17 County OES is currently managing seven grants related to Homeland Security totaling over $1.3 million, with additional grants anticipated in the 2004 Federal fiscal year.
F11: Budget cuts are expected to hurt. General Services is going through a horrific budget process right now. The Grand Jury heard that budgets are likely to be smaller—probably countywide. EMS has some state funding but most funding is from the county. EMS applies for grants when possible and recently received a trauma grant. When staff is out on vacation or due to illness, work must be delegated to the department head, as there is no staff relief. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F12: Most of the money for emergency services after 9/11 has been for equipment and training, not staffing. Approximately $8000 has come to the county for a CERT program. The administrative cost to set up the program was about $800, which was spent on the first meeting. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The county should obtain funding from FEMA for CERT training programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The Office of Emergency Services has recently been awarded a CERT grant from the Governor’s Office which is in final contract review. The grant agreement will be recommended to the Board of Supervisors in September. OES has also transmitted a Notice of Intent to submit an application for 2003 CERT grant funds. Grant application packages are scheduled to be delivered to OES in September.
F13: Emergency planning staff is limited. Each county in California has the same disaster planning requirements, regardless of size. Large counties with more staff have less trouble fulfilling state mandated activities. Santa Cruz County, the second smallest county geographically in the state, has fewer staff. OES and Emergency Services each have a staff of three, comprised of a manager plus two staff. According to staff, this is inadequate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County agrees with this finding in terms of the number of positions, but does not believe that this staffing level is inadequate.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: OES should add staff to write grant proposals and implement grants. OES should possibly share this staff with EMS. EMS should, at a minimum, maintain staffing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be considered as part of the 2004-05 budget hearings. It may be that additional staff is needed, but the County is currently unable to finance the cost to add staff since existing grant funds are very restrictive on providing funding for staff resources and County financial resources are extremely limited. Emergency Medical Services program staff focuses specifically on oversight of the emergency medical response infrastructure in the County. Sharing the staff would not be -22 Emergency Preparedness effective since the EMS mission is significantly different from that of the Office of Emergency Services.
F14: Currently, there are small Homeland Security grants to be administrated by OES. Writing proposals and administration of the grants is time consuming. Although 80% of new issues involve homeland security, there is no new staff. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: OES should add staff to write grant proposals and implement grants. OES should possibly share this staff with EMS. EMS should, at a minimum, maintain staffing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be considered as part of the 2004-05 budget hearings. It may be that additional staff is needed, but the County is currently unable to finance the cost to add staff since existing grant funds are very restrictive on providing funding for staff resources and County financial resources are extremely limited. Emergency Medical Services program staff focuses specifically on oversight of the emergency medical response infrastructure in the County. Sharing the staff would not be -22 Emergency Preparedness effective since the EMS mission is significantly different from that of the Office of Emergency Services.
F15: Civilians can be recruited and trained as CERT teams that, in essence, will be auxiliary responders. CERT teams can provide immediate assistance to victims in their area, organize spontaneous volunteers who have not had training, and collect disaster intelligence that will assist professional responders with prioritization and allocation of resources following a disaster. Training was made available nationally by FEMA in 1993. A new FEMA grant is earmarked for a Santa Cruz area CERT program. (FEMA CERT Web site) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -18 Emergency Preparedness
F16: Aptos/La Selva Beach Fire District is currently recruiting and training CERT volunteers to safely help themselves, and their neighbors in an emergency. Training topics include: disaster fire suppression, hazardous materials, disaster medical operations, light search and rescue operations, disaster psychology and team organization. A new CERT program is also forming in San Lorenzo Valley. (Aptos Fire Web site) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F17: The Disaster Service Workers Program insurance funding has been recently reinstated in the State budget. During a disaster, trained volunteers are authorized to work under a declared state of emergency. EMS has a list of skilled people they can call upon to do medical work. RACES members also qualify as Disaster Service Workers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F18: Santa Cruz Red Cross receives no money from the American Red Cross or from federal agencies such as FEMA or Homeland Security. Funding from United Way is only available through the next 18 months due to a change that allows payment for fixed shelters only. Although some materials come from the American Red Cross, Santa Cruz Red Cross must do local fundraising to make up for the lack of federal funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.
F19: Red Cross Disaster Services provides shelter and food to disaster victims, supplementing the county’s mobile canteen services and offering shelter for 100-1000 people. Red Cross sheltered 1700 people at the Santa Cruz County Fairgrounds after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Emergency supplies in moveable containers are located throughout the county such as at the airport, and fire stations. Some of the sixty-seven local nurses who volunteer with Red Cross work on pandemic* and other disasters. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.
F20: Red Cross conducts town hall meetings and provides speakers and training to neighborhood groups. Topics include sheltering in place***, disaster and pets, seniors, disabled, and HAZMAT. Red Cross conducts disaster training using volunteer trainers at community colleges. Red Cross also conducts shelter drills and is working on a disaster compliance plan. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors * such as the 1918 Influenza pandemic that killed 20 million people *** stay where you are Emergency Preparedness -19 The County has no jurisdiction over the Red Cross and defers to that agency to respond to this finding.
F21: Funding and project coordination of community groups are tied to a number of entities. For example, community group neighbors are working with a FEMA grant to raise the elevation of their houses to be above flood levels. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F22: OES is interested in establishing and working with more community groups. OES and Red Cross will help train community groups interested in mobilizing their own disaster planning efforts. Community groups help fill some gaps of OES functions in planning and relief efforts. They also provide needed eyes in the field for information flow. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Board of Supervisors should encourage formation and success of community groups by providing lists, training opportunities and information about properties from the county Assessor’s Office and parcel maps. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The County fully supports development and involvement of community groups in emergency planning activities. The Office of Emergency Services and its partner agencies make every effort to provide these groups with applicable information in support of their efforts.
F23: Consistent and accurate information will reduce public panic and rumors. To address this issue, EMS is preparing fact sheets on how to manage specific emergency situations such as; shelter in place, food and water safety and hygiene, and others regarding power outages and evacuations tips. Currently information can be sent to the media, read over phone, or put in libraries. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: EMS should develop a public awareness campaign with a broader distribution of information to prepare citizens to be self-sufficient for at least seventy-two hours. Information should be circulated as outlined in conclusion 10, including working with the telephone company to improve emergency information and utility companies to mail emergency information inserts. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Focus Area F under the Federal Bioterrorism Planning Grant process stipulates numerous deliverables related to Public Information and Communication in disaster situations. A statewide process is under development, in part through new centers established at UCLA and UC-Berkeley, to help local agencies address this requirement. Print, radio, television and advertising vehicles are being expanded to quickly alert the public to safety and public health issues. Our County, in partnership with the Santa Cruz Sentinel, will be preparing a newspaper insert for delivery to all households in the county that will contain the types of information called for in this recommendation. Fact Sheets including Food and Water Safety, Evacuation, and Shelter in Place are available and can be quickly reproduced and distributed, depending on the nature of the disaster and the self-help modalities that will be most effective. Video productions are being developed at national and state levels to aid in public education via television in the event of a terrorist or natural disaster. Emergency Preparedness -23 Resource materials are available now on federal, state and local websites for individual residents to access and these can also be adapted for mass distribution as flyers. A community TV broadcast is being developed in September to further educate the public. With scores of possible scenarios for natural disasters as well as chemical, biological, radiological and blast attacks by terrorists, it is not possible to provide specific guidance for every possibility. However, resource materials are being developed at multiple levels of government that can be disseminated quickly for the most likely events. The First Aid and Survival Guide in the SBC Smart YELLOW Pages (B1 - B6) represents six pages of excellent, though limited, information. The Bioterrorism Preparedness Plan will address the Grand Jury recommendations to enhance this and other methods of educating and informing the public about supplies and medications to have on-hand in emergencies.
F24: Recently, the phone company agreed to reinstate the basic first aid page in the phone book. However, it is currently somewhat hard to find and incomplete. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding that the information has been reinstated and appreciates the phone company’s partnership. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations 64 findings
F1: The total countywide enrollment for public, charter and private schools is 44,906 students. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES The total of 44,906 reflects the enrollment of private (5,505) and public (39,401) students within Santa Cruz County as of October 1, 2002. Charter schools enrollment (1,726 total countywide) is included within the public school number.
F02: Private school enrollment is difficult to decipher as they are required to file affidavits with the California Department of Education, but may not all do so. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES Since our preliminary response to the Grand Jury subcommittee’s inquiry, the California Department of Education has made available a website (http://www.cde.ca.gov/privateschools/data.html) that provides updated private school enrollment statistics. According to the census, between 1999 and 2002 private school enrollment decreased from 5,152 students to 4,707. However, despite attempts to generate a precise number of students who are privately educated, these figures are likely to still be only a rough approximation due to the number of private schools that may not have filed for an affidavit.
F2: Public school enrollment countywide is shown in Table 1 below. (Contains the numbers for Charter Schools in the totals supplied.) Table 1: Countywide Public School enrollment District Enrollment Bonny Doon Union Elementary 166 Happy Valley Elementary 135 Mountain Elementary 149 Pacific Elementary 87 Live Oak School District 1,948 Pajaro Valley Unified School District 19,681 Scotts Valley Unified School District 2,713 Soquel Union Elementary School District 2,112 San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District 3,869 Santa Cruz City Elementary Schools District 2,636 Santa Cruz City High School District 5,157 Santa Cruz COE 748 Total Santa Cruz County Enrollment 39,401 Note: Data provided by COE Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -3 The data comes from the enrollment figures reported in the October 2002 California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) files. CBEDS is an annual data collection occurring in October that collects various data elements from California K-12 public schools. Enrollment numbers vary during the year as a result of students entering or leaving mid-session, as well as factors such as fluctuating enrollment in the County Office of Education’s Juvenile Hall class.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should plan and implement aggressive outreach programs to attract more current home school and private school students into public education. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented Some of the implemented programs are included in the response to Recommendation #2. In addition, the COE works with the districts in their efforts to attract students back into the public schools. Aptos Junior High is a prime example of that school's dedication to actively attract students in nonpublic education by implementing a recovery campaign. Aptos Junior High’s strategies have included conducting parent surveys, followed by a community outreach program addressing false perceptions relating to the school and promoting the successes of the school. Santa Cruz City Schools is currently implementing a similar program. We understand there is a certain population of students and parents who consistently prefer non-public education to that of public schools. The students’ reasons often include, need for a religious environment, more focused or "themed" schools, social Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -31 interaction issues, and parental desires to educate their own children. Some districts are responding to this want for alternatives by providing home schooling options, dual immersion programs, and preschools on elementary campuses to introduce parents and children to public schools. They are also providing “Schools of Emphasis” that focus on fine arts or a focus on specific academic areas such as a strong science curriculum. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District operates a Charter program that serves over 650 students in an alternative setting; this is a significant part of our public school system. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES The Live Oak District’s Economic Viability Plan outlined an option of programs to attract and retain students within the District. The District has increased its home school population and created a new charter high school program. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District currently operates an independent study program that is an option for parents in our district who wish to implement home instruction. The program does outreach activities, although we would not wish to implement an “aggressive” campaign. The majority of students find many benefits in instruction with peers in the school setting, and Soquel encourages this setting. We are concerned than an unintended negative consequence of an aggressive campaign might be students entering independent study situations that are less than optimal. Home independent study instruction that is successful requires tremendous home resources and commitment. Our district has an independent study contract with parents that clearly states obligations under this program. It is not unusual for families to enter into these programs and find that they cannot sustain the rigor required to keep students on track toward eventual high school graduation requirements. Soquel Schools do attract new students enrolling from private schools each year and have an interest in continuing to do so. Additional ideas for attracting private school students to our public schools are always welcome and implemented as possible within our resources. However, we understand that some families choose a private school option for reasons that cannot be accommodated in the public school setting, such as religious instruction.
F3: Charter schools are public schools that must operate under the umbrella of a district or the local county Office of Education. The following is a breakout of the Charter School Data. These numbers are included in the CBEDS (California Basic Educational Data System) figures cited and should not be added to the district totals. Table 2: Countywide Charter School Enrollment Charter School Chartering Entity Enrollment Enrollment Pacific Collegiate School COE 318 Ocean Alternative Education Live Oak School District 63 SLV Charter Programs San Lorenzo Valley Unified District 650 Central Coast Virtual Charter San Lorenzo Valley Unified District 43 Delta Charter School Santa Cruz City Schools District 53 Sojourn Middle School Santa Cruz City Schools District 30 Linscott Charter School Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. Academic Vocational Educational Charter Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. Watsonville Charter School Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. Pacific Coast Charter Pajaro Valley Unified School Dist. Total Charter Schools Enrollment 1,726 Note: Data provided by COE Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Since compilation of the figures provided in the finding, the following occurrences affect charter schools enrollment: -Sojourn Middle School, Santa Cruz City Schools District closed during the 2002-03 school year. - Alianza Elementary School is now a public charter school within the Pajaro Valley Unified School District, opposed to a traditional public school. Total enrollment in October 2002 was 694 students. -Live Oak District intends to open Cypress Charter High School, a new charter school, in school year 2003-04. The initial enrollment, a combination 40 freshmen and sophomores, has a planned growth to serve approximately 130 students. According to the California Department of Education’s data, the number of students enrolled in charter schools within Santa Cruz County has increased approximately -4 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special 10% each year since 2000.
F4: Private school enrollment is estimated by the COE at 5,505 students. The COE extrapolated enrollment figures using the California Private School Directory for 2001-
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should plan and implement aggressive outreach programs to attract more current home school and private school students into public education. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented Some of the implemented programs are included in the response to Recommendation #2. In addition, the COE works with the districts in their efforts to attract students back into the public schools. Aptos Junior High is a prime example of that school's dedication to actively attract students in nonpublic education by implementing a recovery campaign. Aptos Junior High’s strategies have included conducting parent surveys, followed by a community outreach program addressing false perceptions relating to the school and promoting the successes of the school. Santa Cruz City Schools is currently implementing a similar program. We understand there is a certain population of students and parents who consistently prefer non-public education to that of public schools. The students’ reasons often include, need for a religious environment, more focused or "themed" schools, social Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -31 interaction issues, and parental desires to educate their own children. Some districts are responding to this want for alternatives by providing home schooling options, dual immersion programs, and preschools on elementary campuses to introduce parents and children to public schools. They are also providing “Schools of Emphasis” that focus on fine arts or a focus on specific academic areas such as a strong science curriculum. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District operates a Charter program that serves over 650 students in an alternative setting; this is a significant part of our public school system. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES The Live Oak District’s Economic Viability Plan outlined an option of programs to attract and retain students within the District. The District has increased its home school population and created a new charter high school program. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District currently operates an independent study program that is an option for parents in our district who wish to implement home instruction. The program does outreach activities, although we would not wish to implement an “aggressive” campaign. The majority of students find many benefits in instruction with peers in the school setting, and Soquel encourages this setting. We are concerned than an unintended negative consequence of an aggressive campaign might be students entering independent study situations that are less than optimal. Home independent study instruction that is successful requires tremendous home resources and commitment. Our district has an independent study contract with parents that clearly states obligations under this program. It is not unusual for families to enter into these programs and find that they cannot sustain the rigor required to keep students on track toward eventual high school graduation requirements. Soquel Schools do attract new students enrolling from private schools each year and have an interest in continuing to do so. Additional ideas for attracting private school students to our public schools are always welcome and implemented as possible within our resources. However, we understand that some families choose a private school option for reasons that cannot be accommodated in the public school setting, such as religious instruction.
F5: The number of students in legal home schooling could not be estimated by the County Office of Education. Home schooling carried out by parents without valid California credentials is not considered legal in California. Private tutoring by a person holding a valid California teaching credential, enrollment in a private full-time day school or enrollment in an independent study program through a public school with oversight by a credentialed teacher are the only legal ways in which children may be "home schooled". Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES In May 2003, the California Department of Education changed its policy on home schooling. The CDE re-examined the statutes pertaining to home schooling and found that certain private school laws pertained to home schools. Thus, there are three ways by which home-schooling can be considered legal: 1) by establishing a home-based private school. 2) by enrolling in a private school independent study program. 3) by tutoring. The new policy has not made it any easier to determine the number of home-schooled children within the County.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should plan and implement aggressive outreach programs to attract more current home school and private school students into public education. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented Some of the implemented programs are included in the response to Recommendation #2. In addition, the COE works with the districts in their efforts to attract students back into the public schools. Aptos Junior High is a prime example of that school's dedication to actively attract students in nonpublic education by implementing a recovery campaign. Aptos Junior High’s strategies have included conducting parent surveys, followed by a community outreach program addressing false perceptions relating to the school and promoting the successes of the school. Santa Cruz City Schools is currently implementing a similar program. We understand there is a certain population of students and parents who consistently prefer non-public education to that of public schools. The students’ reasons often include, need for a religious environment, more focused or "themed" schools, social Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -31 interaction issues, and parental desires to educate their own children. Some districts are responding to this want for alternatives by providing home schooling options, dual immersion programs, and preschools on elementary campuses to introduce parents and children to public schools. They are also providing “Schools of Emphasis” that focus on fine arts or a focus on specific academic areas such as a strong science curriculum. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District operates a Charter program that serves over 650 students in an alternative setting; this is a significant part of our public school system. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES The Live Oak District’s Economic Viability Plan outlined an option of programs to attract and retain students within the District. The District has increased its home school population and created a new charter high school program. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District currently operates an independent study program that is an option for parents in our district who wish to implement home instruction. The program does outreach activities, although we would not wish to implement an “aggressive” campaign. The majority of students find many benefits in instruction with peers in the school setting, and Soquel encourages this setting. We are concerned than an unintended negative consequence of an aggressive campaign might be students entering independent study situations that are less than optimal. Home independent study instruction that is successful requires tremendous home resources and commitment. Our district has an independent study contract with parents that clearly states obligations under this program. It is not unusual for families to enter into these programs and find that they cannot sustain the rigor required to keep students on track toward eventual high school graduation requirements. Soquel Schools do attract new students enrolling from private schools each year and have an interest in continuing to do so. Additional ideas for attracting private school students to our public schools are always welcome and implemented as possible within our resources. However, we understand that some families choose a private school option for reasons that cannot be accommodated in the public school setting, such as religious instruction.
F6: It is not clear whether enrollment in non-public education is growing or declining because historical information could not be found. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES As stated in the response to Finding 4, the California Department of Education now has Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -5 the capability to generate an estimate of the number of students in non-public education. Nonetheless, as there is no way to track the number of illegally home-schooled students or the enrollment of public schools without affidavits, statistical data may be less than complete. Using information obtained from the CBEDS we found that between 1999 and 2002 the reported private school enrollment had dropped by 445 students. Although we cannot look at the entire population, this does reveal a decrease in enrollment in at least one portion of non-public education.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should plan and implement aggressive outreach programs to attract more current home school and private school students into public education. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented Some of the implemented programs are included in the response to Recommendation #2. In addition, the COE works with the districts in their efforts to attract students back into the public schools. Aptos Junior High is a prime example of that school's dedication to actively attract students in nonpublic education by implementing a recovery campaign. Aptos Junior High’s strategies have included conducting parent surveys, followed by a community outreach program addressing false perceptions relating to the school and promoting the successes of the school. Santa Cruz City Schools is currently implementing a similar program. We understand there is a certain population of students and parents who consistently prefer non-public education to that of public schools. The students’ reasons often include, need for a religious environment, more focused or "themed" schools, social Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -31 interaction issues, and parental desires to educate their own children. Some districts are responding to this want for alternatives by providing home schooling options, dual immersion programs, and preschools on elementary campuses to introduce parents and children to public schools. They are also providing “Schools of Emphasis” that focus on fine arts or a focus on specific academic areas such as a strong science curriculum. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District operates a Charter program that serves over 650 students in an alternative setting; this is a significant part of our public school system. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES The Live Oak District’s Economic Viability Plan outlined an option of programs to attract and retain students within the District. The District has increased its home school population and created a new charter high school program. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District currently operates an independent study program that is an option for parents in our district who wish to implement home instruction. The program does outreach activities, although we would not wish to implement an “aggressive” campaign. The majority of students find many benefits in instruction with peers in the school setting, and Soquel encourages this setting. We are concerned than an unintended negative consequence of an aggressive campaign might be students entering independent study situations that are less than optimal. Home independent study instruction that is successful requires tremendous home resources and commitment. Our district has an independent study contract with parents that clearly states obligations under this program. It is not unusual for families to enter into these programs and find that they cannot sustain the rigor required to keep students on track toward eventual high school graduation requirements. Soquel Schools do attract new students enrolling from private schools each year and have an interest in continuing to do so. Additional ideas for attracting private school students to our public schools are always welcome and implemented as possible within our resources. However, we understand that some families choose a private school option for reasons that cannot be accommodated in the public school setting, such as religious instruction.
F7: Santa Cruz County school administrators agree that all of the school districts are concerned about the effects of declining enrollment. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES Response: Live Oak School District AGREES Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should conduct a study to determine why students opt out of the public school system and develop recommendations for attracting students back to the public schools. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented Multiple studies have already taken place, such as the one at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLVUSD). SLVUSD recently completed a demographic study evaluating the entire student population in the District including where they are attending school. Each school administrator is doing outreach by meeting with parents of students who request inter-district transfers. They are giving tours of their schools and inviting students to attend school for a day. They are visiting pre-schools and introducing the SLVUSD schools to the parents before it is time to enter school. The Valley Press -each week features an article written by an administrator to keep the public informed of events and programs. The video class from the SLV high school produced a video featuring sixth graders expressing their concerns about moving on to junior high. Then the class went to the junior high and interviewed students there to tell their junior high experiences and showing the facilities. This video is shown to sixth graders and parents to dispel concerns about entering the upper grades. The public is invited to attend many events including open houses at all of the District’s schools. Many schools have programs similar to those of Happy Valley Elementary. The principal meets with parents of children attending private schools or on inter-district transfers to review the focus of the school and gives them a tour of the facility. Their children may attend Happy Valley School for a day where they are paired up with a "buddy" from a classroom of their peers. Parents and students are invited to attend special events and open house each spring. The COE intends to research the results of various studies and strategies and work with the districts to conduct similar surveys in the fall when regular school sessions resume. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District Santa Cruz City Schools would be willing to participate in such a study if the study itself is cost neutral and facilitated by the COE. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES -30 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District hired Lapkoff & Gobelet Demographic Research Inc. to conduct a demographic study of the District. The study was completed and the results were presented to the Board of Trustees and to the public in February
R27-28: 1 Education (Sept 2, 2003) Santa Cruz County Office of 60 Days 1-6, 9-38 1-7 Education (Sept. 2, 2003) Santa Cruz City Schools 7,8,39, 90 Days 2-5 District 40-64 (Sept. 30, 2003) Pajaro Valley Unified School 90 Days 7,27,28 1,5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) San Lorenzo Valley School 90 Days 7-8 2-5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) 90 Days Live Oak School District 7-8 2-5 (Sept. 30, 2003) Soquel Union Elementary 90 Days 7-8 2-5 School District (Sept. 30, 2003) Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -37 This page intentionally left blank. -38 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F8: The enrollment decline is especially severe in: • Live Oak School District (LO) • San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLV) • Santa Cruz City Schools District (SCCS) • Soquel Union Elementary School District (SOQ) Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District AGREES Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District AGREES It is true that the Soquel Union Elementary School District has had a 17% decline in enrollment over the last five years. We have mitigated this decline through an aggressive campaign of student attendance, upon which our funding is truly based. Although our enrollment declined between 2001-02 and 2002-03, through this aggressive attendance campaign, loss of apportionment was minimized. -6 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should conduct a study to determine why students opt out of the public school system and develop recommendations for attracting students back to the public schools. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented Multiple studies have already taken place, such as the one at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLVUSD). SLVUSD recently completed a demographic study evaluating the entire student population in the District including where they are attending school. Each school administrator is doing outreach by meeting with parents of students who request inter-district transfers. They are giving tours of their schools and inviting students to attend school for a day. They are visiting pre-schools and introducing the SLVUSD schools to the parents before it is time to enter school. The Valley Press -each week features an article written by an administrator to keep the public informed of events and programs. The video class from the SLV high school produced a video featuring sixth graders expressing their concerns about moving on to junior high. Then the class went to the junior high and interviewed students there to tell their junior high experiences and showing the facilities. This video is shown to sixth graders and parents to dispel concerns about entering the upper grades. The public is invited to attend many events including open houses at all of the District’s schools. Many schools have programs similar to those of Happy Valley Elementary. The principal meets with parents of children attending private schools or on inter-district transfers to review the focus of the school and gives them a tour of the facility. Their children may attend Happy Valley School for a day where they are paired up with a "buddy" from a classroom of their peers. Parents and students are invited to attend special events and open house each spring. The COE intends to research the results of various studies and strategies and work with the districts to conduct similar surveys in the fall when regular school sessions resume. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District Santa Cruz City Schools would be willing to participate in such a study if the study itself is cost neutral and facilitated by the COE. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES -30 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District hired Lapkoff & Gobelet Demographic Research Inc. to conduct a demographic study of the District. The study was completed and the results were presented to the Board of Trustees and to the public in February
R27-28: 1 Education (Sept 2, 2003) Santa Cruz County Office of 60 Days 1-6, 9-38 1-7 Education (Sept. 2, 2003) Santa Cruz City Schools 7,8,39, 90 Days 2-5 District 40-64 (Sept. 30, 2003) Pajaro Valley Unified School 90 Days 7,27,28 1,5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) San Lorenzo Valley School 90 Days 7-8 2-5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) 90 Days Live Oak School District 7-8 2-5 (Sept. 30, 2003) Soquel Union Elementary 90 Days 7-8 2-5 School District (Sept. 30, 2003) Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -37 This page intentionally left blank. -38 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F9: According to the State Franchise Tax Board, Santa Cruz County will lose an additional 2,200 students by the year 2010. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES The COE was unable to substantiate this claim, as no data concerning the State Franchise Tax Board’s review of student population could be obtained.
F10: Explanations for the decline in student enrollment are difficult to pinpoint. The County Office of Education observes that the high cost of housing is forcing younger people with school age children to live elsewhere and this contributes to the decline. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES There are numerous factors that lead to decreased enrollment, many of which are influences that affect shifts in population demographics. The high cost of housing is one of the leading causes that force families with school-age children out of the County. According to a study by the U.S. Census Bureau, the median value of owner-occupied housing units in Santa Cruz in 2000 was $377,500 opposed to the state’s median value of $211,500 which represents an approximate 75% cost of ownership in our local market. Furthermore, business closures, low population growth, and local policies have all contributed to the overall decrease in Santa Cruz County’s population, which has dropped 0.7% between July 2000 and July 2002. The Santa Cruz Sentinel recently published an article, “S.C. shrinks as Watsonville grows,” about population decline in Santa Cruz City and the County as a whole. Some reasons cited were costly real estate and a weak economy that pressures residents to leave the area. Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -7
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should conduct a study to determine why students opt out of the public school system and develop recommendations for attracting students back to the public schools. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented Multiple studies have already taken place, such as the one at San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District (SLVUSD). SLVUSD recently completed a demographic study evaluating the entire student population in the District including where they are attending school. Each school administrator is doing outreach by meeting with parents of students who request inter-district transfers. They are giving tours of their schools and inviting students to attend school for a day. They are visiting pre-schools and introducing the SLVUSD schools to the parents before it is time to enter school. The Valley Press -each week features an article written by an administrator to keep the public informed of events and programs. The video class from the SLV high school produced a video featuring sixth graders expressing their concerns about moving on to junior high. Then the class went to the junior high and interviewed students there to tell their junior high experiences and showing the facilities. This video is shown to sixth graders and parents to dispel concerns about entering the upper grades. The public is invited to attend many events including open houses at all of the District’s schools. Many schools have programs similar to those of Happy Valley Elementary. The principal meets with parents of children attending private schools or on inter-district transfers to review the focus of the school and gives them a tour of the facility. Their children may attend Happy Valley School for a day where they are paired up with a "buddy" from a classroom of their peers. Parents and students are invited to attend special events and open house each spring. The COE intends to research the results of various studies and strategies and work with the districts to conduct similar surveys in the fall when regular school sessions resume. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District Santa Cruz City Schools would be willing to participate in such a study if the study itself is cost neutral and facilitated by the COE. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES -30 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special The San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District hired Lapkoff & Gobelet Demographic Research Inc. to conduct a demographic study of the District. The study was completed and the results were presented to the Board of Trustees and to the public in February
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F11: Table 3 details the average expense per student in each of the school districts in Santa Cruz County. Table 3: Average Expense Per Student Comparison Average District Districts Enrollment Expense per Expenses Student County Office of Education (COE) 115 * * Bonny Doon 168 $1,270,208 $7,561 Happy Valley 131 $1,219,983 $9,313 Live Oak 1,994 $13,403,238 $6,722 Mountain 153 $956,706 $6,253 Pacific 88 $841,272 $9,560 Scotts Valley 2,591 $14,643,166 $5,652 Soquel 2,142 $13,478,733 $6,293 San Lorenzo Valley Unified (SLVUSD) 3,389 $19,955,795 $5,888 SLVUSD – Charter 607 * * Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) 7,910 $50,915,838 $6,437 COE Alt Ed 423 * * Delta 54 * * Sojourn 34 * * Pacific Collegiate 257 * * Pajaro Valley Unified (PVUSD) - * * Charter Schools 1219 PVUSD 18,644 $124,974,036 $6,703 Total 39,919 $241,658,975 Note: Data provided by COE for 2001-2002 budget year * data not available Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F12: The average expense per student obscures a complex reality. Actual educational value delivered to individual students is affected by costs of mandated programs, cost of the existing physical infrastructure and administrative overhead costs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES The expenses of each student are indeed much greater when the cost of the educational environment is factored into the expense formula. The educational setting, including the school facilities, effective administration, and the quality of programs, is vitally -8 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special important in creating and maintaining a secure, efficient, and friendly atmosphere that encourages learning. Unfortunately, because the value of these factors is difficult to determine relative to their cost and usage, they are often under funded or completely left out of the total expense figures.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F13: These non-educational costs relative to the value delivered to individual students go up as enrollments decline unless there is concurrent reduction in mandated programs, physical infrastructure and/or administration. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES However, these costs should not be classified as non-educational as administrative systems, facilities, and mandated programs all directly affect the sensitive educational environment of a student. Impact of Mandated Programs
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F14: Mandated programs are activities implemented at the local school district level but whose program features and requirements are established at a higher level of government (e.g. state or federal). Typically these mandated programs come with promises of targeted funding. When the features of a mandated program cost more than the targeted funding provided, school districts must make up the difference from unrestricted funds (e.g. ADA funds). Encroachment is when a mandated program requires unrestricted money to operate according to the program statute. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -9
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F15: Local school districts report the three mandated programs that require the most added support (encroachment)form the unrestrited revenue of the general fund are: ENCROACHMENT AREA AMOUNT A. Special Education $11,897,710* The special education program encompasses the costs of serving pupils with Individual Education Plans (IEP) as qualifying for services under the Federal IDEA Act and accompanying state legislation. B. Restricted Routine Maintenance $ 6,627,120* The Restricted Routine Maintenance Account is a requirement for those districts that have participated in the State School Construction Program, since 1998. Since that time, as a condition of receiving construction funding, school districts are required to contribute 3% of their general fund budget to a restricted account for school maintenance. C. Pupil Transportation $ 4,455,567* Pupil Transportation includes expenses for transporting regular education, non-severe and severe special education pupils. Note: Data provided by COE *Countywide totals for encroachment Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES The data comes from local school districts’ 2001-2002 reports of expenses. Special Education Defined
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F16: Special Education is a federal mandate but not fully funded by federal or state funds to the level of its requirements. In addition, in 1975 when Congress passed IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), they mandated an increased level of service to special education students and agreed to pay 40 percent of required costs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES -10 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special Excess costs are defined by the EdSource’s June 1995 EdFact publication as “the average amount needed to provide an appropriate education to a student with disabilities that exceeds the expenditure for a regular education student.” In 1975 when IDEA was passed, federal funding to states was approximately 5% of the excess costs of providing mandated special education services. Despite the federal government’s intent to pay 40% of excess expenditures, the federal share is in reality at 17% and historically has been near that figure. Contributing to this severe gap in funding, the Special Education program mandated by the State of California exceeds the program as federally regulated by the IDEA. However, many educational groups and organizations are lobbying for increased funding so that the 40% level is attained. In the mean time, the shortfall creates an added burden on the local community and to districts struggling to fund general education plus encroachment. General education students may be deprived of the full set of opportunities to which they are entitled.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R7: The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -35 mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented. The COE’s Special Education Department reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director, representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase funding for special education. The Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding. As the federal government is in the process of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up to its promise of 40% funding for special education. -36 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F17: The average cost of educating a pupil in special education is more than 100 percent greater than that of educating a student in general education. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F18: Special education is a major expense to districts for a small number of high need students, primarily due to increasing number of students identified with special education requirements, increasing litigation, broader parent demands for services within the Individual Education Plans, and increasing severity of disabilities and multiple disabilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Special education programs provide individualized services that are mandated by law for students with a variety of needs. These services are far more costly than general education services. In addition, the number of students entering into these programs has risen due to advances in medicine, diagnosis, and life-preserving techniques that increase the survival rate and life spans of high risk and severally disabled students. The numbers of autistic and emotionally disturbed students within special education programs have also risen creating a demand for a variety of additional services in order to cover the diversity of needs. Almost all these students depend on additional assistance and services such as one-on-one aides, specific modes of transportation, and many services available only from non-educational agencies but dictated by Individual Education Plans (IEP). These services cause the average cost of special education to soar above general education costs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F19: With the closing of many state hospitals in the 1970s, local communities now serve a population with more severe disabilities, which require increased services at higher costs. Advocates and legal challenges that require districts to respond to individual student needs without regard to cost are fueling the spiraling costs. Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -11 Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Along with legal challenges, it is the court decisions that require districts to provide for the individual students’ needs that exceed levels of appropriate models of service. Courts pass rulings that demand a district provide for detailed additional services without regard to necessary funding to cover the costs. For example, each special education student is set up with an annual IEP that outlines the services that must be provided for them. These often include nurses, special transportation, and a long list of mandated requirements. Creating IEPs is an extremely time-consuming process as it requires the student, the parents, the special education teacher, and several other district and agency personnel to attend the meeting. These are all factors that drive up the cost of special education which the district must provide without receiving adequate funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F20: The average countywide annual cost for regular education students is $5,593 and the average for non-severe special education students is $13,519 and for the special education students with the most intense needs the average is $31,483. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES These costs are influenced by the specificity of the educational codes that stem from the Individual Education Plans, IDEA, Americans with Disabilities Act, and California Education Code, Sections 56360-56370 (partially quoted here): Each special education local plan area shall ensure that a continuum of program options is available to meet the needs of individuals with exceptional needs for special education and related services, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.) and federal regulations relating thereto. All districts work to uphold this law, but in order to provide services equal to that guaranteed to general education students they must bear the weight of the staggering cost differences. This creates a heavy fiscal responsibility on the district and county office of education, especially when the number of special education students with severe needs is rapidly increasing and the education of these students can exceed general education expenses by as much as $30,000 or more.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F21: The current funding level for special education by the Federal government is between 15- 18 percent and only recently reached that level. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Data for Santa Cruz County supports that federal funding is currently at about 17%, significantly less than the federal government’s promised 40%.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R7: The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -35 mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented. The COE’s Special Education Department reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director, representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase funding for special education. The Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding. As the federal government is in the process of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up to its promise of 40% funding for special education. -36 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F22: In the 2000-2001 school year, California school districts and county offices of education spent more than $4.5 billion on direct services to disabled students. Total federal, state, -12 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special and local revenue sources for special education that year were roughly $3.3 billion. The $1.2 billion shortfall (a 26% shortfall) came from other local educational agencies' funding sources, impacting other educational programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R7: The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -35 mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented. The COE’s Special Education Department reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director, representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase funding for special education. The Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding. As the federal government is in the process of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up to its promise of 40% funding for special education. -36 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F23: IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) is up for re-authorization this year in the U.S. Congress. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES The purpose of this reauthorization is to fulfill the promises made back in 1975 and to increase the federal funding level to the promised 40%. Furthermore, the new legislation aims to promote a unified system that reduces program complexities, creates more flexibility within the allotment of special education resources, and is overall a more equitable and cost-effective means of conflict resolution. Advocates stress the need for a simplification and clarification of the previous legislation. References: Department of Education’s website at http://www.ed.gov/offices/ OSERS/Policy/IDEA/ and the recent article in the Mercury News on June 25, 2004 entitled “Don’t turn back clock on special education” (http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/6165337.htm). Special Education in Santa Cruz County
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R7: The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -35 mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented. The COE’s Special Education Department reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director, representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase funding for special education. The Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding. As the federal government is in the process of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up to its promise of 40% funding for special education. -36 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F24: In Santa Cruz County school districts the funding shortfall is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of 26% noted above. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R7: The COE should solicit funds from the state and federal governments to cover the cost of Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -35 mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been implemented. The COE’s Special Education Department reviews mandated programs every year, pinpoints the areas where more funds are needed, and actively solicits funds from the government. A prime example is that the SELPA Director, representing all SELPA member districts, actively participates in the Coalition for Adequate Funding for Special Education in its ongoing efforts to increase funding for special education. The Coalition sponsors legislation and has lobbies in both Sacramento and Washington D.C. The SELPA Administrator is also active in the State SELPA Directors Organization. The SELPA administrator provides updated legislative information and encourages administrators, teachers and parents to contact their congressman and legislators to lobby for special education funding. As the federal government is in the process of reauthorizing IDEA, there is a concerted effort to get Congress to live up to its promise of 40% funding for special education. -36 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F25: The County of Santa Cruz receives approximately $28 million dollars annually for special education funding. 40% of this funding comes from federal sources and 60% from state revenues. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES While the County of Santa Cruz does receive approximately $28 million annually in AB602 Special Education funding, the breakdown of the funding sources is different than the figures shown in the report. The funding levels are approximately 13.83% federal funds, 12.56% local taxes and 73.61% state funds. We are not sure what the 40% federal and 60% state funding levels mentioned in the report are in reference to but those levels of funding could refer to the original intent of the federal government to fund Special Education at 40%. Unfortunately, this funding level has never materialized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F26: Table 4 displays revenue for special education, special education expenditures and encroachment of special education expenditures on general education programs. Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -13 Table 4: Special Education Encroachment by District District Special Special Total Special Education Education Revenue Expenditures Encroachment Bonny Doon $107,405 $127,551 ($20,146) Happy Valley $49,602 $49,602 $0 Live Oak $1,039,672 $1,884,626 ($844,954) Mountain $57,744 $58,967 ($1,223) Pacific $33,737 $67,767 ($34,030) Scotts Valley $878,572 $1,858,371 ($979,799) Soquel $923,226 $1,695,801 ($772,575) San Lorenzo Valley $1,769,474 $2,844,809 ($1,075,335) Santa Cruz Elem. $1,301,199 $2,355,213 ($1,054,014) Santa Cruz High $2,832,259 $5,357,126 ($2,524,867) Co. Office of Ed. $4,700,673 $4,470,571 $230,102* Alternative Ed. $248,831 $250,094 ($1,263) Delta Charter School $19,931 $19,931 $0 Pacific Collegiate $115,072 $16,710 $98,362* Sojourn Charter $14,934 $14,934 $0 Pajaro Valley Unified $13,988,498 $17,499,215 ($3,510,717) Total encroachment $28,080,829 $38,571,288 ($10,490,459) Note: Data provided by COE * COE and PCS received restricted funds for special education but these funds were not exhausted in this year due to small numbers of students. These funds cannot be used for any other purpose. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES However, the COE would like to make note that the footnote is incorrect. A clarification is needed to point out that there are actually a growing number of students receiving funds, rather than an implied diminishing student population. Furthermore, some of these funds are non-restrictive and can be redistributed. Thus the COE would like to replace the above statement with the original footnote provided at the time of our response to inquiries as follows: *Excess revenue is redistributed starting at the annual certification February 2003 through June 2003 to districts with encroachment. Furthermore, this chart could be clarified by removing the word “encroachment” from the bottom “Total” line, as only the third column represents encroachment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F27: The special education programs in Santa Cruz County have two administrative staffs for Special Education Local Program Administration (SELPA). These staffs supervise and -14 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special distribute state funds for special education. Pajaro Valley Unified School District runs its own SELPA. The COE and the other nine school districts are in a consortium called North County SELPA. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Education and Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREE SELPA (Special Education Local Plan Area) is a regional service area program that has local service plans throughout the state. Within our county, there are two SELPAs. Prior to 1990, the SELPA was a consortium between all of Santa Cruz County and San Benito County. In 1990, the SELPA split into the independent San Benito County SELPA, the North Santa Cruz County SELPA, and the Pajaro Valley SELPA in order to more adequately accommodate the growing population of special education students. South County SELPA- Pajaro Valley District SELPA - is a single district entity with one staff composed of a director who fills the positions of the South County SELPA and special education director for the district. North County SELPA is comprised of nine school district entities, with one coordinating administrator and nine special education directors. In most districts, the special education director also performs other functions. These SELPAs exist as separate units to best represent their respective populations and effectively handle administrative responsibilities. However, in instances where individual districts do not have a significant population of certain need students, such as the visually impaired, these two SELPAs collaborate and provide services countywide to reduce costs and enhance the scope of programs offered. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES The district agrees with County Office of Education and County Board of Education responses.
Related Recommendations (3)
R1: The County Board of Education, the COE and Pajaro Valley Unified School District should examine and consolidate the administration of the SELPA programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education The recommendation requires further analysis. The COE agrees that all of the involved agencies should reexamine the original reasons for splitting into two SELPAs and see if anything has significantly changed that would suggest a need for reconsolidation. A dedicated effort will be made to gather input from administration as well as teachers, local interest groups, and especially parents of special needs children. However, concerning such a consolidation, there is an underlying concern that merging programs would not be as plausible a solution as it is first appears. Rejoining the two SELPAs would almost be a regressive decision as the split in the early 90’s was a natural partition that allowed the two programs to operate more effectively and fully carry out the services mandated by the state. The population of students within the Pajaro Valley SELPA alone is nearly as large as that of the North County multi-district SELPA warranting a need for separate services and local representation. A consolidation of these two entities would not necessarily result in fewer administrators or in the implied reduction of expenditures. The large number of students served and the nature of those services, many of which require the SELPA director and/or district director of special education be involved, is prohibitive to eliminating one of the duplicated SELPA director positions. A consolidation could possibly create tension and conflict over systems of management and a reduction in localized control of services all of which were considerations when the combined SELPA was portioned in the early 1990’s. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District This recommendation will not be implemented because it would result in the loss of local control that has benefited PVUSD students without any reduction in costs. Additionally, there is the possiblity that the reunification of the SELPAs would result in an increased encroachment for PVUSD. The North Santa Cruz County school districts, PVUSD, and the San Benito County school districts were previously joined into one SELPA. These three areas split into separate SELPAs in the early 1990s in order to more effectively serve the populations of the three individual areas. The arrangement has allowed the PVUSD SELPA to be more -28 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special immediately responsive to its students and families than was true under the old model. The state requires that each SELPA must be of sufficient size and scope to provide a full continuum of special education services. The PVUSD is comfortably able to do this. Reconsolidation with the other Santa Cruz districts into a single SELPA has the potential of reducing the effectiveness of services to our students. Reconsolidation would not reduce expenses. The high cost of providing Special Education is due to the intensive programs and services that are required by special education students in order to achieve their IEP goals paired with insufficient funding from state and Federal governments. The vast majority of the funds allocated to these programs is for specialized personnel. Due to the fact that PVUSD has full caseloads in all of its programs, combining them with other similar programs in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts would not result in any reduction of personnel so no significant cost savings would be realized. The only potential savings would be through reduction of SELPA administrative staff. If the two SELPA’s were to reconsolidate, the governing board of the new SELPA would need to follow legal mandates in selecting the new administrative unit (AU), which could be assigned to any of the participating LEAs (districts and COE). The new AU would then be responsible for employing the SELPA Director. It is not a forgone conclusion that the COE would become the AU for the new SELPA. It is just as possible that PVUSD, being the largest LEA, would act as the AU. In either case, there would be a reduction of a .5 SELPA Director since the two SELPAs currently have 1.5 Directors. If the Director for North Santa Cruz County SELPA assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, PVUSD would reduce its administrative staff by .5 of a SELPA Director. If the PVUSD SELPA Director assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, the current .5 position would need to be increased to a full-time position and the current North Santa Cruz County position would be eliminated. Through reviewing the Grand Jury Report, it is clear that PVUSD already employs far fewer Special Services administrators than are employed in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts to serve approximately the same number of students. This has been possible due to combining SELPA and District resources. Without the ability to continue doing so, the district would likely need to increase its remaining .5 Director of Special Services to a full-time position in order to meet the ongoing needs of the District Special Education and Health Services programs. The end result is that through reconsolidation of the two SELPAs, there would be, at most, a .5 position reduction in administrative staff and it is likely that there would be no reduction. The Grand Jury report indicates on -7, Item 24, that the Special Education encroachment in Santa Cruz County school districts “is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of 26%”. Using the data presented in Table 4, -8 of the Grand Jury Report, the percentage of encroachment for each individual school district can be calculated. PVUSD’s encroachment percentage is approximately 20% which is less than the state average. Many of the other Santa Cruz County school districts have much higher encroachment rates typically ranging from 38% to 53%. The combined Special Education encroachment for all of the districts in the county totals Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -29 $10,490,459. PVUSD’s portion of this is only $3,510,717 or 33.47% even though it is the same size and serves approximately the same number of students as the Districts in North Santa Cruz County. Since PVUSD’s encroachment is already lower than the state average and many of the other districs are above the state average, combining the two SELPAs and their resources into one SELPA may lead to a larger encroachment rather than a smaller one for PVUSD depending on the method of allocation of funds.
R6: The COE should examine the potential benefits of consolidating the administration and/or implementation of selected and/or all special education programs in the COE. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education Requires further analysis and clarity as to what the recommendation specifies. It is difficult to determine whether the recommendation addresses consolidation within the COE, consolidating COE administration with SELPA, or consolidation with districts. In respect to the examination of consolidation benefits in general, there is an existing review process in place that continually exams these programs. This is apparent in the work done by the Special Education Council which constantly looks for ways to become more efficient in special education operations and to reduce costs. One such example is the recent change to a new agency to provide one-to-one instructional aides personnel that is saving the districts thousands of dollars. With respect to the administration within the COE, consolidation has already been implemented. The special education programs of Santa Cruz County COE have been consolidated down to two administrators with one support staff shared among them. These administrators distribute state funds among the COE special education programs and oversee the entire educational process of the COE special education district. The support staff consists of three individuals whose duties are mandated by the federal government and whose work is vital to providing support services for special education programs. Within this framework, there is no real room for further reduction of COE administrative staff.
R27-28: 1 Education (Sept 2, 2003) Santa Cruz County Office of 60 Days 1-6, 9-38 1-7 Education (Sept. 2, 2003) Santa Cruz City Schools 7,8,39, 90 Days 2-5 District 40-64 (Sept. 30, 2003) Pajaro Valley Unified School 90 Days 7,27,28 1,5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) San Lorenzo Valley School 90 Days 7-8 2-5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) 90 Days Live Oak School District 7-8 2-5 (Sept. 30, 2003) Soquel Union Elementary 90 Days 7-8 2-5 School District (Sept. 30, 2003) Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -37 This page intentionally left blank. -38 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F28: The enrollment for each SELPA, as of the latest reporting cycle of December 1, 2002, is displayed in Table 5. Table 5: SELPA Student Enrollment Total Special Student Enrollment Percent Enrollment Education North County -all districts except Pajaro 19,720 2,602 13.20% South County -Pajaro District 19,681 2,271 11.50% Total Countywide 39,401 4,873 12.30% Note: Data provided by COE Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Education AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District AGREES Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -15
Related Recommendations (1)
R27-28: 1 Education (Sept 2, 2003) Santa Cruz County Office of 60 Days 1-6, 9-38 1-7 Education (Sept. 2, 2003) Santa Cruz City Schools 7,8,39, 90 Days 2-5 District 40-64 (Sept. 30, 2003) Pajaro Valley Unified School 90 Days 7,27,28 1,5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) San Lorenzo Valley School 90 Days 7-8 2-5 District (Sept. 30, 2003) 90 Days Live Oak School District 7-8 2-5 (Sept. 30, 2003) Soquel Union Elementary 90 Days 7-8 2-5 School District (Sept. 30, 2003) Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -37 This page intentionally left blank. -38 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F29: The COE administers the North County SELPA which serves as a conduit for special education funds from the state to the school districts. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education PARTIALLY AGREES The North Santa Cruz County SELPA is a multi-district consortium of which the County Office is a member. The Governing Council of the SELPA is comprised of the superintendents/administrative officers of each member district, charter school and the COE. The County Office of Education has an additional responsibility to serve as the "administrative unit" for the consortium. The County Office responsibilities in serving as the Administrative Unit include distribution of funds. However, it does not administer the SELPA. The SELPA Office is independent of any particular Local Education Agency (LEA), but the Governing Council established that the SELPA Administrator is responsible to the SELPA as a whole and therefore is expected to serve all LEAs equitably.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The County Board of Education, the COE and Pajaro Valley Unified School District should examine and consolidate the administration of the SELPA programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education The recommendation requires further analysis. The COE agrees that all of the involved agencies should reexamine the original reasons for splitting into two SELPAs and see if anything has significantly changed that would suggest a need for reconsolidation. A dedicated effort will be made to gather input from administration as well as teachers, local interest groups, and especially parents of special needs children. However, concerning such a consolidation, there is an underlying concern that merging programs would not be as plausible a solution as it is first appears. Rejoining the two SELPAs would almost be a regressive decision as the split in the early 90’s was a natural partition that allowed the two programs to operate more effectively and fully carry out the services mandated by the state. The population of students within the Pajaro Valley SELPA alone is nearly as large as that of the North County multi-district SELPA warranting a need for separate services and local representation. A consolidation of these two entities would not necessarily result in fewer administrators or in the implied reduction of expenditures. The large number of students served and the nature of those services, many of which require the SELPA director and/or district director of special education be involved, is prohibitive to eliminating one of the duplicated SELPA director positions. A consolidation could possibly create tension and conflict over systems of management and a reduction in localized control of services all of which were considerations when the combined SELPA was portioned in the early 1990’s. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District This recommendation will not be implemented because it would result in the loss of local control that has benefited PVUSD students without any reduction in costs. Additionally, there is the possiblity that the reunification of the SELPAs would result in an increased encroachment for PVUSD. The North Santa Cruz County school districts, PVUSD, and the San Benito County school districts were previously joined into one SELPA. These three areas split into separate SELPAs in the early 1990s in order to more effectively serve the populations of the three individual areas. The arrangement has allowed the PVUSD SELPA to be more -28 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special immediately responsive to its students and families than was true under the old model. The state requires that each SELPA must be of sufficient size and scope to provide a full continuum of special education services. The PVUSD is comfortably able to do this. Reconsolidation with the other Santa Cruz districts into a single SELPA has the potential of reducing the effectiveness of services to our students. Reconsolidation would not reduce expenses. The high cost of providing Special Education is due to the intensive programs and services that are required by special education students in order to achieve their IEP goals paired with insufficient funding from state and Federal governments. The vast majority of the funds allocated to these programs is for specialized personnel. Due to the fact that PVUSD has full caseloads in all of its programs, combining them with other similar programs in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts would not result in any reduction of personnel so no significant cost savings would be realized. The only potential savings would be through reduction of SELPA administrative staff. If the two SELPA’s were to reconsolidate, the governing board of the new SELPA would need to follow legal mandates in selecting the new administrative unit (AU), which could be assigned to any of the participating LEAs (districts and COE). The new AU would then be responsible for employing the SELPA Director. It is not a forgone conclusion that the COE would become the AU for the new SELPA. It is just as possible that PVUSD, being the largest LEA, would act as the AU. In either case, there would be a reduction of a .5 SELPA Director since the two SELPAs currently have 1.5 Directors. If the Director for North Santa Cruz County SELPA assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, PVUSD would reduce its administrative staff by .5 of a SELPA Director. If the PVUSD SELPA Director assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, the current .5 position would need to be increased to a full-time position and the current North Santa Cruz County position would be eliminated. Through reviewing the Grand Jury Report, it is clear that PVUSD already employs far fewer Special Services administrators than are employed in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts to serve approximately the same number of students. This has been possible due to combining SELPA and District resources. Without the ability to continue doing so, the district would likely need to increase its remaining .5 Director of Special Services to a full-time position in order to meet the ongoing needs of the District Special Education and Health Services programs. The end result is that through reconsolidation of the two SELPAs, there would be, at most, a .5 position reduction in administrative staff and it is likely that there would be no reduction. The Grand Jury report indicates on -7, Item 24, that the Special Education encroachment in Santa Cruz County school districts “is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of 26%”. Using the data presented in Table 4, -8 of the Grand Jury Report, the percentage of encroachment for each individual school district can be calculated. PVUSD’s encroachment percentage is approximately 20% which is less than the state average. Many of the other Santa Cruz County school districts have much higher encroachment rates typically ranging from 38% to 53%. The combined Special Education encroachment for all of the districts in the county totals Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -29 $10,490,459. PVUSD’s portion of this is only $3,510,717 or 33.47% even though it is the same size and serves approximately the same number of students as the Districts in North Santa Cruz County. Since PVUSD’s encroachment is already lower than the state average and many of the other districs are above the state average, combining the two SELPAs and their resources into one SELPA may lead to a larger encroachment rather than a smaller one for PVUSD depending on the method of allocation of funds.
R6: The COE should examine the potential benefits of consolidating the administration and/or implementation of selected and/or all special education programs in the COE. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education Requires further analysis and clarity as to what the recommendation specifies. It is difficult to determine whether the recommendation addresses consolidation within the COE, consolidating COE administration with SELPA, or consolidation with districts. In respect to the examination of consolidation benefits in general, there is an existing review process in place that continually exams these programs. This is apparent in the work done by the Special Education Council which constantly looks for ways to become more efficient in special education operations and to reduce costs. One such example is the recent change to a new agency to provide one-to-one instructional aides personnel that is saving the districts thousands of dollars. With respect to the administration within the COE, consolidation has already been implemented. The special education programs of Santa Cruz County COE have been consolidated down to two administrators with one support staff shared among them. These administrators distribute state funds among the COE special education programs and oversee the entire educational process of the COE special education district. The support staff consists of three individuals whose duties are mandated by the federal government and whose work is vital to providing support services for special education programs. Within this framework, there is no real room for further reduction of COE administrative staff.
F30: The funds for the consortium in the northern county area are approximately $11 million annually. The COE retains 50% to cover the cost of programs they provide (including 61 special education teachers’ salaries) and the remaining funds are distributed to the consortium members. If there are excess costs for the program, the school districts may have to reimburse the COE for participating in the program. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education DISAGREES All north county Special Education AB 602 funding is administered by the North County SELPA and flows through the Santa Cruz COE as the Administrative Unit to the SELPA. The SELPA first allocates revenue to the agencies, such as the COE, that provide regional programs. The cost of regional programs to the districts is based on their portion of AB602 ADA and actual utilization of regional programs. The SELPA allocates approximately 31.72% of the $11 million received by the SELPA to the Santa Cruz County Office of Education to run Special Education Regional Programs. The COE Regional Program costs include the salaries of the approximately 35 COE special education teachers. Since the implementation of the AB602 funding model in 98/99, the regional programs provided by the COE are funded by SELPA at 100% and bill back for excess cost is no longer a part of the formula. After the Regional Special Education Programs operated by the COE are funded, the remaining revenue is distributed to the districts to operate their individual programs.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The County Board of Education, the COE and Pajaro Valley Unified School District should examine and consolidate the administration of the SELPA programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education The recommendation requires further analysis. The COE agrees that all of the involved agencies should reexamine the original reasons for splitting into two SELPAs and see if anything has significantly changed that would suggest a need for reconsolidation. A dedicated effort will be made to gather input from administration as well as teachers, local interest groups, and especially parents of special needs children. However, concerning such a consolidation, there is an underlying concern that merging programs would not be as plausible a solution as it is first appears. Rejoining the two SELPAs would almost be a regressive decision as the split in the early 90’s was a natural partition that allowed the two programs to operate more effectively and fully carry out the services mandated by the state. The population of students within the Pajaro Valley SELPA alone is nearly as large as that of the North County multi-district SELPA warranting a need for separate services and local representation. A consolidation of these two entities would not necessarily result in fewer administrators or in the implied reduction of expenditures. The large number of students served and the nature of those services, many of which require the SELPA director and/or district director of special education be involved, is prohibitive to eliminating one of the duplicated SELPA director positions. A consolidation could possibly create tension and conflict over systems of management and a reduction in localized control of services all of which were considerations when the combined SELPA was portioned in the early 1990’s. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District This recommendation will not be implemented because it would result in the loss of local control that has benefited PVUSD students without any reduction in costs. Additionally, there is the possiblity that the reunification of the SELPAs would result in an increased encroachment for PVUSD. The North Santa Cruz County school districts, PVUSD, and the San Benito County school districts were previously joined into one SELPA. These three areas split into separate SELPAs in the early 1990s in order to more effectively serve the populations of the three individual areas. The arrangement has allowed the PVUSD SELPA to be more -28 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special immediately responsive to its students and families than was true under the old model. The state requires that each SELPA must be of sufficient size and scope to provide a full continuum of special education services. The PVUSD is comfortably able to do this. Reconsolidation with the other Santa Cruz districts into a single SELPA has the potential of reducing the effectiveness of services to our students. Reconsolidation would not reduce expenses. The high cost of providing Special Education is due to the intensive programs and services that are required by special education students in order to achieve their IEP goals paired with insufficient funding from state and Federal governments. The vast majority of the funds allocated to these programs is for specialized personnel. Due to the fact that PVUSD has full caseloads in all of its programs, combining them with other similar programs in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts would not result in any reduction of personnel so no significant cost savings would be realized. The only potential savings would be through reduction of SELPA administrative staff. If the two SELPA’s were to reconsolidate, the governing board of the new SELPA would need to follow legal mandates in selecting the new administrative unit (AU), which could be assigned to any of the participating LEAs (districts and COE). The new AU would then be responsible for employing the SELPA Director. It is not a forgone conclusion that the COE would become the AU for the new SELPA. It is just as possible that PVUSD, being the largest LEA, would act as the AU. In either case, there would be a reduction of a .5 SELPA Director since the two SELPAs currently have 1.5 Directors. If the Director for North Santa Cruz County SELPA assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, PVUSD would reduce its administrative staff by .5 of a SELPA Director. If the PVUSD SELPA Director assumed the Directorship for the larger combined SELPA, the current .5 position would need to be increased to a full-time position and the current North Santa Cruz County position would be eliminated. Through reviewing the Grand Jury Report, it is clear that PVUSD already employs far fewer Special Services administrators than are employed in the North Santa Cruz County SELPA districts to serve approximately the same number of students. This has been possible due to combining SELPA and District resources. Without the ability to continue doing so, the district would likely need to increase its remaining .5 Director of Special Services to a full-time position in order to meet the ongoing needs of the District Special Education and Health Services programs. The end result is that through reconsolidation of the two SELPAs, there would be, at most, a .5 position reduction in administrative staff and it is likely that there would be no reduction. The Grand Jury report indicates on -7, Item 24, that the Special Education encroachment in Santa Cruz County school districts “is slightly higher at 27% as compared to the state average of 26%”. Using the data presented in Table 4, -8 of the Grand Jury Report, the percentage of encroachment for each individual school district can be calculated. PVUSD’s encroachment percentage is approximately 20% which is less than the state average. Many of the other Santa Cruz County school districts have much higher encroachment rates typically ranging from 38% to 53%. The combined Special Education encroachment for all of the districts in the county totals Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -29 $10,490,459. PVUSD’s portion of this is only $3,510,717 or 33.47% even though it is the same size and serves approximately the same number of students as the Districts in North Santa Cruz County. Since PVUSD’s encroachment is already lower than the state average and many of the other districs are above the state average, combining the two SELPAs and their resources into one SELPA may lead to a larger encroachment rather than a smaller one for PVUSD depending on the method of allocation of funds.
R6: The COE should examine the potential benefits of consolidating the administration and/or implementation of selected and/or all special education programs in the COE. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education Requires further analysis and clarity as to what the recommendation specifies. It is difficult to determine whether the recommendation addresses consolidation within the COE, consolidating COE administration with SELPA, or consolidation with districts. In respect to the examination of consolidation benefits in general, there is an existing review process in place that continually exams these programs. This is apparent in the work done by the Special Education Council which constantly looks for ways to become more efficient in special education operations and to reduce costs. One such example is the recent change to a new agency to provide one-to-one instructional aides personnel that is saving the districts thousands of dollars. With respect to the administration within the COE, consolidation has already been implemented. The special education programs of Santa Cruz County COE have been consolidated down to two administrators with one support staff shared among them. These administrators distribute state funds among the COE special education programs and oversee the entire educational process of the COE special education district. The support staff consists of three individuals whose duties are mandated by the federal government and whose work is vital to providing support services for special education programs. Within this framework, there is no real room for further reduction of COE administrative staff.
F31: The COE could not provide information about the costs of services and programs for individual students across the county. COE officials observed that the bulk of special education students use relatively small amounts of specical education services and a small number of students are very expensive. The COE does not keep track of the cost of programs per individual student and its record keeping is not structured to permit the evaluation of amount of services delivered to individuals. -16 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Not only is it cost prohibitive to initiate this type of tracking plan, but also there are two large privacy issues that arise when contemplating keeping detailed records for special education students. The first is confidentiality. To record every expense on a special education student would be a violation of the Family Privacy Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and civil rights. Specifically in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), it is stated that the rights of children and their families must be safeguarded through procedural protections in accordance with due process. IDEA therefore would prevent listing children’s names with their expenses as this information would be harmful if made public. Secondly, this type of record keeping would be considered discrimination, as these records are not kept for general education students. This type of system is impractical to implement, as it is cost prohibitive, and impossible to determine the percentage of a service that a specific child uses of every program, service, technological device, etc.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
R5: All districts and the COE should create automated cost tracking systems for each special education student. All districts and the COE should then aggregate special education costs at the district level in order to be able to present and evaluate the effectiveness of mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This will not be implemented because it is a violation of multiple statutes. The reason the COE does not keep an itemized individual record of cost per programs within special education services is because doing so would create privacy and discrimination issues. Considering that the costs of programs per individual students are not kept for general education students, to specifically target special education students would not only be an infringement on the privacy guaranteed to them by the Family Privacy Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), IDEA PL 94-142, and Americans with Disabilities Act, but also violates civil rights. These statues and legislation have been designed to safeguard the security and confidentiality of an individual's personal information, and to list the specific expenses of each disabled student would be considered illegal and a blatant form of discrimination. Lastly, even if this system of record keeping were legal to implement, it would be incredibly expensive, time consuming, and virtually impossible to compile a list of all the students and the services they require. Furthermore, tracking a detailed summary of financial expenses would be futile as these programs are mandated by the state and dictated by IEP’s. The district has no choice but to provide the required services regardless of their costs. Ac Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This requires further analysis including cost benefit analysis. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District The district agrees with County Office of Education and County Board of Education Response. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES SLVUSD has begun to study District procedures including: compliance, staffing ratios, and SNPA/NPS costs in order to determine how our services are aligned to the State’s Special Education performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike Districts may lead one to draw false conclusions. -34 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES Creating an automated cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various salary schedules, overhead cost, etc.) and district to regional program (i.e. various salary schedules and overhead cost, etc.). Any cost comparison indicators should also be aligned and measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike districts’ student cost to unlike performance basis will force one to draw false conclusions. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES Creating an automated cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various salary schedules, overhead costs, etc.) and district to regional programs (i.e. various salary schedules and overhead costs, etc.). Any cost comparisons indicators should also be aligned and measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike district student costs to an unlike performance basis will force one to draw false conclusions.
F32: The COE Special Education programs are effective in delivering services to special education students. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES The Santa Cruz County of Education appreciates the Grand Jury’s arrival at this conclusion. Through the assistance of its experienced staff, the COE will carry on providing its comprehensive level of services and will continually upgrade in order to ensure that special education students receive the best education possible. By implementing strategies such as operating regional programs to serve specific needs children, the overall quality of services available to students increases in the most effective and cost efficient manner. Moreover, the COE has taken measures to further heighten its success by implementing the Baldridge system of management in the educational process. Baldridge techniques aide the COE in its efforts to continually review its progress and target areas it would like to strengthen. Restricted Routine Maintenance
F33: The Restricted Routine Maintenance Account is a requirement for those districts that have participated in the State School Construction Program, since 1998. Since that time, as a condition of receiving construction funding, school districts are required to contribute 3% of their general fund budget to a restricted account for school maintenance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F34: Once the money has been allocated to this restricted routine maintenance, it can no longer be used for other general education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -17 Growing numbers of mandated funds put pressure on the schools to provide certain levels of services that are not necessarily warranted in their areas. It also leads to a less flexible division of funds which results in a decrease in general education programs and an increase in funds to areas that may not be utilized by all students. Transportation
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F35: In the mid 1980s, the State Legislature changed the funding formula for reimbursement for pupil transportation costs. The mechanism moved from an "actual cost based" system to a "capped revenue" system. Districts began receiving funding based on the previous year's revenue, not actual transportation expense. Over time, transportation costs have grown but state provided transportation revenue has been reduced. Today's transportation funding statewide is generally less than 50% of reported cost while the average for Santa Cruz districts is 45%. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F36: County Office of Education staff asserted that consistent with existing statutes, public school transportation for the student in regular education is a privilege, not a right. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F37: County Office of Education staff also asserted that consistent with federal statutes, transportation of Special Education students is a right, not a privilege and is dictated by the IEP. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F38: Table 6 identifies the revenues/costs for Santa Cruz County districts for regular education and special education transportation. Because of the low incidence and special needs of the special education population the elevated cost for that population is partially due to the "door to door" services that are provided. Table 6: Countywide Transportation Cost and Revenue Transportation Regular Transportation Special Education Revenue Education Encroachment Total $3,688,073 $4,443,089 $3,700,551 ($4,430,611) Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education AGREES This is just one example of why special education expenses far exceed those of general education. Students with special needs often need “curb-to-curb” service, aides to assist them on their rides, or cannot be on the bus for long periods of time, so that they may not be transported with general education students. This increases the cost as more buses with specialized equipment are required. -18 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special A Case Study: “Santa Cruz City Schools: Declining Enrollment, Increased Requirements and Community preferences”
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F39: Santa Cruz City Schools is actually two school districts sharing one administration. There is an elementary district and a secondary district. In this report we will refer to Santa Cruz City Schools (SCCS) as a single administrative entity except where the differences between the elementary and secondary district are important. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F40: An overview of SCCS is provided in Table 7. Table 7: Santa Cruz City Schools District Number of Number of Yearly Founded District Students Budget Employees 1857 7,793 $55,896,870 939 Fifteen Schools — Kindergarten (K) through 12th Grade • Two Ark Studies Schools: Ark School (9-12) and Home Studies AFE (K-12) • Alternative Family Education K-12 • Bayview Elementary School • Branciforte Elementary School • De Laveaga Elementary School • Gault Elementary School • Monarch Elementary School • Natural Bridges Elementary School • Westlake Elementary School • Sojourn Charter Middle School • Branciforte Junior High School • Mission Hill Junior High School • Delta Charter High School • Harbor High School • Loma Prieta High School • Santa Cruz High School • Soquel High School Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES Sojourn Charter Middle School has voluntarily ceased to exist. Note there are not two Ark Studies Schools. There is Ark School (9-12) and Alternative Family Education (K-12) Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -19
F41: The Elementary District historical enrollment is shown by Figure 2 below: Figure 2: Enrollment in California Public Schools-Santa Cruz City Elementary 3,457 E n r o l l m e n t 0 19 3 9 ,3 3 1 - 7 9 4 19 3 9 ,4 4 5 - 7 9 5 19 3 9 ,3 5 9 - 5 9 6 19 3 9 ,3 6 3 - 5 9 7 19 3 9 ,1 7 1 - 4 9 8 19 3 9 ,0 8 0 - 5 9 9 19 2 9 ,9 9 4 - 3 0 0 20 2 0 ,8 0 6 - 0 0 1 20 2 0 ,7 1 5 - 2 0 2 20 2 0 ,6 2 3 - 6 0 3 School Year Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES The 1997-98 Santa Cruz City Elementary enrollment was 3, 192. -20 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special
F42: The High School District historical enrollment is shown by Figure 3. Figure 3: Enrollment in California Public Schools-Santa Cruz City High 5,930 E n r o l l m e n t 0 19 5 9 ,2 3 5 - 5 9 4 19 5 9 ,3 4 0 - 9 9 5 19 5 9 ,4 5 9 - 0 9 6 19 5 9 ,6 6 8 - 2 9 7 19 5 9 ,8 7 0 - 5 9 8 19 5 9 ,9 8 3 - 0 9 9 19 5 9 ,7 9 6 - 0 0 0 20 5 0 ,5 0 5 - 5 0 1 20 5 0 ,2 1 4 - 6 0 2 20 5 0 ,1 2 5 - 7 0 3 School Year Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES The Santa Cruz High School District historical enrollment is as follows: 1993-94 and 1994-95 – As reported 1995-96 5,461 1996-97 5,646 1997-98 5,676 1998-99 5,767
F43: Many students from SCCS were transferred to Scotts Valley School District, which opened in 1999. This negatively impacted SCCS’s ADA. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F44: Overall SCCS enrollment has declined 12.7% since 1999. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES Overall SCCS enrollment has declined 13% since 1999. Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -21 The Budget Crisis in SCCS
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F45: A parcel tax measure was passed in 2002. According to district officials, these amounts will not be sufficient to cover growing deficits into school year 2003-2004. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F46: The budget for school year 2003-2004 is projected to be $4,500,000 less than the budget available in 2002-2003. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES The budget for school year 2003-04 is projected to be $3,900,000 less than the budget available 2002-03. SCCS Physical Plant
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F47: Over the last ten years the physical plant of Santa Cruz City Schools has modestly expanded with the addition of alternative education sites, portable classrooms to implement K-3 class size reductions at various existing schools and a new district headquarters. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F48: In the current fiscal year, in order to remain solvent, SCCS must reduce its budget by $2 million. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES In the current fiscal year, in order to remain solvent, SCCS must reduce its budget by $2.3 million.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F49: In 1998, voters approved bond measures totaling $86 million designated for school remodeling. These funds cannot be used for annual education programs. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F50: The District has been in the process of renovating older school buildings in order to bring them into compliance with federal mandates. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F51: In 2002, voters approved $55 million in Measures C&D for certain school programs. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District DISAGREES -22 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special In 2002, voters approved $2,035,000 million in Measures C&D for certain school programs.
F52: The community expressed, in a series of public meetings with the school board, the desire to retain the existing schools. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Special Education in Santa Cruz City Schools
F53: SCCS provides $8,270,216.50 in special education services out of a total school budget of $55,000,000. $3,907,236 of these special education expenses encroach on general education programs. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F54: SCCS provides the following special education programs: • Adaptive Physical Education • Deaf and Hard of Hearing • Extended Year services • Occupational Therapy • Preschool Resource Specialist Program • Resource Specialist Program • Preschool Special Day Class • Special Day Class • Preschool Speech • Speech and Language Program • Non-public Agency Services • Non-public School Services Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F55: These programs are supported by these additional support services • Administration • Bilingual Assessment Team • Central Assessment Team • Psychologists • Transition Program • Workability/Vocational Education Other Administrative • Home and Hospital Program Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -23 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F56: The costs of these programs and services are summarized in Table 8. Table 8: Cost of Special Education Program and Services in Santa Cruz City Schools # of Cost per Special Education Program Budget Students student Adaptive Physical Education 40 $7,664 $153,297 Deaf and Hard of Hearing 36 $12,432 $124,327 Extended Year services TBD $32,399 Occupational Therapy 47 $2,079 $97,741 Pre-School Resource Specialist Program 12 $10,319 $124,605 Resource Specialist Program 751 $6,520 $2,495,883 Pre-School Special Day Class 7 $20,457 $143,201 Special Day Class 167 $19,556 $1,583,088 Pre-School Speech 49 $2,986 $146,352 Speech and Language Program 359 $2,194 $424,619 Non-public Agency Services 84 $32,587 $917,137 Non-public School Services 5 $50,220 $251,102 Administration $555,720 Bilingual Assessment Team $11,480 Central Assessment Team $124,614 Psychologists $574,115 Transition Program $155,615 Workability/Vocational Education Other Administrative $201,130 Other Administrative $78,079 Home and Hospital Program $31,706 Medi-Cal Grants $44,000 Total $8,270,210 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F57: There are 1,067 students receiving special education services in SCCS. The numbers cited in the table above tally to more than 1,067 because some students require services in more than one program. SCCS could not provide information about the distribution of services across all the 1,067 students in special education. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F58: Santa Cruz City Schools could not provide information about the costs of services and programs for all individual students. The district does not keep track of the cost of -24 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special programs per student and its record keeping is not structured to permit the evaluation of the amount of services delivered to individuals. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District PARTIALLY AGREES Could not provide complete information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: All districts and the COE should create automated cost tracking systems for each special education student. All districts and the COE should then aggregate special education costs at the district level in order to be able to present and evaluate the effectiveness of mandated special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This will not be implemented because it is a violation of multiple statutes. The reason the COE does not keep an itemized individual record of cost per programs within special education services is because doing so would create privacy and discrimination issues. Considering that the costs of programs per individual students are not kept for general education students, to specifically target special education students would not only be an infringement on the privacy guaranteed to them by the Family Privacy Act, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), IDEA PL 94-142, and Americans with Disabilities Act, but also violates civil rights. These statues and legislation have been designed to safeguard the security and confidentiality of an individual's personal information, and to list the specific expenses of each disabled student would be considered illegal and a blatant form of discrimination. Lastly, even if this system of record keeping were legal to implement, it would be incredibly expensive, time consuming, and virtually impossible to compile a list of all the students and the services they require. Furthermore, tracking a detailed summary of financial expenses would be futile as these programs are mandated by the state and dictated by IEP’s. The district has no choice but to provide the required services regardless of their costs. Ac Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This requires further analysis including cost benefit analysis. Response: Pajaro Valley Unified School District The district agrees with County Office of Education and County Board of Education Response. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District PARTIALLY AGREES SLVUSD has begun to study District procedures including: compliance, staffing ratios, and SNPA/NPS costs in order to determine how our services are aligned to the State’s Special Education performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike Districts may lead one to draw false conclusions. -34 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special Response: Live Oak School District PARTIALLY AGREES Creating an automated cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various salary schedules, overhead cost, etc.) and district to regional program (i.e. various salary schedules and overhead cost, etc.). Any cost comparison indicators should also be aligned and measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike districts’ student cost to unlike performance basis will force one to draw false conclusions. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District PARTIALLY AGREES Creating an automated cost tracking system will vary between district to district (i.e. various salary schedules, overhead costs, etc.) and district to regional programs (i.e. various salary schedules and overhead costs, etc.). Any cost comparisons indicators should also be aligned and measured against the State’s Special Education Performance Indicator report. Comparing unlike district student costs to an unlike performance basis will force one to draw false conclusions.
F59: For this report, SCCS did determine the cost on an individual basis of the special education services used by the ten students who consume the most services. The results are presented in Table 9 below. Table 9: Special Education Expense for 10 Students in SCCS Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 Student 5 Student 6 Student 7 Student 8 Student 9 Student 10 Totals Speech/Language $ 174 $ 1,620 $ 2,223 $ 3,729 $ 798 $ 320 $ 1,147 $ 10,012 Occupational Therapy $ 452 $ 906 $ 4,011 $ 3,173 $ 904 $ 906 $ 10,352 Adaptive PE $ 14,540 $ 1,933 $ 2,131 $ 960 $ 2,136 $ 21,701 Classroom Teacher $ 6,865 $ 6,832 $ 687 $ 4,600 $ 5,013 $ 5,013 $ 8,006 $ 37,015 Interpreter $ 2,338 $ 2,338 Instructional Assistant $ 20,071 $ 19,169 $ 2,461 $ 28,000 $ 32,966 $ 24,609 $ 127,276 Behavior Tech $ 33,315 $ 21,818 $ 17,936 $ 73,069 Behavior/Inclusion Specialist $ 940 $ 5,658 $ 470 $ 943 $ 943 $ 8,954 NPA Behavior Specialist $ 1,125 $ 18,055 $ 3,600 $ 3,380 $ 1,500 $ 20,750 $ 48,410 NPA Augmented Comm $ 2,700 $ 2,700 Vocational Education $ 1,614 $ 1,614 Instructional Materials $ 773 $ 773 Facilitated Communication $ 2,725 $ 2,725 Lawyer Fees $ 2,309 $ 19 $ 11,176 $ 219,879 $ 233,383 Non-public School Placement $ 58,442 $ 74,880 $ 22,050 $ 155,372 Equipment Lease $ 2,888 $ 2,888 FC Specialist $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Transition Services $ 753 $ 753 Resource Specialist $ 1,044 $ 3,850 $ 471 $ 3,795 $ 9,160 Extended Year $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 Transportation $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 30,000 Admin Support $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 2,796 $ 27,964 Psychologist Support $ 381 $ 1,087 $ 1,270 $ 1,270 $ 896 $ 896 $ 717 $ 1,505 $ 1,353 $ 9,374 IEP Team Meetings $ 21,000 $ 15,000 $ 9,000 $ 72,000 $ 12,000 $ 52,000 $ 21,000 $ 46,500 $ 248,500 $ 70,827 $ 59,543 $ 79,655 $ 110,676 $ 148,981 $ 53,530 $ 109,301 $ 63,570 $ 54,449 $ 334,800 $ 1,085,333 Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -25 60. 1% of the special education students population in SCCS consume 13% of the special education resources required. Put another way, 10 students consume 2% of the entire SCCS budget. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
F61: The encroachment of special education on the general education budget is imposing a nearly $580 reduction per student on the delivery of educational services to the rest of the general student population. Put another way the average student’s access to general education services is reduced by nearly 7% to pay for the encroachment of special education programs. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F62: Encroachment of mandated special education is nearly double the budget shortfall in SCCS in 2002-2003. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Other Mandated Programs in Santa Cruz City Schools
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F63: SCCS has $1,753,605 in restricted maintenance budget. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.
F64: Transportation for 120 special education students cost $630,358. The district receives $127,945 in state funding for special education transportation. This program encroaches $502,413 into the general revenue programs. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District AGREES Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Live Oak School District, San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District , Santa Cruz City Schools District, Soquel Union Elementary School District and the COE should -32 Review of School Budget Crisis and Special present in special public sessions to their governing boards a five year plan for bringing projected revenues, cost of programs and declining enrollments into balance. Response: Santa Cruz County Office of Education This has been partially implemented. The COE already follows a system for the review and planning of balancing projected revenues, program costs, and declining enrollments into balance. The existing system is a three-year plan with three additional checkpoints throughout each year. This is done in accordance with state mandates. A five-year plan is difficult in that it is difficult to predict the wide fluctuations from year-to-year. Once the prediction gets out past the third year there is little credibility in it. Response: Santa Cruz City Schools District This is currently being implemented. Response: San Lorenzo Valley Unified School District DISAGREES The SLVUSD already provides a three year projection of revenue and expenditures at public Board Meetings when the Adopted Budget, First Interim Financial Report, and Second Interim Financial Report are presented to the Governing Board for review and approval. The three year projections of the financial status of the District is a legally required component of the budget and financial reports. A multiyear enrollment project is also presented to the Governing Board at a public Board Meeting during the budget development cycle for the following fiscal year. In addition, the Governing Board has requested that an analysis of declining enrollment and the contributing factors to the decline be developed and maintained historically. This analysis will be presented to the Governing Board for information at least annually. Response: Live Oak School District DISAGREES Since the adoption of its annual budget in 2000-2001, the Live Oak District has consistently provided the public with a seven-year fiscal proforma. This document resulted in the Live Oak District Governing Board appointing a twenty-five (25) person citizens advisory committee in September 2001 to develop its Economic Viability Report which was adopted on February 12, 2002. The District’s last State Second Period Attendance Report (P2) showed a net minimal decline of only 13.8 students from the prior State reporting period. This pattern indicates the District’s enrollment/attendance decline is stabilizing. Response: Soquel Union Elementary School District DISAGREES The Soquel Union Elementary School District has consistently provided opportunities for public review of the budget. As part of the existing budgetary process, multi-year Review of School Budget Crisis and Special -33 projections are required for three year periods. While long term planning is certainly appropriate and important, the traditional budget process, with the public hearings that are a part of this process, provide opportunities for public review of district projected revenues and implementation of programs.