Santa Cruz County Grand Jury

2003-2004

18 reports

Findings & Recommendations 8 findings
F1: There are three Geological Hazard Abatement Districts in Santa Cruz County. The County manages one GHAD and private property owners manage the other two. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES There are three County districts: Corralitos, Mid-County, and Heartwood Hill. There are two private districts.
F2: The County managed GHAD is composed of ten separate properties in Aptos, Boulder Creek, and Watsonville. The properties were severely damaged by landslides and are now uninhabitable or remain at risk of further landslide activity. The County of Santa Cruz acquired the properties through FEMA’s Hazard Grant Mitigation Program. The property owners were compensated $1,941,000, which was 75% of the assessed value of the properties ($2,588,000). The remaining dwellings on the properties were demolished; the County maintains and holds the land as open space. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F3: The demolition and maintenance of the county properties as open space is intended to contribute to public safety.
F4: The GHADs located in Santa Cruz County that are managed by private property owners are Pajaro Dunes in Watsonville and Depot Hill in Capitola. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County has no jurisdiction over privately managed GHADs and cannot comment on the accuracy of this finding.
F5: The success or failure of a GHAD plan managed by private property owners is contingent on those involved within the District.
F6: Liability protection and the ability to levy assessments through property taxes are two features that make a GHAD attractive. GHADs offer guarantees with respect to the security of property values, because the GHAD is sued (rather than individual property owners) and the property thus becomes more marketable.
F7: There are some disadvantages to GHADs. For example GHADs: • cannot be easily dissolved • can be added to by a vote of 51% of the adjacent property owners, forcing some reticent parties to be a part • cannot compensate members for “soft” losses, such as emotional distress or diminution in value • can be enjoined in legal action by disgruntled members or adjacent parcel owners, increasing operating costs
F8: Property owners can evaluate if the geological hazard is worth the disadvantages of possible lawsuits or infighting prior to creating a GHAD. Conclusions
Findings & Recommendations 23 findings
F1: The Little Hoover Commission investigates state agencies and their practices. After conducting extensive research, the commission recommended that the State of California and its counties adopt changes in their child welfare agencies such as CPS. The
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The County Board of Supervisors should create a Citizen Review Board as recommended Family and Children’s Services -9 by the Little Hoover Commission. This Board should review child welfare services and make recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, local agencies and others regarding improvements. Membership should include representatives from education, foster care youth, health care, civic and business. The Citizen Review Board should hire a Child Welfare Inspector General with the authority and guidance and be accountable for improvements. Responsibilities should include enforcement of rules for CPS, reform of the foster care program, and building a volunteer support network. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. In order to function effectively, Citizen Review Panels require planning, coordination, staff support, and funds to reimburse panel members for their time and travel. Without funding, it is not feasible for the County to undertake such a project at this time. In addition, it is important to note that county child welfare agencies are provided with effective oversight by the California Department of Social Services, which reviews county programs and responds to complaints about county operations and practices. The new State review process scheduled to begin in January 2004 will expand and intensify the State’s oversight function to ensure an outcome-oriented approach to the evaluation of child welfare services at the county level. Federal law does not give Citizen Review Panels the authority or responsibility for program oversight. Citizen review panels may overlap the State’s oversight role but, in most cases, cannot truly effect change because of their limited ability to impact State statutes, regulations, and funding mechanisms. Currently, only three of the 58 California counties have Citizen Review Panels. Those three counties are Kern, Napa, and San Mateo. These three counties responded to a request for applications by the State in July 2002, and were selected to receive State funding to establish and support their Citizen Review Panels. The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) requires that the State establish three Citizen Review Panels in order to receive funding under the Child Abuse and Neglect State Grants Program. At this time, the State has no plans to expand its program to provide funding to additional Citizen Review Panels. In addition, it should be noted that the Human Services Commission provides community oversight to all HRA programs and operations.
F2: There have been extensive changes at CPS since about 1980 when licensed social workers were the norm, counseling was mandatory for families, and statistics were kept. In 1997, CPS was restructured and funding was cut. Follow-up counseling was cut and caseloads increased. The volume of referral calls has tripled over the past thirty years. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The statement that “licensed social workers were the norm” in 1980 is not accurate. In fact, licensed social workers have never been the norm in child welfare services. The clinical license in social work, while sometimes seen in child welfare, is more common in hospital or mental health settings. Child welfare staff has always included social workers with a range of educational backgrounds, from Masters degrees (some with licenses) to workers who do not have graduate degrees. Once they are hired by HRA, a standardized training curriculum in child welfare services is provided to all workers regardless of their level of education. This training is provided by the Bay Area Academy, a training consortium that trains child welfare social workers for all counties in the Bay Area. The statement that “statistics were kept” in 1980, implying that they are no longer kept, is also inaccurate. In fact, the statistical data available today is much better in both quantity and quality than in 1980, due to the use of automated data systems such as the Child Welfare Services/Case Management System (CWS/CMS) that were not available in
F3: It was suggested to the Grand Jury that the system gives up on some families. For instance, over the course of ten years, the County responded to many abuse reports regarding one family. However, due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County cannot comment on whether such suggestions were made to the Grand Jury. However, the County disagrees with the statement that HRA “gives up on families” due to a lack of resources. Recommendations are made to the Juvenile Court based on the legal mandate to protect the safety of children, while allowing them to remain in their parents’ care when it is safe to do so. Although we do not know what case the Grand Jury is referencing, the statement that “due to a lack of resources, parental rights were never terminated” is inconsistent with our policy and practice.
F4: Statistics on child abuse are skewed toward lower socio-economic families. Higher income families have resources to pay for legal, psychological and medical assistance. Thus their issues do not become part of the CPS record. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The correlation between poverty and child abuse/neglect is a national phenomenon, not unique to Santa Cruz County. However, we would like to provide clarification to the Grand Jury’s finding that higher-income families’ “issues do not become part of the CPS record.” Reports of suspected child abuse/neglect are made by community members, and every report becomes a part of the record regardless of the subject’s socio-economic status. In addition, an attorney is appointed through the dependency system for every family that becomes involved with the Juvenile Court, regardless of their ability to pay. Families that cannot afford private health and mental health services are also able to access these services through the Health Services Agency.
F5: The Grand Jury heard testimony that response by CPS to child-at-risk complaints is inconsistent. Some staff have developed reputations for excessive enforcement. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES On a daily basis, social workers are required to make complex judgments regarding a large number of factors affecting safety and risk to children. The Human Resources Agency provides extensive training and supervision in order to ensure that casework decisions are made as consistently as possible; however, every family’s circumstances are unique and decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is never made by a social worker in isolation; all removal decisions are reviewed by an HRA supervisor and law enforcement before the child is removed. In the last year, we have further enhanced the consistency of staff decision making by implementing Structured Decision Making, a set of nationally recognized, research-based tools that social workers now use to assist them in assessing safety, risk, and the readiness of parents to reunify safely with their children. Family and Children’s Services -3
F6: The Division reports a need for more foster parents for teenagers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. The Human Resources Agency has a need for more foster parents who have the willingness and ability to care for teenagers. The agency is always working to recruit more foster parents for this age group. Fortunately, this problem has been partially mitigated by new regulations regarding the procedures for approving relatives and non-relative extended family members (NREFMs) to provide care for children in placement. In the last six months, we have substantially increased the number of children, especially teens, who are placed with relative and NREFM caregivers.
F7: Foster parents need to have training in child development, basic child psychology background and a desire to help. They also need access to therapy to help damaged children. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Foster parents do in fact receive considerable training. As a requirement of licensing, all foster parents receive 24 hours of “PRIDE” training in child development, discipline techniques, cultural issues, emotional issues experienced by foster children, family relationships and dynamics, as well as the child welfare system and the dependency court process. Foster parents who enroll in the Agency’s Options for Recovery program, which serves young children affected by parental substance abuse, receive an additional 21 hours of training on the characteristics of drug exposed infants, effects of drugs and alcohol on development, special medical needs, how to care for drug exposed infants, cycles of abuse and addiction, and self-care when serving as a caregiver. In addition to these two major training curricula, various trainings on special topics are offered throughout the year. Some of the training classes are taught by experienced Agency staff; others are taught by outside experts such as physicians and psychologists under contract with the Agency. Panels of foster parents, birth parents, and former foster youth are also included in order to share their experiences with new foster parents. Regarding access to psychotherapy, HRA conducts a preliminary screening of every foster child to determine whether the child has behavioral issues that indicate a potential need for mental health services. If so, the child is referred to the Health Services Agency’s Children’s Mental Health Services for more in-depth assessment. If the assessment indicates a need for mental health services, the child receives therapy, medication, and/or other services as needed through County Mental Health. In addition, when a child in placement has special medical, developmental/educational, or emotional problems, foster parents are eligible to receive a higher rate of reimbursement (called a specialized care rate) in order to provide additional care and supervision to meet the child’s needs.
F8: Foster parents lack adequate training to participate fully in the court process. -4 Family and Children’s Services Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Although the court process is covered in the standard PRIDE training curriculum, HRA agrees that this aspect of the curriculum could be strengthened and covered in more detail and is taking steps to do so.
F9: Long-term foster parent caregivers sometimes lack a support system, such as someone to call in an emergency. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Foster parenting is demanding and often stressful, and it is understandable that foster parents sometimes feel a need for more support. However, it is important to note that an HRA social worker is available on-call 24 hours per day to respond to emergency calls, including those from foster parents. During business hours, foster parents may also contact HRA’s foster care recruiter for support and advice, as well as the case-carrying social workers for children in their care. If the case-carrying social worker is not available, foster parents are encouraged to call the social worker’s supervisor. Monthly support group meetings are held for foster parents involved in the Options for Recovery program. In addition, some of the Agency’s experienced foster parents make themselves available informally as support persons/mentors to other foster parents. The Agency is currently working to develop a more formal mentoring program.
F10: It was reported that 80% of families referred to the Division have a substance abuse problem. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F11: Federal and State laws have established a time frame of six-months for CPS to reunify children with their families or provide a permanent plan for the resolution of custody of children less than three years of age. Children are expected to be in Family Reunification or Permanency Planning (concurrent planning), which may lead to adoption, guardianship or long-term care with a relative or foster parent. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding, with the following clarification. Permanency Planning and concurrent planning are not synonymous. Concurrent planning refers to the legal requirement that HRA develop two parallel plans for every child in the Family Reunification program, where services are provided with the goal of reunification with parents. Under concurrent planning, the preferred outcome is reunification, but an alternate plan must also be developed to provide a permanent placement (adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care) in the event that reunification fails. If reunification efforts are unsuccessful and services to the parent(s) are terminated, the child is moved to the Permanency Planning program, which has the eventual outcome of adoption, guardianship, or long-term foster care. Family and Children’s Services -5
F12: After six months if parents have not met the requirements, parental rights may be terminated. Interviews revealed that repeated extensions of the six-month rule are common. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The six-month time limit applies only to children under the age of three. For older children, the time limit is one year. Regarding extensions, the Court extends the time limit if there is a substantial likelihood that the child can be safely returned to the parent’s care after the parent and/or child participate in additional services. The maximum statutory time allowed for reunification is 18 months.
F13: Requirements for parents seeking to regain permanent custody of a child may include finding a place to live, finding a job, and/or completing an authorized substance abuse treatment program and parenting classes, all within six months. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F14: On average, the Division places 60 children per year for adoption. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F15: The Grand Jury heard testimony that CPS staff gave false and/or misleading testimony in court and that they were abusive and threatened reprisals to those who complained. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Giving false and/or misleading testimony violates the code of ethics followed by HRA social workers. The same is true for abusive or threatening behavior of any kind. It is important to note that parents and others are sometimes very dissatisfied with decisions made by HRA and the Juvenile Court, and their perceptions of the facts may differ from the findings of Agency and Court staff. Parents who disagree with a Court decision have the option of filing a legal appeal if they wish to do so. In addition, HRA/Family and Children’s Services has a written policy for complaints and grievances, and anyone who believes that HRA staff have behaved in an unethical manner is encouraged to use this process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Grand Jury was concerned that many people were reluctant to meet with the Grand Jury due to a concern of retribution from CPS staff.
F16: There has been an increase in litigation by parents against the agency since the 70's. CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Litigation against the County related to CPS cases has not increased since the 1970’s. In looking at the past five years, the Human Resources Agency notes that nine claims have -6 Family and Children’s Services been filed against the County for complaints related to child welfare services. All nine of these claims were rejected, and none of the claimants went on to file a lawsuit. The statement that “CPS is now less likely to take action to remove children from their homes because legal cases are expensive to fight” is false. The decision to remove a child from his/her home is made on the basis of standardized safety and risk assessments for the purpose of protecting the child and ensuring his/her safety. The potential for litigation by parents is not a factor in such decisions.
F17: The Grand Jury heard testimony from several sources that some lawyers assigned to represent a child, sometimes do so without meeting the child beforehand.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should designate a Child Protective Advocate responsible for reviewing court procedures for CPS cases. The Advocate along with the Judicial Personnel should thoroughly review the collected data and consider amending the law if appropriate. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Dependency Court Systems meetings are currently held monthly to review court procedures, coordinate efforts, and develop improvements where necessary. These meetings are attended by the Juvenile Court judge, Family and Children’s Services division director, program managers, and -10 Family and Children’s Services social work supervisors, County Counsel, minors’ counsel, and parents’ counsel, and representatives of Court Appointed Special Advocates. Adding a Child Protective Advocate would duplicate the efforts of this group, and would require funding. It is not necessary or financially feasible for the County to implement the recommendation at this time.
F18: About one third of CPS children have been assigned a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) by the Juvenile Court Judge. Although a CASA volunteer has befriended the child and has access to all of the child’s records, they may be requested to leave the courtroom at the judge’s discretion. There are currently about 110 CASA volunteers in Santa Cruz County.
F19: State law mandates maintaining the family unit if possible. Many people interviewed think that CPS’s priority is reunification of the family even when it conflicts with the best interests of the child. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES It is true that State law and regulations mandate maintaining the family unit if possible. If a family needs child welfare services, regulations dictate that the preferred option is to provide services while the child remains in the home, if this can be done safely. If the child must be removed from the home, regulations dictate that services must be provided in an effort to reunify the family within legal time limits. Permanent placement is a last resort, to be used only when there are no feasible means of safely maintaining or reuniting the child with his/her parents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: If the philosophy of maintaining the family unit is the first priority even when it is not in the best interests of the child, it should be reconsidered.
F20: The Grand Jury heard testimony that confidentiality regarding children prevents interaction between social workers. The Grand Jury also learned that CPS broke confidentiality when students returned to school and informed specific teachers that they knew they had reported them to CPS. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Regarding the first statement, confidentiality regulations do not prohibit HRA social workers from discussing client information with other HRA social workers. In order to share information with persons outside the Agency, social workers must first obtain a release of information from the client. The second portion of the finding concerns the sharing of information about the identity of the person making a child abuse report. By law, the referent’s identity is kept confidential. The County is not familiar with the details of the incident described in the finding, but children are sometimes able to guess who made the referral because they Family and Children’s Services -7 know whom they have told about their experiences at home. This does not indicate that the Agency has broken confidentiality. Anyone who believes that Agency staff have broken confidentiality is encouraged to follow the steps outlined in the Family and Children’s Services complaint/grievance policy.
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The Juvenile Court and CPS must preserve confidentiality, especially when the Citizen Review Board and/or the Child Welfare Inspector General review a case. Children’s identity should be protected in court by using initials or a first name and initial for the surname. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has been implemented. Although there is no prohibition against using last names in court, it should be noted that all Juvenile Court proceedings are confidential and closed to the public. The only persons present at Juvenile Court hearings are the parties to the action and their representatives; no one else is admitted. Similarly, Juvenile Court documents are confidential and are not shared with anyone who is not a party to the action. Anyone who copies, distributes or discloses such documents is subject to contempt of court.
R7: The responsibility for proper conduct by CPS staff, caregivers and parents, ultimately falls on the Juvenile Court Judge. Maintaining confidentiality is an issue the county juvenile court struggles to protect. Protection of children’s identity could be maintained in court by using initials or a first name and initial for the surname. The idea of using initials came from an Oregon court procedure.
F21: The Grand Jury learned from interviews that mandatory concurrent plans are not always created. The concurrent plan is an alternative that should be implemented if re- unification fails. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES As mandated by law, HRA’s policy requires the development of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program. On an ongoing basis, the Agency works to develop and improve social workers’ concurrent planning skills.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: CPS must create and implement concurrent plans, as mandated by a 1997 Federal law. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation has been implemented. HRA’s policy requires the creation of a concurrent plan for every child in the Family Reunification program, as required by law. It is the responsibility of social work supervisors and program managers to ensure that this policy is carried out.
R8: The failure of CPS to pursue concurrent planning often results in delays in permanent placement for a child due to ongoing extensions.
F22: The Grand Jury learned from interviews that CPS staff lacks training in legal and social issues related to at-risk children. Once CPS primarily hired licensed social workers. Staff is now comprised of paraprofessionals—without degrees, and interns or volunteers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Child welfare staff undergo a standardized training curriculum regarding child abuse and neglect, the child welfare system, and legal and social issues related to at-risk children. As stated in response to finding #2, child welfare staff has never consisted primarily of licensed social workers. HRA certainly makes every effort to hire as many social workers with Masters degrees as possible and supports current staff in continuing their education in order to obtain Masters degrees. Two interns per year are placed with the Agency, where they participate in a structured internship program while studying for their Masters degrees in social work. The Agency does not use volunteers to provide child welfare services.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: Training is needed for CPS staff to raise the level of their professional skills.
F23: Statistics that track the success rates of CPS foster care placements do not exist. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY DISAGREES Traditionally, data collection in the child welfare field has been focused more on aspects of the process, such as whether services were provided within legal time frames, than on outcomes. However, that is changing. More sophisticated automated data systems have made more useful data available over time. Beginning on January 1, 2004, the State will initiate California Child and Family Services Reviews (CCFSR), a new outcome-based system for data collection and monitoring of child welfare agencies. The data to be collected and monitored for CCFSR include measures of “success” such as the recurrence of maltreatment, re-entries into foster care, stability of foster care placements, length of time to achieve adoption, and length of time to achieve reunification. These reviews will make it possible to compare local data to regional, Statewide and national averages. -8 Family and Children’s Services Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: Statistical data regarding reunification, foster care and other relevant information should be tracked to determine the success of CPS cases. Recommendations
Findings & Recommendations 13 findings
F1: Santa Cruz County has not had a major, extended-day fire, since the 1948 Pine Mountain Fire. Fire officials report that the potential for a very large and damaging fire on the scale of the Oakland Hills and Lexington Reservoir fires in Santa Cruz County is high. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES There have been other large fires, including but not limited to: Rocha Ranch in 1984; Big Basin State Park, l980; Newell Creek, l959; Crocker, 1964. There have been several fires that originated in Santa Clara County and burned into Santa Cruz County, including Lexington, 1985; and Austrian Gulch, 1961. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fire since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the 1964 Crocker fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 In 1984, the Rocha Ranch fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980, a -2 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were several extended day fires in the l950’s through the l960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire that burned 1,327 acres, and the 1964 Crocker Fire that burned over 1500 acres. In addition, many extended day fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the Santa Cruz County line and destroyed hundreds of Santa Cruz acres and homes. These fires include the 1961 Austrian Fire and the1985 Lexington Fire. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Hill Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 3 numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying many Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 2002 Croy Fire, the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Hill Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying many Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 2002 Croy Fire, the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the potential for a very large and damaging fire. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended day fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948. For example, in 1948 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 -4 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the 1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While there is the potential for a very large damaging wildfire in this area, the statement that Santa Cruz County has not had a major extended day fire since 1948 is incorrect. Santa Cruz County lands have been involved in several extended day fires since 1948.1 For example, in 1984 the Rocha Ranch Fire lasted several days and burned 1,240 acres, and in 1980 a multi-day fire in Big Basin State Park destroyed 377 acres. There were also several extended fires in the late 1950’s through the 1960’s including the 1959 Newell Creek Fire (which burned 1,327 acres), the 1962 Lincoln Fire (which burned 3,236 acres), and the1964 Crocker Fire (which burned over 1,500 acres). Additionally, numerous extended days fires that originated in Santa Clara County have burned over the county line, destroying hundreds of Santa Cruz County acres and homes. These fires include the 1985 Lexington Fire and the 1961 Austrian Fire.
F2: Lack of fire has contributed to an increase of ladder fuels. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Lack of brush removal or forest maintenance has also contributed to the increase of ladder fuels. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Lack on fire is only one part of the eqation leading to increase in ladder fuel. Bug infestation, drought kill and lack of brush removal or maintenance have led to ladder fuel increase. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 5 However that is just one element that contributes to the increase in ladder fuels. Just one other example is the large amount of dead trees due to sudden oak death. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES When wildland fires do not regularly reduce ground vegetation, this leads to an increase in ladder fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems.2 Santa Cruz County’s redwood, pine, and fir stands, and its various brush and chaparral areas, are in fire-dependent ecosystems. But a lack of fire is only part of the equation, as failure to otherwise manage the vegetation also contributes to overgrown ladder fuels. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES When wildland fires do not regularly reduce ground vegetation, this leads to an increase in ladder fuels in fire-dependent ecosystems. Santa Cruz County’s redwood, pine, and fir stands, and its various brush and chaparral areas, are in fire-dependent ecosystems. But a lack of fire is only part of the equation, as failure to otherwise manage the vegetation also contributes to overgrown ladder fuels. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES There are other conditions that tend to create or allow vegetation to remain in proximity to trees. Ladder fuels can also be reduced or eliminated using mechanical means or by hand. The City of Santa Cruz would not necessarily allow naturally occurring fire or managed vegetation burning in areas with significant ladder fuels. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES -6 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES A lack of fire is only part of the equation leading to the increase in ladder fuels. Due to bug infestation, drought kill, and lack of brush removal or maintenance, ladder fuels have been allowed to increase.
F3: Ladder fuels are combustible material, close to the ground such as grass or weeds merging with brush or vines, which climb into the trees creating a ladder for fire. The amount of ladder fuel is one of the factors that helps fires spread. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Watsonville Fire Department AGREES Response: Zayante Fire Protection District AGREES
F4: Ladder fuels are a problem throughout the county. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 7 Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES Ladder fuels are a problem in the areas that may be classified as fire-dependent ecosystems, as discussed in the response to finding #2, supra. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES Ladder fuels are a problem in the areas that may be classified as fire-dependent ecosystems, as discussed in the response to finding #2, above. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES Response: Watsonville Fire Department AGREES Response: Zayante Fire Protection District AGREES
F5: Vegetation is denser than it was in the 1960s due to increased landscaping and development that encroaches on rural areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES -8 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. Fire suppression efforts themselves have contributed to this problem. As more fires are extinguished at a very small size, the vegetation has grown to the point that fires are becoming more difficult to control. It is only a matter of time when a large damaging fire will occur in Santa Cruz County. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES While development has increased the threat of fire in the wild land urban interface, landscaping itself does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire if done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures, and the landscaping is maintained. The right landscaping can provide protection and clearance for rural structures. The type of vegetation (both native and imported), plant cover materials and location of plants also play a part in creating defensible space. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Landscaping done properly can actually help hinder the spread of fire. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures, and maintaining landscaping. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wildland urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 9 and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES Generally, the vegetation in this County is denser than it was in the 1960’s. But this is not automatically attributable to either landscaping or development that encroaches on rural areas. Both are addressed in turn below. While some landscaping may add to the fuel-load and otherwise be more volatile than natural fuels, other landscaping reduces the fuel-load. It can reduce the fuel-load and resulting fire hazard when it enhances the defensible space around structures by replacing dense non-native vegetation with native fire resistive vegetation and by maintaining landscaping as part of a greenbelt.3 Similarly, development can improve the fuel-load because it typically results in clearing or thinning specified areas and because required access routes serve as further clearances and fuel breaks. This is not to say that development in the rural areas has decreased the fire danger. Statistics show that approximately 90% of fires in wildland areas are caused by people.4 Accordingly, the influx of people into developing rural areas increases the likelihood that a fire will occur in these areas. That said, the increase in vegetation density is more accurately ascribed to a lack of fire in fire- dependant ecosystems (as discussed above in the response to finding #2) and reductions in timber harvesting (as discussed below in the response to finding #6). Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES Generally, the vegetation in this County is denser than it was in the 1960’s. But this is not automatically attributable to either landscaping or development that encroaches on rural areas. While some landscaping may add to the fuel-load and otherwise be more volatile than natural fuels, other landscaping reduces the fuel-load. It can reduce the fuel-load and resulting fire hazard when it enhances the defensible space around structures by replacing dense non-native vegetation with native fire resistive vegetation and by maintaining landscaping as part of a greenbelt. Similarly, development can improve the fuel-load because it typically results in clearing or thinning specified areas and because required access routes serve as further clearances and fuel breaks. The increase in vegetation density is more accurately ascribed to a lack of fire in fire-dependant ecosystems (as discussed above in the response to finding #2) and reductions in timber harvesting (as discussed below in the response to finding #6). Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES -10 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Typically, native vegetation is denser in areas which have not been exposed to periodic naturally occurring fire episodes. Non-native vegetation tends to be denser than native vegetation, because it tends to flourish in our climate with a characteristic of aggressively displacing native vegetation. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plants, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plans, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES New development has increased the threat of a fire in the wild land urban interface; however, landscaping per se does not significantly increase the occurrence of a wildfire, when done properly by planting native fire resistive plans, having proper clearances to structures and the landscaping maintained. Proper landscaping can provide protection and clearance for those structures in such a rural setting thus increasing the defensible space. The type of vegetation, plant cover materials, location of plants in relation to structures, and other plantings both native and imported are other factors in influencing defensible space.
F6: Ladder fuels are a particular problem in environmentally sensitive areas, because clear- cutting and controlled burns are generally not allowed in these areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 11 The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Fire departments are not directly involved with clear-cutting, which is a term used in the timber industry. Control burns continue to be just one tool in the tool box for vegetation management for fire departments. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and controlled burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (such as Big Basin State Park, the Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, and Wilder Ranch Property). Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plan (i.e., Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES The first problem with this finding is largely one of nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a term that means completely stripping trees from a portion of land. Obviously, this would decrease the ladder fuels that are stripped along with the trees. Clear-cutting is not permitted anywhere in this County. -12 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Selective harvesting, however, is permitted in certain areas. Selective harvesting thins- out overcrowded stands and thereby serves as an effective method to reduce ladder fuels and other vegetation likely to increase the hazard of a wildland conflagration. But current Santa Cruz County Ordinances prohibit commercial selective tree harvesting on all parcels except those deemed to be within Timber Production Zones (“TPZs”), Parks/Recreation/Open Space lands (located outside the coastal zone), and mining zones.5 There is a fire hazard exemption permit available, which allows residents to clear within 150’ of their homes in residential areas that are not within TPZs. Notwithstanding the nomenclature problem, the Grand Jury’s intimated conclusion is accurate, as the selective harvesting areas typically do not overlap with environmentally sensitive areas. The “controlled burns” reference is also slightly flawed since prescribed burning has been, and continues to be, used to manage vegetation in various areas throughout the County. For example, Santa Cruz County Fire Department, in conjunction with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and other local fire agencies, has been involved with prescribed burning at Pogonip, UCSC, Wilder Ranch and Big Basin State Park.6 In fact, a prescribed burn is currently being planned for next month. As for the conclusion that burning is not generally allowed in environmentally sensitive areas, that is too sweeping. Much of the prescribed burning is specifically conducted within environmentally sensitive areas to restore and enhance the native growth, while ridding the lands of harmful non-native species. Accordingly, the PVFD believes that prescribed burning can serve as a convergent solution that addresses both environmental and fire safety concerns. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The County partially agrees, with the following clarifications. Clear-cutting means completely stripping trees from a portion of land, which does decrease the ladder fuels that are stripped along with the trees. Clear-cutting is not permitted anywhere in this County. Selective harvesting, however, is permitted in certain areas. Selective harvesting thins overcrowded stands and thereby serves as an effective method to reduce ladder fuels and other vegetation likely to increase the hazard of a wildland conflagration. Prescribed burning has been, and continues to be, used to manage vegetation in various areas throughout the County. Much of the prescribed burning is specifically conducted within environmentally sensitive areas to restore and enhance the native growth, while ridding the lands of harmful non-native species. Prescribed burning can addresses both environmental and fire safety concerns. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES Ladder fuels are a concern in the City. However, they are not necessarily a problem due to the lack of clear cutting and controlled burns. Controlled burns are not used in the City of Santa Cruz’ urban setting. The activity termed as clear cutting is a method used by large scale timer harvesting. The City does not Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 13 conduct clear cutting. The City of Santa Cruz has successfully reduced fuel loads at one of its greenbelt properties (DeLaveaga Park) by selective cutting of non- native eucalyptus trees and the replanting of native plants. The City plans on expanding this program to other greenbelt properties, especially in areas adjacent to development. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District agrees that ladder fuels are a problem in environmentally sensitive areas, however we do not agree that this is because clear-cutting and controlled burns are not allowed in these areas. Clear cutting is not a practical method of controlling ladder fuels and would not be recommended in any area except for the formation of a firebreak. Controlled burns are not practical in populated areas due to the risk of losing containment and control of a burn. Because of the high density of vegetation in many areas in California, controlled burns have become problematic under even the best circumstances, and there are several recorded incidents of controlled burns that got away. For most of Santa Cruz County, it is already too late to use controlled burns in any area. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park). Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The problem with this statement appears to be nomenclature. Clear-cutting is a timber harvesting term and prescribed burns have historically been a part of the County’s vegetation management plant (i.e. Pogonip Property, UCSC Property, Wilder Ranch Property and Big Basin State Park).
F7: In Santa Cruz County there are numerous environmentally sensitive areas, which are habitats for endangered species (e.g. the Santa Cruz Tar Plant and the Mount Hermon June Beetle). Many of these habitats are located in high-risk fire areas. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz AGREES -14 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard
F8: Currently, county fire officials and the US Fish and Wildlife Service are developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan that identifies where environmentally sensitive and high fire risk areas overlap. The HCP describes how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District Aromas was unaware that an HCP plan was being developed. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the US Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wild land interface is and the second will show the known sensitive Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 15 habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is not correct. Response: Central Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Felton Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The Grand Jury is likely referring to a grant funded effort to produce two G.I.S. data layers for maps to assist with locating those areas in the County that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both.7 The first map will show where the urban-wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas in the County. This is the first phase of an effort to be coordinated by the County Office of Emergency Services to develop an HCP that addresses fire protection efforts in sensitive areas. No local fire agencies are involved in this effort. The agencies that are involved include: the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife -16 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Native Plant Society. Local fire agencies may be consulted at a later date if the grant funds are renewed for future phases. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department This finding does not apply to the City of Santa Cruz. However, the City of Santa Cruz is currently developing its own HCP. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District DISAGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not agree that county fire officials are participating in this effort. The Habitat Conservation Plan is a responsibility of, and in the area of expertise of, the county and federal environmental agencies and not the fire services. We are also of the belief that any guidelines for dealing with brush in environmentally sensitive areas that are produced in the HCP will probably not incorporate fire safety concerns. This is also a concern in that it will only complicate the process of establishing fire safety in residential areas. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP does not describe how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Watsonville Fire Department DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP described how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 17 Response: Zayante Fire Protection District DISAGREES The County fire officials and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, U.S. and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game and California Native Plant Society are producing two GIS data layer maps to assist with locating those areas that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban wildland interface is and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas of the County. The HCP described how to deal with brush in environmentally sensitive areas because it does not exist. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarifications. County fire officials and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services are not developing a Habitat Conservation Project (HCP) plan. The Grand Jury may be referring to a grant funded effort to produce two G.I.S. data layers for maps to assist with locating those areas in the County that are either environmentally sensitive or susceptible to a high-risk fire, or in some cases both. The first map will show where the urban-wildland interface is, and the second will show the known sensitive habitat areas in the County. This is the first phase of an effort to be coordinated by the County Office of Emergency Services to develop an HCP that addresses fire protection efforts in sensitive areas. No local fire agencies are involved in this effort. The agencies that are involved include: the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Native Plant Society. Local fire agencies may be consulted at a later date if the grant funds are renewed for future phases.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts and the Office of Emergency Preparedness should complete the Habitat Conservation Project. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 27 unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire district would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Also, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should -28 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wild land/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Central Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Felton Fire Protection District Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 29 This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that the County’s fire districts complete a Habitat Conservation Plan would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. The propounded purpose of the HCP is to identify and reconcile potentially incompatible environmental and fire safety clearance regulations. While the PVFD supports protecting the environment in Santa Cruz County, it does not have any interest in compromising the current fire safety laws. As such, there is an inherent conflict of interest if PVFD participates in preparing a countywide plan that proposes lessened defensible space requirements due to environmental concerns.12 While the conflict makes PVFD a stakeholder in the process, and to that extent PVFD would like to be consulted, it would be wholly inappropriate and unreasonable for PVFD to be a party to creating a plan that may undermine its ability to enforce currently mandated fire safety laws. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because the City is not involved in an HCP project with the County. As noted above, the City is developing its own HCP. Moreover, the City of Santa Cruz Fire Department, Planning Department, and Resource Ecologist are already conducting a coordinated review of areas within the City where high fire hazard and environmental issues coincide. The City’s General Plan update process will also involve a review of these aspects. Two examples of current projects on City property -30 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard which use this approach are the DeLaveaga Park demonstration project and a fuel modification and vegetation reduction plan for Meder Canyon. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unreasonable. In the spirit of cooperation with other government agencies, the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District has already participated in discussions regarding Habitat Conservation Plan preparation. However we have not taken an active role since that is not our area of primary responsibility or expertise. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by the agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is, in itself, unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Although the Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not wish to create additional negative impact on the environment, the existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the county’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort: reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 31 This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a Habitat Conservation Plan is to be completed due to unavoidable obligations established by the Federal Endangered Species Act, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. At the same time, any HCP effort must involve the Fire Districts and any HCP planning requirements must be responsive to Fire District concerns. The HCP must avoid making implementation of fire safety measures unduly difficult and/or costly. With respect to UC Santa Cruz, an HCP is not likely to be needed for fire management purposes because the fire prone areas where vegetation management is needed for fire control purposes currently do not contain Federally protected species. UCSC is preparing an HCP for other specific areas of the campus (not for fire management purposes). If a campus-wide HCP is pursued in the future, fire management considerations would be built into the plan. UCSC is well aware of the substantial costs associated with preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore any decision to pursue an HCP should be made with full understanding of the cost implications of that decision. Take avoidance strategies should be considered as an alternative to preparing an HCP, if feasible. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards -32 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life- threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District The Zayante Fire Protection District does not believe it is within our prevue nor Responsibility to find nor commit limited staff resources to subsidize a County and Federal responsibility. This recommendation will not be implemented because the requirement for a Habitat Conservation Plan to allow for fire-safe vegetation management for existing residences is unreasonable. At the time of construction of these homes, the fire protection standards were required to be maintained as a condition of development, and those conditions are still applicable. Recently developed and more restrictive environmental standards are driving the increased restrictions on private property. As these restrictions are put in place, the expectation is that fire protection clearances will somehow be changed in light of findings in a Habitat Conservation Plan. Fundamentally, the need for clearance of flammable vegetation around structures has not changed for many years and is not expected to change in the future. The existence of structures and roads in areas of critical fire hazard suggests that the impact has already occurred. Requiring a Habitat Conservation Plan will not change the need for the removal of flammable vegetation around homes and along roadsides if these are to be safe. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 33 Furthermore, requiring that a Habitat Conservation Plan be completed by the County’s fire districts would cause an expenditure of public funds to produce a plan that will not have a material effect on the requirements for flammable vegetation management. The time and money expended on such an analysis will simply divert resources from what should be the true work effort reducing the potential of life-threatening conflagration in the wildland/urban interface areas of the county. If a plan is to be completed, it should be completed by those agencies with enforcement authority for the environmental regulations, much like the fire protection agencies work with property owners to develop fire safety vegetation management plans. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz This recommendation is being implemented. The County Office of Emergency Services is the lead agency in coordinating the development of the HCP in collaboration with local fire agencies, the California Department of Forestry, the Santa Cruz County Planning Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the California Department of Fish and Game, the California Native Plant Society, and affected property owners.
R2: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts, the Office of Emergency Preparedness, and the Environmental Section of the Planning Department should agree upon policy and create written instructions based upon the policy to be given to homeowners by all governmental agencies. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. -34 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES A cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public’s interest. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. It should be Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 35 noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Central Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. This District does have a weed abatement program that sends initial abatement notices to over 240 homeowners requiring them to abate the hazard. In addition, this District mails fire safety brochures to an additional 1200 residents that reside in the urban interface area. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Felton Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in -36 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation requires further analysis. As discussed above, PVFD does not think it is appropriate to promulgate any policy that lessens its ability to enforce currently mandated fire safety laws. Nonetheless, we believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and we would willingly participate in formulating joint instructions to homeowners to ensure uniformity throughout the County. This type of cooperative approach is currently used by the fire districts, which collectively develop written fire safety instructions for homeowners. In that same vein, PVFD would welcome the opportunity to work with other allied agencies to provide instructions to homeowners, as long as those instructions are compatible with current fire and life safety requirements. As requested in the instructions, here are the recommendations for the further analysis: (1) determine what actual conflicts exist between environmental restrictions and state and local laws addressing fire and life safety requirements, (2) determine the legal hierarchy of these conflicts, (3) assess whether a single set of instructions can be implemented on a countywide basis or whether a case-by-case review is preferable, and (4) decide upon the parameters and scope of any joint instructions. This further analysis could be conducted within six months upon agreement of all the fire districts, the Office of Emergency Services, and the environmental section of the planning department, but it may prove more efficient and beneficial to wait until the G.I.S. layers (discussed in the response to finding #8) have been completed. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The City of Santa Cruz will need to conduct further analysis of any broad-based policy and instructions developed for suburban and rural areas to see if their implementation will complement or be in conflict with our efforts within the City. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but should be implemented. The time frame is unknown pending completion of the Habitat Conservation Plan. The District believes a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. To do so will first require the Habitat Conservation Plan be completed, after which the Fire Districts could participate in the development of the instructions along with the environmental agencies. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 37 The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently employ a standard fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and the District would welcome the opportunity to now work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The US Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There is a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. -38 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. The District has developed fire safety vegetation management plans for specific neighborhoods with the cooperation of property owners based on their unique and individual situations. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Native Plant Society, County Planning and other agencies have been provided opportunities for review and input in those plans. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. We believe that a cooperative approach with other government agencies is generally in the public interest, and would be particularly valuable in this instance. The fire protection districts in Santa Cruz County currently have adopted a uniform fire code, which leads to a standard policy approach. The fire safety regulations are very clear and have not changed in a number of years. Written instructions on fire safety practices have been provided to homeowners for years, and we would welcome the opportunity to work with other, allied agencies to incorporate their concerns into those instructions in the interest of fire safety and cooperation. It should be noted, however, that a “one size fits all” policy in an environmentally diverse county such as Santa Cruz is not feasible. There are a variety of topographic, weather, and vegetation variations that lead to a need for individual review based on specific conditions. Response: Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz This recommendation is being implemented. The County agrees that clear direction should be given to property owners involved in vegetation management projects. Currently, local fire agencies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and local resource specialists collaborate to develop best practices for individual vegetation management projects pending the completion of the HCP and federal approval of the overall vegetation management program. Ultimately, the best management practices developed Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 39 in the HCP process and as included in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife permit for fuel reduction projects will determine the policies and practices to be followed by property owners under the direction of local fire agencies. Once these policies have been determined, consistent written instructions can be provided to homeowner.
F9: Local fire departments can issue citations to homeowners for not clearing brush, a violation of fire regulations. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District PARTIALLY AGREES Unfortunately, not all departments (Aroma included) have the resources to make inspections in 100% of the fire district. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES -18 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Ben Lomond Fire Protection District does not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES Fire departments can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; but many of the departments do not have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The departments have the authority but a small department like Branciforte does not have resources to do so. Response: Central Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Felton Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations to homeowners for their failure to clear hazardous vegetation. Many of the departments, however, do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. The Pajaro Valley Fire District has access to a full-time peace officer who works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. But this peace officer is currently the only person within these agencies’ jurisdictions that has the ability to issue citations for vegetation clearance violations. And the peace officer presently gets involved only when the owner has failed to comply with three warnings issued by engine company personnel.8 To enhance present enforcement capabilities, the Pajaro Valley Fire District is currently working on getting more staff qualified to issue citations for fire code and ordinance violations. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following amplification. The fire service can issue citations to homeowners for their failure to clear hazardous vegetation. Many of the departments, however, do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. The Santa Cruz County Fire Department has access to a full-time peace officer who works for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 19 but this is the only person within these agencies’ jurisdictions that has the ability to issue citations for vegetation clearance violations. The peace officer currently gets involved only when an owner has failed to comply with three warnings issued by engine company personnel. To enhance present enforcement capabilities, the Santa Cruz County Fire Department is currently working on getting more staff qualified to issue citations for fire code and ordinance violations. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department AGREES The City of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the City. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District AGREES Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. At UCSC we emphasize public education and awareness and do not cite homeowners as a matter of enforcement. Response: Watsonville Fire Department PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments do not currently have the resources to cite homeowners for not clearing brush. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District PARTIALLY AGREES The fire service can issue citations for not clearing brush and maintaining the required clearances; however, many of the departments including the Zayante Fire Protection District do not currently have the resources or process to cite homeowners for not clearing brush.
F10: Fines for violating fire regulations for not clearing brush range from $100 to $250. Fire officials report such low fines lead to a lack of compliance. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES -20 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard The fines associated with the fire code, adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Public Resources Code violations can range from $1000 to $10,000 for willful violations. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000 or six months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170 to $1,700. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000 or six) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District DISAGREES Education and cooperation works much better than fines. Additionally the money from the fines does not go back to the district to help offset the cost to issue them. Response: Central Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation. Response: Felton Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are $1,000 and/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000 for a willful violation Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The Public Resources Code imposes fines for failure to comply with clearance requirements as follows: $100 to $500 for the first offense; $250 to $500 for the second offense, and $500 or the cost of forced abatement for a third offense.9 In addition, the Santa Cruz County Code provides Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 21 penalties in accordance with the County bail schedule, ranging from $170 to $1,700.10 The County Code also states that each day may constitute a separate offense and that a fine may be treble the cost of forced abatement.11 Finally, the Health and Safety Code allows fines of up to $1,000 for a willful violation. Response: Santa Cruz County Fire Department DISAGREES The Public Resources Code imposes fines for failure to comply with clearance requirements as follows: $100 to $500 for the first offense; $250 to $500 for the second offense, and $500 or the cost of forced abatement for a third offense. In addition, the Santa Cruz County Code provides penalties in accordance with the County bail schedule, ranging from $170 to $1,700. The County Code also states that each day may constitute a separate offense and that a fine may be treble the cost of forced abatement. Finally, the Health and Safety Code allows fines of up to $1,000 for a willful violation. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES The amount of a fine alone does not encourage compliance. A property owner’s refusal to follow corrective actions issued by the court, or the court’s failure to issue such actions, are also significant reasons why there is a lack of compliance. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District DISAGREES The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District does not support the conclusion that the low fines lead to a lack of compliance. Generally homeowners want to comply with fire safe practices. For the occasional situation where there is a lack of compliance, the fire services also have the ability to contract for the work to be done and have a lien placed on the property to recover the cost. This is more effective than a fine in that it results in getting the work accomplished. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation. Response: Watsonville Fire Department DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail. Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation. -22 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Zayante Fire Protection District DISAGREES This statement is misleading and not the crux of the problem. The fines associated with the Fire Code as adopted within Santa Cruz County range from $170.00 to $1,700.00. Violations of the Health & Safety Code typically are/or six (6) months in the county jail Violations of the Public Resources Code can range from $1,000.00 and or six (6) months in the county jail to $10,000.00 for a willful violation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts should create stiffer penalties for homeowners who do not comply with fire clearance regulations. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District DISAGREES Prosecution for violations is sometimes the only remedy, but the District has found that education and information have a more positive outcome for compliance. Most homeowners want to comply with fire safety regulations. Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome that would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners -40 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in the regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear, concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. In recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Central Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 41 Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry (a stakeholder), has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Felton Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. Creating stiffer penalties is not likely to motivate homeowners who fail to comply with fire clearance regulations. PVFD believes that most homeowners who do not comply, fail to do so because they are not aware of the existing laws and/or hazards, or they are confused by the seemingly conflicting directions they get from public officials with regard -42 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard to vegetation clearance. Admittedly, there are those property owners who will blatantly disregard any attempt by a government official to regulate the owner’s private property. But even for these people, better solutions exist. Increasing enforcement capabilities and public education efforts would better solve the problem. Additionally, a countywide weed-abatement program modeled after other successful programs in neighboring counties may prove useful, as would tracking the current insurance industry movement towards conducting its own property inspections prior to renewing insurance policies in rural areas. Together, these could lay the foundation for a county ordinance that allowed a fire official to report the hazard directly to the insurance company. This type of ordinance amendment would prove far more effective than increasing the fine for what is currently classified as a misdemeanor. Because the penalties already in place are not used due to a lack of qualified enforcement personnel and because there are more effective solutions, we believe that this recommendation is unwarranted. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The City of Santa Cruz will not implement this recommendation, as it uses the County Court bail schedule for violations. The City would rather gain compliance and improve the overall community fire safety by engineering, enforcement, and education. Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The Scotts Valley Fire Protection District has not had a need to impose a fine for lack of compliance with fire clearance regulations for over twenty years. Homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and properties and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 43 Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been experienced, that most homeowners generally want to comply with fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulation. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners. Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is ineffective. Better coordination and a more focused abatement program would have a more positive outcome than would the issuance of citations. Clear concise direction would be the -44 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard preferred means of obtaining compliance. Further, in recent years, the insurance industry, (a stakeholder) has taken steps to also reduce its losses from wildfire through property inspections and in some cases have dropped insured properties because of previous fire history, location of property, etc. It has been our experience, that most homeowners generally want to complywith fire safety regulations in an effort to protect their families and property, and have cooperated with our staff in that regard. The real issue is the imposition of new environmental regulations on existing properties that are in conflict with existing fire safety regulations without guidance as to how to comply. Property owners are caught in a regulatory cross fire trying to maintain fire safety under the weight of new environmental regulations. What is needed is technical advice on how to appropriately comply with the regulations without sacrificing fire safety. Increasing penalty fees will not have a material effect on this issue and will only further frustrate homeowners
F11: Conversely, the County Planning Department has the ability to red tag a homeowner for clearing brush in an environmentally sensitive area. Response: Santa Cruz County Planning Department AGREES
F12: and recommendation # 4. Conclusions 1. A major fire in Santa Cruz County is a probable occurrence. 2. The completion of the Habitat Conservation Project is needed to establish fire safety guidelines and procedures for environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Because of an inherent difference in concerns between fire safety procedures and environmental regulations, homeowners receive conflicting brush clearance instructions. 4. The current fines for violating fire regulations are too low to ensure compliance. -26 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard 5. A fire safety committee is needed. The fire safety committee should be modeled after the San Mateo County Fire Safety Committee.
F13: San Mateo County has created a fire safety committee organized by the fire chief’s association. This fire safety program is considered by fire experts to be very successful. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District AGREES Response: Central Fire Protection District AGREES The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Felton Fire Protection District AGREES Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 25 The above-referenced committee was what the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council was patterned after. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station AGREES (It should be noted, however, that this was the model for the Santa Cruz County Fire Safe Council, which disbanded as discussed in the responses to finding #12 and
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Santa Cruz County Fire Districts should reestablish a fire safety committee based on the San Mateo County model. Response: Aptos/La Selva Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Aromas Tri-County Fire District AGREES Response: Ben Lomond Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 45 An example for a countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Boulder Creek Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a county wide council. An example for a countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Branciforte Fire Protection District Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. Response: Central Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. -46 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Felton Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for countywide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Pajaro Valley Fire District Station This recommendation requires further analysis. Fire protection in the wildland-urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County. Re-establishing the Fire Safe Council would ensure that the issue remains at the forefront, but modeling it after the San Mateo County Fire Council has already proved ineffectual. Instead, some thought should be given to creating a different model designed to address the challenging and unique demographic, topographic, and political diversities within Santa Cruz County. For example, the new Fire Safe Council could be modeled after the County Fire Department Advisory Commission, or it could be regionally based instead of county-based. These are just a couple of ideas that could be explored, although they do not begin reflect the myriad of options that may be available. Further research is definitely warranted. As requested in the instructions, here are the recommendations for the further analysis: (1) find or create an appropriate model for a Fire Safe Council that would be effective within this County, (2) determine the scope and parameters of the new council, (3) develop a start-up timeline for the council. Preliminary action could be taken by the Fire Chief’s Association of Santa Cruz County to appoint a team to create a workable model. This could be completed within six months. Response: Santa Cruz Fire Department The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, as the City of Santa Cruz was a participant in the previous fire safety council and recognizes the value of this cooperative effort. However, the re-establishment of this committee will require better leadership, management, and support from the parent (or hosting) agency (CDF) if it is to be successful. Investigation of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard - 47 Response: Scotts Valley Fire Protection District This recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future. We estimate the time required would be about one year. While the San Mateo County model is considered good, there are other models, including a California State model that should be considered as part of this process so that the best approach for Santa Cruz County can be determined. We also feel that the best approach would be to take an advisory approach rather than a regulatory approach to avoid the types of conflict that cause the prior effort to become ineffective. Response: UC at Santa Cruz Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. Response: Watsonville Fire Department This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wildland urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns; however, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. An example for a county-wide Fire Safe Council would be the make up of the Fire Department Advisory Commission. All stakeholders would be represented, the demographics and geographic differences can be expressed, and all interests (stakeholders) would have an equal representation. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. -48 Investigations of Policies Regarding Fire Hazard Response: Zayante Fire Protection District This requires further analysis with an explanation, scope, parameters and a time frame for completion. The issue of fire protection in the wild land urban interface is a significant issue in Santa Cruz County and should remain in the forefront of concerns. However, due to demographics, some thought should be given to forming sub-committees for a given geographical area, rather than a countywide council. Further exploration should be given to find other Fire Safe Councils to find a model that better represents the challenges and uniqueness of Santa Cruz County. _______________________________________________ 1 Information obtained from Santa Cruz County Fire Dispatch Records. California’s I-Zone – Urban/Wildland Fire Prevention and Mitigation, Chapter 13, State of California (1996). Id. at Chapters 8 and 13; Fire Safe Guides for Residential Development in California, State of California (1993). Information obtained from Karen Terrill, public affairs information officer, CDF Sacramento 5 See Santa Cruz County Code § 16.52 et. seq. Information obtained from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Vegetation Management Program Coordinator for Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. Information obtained from the Office of Emergency Services Administrator and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Pre-Fire Engineer for Santa Cruz and San Mateo counties. Information obtained from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Peace Officer assigned to Santa Cruz County. Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 4291.1. Santa Cruz County Code 7.92.310; see also Santa Cruz County Bail Schedule. Santa Cruz County Code §§ 1.12, 1.14, 7.92.300 et seq. See e.g., Pub. Res. Code § 4291, Cal. Fire Code § 1103.2.4 and §16 of
Findings & Recommendations 15 findings
F1: Medium Security has a total rated capacity of 96 inmates. Population on the day of our visit was 77. The Jail Farm has a rated capacity of 162 inmates and on the day of our visit the population was 115. Both Rountree facilities are clean and well maintained by inmates under staff supervision. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F2: There is no staff relief for illness, vacation, etc. after a recent 12.5% cut in funding led to a loss of officers. The economy and State budget crisis will likely require new budget cuts at County jails. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Though there is no relief factor at Rountree, we are fully staffed. If in fact there are budget cuts, it will be up to the Sheriff where he wants to make the cuts. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Staff relief for illness and vacations is provided through overtime and by extra-help employees. The County concurs that the State budget crisis will impact services in the future.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: In order to maintain quality of services and adequate staff, the Board of Supervisors should not cut funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The needs of the County’s detention system continue to be a high priority. However, given the state of finances in California, future reductions in all areas may be necessary.
F3: On occasion, inmates are separated for disciplinary reasons. Inmates can only be separated temporarily due to the open plan at Medium Security. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Medium Facility does have temporary holding rooms, however, because the Medium is a direct supervision jail, they are rarely used. If an inmate is unable to live in this open plan, his classification would change and he would be moved to the Main Jail.
F4: There are currently about 10 women in the county who qualify for medium security incarceration. No women are housed at Rountree. (See the Main Jail Report). Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Rountree is an all male facility.
F5: Staff estimates that 80% of inmates countywide are substance abusers. Most do not qualify for drug treatment under Proposition 36 Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Prop. 36). Furthermore, Prop. 36 does not apply to alcohol abuse. There are no Prop. 36 cases at Rountree. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The percentage of 80% is a figure that may be higher or lower. The statement is making reference to inmate's cases being affected even though their sentence may not indicate drugs or alcohol. It is true that there are no Prop. 36 cases at Rountree, however, the drug and alcohol unit at Rountree, (SAFE PROGRAM) houses many inmates that have been in Prop. 36 programs and failed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Sheriff’s Department should consider utilization of unused space at the Rountree facilities by renting or subcontracting this space for Prop.36 drug treatment and other related purposes. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The Sheriff’s Office has started a drug and alcohol treatment unit in one half of the Medium Facility. The (SAFE PROGRAM) serves clients that have failed in Prop. 36 programs, as well as other inmates with drug and alcohol sentences. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County Alcohol and Drug Program does not plan to implement this recommendation at this time, but will keep this recommendation in mind as it plans for the future. Current budget pressures are threatening the closure of existing residential treatment programs, and there are licensed treatment beds going unfilled because there are not sufficient funds to pay for the staff to provide treatment services. The County Alcohol and Drug Program’s first priority will be to preserve existing residential treatment services. If funding becomes available to expand in-custody residential treatment, this recommendation will be reconsidered.
F6: Drug and alcohol treatment is available for inmates at a lower cost than from outside providers. For instance, residential drug treatment costs approximately $135 per person per day. Rountree cost is about $75 per inmate per day using Pajaro Valley Prevention (which is also an outside provider). However, comparison of service is difficult due to the large number of variables in the programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff These figures were given by Chief Simpson. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Residential drug treatment costs an average of $106 per day, and includes all room and board costs as well as staffing for client supervision (e.g., night shift). If the Pajaro Valley Prevention per day cost includes only treatment costs and not the room, board and supervision related to the Rountree facility, the cost estimates may not be comparable.
F7: About one-half of inmates at Medium Security are illegal aliens. When each inmate’s sentence is up the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) picks the inmate up for deportation. INS requires that illegal aliens convicted of crimes be housed in at least a medium security facility until sentences are served. This federal requirement provides no funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The number of illegal aliens housed at Rountree constantly changes. The county does receive some reimbursement from a federal grant for housing illegal aliens, (SCAAP). The amount of reimbursement changes from year to year. Reimbursement is determined by the amount of money available, numbers of inmates and the types of crimes. It should be noted that the only illegal aliens housed at Rountree are completing sentences on local charges before they are released to INS. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The County should seek compensation from the Federal government for unfunded mandates resulting in jail expenses for illegal alien deportees. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The county has received funding from the Federal Government for the past five years. (SCAAP Grant) Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be implemented.
F8: Medium Security offers English as a Second Language (ESL) and preparatory classes for the General Education Diploma (GED). Substance Abuse Prevention classes are also taught at this facility. Classes in both English and Spanish are provided in substance abuse, anger management and job skills. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES
F9: The County Office of Education, in cooperation with the Sheriff's Office, provides five teachers to the Jail Farm. These teachers instruct Regional Occupational Programs (ROP) classes in auto body repair, food services, landscaping, building maintenance and computer operation. The facility also offers English as a Second Language and preparatory classes for the GED and an animal-bonding program. Substance Abuse Prevention, anger management and job skills training are provided in both English and Spanish. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office also contracts with Watsonville Adult Education for GED and Pajaro Prevention and Student Assistance for the SAFE Program, ESL, Substance Abuse Prevention and Job Skills. Both the Medium and the Minimum also have a variety of counseling services provided such as Aids Awareness, Religious Services, AA and NA. Rountree does give preparatory classes for the GED, but we also do testing, which allows inmates to receive a completed GED while in custody.
F10: The GED program at Rountree directly interfaces with outside programs. Due to short tenure many inmates start programs and must finish GED and other programs outside when their sentences are over. Self-motivation is required to complete unfinished programs. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Inmates that start a GED program while in custody can finish the program out of Custody at no cost. Inmates receive certificates for the programs that they complete while in custody. They can use these certificates to show prospective employers that they are trained in given areas.
F11: A significant portion of inmate training programs are self-funded through pay phones, commissary sales and other such income and do not require the use of tax money. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES Some inmate programs are funded through the inmate welfare fund; however, most are funded through state and federal funds. That number of students allowed is fixed. Funding for new classes has to be done through different revenue sources such as the inmate welfare fund or grants.
F12: At the Jail Farm, a number of programs including Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings, AIDS education classes, yoga, and church services are offered and operated by volunteer organizations. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES
F13: Many inmates at the Jail Farm are on work release, which is available to qualifying inmates sentenced to less than 60-days. They work at outside jobs or for state parks, the dump, animal control, and beach or road debris clean up. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES There are no inmates on work release at Rountree. Work Release is an out of custody program administered by the Main Jail. Rountree does send out work crews to assist other government entities in their functions as described above.
F14: It appears from the most recent statistics that recidivism countywide has increased from 85% to 89% (1995-1999). There are no accurate up-to-date mechanisms to assess the impact of various programs on recidivism. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office does have statistics on recidivism in the form arrest and booking records. It is true that there are few up-to-date mechanisms to evaluate the impact of programs on recidivism. The sheriff is tasked with the responsibility of custody and does not have the funding, staff or responsibility for conducting post sentence studies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Sheriff’s Department should compile, track and report accurate data and crime statistics for substance abuse, recidivism and program success rates. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office has implemented this. The Sheriff’s Office does report data and crime statistics for substance abuse, recidivism and program success in the form of a variety of Sheriff’s Reports, including; arrest reports, booking and housing records. The Sheriff contracts with organizations such as Parajo Valley Prevention and Student Assistance that keep records and statistics on programs such as the SAFE PROGRAM. By law the Sheriff is responsible for the welfare of inmates while they are in custody and does not have the responsibility or the mechanism to track inmates that are out of custody.
F15: In follow-up to last year’s Grand Jury report, a review of the Inmate Welfare Fund indicates an accounting system is in place. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES Conclusions

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 17 findings
F1: Because financial stability is not the only requirement for a healthy community, a successful long-term development plan must be based on a balanced land use policy that provides for all types of uses.
F2: Much of the property located in the county’s jurisdiction is zoned for residential use and located in such areas as Pasatiempo, Rolling Woods, and Whispering Pines between Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley and Live Oak, Soquel, Rio Del Mar, and La Selva Beach along the central coast of the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Much of the property located in the County is zoned for residential use. However, most of the unincorporated area is designated either agriculture or residential. Response: LAFCO AGREES
F3: The lack of a commercial base prevents the incorporation of these residential areas into self-sustaining cities despite their individual community identity. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Some of these residential areas are simply large subdivisions from the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s (Pasatiempo, Whispering Pines, Rolling Woods, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, etc) that are too small to be considered for individual incorporation and too isolated to combine with other neighborhoods. Other areas (such as Live Oak, Soquel, La Selva, Aptos, Seacliff, etc) are diverse communities comprising numerous smaller neighborhoods. These communities are loosely tied to special district service areas such as elementary and middle schools. They may or may not have associated commercial areas that tend to be relatively small and serve the local neighborhood. These areas are probably not fiscally appropriate for incorporation and would not be “self-sustaining cities.” Response: LAFCO AGREES -22 Investigation of the Impact of Land
F4: While many government services in the unincorporated area can be financed through the formation of special districts, other services such as law enforcement impose a significant burden on county finances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES
F5: The lack of an extensive commercial retail base also creates challenges for funding the necessary development and maintenance of infrastructure for the large residential areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES
F6: Because of this, the county has made extensive use of its Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to improve neglected infrastructure in Live Oak and Soquel. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES The County adoption of a redevelopment plan for the Live Oak and Soquel areas in 1987 was not due to the lack of commercial base in the area. It was mostly due to other circumstances, including: a. the rapid rate of urbanization of the Live Oak and Soquel communities following the passage of Measure J, which directed the majority of new growth into the urban areas; b. delayed community support for the need for urban services in the area as development patterns changed; and c. the impact of Proposition 13 causing new residential development to not pay its fair share for services. If the area had contained larger commercial areas that generated higher tax revenues, those revenues would have improved the County’s ability to provide services to the areas. But it is unlikely that tax revenues would have been high enough to support the cost of the needed infrastructure improvements. Response: LAFCO AGREES
F7: Because a significant portion of the property tax revenues in Live Oak and Soquel are thus committed to servicing the debt accumulated by the county’s RDA, incorporation or annexation of these areas would encounter further difficulties in the next 10 years until this debt can be paid off or manageably assumed by some other party. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES Investigation of the Impact of Land -23 The County disagrees in part with the finding. To the extent that the existence of a redevelopment agency and its related debt accumulation serves as a disincentive to incorporation or annexation, it is not clear how that will change in the next 10 years. Most likely any current disincentive will continue, barring a change in the current tax structure, until the agency’s debt has been substantially reduced, which will be in 20-30 years. Response: LAFCO AGREES
F8: The political reorganization of the central county is not a new issue. Prior to the annexation of the western half of Life Oak to the City of Capitola, LAFCO commissioned a study of the options available. Many of the issues have not changed and the study’s recommendations would be a useful starting place. Unfortunately, the report was completed in 1969 and is sorely out of date. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County is unclear as to the meaning of “a useful starting place.” Otherwise, the County agrees with this finding. Response: LAFCO AGREES The report titled “Mid-Santa Cruz County to Seek a Shape for the Future” is available for review at the LAFCO office and is out of date.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: LAFCO should commission a study of the available options for the political reorganization of the residential communities of the central county. An analysis of actions taken in similar regions should play a large role in this examination. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County cannot respond to this recommendation because the County does not direct LAFCO activities. Response: City of Capitola This requires further analysis. Should LAFCO determine to undertake such a study, the City of Capitola will participate, and make comments and recommendations, based upon the results of such a study. Response: City of Santa Cruz Investigation of the Impact of Land -29 The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. It is not likely that the City would be an interested party to such a process. Response: City of Scotts Valley This recommendation has not been implemented, but should LAFCO begin such a study, the City of Scotts Valley would participate and provide data required by LAFCO. Response: LAFCO Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable, with an explanation. This recommendation is neither unwarranted nor unreasonable, but we chose that particular response category to be frank concerning the resources that LAFCO has available and the work program we anticipate for the next two years. LAFCO, with a full-time staff of two, is now completing its review of a proposal by the San Lorenzo Valley Water District to expand its sphere of influence to include Felton. The next project on the work program is the Countywide Service Review, which LAFCO is required by state law to complete by January 1, 2006. This review will evaluate all municipal services (fire, water, sewer, parks, etc.) in all communities of the county. It will quantitatively compare the services, and therefore would be a good baseline study from which a mid-county reorganization study could later be based if there is sufficient interest. Measure U, which was passed by the voters of Watsonville in November 2002, directs the City Council to revise its general plan and to apply to LAFCO for a series of annexations. This type of proposal is unprecedented in California, and LAFCO will need to work carefully on both its duty to conduct a fair hearing on the annexations, and to craft any approval that will cover a twenty year time period. Also, in advance of the next drought, LAFCO wants to review its water policies in an effort to adopt clearer public policy concerning municipal annexations, water agency annexations, and reorganization of water services. LAFCO is funded 1/3 by the County, 1/3 by the Cities, and 1/3 by the Independent Special Districts. Many of these agencies are finding it difficult to maintain services at levels that the community residents have become accustomed. LAFCO with its duties to regulate city and district boundaries is a good lead agency for intergovernmental reorganization studies. LAFCO would consider taking the lead in a central county reorganization study if sufficient interest were demonstrated by residents and affected governmental boards, and funding were identified.
F9: Historically, the land available to develop the potential retail base necessary to support the mid-county area was a part of the County’s jurisdiction. In the early 1970’s, after considerable conflict and discussion among local jurisdictions, this area, located in the western portion of Live Oak, was annexed by the City of Capitola, and developed as the 41st Avenue mall. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: LAFCO AGREES General Conclusions
F10: The development of the commercial areas necessary to support these unincorporated residential areas would not benefit the region as a whole as they would compete with other previously existing commercial developments. Investigation of the Impact of Land -25
F11: The future political organization of the central county residential communities is of great importance to the coming financial condition of the county and to the quality of life of the residents of these communities. Decisions should not be made without a thorough examination of all available options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: The Board of Supervisors, in conjunction with LAFCO and the cities of Capitola and Scotts Valley, should revisit the political organization of the central part of the county. While it is tempting to recommend the immediate incorporation of Live Oak into the City of Capitola for the beneficial effects it is likely to have on both jurisdictions, the issues -30 Investigation of the Impact of Land related to this step are truly and understandably daunting. However, this is an important issue impacting on the long-term development of the county and should be examined thoroughly. Specifically, the feasibility of the various options for reorganization should be committed to extensive study and fully presented for public discussion and input. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will not implement this recommendation because it is unreasonable. Until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, a thorough examination of this issue is very difficult. Response: City of Capitola This requires further analysis. If the county were to take the lead in such a study, the City of Capitola will participate, and make comments and recommendations. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented. It is not likely that the City of Santa Cruz would be an interested party to such a process. Response: City of Scotts Valley This recommendation has not been implemented, but should such a study go forward, the City of Scotts Valley would participate and provide necessary data to the extent required by the lead agency doing the study. Response: LAFCO Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is unreasonable, with an explanation. This recommendation is not unreasonable. As explained in our response to Recommendation 4 on -12, LAFCO is using its limited resources to accomplish the high-priority items on its work program. If many residents and the
F12: One or more of the mid-county areas and particularly Live Oak could be annexed to adjacent cities.
F13: The areas located between Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley could be annexed to either or both of these cities.
F14: Alternatively, a number of these areas and possibly previously existing cities could be reformed into a larger city with city government based on community representation following the City of Fremont model. General Recommendations
F15: Strategic plans seek to match general land use decisions with expected future demands for services by identifying the specific goals for economic development necessary to meet these expected service demands. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola MOSTLY DISAGREES In our opinion, this statement seems to say that strategic plans are all about efforts to attract economic development so that local governments receive revenues (such as sales taxes) to pay for services. In our opinion, it is not accurate to define strategic plans so narrowly. A strategic plan is a way to articulate and adopt a strategy for achieving a goal, whatever that goal may be. For example, a community could adopt a strategic plan for developing a residential community within an existing commercial corridor, or a strategic plan for downtown revitalization, or a strategic plan for preserving agricultural lands and support industries. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The content of the strategic plan depends on local goals and doesn’t necessarily need to match up specific services with specific economic development goals. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES -14 Investigation of the Impact of Land 16. As an added benefit, to encourage implementation of the general or strategic plan, some jurisdictions have required relevant city or county departments to identify in their annual budget statements the actions they are taking to implement these goals and policies. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES That is not the case in the City of Santa Cruz. Certain goals of the General Plan were not expected to be achieved during the life of the plan. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES 17. At least one local city manager has repeatedly, over a number of years, recommended the adoption of a strategic plan to deal with the anticipated revenue short falls we are currently experiencing. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola City Council disagrees. The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The Council does not know who the antecedent to “we” is. The current City Manager of the City of Capitola has made no such request. Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES While we cannot comment about other local city managers, it is a fact that the Santa Cruz City Manager has repeatedly communicated the need for fiscal stability with respect to economic development. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville We have no knowledge of this.
Page 12
Related Recommendations (2)
R1: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should amend their general plans to include a strategic plan. These strategic plans should include goals for economic development calculated to meet the revenue demands necessary to provide the level of services expected by their citizens. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation requires further analysis. The Board of Supervisors may wish to consider the addition of such a plan to the General Plan or re-structuring the format and presentation of the existing General Plan at the time that the next update to the General Plan is initiated. However, until such time as the State of California provides a financial environment for local government where long range financial planning is possible, it is difficult to consider the expenditure of public funds on further plans. Response: City of Capitola MOSTLY DISAGREES In our opinion, decisions about whether this type of strategic plan would be desirable should be a decision of each local government, based on conditions, priorities, and communications with residents. There are a variety of ways of planning to ensure that revenues/resources are available to meet service demands, and reliance on planning for economic development to provide is an unnecessarily narrow approach. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City’s General Plan will include an Economic Development Element that addresses these issues. -26 Investigation of the Impact of Land Response: City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley has implemented this recommendation, but in a different way than suggested by the Grand Jury and disagree that economic development alone can provide all of the revenues needed to provide the services demanded by the community. The Scotts Valley City Council adopted an Economic Development Plan in 1996. Although not a part of the General Plan, the Economic Development Plan focuses on balancing land uses and businesses to assist in providing needed services within the community. This Plan provides mechanisms to reduce sales tax leakages caused by residents shopping for certain retail items outside of our City. The ability of a City to achieve specific budgetary goals via economic development may not always be possible. Each city is greatly influenced by demographic factors which the City may or may not be able to control. The business and retail sector make choices about how and where they locate, these decisions are not easily influenced by local government. Without having the “right demographic profile” a jurisdiction cannot influence a needed business to locate there if the business knows that they cannot be financially viable. This has been a key struggle for Scotts Valley due to our current number of residents, the topography of the area, which limits development (and the number of persons within a geographic area) and, the proximity to other retail corridors such as 41st Avenue which is the desired location for most major retailers who choose to locate in the County of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City of Watsonville has a separate Strategic Plan which the covers the need for economic development within the City. The City also continues to evaluate the current balance of Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Agriculturally zones land. This balance is somewhat of a moving target in that the activity in, and demand for, any of these uses is constantly changing and is difficult to predict. This balance of uses is a major consideration whenever requests for rezoning are received. We also believe that due to the changing nature of the economy that the strategic plan should not be adopted within the general plan, but as a separate document and subject to continual review and revision
R2: The Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Cruz and the City Councils of each of the four cities located in the county should require relevant departments to identify, in their annual budget statements, the steps they are taking to implement the goals and policies outlined in their general plans. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The County budget instructions direct each department to provide a brief overview of the major purposes and functions of the department and to list the major programs and services. These descriptions include workload statistics and narrative descriptions of the affected departments’ efforts to implement the General Plan. Investigation of the Impact of Land -27 Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City Council of the City of Capitola agrees that annual reporting of progress with implementation of General Plan goals and policies is a good idea. Presently, the Capitola Budget includes a section for each department for providing notes about recent and current projects of the departments. Further, the City’s Five Year Capital Improvement Plan is reviewed by the Planning Commission each year for consistency with the General Plan. A more elaborate reporting on all of the General Plan goals and policies is probably best done as a document separate from the budget, such as the Annual Report on the General Plan, which is required by section 65400(b)(1) of the state Planning, Zoning and Development Laws. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. City departments do not make “annual budget statements.” Appropriate reports are issued on an as-needed and requested basis. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City of Scotts Valley has adopted a Mission Statement for the City which is part of the General Plan. Each year the City Council, prior to the budget process, adopts goals and objectives that facilitate the Mission Statement of the City. Once those are established, the resources are provided for during the budget process. In addition, the City of Scotts Valley annually reviews compliance with the General Plan Goals and Policies and this review is concluded at a City Council meeting, with adoption of a resolution. The progress is then reported to the State of California as required by law. This review is done in conjunction with the budget process. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES The City of Watsonville requires that each Capital Improvement Project item include a description of its relevance to meeting the general plan requirements. Jurisdiction Specific Recommendations
F18: Most areas in this county are considered to be low revenue generating jurisdictions. Investigation of the Impact of Land -15 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without additional information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear what is meant by “low revenue generating”, and in what way or manner an “area in this County” is defined. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES There is a significant amount of revenue-generating activity within the incorporated areas. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES We are unclear as to the meaning of low revenue generating. Certainly the City of Capitola, from a sales tax generation perspective, exceeds the revenue of other jurisdictions.
Page 13
F19: Conversely, many areas of the county demand a high level of government services for geographical reasons and the values and desires of the community. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without additional information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear or defined any measure of high or low government service levels, and the “geographical reasons” are undefined and unknown. It is further unclear from the report the manner in which the values and demands of the community relate to the desire for services. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES -16 Investigation of the Impact of Land 20. Resulting attempts by local jurisdictions to boost revenue derived from retail development often put neighboring jurisdictions in competition with each other. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors It is true that such situations can occur, but without specific information, the County has no basis for agreeing or disagreeing with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Council is unclear on how to respond to this finding, and without understanding or clarity the Council cannot respond in the affirmative. The grand jury report has not made clear the “specific attempts to boost revenue”, nor have they made clear the manner, specifically, in which jurisdictions are competing with each other for retail development. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES City of Santa Cruz Findings 1. The citizens of the City Santa Cruz generally demand a high level of services. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES 2. Interviews with local government and business leaders indicate that the City of Santa Cruz has a reputation for being hostile to business development Response: City of Santa Cruz PARTIALLY AGREES This is a perceived perspective that is a result of land use decisions for controversial projects. However, the City has maintained efforts to counter this perspective with its retention and recruitment programs.
Page 14
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R3: Ancillary to the development of its strategic plan, the City of Watsonville, as well as other jurisdictions, should assess and communicate to educational institutions that serve its children the skills expected to be required in order for graduates to fully participate in the anticipated future economic development of the region. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The development of our youth’s skills to meet the demands of today’s job market is a major part of the City’s Strategic Plan. To this end, the City has developed a close working relationship with the Pajaro Valley Unified School District (PVUSD). The City worked extensively for the creation of the Cabrillo College Watsonville Campus and for development of Pajaro Valley High School. The City has also assisted the PVUSD’s Adult School by leasing and selling City properties to ensure the Adult School is kept in the downtown area. The City believes that the Grand Jury should encourage the educational community to become more pro-active in assessing the career training needs of the student population and to formulate programs with the input of other private and public sector institutions to meet the economic development needs within the region.
Findings & Recommendations 22 findings
F1: Widening of Hwy 1 has been a topic of discussion before the Transportation Commission since 1986. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Hwy 1 Widening Projects should continue to be the Transportation Commission’s highest priority project. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation continues to be the policy of the RTC.
F2: In a 1999 Transportation Commission survey of county residents, 72 percent of those surveyed supported widening Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES The SCCRTC administered public opinion polls of likely voters in 1999 and 2002. Both polls asked how much need likely voters felt there was for widening and improving Highway 1. The 1999 poll found that those expressing a “great need” and “some need” combined equaled 76%. Those categories for the 2002 poll equaled 79%.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz should improve Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive. The improvements should include expanding the streets to be two lanes in each direction with left hand turn lanes where possible, no stops signs, limited stop lights and eliminate right lanes that force the driver to make a right turn. The improvements on Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive should be from the intersection of Mission Street/Chestnut Street to Aptos Village. The improvements to this corridor should be started as soon as possible to help alleviate additional congestion during the Hwy 1 Widening Project. The City of Santa Cruz should approve and fund the project to improve the “Weave” intersection on Soquel/Water Street before construction begins on Hwy 1. The City should promote Soquel Avenue as an alternative to Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission -8 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses The SCCRTC supports operational improvements to major arterials to improve mobility for all modes of transportation, including completion of the bicycle lane network along Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive. It is the purview of the City and County of Santa Cruz, and other cities for their areas, to propose improvements on local streets and roads for funding, consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan. At this time, due to state and federal budget constraints and the RTC’s policy of Highway 1 Widening priority, few funds are available for programming to new projects. Response: Santa Cruz City Council The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The existing traffic pattern was implemented approximately 15 years ago and improved the operation and safety of that intersection four-fold. A master plan for the eastside has been completed and addresses further improvements in the future as funding becomes available. Soquel Avenue does act as an alternative to Highway 1 as congestion increases on Highway 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. See attached memo dated August 1, 2003, from the Department of Public Works.
F3: In the 2002 United Way Community Assessment Project, Santa Cruz County residents ranked traffic as the number one issue that takes away from the quality of life in this county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The ballot measure sponsored by the Transportation Commission should keep the half cent sales tax increase for the full 30 years and use all of the funds for transportation projects in the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will be considered by the RTC during its deliberations on the proposed tax measure, Expenditure Plan, and Financial Plan. The RTC will make a determination on the final Financial Plan for the proposed measure in
F4: The Transportation Commission has ranked the Hwy 1 Widening Project as the number one priority for the commission. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES Review of Options to Improve -3 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Transportation Commission should form a Commuter Committee, similar to the Bicycle and the Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committees, to focus on improving commuting to Santa Clara Valley and within the county, and to improve local road conditions. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation is not warranted and will not be implemented. An evaluation of the SCCRTC committees in 2001 considered and rejected this suggestion. The majority of Regional Transportation Improvement Program funds, which includes all funding sources allocated by the SCCRTC, are designated for state highway projects and projects on local streets and roads Review of Options to Improve -17 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses (65%). Street and road advocates include most local residents, businesses, city and county public works departments, and Caltrans. These latter public entities and others form the Interagency Technical Advisory Committee which advises the SCCRTC on funding allocations.
F5: Construction on the current Hwy 1 was started in the 1950s and was completed in the early 1960s. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES The section from Freedom Blvd. to Airport Blvd. was improved to state highway standards and widened to add climbing lanes in 1972.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: This service should have a limited number of stations and the proposed stations should be Santa Cruz (Harvey West), Mid-County Area and South County Area. The stations should also serve as Park and Ride facilities. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Review of Options to Improve Transportation -25 This recommendation requires further analysis and is not within the scope of the currently proposed recreational service. As noted in the response to Finding C-11, the number of stations depends on the type of rail service, technology used and purpose of the service (commuter/transit, recreational, etc.). In general, more stations make rail service accessible to more users; fewer stations allows for more express service between fewer destinations.
F6: The population of Santa Cruz County in 1950 was 66,534 and by 2000, increased by 284% to 255,602, almost 4 times the number of people. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The population in 1960 was 84,209.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The Transportation Commission should work with the TAMC, CalTrain, and ACE to determine which passenger train services could be implemented based on rider interest, economics, availability of trains and existing projects currently underway. Priority should be given to working with TAMC and CalTrain to bring CalTrain service to Santa Cruz on a daily basis. This project could piggyback on the work of TAMC and CalTrain to bring CalTrain service to Pajaro. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Santa Cruz county residents will have adequate access to the proposed CalTrain service at Pajaro.
F7: Hwy 1 and Hwy 17 experience average daily traffic volumes of 110,000 and 66,000 vehicles respectively. This traffic includes trips originating or ending in the county, not just trips within the county. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES These figures represent Caltrans 2001 average annual daily traffic (AADT) counts at the most heavily traveled section of the highways: for Highway 1 this section is between Soquel Avenue and Morrissey Boulevard and for Highway 17 between Highway 1 and Pasatiempo. Average annual daily traffic is the total volume for the year divided by 365 days. The traffic count year is from October 1st through September 30th. Very few locations in California are actually counted continuously. Traffic counting is generally performed by electronic counting instruments moved from location throughout the State in a program of continuous traffic count sampling. The resulting counts are adjusted to an estimate of annual average daily traffic by compensating for seasonal influence, weekly variation and other variables that may be present.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: The Transportation Commission should create a rail set-aside fund dedicated to rail projects in the county. A portion of the revenue from the half cent increase sales tax increase should be put into the rail set-aside fund. This portion should be at least 5% or $50 million over the 30 year life-time of the sales tax increase. The rail set-aside fund, combined with matching Federal and State grants, could generate $100 million for rail projects in Santa Cruz County. The rail set-aside fund should be included in the 2004 ballot measure for the half sales tax increase. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission The SCCRTC will consider this recommendation as it develops the Expenditure Plan for the proposed transportation sales tax measure.
F8: Under the current proposals construction on the first phase of widening Hwy 1 (aka Hwy 1/17 Merge Lanes) will start in 2004, 50 years after the start of construction on the current Hwy 1. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES -4 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Current State fiscal constraints may affect funding availability for many transportation projects statewide, including the Highway 1/17 Interchange Merge Lanes project.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8: The Transportation Commission should conduct additional train service demonstrations within the next 12 months. The demonstrations could be conducted using equipment borrowed from existing commuter train services like CalTrain or ACE. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation cannot be implemented without the consent of Union Pacific, current owners of the rail property. Recent efforts to bring the Colorado Railcar’s new Diesel Multiple Unit to Santa Cruz County were not successful due to Union Pacific policies.
F9: Elected officials in the City of Santa Cruz consider the Mission Street Widening Project a success. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission The City of Santa Cruz can confirm this finding. Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES Additional landscaping, street lighting, and utility undergrounding are underway to improve the aesthetics and safety.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9: The Transportation Commission should create a Passenger Rail committee similar to the Bicycle and Elderly and Disabled Transportation Advisory Committees. This committee should examine how Santa Cruz County can support CalTrain service to Pajaro and how to extend passenger train service to Santa Cruz County. -26 Review of Options to Improve Transportation Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission This recommendation will not be implemented at this time. See response to Recommendation B-4. In the past, the RTC had a Rail Oversight Committee, which later became the MTIS Oversight Committee, and which then became the current Transportation Policy Workshop of the RTC. This monthly RTC Workshop reviews a range of issues pertinent to major projects such as Highway 1, rail planning and related tasks. If consistent with its planning programs, the RTC may consider such a committee in the future.
F10: The Water Street/Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor extends from Mission Street in Santa Cruz to Aptos Village and parallels Hwy 1. The lane configuration varies from 2 to 4 lanes in numerous places along the route, has numerous stop lights and stop signs, has right lanes that force the driver to make a right turn, and a confusing intersection at Morrissey Boulevard, Soquel Avenue, and Water Street which is called the “Weave.” The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz have made improvements in numerous sections on this corridor in the last few years. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES Response: Santa Cruz City Council AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding as it pertains to its own jurisdiction, but cannot comment on those portions that pertain to other jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10: Interviewed members of the Campaign for Sensible Transportation
F11: Santa Cruz County and the cities in the county have a backlog of hundreds of unfunded transportation projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan includes over 225 projects identified by local jurisdictions and agencies which could be constructed only if new funding sources become available. Review of Options to Improve -5 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
R11: Surveyed Soquel Avenue and Water Street.
F12: The Transportation Commission currently plans to put a measure on the November 2004 ballot to approve a 30-year, half cent sales tax increase to support transportation projects in Santa Cruz County. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES It is not yet determined which agency will actually sponsor the ballot measure, the SCCRTC or the County Board of Supervisors.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12: Reviewed articles in the Santa Cruz Sentinel and Good Times.
F13: The half cent sales tax increase is expected to generate over $1 billion in revenue over 30 years, $506 million for the Hwy 1 Widening Project debt service and $580 million for other transportation projects. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES The Preliminary Financial Plan assumes an accelerated schedule for the Highway 1 Widening/HOV project and passage of the November 2004 ½ cent sales tax measure.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13: Interviewed the Executive Director and staff of the Altamont Commuter Express (ACE).
F14: For the first 12 to 15 years of the sales tax increase, the current proposal is to apply 90% of the sales tax increase to pay the debt for the Hwy 1 Widening Projects. The remaining funds will be used for other transportation projects in the County. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R14: Reviewed budget and background information on the Altamont Commuter Express train.
F15: The Transportation Commission is debating an alternative proposal to end the half cent sales tax increase after 15 years when the debt for the Hwy 1 Widening Project will be paid, instead of the proposed 30 years. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY DISAGREES The County Administrative Office has determined that 15 years would not be enough time to generate sufficient funds for the Highway 1 project and pay off the bond debt. An alternative Financial Plan scenario under earlier consideration was to reduce the sales tax rate from 0.5 cents to 0.375 cents in 2017 and to 0.25 cents in 2025; this scenario would leave few if any funds for other projects. The full term of the declining tax would still be 30 years. The Preliminary Financial Plan for the proposed tax measure will be finalized in 2004. -6 Review of Options to Improve Transportation 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
R15: Reviewed the Transportation Commission 1998 Around the Bay Rail Study.
F16: The current schedule and cost estimates for the Hwy 1 Widening Projects using the Accelerated Schedule from the Transportation Commission are: Hwy 1 Widening Hwy 1/17 Hwy 1 Widening Extension to Larkin Merge Lanes HOV Lanes Valley/San Andreas Roads $52 M $263 M $89 M Cost Estimate Fully Funded Not Funded Not Funded Construction Spring 2004 2007 TBD Begins Construction 2006 2010-11 2015-16 Complete Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission GENERALLY AGREES The beginning construction date for the Hwy 1/17 Interchange Merge Lanes project is currently scheduled for Fall 2004, although as mentioned earlier, this date may be affected by California’s fiscal crisis; construction is estimated to take three years. Costs for all projects are in 2002-03 dollars, not escalated costs based on the year of construction. One of the first tasks for the Highway 1 Widening/HOV project environmental review consultants will be to develop information regarding the cost and timing for improvements beyond State Park Drive.
Related Recommendations (1)
R16: Attended the May 1, 2003, Transportation Commission Public Hearing on Santa Cruz Branch Line Acquisition
F17: Successful ballot initiatives to raise taxes for transportation projects, like Measure K in San Joaquin County, Measure B in Alameda County and Measure A in Santa Clara County required extensive voter education campaigns. Currently, there is confusion among residents of this county concerning the Hwy 1 Widening Projects and organizations opposing the project have begun campaigning against it. Response: Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission PARTIALLY AGREES The RTC oversees an ongoing broad public information program for its major projects and programs, including Highway 1 projects. Transportation planning and programming processes and decision-making are complex. Public agencies, by state law, are prohibited from participating in ballot measure campaigns, or from expending public resources for campaign purposes. The SCCRTC intends to provide informational material on the proposed ballot measure consistent with state and federal law, including the RTC’s position on the measure and factual information. Review of Options to Improve -7 Transportation in Santa Cruz County 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R17: Attended the March 30, 2003, TAMC Public meeting on the Pajaro Train Station. Review of Options to Improve Transportation -45
F19: Surveyed the Park and Ride lots in Santa Cruz County.
Page 46
Related Recommendations (1)
R19: Surveyed the Park and Ride lots in Santa Cruz County.
F20: Interviewed the Mayor of Scotts Valley.
Page 46
Related Recommendations (1)
R20: Interviewed the Mayor of Scotts Valley.
F21: Interviewed the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer for the City of Santa Cruz.
Page 46
Related Recommendations (1)
R21: Interviewed the Director of Public Works and Traffic Engineer for the City of Santa Cruz.
F22: Interviewed the Director and Staff of the UCSC Planning Dept.
Page 46
Related Recommendations (1)
R22: Interviewed the Director and Staff of the UCSC Planning Dept.
F23: Interviewed the Director of the Capitola Public Works Dept. -46 Review of Options to Improve Transportation Appendix B: County Board of Supervisors Response COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE DATE: August 1, 2003 TO: Susan Mauriello, County Administrative Officer FROM: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY INQUIRIES ON TRANSPORTATION The Department of Public Works has been asked to provide responses to two transportation related items associated with the County of Santa Cruz Grand Jury 2002-2003 report. The items include an update on proposed improvements to the Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor that parallels Highway 1, and potential improvements for the 41st Avenue and Highway 1 intersection. Highway 1 Corridor – Parallel Route The Grand Jury has identified the congestion on the Highway 1 corridor to be the most significant transportation issue in Santa Cruz County. Recent voter surveys undertaken by the Regional Transportation Commission had echoed that finding. The emphasis of the Grand Jury’s recommendation is that the City and the County of Santa Cruz should improve the Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor between the city of Santa Cruz and Aptos Village, since it serves as the parallel route to the Highway 1 corridor. These two street segments pass within the city of Santa Cruz and the unincorporated areas of Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos. Because the widening of Highway 1 is anticipated to be several years away, the Grand Jury has determined that it would be beneficial to have this parallel route improved in order to provide some congestion relief from the Highway 1 corridor as soon as possible and for potential detours associated with the actual construction of the Highway 1 widening project. While the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has not indicated that they expect to detour traffic onto local streets, it is likely that all of our local east/west arterials will be impacted. Accordingly, the Grand Jury has recommended several traffic operational improvements throughout this corridor with the main objective of having two travel lanes in each direction with left-turn lanes where possible, no stop signs, and a limited number of stop lights (traffic signals). Review of Options to Improve Transportation -47 SUSAN MAURIELLO Page –2- The Department of Public Works anticipates several projects to be constructed within the next calendar year along this corridor including two traffic signals on Soquel Drive at the Winkle Avenue and Dover Drive/Mattison Lane intersections. These improvements will eliminate two existing stop-sign controlled intersections from this corridor. In addition, another traffic signal is proposed at the intersection of Soquel Drive at Fairway Drive to provide pedestrian and vehicular operational improvements. Each new traffic signal will have exclusive left-turn lanes and protected phases for Soquel Drive traffic. These three traffic signals are currently in design and are expected to be under construction by spring 2004. Public Works will be coordinating traffic signal timing from the Highway 1/Soquel Drive interchange to 41st Avenue. Once the new traffic signals are constructed, the department will have a coordinated plan to accommodate morning, noon, and evening peak period traffic flows. The traffic signals in Soquel Village are already coordinated, as are the two traffic signals fronting Cabrillo College. The two intersections located at Soquel Drive/Rodeo Gulch Road and Soquel Drive/Main Street are the only traffic signals along this corridor that presently cannot accommodate left-turn lanes. Traffic signal operations at these two intersections will be evaluated to determine if these movements can be modified to accommodate protected left turns during the evening and morning peak periods. There are significant physical constraints (the bridge over Rodeo Gulch and buildings in Soquel Village) that will not allow the addition of left-turn lanes at either of these intersections. The Soquel Avenue/Soquel Drive corridor does have two lanes in each direction between the city of Santa Cruz and State Park Drive in Aptos, with the exception of westbound Soquel Drive in Soquel Village between Main Street and Daubenbiss Avenue. This segment of Soquel Drive only has one through lane westbound due to the physical constraints between Porter Street and Daubenbiss Avenue. It would be necessary to eliminate bike lanes and parking between Porter Street and Daubenbiss Avenue to provide the necessary width to accommodate an additional westbound through lane, but the overall performance of the intersection may not necessarily improve, and the Soquel Village community would not support such changes. The critical evening peak period direction of traffic flow is in the eastbound direction and Soquel Drive does have two through lanes in this direction. -48 Review of Options to Improve Transportation SUSAN MAURIELLO Page -3- The only stop-controlled intersection that will remain along the four-lane roadway segment between the city of Santa Cruz and State Park Drive is the Soquel Drive/Robertson Street intersection just east of 41st Avenue near Soquel Village. This intersection has been identified in previous studies as meeting warrants for a traffic signal, but it is not currently scheduled for improvements. A significant amount of right-of-way would be necessary to accommodate a new traffic signal. In addition, a circulation study would be required to determine the extent of the improvements for Robertson Street, since this roadway has severe topographical constraints. The right-of-way and financial constraints associated with this overall improvement project have delayed any action to this point. It is anticipated that the Department of Public Works will be proceeding with preliminary studies for this area in the near future. The roadway segment of Soquel Drive south of State Park Drive has only one lane in each direction. The historic bridge over Aptos Creek and the grade-separated train crossing at Spreckels Drive restrict the potential to increase the through lanes on Soquel Drive into Aptos Village. The Planning Department is currently in the community planning process to evaluate potential land uses in the Aptos Village core area. The Department of Public Works has hired a traffic engineering consultant to analyze the traffic impacts of alternative land uses. The conclusion of the traffic report recommended two additional traffic signals on Soquel Drive at Aptos Creek Road serving the County park and Nisene Marks State Park, as well as at Trout Gulch Road. The southbound Soquel Drive approach to Aptos Creek Road would also have to be widened to accommodate an exclusive left-turn lane. A left-turn lane on Soquel Drive at Trout Gulch Road already exists. In conclusion, the Department of Public Works expects three additional traffic signals to be constructed on Soquel Drive within the next calendar year with significant enhancements to the traffic signal coordination throughout this corridor. In addition, the intersections of Soquel Drive/Rodeo Gulch Road and Soquel Drive/Main Street will be evaluated for modifications to initiate protected left-turn phasing. The remaining stop sign controlled intersection of Soquel Drive/Robertson Street will be evaluated in conjunction with future improvements to Robertson Street. Review of Options to Improve Transportation -49 SUSAN MAURIELLO Page -4- 41st Avenue and Highway 1 Intersection The Grand Jury has made a finding that the above referenced intersection is often severely congested along 41st Avenue and it can take several minutes and multiple red lights for a motorist to drive south on 41st Avenue from Soquel Drive to the Capitola Mall. An additional finding indicates that the three traffic signals at this intersection are controlled by CALTRANS and are not well coordinated.
Page 46
Related Recommendations (1)
R23: Interviewed the Director of the Capitola Public Works Dept. -46 Review of Options to Improve Transportation
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R18: Interviewed the Executive Director and staff of the Santa Cruz Transit District (METRO).
Findings & Recommendations 21 findings
F1: RDAs are intended to generate funds for redevelopment projects in blighted urban areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Review of Redevelopment Agencies -35 Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES However, Section 33030 of California Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code) provides the definition of blight, which includes both physical and economic blight, and includes situations such as inadequate public improvements, lack of parking among many situations, and others which lead to economic decline. Response: City of Scott Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES
F2: Because RDAs generate significant additional revenue, many local governments are tempted to form RDAs in areas that do not fit the intended purpose of an RDA or to expend such funds on projects that only tangentially serve the purpose of relieving urban blight. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without further information, the County can neither agree nor disagree with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola created a Redevelopment Agency and is in the process of expanding the project area of that agency for purposes that are consistent with Redevelopment Law. The City of Capitola uses the proceeds from its RDA in a manner that best serves the City of Capitola and that is completely consistent with Redevelopment Law. The City of Capitola does not know whether the uses of RDA funds in other jurisdictions do not fit the intended purposes of an RDA, nor whether the projects of other jurisdictions only tangentially relieve urban blight. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City of Santa Cruz’ RDA projects meet the definition of blight as set forth in the legislation. AB 1290 was adopted by the State Legislature in 1994 and SB 211 in 2001 to curtail redevelopment abuses. SB 211, in particular, gives the State Attorney General the power to seek legal action in the adoption of redevelopment projects which do not follow the prescribed legal procedures or have inadequate findings of blight. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES Scotts Valley disagrees since we have no knowledge of other agencies reasons for forming RDA’s. In the City of Scotts Valley, the Redevelopment Agency was established for a specific purpose in a blighted area. Many of those projects were to improve the infrastructure such that economic development could occur, thus eliminating the blighted conditions. -36 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City and Agency uses its redevelopment funds to relieve economic and physical blight. Language in AB 1290 has eliminated any ambiguity that may have existed in the past in the specific requirements governing what conditions are required in order to declare an area blighted.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: Each RDA should examine its projects to ensure they are of a type that should legitimately receive RDA funding. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented under the requirements of state law. Under State law, redevelopment agencies are required to adopt implementation plans every five years and update those plans in year three of the five-year cycle. The plan is required to show how the proposed projects and programs will serve to reduce the blight that was identified in the original redevelopment plan that established the redevelopment project area. As individual expenditures are approved by the agency’s board of directors, various findings must be made, including that the project or program is consistent with the adopted five year plan. This process establishes the legitimacy of individual agency expenditures and projects. Response: City of Capitola This has been implemented. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -51 This recommendation has been implemented through the adoption of the City of Santa Cruz’ 2000–2004 Implementation Plan. Response: City of Scotts Valley This City has implemented this recommendation. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES
F3: The county and all four cities in Santa Cruz County each have their own RDA with one or more project areas. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES
F4: The county RDA includes the largely residential areas of Live Oak and Soquel and concentrates on improvements to neglected residential infrastructure such as streets, bridges, sidewalks, and trees. The county has numerous large fully developed residential areas. Because it lacks the corresponding commercial areas usually found in city centers, the county does not have the revenue base required to provide infrastructure improvements in these residential neighborhoods. The county has turned to an RDA in Soquel and Live Oak to, at least partially, solve this problem. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $9,854,577 in increment for capital projects and $3,254,876 in increment for affordable housing projects. The RDA is expected to complete its projects sometime between 2015 and 2020. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County’s projects have served to improve infrastructure for both the residential and commercial areas. While expanded commercial areas could serve to increase tax revenues to support services to the Live Oak and Soquel areas, it is unlikely those revenues would also support the cost of upgrading the area’s infrastructure. Under the current redevelopment plan, the Agency has until 2027 to complete its projects.
F5: The Scotts Valley RDA includes the main city corridors of Scotts Valley Drive and Mt. Hermon Road and concentrates on improvements to traffic flow in this area. Significant improvements have been completed which have transformed a small town’s main street into the necessary traffic route required to support recent growth and development. Another priority has been the purchase of a large parcel on Mt. Hermon Road for future development as a Civic Center and retail complex. RDA funds have also been used for the construction, renovation and preservation of historical and government buildings such Review of Redevelopment Agencies -37 as the Hollins Stables Barn near the Borland Complex. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $989,309 in increment for capital projects and $663,693 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES
F6: The Santa Cruz City RDA has two project areas which encompass nearly all of the commercial areas of the city. Traditionally, the RDA was concerned with flood control and the rebuilding of the downtown shopping area after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Recently, they have expanded their projects to include: • major improvements to Mission Street, the major traffic route on the west side of the city • general business promotion and street improvements in the eastside business district • transformation of industrial areas along River Street and in Harvey West to large store retail use • renovation of the Del Mar Theatre The RDA has been working to develop an arts center in the historic Salz Tannery property, which is located along River Street north of Highway 1. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $3,920,501 in increment for capital projects and $1,980,987 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES
F7: Most RDAs finance their operations through bonds to be repaid through increment financing. The City of Santa Cruz RDA is almost entirely funded through loans from city enterprise funds and a $1,000,000 loan from the city’s Community Trust. This is a practice not available to county governments. RDA officials assert that significant savings are realized through this practice because of the high costs associated with issuing and administering RDA bonds.3 However, these enterprise funds are collected from ratepayers for the purpose of providing services such as water and sewer facilities. Theoretically, they are intended to be held for some time in order to finance future capital improvements or emergency repairs. However, it is not clear that ratepayers are generally aware of this practice. City officials left us with the impression that they had not considered what would happen if the enterprise fund suddenly needed access to its reserves. Presumably, repayment terms would be governed by the documents associated with the loans. When questioned they responded “Well, I guess we would have to pay it back.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors 3 The City’s Community Trust was created from funds generated by the sale of the city owned Skypark Airport property in Scotts Valley. City officials commented that an added advantage of this arrangement was that it prevented the city from spending the money thus preserving it for future generations. -38 Review of Redevelopment Agencies This finding concerns the City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES Redevelopment projects are frequently financed through debt. The activities of the City of Santa Cruz RDA are beyond the jurisdiction of the City of Capitola. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City of Santa Cruz disagrees with this finding particularly with respect to the statement “is almost entirely funded through loans from City enterprise funds and a $1,000,000 loan from the City’s Community Trust.” With respect to an explanation on the RDA’s borrowing activities, please see below. a. The RDA has one loan from an enterprise fund—the Water Fund—which has a current outstanding balance of $45,851, the background of which is explained in Recommendation #3 on . This loan pays interest to the Water Fund at an interest rate set by the City Investment Portfolio, which is the same rate these monies would earn in the Water Fund. The loan at current interest rates will be repaid in seven years. b. The loan from the City Council Trust Fund is for the Mission Street Under- grounding Project and was approved by the City Council and RDA at public meetings. The funds in the City Council Trust Fund have been derived from the sale of City-owned real estate. The City Council Trust Fund has no relationship to any of the City’s enterprises. c. The major debt instrument of the Merged Project is a Tax Allocation Bond originally issued in 1989 and refunded (refinanced at lower interest rates) in 1996 in the amount of $4.2 million. The bulk of the RDA’s other debt instruments as reported on the annual Statement of Indebtedness filed with the County Auditor are obligations through Owner Participation Agreements and Cooperation Agreements with the City of Santa Cruz. Response: City of Scotts Valley GENERALLY AGREES However, we are unable to comment on the City of Santa Cruz RDA and their loans through the enterprise funds. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The City of Watsonville doesn’t have the information necessary to comment of the Santa Cruz RDA’s method of funding its projects. Review of Redevelopment Agencies -39
Related Recommendations (2)
R3: The City of Santa Cruz should fully disclose to its enterprise fund ratepayers the terms and conditions of its loans to its RDA. Additionally, if city officials wish to continue this practice, guidelines for protecting the interests of the ratepayers should be developed. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -53 This recommendation has been implemented. The City RDA has one enterprise fund loan in the amount of $45,851 from the Water Fund to the Eastside Project Area. This loan was approved by the City Council in 1997. At current interest rates this loan will be repaid in seven years. The loan pays an interest rate set by the City Investment Portfolio, which is the same rate the monies would earn if they were in the Water Fund. The loan was made to accommodate the Water Fund refinancing of a previously issued Certificate of Participation which was jointly funded by the RDA and Water Fund to finance the purchase and development of the Eastside Parking Lot and various water projects. In 1997, the Water Fund chose to refinance the Certificate of Participation (to gain a lower interest rate) and the amount of funds for the redevelopment project were not included in the Certificate of Participation, but as a loan from the Water Fund to ease their refinancing of the Certificate of Participation for the Water Fund. In the event that the Water Fund was in a deficit situation, this loan could be repaid from RDA funds.
R4: At a minimum, future proposals to invest enterprise funds in local government operations should be fully disclosed to ratepayers prior to approval. Response: City of Santa Cruz This recommendation has been implemented as this information is, as previously mentioned, made available to the City Council and RDA when any such loan is made. At this point only one loan is outstanding.
F8: The City of Capitola RDA encompasses the retail areas along 41st Avenue between Highway 1 and Capitola Road. Historically, the RDA has concentrated on the development of the commercial areas located along 41st Avenue. Recently, they have had difficulty identifying suitable projects. Currently, they are discussing the renovation of the Rispin Mansion into a bed and breakfast inn. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $707,943 in increment for capital projects and $351,390 in increment for affordable housing projects. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The initial focus of the Capitola RDA was on the 41st Avenue area, including RDA action to provide for Clares Street between 41st Avenue and Capitola Road. The City Council disagrees with the statement that the Capitola RDA has had difficulty identifying suitable projects. Redevelopment increment has been used to provide ADA accessibility improvements within the project area, has been used to develop 31 new units of very low income housing, and has allowed the Loma Vista Mobilehome Park to become resident- owned. Possible road/bridge improvements to address traffic congestion along 41st Avenue are currently being studied. Affordable housing needs continue to be of major concern to the City Council. It should also be noted that in fiscal year 2001-02 $484,353 of the capital projects tax increments was used to pay debt service for qualifying redevelopment projects and activities that have already occurred.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: The City of Capitola’s RDA should not initiate further projects or project areas and the RDA should be terminated as soon as is prudently possible. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Capitola Redevelopment Agency is an excellent tool for the City and offers still considerable resources, about $40 million, for the construction and implementation of eligible projects. Such projects include: 41st Avenue traffic congestion studies and improvements; affordable housing projects; the Rispin Mansion project; and other pedestrian and public works projects. Finally, it should be noted that the tax increment dollars used for these projects do not diminish any revenue from any other local agency. In fact, the Capitola RDA increases those revenues.
F9: The Rispin Mansion Project is of particular note. The mansion is a decrepit, 1920’s-era home located on a six-acre parcel in the City of Capitola outside of the original RDA project area. This run down structure has been vacant for decades and has, by latest reports, been the subject of 140 police calls over the last year. The City bought the mansion in 1985 and since 1997 has been in negotiations with local developers to remodel it into a bed and breakfast. Recently, the City has proposed selling the property to its RDA for $1.35 million. Ostensibly, this is to facilitate redevelopment of the property, but it is unclear why these efforts would require RDA ownership of the property since other projects do not. However, the sale has other advantages. For example, the city proposal does not require the immediate payment of the purchase price. Instead it proposes the RDA pay interest on the debt at 8% providing the city with over $100,000 annually in additional revenue, with the principle to be paid in a lump sum prior to June of 2017. Presumably, this debt and the interest payments it generates would be paid for with increment financing. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The Rispin Mansion is an important historical asset to the City of Capitola. The reason it is necessary to sell the property to the RDA are several: 1) the preservation of this blighted property is the business of an RDA and should not encumber the limited resources of the city’s general fund; 2) because the curing of blight is the proper business of the RDA, the impacts from current blight such as vandalism, fires, trespass and issues of liability are also the province of an RDA. To accommodate these two goals requires RDA ownership of the property. The sale has been approved by the RDA Board and City -40 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Council in exchange for a note in the amount of $1.35 million and at an adjustable interest rate at the current rate of 5%.
F10: Since the Rispan property is not located in the current project area, the city will be required to amend its project area or create a new project area with sufficient increment to support the project. Presumably, since the Rispin property is owned by a local government agency, it will generate no property tax at all, so it is hard to see how it will generate sufficient increment on its own to support the any desired projects. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The meaning of this finding is unclear, but the facts are these: a) The Rispin property is currently in an amended preliminary project area, with the intent to amend the original project area to include the Rispin property; b) Once the project is developed the RDA has the option to lease or sell the property. If the property is sold, tax increment will be generated. If the property is leased, tax increment will also be generated through the possessory interest tax process. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Rispin property is not within the Watsonville City Limits.
F11: Many RDAs hold property or the rights to income from property such as rents or, in the case of the Rispin proposal above, the right to collect the transit occupancy tax generated by the property. These revenues generally show up as income to the RDA. However, in the case of the City of Santa Cruz RDA, they appear as a deduction to RDA administrative costs. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This finding concerns the Santa Cruz City and Capitola Redevelopment Agencies. The County has no knowledge of issues related to this finding. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The right to collect transient occupancy tax is solely that of the city (or county), not the RDA. Such revenues must by law show up as income to the city (or county). The City of Capitola has no knowledge of the City of Santa Cruz’s accounting practices. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES If any rental income is received, it is booked as such and reported that way on the appropriate State forms. As of the Fiscal Year 2001–2002, there was no rental income received by the RDA. The lease agreement on the Del Mar Theatre, which was effective in Fiscal Year 2002–2003, provides for the lease payments to be placed in a reserve fund to be used for building improvements. Review of Redevelopment Agencies -41 Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Rispin property is not within the Watsonville City Limits and we can’t comment on another agency’s specific method of accounting for expenses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: To allow for the better evaluation of the performance of the agency, each RDA should clearly present in its annual financial documents its administrative costs without deduction for income from properties held. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented. The County Redevelopment Agency in past years did combine general administrative costs with property income and expenses. As part of the FY 2003-04 budget, property income and expenses have been set aside in a separate budget unit in order to provide more flexibility in the use of revenues. Response: City of Capitola This has been implemented. City of Capitola administrative costs to the RDA is based on city staff time, materials and overhead used by the RDA. Response: City of Santa Cruz -54 Review of Redevelopment Agencies The recommendation will not be implemented because this comment does not apply to its RDA inasmuch as the RDA does not deduct property income from its administrative costs and is unclear as to the origins of this claim. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City has implemented this recommendation. The City of Scotts Valley does not receive any income from properties. Response: City of Watsonville NEITHER AGREES NOR DISAGREES The Watsonville RDA does not offset administrative costs with income from properties.
F12: The City of Watsonville RDA encompasses the central downtown business district and the west side industrial area of the city. It has been significantly expanded in recent years to add 1,300 acres to the project area. The RDA concentrates on the revitalization of the downtown commercial district, which sustained significant damage after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and the development of job producing businesses in the city’s industrial areas. The city also has plans to use RDA funding to finance its long planned Civic Plaza Project which calls for a four-story complex on the 200 block of Main Street which includes city offices, a City Council Chamber, library, and county court space. In fiscal year 2001/2002, the RDA generated $2,435,276 in increment for capital projects and $801,804 in increment for affordable housing projects.4 Response: City of Watsonville The Agency partially agrees with this finding. The Watsonville Redevelopment Agency’s Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ending June 30, 2002, states the RDA generated $3,207,042 for non-housing purposes and $801,804 for low and moderate-income housing projects. Of this, the Agency had to “pass-through” $771,766 to other taxing entities from the money received that was available for non-housing purposes together with an additional $668,894 that was required debt service on prior tax allocation bonds. Accordingly, the Agency only received $1,800,833 that was available for capital projects.
F13: RDAs are required by state law to allocate 20% of their available increment to the development of affordable housing. In some cases they allocate more. For example, the City of Santa Cruz allocates and uses 25%, but many RDAs throughout the state fail to utilize the entire 20%. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This finding does not pertain to the Santa Cruz County Redevelopment Agency. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The City allocates 20% to its low/moderate income housing fund. The City of Capitola does not monitor such allocations from any other agency. The City of Watsonville has also been designated a federal “Enterprise Zone” which provides it with significant advantages in attracting business development. -42 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Most RDAs in the area must collect a significant amount of affordable housing funds in order to assist in the production of units. While it is apparent that some jurisdictions have not been able to spend all of the affordable housing monies, Scotts Valley has made significant progress in meeting our affordable housing goals. A significant investment of over $4 million was made for a 46 unit very low income apartment project adjacent to City Hall. We have implemented a successful silent second program and worked with developers to provide additional affordable housing units within inclusionary projects than is required. Due to the costs of development and property values, Scotts Valley has had to collect funds over a period of time in order to make projects feasible. Response: City of Watsonville The City has noted this finding.
F14: It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are. For example, the Santa Cruz County RDA, in conjunction with South County Housing, a non-profit housing developer, recently completed the first phase of a 99 unit affordable housing project off Airport Boulevard next to Corralitos Creek. The first phase of this development, known as “Corralitos Creek Townhomes”, contains 23 four-bedroom units priced at $287,100 and 12 three-bedroom units at $272,100. There were originally over 200 applicants who applied for a lottery for these homes, but most of the applicants did not meet the financing requirements to be eligible purchasers. Therefore, in early April of this year, the RDA notified local governments of the opportunity for their employees to apply for these townhomes. South County Housing was to begin soliciting additional applicants as well, with the homes scheduled to go on sale at the end of June. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The evidence does not support the initial comment that, “It is unclear how effective these affordable housing programs are.” With almost 1,000 affordable housing units assisted by the County Redevelopment Agency since its inception with a substantial leveraging of outside funds, the County believes that the housing assistance efforts have been extremely successful. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES Without doing thorough research it is unclear how effective various affordable housing programs are. The City of Capitola has done no research on the “Corralitos Creek Townhomes” project. However, we note that the identified sales prices are well below market prices for new single family homes, and adjustments to marketing efforts will likely lead to identification of a sufficient number of eligible purchasers. Response: City of Santa Cruz Review of Redevelopment Agencies -43 The City has no comment on the above example. However, for further information with respect to this comment, the City RDA has provided on the following page a listing of where a substantial amount of redevelopment resources to the development of affordable housing has been made during the life of the Merged Project Area. These projects have created a mix of 831 low- and very low-income and market-rate household units in both for-sale and rental housing units as follows: Affordable Housing Projects - Completed, Rehabilitated or Under Construction Neary Housing Coop 95 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Co-op Units Arbor Cove Seniors Project 35 Low- and Very Low-Income Units Sycamore Street Commons Project 60 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units 12 Moderate-Income 1st Time Home Buyer Units Mariners Cove Project 72 Market-Rate Buyer Units 14 Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 155 Chestnut Street 82 Market-Rate Rental Units 511 Swift Street Artist Live/Work 9 Moderate-Income Live/Work Units Project 515 Leibrandt Avenue 7 Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 43 Very Low- and Moderate-Income Rental Units 1010 Pacific Avenue 70 Market-Rate Rental Units 83 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units 1280 Shaffer Road 123 Market-Rate Rental Units 47 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units – Replacement of Substandard Non-Affordable 136 Leibrandt Avenue Housing Units 1 Moderate-Income Rental Unit 405 Low- and Very Low-Income Rental Units Total 47 Replacement Affordable Units 342 Market-Rate Rental & Owner Units Affordable Housing Projects - Start of Construction July 2003 211 Gault Street Seniors Housing 37 Low-Income Units Project 37 Low-Income Units Total -44 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES We are unable to comment on the specific project in Santa Cruz County. However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of affordable housing projects varies with each project and program, and in each jurisdiction. Scotts Valley has been able to achieve several housing opportunities both with rental units and with for sale units where families successfully qualified and have purchased or are renting units. Purchasers are also further assisted in Scotts Valley through our Silent Second program. We also encourage potential purchasers to pre qualify for units through a local mortgage company to ensure that they can purchase a unit. For rental units, we also provide a program to assist with the first month’s rent and provide a security deposit guarantee. Both of these programs have been very successful. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City realizes just how difficult it is to satisfy the myriad of redevelopment requirements that govern the development of affordable housing projects. Redevelopment Law governs, along with other aspects of the sale of a specific low and moderate income housing unit, the sales price, the maximum income of the purchasing family, and the maximum percentage of that family’s income that can be spent on all housing costs. Special legislation that applies solely to Santa Cruz County became effective on January 1, 2002, which recognizes the difficulty Agencies have in qualifying buyers according to all the provisions required under RDA law, especially in high housing cost areas. Even with the provisions of SB 459, it is still difficult to meet all the required standards.
F15: Faced with a substantial state budget deficit, the Governor has proposed, in current negotiations, to take unused housing funds away from RDAs who fail to utilize them. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The Governor did propose such a transfer, but the proposal was resoundingly defeated in both houses of the legislature. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The Governor has approved a budget without such a provision. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES The City RDA does not have any unused housing funds. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville Review of Redevelopment Agencies -45 The Governor had originally proposed this, but that proposal died due to extensive opposition from communities, housing advocates and legislators. Subsidized housing projects typically require complex and sophisticated financing from a number of different sources. Projects can take years in the making in order to secure both the required funding and development entitlements. Therefore, just looking at a fund balance does not give a true picture of how an Agency has anticipated using housing funds because anticipated projects are frequently somewhere in the conceptual or development pipeline.
F16: By law, RDA project areas are limited to a fixed term of existence. In effect, this means that some RDAs are likely to be closed out in the next two decades unless new blighted areas are identified. While new project areas can be formed, changes to state law make new projects less attractive than in the past. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: City of Capitola AGREES Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES RDA project areas are limited to a fixed term of existence. More recent legislation has tightened the criteria that must be met before a project area can be formed, but “legitimate” redevelopment project areas are likely to continue to be formed.
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: Each city and the county should require its RDA and community development staff to prepare a presentation at a future public meeting that • describes the proposed time table for the wind-up of the RDA project areas currently in existence • outlines the financial impact to the jurisdiction to be expected on termination of each project area. • provides a road map for future RDA wind-up planning • identifies the risks to the jurisdiction posed by potential drastic cuts in RDA increment revenue should the state decide to redirect RDA funding to other priorities Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has in part already been implemented, and other aspects will not be implemented for the reasons described below. In addition to regular public meetings to review project designs, the County RDA periodically holds general community meetings to seek feedback from the community on projects completed to date and future project needs. As part of these meetings, the time line for completing project activities is discussed, and when the Agency approaches the end of its activity (2027), those meetings will focus on an orderly transition to a time where redevelopment funding will not be available. For the County RDA that time is many years away and therefore such
R13-20: City of Santa Cruz RDA 1-3, 1-5,7 90 Days 6-7,11, (Sept 30, 2003)
R13-21: City of Capitola RDA 1-3, 1-2,5-7 90 Days 7-11, (Sept. 30, 2003)
F17: The state budget crisis poses a significant threat to the stability of RDA funding for capital projects. Actual and threatened cuts of funding for RDAs have caused the cancellation or postponement of projects and put into question the ability of RDAs to meet current obligations to repay bonds over the long term. Although RDAs are theoretically independent agencies responsible for their own debts, it is virtually inconceivable that a local government would let its RDA go bankrupt except in the direst of circumstances. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES While it is true that the state budget crisis could pose a long term threat to RDA funding, it is not currently clear whether that will in fact become a problem. There will be some limited impacts from the cuts contained within the current state budget, but there will only be significant impacts to agencies’ activities in the event that the state continues to make such cuts in future years. It is not clear whether the current cut will be a one-year or ongoing transfer of RDA revenues to the state. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES -46 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Fortunately the City of Capitola has never been put into such a position. The policy tension would be using general fund money to alleviate a credit problem created by the State of California, or preserving the level of services provided to the city residents through its general fund. This would not be an easy decision to make especially if health and safety issues were involved. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville AGREES
Related Recommendations (3)
R2: Each city and the county should require its RDA and community development staff to prepare a presentation at a future public meeting that • describes the proposed time table for the wind-up of the RDA project areas currently in existence • outlines the financial impact to the jurisdiction to be expected on termination of each project area. • provides a road map for future RDA wind-up planning • identifies the risks to the jurisdiction posed by potential drastic cuts in RDA increment revenue should the state decide to redirect RDA funding to other priorities Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has in part already been implemented, and other aspects will not be implemented for the reasons described below. In addition to regular public meetings to review project designs, the County RDA periodically holds general community meetings to seek feedback from the community on projects completed to date and future project needs. As part of these meetings, the time line for completing project activities is discussed, and when the Agency approaches the end of its activity (2027), those meetings will focus on an orderly transition to a time where redevelopment funding will not be available. For the County RDA that time is many years away and therefore such
R13-20: City of Santa Cruz RDA 1-3, 1-5,7 90 Days 6-7,11, (Sept 30, 2003)
R13-21: City of Capitola RDA 1-3, 1-2,5-7 90 Days 7-11, (Sept. 30, 2003)
F18: Because commercial uses also generate sales tax revenue, they are often given more assistance from local governments and RDAs than less “profitable” but job generating properties. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES To the extent that the County RDA has provided assistance to proposed commercial projects, that assistance has been targeted to both sales tax and job generating projects, the County cannot agree with this finding. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City of Capitola makes every attempt to provide the same level of prompt and helpful customer service to all who come to the development counter. State law and then local policy governs who may receive assistance from RDA funds. The City of Capitola has not withheld assistance because any project was less profitable. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City RDA has given assistance to both sales tax-generating projects and job- producing projects. Response: City of Scotts Valley DISAGREES The City of Scotts Valley provides assistance to all businesses on an as needed basis. We have a variety of programs in our Economic Development Plan that assist existing and new businesses, as well. We do not provide financial incentives. Response: City of Watsonville AGREES The City agrees with this finding in general, although, not in the case of Watsonville.
F19: Some high dollar volume properties such as car dealerships and “big box” retailers can be particularly profitable to their local government hosts. For example, the proposed Home Review of Redevelopment Agencies -47 Depot on Green Valley Road in Watsonville is expected to begin generating $360,000 in sales tax for the city by 2005. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the first statement of this finding, but has no knowledge of expected sales tax income of the Watsonville store. Response: City of Capitola AGREES The City of Capitola is not familiar with the details of the Home Depot project, but retailers with a high dollar volume can contribute significantly to the city’s general fund revenue. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES However, it must be clearly understood that this was a private transaction, with no involvement or participation from the Watsonville RDA.
F20: Consequently, many local government and redevelopment agencies offer financial incentives to these businesses to encourage them to locate in their jurisdiction. This practice can result in local governments bidding against each other to direct the location of particularly lucrative businesses within their borders with no net gain to the local area as a whole. This is especially true when one jurisdiction uses its financial resources to attract local business to relocate within the local area, sometimes just a few miles in order to cross a local jurisdiction boundary.5 Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. As is pointed out in the footnote to this finding, state law strictly limits redevelopment agencies’ ability to provide financial assistance to lure high sales tax generating projects from surrounding jurisdictions. To our knowledge, while there have been efforts by some business interests to pit local agencies against each other for new retailers in the areas, those efforts have not been successful in Santa Cruz County, largely due to the close working relationships between the local jurisdictions. This topic has been the subject of reform efforts at the state level. Numerous proposals have been made to encourage the sharing of sales tax revenue on a regional or per capita basis. Additionally, SB 214, which has passed the State Senate, proposes that local governments be forbidden from subsidizing relocations by large retail stores within 25 miles and car dealers within 40 miles of their current location. -48 Review of Redevelopment Agencies Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES The City of Capitola is aware that this may happen, but the City of Capitola has never agreed to any such incentive. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES This finding is no longer valid inasmuch as the State Legislature has specifically limited the type of bidding for commercial projects, which are mentioned above with the passage of AB 178 in 1999 and other legislation which has been considered by the State Legislature in the current session. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES Scotts Valley does not provide any financial incentives to new businesses to encourage them to locate in our jurisdiction. We do understand, particularly in other counties, that local governments may bid against each other to direct the location of retail businesses. However, we have not observed that this has occurred in our County. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City can’t speak to the incentives to businesses offered by other jurisdictions but agrees that this type of “bidding war” has occurred in the past. There is new legislation which specifically prohibits redevelopment agencies from providing incentives to “Big Box” retailers and auto dealers who are relocating from within the same market area. The Watsonville Redevelopment Agency has not offered incentives to attract local business to relocate within the same market area.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7: Local government jurisdictions should negotiate equitable agreements to share sales tax revenues and to promote regional development planning. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been partially implemented, and part of the recommendation cannot be implemented. State law currently limits the ability of local governments to share sales tax revenues. Recent legislation proposed to provide a test of a shared sales tax system in the Sacramento area was not approved. The local planning and redevelopment directors meet regularly to discuss regional planning and development issues. City and County administrators also coordinate responses to specific inter- jurisdictional financial issues as they arise. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation requires further analysis. With regard to sharing sales tax, depending upon the source and nature of sales tax, in certain respects this has already been implemented. The transit and library districts share in sales tax (transit .50%, and Library .25% of each eligible retail transaction.) Furthermore, should AB 1412 become law, which would allow certain cities and counties to increase sales taxes by vote, there Review of Redevelopment Agencies -55 would be more of an incentive for the City to consider sharing sales taxes with other jurisdictions. With regard to promoting regional development planning, CEQA does play a role in requiring a certain amount of regional input into the development process. However, it is understood that more cooperation is desired. The difficulty is that each jurisdiction has its own special vision for its community, and these visions can differ significantly. In some cases it is the differing visions that created the separate jurisdictions in the first place. Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Santa Cruz believes that there is legislation in place which addresses this recommendation. Response: City of Scotts Valley The sharing of sales tax will not be implemented because it is not warranted at this time. In the County of Santa Cruz we feel that reasonable development planning is not driven by sales tax revenues, but more by land availability and transportation and labor opportunities. In the County of Santa Cruz there also exists disparities in property tax distributions, so therefore, prior to any sales tax re-distribution, the property tax would also need to be studied, which in itself presents major obstacles. City planning decisions require financial stability to engage in the meaningful long- range planning needed to deal with the difficult issues of urban growth. The current revenue structure for local government has no stability beyond the next state budget cycle. The redistribution of local sales tax revenues should not go into effect until measures are placed on the ballot to provide constitutional protection of local government revenues. Response: City of Watsonville PARTIALLY AGREES The City would be interested in participating in such discussions. -56 Review of Redevelopment Agencies
F21: In the past, the Santa Cruz area has had its share of competition for retail businesses. Today, local officials are less willing to use their resources for this purpose. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Without more specific information, the County is not in a position to either agree or disagree. While the meaning of this finding is not completely clear, the implication is that local governments in some past period were open to using their financial resources to encourage retail business to come to the area and that somehow that era has passed. We are not aware of any era where such assistance has been encouraged, with the brief exception of immediately after the 1989 earthquake. In general, local governments in Santa Cruz County have been reticent to provide financial incentives to attract retail businesses and have worked cooperatively on issues associated with the relocation of tax generating businesses. Response: City of Santa Cruz AGREES Review of Redevelopment Agencies -49 The city of Santa Cruz agrees with this finding as it relates to the City of Santa Cruz. The City cannot comment regarding other agencies. Conclusions

Findings and recommendations not yet extracted.

Findings & Recommendations 12 findings
F1: In general, the county department or agency responsible for providing the government service being charged for formulates the fees. The results of this formulation are then forwarded to the County Administrative Officer who reviews and compiles a proposal to the Board of Supervisors for modification to the counties “Unified Fee Schedule.” Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES County Procedures for Determining Fees -59
F2: The “Unified Fee Schedule” is adopted by the Board of Supervisors and constitutes the direct legal authority for a department or agency to recover its cost through the collection of fees from the “beneficiary” of the service provided. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the clarification that most fees charged by the County do not fully recover the costs of providing the service, but rather recover a portion of the costs expended in providing a service.
F3: In general, the amount charged as a fee is limited by law to an amount required to recover the cost expended in providing the service to the beneficiary who is charge the fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The fees charged for many County services are statutory and cannot be amended by the County. Those that are not governed by statute cannot exceed the cost of providing the service.
F4: In practice, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department other than the County Planning Department. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County Planning Department, like other departments, does not recover fees to cover the cost of service delivery.
F5: Therefore, revisions to existing fees are often based on some “reasonable” adjustment to the current fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F6: These adjustments to prior fees are sometimes based on factors unrelated to the actual costs being recovered such as the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding that adjustments are sometimes related to the local CPI or similar charges in other jurisdictions, but believes that these factors are related to the costs being recovered and are appropriate in determining fees.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: Unless required by some outside authority, the Board of Supervisors should not approve proposals for adjustments to fees based on factors unrelated to the actual cost being recovered. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is already in place.
F7: The fee increase form or worksheet used by county departments to request adjustment or additions to the fee schedule, does not specifically identify the cost that are being recovered by the indicated fee. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES -60 County Procedures for Determining Fees On the fee worksheet, departments must cite the authority under which the fee can be charged, indicate whether the fee is mandatory, and describe the services for which the fee will be charged. Sufficient information is provided to the Board of Supervisors to justify the recommended fee.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The County Administrative Office should improve its fee request form to require a worksheet attachment that specifically identifies the cost being recovered. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be partially implemented. The County will add a section to the fee form to assure that the fee does not exceed the cost of the service delivered. However, as the Grand Jury pointed out, full or even substantial cost recovery is rare in any department. The County has elected to subsidize various services for the public’s benefit. For instance, if the Health Services Agency charged fees sufficient to cover their costs, their clients would not be able to afford to seek services. Likewise, if the Swim Center charged participants the full cost of the pool, few people would swim there. Because most fees are set by statute, and many fees cannot be expected to cover the actual costs of the services provided, it is doubtful that preparing additional worksheets would be useful.
F8: Public frustration with and confusion about planning department fees are one of the most important challenges facing the planning department. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The fees associated with the processing of ministerial permit applications, such as building permit applications or over-the-counter plumbing or electrical permits, typically are very simple, straight-forward, and easy to understand fee calculations that do not present problems for members of the public wanting to obtain these types of permits. The majority of fees fall into this category. However, fees associated with the processing and review of discretionary permit applications have at times been a significant source of confusion for some members of the public. The Board of Supervisors, in connection with the adoption of the County’s FY 2003-04 budget, directed the Planning Department to implement a phased conversion of its current method of fee collection to a largely “At Cost” collection procedure. The Board also authorized funds in the Planning Department’s budget to undertake a study of the department’s fees during FY 2003-04. The Planning Department is currently reviewing its cost estimate worksheets, billing invoice forms and related materials for the purpose of clarifying assumptions and explanations that provide the basis of fee costs or estimates. Response: City of Capitola DISAGREES The City Council of the City of Capitola disagrees with this finding as it may be applied to the City of Capitola Planning Department. Recently the City conducted a voter survey of 351 residents, none of whom commented on the Planning Department fees. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The City has a clearly written fee schedule for planning-related activities. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES The issue of fees can be confusing and most concerns raised are not about “processing” fees but impact fees, which have a greater burden than processing fees on most projects. We agree that more clarity as to the purpose of fees and the amounts charged would improve relationships with our customers for all fees charged, not just for the planning process Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES County Procedures for Determining Fees -61 The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City has printed fee schedules that are available to the public and City Staff is not aware of confusion related to fees.
Related Recommendations (2)
R4: To improve public confidence in Planning Department fee structures, the County Administrative Officer and each City Manager should require a “from scratch” analysis of all fees for Planning department services during the next regularly scheduled review cycle. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be implemented. As previously indicated, the County Planning Department is presently implementing a phased conversion of its fee collection system to a largely at cost arrangement fee collection system. In connection with the project, the department is reviewing ways to increase clarity and understanding regarding how fee estimates are determined. The Board of Supervisors has authorized the reservation of funds in the Planning Department’s budget to conduct a fee study during Fiscal year 2003-04. The Planning Department reviews its fees on an annual basis and will continue to do so. The County cannot speak for cities. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation will not be implemented because of the following reasons: 1) It is unfounded. At no time has the City of Capitola received any information that its fees were unreasonable. 2) The meaning of “from scratch” is unclear. 3) The City has just implemented a cost recovery system for planning fees that is based on actual time spent on processing applications for development. -64 County Procedures for Determining Fees Response: City of Santa Cruz The recommendation requires further analysis. This idea will be considered over the next six months and then a determination will be made about the timetable of implementing an analysis of this nature. Response: City of Scotts Valley The City implemented this finding when our fee structure was reviewed in 1991. In 1991, the fees were established based upon a detailed analysis of processing times for specific types of permits. An updated comprehensive analysis is proposed over the next fiscal year, if enough cases are filed to allow for adequate review. Adequate time to develop a cost basis for each fee is critical for such an evaluation to be accurate. This analysis will be “from scratch” analyzing each fee and the actual time required to process each type of permit. In order to ensure the fees are reasonable, a minimum number of similar cases must be reviewed. Depending on the cases analyzed, the City may update the fee schedule in phases as enough historical data becomes available to have the “from scratch” data available. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City of Watsonville has recently completed a detailed assessment of its fees with the assistance of Maximus Consulting. We are confident in the analysis and have implemented changes accordingly. We cannot speak to other jurisdiction fees.
R5: The detailed cost basis for each planning department fee should be identified and made available for public review at each planning department office. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Project sponsors who have their permit application processed at cost are provided a detailed cost breakdown of services provided, including time allocated by position. When the department completes implementation of the phased conversion of fee categories to the single at cost arrangement method, project sponsors will uniformly receive detailed cost breakdowns of fees applied to their permit applications. Response: City of Capitola This recommendation is in the process of implementation and should be complete within the next three months, in the form of assessing the results of the new cost recovery based approach to planning fees. Response: City of Santa Cruz County Procedures for Determining Fees -65 The recommendation requires further analysis. Along with the analysis of the fee schedule (above), this idea will also be reviewed within the next six months. However, it should be noted that to implement this properly would require a sophisticated cost-benefit analysis and may be beyond the capacity of local governments right now. Response: City of Scotts Valley AGREES The City has implemented this recommendation. We have made our 1991 study available to those who request documentation. However, upon completion of the updated comprehensive fee analysis discussed in response 4 above, a detailed cost basis for each fee can be provided. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City of Watsonville has adopted fees which are equal to, or less than, the actual cost of proving the service in accordance with state law. The report and recommendations are public documents. The vast majority of City Council-adopted fees are set well below the actual costs of providing service due to the implication on home owners and property owners and as an acknowledgement that a City’s General Fund bears some responsibility to cover a portion of costs related to City “ Police Powers”.
F9: Public dissatisfaction with the planing process and its expense leads to poor public compliance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County is not aware of any studies that support this finding, but agrees that it may be true to some unknown degree. There are members of the public who, because of their perceptions about the County’s planning process, have decided to build projects or implement land uses without obtaining the requisite permits. However, a variety of other reasons exist for people not obtaining permits. For example, many individuals indicate that they were unaware that a permit was required to do their project. When it is brought to their attention, and many times not at the urging of the County’s Code Compliance staff, they voluntarily make application to secure the necessary approval(s). Another reason that a person may build a structure or introduce a land use and may not want to obtain necessary approvals or permits is because the new structure or use will trigger an unwanted increase in the property’s assessed valuation, associated tax obligations, obligatory impact fees, etc. Response: City of Capitola PARTIALLY AGREES As a general rule if permit fees so far outpace expenses that they are unreasonable, the public will forego the permit process and risk the penalties for non-compliance. However, it is unclear how this matter relates to the City of Capitola or upon what evidence this finding was made. In Capitola we believe we have a very high degree of compliance. Response: City of Santa Cruz DISAGREES The Santa Cruz Planning Department is not aware of public dissatisfaction regarding the planning process. Response: City of Scotts Valley PARTIALLY AGREES The planning process and basis for the rules being applied needs to be clearly conveyed at all times in the process. The rules and regulations are complex, however, and often influenced by outside factors such as State and Federal laws. Therefore, local government does not always have the choice about how to apply regulations at another government level. This is particularly the case for issues related with the Endangered Species Act. We agree that the process can be confusing and difficult at times, especially when a case is controversial and where neighbors oppose a particular project. Often, local government is blamed for the controversy even though it is the private sector which opposes the development. A reasonable process to allow for public comment as well as a program to assist applicants is needed. Also, a paramount issue is to ensure that -62 County Procedures for Determining Fees planners uniformly apply rules in the same manner so that there is equity in the process. Reasonable access to persons with authority to make decisions is also necessary so that applicants can move forward through the process. We agree that trust in the process is very important to encourage compliance with the regulations. Response: City of Watsonville DISAGREES The City disagrees with this finding to the extent that it relates to the City. The City has continually worked to improve customer service and to acknowledge that growth is necessary for the financial and social health of the City. The City provides timely response and full service permit center that is open five days a week, nine hours a day. Conclusions
F10: Interest in challenging such charges is thought to increase during tight budgetary times. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors DISAGREES County departments are always concerned with the accuracy of the Plan.
F11: County departments are generally not allowed to seek outside alternatives even when the cost is significantly more than private sources.
F12: The experience of this year’s Grand Jury is illustrative: The Grand Jury, as with many county departments, is charge by the County Information Services Division for internet access and access to the county’s main frame on a per connection basis. The Grand Jury has little or no need to access the county mainframe. However, it is our understanding that if we objected to the charge for this access we would be disconnected from all access and the line item would be deleted from next year’s budget. Thus there is little or no incentive to object to this charge. Similarly, many Grand Jury members familiar with technology issues felt that the amount charged to the Grand Jury for computer assistance -68 County Procedures for Determining Fees and internet access was for beyond that available commercially. However, since this is an established process, our options seem to be to decline internet access entirely, to fight for outside access which would potentially limit our access to the county intranet, or to accept the current service as presented. Conclusions
Additional Recommendations 1

Not linked to specific findings.

R1: The Board of Supervisors should consider the adoption of a “whistleblower program” to facilitate better accounting practices and internal controls within County Departments. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will be considered when the Auditor-Controller submits his report and recommendations. 2. The County Auditor/Controller should submit to the Board of Supervisors proposals for further review of this and similar structures to determine; a. whether the problem is limited to this particular structure; and b. whether the problem is the result of merely inadequate internal controls or intentional misappropriation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County will defer to the County Auditor-Controller to respond to this recommendation. Response: Santa Cruz County Auditor/Controller -74 County Procedures for Determining Fees We agree with the recommendation. Our office is in the final phase of completing the investigation of cost accounting/timekeeping irregularities that reported in the Sanitation Division of the Public Works Department. Our report will be filed with the Board of Supervisors upon completion and include appropriate recommendations. Our report will also recommend a “whistleblower” program, also known as a Hot Line intended for reporting indications of fraud, misuse of County resources by employees, vendors, or contractors; and significant violations of County policy. Examples of reportable offenses include: · Theft · Conflict of interest · Fictitious claims · Misuse of County property · Embezzlement · Bribes and kickbacks · Abuse of work hours · Inappropriate use of County credit cards The individuals will be afforded confidentiality and may choose to be anonymous. This program is not necessarily used to improve accounting procedures or internal controls but is a tool to detect abuses. Accounting procedures and internal controls will not in themselves prevent abuses where there is a willful intent or conspiracy to carry out a reportable offense. In addition, we believe that the County should provide information and training on ethics for public employee. I understand that the County’s conflict of interest and incompatable activities policies are currently being reviewed. This will provide an excellent opportunity to underscore the importance of ethics in government. Public employees are entrusted to be accountable for the expenditure of public money. Employees that are directed to participate in or carry out a reportable offense, need a process to report such incidents without the fear of reprisal or retribution. In 1984 the legislature created the Reporting of Improper Governmental Activities Act, and provided additional guidance in 1986. These Code Sections are attached. County Procedures for Determining Fees -75
Findings & Recommendations 7 findings
F1: Some information was unnecessarily difficult to obtain. One committee began an investigation into the operations of the Information Services Department (ISD). They received substantial cooperation from the director and his department heads. At least they received substantial verbal cooperation and actually stumbled into the following problems: a) On occasion, requested materials from ISD were promised, but not delivered. Follow- up requests were ignored, stonewalled, routed through intermediaries or vetted through superiors. Requests for written responses were often ignored. Through this process, some responses were also lost entirely. We cannot report on the actual cause 1Grand Jurors are paid $15.00 per day whenever they convene for however long they convene. of some of these problems. Much of the feedback was informal and came from verbal sources. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County is not aware of requested material that was not provided to the Grand Jury. It is the County’s policy that all legal requests from the Grand Jury are to be provided in a timely fashion. b) Several Grand Jury members requested virtual private network (VPN) access to the County's internal network. They wanted this access to facilitate researching county operations and to make it possible to edit Grand Jury documents from home. The ISD department made unequivocal assurances that no security issue was involved. Nevertheless, after initial approvals, the requests were stonewalled, run around, deferred, ignored, even promised and then ultimately denied due to unspecified “concerns about security”. Pressing the issue was strongly discouraged due to the cost of the necessary “political capital”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors An initial positive verbal response was given to the Grand Jury regarding the request for remote access to the County’s computer systems. After further review, the request was denied in writing due to the County’s security concerns. The County does not anticipate or plan to provide VPN access to non-employees except for the highly restricted access authorized for certain vendors to support specific software products. The use of home computers which are not under the County’s control or supervision presents specific concerns regarding virus protection and firewalls. Anyone accessing the County’s network must have a virus free computer. Any persons using DSL or broadband for access to the internet must utilize a firewall between their home computer and their Internet Service Provider. VPN, coupled with persistent connection technologies such as DSL and broadband, provides continuous 24 hour internet connections that create the opportunity for hackers to probe home computers and potentially gain access to County networks. For these reasons, it remains inappropriate for the Information Services Department to authorize any expansion of VPN access to the County’s computer networks. The Grand Jury would like to make it clear that this situation is not the norm. There were many cases where people graciously bent over backwards to be helpful. The Grand Jury is pointing out situations that should not have happened. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The County appreciates the comment and will continue efforts to work cooperatively with the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: It would be extremely useful for the CAO, key department heads, and the Board of Supervisors to meet with the incoming Grand Jury at the start of each year. In this fashion, the leaders would have an opportunity to become acquainted with the people who will be conducting the investigations. People do communicate more freely with people they have met. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors County leaders would be pleased to respond to all invitations from the Grand Jury to meet informally. Some years, the County staff has been requested to participate in Grand Jury orientation, and these efforts have been well received. The County Administrative Officer would welcome the opportunity to discuss how best to formalize such a procedure for the future.
F2: Access to the county's internal network is important and even crucial for efficient and effective research. Despite this, access was denied for several weeks. The reasoning, we were led to believe, was due to fears that Grand Jurors would break into private areas of the county internal network. However, the Grand Jury has the authority to investigate all areas of the County, whether on the network or not. In any case, access was removed with little notice and we weren't officially informed in writing until near the end of our term. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors ISD is responsible for safeguarding County computer resources, and by due diligence, requires a signed security agreement for access, and uniformly monitors all access. Access to the County’s internal network was provided as soon as the signed security agreements were received from the Grand Jury.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: All county governmental employees should be encouraged to cooperate and communicate freely with the Jury and not have to worry about their jobs. The Grand Jury should be treated as a fully functional partner in Santa Cruz County governance. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is already in place and will be reiterated.
F3: This incident was followed by a request that Grand Jurors sign a somewhat modified internet access form that contained language granting the ISD department authority to monitor all Grand Jury computer network activity. This conflicts with the confidentiality required by the oath taken by the Grand Jury members. Upon careful consideration of this language, many on the Grand Jury chose to uphold the oath and forego signing the form. Though it is difficult to imagine county ISD employees monitoring the Grand Jury, this explicit right has been asserted through all versions of the document presented so far. The Grand Jury is concerned about the county government's insistence on including this language in the form. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding with the following clarification. As stated in a letter to the Grand Jury, the County of Santa Cruz has no intention of hindering or restricting the Grand Jury’s operations or investigations in any way and is committed to complete compliance with the legal responsibility to provide requested information to the Grand Jury. However, the County is also responsible for maintaining the security of its computer data and systems. To meet these disparate obligations, the County will provide all information requested by the Grand Jury in such a way as not to jeopardize computer system security.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3: The Grand Jury needs a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee. It needs a confidential direct DSL line to an outside ISP. It will also save $150.00 per month in the Grand Jury budget. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation for a network connection that can be reasonably assured of being free from intrusion by any County employee is already in place. The County could provide the Grand Jury with a separate DSL line, but this would prevent the Grand Jury from accessing the County intranet, which the 2002-03 Grand Jury required. The County will continue working with each Grand Jury to provide them with the computer resources needed to complete their efforts.
F4: The transfer of the financial administration of the Grand Jury from the Superior Court to the county had been planned for a number of years. Nevertheless, the County proved to be ill-prepared to handle the transfer. Worse, county staff exhibited little concern or responsibility for the problems created. Some bills were left unpaid for inordinate amounts of time and that led to significant inconveniences. As examples: a) It took nearly six months for some of the Jurors to be reimbursed for their training expenses and three months after submittal to be paid for most of the quarterly mileage and per diem expense reports. The primary cause of these delays was that the paperwork got lost and the subsequent failure to notify the Grand Jury about their loss. b) The post office box rental went unpaid until the Post Office sealed the box. This was inconvenient. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The Courts did not inform the County of their intention to transfer administration of the Grand Jury to the County until after the 2002-03 Grand Jury was in place. This late notification resulted in transition difficulties. County staff immediately worked with Court personnel to resolve these issues, and the Courts have retained responsibility for training reimbursements, mileage, and per diem payments. We regret any inconvenience.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Board of Supervisors should make regular annual appropriations for outside management audits and structure the execution of the audits in such a way that they compliment the activities of the Grand Jury. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has already been implemented. Individual departments recommend funding when necessary to employ outside auditors or management consultants to review County operations.
F5: There were occasions when "not expending political capital" was more important to County officials than their official responsibility to assist the Jury. The Grand Jury determined that there were two avenues of investigation that held promise for substantial savings in county operations. The problem was that doing a proper investigation required more time than was available to Grand Jury members. Consequently, the investigations would have required outside agencies to do much of the work. That kind of consulting work must be requested through the advocates of the Grand Jury to the Board of Supervisors. The jurors who were qualified and interested in presenting the case to the Supervisors were never called upon. Consequently, these investigations were pocket vetoed instead of openly decided upon. Some counties simply budget for outside consultants as part of the normal annual budgeting process.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: There should be no security concerns about access at all. Since there is, all VPN access to the County internal network should be halted immediately. Once secure access can be assured, then VPN access should be resumed and be granted to any Grand Jury member who requests it. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation will not be implemented for the reasons described in the responses to the findings above.
F6: The ISD department charges the Grand Jury $200 per month for network connections. This is $150 more than a DSL connection from the phone company. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The monthly network connection fee is $105.00 for any workstation on the County network. In addition to connectivity, this fee covers the cost for additional services including virus software with timely updates, internet access, help desk support, etc. Conclusions
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Incoming Grand Jurors should have a proper orientation meeting replete with a County Grand Juror procedures manual, forms packet and contact list. There should be no confusion over how to fill in and submit expense reports and other forms. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been and will continue to be implemented. County staff will continue to work with Court staff and Grand Jury members to maintain and enhance the existing procedures manual and contact list.
F7: The security concerns the county has regarding VPN access by Grand Jury members also apply to county employees, contractors and elected officials. Anyone using VPN access to the county network presents identical vulnerabilities.
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 11 findings
F1: This facility houses juveniles between the ages of 12 to 18 and is divided into two units: the "A" unit houses older, more sophisticated offenders who have committed more serious crimes, and the "B" unit houses the younger and less sophisticated detainees. (“Sophistication” is a term used in the detention industry to describe an offender’s familiarity with and adeptness in crime and detention.)
F2: There are loose, crumbling and missing floor and ceiling tiles throughout the facility. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Funds were appropriated in the 2003-04 budget to address these deficiencies.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Board of Supervisors should allocate funds to immediately replace floor coverings throughout the facility. Funding to replace ceiling tiles should also be identified. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented.
F3: The detainees’ rooms are small and contain a sink and drinking fountain. Recently, the doors to some of the rooms were replaced and modified to swing out into the hall rather than into the rooms, freeing up living area and increasing safety.
F4: Staff reported the lack of security cameras in the intake area can compromise safety and security when admitting combative minors. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with this finding, with the following clarification. The purpose of security cameras in the intake area is primarily to provide a visual record of incidents that occur during intake. The cameras do not affect safety or security since they would not be monitored by other staff in other sections of the facility.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should find funds for the following at Juvenile Hall: • installation of additional video cameras, especially in intake area • installation of electronic doors throughout facility and upgrade control center • installation of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) throughout the facility • modification of perimeter fencing to allow the more sophisticated detainees access to outdoor recreation areas • construction of an indoor recreation facility • modification of the remaining doors on detainees’ rooms to swing out Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Approximately $300,000 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 2003-04 budget for safety related maintenance projects at the Juvenile Hall, including the replacement of potentially hazardous window screens, floor tiles, and ceiling tiles, the partitioning of the kitchen/dining area to provide for secure visitation, and the completion of the door replacements in the sleeping units to improve the safety and security for the detainees and staff.
F5: There are electronic doors when entering the facility and when entering the courtyard but other areas do not have electronic doors. Staff reported that electronic doors throughout the facility would improve response time in an emergency and would prevent keys from being stolen. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES However, due to funding limitations, they have not been replaced.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should find funds for the following at Juvenile Hall: • installation of additional video cameras, especially in intake area • installation of electronic doors throughout facility and upgrade control center • installation of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) throughout the facility • modification of perimeter fencing to allow the more sophisticated detainees access to outdoor recreation areas • construction of an indoor recreation facility • modification of the remaining doors on detainees’ rooms to swing out Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Approximately $300,000 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 2003-04 budget for safety related maintenance projects at the Juvenile Hall, including the replacement of potentially hazardous window screens, floor tiles, and ceiling tiles, the partitioning of the kitchen/dining area to provide for secure visitation, and the completion of the door replacements in the sleeping units to improve the safety and security for the detainees and staff.
F6: According to staff, Juvenile Hall does not have adequate heating and there is no air conditioning. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees that there is no air conditioning and that the heating system should be replaced. Replacement of the HVAC system has been identified for future funding.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should find funds for the following at Juvenile Hall: • installation of additional video cameras, especially in intake area • installation of electronic doors throughout facility and upgrade control center • installation of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) throughout the facility • modification of perimeter fencing to allow the more sophisticated detainees access to outdoor recreation areas • construction of an indoor recreation facility • modification of the remaining doors on detainees’ rooms to swing out Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Approximately $300,000 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 2003-04 budget for safety related maintenance projects at the Juvenile Hall, including the replacement of potentially hazardous window screens, floor tiles, and ceiling tiles, the partitioning of the kitchen/dining area to provide for secure visitation, and the completion of the door replacements in the sleeping units to improve the safety and security for the detainees and staff.
F7: The facility contains classrooms, computers and a library. Some of the programs offered are yoga, acupuncture, victim awareness, anger management, job readiness, Planned Parenthood discussions, Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous.
F8: Indoor and outdoor recreation facilities are available. The outdoor facility is not covered or protected from the environment and the indoor facilities (day rooms) are limited in size. A lack of secure perimeter fencing does not allow more sophisticated “A” unit detainees to access some of the outside recreation area because of the risk of escape. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Again, this is a funding issue.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Board of Supervisors should find funds for the following at Juvenile Hall: • installation of additional video cameras, especially in intake area • installation of electronic doors throughout facility and upgrade control center • installation of HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) throughout the facility • modification of perimeter fencing to allow the more sophisticated detainees access to outdoor recreation areas • construction of an indoor recreation facility • modification of the remaining doors on detainees’ rooms to swing out Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation is being implemented. Approximately $300,000 was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the 2003-04 budget for safety related maintenance projects at the Juvenile Hall, including the replacement of potentially hazardous window screens, floor tiles, and ceiling tiles, the partitioning of the kitchen/dining area to provide for secure visitation, and the completion of the door replacements in the sleeping units to improve the safety and security for the detainees and staff.
F9: The Santa Cruz County Office of Education operates an education program at the facility (Hartman School) with a WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges) accredited program. Hartman High allows students to continue working towards their high school diploma while at the facility or earn their General Education Diploma (GED). The facility holds a graduation ceremony for those who complete the GED program, making this achievement a well-deserved special event.
F10: Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has children’s mental health services 80 hours per week and drug and alcohol specialist services 40 hours per week.
F11: Santa Cruz County Juvenile Hall has been designated a model site for the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative (JDAI). The objectives of JDAI are: • To reduce the number of children unnecessarily or inappropriately detained • To minimize the number of youth who fail to appear in court or re-offend pending adjudication • To redirect public funds toward successful reform strategies • To improve conditions of confinement. As a model site for the Annie E. Casey Foundation Initiative, Juvenile Hall receives grant money and support, including access to a data analyst to track trends. 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.
Findings & Recommendations 31 findings
F1: Santa Cruz County received $1,003,973 in Proposition 36 funds in fiscal year 2001-2002. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F2: Santa Cruz County received $71,414 in Drug testing funds of which 100 % was used to directly pay for tests. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES The County received $71,414 in drug testing funds in 2001-02. However, as provided for by law, $32,305 was spent to fully cover the costs of drug testing by service providers, and the remaining $39,109 was spent to offset the costs of Proposition 36 drug treatment.
F3: The authors of Proposition 36 established 83% as the benchmark for the most effective programs. Approximately 82.7% of funds will be directly used for treatment in Santa Cruz County in 2002-03. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F4: There were 572 unduplicated Proposition 36 clients in 2001-02, of which 511 received treatment plan assessments and 392 received treatment. The Courts/Probation Department referred 91.8% of the clients. The remaining referrals were parolees. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -32 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses
F5: Reassessment is necessary when the defendants are placed in program that does not suit their needs. They are reassessed and then reassigned to an appropriate program. There were an estimated 398 reassessments in fiscal year 2001-02 an average of 1.7 per client. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Defendants also may be reassessed if they fail to arrive at the assigned program, or drop out prior to completion.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should work more closely with treatment programs in assessing client needs. This might reduce the number of reassessments and more quickly identify those unamenable to treatment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Reassessments are most frequently triggered by the client dropping out of treatment. Clients may not fully disclose the extent of their drug problems at the initial assessment, and additional information may be gained by treatment provider staff or through reassessment. Alcohol and Drug Program staff and Probation staff work with providers on a daily basis to identify clients who are having difficulties in treatment and resolve issues or find a more appropriate placement.
F6: The Proposition 36 Steering Committee is comprised of staff from the Health Services Agency, the Probation Department, the Courts, the Public Defender’s Office, the Sheriff’s Office, the Criminal Justice Council, the County Administrative Office, the District Attorney and the State Parole Board. Members meet once a month to promote defendant recovery and help to ensure public safety. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
Related Recommendations (1)
R1: The Proposition 36 Steering Committee should add permanent community members to increase diversity and provide better community support. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. The Proposition 36 Steering Committee requested the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (ADAC) to appoint one of its members to the Proposition 36 Committee. The ADAC appointed a member at their September meeting.
F7: The County Health Services Agency does the assessments for Proposition 36. These health care professionals place an emphasis on treatment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Staff also pays close attention to identifying needs for medical care.
F8: There are 15 certified Proposition 36 treatment facilities in the county with 18 residential treatment beds. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Although these residential facilities had more than 18 beds, Proposition 36 funds were used to purchase approximately 18 beds.
Related Recommendations (2)
R2: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should continue adding treatment capacity and hold well-publicized community forums to involve the community in eliminating drug abuse. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is reducing treatment capacity rather than adding it. Treatment capacity will be added when the availability of resources -38 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses permits. Proposition 36 Steering Committee meetings are open to the public and are well-publicized through press releases.
R3: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should seek out potential treatment providers and educate them in how to qualify to become treatment providers. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is focusing its energy on trying to maintain current treatment providers, and is not seeking new providers.
F9: The District Attorney has adopted charging guidelines for defendants that maximize the effectiveness of Proposition 36. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County District Attorney AGREES
F10: Penal Code § 1000 provides for Deferred Entry of Judgment (Diversion). First time offenders arrested for minor drug crimes, including cultivation of marijuana for personal use, narcotics secured by a false prescription, simple possession or being under the influence, can be referred to a drug diversion program. If offenders satisfy the requirements of the program, the charges against them are dropped. Urinalysis can be part of the program, but a positive test does not necessarily expose the defendant to additional penalties. A defendant who violates program conditions is subject to sentencing on the original crime. Proposition 36 -33 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The County agrees with the finding with the following clarification. Deferred Entry of Judgment is a post-plea program. If an offender completes the program, the charges are not dropped but the judgment against the client is not entered into official court records. In either case, the client has no criminal record if s/he completes the program. However, if the client does not complete the program, the court can simply enter the judgment of guilty rather than having to determine guilt or innocence.
F11: Diversion consists of a minimum of 22 hours of group education and counseling over a minimum of 10 weeks. It includes an assessment of the clients’ alcohol and drug use. Successful completion of the program results in charges being dismissed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES See response to Finding #10 above regarding dropping charges versus deferring entry of judgment.
F12: Proposition 36 allows an offender three opportunities for treatment. While being treated offenders are on probation. An offender’s probation can be revoked for: disobeying rules of the drug treatment program, being arrested for a non-violent possession offense, or for violating a drug-related condition of probation. They are then subject to incarceration under otherwise applicable law. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F13: Probation can also be revoked if a defendant commits a non-drug related crime, or violates a non-drug related condition of probation. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F14: Proposition 36 allows defendants three violations of any kind before their probation must be revoked and the original sentence imposed. This is sometimes referred to as “three bites at the apple or three strikes”. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES
F15: Additionally, if a treatment provider notifies the Probation Department that a defendant is “unamenable” to a particular treatment, Probation may recommend another treatment modality. If a defendant is deemed “unamenable” to all forms of treatment, Probation may request the defendant’s probation be revoked. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES -34 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses
Related Recommendations (1)
R4: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should work more closely with treatment programs in assessing client needs. This might reduce the number of reassessments and more quickly identify those unamenable to treatment. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors This recommendation has been implemented. Reassessments are most frequently triggered by the client dropping out of treatment. Clients may not fully disclose the extent of their drug problems at the initial assessment, and additional information may be gained by treatment provider staff or through reassessment. Alcohol and Drug Program staff and Probation staff work with providers on a daily basis to identify clients who are having difficulties in treatment and resolve issues or find a more appropriate placement.
F16: Currently under Proposition 36 some clients wait in jail for available treatment space. In some cases they wait almost as long as the sentence they would have received. They then have a choice of whether they will serve out their sentence or go to treatment. Some opt to forego treatment and are released having fulfilled their time commitment. This is one of the reasons the number of those admitted to the program is lower than those assessed and eventually treated. Some clients elect jail time over treatment at the outset. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Most clients eligible for Proposition 36 choose treatment over jail time and do not experience extended waits in jail due to shortage of treatment space. Those who do wait in jail rarely wait more than 10 days for an assessment. The few clients who have extended waits in jail are typically waiting due to delays in scheduling court hearings unrelated to assessment or treatment availability. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff AGREES There are currently 39 women inmates housed in the Main Jail. Nine of those 39 inmates are sentenced and therefore eligible for housing at a medium facility. Although the majority of female inmates are housed in the main jail because they are either un- sentenced or classified as maximum-security inmates, the Sheriff’s Office recognizes the need for a Women's Medium Security Facility to provide alternate housing opportunities for our medium security women inmates.
F17: Proposition 36 originally placed very little emphasis on drug testing. No funds were provided for testing. It was feared tests might be used as a “hammer” to disqualify those being treated. Treatment professionals believe testing should be used as a tool and that
F18: Relapses are part of the recovery process. Consistently failing drug tests will result in probation being revoked. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Following failed attempts to divert under Penal Code §1000 and failed attempts to treat under Proposition 36, the offender is placed in a much more structured judicial program called Drug Court. Court visits are more regular, testing is more frequent, and any violation of the program can subject the offender to incarceration.
F19: The Drug Court Program is used for more serious drug offenders and unlike Proposition 36 includes alcohol programs. Drug court participants typically have abused drugs for five or more years. Half (52%) have a high school diploma and sixty-two percent were unemployed at the time of their arrest. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES Proposition 36 -35 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court are for persons convicted of drug crimes, and not for persons convicted solely of alcohol-related crimes. Both Proposition 36 and Drug Court offer treatment for alcohol abuse, since many drug users also abuse alcohol.
F20: Drug Court is, at a minimum, a one-year program. The client participates in daily counseling, is randomly tested for drugs three times per week, and goes before the judge weekly to review progress. The client is also required to attend a twelve-step program and provide proof of attendance to the judge. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES The description above outlines the requirements of the first phase of Drug Court treatment. As clients progress to later phases, treatment services and court supervision are gradually decreased.
F21: Successful completion of the Drug Court program results in charges being dismissed. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors PARTIALLY AGREES See response to Finding #9 above regarding the difference between dismissal of charges and deferral of entry of judgment.
F22: Like Diversion and Proposition 36, clients of Drug Court cannot have been charged with a violent offense, drug sales, or possession for sale. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors AGREES Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES
F23: Insufficient treatment facilities for Proposition 36 make it necessary to house clients at the Main Jail (courtesy housing). This may explain why the county has not yet seen a decrease in the number of clients being housed at the Main Jail. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office PARTIALLY AGREES The Sheriff’s Office has not completed any analysis on Proposition 36’s relationship to daily jail population counts. Originally, Proposition 36 was advertised as a way to reduce jail population throughout the State. The Santa Cruz County Jail saw a slight drop in population after Proposition 36 was enacted. However, since that time, the daily population count has increased. Many factors may contribute to this increase. One factor may be a lack of treatment beds and the other appears to be Proposition 36 clients who have failed to complete the program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2: The Santa Cruz County Director of Alcohol and Drug Programs should continue adding treatment capacity and hold well-publicized community forums to involve the community in eliminating drug abuse. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The recommendation will not be implemented at this time. Given the current budget situation, the County Alcohol and Drug Program is reducing treatment capacity rather than adding it. Treatment capacity will be added when the availability of resources -38 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses permits. Proposition 36 Steering Committee meetings are open to the public and are well-publicized through press releases.
F24: The Sheriff’s Detention Bureau considers Proposition 36 a failure. It cites the number of repeat offenders who abuse the opportunity they are given to stay out of jail and continue using drugs. -36 Proposition 36 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report and Responses Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors The perceptions of the Sheriff’s Detention Bureau may be accurately reported by the Grand Jury, however, it is likely that staff of the Detention Bureau rarely see successful clients and typically see the clients who are back in jail because they have failed Proposition 36, thus getting a skewed view of Proposition 36’s efficacy. No treatment can be expected to work 100% of the time. The Proposition 36 program, like other drug treatment programs, should be judged on the questions of whether more people succeed with treatment than without it, and whether that degree of success is worth the cost.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Law enforcement and other parties should give Proposition 36 more time to develop before declaring success or failure. Proposition 36 -39 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F25: The Grand Jury was not able to locate any current conclusive data on the success of Proposition 36. Response: Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors No outcome studies on Proposition 36 exist at this time. However, numerous studies of drug treatment conducted statewide and nationally have demonstrated the effectiveness and cost savings associated with court-ordered drug treatment.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6: Law enforcement and other parties should give Proposition 36 more time to develop before declaring success or failure. Proposition 36 -39 2002-2003 Santa Cruz County Grand Jury Final Report
F26: A March 2002 report prepared by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and the Judicial Council of California concluded Drug Court participants who completed the program had an 85% reduction in arrests, a 77% reduction in convictions and an 83% reduction in incarceration in the two years following treatment.
F27: Overall, counties reported a total savings of $43.4 million. $42.4 million in jail and prison cost savings and approximately $1 million dollars in fees and fines collected from Drug Court participants.
F28: Treatment professionals acknowledge treatment has little effect on those who have not made a commitment to stop using drugs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5: Treatment providers should continue to develop and implement new treatment modalities. Response: Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office AGREES
F29: Treatment professionals believe they could be helpful in assessing clients and recommending treatment.
F30: One of the treatment facilities the Grand Jury toured uses biofeedback to aid clients in recovery. The facility reported positive results.
F31: Penal code § 1000 cases, Proposition 36 and Drug Court cases are all heard in one consolidated court with the same presiding judge. Conclusions