UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:024 turns
♪ Yeah. Oh,
Joanie. Get your day straight, sweetheart. Meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. It's time to have a roll call.
Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Farr? Here Mr. Lavagnino? Here Mr. Carbajal? Here Ms Gray?
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to have each and every one of you with us today, welcome. It is a lovely day almost. I think it's sunny in Santa Maria isn't it Supervisor? Was it sunny or was it? It was all, not much sun. Oh, it was sunny in the valley okay so the sun is coming that's the message. Pledge of Allegiance report from closed session.
0:02 – 0:058 turns
Thank you, Madam Chair. Your board held your scheduled closed session. There's nothing to report except the matter has been continued to 8 a.m. tomorrow morning.
Thank you counsel. Public comment period this is general public comment and it has nothing to do with the issues of the day. Mr. Allen?
We have one request to speak for Mr. Jeff Bard.
Mr Bard welcome.
Well good morning madam chair members of the board We're faced with June gloom. Oh well, but at least it's a chance to chill before the summer hits One of the wonderful features of Santa Barbara County is we have a number of illustrious and progressive thinkers kind of people who put together Projects like the solar energy that we have going in a Camino Real And I thank you for that and We also have a lot of illustrious people working on the California Valley Solar Ranch up in San Luis Obispo, which I was privileged to participate in.
And one of our projects here in the county, this is Aciona Wind. And just to update you in case you haven't already seen it we have they have a very fine brochure explaining the expertise of this firm. It's a Spanish based firm that has installations all around the world and the project is proceeding and I realize there are CEQA requirements and it's not really county It's holding the project back, but I would encourage everyone on the board to do everything possible to help keep the project moving forward. So I have five copies for the board one for Miss Waller and one for the county attorney that I'd like to leave and I would like to invite Members of the public, to keep an eye on the ball. We also have a wave farm project and let's just keep the ball rolling.
I also wanted to just take a brief moment to express some gratitude that we have Vandenberg Air Force Base here in the county. I do have family roots in the U.S. Air Force and I don't hide that and am quite proud of my baby brother who became a captain and flew combat missions in Somalia to help protect Americans and protect Israel and our European allies. And he went on to work for United Airlines, where he's currently a pilot. He was in the air on September 11th. I'm very proud of that.
However, I am a peace activist and I also support legitimate bona fide critique of things like cluster bombs and all the other harmful forms of weaponry that we're trying to ban across the world But I really have to take exception to some of the conduct which has been. passing itself off as peace activism. And I really have to distance myself from the so-called peace movement until it can start, you know, get its act together and behave like mature adults. It was a privilege for me working at the United Nations where I was trained as a journalist with UN Uncover by Wilfred Gray. I was able to attend the United Nations Disarmament Convention and very early climate convention and I got to see how real diplomats handle real peacemaking like adults.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Bard. And that's the only public comment today?
Yes.
We're then ready to go to item number one. Mr. Allen.
0:05 – 0:2310 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board, Item 1 is brought to the board by the County Executive Office and the Office of Emergency Services to hear and consider recommendations regarding a briefing from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the Diablo nuclear power plant.
Supervisor Carbajal?
Before staff commences the hearing, I just wanted to ask that you track down that letter from the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors that was sent to the NRC. When we teed up this hearing, I requested that that be one of the action items that we would consider today. It's absent. Maybe it's included in the next steps but at some point before the hearing is done, I would like that letter circulated because it's one of the actions that I hope that we're going to be able to take or that I will be pursuing that we take And through this whole report, there's no letter. There's no reference to that and I just would also appreciate if you could comment on why that's the case.
Supervisor Carbajal, members of the board, my sincerest apologies. We did find a letter and the only correspondence we were able to locate through the clerk at the San Luis Obispo Board was a letter to the president of PG&E regarding relicensure. We will have that for you immediately today. We did not find correspondence, nor was the clerk of the board aware of a correspondence between the San Luis Obispo Board and the NRC or anybody else. So we'll have that letter. My apologies again.
Okay Mr. Harris would you introduce what we're going to be doing today please?
Supervisor Gray, members of the board. Thank you very much. Michael Harris with the Office for Emergency Services. As requested by your board today we're going to be hearing from staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC. Based on our previous conversations we'll be looking at the Diablo relicensing that we've previously spoken and PG&E addressed in a previous presentation to the board, the capacities of the facility In regard to the seismic risks, and we may have some questions or feel free to interact with staff on any early lessons from the Japan disaster.
Thank you to the board. It's a very grueling budget weekend. We appreciate OES appreciates your time and also that of the NRC staff who I'll introduce here in a second. We all know that on March 10th, the Japanese earthquake of 9.0 caused dramatic damage and it was subsequently followed by a tsunami The world then turns attention to the Fukushima power plant.
Unrelated to that, but on April 12th Pacific Gas and Electric presented during their public comment to the board a copy of its letter to the NRC asking for concurrent licensing and seismic studies. Based on that letter that was presented during public comment, the board received briefing from PG&E on May 10th In which PG&E staff provided information on the Diablo facility, its comparisons to the Fukushima facility and early lessons learned and some of the differences between the facilities.
Today we have staff from the NRC, and I'll introduce them here. Tony Vagel, Mr. Vagel is Director of the Division of Reactor Safety for Region 4. His responsibilities include the oversight of the specialized reactor programs and operator licensing. He's had a wide variety of responsibilities at the NRC and has been with them since 1989. Prior to joining the NRC, Mr. Vagel was an officer with the United States Navy Submarine Force. Mr. Vagel started his naval career as an enlisted sailor and subsequently was selected for the United States Naval Academy where he graduated in 1983 with a Bachelor of Science degree.
Joining Mr. Vagel to his left is Jeff Miller. Mr. Miller is the Branch Chief of Projects D in the Division of Reactor Projects in Region 4. His responsibilities include oversight of the NRC's reactor inspection program and a number of facilities, including Diablo. Prior to joining the NRC, Mr. Miller was an officer of the United States Navy Submarine Force. He received a Bachelor of Science in Nuclear Engineering from the University of Virginia and a Master's of Science degree in Environmental Engineering from the University of Maryland.
Finally, joining us today is from Public Affairs of the NRC is Laura Yselding. Laura has decided to join us because some of the topics that have been previously discussed she has some knowledge too and may be able to provide additional information. So what I'm going to do now is turn it over to Mr. Vagel. He has some prepared remarks. I've explained how your board has traditionally worked in the interaction and public comment and whatnot. So I'll go ahead and turn it over to Mr Vagal at this time.
Thank you.
Mr. Fagel, first let me thank the three of you for being here to visit with us today. That's just really we're honored. We're just honored. So if you speak from there or feel more comfortable at the podium or you can have my chair if you want. We're just honored that you were able to join us.
Thank you very much and we are honored to be here and thank you for this opportunity to provide some perspective. I think we'll just stay here. Okay,
all right good thank you.
Again good morning and to the Board of Supervisors and thank you for having us here today. On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this is a great opportunity for us to talk about the safe operation of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant and recent NRC actions following the Fukushima incident I'll provide a brief overview of the NRC's mission and a commitment to safe operations of all the nuclear power plants, a brief update on our actions following Fukushima incident as you've requested. And then provide a response to concerns raised by the board in letter to the NRC Chairman Yatsko.
As you may be aware, last night we held our 2010 Diablo Canyon Performance Assessment Public Meeting in San Luis Obispo where we engaged over a hundred members of the public. The meeting was beneficial in that we were able to hear firsthand concerns and questions from people who live in the shadow of the plant and also to reaffirm our commitment to safety. Following my remarks, Mr. Miller and I will be able to answer any additional questions you may have.
First, I'll describe a little bit for background the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The commission is an independent federal agency which was created by Congress. We have approximately 4,000 staff with a mission to license and regulate the nation's civilian use of radioactive materials. Between the NRC resident inspectors who work and live near the reactors, and reason-based specialist inspectors who visit the plants regularly to assess emergency planning, security, maintenance, engineering. There are over 200 people in NRC's Region 4 office in Arlington Texas.
We are absolutely dedicated to making sure that the four nuclear power plants in California are being operated safely. First I'll talk about the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and its safety. During 2010, the NRC devoted over 3,600 hours of inspections at Diablo Canyon. And these inspection efforts determined that Diablo Canyon weren't being operated safely.
Diablo Canyon is currently receiving the NRC's rigorous baseline inspection program because all the findings and performance indicators are of very low safety significance. The NRC has identified that the depth of problem evaluation in some cases at Diablo Canyon is lacking, and that it is an area that would require some improvement but we believe that Diablo Canyon Completion of a licensing basis verification project will improve their ability to perform problem evaluations and we are planning several additional inspections to verify the adequacy of this project.
The NRC uses a philosophy of defense in depth because we understand that the nuclear industry requires the highest standards of design, construction, oversight and operation Even with these high standards, the NRC does not rely on any one level of protection for maintaining public health and safety. So for every single reactor in this country, after accounting for site-specific threats such as earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods or tsunamis, there's also multiple physical barriers to prevent radiation release. On top of this, there is an added safety margin.
As you're aware, Diablo Canyon is located in a seismically active area. The Diablo Canyon's operating license requires the plant to maintain a long-term seismic program to reevaluate the seismic design basis against insights and knowledge gained with each seismic event. The plant is evaluated for the 7.5 magnitude earthquake originating in the Hawesbury Fault.
The evaluation ensures that the plant could be safely shut down if the expected maximum ground motion was to occur. The design tsunami of Diablo Canyon considers distantly generated tsunami and locally generated tsunami. The design base of tsunami is the greater of the distantly generated and the locally generate tsunamis, and that is the tsunami height would be 35 feet.
Additionally, the Diablo Canyon site is atop a coastal bluff which is 85 feet above the sea level, decreasing its vulnerability to a tsunami hazard. The only safety-related system that has components within the protected seaway zone is the auxiliary saltwater system. The auxiliary saltwater system motors are housed in a watertight compartment within the intake structure.
Last month, I personally walked down and inspected these enclosures myself. The intake structure is also designed with an elevated air intake for the cooling systems for the motors. This is what we call a snorkel. The snorkels have openings which are 48 feet above the sea level. That's to ensure if there was a tsunami that they would still be able to provide air to the motors for cooling.
Should a significant event occur, each plan has emergency preparedness plans that are practiced on an ongoing basis. Develop with the NRC, FEMA and state and local officials to appropriately respond. Following its discovery in 2008, PG&E performed the review of the shoreline fault and submitted a report to the NRC in January 2011. PG&E concluded that Diablo Canyon remains within its current licensing basis.
The NRC is in the process of performing a review to assess the PG&Es data, verify their conclusions and verify that the site's current design and licensing basis remains valid. In addition, PG& E continues or plans to conduct further 3D mapping to fully characterize the shoreline fault This re-characterization is planned to be completed in the next four years and the NRC will closely monitor their progress.
Regarding the NRC emergency plan recommendations in response to the events of Fukushima, I'd like to provide some background information. In developing emergency plan recommendations, the NRC uses a computer code to perform off-site radiation dose projections. The computer program contains information about U.S. nuclear reactor design types, radiation release pathways from the nuclear power plants to the environment, radionuclide source terms and meteorology.
In order to approximate the events unfolding at the Fukushima Daiichi facility, the NRC developed a model that aggregated information from the three operating reactors and spent fuel pool. This aggregate model was then evaluated using the computer code. The radiation dose calculated by this code was predicted to exceed the protective action guidelines established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency well beyond the 10-mile exposure pathway, EPZ and beyond the 30-kilometer sheltering zone recommended by the Japanese authorities.
Subsequent aerial monitoring by the U.S. Department of Energy Fixed wing aircraft showed elevated radiation dose rates that were in excess of the EPA relocation protective action guidance to distance beyond 25 miles from the facility. The decision to expand the evacuation of U.S. citizens out to 50 miles from the Fukushima Daiichi facility was a conservative decision that was made due to limited and unverifiable information at the time.
Based on analysis results, there were indications that fuel damage had occurred. There was a level of uncertainty about whether or not efforts to stabilize the plant in the very near term was going to be successful. So as a result, based on information known at the time, the NRC made the prudent and conservative recommendation to evacuate U.S. citizens out to 50 miles in Japan To give you a brief update on recent NRC actions related to Fukushima, just yesterday the Commission held a meeting to provide a status update on its efforts related to Fukushima.
The commissioners are preparing to issue their first report next month outlining lessons learned from Fukushima with the potential for some recommendations. The next report is expected six months with more potential actions. As a result of the extraordinary natural events that occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Site on March 11th, the NRC conducted two inspections of all nuclear plants to further assess their capabilities to respond to similar major losses of plant equipment.
The second inspection assessed the plants' capabilities to respond to catastrophic accidents more extensive than plans were designed for. Nuclear plants are designed with multiple systems to perform the same functions, allowing plant operators multiple options to safely manage nuclear fuel during events or problems. Following both inspections, NRC inspectors reported that overall there was no safety significant issues and we feel confident that plants have available the resources and procedures needed to respond to a catastrophic event and safely shut down the reactor.
As the NRC continues to evaluate events at Fukushima, we are focused on learning what more we can do to prevent an event such as Fukushima and what more we can do to mitigate the consequences if an event did occur. That said, the NRC remains confident that U.S. plants are safe based on defense in depth as one of the single most important concepts in a plant's design.
Translated, that means that critical cooling functions still would be available even if things were not in normal working order. In addition to that Our resident inspectors live in the community and work at the plant that they inspect, serving as the agency's eyes and ears to ensure that the plants are operated safely through inspections and licensees' robust corrective action programs.
The bottom line is that there is no room for complacency And we remain attentive and focused on protecting the public and the environment. I'll now take any questions that you might have on any additional topics.
0:23 – 0:3826 turns
Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you. Mr. Harris, did you by any chance read that letter you found from the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors?
Yes sir.
Did you somehow skip the first sentence that focuses on, as you know in March of last year the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors sent a letter under my signature to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission?
No sir I did not. If we could get a copy of that letter, it would be greatly appreciated. We will sir also I believe in rereading that letter. That's as I recall the board conducted a meeting in 2010 when Supervisor Wolf was the chair Based on the San Luis Obispo Board, this board also communicated with NRC as I recall the same issue which was the concurrent and parallel seismic evaluation and relicensing. And the concern of the board as I recall off the top my head was that NRC at that time was going to allow for relicensing, including prior to the seismic completion. So I don't know whether Mr. Vagel wants to talk about that but I
know that's been a concern. If you could get a copy of that letter that we might have sent that I don't seem to have in my fingertips, I would greatly appreciate it. Yes sir. But also if you could track this down it would be great as well. Yes sir. Madam Chair, after the last hearing that we had on this, not the last one but the one before that. I went to the San Luis Obispo Diablo plant with PG&E representatives and I did a visit because I really wanted to satisfy myself.
And quite frankly as an average person with no expertise in this area, I try to ask as many questions as possible And quite frankly, a lot if not most of the answers that I got from PG&E staff were very good answers. And to a great extent gave me some assurance that at least from not having an expertise in the area every possible question I could raise I got reasonably acceptable answers, satisfactory answers. Again, that's without having expertise in this area.
And I believe, I put a lot of faith in our government especially our federal government. I'm not one of those individuals to be paranoid or think that our government is always plotting although there's times where they've proven that they do that as well but if there's one agency that gives me great cause for extra scrutiny it's the NRC And I say that because any time you talk about nuclear energy, nuclear missiles in this case nuclear energy.
I think it gives us all the heebie-jeebies and you know I understood also when I made that visit Madam Chair to San Luis Obispo that there's this international consortium of nuclear facilities that exist for communication, to continue learning on a daily basis. So one of the points that has to come out of that or that I have is obviously that consortium included Fukushima and their government, a government who I think internationally has demonstrated to the world Japan is a pretty advanced country, technologically speaking and in many other ways as well.
And yet we have this consortium that gives everybody reassurance, we learn from each other and look what happened in Fukushima. So it does raise a lot of concerns for me in light of what happened in Fukushima for our area or our region in getting assurances from the NRC. I guess one of the questions I have for you, what kind of third party scientific community peer review do we have on all these studies that show that we are maximizing, minimizing, minimizing let me change that, minimizing every risk possible and The scientific community, independent community, concurs with our federal government.
That's one. Two, the snorkel you talked about is only at 48 feet above seat level and earlier the assurance you were giving us was that And let me remind you that 85 feet is where the facility, the bulk of it is housed at. Well, is 85 feet really the assurance baseline? Or is it 40 feet or is it 48 feet? What is it? I also visited the facility and looked at that as well as the discharge intake, salt water intake system. And that caught my attention because I could see that getting plugged up with debris if there was ever a tsunami which that's what it does. It brings in debris and sand and everything.
Anyways all those issues just caught my attention so one is the big issue for me is because I'm not an expert and I think none of us are. What is that third party assurance that the United States public, and in this case our regional public can learn from as to either an assurance that what the NRC and PG&E are saying is appropriate or not. Because on this issue I'm a little distrusting than I tend to be with government in general.
The third party is perhaps one of the biggest issues, and the second issue is 7.5 rating. Help us understand what that means or doesn't mean. What is the likely risk of getting an 8, an 8.5, a 9? Something extraordinary, an extraordinary episode. What then? Are you willing to say that if we did, that facility will withstand such a tremor, such So this is our opportunity to learn from you all the assurances that you can give us to quell or alleviate some of the public concern and outcry. And if you can't give us that today, it's going to continue because for me, the biggest issue is the third party.
Credible third-party oversight and peer review is what's going to quell much of our concern, at least my concern So that's it. I see Supervisor Wolf is laughing, so I'm not sure what
to say. She's laughing at me. Mr. Vagel, what we'll do if you'll make note of those questions because lights are all over the place on me here. So I'm going to call on Supervisor Labanino whose light is on and Supervisor Wolf's light is on and I'm sure that Supervisor Farr. And so we'll go to Supervisor Labanino then Supervisor Wolf then Farr
Thank you Madam Chair. I'm gonna leave the part about being paranoid about government. That's my role. You don't have to worry about that. Actually, I have just one major question. It's always been in the back of my mind about and I hope you shed some light on this. I don't understand the process when we say we've evaluated it for a 7.5 Does that mean, and I don't know how this is tested and that's what I'm curious about. Does that mean it fails at 7-6 or is that the maximum deliverable? That good science told us what could be delivered at that site.
And so that's what the maximum it was tested for. So I don't know if it's been tested for an 8 or an 8.5, if it has. What were the results of that and if it hasn't Obviously with the new information that we have with the 3D mapping and that, it's going to come up. So I'm just curious about how that number was settled on.
Supervisor Wolf? Thank
you
Chair Gray. Do you remember the date that we heard it when you were chair? I don't
remember.
Okay, I was trying to find that letter for you. Okay. I guess someone else is doing that but sometimes I can do it.
Supervisor Wolk? All right thank you. First of all I want to thank you for coming down To our Board of Supervisors. As I'm sure you know, we are right in the midst of budget hearings and we are so appreciative that you are here so that we can have this one-on-one conversation with you. And the reason we're so pleased to have you here is because as you mentioned last night, you had a public meeting and you heard concerns from those living in the shadows What I want to impart to you today is to let you know that that shadow extends to Santa Barbara County.
And that we are concerned about what happens at Diablo. Granted, we don't... We are not a next door neighbor but the impact of what happens at Diablo will most likely impact Santa Barbara County whether or not it's northern Santa Barbara County or evacuations that will impact southern Santa Barbara County impacts on crops The physical, I mean I can go on and on. The fact is that what happens at Diablo will impact Santa Barbara County and that's why we are so We are so interested to get some of the answers from you, if not today then at a later time and we want to impart to you the importance of this issue to Santa Barbara County.
You said that the plant is operating safely. You want to ensure its continued safety and you inspect it regularly. You know, that sounds good. In Santa Barbara County we do inspections. We had an issue with some of our onshore oil facilities that we inspect regularly and yet we have had some onshore oil spills that have occurred And what we have been trying to do in the county is to not only step up our inspections, but to ensure that when we find a violation that those violations are corrected timely.
And when I say timely, I mean not a couple of years down the road. That we want those violations remediated right away. And so what is concerning to me And you know, we get a lot of information from folks. So I'm going to read to you one of the violations that appears that you have stated has occurred at Diablo Canyon and that's the residual heat removal system line vent and that line vent is not required to be installed until 2014.
Furthermore, in the information I received there's a notation that during the NRC inspection it was discovered that gas is accumulating in a U connection and hydrogen explosions at Fukushima were caused by buildup of gases inside the containment structure without proper venting. So if Diablo experienced a hydrogen bubble how would the gases be ventilated? So what I'd like to ask you, and I'm going to ask you right now if you can just respond to the question.
The requirement that this vent line be installed in 2014 is there any why would you not require that installation to be installed immediately?
This vent line is on a residual heat removal system. If
you could just bring it closer to you.
How's
that? That's better, okay thank you.
Well we're talking about the U connection on the residual heat removal system and the voiding in a gas accumulation what that is is not hydrogen that was nitrogen and air and the concern in that was that if you had Air pockets in that piping system, it could cause like a water hammer or the pipes to move where air passes through the system. It was not hydrogen and it was not explosive.
What that issue involves is the NRC has put out generic communications for utilities to make sure that gas bubbles, like in this case nitrogen, that they monitor for that Prevent it from building up and then so that it doesn't cause cavitation or the water hammer effect. It's not involved with explosions or anything like that, and as long as the licensed utilities monitor how much air pockets in there if it's a very small amount is insignificant
So they do monitor
a possible
hydrogen buildup?
No, it's not hydrogen.
But I thought you said that there would be a piece of that that would be
hydrogen. This is nitrogen or air that comes out of solution in that system. It was not hydrogen.
Okay. And nitrogen is not explosive? Not explosive, yes. I don't know that and so are you saying that there's no danger in allowing them to wait until 2014 to fix this? That's
0:38 – 0:4830 turns
correct.
There's no danger at all?
There's no danger at all for that issue and the residual heat removal system.
In any of your inspections where you may not have, let me rephrase this. In any of your inspections do you require immediate remediation?
Yes.
And what would some of those things be?
Those actions would be where, say we don't have confidence that a system might be able to work. Where we could bring the licensee's attention and direct them to test the system or to take action to address an issue. Let's say for discussion sake, like for example now at Fort Calhoun Which is a plan in Missouri, I understand that. But it's undergoing an emergency with the flooding of the river where we had the licensee test their emergency diesels ahead of time so that if they did lose off electrical power that the emergency diesels were ready to operate and they are ready to operate to be able to perform their function.
Okay, but at Diablo there have been instances where you have through your inspections found issues.
Yes we have. And
you have asked that they be immediately remediated?
We haven't had any that they had immediate, but what we ask the licensee to do is to put that in their corrective action program and then they prioritize to evaluate the significance of the issue and then they say okay like for example this voiding issue we talked about the air bubble The utility put in their corrective action program and since it's not an immediate issue. And we want them to permanently fix the, you know this have a vent line on there.
You can't just instantaneously redesign the system. It takes analysis if you put a vent line on top you have to make sure that that vent line is seismically qualified. That is properly designed and installed and that takes a little bit of time so for them to do it right to make sure You know, that the corrective action fixes it once and for all. Sometimes they have to plan ahead if it's an issue from not immediate significance.
So let me just carry this on further. So they send you, the NRC a corrective action plan of how they plan to fix these problems. The NRC reviews the plan. Has there ever been an occasion where you have written back to PG&E and said we disagree with your plan?
Yes, there is.
Okay.
Yes, there is where we would challenge them that it wasn't timely enough and they need to reconsider it. And that's one of the benefits that the NRC has. You know you raise the issue of confidence in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission One thing we do differently than a lot of other government agencies, we do have inspectors on site that live in the area and resident inspectors are there every single day. Not many regulatory and oversight agencies have that where they go in in the middle of the night early in the morning and they keep checking and that's where we can keep a pulse You know, to see the day-to-day operations of the plan and to be able to see where issues that let's say a problem and to make sure that they're addressing it at you know in a timely fashion.
And not wait but to be able to right there and then ask the questions.
And I, and I appreciate that. And I think that's what I'm trying to get at is the enforcement piece. That it's one thing to understand the problem. It's another thing when they send you a plan and but what is the enforcement mechanism? And I guess it would be a plant shutdown.
You have different, we have a variety of degrees of actions that we can take. We have what we call an oversight process where we take issues, we characterize the significance of the issue. If they're a minor not immediate issue you know they have time to correct it. But then let's say we identify issues of more significance. Let's say multiple issues of more significance, then the actions that the agency would take become more significant and could eventually lead to the NRC having to shut down or ordering the plant to shut down. So we do have that enforcement
option. Another question that I have has to do with the emergency plan and And you used the word a conservative decision. The NRC made a conservative decision to evacuate U.S. citizens at Fukushima to 50 miles. I don't even want to say the same kind of accident. Why do you use the word conservative? That's a little troubling to me.
Okay, I see your perspective on that because whatever actions emergency recommendations should always be conservative. They should always be in the interest of protecting the public health and safety. The information that was available at the time that the NRC received and gathered, you know, the event was ongoing in Japan. The Japanese government made their own recommendations as well but the recommendations that we made based on the information received and based on our best model received were more conservative, more extensive than what the Japanese government had recommended So I would bring it up from that context.
Okay, and you know, I think that makes sense and I would say rather than using the word conservative maybe it was a more informed decision. And then finally, I may have some other questions but During one of our APCD meetings, which is our Air Pollution Control District meeting I brought up the issue of air monitoring and I got a letter back from Terry Dressler who's our APCD Executive Director on radiation monitoring in Santa Barbara County.
And what I've learned is that Santa Barbara County does not have any air monitoring stations That PG&E is required by the NRC to do radiation monitoring at specified areas near nuclear power plants and shares that information with other agencies. Do you have the authority to require PG&E to install air monitoring stations in Santa Barbara County?
I would need to look at, because my understanding is that there is environmental impact report and annual report that they put out. And there's different various monitoring stations but I really can't answer you. There's probably not an area of expertise but I can get back with you. Yeah, that would be... And I believe the EPA has a piece of it as my understanding. The
EPA might handle our media inquiry so during Japan when there was talk of possible radiation coming, the EPA has their network I can't speak for them, but they have monitoring and monitoring networks. Which is a thing called
RABNET?
Yes you'd want to get with them on getting that for the local county. We don't handle that piece.
Okay but the county could on its own discuss this with the EPA to ensure that we have RABNET which as I understand is probably a better monitoring system. But my question is In the interim, can you require PG&E to provide monitoring stations that may not be the RABNET system but another system? So if you could answer that question at a later time. I know you have to investigate that.
I can get back to you on that, ma'am. Thank you. If you don't mind. All right. Thank you. We
kind of bogged down there. I was hoping to get all the questions but it didn't occur and Supervisor Carbajal has a light on but Supervisor Farr was the next so I think maybe we should let Supervisor Farr go. Thank you and if it's possible jot down the questions and if we can do that I'd appreciate
it. Sometimes the questions are a little bit more involved and this is our opportunity Get as much as we can from these folks. And so, you know, I think we take our time to make sure we get our questions answered.
Supervisor Wolff, I totally admire your position. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me add my thanks to the others for you being here today to make your presentation and to answer our questions. I actually have a couple of questions about Japan first and then about Diablo. So the earthquake and tsunami in Japan was over three months ago now, and it's my understanding that there were several sources that leaked nuclear radiation into the atmosphere and into the water Both from reactors that were damaged, as well as from spent fuel rod pools that were leaking.
So how many different sources were there of nuclear radiation that leaked and how many are still leaking?
0:48 – 0:5416 turns
My understanding is that based on a briefing yesterday, the best that I know of is that the leaks have been stopped. They're isolated and they're controlled. And my understanding too is on Fukushima Unit 4 which had the spent fuel pool issue, that that pool might actually be intact. That there was other causes for some of the loss of the coolant there. But my understanding is that it's stable, they're beginning to work towards damaged areas slowly and deliberately but that the leakage has stopped.
So there is no nuclear radiation leaking from any of
that? I think there's still radiation, but not effluent per se like releases out to the atmosphere. They're controlling that. That's my understanding.
But it is still happening?
Mm-hmm.
And when do they think they'll have it totally halted?
I don't know. Okay. They are working towards that. It's rather a complex issue to be able to get their arms around.
Well, it's three months later so that's why I asked the question. Okay then, I'd like to ask a couple questions about Diablo. You said and we all know that Diablo is in a seismically active area and so when you're doing these seismic studies, you're obviously doing them not only on the initial fault that you made your calculations on but on the new fault that's been discovered But then how do you measure the interaction of seismic activity as far as increasing magnitude of different faults interacting?
That's one of the reasons why this 3D analysis for the shoreline fault is so very important and that they'll be looking at to make sure that once they have an in-depth 3D review or, you know, analysis or model built upon that. And then they can also evaluate how much interaction is there with other faults like the Audrey Fault? Do they come together? Are they going to act together?
There'll be geologists, PG&E is going to do the mapping but there will also be geologists not just PG& E but also other specialists looking at this new information and evaluate it to see how they all interact. And then the NRC who also has geologists on staff will independently look at that as well to make sure that they can come up with the best first characterize it And then try to predict, based on the best information what the impact would be if there was an earthquake or how the motions with the different faults would occur.
Okay and then I'm wondering how far? Out you look at various faults. And I ask that because I actually had a conversation with one of our OES people one time who told me something I didn't know, and that was that the big earthquake that we thought was in Santa Barbara that destroyed part of the mission actually originated in the San Ines Valley. So when you look at faults how far out geographically distance-wise do you look? Do you look all the way to San Andreas?
What do you calculate?
I do not know the answer offhand. Jeff, maybe you know?
Yes, thank you. I do know during the original licensing when the design basis ground motions were developed that the look was for 200 miles around the site. Two hundred miles. Two hundred miles, that's correct. I don't have information as to what their current program the PG&E is using is looking how far out that goes but the original look was two hundred.
Okay, thank you. Well that answers my question and then my last question now Madam Chair is when you evacuated people out from as far as 50 miles I just want to emphasize what Supervisor Wolf said as far as the people in Santa Barbara County are just as concerned about Diablo Nuclear Power Plant as the people in San Luis Obispo County because there are three of us up here on the dais that live within fifty miles of Diablo Canyon and so when, and I know that there are various maps to do with various kinds of hazards. evacuation zones and areas that would need to be evacuated depending on what happened. So as you go through this process and revise perhaps your conclusions as to the level of seismic activity, are those hazard maps also then going to be revised as well?
Yes they will. Once we have the map, first you look at the event per se right? You had the earthquake but then separately to that you had the emergency preparedness what actions would be taken for that and when the counties and locals even working with PG&E look at the whole area, the emergency plan from evacuation per se. They will evaluate the impact of a seismic event per se on access roads and the ability for people to evacuate. But I'd like to also add one of the things that the NRC is looking at too is from this Lesson Learned Task Force with Fukushima is also looking very hard at emergency actions that were taken in Japan What worked, what didn't? What more can we do here in the United States and possibly result in some rule changes regarding emergency preparedness.
And in case an event of this magnitude did occur so that we would be more prepared here in the United States for such an event. So that's also being looked at.
And when do you anticipate that would be finalized and it would come down to our OES staff?
I believe that's a 60-day report.
0:54 – 1:0212 turns
So as Tony mentioned yesterday, the commission heard from the task force that was created to look at the events in Japan and kind of gave a status to the commission. And their report, the first report will come out next month. We expect the longer term report in six months and that's where we would see some of the recommendations by the commission and possibly the task force on any changes that might need to be made or Things that they've learned from Fukushima.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Just a totally different issue. We just received word from Paul McIntosh, the Executive Director of CSAC, that the budget has been vetoed. Whatever that means we now know. Supervisor Carbajal, you had your light on and we do have two questions from the two folks You want to go
there first? No, let me continue the questions. That's probably
the best idea.
I appreciate you reporting that there might be a likelihood in what we learn from Fukushima may impact our emergency preparedness procedures and what have you. To that end, I want to echo the issue of EPA right now is the one that deploys the RAPNET monitoring stations for radiation. There's a report that they actually have put together on that. I think we've learned that radiation as in Fukushima travels rather quickly depending on their weather conditions And I think, I don't think we have to wait for a report to tell us. I think what Supervisor Wolf was touching on that we need a monitor paid by PG&E for Santa Barbara County residents for hoping never happens but when it happens People are going to clamor not to wait for the RapNet system to be deployed, but they're going to want to know what are the radiation levels today.
Right now. Real time. Not when one gets deployed two days from now, three days from now. Now. Because once you know that then you know the implications to the water system and every other system in place based on the levels of radiation you're getting. Two we saw what happened with the paranoia The rush to ascertain the medication that was utilized. Some may be a little hysteria, but nonetheless is there a supply like that in storage? I know we have our OES capabilities, lockers and what have you. Do we have that supply in our county so that we don't have a situation where we don't have that?
The violation history Of the plant. Is it public information? The corrective actions? Yes, sir. If I would greatly appreciate it if you could put together the past 5 or 10 years at least to five years a history of all the violations. All the corrective actions that have been taken. You could break him down into more serious and less serious. All of that would be helpful for what I'm getting at is that that starts painting a picture I think we know that one concern is obviously with the technology.
And we have backup systems and backup systems so that we can try to make sure that we're never in a predicament where everything has failed, and even that's of concern. But the biggest concern is human error. Human error is the biggest concern of all. the manager in one of the main critical controls, leaves, forgets, assumes something or another. I know at the Diablo plant you have a redundancy of controls but again to the extent that we could get a sense of that violation history would really I think Either exacerbate the concerns we have or give us a lay some of the concerns. But either way, I think that would be helpful. And you know my mother would probably if she was still alive today would probably be upset with me that I failed charm school for not being as effusive in welcoming you to Santa Barbara County as well.
So I want to welcome you as well but please understand that despite being completely happy that you guys are here it's not without The reason I'm focusing in on the issues is because this is one of the most serious issues that has come before us, in light of what happened in Fukushima.
I think there was a question about—I'm not sure it got answered—about peer review and about the 7.5 earthquake. Just so everyone knows what we have, we have 19 speakers, 3 in Santa Maria, 17 here. That's 20. And so we're going to be looking at about an hour of testimony, unless there are folks that can do it in one minute. I'm copying San Luis Obispo County on that one. So if you would answer the peer review if that has been answered and the 7.5 earthquake, I think that would complete our questions and will go to public comment.
Okay. If you don't mind, what I'll do is answer the peer review questions of how do we assure who checks the NRC? How do we ensure that we have government agencies and we have our processes? We do have the Inspector General, we have the ACRS which stands for the Atomic The advisory committee on reactor safeguards, which is experts outside the NRC that does checks to make sure that we're, you know, that the rules and regulations are appropriately being applied to and enforced. So we have those checks and balances in place. Also, we do involve In the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA actually does assessment just recently last year did an assessment of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that or to check to see to make sure that The codes and standards, international codes and standards for nuclear safety are being also met by the U.S.
plants. And the NRC actually did, and the results were very positive. But it's not lost that there
is a learning. Madam Chair, I'm going to interrupt you. Are those the same international codes that Fukushima had to abide by? That is correct. And they didn't abide by them?
They abided by the code, but that was not enough.
That was not enough. And I don't mean to be facetious. No. I'm just pointing out the parallels that sometimes all these answers they sound really great, but that's...
Right? You know, I think there is no denying that there is learning for all of us from the Fukushima event both in the NRC and what we're focusing on as first is preventing A release preventing an accident from occurring. And then the second part of it is then you got that mitigation piece afterwards, but the first we're trying to learn as much as we can so that does not occur here in the first place and that's why we do ready right after the events. We've already had two additional quick timely inspections together information into assess to make sure that The U.S. plants, if faced on the type of an event at Fukushima would be able to address it.
So we are looking at that very seriously and learning and it's still a work in progress but we're working quickly on that. And then the other area that I think you asked about was the 7.5 on the earthquake and Jeff would you mind taking that one?
1:02 – 1:078 turns
A question regarding the 7.5 magnitude earthquake on the Hawesbury and what that was based upon. There were independent studies that were conducted, PG&E did studies of the Hawesbury fault when it was discovered in addition the NRC in collaboration with USGS did independent studies To derive the maximum projected earthquake for that particular fault based on the characteristics and the data that was available.
And these studies, there were a number of studies that were involved that were peer reviewed that ultimately concluded that 7.5 magnitude was bounding earthquake for that particular fault. That was how it was originally determined. However, as a license condition when the Diablo Canyon was first licensed the NRC imposed the condition that using best available data and information as technology improves and new methods become available that PG&E was to go 10 years forward and 10 years down the line I should say and do a re-evaluation of the Hosbury to ensure that the assumptions in the evaluations remain bounding And that review was completed and did conclude that that evaluation, the 7.5, was still the bounding energy for that particular fault.
At that point NRC required PG&E committed to maintain their Geosciences Department and continue to do evaluations to ensure that remained a bounding evaluation. As far as design of the systems and what they were designed for based on that information.
Madam Chair, so is what you're saying is we let PG&E conduct their geological studies? The government doesn't do it. A third party doesn't do it. We let PG&E Who has the interest in the facility? Give us that information or do we require that they do a third party, or the NRC does it, or somebody else does it.
For the first ones ever done there were independent studies that were done separately. USGS did a study completely separate from PG&E's and they were peer reviewed by outside third-party individuals. PG&E's ongoing studies, again we heard from them last night. They're presenting them publicly. They're being reviewed by seismologists. I don't remember the schools and universities. USGS is also involved in NRC. We have on our staff seismologists and geologists who also do independent reviews of the data so it is not done in a vacuum. It is peer-reviewed, publicly reviewed, and is available for inspection.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Chair Gray. My staff brought me the letter and the date of the board hearing. The board hearing was held August 3rd of 2010 and then I submitted the letter to The NRC that same day, and the essence of that letter was following up on San Luis Obispo's request to have a three-dimensional geophysical mapping that would occur to assess the risks of the newly discovered fault.
And what I have understood since then from PG&E and from the press is that now they are going ahead to do that, and planning to do that. What is interesting to me is that you said that part of their responsibility is to use new technical scientific information, and what is surprising to me This wasn't something that they did on their own to suggest this three-dimensional geophysical mapping. Again, I'm not a scientist. I wouldn't have known about this but they are the ones. It sounds like we have given them the responsibility to use all scientific tools available And yet that wasn't what they were planning to do. Now, I don't know if it was the supervisor's letter, the San Luis Obispo letter, the Mothers for Peace, whatever it was that got them to now do this.
But I think that it is interesting and it just raises a question mark for me. What else can be done? And I look to the NRC to make sure that whatever new science is available, whatever tools are available, that that is what is being used in evaluating these faults. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you. Supervisor Lavinino, that was your question on the 7.5? Was that okay? Good. So we're now going to go to public comment. Let's start with Santa Maria so we'll go on camera now Mr. Allen.
Madam Chair, we'll start in Santa Maria with Dave Cross to be followed by Shannon Seifert.
Mr. Cross?
1:07 – 1:1510 turns
Well good morning I'm Dave Cross from the Economic Development Commission representing the Santa Maria Valley Chamber of Commerce and while the topic is safety think it's also important to acknowledge the economic benefit that Diablo Canyon provides to Santa Barbara County Over 1,200 PG&E employees and 200 contractors work at the Diablo Canyon site and some 200 more work in the local community. But of these 129 employees live in Santa Maria.
And the average salary of the employees who live in Santa Maria is $92,867. So these are excellent paying jobs that require a high level of engineering and science related skills. And on top of the overall 1600 plus jobs that PG&E provides directly, there is an almost equal amount of jobs created throughout San Luis Obispo County and northern Santa Barbara County because of the multiplier or ripple effect caused by the amount of money that Diablo Canyon injects into the region's economy.
Diablo Canyon is also a major purchaser of goods and services from local vendors or local businesses. These purchases include parts, tools and services of a wide variety. In over a four-year period from 2006 to 2009 these purchases exceeded $73 million dollars and in Santa Maria alone in 2009 over $2,700,000 was spent with local merchants and services. And between 2006 and 2009, almost $10 million went directly into the economy of Santa Maria. So in short, the economic importance of Diablo Canyon should not be overlooked and it should be an important consideration for discussion. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Cross. Our next speaker is Shannon Seifert to be followed by Mr. Caldwell.
Ms. Seifert?
Hi, thank you for letting me speak today. I'm Shannon Seifert the CEO of the Santa Maria Valley YMCA and first of all I want to thank you guys for this crazy week I know you've had. I'll keep this very very brief. My presence is not to discuss nuclear energy but it is to discuss the relationship that the YMCA has with PG&E. We went to them several years ago and said we need an audit, we need some help at the Y. Not only did they come to us and help us with that they said you know we can take this a step further. We have several employees Here in this county, we'd like to offer you their services voluntarily to help us with our events that we do when we have a family day in the park that they underwrite. And this funding goes specifically to Friends of Waller Park to augment enhancements to Waller Park, Santa Barbara County that doesn't cost any taxpayers any money.
It's no extra fees. It is a free deal and this is a ripple effect of what PG&E does in our community Separately and above from their involvement here and help with everything they do. So I just want to say that the community is enhanced by them, and they've helped the YMCA for the past 15 years. And I appreciate your time. Thank
you.
Mr. Caldwell followed by Patricia Wilmore back here in Santa Barbara.
Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab I'm very grateful that Supervisor Carbajal took the time to go visit Diablo. You know, I respect the fact that you know all of us watched in horror what happened in Japan and but I also don't want it to be lost on us that was an event that would probably happen once every couple hundred years in some places but is such a magnitude that it wouldn't happen in other places because geologic conditions. But nonetheless, it's a responsible thing for city and county and state governments in our federal governments to redouble their efforts to learn from other people's tragedies, other people's mistakes, etc., etc. So we don't have a problem with the County of San Luis or this board having a hearing on these things but what we do hope to avoid Is somebody watching TV or reading an article about what's going on in Japan and trying to assert local authority over Diablo Canyon in this particular instance?
You know, we wish that people would treat P&G and E with more respect. They are a great corporate neighbor. They're a great company And we believe that they have gone above and beyond and want to have a safe facility at Diablo. And they've proven that over the years they've been operating, but we would hope that you treat them with respect not like their criminals or sloppy in their work and they've got to be overseen and that you wouldn't treat the NRC in a similar fashion They say, well we won't take PG&E's word for it. We don't want to take the NRC's word for it. We need third party evaluation. Well peer review is fine but you know for you guys, for your board to be tempted to try to even assert some regulatory control or auspices here I just think it goes beyond the pale because you're not experts.
You don't have anybody on your staff that's an expert And the fact is, this is an industry that we need more of. Why? Because of AB 32 among other things. We don't have enough land for solar. We don't have enough land for wind. We need nuclear power and so I wish the governments at all levels would be going to operators like PG&E and saying how can we facilitate the improvement modernization And even increased an expansion of this industry in the state to meet these mandates.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Before we start with Ms. Walmore let me offer to any of you that would like to make your point in one minute that if is there anyone here that would like one minute? Let me know and I'll organize this okay. You're the first person up. If there's anybody else... I hadn't thought of that. Thank you, sir. Your name is?
Thank you. My name is Bill Pomasano. I recently received a notice of an NRC inspector's report about the auxiliary feed water system alternative auxiliary supplies that claimed that in the event of a power loss To the plant that the auxiliary system is only able to cool one reactor at a time and I would like that answered. And if it's affirmative, I wonder why both?
Both units are allowed to operate when only 1 could be cooled in an emergency
OK and we'll get that answered for you as quickly as possible miss Wilmar. And followed by
1:15 – 1:2522 turns
Brian Rosen.
Okay, Brian's right in front so he knows he's next.
Good morning Chairperson Gray members of the board I'm Patricia Wilmore local area manager for government relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company. First of all, I'd like to thank you for this discussion and dialogue this morning. And I think it's very interesting and enlightening for your constituents. Secondly, I would like to thank the NRC for being here and to acknowledge the way that they do regulate our industry and assure the safety and security of the nuclear power plants throughout this country.
I also want to assure you that PG&E has filed all the necessary Permits or filed application for those permits in order to do the enhanced seismic studies so we are well down that path now of getting those studies done and Also, we have asked the CPUC to suspend our Application and request for funding for license renewal since that is now on hold and we have been Supported in that effort by the utility reform network So we feel we are working in the right direction, going in the right direction in all of these areas. And finally I want to mention that with me today is Mr. Loren Sharp who is a Senior Director of Technical Services at PG&E and Ms. Tracy Vardis who is in Emergency Planning and we are here should you have questions of Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Thank you. Thank you. Questions?
You know, I think Mr. Caldwell made a good point that I just want to stress. I think we all have a job to do and certainly PG&E is a corporation attempting to realize as much profit as possible in addressing the regulation that is put before it but I think like most corporate entities the minimum you can spend on overhead to realize that big dollar is a worthy goal in our capitalistic system But us in government have to push the other end to find a balance of protecting the public health and corporate America trying to make that dollar.
It's a balance we're trying to reach. It is not personal, it's just that I think that's what our democracy is all about and these types of hearings are all about. By no means would I ever suggest to disparage the good that I think in doing business PG&E does for the community in terms of economic development and economic infusion into the economy. But it's not going to take away from us pressing and trying to make sure that we achieve the best controls and the best assurances for the community.
Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal.
Our next speaker is Brian Rosen to be followed by Patricia Rosen.
I'd like to start by mentioning it's very important to realize that nuclear power only provides about 10% of California's energy. And I understand Diablo, and I don't have the exact number but it's probably about 5%. Now we're one of the most wasteful societies on the planet. We use about twice as much energy per person as they do in Europe. And instead of having nuclear power, we could easily erase the need for nuclear power with a little bit of energy efficiency. Germany gets 28% of their energy from nuclear power and they pledge to phase out all nuclear power Within I believe 10 years. So there's really a little bit of energy efficiency could erase nuclear power and we're not doing nearly enough with that where we should be using front-loading washing machines, we should be using clotheslines more but many apartment complexes won't allow them.
There could be tax incentives for apartment complexes to allow clotheslines There's a lot of things that could be done for energy efficiency and we can easily do without Diablo. But I think also, we're supposed to have a democratic process and the public is supposed to be respected And in the case of nuclear power, I don't feel the public is being respected. Public opinion is very much against nuclear power. Some of the biggest demonstrations in the state have been against nuclear power and we're having it forced down our throats by big government.
If you go to UStream.tv and type in protest against The Diablo nuclear power plant, you'll see there's like a thousand people recently protesting. We need to respect public opinion and not have this forced down people's throats. Regardless of whether it's safe or not safe, the public isn't being respected. We really don't need this nuclear power. It's very, very expensive. There are so many things that we don't know.
There are so many uncertain things. We can't really predict Mother Nature and earthquakes. Maybe if we have an accident here, hey there are other countries that are going to learn a lot from us. You know? There is a lot we can learn from these accidents but we just haven't had enough accidents to learn enough. So, you know these accidents are a blessing in a sense but it's up to the people who live nearby and the whole planet gets blanketed with radiation. I don't know how unbiased the NRC is they claim they're independent but a lot of our federal agencies like the FDA they repressed a lot of information on genetically engineered foods and it took The NRDC through a lawsuit because the very scientists were silenced. So the public has lost much faith in our agencies after this kind of thing has occurred, and so please we don't need Diablo.
The public doesn't want it. Thank you Mr Rosen. Thank you so much.
Our next speaker is
Patricia. Folks, we kind of have an agreement that we aren't going to clap but if you love it just wave your hands It makes it easier. Otherwise, people get mad at each other. Yeah. Miss Rosen, I think it's your turn
to be
followed by going to follow her.
Jeff Bard will come up after.
Yes. Are you still here? Okay.
I wasn't aware that I had a turn However, everything Brian Rosen said I completely agree with him. I hope everyone else feels the same way I do and feel the same way Brian does and that's all I had to say.
Thank you Mrs.
Rosen.
Jeff?
To be followed by Ron Dexter after
John.
Madam Chair, members of the board. The NRC rocks. It is a model federal agency. Gregory Jasko should be timed man of the year for his courageous stances. Now I am proud to say that I was a member of the Oil Chemical and Atomic Workers Union and I don't need any of these people to tell me who Karen Silkwood is. Okay, I worked. I was exposed to radon gas, radiological hazard in the workplace and I trusted the Industrial Safety Department of my union to look after me.
Okay? I don't have cancer because I don't smoke cigarettes. I eat garlic, shiitake mushrooms, good Santa Barbara local produce and I support local agriculture. My heart goes out to people who are suffering with Illnesses, but I'm sorry. But getting a vendetta against Diablo Canyon and getting a vendetta against me doesn't cure anyone. Now you've heard before, I still don't have my documents back that were absconded by Mothers for Peace two days ago. Okay, I completed the first phase of my book, Diablo, excuse me, Fukushima Aftermath, Diablo Nuclear Renaissance or Industry Meltdown.
It's open source. I invite collaborators. Now, I didn't want to be accused of neglecting Mothers for Peace because they are a player. So I wrote a neutral point of view Wikipedia article just as I wrote for Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. I wrote the Wikipedia articles three or four days ago an IP that was traced at Tascadero claiming the act from Mothers for Peace vandalized the Wikipedia article and I invite Mothers for Peace To go to the website, follow California law. Don't commit cyber vandalism. Don't wage cyber war. Make factual corrections and participate in bringing reason and rationality to this process. And I'm publicly asking them to cease and desist. There were phone calls made to members of my father. Are you really a scientist?
Are you really a meteorologist? Yes, my father has two doctoral degrees. He was one of the early signatories. Global warming is hot upon us, and I'm proud to be a former employee of the Weather Bureau as well. And unfortunately, we need nuclear so I did some of the stuff that's missing in action. I have copies of evacuation information I will leave with you today and hopefully we're going to bring some rationality and deal with the issues and stop these petty personal attacks that I've had to endure Stop vandalizing the website. The other book is California Public Policy and Citizen Participation. It will be a course in Wikiversity for spring of 2012, and you have copies of the table of contents of my book about Fukushima aftermath. Thank you.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Ron Daxter to be followed by Lynn Hendredt.
1:25 – 1:308 turns
Thanks for the opportunity.
Good morning.
I am a veteran of the Korean War, life member of three veterans organizations and I'm really concerned about energy because we've got troops over there dying and our nation is hurting a lot from that cost. As to nuclear energy, I don't think we need it. We do need energy, but I think we've already been told about energy conservation which I believe is the answer to all of this.
We're so used to 70 degree temperatures and we're spoiled by it in our supermarkets we have open freezers Everywhere we go, we're at 70 degrees and our planet is suffering from it. So I think we've got to think about energy conservation. help us with energy efficient appliances and giving away energy efficient light globes, talking about insulation and all that. But we've got to go much, much, much further than that because our planet will not survive the way we're going now.
So that's my bid. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Lynn Hendred to be followed by David Weissman. Okay, we'll move her back. Then David Weissman to be followed by Dr. Lee Heller.
Good morning Supervisors, my name is David Weissman. I am the Outreach Coordinator of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. I traveled down here this morning from my home in San Luis Obispo and like to begin this morning by one introducing the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility which you may or may not be familiar with but since 2005 we have been advocating for and working with State officials over, contrary to what might have been heard earlier, state jurisdictional issues. For example, if you reframe the issue to one of economics and reliability over which the state and not the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has jurisdiction, you discover a world of interesting approaches one can take. And in fact when one looks at the economic consequences of Fukushima, nearly $100 billion in claims now anticipated against the utility TEPCO and a devastated economy, one sees that Beyond health effects, beyond safety and security there are economic ramifications.
Economic ramifications to tourism, to the perception, to the distressed agricultural industries. And so we have approached this from an economic point of view. You've all asked such important questions today and I find that they were interesting, the questions we had on the magnitudes of these studies. On how did these studies come about? And was this a jurisdictional issue that California could do? And the answer is yes it could. The NRC did not require the studies. When Mr. Bagel says these three-dimensional studies are important, what he doesn't tell you is that the NRC wasn't interested in them. The NRC didn't care. They're the result of our California Energy Commission with whom you can work. They're the result of our state legislature and your Northern Assembly Boarder and now State Senator Sam Blakeslee.
Whose legislation, Assembly Bill 1632 started the ball rolling to get these seismic studies done. Dr. Blakeslee having a PhD in seismology you should know that when the legislation was introduced PG&E opposed it. The NRC does not require these seismic studies. This has been the work of your California legislature, your colleagues at the Energy Commission, at the Legislature and now we hope at the Public Utilities Commission as well. So there's a vital role for Californians to play in this, to not feel that they are preempted or excluded from this because as you rightly questioned The NRC's independence in these matters is called into account. In fact, what they might tell you about the Public Utilities Commission document is that in granting PG&E money to do these studies for which we now hear permits have been applied even though the studies were requested by the state in 2008 long before Fukushima They are now saying that what they don't tell you is that the studies must go to an independent peer review panel that includes the California Geologic Survey, the California State Seismic Safety Commission.
California eyes looking at this situation not the federal eyes and so we invite you to and I will hand you leave behind press releases to look at the work the alliance is doing Contact your Assemblyman, Doss Williams to be in touch with your Northern Senator, Senator Blakeslee and to follow up on the state issues that look at the economics, the ramifications that could come from what a devastating accident could do here. And to realize that you in the state do have a role in overseeing this. Thank you very much for attention.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Dr. Lee Heller to be followed by Lauren McElroy.
Lauren? Is Lauren here? Gotcha. Thank you.
1:30 – 1:4635 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. The previous speaker said incredibly eloquently most of what I would have said so I'm going to be maybe within a minute. Joni, I know you don't believe me. The most telling comment for me by the presenters was in response to a question that Supervisor Carbajal asked about code enforcement. The Japanese were in compliance with international codes and it wasn't enough.
And the notion that somehow we can anticipate and prepare for and protect against things that we end up not being able to anticipate, prepare for, and protect against is really scary because we end up caught with our pants down. And I've been looking at Yahoo while this was all going on, at the most current stories about the Japan earthquake. The Japan ruling party wants tax hikes for quake rebuilding.
They're planning on moving pregnant women out of far-flung areas out of the consequences of this. In May they were expecting tourism to be down 50%. These are the unintended consequences of trusting too much to be able to control the outcomes when it comes to dangerous forms of energy production. I am not a big fan of leaving the wolves in charge of the sheep. I prefer to have the border collies do it, as you know.
And in all honesty, I'm not so confident that the NRC is a really good border collie. So I ask you to play that role to the best of your ability and really push these regulatory agencies and really act on our behalf in protecting us. Thank you. Thank you, Doctor.
Our next speaker is Lauren McElroy to be followed by Sharon Rose.
Sharon Rose? Are you here? Gotcha. Thank you.
Hello, I'm a concerned citizen from Santa Barbara. My name is Lauren McElroy. Thank you for coming. You're welcome having this dialogue. Do we need to move this up? Okay. So thank you to the nuclear regulatory staff for coming. I believe you are the staff representatives so I'm hoping you will take our concerns also to your heads of Nuclear Regulatory Commission and thank you for coming.
And we'd appreciate it if
you direct your
comments to us.
Really? Yeah. Oh, okay. I thought this was a meeting with them and to you. Okay. Not that you're not important. Thank you. Well public safety is the number one concern. And also, California has enough power using natural gas that we already have so that we actually don't need nuclear power. What we've found with Fukushima is that the risks highly outweigh the benefits.
And we should have zero tolerance for anything that compromises public safety. Fukushima has raised pivotal questions about the ability of technology, regulatory oversight and emergency preparedness to keep the public safe. Producing electricity using nuclear power is like cutting butter with a chainsaw. It's really way, way over what we need to be doing in order to have our energy needs met.
No other human endeavor has such deeply toxic effects that would fundamentally affect all of human life, as well as all life on earth for hundreds of thousands and actually millions of years through the genetic effects of radiation. We can't prevent the next earthquake but we can stop the next nuclear disaster in its tracks. In nuclear technology we have an unforgiving technology that does not brook human error and yet it is being operated by humans You combine that with something that's completely outside of human control, which is geophysical forces of earthquakes and tsunamis.
And you have a recipe for something that is not tenable. You endeavored to assure us that an 85-foot above sea level, you know, place for the reactor would be safe. But in fact, in 2009 there was a paper published that said then in the 19th century there were two tsunamis that were at 100 feet in that area. And aside from what has happened in recorded history we don't know what will happen in the future.
A nuclear accident would also deeply affect property values, as has been mentioned. And also in the event of an earthquake for safety, for evacuation. If there were an earthquake it's highly likely that it would affect all the bridges even just the little ramps to get up onto 101 and so people's ability to evacuate would be seriously compromised. So my question to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission The Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County is, are you prepared to do anything necessary to protect public safety?
Are you willing to enact and implement a zero-tolerance policy for radiation emitting from the Diablo nuclear reactor? Thank you for your comments. We're limited to three minutes. And one last thing. Would you be willing to include decommissioning of the reactor if that were necessary for public safety? Thank you very much.
The next speaker is Sharon Rose to be followed by Mark Shatillo.
Mark, I saw you. Thank you. Good morning everyone. Thank you for having this discussion. I'm a concerned citizen. I work with several citizen and business groups who are concerned with safety. In 2005 the tsunami evacuation warning did occur in Santa Barbara County and on the South Coast. There are many safety issues Solar flares have not been mentioned. It is known that solar flares knock out power grids.
This means that no form of electrical power is reliable for cooling and preventing meltdowns. There is a case to be made that Diablo Canyon in all nuclear plants in California Could be closed. The California Independent Operator, which is our state grid operator recently completed a draft study finding that California has an oversupply of power through 2020 We have old and new gas plants online. We have hydro plus a growing number of solar, geothermal and wind.
California also just passed SBX-12 requiring 33% of our power be renewables by the year 2020. The phase out of nuclear power should be studied. The Rocky Mountain Institute has shown and proven That energy efficiency is significantly reducing energy requirements. I hear that the NRC is diligent about safety and about mitigating accidents. For me, the greater concern is acts of nature and acts of God as happened in Japan.
No one can prevent that. As far as economic importance of Diablo and PG&E, I feel PG&E should be part of our renewable future picture. There will be jobs. Many of us feel that licensees should be withheld until an evaluation of South Coast power needs and assets is conducted. Concerns about economics are also real, but there will be no tourism. There will be no YMCA. There will be no farms if we have a Japan-style disaster.
Thank you for your consideration. Thank you for being here.
Our next speaker is Mr. Sciatella to be followed by Kathy Staples.
And I see Kathy.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Mark Shutillo and I am here today as an individual on behalf of myself my family and other community members that have concerns about this. First, I do want to thank and acknowledge both the NRDC and PG&E for being here today. We looked at PG&A as the first line of defense and the NRC is the second line of defense Response to the presentation I had a concern that I wanted articulate with respect to the independence of the embedded inspectors.
I'm not familiar with the NRC's program there, but I think it's important as we saw with the MMS's embedded inspectors and the potential for Folks that are working on a day-to-day basis with the staff and industrial operations, there's a potential to lead to a congenial relationship. And it's important that the embedded inspectors, the folks onsite are independent and so are rotated and are tested for their independence periodically. Secondly I wanted to raise the issue of monitoring that Mr. Carbajal raised. It's vitally important that we do have a local network to be able to monitor our specific radiation exposure because as we know, we are downwind.
And from my personal experience being both proximate to Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and then watching the Fukushima episode unfold and the radiation from that facility in that episode Reach us here in California. I think it's vitally important to recognize that it was human error. Yes, there were episodes that contributed but in each of those instances it was human error that caused those accidents so we can't really plan and expect that we have everything taken care of. That's exactly what each of those operators said at the time. So thank you for your involvement here.
Three requests or suggestions I gave provided a letter to you That I think it's important that our county is part of your responsibility for public health and safety. And under your jurisdiction, under the police powers to first ask that PG&E model the exposure, the amount of time it takes for the exposure of our residents in the event of a disaster while it's a low probability.
Consequences of a catastrophic release are very significant. So, that's I think important information for all of us to know and we can use the Class 5 event as an example. That's all the recent modern episodes have been of that nature. Secondly, to test the evacuation capacity as I testified in a previous hearing. We don't have a robust evacuation system that's available because of our geography and network of roads. Thirdly, I think given in response to the testimony of the Chamber of Commerce it's important to know what are the property values that are likely to be harmed and the economic impact associated with a catastrophic release.
We subsidize this industry through the Price-Anderson Act, and in order to really understand what are the economic consequences of this enterprise it's important to know what other economic risks to our community that will contribute to our communities discussion. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank
You Mr. Sciatello well done. Ms. Staples is followed by?
Lauren
Sharpe. Is Lauren here? Gotcha thank you.
Good morning Madam Chair, esteemed members. Thank you Supervisor Carbajal for being so thorough in checking out all the details and facts about our safety. We were privileged to have a wonderful presentation by PG&E which I attended with you because that's how invested Santa Barbara County is in our welfare and the people of the public. And so may I say welcome This is the third time I've had a chance to testify before you and many times with our esteemed board.
And as we all know, we're facing AB 32 and a reduction in carbon footprint. And as we all know nuclear power is the least of all sources of energy that has the smallest footprint. In fact between Diablo and San Onofre it's about 20% of all power in the state of California is produced at those power plants. I am concerned that the NRC is what I understood from the presentation that you made last night, that in fact the NRC is what we call the watchdog of nuclear power for the United States. Ms. Staples,
if
you'll kind of direct
your to us, okay?
Thank you. Do we understand that the NRC is the watchdog for nuclear power for all of the state? We'll get
that answered for you. Keep going.
Sure. Yes. So
is that yes?
We'll answer it for you. You keep going. Excellent, well in fact what was interesting for me to hear and I don't know in your packets did they provide you with the current annual assessment letter? Did you get that in your packets? Did you provide that for our board?
Ms. Staples we're not gonna make this a dialogue if you'll just give your presentation and your
point of view. Yes happy to do
that Chair. Thank you.
I brought one for you from last night's meeting there are a lot of concerned citizens Present also in which event the NRC indicates that this annual assessment letter says that they, the watchdog for the federal government opened a substantive cross-cutting issue of problems and identified all and made resolution with respect of thoroughness of problem evaluation. And did indicate you may ask them is Diablo safe?
And that might be a question you want to ask, because it was a direct indication and all five members of the board last night indicated that Diablo was safe. And so I would just suggest to you possibly, because we have many people here that want the actual truth and facts about what's happening with safety in nuclear power. Because we had that great presentation offered by PG&E, might it be opportunity when we have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission come to actually present That kind of information to the general public. Because what my experience was last night, many people were asking the questions that in fact were answered in the presentation. So I thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you for being here today. And our next speaker is
Lauren Sharp to be followed by Judith Everett.
Judith Everett?
Gotcha.
Thank you. Welcome.
Thank you. My name is Lauren Sharp, I'm a senior director with PG&E at Diablo Canyon. The groups that report to me are License Renewal as well as Geosciences Expertise Group that was previously mentioned. One point I wanted to make or clarify a little bit for the body here is essentially many times the public has the perception The magnitude of the earthquake is what is the dominant portion that we're looking for, for the design of nuclear reactors. It's actually the ground motion or ground shaking which is a function of the magnitude of the earthquake, the distance to the earthquake and the type of earthquake so essentially all those three are the dominant things that we look at when we look out for the facility designed for earthquakes and so While magnitude is one portion of it, it is typically not the dominant portion.
Some of the others weigh more heavily in that. So as we've gone forward and we've created a lot of the research at the latest and greatest insights what they discovered is we did a lot of the research on earthquakes is originally in science they were looking at earthquakes in general and they needed to separate those earthquakes to earthquakes that are strike-slip separated with hanging wall and subducted faults so in general Those are necessary separations to make sure they identify the impact from the types of earthquakes.
1:46 – 2:0234 turns
We have a question over here, so we're on our time here.
This is going to – it may sound a little bit silly but I don't mean it to be silly. Can we predict when the next earthquake is going to be? Not that I'm aware of. Can we predict the size of the earthquake?
We can predict the magnitude of earthquakes to some degree by the length, width and depth. That's why the 3D seismic is so important from a standpoint of getting more insight from the overall And that's what we're going to be talking about today. There are a probabilistic look at all earthquakes that can potentially, if you look at the California matrix of earthquakes that are around our area. The ability for which earthquakes propagate...
I understand that. Maybe to make it easy for you and ask what is the degree that you're looking at for Diablo Canyon?
In the earthquake sciences part, what they do is essentially they go after all of the earthquakes that are in a specific area and they run a probability matrix of all those different earthquakes. The likelihood that they would erupt in that particular fault, the consequence of that, and that's why I say they look at all of them.
Can you go back to what is that probability degree?
The floor and the ceiling? They don't put an actual probability number on it, if that's what you're asking. They rank all of those and then do a probabilistic calculation.
And the calculation probability is?
They consider all the potential earthquakes. But we have no statistical calculations is what you're telling me. I can't... No, they do not provide an earthquake that says... Thank you, that
was my point. Okay. There's none. It just sounds
good. Understood.
Madam Chair?
Supervisor Farr, I'm
trying to follow that. I just wanted to ask a question also. We had a speaker earlier that I'm sure that you heard who said that there was only cooling capacity for one reactor. So is that correct and did you want to speak to that issue?
I can address that a little bit. The OX salt water system or the OX feedwater system that were mentioned are essentially redundant systems that provide capability to provide cooling for the reactors. The one comment, I believe was associated with an inspection report Question the capacity of the pumps for the backup water on the hill and we have demonstrated by test that indeed. We have enough capacity in the pump to provide water to both reactors, so yes
Thank you Back to your comments sir
So like I said, I just wanted to clarify the design basis for the nuclear reactors on the seismic. The 3D portions that we have provided applications for will go through a fairly extensive environmental impact statement review process when that is complete then we will be implementing the 3D seismic activities to do the research in the areas around Diablo Canyon.
Another question, Supervisor Wolf?
I'm going to ask you the question that I had raised before and that is this 3D study. Why was it that it took letters from the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, our board of supervisors as was mentioned Senator Blakeslee and so forth to move forward with these 3D studies? And why wasn't it that you just did that automatically? If that was a study to get a better idea of the, if magnitude is not as important as some of the other issues that you mentioned. Why you just didn't move forward and do that on your own?
The type of study we're talking about is a very large study. It takes a lot of resources to do it, so we went through the CPUC. We voluntarily asked for the funding from CPUC to perform that study with 3D. That funding was approved. The letters that you're talking to were essentially at that time we were doing the seismic studies in parallel with license renewal. The leaderships of PG&E at Diablo Canyon decided to request the NRC to not issue any kind of license renewal decision until we had completed the studies recently.
Just a quick follow-up, if you didn't receive the funding would you have still done it?
I don't know the answer to that. It would be a guess on my point. Any other questions? That's all that I have, Madam Chair.
Thank you and any other questions for the speaker? Mr. Allen our next speaker is
Judith Everett to be followed by Frances Scafidi.
Is Frances here? I don't see Francis. Is Francis here? You are here.
I'm Judith Everett, a member of WILF, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom. And our national international organization is very much against nuclear power because of its propensity to harm many people if things go wrong. And there is indeed a third party as regards the research and the possible effects of accidents, and I might say that this book The Enemy Within proves conclusively that the closer to a nuclear power plant you live, the more likely you are to get cancer. The statistics are very clever and very thoroughly done on local county health. statistics. And I myself was always against nuclear power, but my efforts were fueled and I have a book for each of the supervisors which I published recently and there's a lot of references in there that prove that nuclear power is very bad news for When it goes wrong, but also it's bad for in so-called normal operations because gases are given up off daily.
It was 1300 curies that PG and E people told me when we were up there And so Santa Barbara doesn't realize the fact that we are as much in jeopardy here as they are in San Luis Obispo because the plume reaches down to Santa Barbara and nine months of the year, Wind and the ocean currents go from north to south. So most of people in Santa Barbara are quite unaware of this possibility that an earthquake happened, and Diablo came apart. It's very possible because they're only actually technically up to 7.5. What happens if there's an 8 or more earthquake?
And it's just a very And yet the research is out there, it's just a case of doing it. It's not in the media because the media has to protect I guess it's the money of PG&E but alternative energy Actual, well-studied and it just takes something like a blanket put over a roof. So the people that say that solar energy is not feasible are quite wrong. It's being done in many areas so please do the research yourselves and I'm here actually to request that the supervisors ask In our sea to close down Diablo. Thank you, ma'am.
Thank you for being here and our next speaker is
Francis Scafidi. And if Francis is there we go and then followed by Lynn Hendred if she showed up to the room.
Nolin, anybody else? This is the final speaker. Welcome!
I just have two questions. Why would we authorize an aging nuclear plant for another 20 years with all its inherent dangers? My second question is why is nothing being done about nuclear energy in California
Thank you. That concludes our speakers for the day. Where do we go from here? Any questions from board members? Supervisor Carbajal?
Yes, obviously we all appreciate the information we got but I think they also highlighted a number of ongoing concerns that weren't answered We can't predict an earthquake, we got that reaffirmation. There is a probability but we didn't get a range of probability and yet we have the facility rated at 7.5 for a 7. 5 earthquake so again it just continues to raise the concerns that many people have.
I for one would like to continue to send a letter to the NRC And PG&E, not just that we completely defer relicensing of this facility until all the studies are done. Not concurrently, not... Just wait until all these studies are done before we proceed forward. I think anything less is putting the cart before the horse. The other thing advocating for a third party that we really All information, all studies that they really get peer reviewed by third party scientific community.
And that any compliance issues be assessed by a third party as well. I think we do need to pursue the monitoring, the monitor in the area and the community for Santa Barbara County by either NRC or PG&E that they really consider purchasing one and putting it in place. One minimum if not more. And again, the medical supply I think needs to be addressed with ROES and PG&E and the NRC.
And again, I believe that we do need to...I'm assuming that's what SLO, their posture has been but I think we need to really tread lightly in Giving confidence to the public that we're not rushing hastily into renewing the license for this facility until all of those 3D seismic studies are finalized. So, that's what I would like to see that we send a letter both to PG&E and the NRC articulating those concerns and those requests. I don't know if my colleagues feel the same when I add to that but I certainly think If there's nothing to hide, if we're all interested in the safe and the well-being of our community and of course PG&E's economic prosperity. It would behoove all of us to take the most prudent course of action in addressing all of these issues so that at the end of the day there is no mistrust and we all win together.
Anything short of that I think we all lose because I think no doubt that nuclear energy provides a good source of energy that perhaps on some level may be perceived by some as having less of, if it's accurate which I don't know that it is, less of a footprint. And obviously it's a good clean source of energy in some sense when you don't consider the implications of the radiation and the fuel rods that are stored and waste of course but when something goes wrong it even dwarfs The concerns we in Santa Barbara County have had about oil.
When something goes wrong, it dwarfs that disaster by multifold I should say. So this is not the same thing. We have enough concerns about oil exploration and development but this is taking it to Intergalactic level of what could actually happen to human life, the environment. And today unless somebody has found a way to neutralize radiation which I don't believe is the case it just continues going on and on and on and on just how do you contain it?
There's no answer so that's the fear is that That paranoia of us human beings going to extinction, if there was ever a way this is it. And so that's why it raises a lot of concerns I think for people.
Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. I'm going to just go ahead and try and make a motion and articulate some of the issues that Supervisor Carbajal mentioned. First, to receive this briefing from the NRC staff and B, this is directing county staff as to next steps. And so what we're hearing is that we would like staff to write a letter To the NRC and PG&E to hold off on all licensing procedures until all studies are completed, and to advocate for a third-party review.
And also a third party review of compliance issues. Second, and maybe these are more my words but I think it touches on what you brought up. And that is to request our staff that may include OES, the Ag Commissioner, Public Health to return to the board I want to say after six months you get the report from Fukushima, but maybe that's not that important. I'm just going to say just return to the board and report to the board on evacuation procedures, the medical issues that were raised by Supervisor Carbajal, the impact to ag communities production, The implications of loss of power to our community.
And also, our next steps for ensuring that we have monitoring stations incorporated in the County of Santa Barbara either through PG&E or through the EPA.
2:02 – 2:078 turns
Supervisor LaVinia?
Madam Chair I would second that. I want to say that I think when we're talking about sending a letter asking for that, we're kind of picking back on what PG&E has already asked for from the NRC. So I will second that. One of the things that I think when we're talking about third party review, I'm not opposed to it. I'm fine with that as well. I think the more oversight we have on it but I think for folks...I don't think there's anybody in this room That if you're opposed to nuclear energy, no matter what oversight we put on it or whatever review we have, they're not happy. You know, we don't trust PG&E. We don't trust the NRC.
I'm not sure we could come in with anybody that anybody would trust but if that gives people makes them feel better, I'm fine with that as well.
Let me just talk about the trust issue. I'm going to talk about the NRC right now. I am certainly not saying that, that I don't trust your oversight. When it comes to PG&E, I also want to go that far and say I don't trust PG&E but one of the statements we heard Was about the financial implications of doing a 3D study that it may not have been done unless they got a grant. So you know, that does concern me so actually concerns me a lot.
I don't know if that's a trust issue but we have a second so
Supervisor Farr?
Madam Chair, I will support the motion but I did want to make a couple of comments. First of all, I think I've always had a great concern about nuclear energy because of the creation of a toxic waste stream that goes on in perpetuity and damages the planet, not just for our generation but for future generations. And that's before we even get into the discussion about as one of our speakers today described it an unforgiving technology in the hands of humans and the fact that you know humans do make mistakes. Not to mention the capriciousness and unpredictability of Mother Nature.
While we've had the speakers here, I have had a chance to look through this important emergency information that PG&E puts out that the people of San Luis Obispo County have and I guess is available other places because it talks about visitors. But I have to tell you that this is absolutely frightening to look at this and I think that when we get into this issue farther with our own Office of Emergency Services that the board is going to want to be involved in the drafting of I mean, it's got a lot of important information in it. But it's really, really scary when they're telling you how much of this potassium iodide you should be taking.
So anyway, I will be supporting the motion but I think that this is again just a continuation of the discussion not the end. Thank you. Thank you.
So ready to take a vote? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you and again thanks to you folks for being with us I hope you have a pleasant return home thank you the board will be back at one o'clock
2A 3.30 (-0.66')
♪ . 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?)
2:08 – 2:1327 turns
Atlantis, your
OMS-2TIG 34 colon
30. We're going to go to 198 Miles and we're a little short on prop, we're assessing about protecting one day rendezvous by losing a steep return capability. We'll let you know. Okay 3430 copy that.
Calling flight. ECOM good fest go for APU shutdown. Good news booster?
You can go. I'm go for APU shutdown. And Max? I'm go for it. Good news.
We've got good cooling now Atlantis Chunky your go for APU height shutdown.
We'll work that as soon as we get done, Houston. I'm on step six of the long-form bus ride. Here comes Barbara to Charlotte.
Okay, and we're watching flight. We're ready for it.
Outstanding!
Thanks, Chuckie. We're watching.
And Main B is back up flight. Houston, step eight for the long-form bus ride. You ready for that? We're ready flight. That is affirmative. Go Max. The APU temp message is due to the main B being down. If they get it back, that'll correct itself. Okay, copy. I should be okay.
Okay, copy. Flight Eagle AC-2 has recovered. Good news. Prop, you working anything on your side? Negative flight. Once we got main B back, I became a much happier person. Okay that's good.
AC-2 is back as well, Atlantis. Your APU temp, that should be rectified now that we got main V back.
Yeah, we see it coming down, thanks. Okay folks, we're 13 minutes from OMS-2. We're still buttoning up the orbiter. Let me go to you, Eagle, first and make sure that we're past everything. Do we have anything else?
We're holding on the fuel cell stop for the uptight fuel cell shutdown procedure. If you want to just call us to finish that, we're going to work APU shut down.
And Eagle's okay with that, bye.
Okay yeah, we'll give you a call and you can work APU height shutdown.
Roger. All right, Inco, go. And now the main B is back. I'd like to try to recover command First thing I need is a Puckamoo swap so I can get inside to my system. Eagle, let's go for that. Okay. And then? And then after I've verified I got a good system, I'd like a panel command followed by an item 46 on BFS spec 51. All right.
Atlantis, to help us get back commanding we'll take a Puckamoo swap back to Puckamoo 2. After that's complete we'll take a panel command with a spec 51 item 46.
Okay, here we are on Puckamoo 2 now. We'll give you a panel command and on spec 51 we'll give you an item 4-6.
Thanks, Bergey. Okay EECOM catch me up. Good cooling? What's working right now? What isn't? We're good across the board. Good news. Okay, Fido any other deltas to OMS 2 TIGS? 3430 we do have a command load guidance
is ready whenever we get command and we're going to an apogee of 175 you will have steeped the orbit capability out
of that orbit if we dip into RCS above AF quantity 1. Okay, you're still preserving rendezvous with all the things that you're doing right? That includes one jury burn and one-way rendezvous
All right. API shutdown is complete. Zinco, I see us on string one. We're matching the spreading config.
Okay. And guidance as soon as Zinco has command you have a go to get those targets on board. We'll tell them targets are coming. Copy Flight. Atlantis, targets are coming
up. We're still matching the forward link flight. Standby.
Okay Max Flight, let's talk a little bit about any deltas to ET umbilical door closure. Do you have anything on 3-7? How about you Booster on 3-6? I've got it right in flight. Okay and Prop, anything on OMS 2 burn setup that we gotta think about? Negative flight. Although that is largely guidance from GNC.
2:13 – 2:1825 turns
Atlantis, pages 3-6, 7 and 8 as written.
Copy 3, 6, 7 and 8 as written. Were there any Deltas to 34 other than the 5th?
No that's the only one we had. Copy. Flight
guidance targets on board crew has a go to load.
Okay. Atlantis your targets are on board you are go to load.
Okay, we see them. Go to load. Thank you.
These targets preserve a good steep deorbit capability which I mentioned earlier and we're also evaluating a jury burn and one-way rendezvous more to follow. Copy all. Thank
you.
Fido and GC let's turn it around for run number four. All others may be on AFD.
Fido copies.
PLT, OTC, clear caution and warning memory. Verify no unexpected errors. That's in order.
OTC. PLT. No unexpected errors.
Atlantis OTC, close and lock your visors. Initiate O2 flow.
Copy good O2
flow.
Flight booster 3 engines ready. Copy 3 ready. All vents open. Copy vents.
Liftoff confirmed. Copy liftoff.
Roll program
Eastern. Guidance is
a roll. Roger roll Atlantis.
Good roll, Maneuver. Copy good roll. Throttle down 375. Okay in the bucket.
Throttle up, 3104. Go with throttle up. Atlantis go at throttle up. We go with throttle up.
Booster, what are you monitoring in your center engine? I've got a PC shift and a low mixed ratio direction flight. This is a K-second power cycle. We'll model it with FIDO. Okay, and when you get it give me the switch nomenclature. I have it now if you're ready. I'm ready. It's a Panawar R2 engine power center AC1 off and then on. Happy thank you. FIDA let me know.
Monitoring PC shift on the center engine, we can switch out of this with some controller power switch throws. Momentarily we'll get to you on that. Stuck Mike. What's going
on? We've lost PDL, we're back at mile and a quarter. Chunky sounds like your stuck Mike.
2:18 – 2:2341 turns
We do see the helium leak
on the right, Chunky. You're go to work the procedure. And tell
him he's still hot Mike. And you're still hot Mike, Chunky!
Chunky, you are go to cycle the center engine, engine
power
switch, the top one that's AC1 off and on.
Fido, tell me if I need an
item 9. Copy that Chunky. Standby you're still hot Mike. Slight boost
toward the right is non-isolatable. Stand by for a
leap. We do show the right non-isolatable. Stand by for an interconnect plan. Can we have two engine maroon fly?
Two engine maroon. And a
power
cycle clear of the case fly. Okay good. Alright folks, we're going to have to live with that hot mic on board.
Power cycle work well, Junkie.
Booster. Flight booster. It's an upper system leak. Running air connect is required at a rate and pressure of 920. I want in open on the right, out open on the center for 25 seconds. Take the center back to TTC. 25 seconds. This will get us out to about 620 MET. Thank you. Negative return. Atlantis
negative return. Good readout. They're there. That'll work?
Let's make sure he does it. We're there. You're there now, Chunky. Fido, with respect to an item, I'm confirmed you do not need one right? Not required. We still have three Sigma SPR at this point. Okay. The BCE string Charlie and Delta? For the BCE string X. And for FA2 Charlie and Delta. Copy. And why did you go recommend AC bus sensors off?
AC bus sensors off. Tank leak stay out open. Stayed out open. Stayed out open, Chunky. It's a tank leak.
Okay, slow it down here DPS. What do you
need? Flight license ride this. We'll work with Post Meco. Okay, that's good.
We'll work with Charlie and Delta, Post Meco, Fergie. I am not. Press the ATO flag. Copy, just gave the IO recent. Press the ATO, you can select ISTRIS. Press ATO,
select ISTRIS. Flight Booster, go. With a tank leak, the right will make it out to 23K.
Excellent. Looks like the ride will make it to 23K, Chunky. Copy,
Butch. Okay, DPS we have a little bit more time. Slow things down a little bit if you want to go after it, we can.
Flight, they try that reset is no joy. We can try the port mode if they've got the time. String 3. Or 2. String 2. Single
engine ops 3.
Single engine ops 3 and we'll take the port mode in step 7 for the BCE string expert if you'd like.
Single engine ops three, we'll give you the port mode and step seven on string three. Here it comes.
Thank you. Flight GMC? Go! We are watching slight velocity degradation on IMU-2 there's no action. IMU-3 you said? IMU 2 flight. IMU two thanks.
Single engine... Slight velocity degradation on IMU two, we're watching it, no action. Copy looks like no joy on the port mode of string two.
Recovering occurs, step eleven is a clean up.
Step 11, we'll take it. It's a cleanup. Presto MECO single engine ISTRIS 104 Presto MECO single engine ISTRIS 104 Presto MECO single
engine ISTRIS 104 One more time. Booster shut down plan. Shutdown plan to be at 23K I want the center interconnected GPC followed by PB on the right Okay plus X and pitch Mike go for both double the time on the plus X
Got it. Chunk of your shutdown plan at 23K, center engine to GPC then PB the right. PBC to center engine then PB the right. That's a 23K and Fergie you're go to plus X, go to pitch double the time on the plus X. Single engine press 104. Go
for the plus X. Go for the pitch or double the time on the plus x.
That's a good read. You're single engine press 104.
Single engine press 104. One minute to NECO, A plus two four NAV is go.
Okay folks we're coming up on 23K. Anything else hanging out there that we need to think about immediately after post NECo?
Ready
Ken. Go.
Yeah lost water loop one with a leak. Water loop two's blocked. We'll talk about it post NECO.
2:24 – 2:2932 turns
Flight GMC. Go. IMU-2 will fail post MECO. Copy. I expect IMU- 2 to fail post MECo.
On to EGIS. Copy.
Red engine out, limits enable auto. We see the ride down, limits enable auto.
Guidance sees
it. Complete. Okay Fido, underspeed. We shouldn't have an underspeed point? Good news. Good limits, good shutdown flight. Copy.
Flying count.
MECO, MECO confirmed. Copy MECo. Flight Fido, Nominal MECO, OMS 1 not required. Good news, Fido. Let's run the post-OMS 1 pages. Flight Booster, we're going to get a CEP inhibit here due to lax feed line fail. Crew can work the star block? Copy.
Expect CEP inhibit due to a feed line fail that'll put you in the star block.
Okay, we see the CEP inhibit. We're in the star block and understand for a feed line fail.
That's affirmative and we did see a nominal MECO. Of course, OMS 1 is not required.
Okay and ECOM I expect, well you tell me what
are you going to
What are you going to do
here?
First we want to
move the bypass valve on loop two. You ready for a switch throw? Yeah, let's go. L1 water pump loop two bypass to manual decrease. Hold that for 30 seconds. We're gonna see how much flow we get back. We're expecting to still be below the limit. We'll still be violating we think but we'll see how much capability we got.
Okay and in terms of capability on orbit capability what are you thinking?
This is certainly going to be AOA, we're just having to decide whether it's SIS or we can stay out of the book. We'll see once we get this switch throw done. Okay
FIDO TIG for AOA and for an AOA we're still thinking KSC right? Yes sir. Start thinking about that and ECOM if you're gonna need more time Fido, do we have the option to go to 85 with this? Yes, we did. Yes, we did. Alright, ECOMS speak up if you need more time. Copy that.
Houston, we're with you in the start block at the top of page 3-2C behind sail.
Copy Atlantis.
Flight prep. Go prep. Flight, we just picked up a large left ohms helium tank leak We've already got
FIDO looking at an earliest in-plane TIG of 24 minutes. We'll do
left OMS at 2 ME, and the procedure for that would be OMS helium tank PLO, ascent pocket, and that'd be on 7-4 flight, and first we pick up in step 6. Okay, and we do not want to undo our capability to go AOA on this? If we're going AOA, do we need all this capability? EECOM, we don't need any more capability. Say that again, EECOM? What do you have? We don't need more time.
Go Prop. I'm at 80% in the left elm. If I don't do something at 24 minutes, I'm going to start trapping elms. All right. So if we can do an early burn followed by subsequent AOA, that's probably... Okay, that's probably what we're going to do. EECom, you're still thinking AOA, right? That's from flight. Okay. All right, Fido. That's why we're going to evaluate that real quick. See if we can do the full burn at 24 minutes and then go AOA? Tell them we're thinking AOA.
Atlantis, we are thinking AOA. We're assessing whether or not we can do a full AOA burn at 24 minutes. Copy. Yeah, we're down to 80% in the left ohms.
Flight, I'm updating the TIG
with FIDO. It looks like our healing leak will support 25 minutes now. Give us an explanation. We'll take any time that we can get. What page again? 7-7-4 flight. Thanks. You can
reference 7-4 of the pocket at the ohm heat em tank P low step 6 stand by there.
That'd be left ohms propellant to both ohms engines. Gotcha. That'll
be left ohms propellant to both ohms engines.
Alright and let's let him set that up. He doesn't need anymore.
You go ahead and set that up Chunky.
2:29 – 2:3432 turns
Okay, he's working on it. Could you give us the page one more time, Butch? And also do you still want us to pitch as a result of this?
Yeah, you can sure go to pitch. That's a good question, Fergie. On the page number 7-4 of the pocket. Booster, tell me where
we're
at.
7- 4 in the pocket. If his stuff is complete, we'll be doing a manual ET sub at 1430 MET. Okay and we're okay still to do the plus X right, Pop? Sure, Flight. We can do that. Alright.
Once you get off the tank Atlantis, do you still go for the plus X?
Copy. Still go for the plus X after the tank comes off and understand we're picking up in step six on helium tank below in the yellow pages. We
concur.
That is affirmed.
Four minutes to spreading. Clear it. Will copy. ECOM, do you still need your water loop tube bypassed? That's fine. We'll take it.
Fergie, we're going to need on L2. We need you to take the water pump loop 2 bypass switch to manual decrease and hold that for 30 seconds.
As soon as I get off the tank will give a loop 2 water bypass switch to manual decrease and for 30 seconds. That's a good read.
DPS, do you need to get us set up for anything? We'll prioritize that if we need to.
No I would like one more clean-up, 3 FSI reset for the BC String X.
We'll
take an IO reset to the backup please. Go for low press on all three systems.
Yeah, I concur.
Also normally with the feedline fill we go for the bottom sun. It doesn't look like we're going to have any time to get
any... No, we're not going to do that today. I concur.
Chunky will take low press on all three height systems.
You can deselect IMU-2 in the backup. It is still usable as a last. FIDO and Prop, I need your answer. Flight, here is the answer. At 24 minutes we can go ahead and burn the peg
7's of all those. 209 Delta V-X, 0 for Y, Delta
V-Z is 17. Houston, Step 7 for helium tank T-LO looking for targets in trim loads 7 and 8.
2-0-9, 0 and 17. Correct. Peg 7.
Okay! Peg 7's coming up now. We'll take Delta VX of 2-09, Delta VY of zero, Delta VZ of 17, and we'll go with the 24 minute TIG. 25 minute? Either
one, Flight. 25, give him 25.
Okay actually let's make that... Let's take one more minute, we'll go to the 25 minute TIG.
Okay, 2-0-9, 0 and 17 for the Delta Vs. And a take of 25 minutes.
That's a good read, Ferb. All right, Fido make sure the clock is going that direction and I need a big picture of after we get this burn off where are we going? Our AOA burn will be at approximately one hour two minutes it'll be target set four. Yeah, and unfortunately when we get to that AOA we'll probably need to do a partial unbalanced prop due orbit burn. But we'll have some time to work that here post domes too. All right.
ECOM, what do we need to do to make sure that we're in a good config for this AOA?
For the AOA, are you talking about after the burn here? Yes. Okay what we want to do is we're looking to stay out of the CIS AOA. Yes that's exactly what we need. Right and so we've coordinated with DPS they're going to give you GPC config along with that we'd like to get master meds off minimized lighting and IDPs and a six-pack off as soon as we can get it and then we're gonna assess temps.
I'll tell you what master meds and six pack to off booster you okay
with that? Yeah fine We'll take the Master MADS and six-pack to off now. That can save us some energy there, guys.
2:34 – 2:4414 turns
Houston, targets are in. You ready for the maneuver? We're ready to maneuver flight.
We are indeed ready. Big picture, Atlantis. We're targeting the AOA deorbit burn at one hour and two minutes. It'll be target set four.
Okay an hour and two minute take for an AOA target set four?
That's a good reading. You can expect a partial unbalanced prop deorbit burn and we'll have more to follow on that.
DPS, let's start talking about the config you and EECOM negotiated?
Yeah Floyd. After this burn we'll take down GPCs 2 and 4 and prior to that we'll do restrain
1133. 1133 and then when you say take them down what do we need to do?
We'll power them off after we do the restraining.
Copy
Flight, Max. Max? Crew can close the TVC ISO mouths.
Did we need that? Do we need to undo that? Flight, it'll save us some on our fuel usage if they do that. Okay. We like the config, right? They just closed them? Just take the three TVC ISOs. Oh, I thought you said they just did that. Okay let's do that, yes.
Hey Chunky, we will take the TVC ISOs to close please. And for you guys, just a heads up. After the burn, you can expect us to continue our power down. We'll restring 1133 and then we'll be powering off GPCs 2 and 4.
StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)"
¶ Hello, everyone. Yeah. Good morning. ¶¶ Hi. Hi. Yeah. ♪ Yeah.
2:44 – 2:5011 turns
Please stand by. Hi, everyone. ♪ StSq3 3.30 (-0.70)" And also it looks like we're going to be able to stay with you all the way. We shouldn't have good comms.
EECOM, what...
Atlantis wanted to let you a heads up for the unbalanced propellant do-over burn. You start working on getting those cards out and for Rex and Sandy it's page 3-4 of the entry checklist. Excuse me, 3-24.
And Prop, you can simplify our lives if we can avoid any of this. Same goes for you, EECOM. If we can stay out of the CISA away... Is there anything else that we can do to stay out of this book? Standby flight. Prop Flight, do you still require an unbalanced yorbit burn? Yes. Flight, I'm at 42% in the left ohms and 82% in the right ohms.
Folks, we are 30 minutes away. We're going to be using target set 4. We have to be very efficient guidance
Yes, sir. Tell me as soon as we can get the trajectory stuff out of the way that way we can help the crew along the way for the right side of the room. Concur flight and we'll have to get into OP3 before we help make the targets. Okay folks, I'm going to need play-by-play from all of you. Want
to leave cabin fan Bravo up? We're going to watch the temps for a while and see if we can leave the cabin fan up.
We'd like to leave cabin fan Bravo operating. Sorry, we have cabin fan Alpha. Leave it on. We're going to watch the temps for a bit.
Cabin fan alpha, we'll leave that on. And I do see some flow and we're on loop two. Understand you want to bring that off all the way correct? No negative, if
we've got flow we want to keep it up.
Negative no if you've got flow we do want to keep it up Okay we'll leave it on. Folks
2:50 – 2:5513 turns
I'm going to need play-by-play from all of you just the crew is going to be working very hard they're going to be working individually just to get all things done so I'm gonna need you to keep us in sync by saying where they're at Max, I'll start with you. Have you seen any EP umbilical door closure? Negative, Mike. No actions yet. How about you, Booster? I haven't seen my stuff yet, Mike Inflight Eagle, we see a crew's working
page 8-1 right now Thanks And the pilot action step 3 is not required
Atlantis for Chunky, Step 3 on your column of 8- 1 is not required
Freon flow message expected, right? That's firm. And ABBE. Okay. Freon flow and ABBEs are expected. Go GNC. One delta on the MS overhead power down. Let's turn off IMU 2 instead of IMU 1. What page is that? 11-1 step 4. 11-1 Step 4. GNC, what did you say?
Hi Houston. We're over on page 8-2. There's the embed in step 6. Here comes the OPS 105. We're go. Ready for
that Fergie. Just going to let you know we saw them close the forward manifolds on 8-1. Good config there. GNC for step 4 IMU 1 to off. You need that? You need IMU 2 to off instead? I would like to swap that yes but IMU 2 has failed.
Atlantis for the MS pullout section, page 11-1. Let me know when you're there. We're there. Go ahead, Butch. Step 4 will take IMU 2 to off, vice IMU 1. Good words.
Flight booster, I see my steps on the NPS power down ISOL. Very good.
Flight Enco, if we have to use the comm power downward go for all. We're not going to do that. Copy?
Houston, we copy it was IMU-2 versus IMU-1 on the pullout pages. That is
correct.
Good read back,
Fergie. 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) 2A 3.30 (-0.66')
2:56 – 2:586 turns
Are we ready to go? Welcome back to the Board of
Supervisors meeting as we analyze and work on the budget. Now Ms. Waller and Dr. Stillwell, we're going to come to you to ask you to give us your whatever remarks you want to give but before we do that, we've had questions from people at home that may not have as hard of a message for you folks to believe. There are people at home who don't have county TV. So they have to do it another way.
So Mr. Allen, we've the has been working on this all afternoon trying to figure out how to make that work so if someone is wants to stream it. Is that the right word? Mr. Allen? If you want to stream it what do they do?
Madam Chair, members of the board. The budget hearings are streamed live on the County of Santa Barbara website and that the address there is www.countyofsb.org. So
countyofsB.org
Then you go to the on the county's homepage on the right side under the Board of Supervisors banner there is a link that says web broadcast You click on web broadcast and then that will bring up the next screen. And there'll be a live event button, and click on that and you'd be able to stream the entire meeting live.
And the producers of this exercise today have figured out a way to make certain that what the board is saying and suggesting will be listed on that live stream. And they're all shaking their head that we've got that under control. And if by chance it becomes a problem, then let us know. Thank you all. You did a fine job. Ms. Waller, to
2:58 – 3:052 turns
you? Thank you Chairwoman and Supervisors. What we have this afternoon is I will give a few brief closing remarks to the budget, and then Dr. Stilwell and his analysts have completed the board inquiries that your board had yesterday and will pass those out, and then we'll turn it back over to your board for your deliberations. So let's go ahead and get underway.
Over the last several days, your board has heard from all the departments regarding their current year accomplishments, their proposed service level reductions and what services their departments will continue to provide. This information makes it clear that the county's experiencing ongoing and unparalleled challenges, that we are facing deep structural and longstanding fiscal problems, and there are still several difficult years ahead for us.
Adding to this concern, we have state and federal budget shortfalls, program realignments, a sustained economic downturn and high unemployment which continue to be storm clouds on the horizon. The FY 11-12 proposed budget of $844 million is as required by law balanced with revenues equaling expenditures Overall, the proposed budget eliminates 205 FTEs. This is 570 fewer FTEs than the county had in 0203.
The CEO budget represents thoughtful consideration of the impacts, consequences, alternatives and difficult choices made by each and every one of your departments and the County Executive Office staff while reflecting the Board's priorities of public safety, protecting our children and supporting livable communities. However it reduces to mandated levels many core county services and significantly reduces and in some cases eliminates non-core discretionary services These choices were difficult, and many times decisions had to be made between programs that have long-term value and those that we are legally mandated to provide.
These cuts will most certainly impact the quantity and quality of the services the county provides to its citizens. That said, we must weather the current storm and chart a strategic course that enables the county, to the extent possible, to be prepared for future challenges This requires the county to adopt a new paradigm in determining what services we provide and the manner in which they are provided. The baseline must be reset with fundamental operational changes rather than simply waiting for a recovery.
As you heard, the recommendations to close this budget gap are a combination of $48 million in ongoing and $24 million of one-time solutions. As I know your board has heard, one time funding results in a structural deficit that will produce service level cliffs in the future requiring drastic program cuts to close those gaps. To enhance ongoing savings, departments will continue to seek efficiencies such as reorganizations, consolidations, reengineering, public-private partnerships and information technology solutions.
Current salary and benefit levels are not sustainable, and our labor relations staff have initiated discussions to negotiate salary and benefit concessions with all county labor unions. We're also pursuing other ongoing revenue solutions. We must be mindful of the five-year forecast of revenue and cost growth, which shows an increasing gap between discretionary revenue and expenditure needs.
Contributing to this ongoing and structural deficit are several things—the loss of one-time funds, which I mentioned earlier, deferred maintenance of county facilities currently estimated at $48.5 million Depletion of fire department reserves and increased reliance on the general fund. Continuing strong demands for public health and human services. The previously negotiated wage increases, anticipated increases in retirement.
The current lack of jail capacity necessitating the need for a north county jail to be constructed in the future. And flatter slowly rebounding tax revenues. An added but yet as undefined concern is the federal and state actions that could translate into millions of dollars of lost revenue or substantial workload increases. In summary, the proposed FY 11-12 operating budget is absolutely bare bones.
The plan was prepared with input from all department heads, as I mentioned before in accordance with the Board's adopted policies. It presents a total budget of $844 million and 3,683 FTEs down from 1011 in terms of both total dollar amount and staffing levels. The proposed budget does reflect careful consideration and balancing of cross department levels of service and impacts.
The entire breadth of county activities forms an intertwined system of services, adjusting funding in one department frequently results in a similar and sometimes magnified need or impact in another department. I encourage your board to support the effort and the knowledge of your department heads and CEO staff in preparing these recommendations by adopting the proposed CEO budget.
In closing, I'd like to thank the department heads and the CEO executive team for their substantial input into this proposed budget. And board, I would like you to know that we stand ready to implement whatever final budget your board adopts. Thank you for your time and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, CEO. Is there any comment? Does Mr. Stilwell have anything? That's it. OK. Supervisor, what we're going to do now is make the suggestions that we just can't live without or things that we'd really I think better said, I should say, that would just feel strongly about they need to be put back in the budget and a way needs to be figured to fund those. Supervisor Wolf, your first up.
3:05 – 3:118 turns
Isn't that exciting? So Dr. Stilwell, let's see how you have it. I have my list but can you just go through and tell us how you have it outlined?
Sure Madam Chair, so we are this green section here. I mean Madame Chair Supervisor Wolf the green section here are we're going to start keeping a list of the suggestions the board has for possible restorations will add them to the list and I'm not we defer to the chair if you want to have three votes before adding them to the list or we can add him to the list and then vote on them subsequently
Can I suggest that everyone adds what they want and we may need to go around a few times.
Sure, okay so we'll add them to this list here have them up there with the dollar amounts and then as the board discusses them will solidify the lists and those who have the three votes will total those up and then we'll go down to the sources afterwards. And we do have A few changes from the sources that we heard during this week. So, we are starting with these that we've identified that the department's presented to the board where we have some savings from the tax revenue anticipation note of $266,000. So it's different from... These are changes Where we are now versus from the proposed budget.
We were able to shift some COP payment costs of $365,000. We had leftover balance from the 2005 COP that we can use to pay down COP payments for 11-12 of 507,000 and then HR reported to the board that they would Use 100,000 less of the cell tower revenue and so we've identified these potential sources. Just the one. And then there's what other options the board has, you know with throughout the budget. But these are the ones we had listed that were separate from what was in the budget book and the proposed budget.
Supervisor Wolf before you start it seems like I'm the guy oh okay now just for the streaming folks at home it right now I'm getting a bunch of green and blue colors This is, I can or I don't know who and but it's very clear that the printing part is clear. So we at least have that but as far as the people's picture and I would imagine that those at home are more interested in the words than they are the people.
Got it okay now we're there. Okay Supervisor Wolf what would you just go ahead and say what you
want to say. What are those last two columns saying?
Yes, so the first column would be the district suggesting the potential restoration. The second column would be the actual item itself. The third column it would be the suggested amount of the restoration and then the final column E would be the board adopted amount and that would become a part of the final adopted resolution this will become attachment E of the boards budget resolution for the 11-12 budget
Okay, and when I give my suggested amount what I'd like you to do is I'll get in some instances. I'm going to give you two numbers because one is going to be coming from the general fund and one is Going to be a loss of a match or federal money so if you just put a slash that will Differentiate the two. I'll do that with the first one, okay? The first one is ADMHS.
This was actually item number nine in our service level reduction and the program is clinic operations. From the discussion yesterday, and you're going to just bear with me because I want to explain why I'm doing a lot of these things. And that is that CEO Waller talked about a bare bones budget. And that is definitely what we've seen. And what I'm doing is I'm adding a little meat to those bones because I think that's what our community Our constituents and what our staff has been recommending to us.
And I want to thank all of the department directors and staff that are in this room, and who have been here throughout the budget hearings answering questions. I'm going to be focusing my comments on public safety and health protection of the most vulnerable, the children and elderly showing up essential County services and ensuring economic development and not losing vital matching funds.
And the total amount that I have come up with in restorations. Thank you. I also have developed a sheet that would pay for these restorations. And, I think the restorations are rather conservative in nature but that will remain to be seen. So the first one is the clinic operations. This one had an impact on me because of what was, what I was told was at that the clinic operations staff for children's services and mental health was going to be cut by five FTEs.
So in the suggested amount, so I'm restoring three FTEs. The suggested amount would be $150,000 and then that's general fund money. So if you could put a slash mark or however you want to do it and another $150,000 is The matching funds that we would receive.
3:12 – 3:189 turns
Everybody understand that okay? We don't know where the matching funds is coming from I think, is that?
Well the matching it's it would be a loss of a match if we didn't have this operation so I don't know how you want to In other words, it...
Yeah. And I think the point of the value that staff will have of the hearing today is to hear your ideas. We'll be able to spend the evening finalizing the sources and the uses to try to understand and better link to get to the policy direction on the board. And so if I understand this one, it would be clinic operations would have $300,000, and we would think that 150 of that's required general fund and would draw a like amount from some other revenue. Exactly.
Okay. That's how it was in our service level reduction sheet. It was separated
out. Supervisor Wolf, excuse me again. If by chance the website folks that are streaming if their reception is as bad as mine it's pathetic so I think that with the folks that are running the television stuff just keep the list on don't go back and I don't want to see our faces thank you okay
Okay, the next one is from the CEO's office. It was item number 12 and it was for the legislative advocate and that was $60,000. And Ms. Nisic, since our meeting yesterday we had some information about what additional information about the legislative advocate. We heard from a lot of department heads about the benefit of that advocate And are you prepared to give us a dollar amount because that wasn't forthcoming when we discussed it during the departmental hearing?
Because I know legislative advocates have given us a dollar figure on the amount of money that we have received because of their advocacy.
Yes, Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff. In terms of an actual total, several you might have referenced within your budget inquiries. There was an attachment provided by governmental advocates which listed a couple of their key accomplishments and within that they did reference some actual dollars and cents that had been achieved over the course of their 16-year history with us.
I will state for this year alone with the continuation of the Maddie bill that they have been working with us on, it does appear that over the course of next year we will likely again enjoy $600,000 dedicated to emergency room funding and then again in next year with the continuation of the sunset which they've been working on. That is, of course, within this year alone.
In prior fiscal years they have also been able to include a number of different funding sources through budget trailer bills, most specifically the continuation of CREF funding over time when that was about to sunset. That was a half million dollars. Okay that's fine
so that more than answers the reasonableness in my mind for the $60,000 expenditure. The next one is Department of Social Services and the program is Child Abuse and Neglect. And this actually was not slated as a service level reduction, but when Ms. Gallagher spoke about the staffing needs for her social workers and the impact it was going to have on child protective services I contacted Miss Gallagher to find out what it would cost to get three full-time folks to do this position. So the total amount, and you can add it up, was $177,723 in general fund and the match was $95,697.
The general fund is $177,723 plus $95,697. Likewise, the Adult Protective Services was mentioned by Miss Gallagher. Again this was not a service level reduction so this is an addition to her program and the general fund amount is $86,036 and the match would be $96,244 96-244. The next one is, this was line item or service level impact 31 from Department of Social Services, the foster care program.
It was $110,720 general fund. And the match was $110,720. The next one was service level impact 141. This is from the Treasurer Tax Collector. The program was protective pay and the general fund amount was $248,108.
The next item is from FIRE, service level impact 40 helicopter operations. And this was not a general fund but you can put it however you want up on the slide. The amount was $1,323,848.
3:18 – 3:2414 turns
Excuse me, just a clarification there. I believe that one is a general fund impact. Can we double check that please?
In the service level impact it's not listed that way but you can put it however you want because
Yes, and Supervisor that was our error. The district indicated that they didn't have any additional funds so it should have been noted as general fund. Okay
the next one is it was service level impact 81 and this was public health slash HCD and this is the warming centers $25,000 The next one is line item 85, public health HCD human services grants. And this was a reduction of 15%, so an allocation of $1 million. And then service level reduction 60 from HCD, the Film Commission. $50,000. I'm
sorry Madam Chair.
Supervisor?
Was that Human Services Commission?
Maybe that's... I can't really remember what, that's what I have down as HCD for the Film Commission. Okay so I'm going to keep going but the total of what I have just given is $3,684. A three million. Three million six hundred eighty four thousand dollars sold. All right now I want to move on to Other public safety add-ons. And rather than looking at specific line items, because there's a lot of discussion on importance of some of these service level impacts and we just actually got an email from our district attorney You know, in prioritizing. So what I have done is I have allocated $1,500,000 in the following manner to the district attorney and so this is a set amount that can be used as the department heads choose to use this money and I would be happy to give my priorities because I certainly have an opinion but at this point for the district attorney $350,000 To the sheriff, $500,000 to probation.
$400,000 and to the public defender, $250,000 So my total for everything that I just put up there is $5,184,096. And as I mentioned before when we get to How I would pay for this, I have a list of paying for this. But I do believe that these are reasonable. They match my principles again of public safety and health, mental health, public health, and putting some money into our economic whatever strategy we have for economic development.
Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Carbajal, do you want to turn your light on? Oh I'm sorry. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all I really want to thank our CEO and Dr. Stilwell and your whole team for putting this together. I know this has been an enormous effort over most of the last year. Certainly to all of our department heads and staff who have gone through all of this and also to the public that has been here and we have gotten an enormous number of emails and calls And appointments on these issues. So I want to thank everybody for that.
Obviously, we're in a position as a board this year that no board ever wants to be in and however it turns out you know that we don't want to have to make the kind of cuts that we know we have to make to have a balanced budget My priorities also are for public safety to provide services to the most needy and vulnerable. And as part of that, where those two issues come together is to try to help people either not enter the prison system to begin with the jail system or to keep them out because I think that if we don't keep addressing that issue, we're never going to be able to build enough assuming that we have the money. So those were the priorities that I looked at when I made my list.
Some of mine are the same as Supervisor Wolf's, and so I'm not sure how you want to record that. But some of them are different amounts.
Just add the ones that aren't already up there
and
we'll go back
and forth. So I do support the $60,000 for governmental advocates. I still believe that we need to have two full-time people for county television. And I was not convinced by OES' response to that. So, I would put up $48,000 for that. I feel that the treatment court team for the district attorney at $587,000 is very important. For the public defender, I support keeping the conservatorship attorney at 116,899 and the two social workers at 207,825 which comes to just about $325,000 total.
3:24 – 3:3121 turns
You're going to have to go a bit slower.
No, no, no. This is the conservatorship attorney.
116,889.
And then the two social workers also in the public defender's office at 207,825. Those two numbers total about $325,000. I also support, go
ahead. I'm trying to keep up with what's up on here so I think we just need to back up a second. Hang on a minute.
Let us write.
Yeah give us just a second Jason got it written down and he'll get this corrected for us.
No it's two social workers.
Supervisor as we get this corrected if it's not correct please do let us know. I think we've caught up with you now. Does that appear correct to you, Supervisor?
I'll just go through and then I'll correct it later while somebody else is speaking. Great, thank you. I also support the Fire Department's Helicopter Aviation Unit. My understanding was that they could still provide this service for perhaps less than the 1.3 so I have a million dollars down for that For probation, I support restoring the probation officer assigned to the Prop 36 Drug Court which was 107,760 as well as the targeted gang intervention Chief Stewart said we might be able to be restored by funding later from the state, but for right now that's $243,381. So that's approximately together about $351,000.
I also support the Film Commission, but I really was impressed by the fact that last year we gave them $50,000 and we gave the warming centers $50 thousand. And this year the warming centers only asked for $25 thousand because they had gotten a $25 thousand match. So I'm suggesting the same for the film commission that we put the $25 thousand out there as a challenge grant and have it matched by $25 thousand from the community.
I support the Human Services Commission, at least at the million dollar level. I also support the warming centers at $25,000 as well as the New Beginnings request. I think that's also for... Is that
a new one? Is New Beginnings? Did Supervisor Wolf put New Beginnings
up? I'm not sure that she did.
No.
Okay so... And I think that was also for $25 thousand.
So New Beginnings?
Yeah and this is the program that helps recidivism for men and now hopefully for women as well to keep them out of the jail
One before that, the
warming center centers. I also support the pro pay which is about $200,000. Also a program that we're hoping we can find some other funding for down the road so maybe this would just be bridge funding. I support providing $60,000 to four halftime position and social services to support the adult aging network
and is that The same as what Supervisor Wolf had done with 85 or 86, different?
I think that that's different. And then for the Sheriff's Department, I'm happy to give the sheriffs the $1 million that we have put in the pot for the future jail funding. Because as I've said a couple times, we have not had the policy discussion on that. And so I feel that he can have that money and he can decide if he wants to save it, if he wants to spend it, if he wants to save some of it, or if he wants to spend some of it.
And I think if I were going to suggest a use for it, it would be for his two top priorities. The gang team and the narcotics enforcement. And I just wanted to say to Supervisor Lavagnino, you know, the last two years I really strongly supported the Santa Maria, the jail. But, you know, it's really hard for me to keep trying to make it a priority when it's not that high of a priority for the sheriff.
So I just want you to know, it's not that I don't care about it and then I don't think it's important but I'm kind of worn out trying to advocate for it. And I think that comes to about 4.68 or thereabout and where I would pull it from besides that $1 million that was set aside for the jail funding, the O&M funding Would be one and a half from deferred maintenance, still leaving another one and a half in there. 500,000 from the capital fund.
500,000 from the road fund. The 580,000 that's still there for ARRA that we don't seem to need. I think it's 600,000 from contingency which is just a little bit more than the new money that was put in. And I'm not sure if my numbers are right but I think that's pretty close. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you Supervisor Farr. Supervisor Lavinino?
3:31 – 3:3823 turns
Thank you Madam Chair. All right, let's take a first crack at it. First off I want to applaud CEO Waller for offering us at least a framework that attempts to address the structural deficit. And I think it's important to remind everybody that we do have $25 million of one-time funding in here. And I look back and I know we feel like we're making some draconian cuts if that money wasn't in here, just doing the math of what an average employee costs us, we'd be looking at laying off another 195 people so I think it's important that we remember that.
So for me my priorities It's not good when your number one priority is only mentioned one time and it gets down to you at the end. It wasn't a positive, but my number one priority continues to be the Santa Maria Jail at 1.2. My second one would be I agree that the fire helicopter and I believe after discussions with the chief that he can do the job with $1 million.
Next for me would be the Human Services Commission, and I would like to see that fully funded just because I think the money that we spend there is some of the best money we can spend. And I think that comes back to us in spades there. Staying in fire also, I'd like to see the fuels crew Funded and just looking at one crew would be $500,000. I'd like to restore the Deputy Probation Officer that's assigned to the Drug Court and I had a little bit different number. I had 109,000 but I heard it was 107 but whatever it is.
Is that already mentioned then?
Yes that's Doreen's as
well. So we don't need to add another one, it's covered
by... No but yeah I'm just tagging on. We already have Propay up there in support of that. I'd like to see Veteran Services, Treasurer Tax Collector's Office 110-110,160 Backfield. Madam Chair can
you repeat that
please? Veteran Services
So there'd be a third veteran service officer and the Lompoc office would stay open and they wouldn't double up?
Correct. It's 110, 160. Also I agree with Supervisor Farr on the film commission that if we're going to do that I'd like to see that go down to 25,000. Are you saying
match Do
a match.
They don't get it unless they match? Is that what the two of
you are saying?
No, I... Just get
it. That's not what I was saying. I'm saying $25,000 but we can talk about that. Okay
because I'm trying to write it down.
Okay. Our chamber, we asked them to take a 25% cut when everybody else was taking a 15%. And I'd just like to see those numbers redone at a 15% cut So I have to put on my glasses to make sure I have everything. Jail, helicopter, fuels crew, chambers, propay, veteran services, film commission. Okay.
Okay?
I think I'm good.
Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you Madam Chair. Well I don't need to tell anybody that I've been very vocal about employee concessions and how that was going to drive a lot of my decisions. And so let me just share with you my guiding principles. But before I do that, just let me share that I think the more difficult decisions we make today, the less we kick the can and the better the financial health of our county will be.
So the overall arching guiding principle for me is Fiscal sustainability in a way that fixes our fiscal picture. Creates a better sustainable picture for the future. We do have some conceptual concessions by some employee groups and that's going to guide my decisions today. I would hate to reward or to provide Violate that for those groups that have stepped up. I think it would be disingenuous So regrettably for me, that's going to be one of the guiding Approach that I take The other one is there's a few items and I think generate revenue and that's important as we're trying to raise any and all revenues that make our fiscal picture a lot better And of course, one-time restorations. A few one-time restorations that are not based on concessions but that we could transition as provide one time funding and transition them to perhaps different paradigms as a way of providing service.
Human services 1.2 million I think that is one of the best investments we can make. Warming centers 25,000
So if it's on there, we'll just...
You can just add it. One million dollars for the fire department helicopter program. Pro pay $200,000 with the understanding that we would look at administrative fees implementing of an administrative fee program CEO Waller Administrative fee program and that we continue to look at alternatives for sustaining the service in the program but not in its current shape. Government advocates, 61,000.
Aging and adult network, 65,000 but now from the general fund in social services. 65,000 but not from the general fund at large rather the general funds that exist in the department. Film Commissioner I could go with 50,000 or 25,000. New Beginnings 12,000 Is new beginnings up there?
3:38 – 3:4935 turns
OK.
That's it for me.
Thank you, I just have one quick question and. And mine everything has been said in which I have any interest is Mr McLaughlin in the audience? An Mr Russell and I meant to get to the both of you both of you. You just couldn't Madam Chair, I'm
sorry just. It's one last thing. The district attorney, two deputy DAs. Whatever that comes out to be.
And I think Supervisor Wolf has got that one up. Would that do it? The amount you put there? That would cover two.
Well whatever covers two, I don't want to go beyond
that. OK. That'll have to take some sorting out.
We have an email and it's $240,000 for two deputy
DAs.
And the last thing and I apologize and I don't know how we're going to reconcile this but a lot of what I'm voting on is predicated on concessions that are conceptual so if concessions don't come to be I want to be able to, us get a handle on that because for me it doesn't make sense to shoot for concessions and be funding things that we don't have money for.
There's 25 million already in there of compassion and support from the general fund but again its all predicated on concessions if for example I am supporting the DA's fire, but that is because there are some conceptual concepts out there. I may not be doing others because there are no conceptual substantive items before us.
Can I talk now? Thank you. Well, I don't know. You've got to check with the guy that talks. Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Russell, the reason I asked you to come up is along a theme of trying to generate income which this county so desperately needs. One of the obstacles that I have found is folks would come to Particularly the surveyor in your shop, Mr. McLaughlin and sometimes in your shop and but sometimes they can't agree on what is needed. But if everybody agrees on what is needed And particularly at the Surveyor's Office, you pay $6000 but you have to wait five months before you get your permit. So that doesn't allow you to go on and get that project done so people could be employed and money could be generated and homes could be sold and those kinds of things could happen.
So is there something that we can add back or give you in your department that would make Those things go faster so that when a person wants to build onto their home, it doesn't take them such a long time to get the permit. So we can get them down to Home Depot and get stuff happening. Who wants to take it first? Is there anything that would help you, Mr. McLaughlin? I apologize we didn't get this done sooner. We've been trying.
Sure and Madam Chair thank you for the question. You asked that question yesterday too and we went back and took a look at our current waiting time and really just because of the volume coming across the desk right now because there's not a lot of volume because there's not a lot of development going on it's taken us about 20 days to 20-25 working days now to turn projects around ballpark But when it starts to get busy and it starts to pick up again, and development starts to move through the pipeline we're going to need resources. And that's going to be...
But people are allegedly, and I don't want to get into an argument because that's not the style. Allegedly people are writing you a check that covers the entire cost of what you're doing. $6,000 for a lot line adjustment.
Okay
But why isn't it, what causes it not to be analyzed if everything's there? We're going to assume that everything is there and that is needed. Why isn't it back to the surveyor in a month?
Sure. And Madam Chair today, if somebody came to our counter and gave us a check for $6000 to do a lot line adjustment or to look at a project, it would take us 20-25 days to get information back to
them. Mr. Russell same thing?
Madam Chair, I would have a different answer. I'm trying to decide what the best answer is for you here. If you look at what we do, process improvement is a constant fact of life and so we're constantly working on that. There has in the past been specific resources allocated for process improvement efforts. We don't have any of those resources scheduled in our budget next year So that's one area where if we wanted to define a process improvement project and determine what kind of funding that needed, we could do that.
You could look at it in a more general sense as well and say that promoting economic development happens in all aspects of our program from long-range planning to the issuance of building permits. So you could say in a general sense that restoration and long range planning would help But perhaps more specifically to the questions you asked, how can we do the work faster?
I think we have accurately balanced the number of people. permitting our projects with the amount of work that's coming in the door. Of course, as you have smaller staff you always run into bottlenecks because you might have only one planner who is qualified to do the more complicated projects yet we can't justify hiring another planner at that level given our permit load so it's difficult to say well if you would fund another permit processor That would help because that's all funded by the money coming in the door from the people getting the permits. So, the best answer I could give you would be either understanding that process improvement is a fact of life and whether we have specific resources for it or not, we are obligated to do that on an ongoing basis would be to look back at what we did in the past regarding process improvement and fund a project that would look at streamlining our process.
And I know that CEO Waller and I were personally involved in just such an effort in San Diego, which I think bore some fruit. Or in a more general sense, in terms of the things that are being cut from my budget, the only restoration The restoration that would help to promote economic development in general using the Los Alamos Community Plan as an example where now that we have completed that plan, we have people that are coming in the door who are proposing projects in Los Alamos that would not have been proposed without the completion of that plan. Would be to restore one or more of the long-range planners. That's the best answer I can give you, should you want more detail concerning what kind... And maybe
we can work on it because I'm just so...I mean, I want them to write you the check and put you to work and put Home Depot to work and get people buying new homes and having things happen and, you know, people are, I mean, many of my constituents are saying but we can't get it Going fast enough so that let that so be it. We'll call it good there and I could ask that we give you one more staff person and put it on the list Madam Chair,
to answer the dollar question I think that you asked?
Yes.
So today if we're at 20 to 25 days, that's where one map checker in the Supervisor's office. If we want that to be a 10-day turnaround, we would need a second map checker. So for us it would be an $88,584 restoration. So hopefully that answers the fiscal
portion
of your question. But
the fees are allegedly supposed to pay for that so it pays its way, is that right Mr.
McAuliffe? Well it depends because we do records of survey and quarter records and that's the work that we talked to your board about when we came back with surveyor fee increases because that's subsidized work So the general fund is used to help us review those maps to ensure that those maps actually make it into the public record because it's a good thing to have those in the public record. Corner records are set at, I believe, the cost for us to actually file an index which is about $15.
That's all legally we can charge.
Okay thank you. Madam
Chair?
Supervisor Carbajal?
You know, there's one thing I didn't touch on because it's in the budget. But I'm not sure that maybe I should touch on it. What's in the budget right now is a million dollars towards the operations... The operation fund that CEO Waller recommended in our budget. By me not touching on it means I'm supportive of that but if you want to hear from me whether I'm supportive of keeping that recommendation by CEO Waller in the budget, I am.
And so
for the jail operations, it's what was recommended by our CEO.
I'd like to put on the list $88,000 for the Public Works Department to get someone that will get these maps off and get work going. And that covers it for me. Thank you.
Madam Chair, can I go back for a second because I did have a question? I guess it's Jason or Chandra here is On the construction of the new 50 beds in jail. Is that in this budget for, because it was like $700,000 and I didn't see it anywhere, just curious?
Yes, I believe that we have the Sheriff's Office here and I think they would be best to speak to that issue.
3:49 – 3:5618 turns
And the
question was, what was the question again?
The new 50 beds that we have in Santa Barbara, I didn't see it in the budget but I believe he had mentioned at $700,000. I just want a clarification on
that. It is currently covered in the budget from the standpoint that if we close the Santa Maria Branch Jail which costs us approximately 1.9 million per year And we transfer five deputies back to the main jail to run the new module. And then, the remainder of those positions would be lost which would be a $1.2 million cost savings. So from the standpoint that it is covered if the budget were to stay as it is. If you want to restore the Santa Maria Branch Jail and keep Staffing to run the new 50 bed facility. We would need $1.9 million to be able to do that. OK, is that clear? Is that clear?
Yeah, I got it. OK. Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Chair. As always I find this exercise incredibly interesting and I don't want to say heartwarming. I don't know what the word is but here we are in one hour going through a budget and many of us agree on very important items. I just want to make a plea to my colleagues as CEO Waller mentioned one of our priorities is children And I had listed three items. Can we put
those back up, please?
The clinic operations, this is to fund mental health treatment for our children. And I reduced the amount that was listed. Child abuse and neglect for social services and foster care. All three so important to our kids, the most neediest kids in our community. So, again I'm going to make this suggestion. It looks like we have enough votes for the helicopter.
I thought that the cost was $1.3 million and apparently it's a million dollars so in my mind that's $300,000 And I would, if my colleagues could look at those three items. Clinic operations which is exactly $300,000. Child abuse and neglect is a little bit more. The foster care is 240. If you would consider any one of those items that I just think is so Vital for our community we again. We talked about prevention and intervention, and we've put money into the Into the public safety let's let's try and catch these kids early
Thank you III certainly appreciate that argument it reminds me of an argument I made a couple years ago when I wanted to find a little bit more health care for children I Pleaded I pleaded and I wasn't successful And we had money then. Today, we don't have money and boy it breaks my heart and I want to do more. As a matter of fact, we're recommending today that we kick 113 children off of the Children's Health Program but I'm willing... We're not going
to kick them off they go by.
No but there's not going to be enough funding for... There won't be. You'll have to put 113 more
on.
There's not enough funding for 113 with the reduction 15% reduction. This is a tough year and I wish I could fund everything. And just like I made my pleas when we did have money, now that we don't have money, you know, I think we're doing the best we can. That's why I limited some of my restorations in other areas Certainly, we can all look at the proposed restorations in other areas to bring back to maybe find more in certain areas. But I think we're all doing our best and I'm doing my best. And like I said, I appreciate the advocacy and the encouragement but that reminds me of the arguments I made when we did have money.
Thank you, Supervisor. I too have many pleas to make. However, I'm not going to do it because I've pled with you time and time again not to give that $60,000 to the legislative advocates. I'm up there all the time. What they claimed credit for is not what they've done but we've got the vote so let's not worry about it. Did you mark?
Chair Gray, excuse me. May I make a suggestion please?
Certainly.
We would very much like the opportunity to make sure that we have adequately and accurately reflected your board's information, and so we were hoping that maybe we could take a quick five-minute break.
Ma'am, we were going to take a ten minute break at this time so you can be sure and get the voting that has already been done done, get your chart ready to go. So we'll be back at quarter after two to continue this. Thank you Chair. Ken, can I see you please? ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶.
3:56 – 4:131 turns
¶. Hi. ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ♪ Music ♪ Thank you. Thank you. ¶. ¶. Hi. ¶. Thank you. ♪ CCoSp4 3.50 (-1.00?) ¶¶ Yeah. Thank you. Hello. Thank you. ? ? ? ¶. Hello. . . .
4:13 – 4:2833 turns
OK. Back to order again and we're going to have public comment, and we have a couple of folks that would like to give us public comment. Oh Ken it's working perfectly. OK back to public comments.
We'll start with Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
Mr. Caldwell?
Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I don't know if I missed something. It seems to me that the only supervisor that said where they'd get the money from was Supervisor Farr. Did I miss that or is she the only one that indicated where she gets the money from? Can I ask that question? We haven't gone there yet
Mr. Caldwell.
Pardon?
We have not gone there yet.
Well, I can't. I'm going to have to miss public comment because I can't comment on any of the ads unless we know where the money's coming from and due to my own personal schedule, I won't be able to stay. Are you planning on continuing this tomorrow? Do you think you're gonna finish up today?
We don't really know but We probably will get back to it tomorrow, is what we're thinking. But we're going to hear where we are. So if you don't want to comment that's okay.
Yeah I just like I said it really does depend on where the money's coming from thank you.
Thanks Mr. Caldwell. Who's next?
Next speaker is John Wilczek To be followed by Sheriff Rowe
Can he make a public comment? Madam Chair,
Supervisors. My name is John Wilsack. I am the president of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Benevolent Posse. We're a private 501c3 organization that's been formed as a follow-on from the Sheriff's Council that many of you may have been aware of in the past. To express our deep concern about public safety, the public safety crisis that's about to be foisted on the county of Santa Barbara.
When we look at and I acknowledge that certain programs that have been targeted for cuts such as school resource deputies and some of the detective positions appear to have found some funding to continue due to some remaining funds in the sheriff's current budget. However, there are critically important programs and personnel that have yet to be funded and watching what I just saw in terms of what your priorities are they won't be funded The Gang Enforcement Task Force represents four people.
Now, is there anybody in Santa Barbara County who doesn't recognize that this team is critical to holding the line against the expansion of gang activity in the county? Everybody that I talked to understands that. The success of this team is predicated upon its ongoing intelligence gathering and the interventions that they've had which have successfully suppressed gang activities countywide.
The elimination of this team puts the county at high risk for a dramatic upswing in gang activity. And as all of you know, if you watch our cities, it ebbs and flows based on how much activity you have focused on this, eliminating this team. And I know that we said there's going to be some people brought back. The money that you're offering to improve or support public safety here is inadequate at best The narcotics unit, 50% of the narcotics unit is going to be eliminated.
Again these are very very serious times and this is ground zero for Santa Barbara County. We're a perfect county to target for this kind of activity. A lot of rural areas, a lot of places to hide. Our Sheriff's Department is responsible for a very large physical area we need these people on the ground Maybe the most disturbing thing that I saw was the notion that somehow we need to spend a million three on aircraft in the fire department.
I happen to have been involved in aircraft For the last 10, 11 years some of you may know that we're about to receive a $2.2 million aircraft that we bought ten years ago and have been renovating that's going to come here medium lift helicopter that's going to be a very valuable asset to the county which was paid for completely with private funding Okay. If you, my understanding was that you had formed a subcommittee to consider what to do with the air unit structure in the county today. I'm here to submit to you that I believe based on all of the knowledge that I have about it, that the Sheriff's Department should be okay, the department in charge of the air unit countywide. That in fact, the Sheriff's Department has the ability to deliver the services that are required from an air unit in the county And that the fire department, the great job that they do.
This is a secondary function to them, okay? The primary function, it's a primary function for the Sheriff's Department. I'm sorry your
time is up. I was watching something else.
You were watching something else. The clock! I'd like to close by
saying... You're finished so we thank you so much for your comments because we do make it three minutes and then you had four. Sheriff Brown, you're going to do a public comment. I guess that you have freedom of speech
Well,
yes ma'am. Thank you Madam Chair. I'm commenting because I'm a little mystified about the helicopter situation because it was my understanding indeed that a subcommittee was formed to look at this situation. I have had no chance for discussion with any of you about the Sheriff's Department's capabilities, about the fact that we have aircraft that are in hand and arriving which Have capabilities that I think are far better than what the fire department has.
I think that we need to maybe take a deep breath and stop and look at this, and not sort of have the verdict on the trial before we have the trial. We haven't had the opportunity to present Our ideas and our thoughts on aviation to you, and yet the money that's been suggested is to go into the fire department. And I think what I'd like to suggest is that you perhaps consider continuing some funding for the Fire Aviation Program for several months perhaps while we work with this subcommittee The plan that we have before you so that you can see what your options are.
Before you put the money into the fire department's budget, I think that would be a little more equitable. There are two other areas I'd like to address with you very briefly. One is the jail fund which we had spoken about before And I want to reiterate to you that we have a $56.3 million state grant on the table for a proper North County jail facility, but that it requires match money and that it requires ongoing operational costs that we don't have in our current budget.
I believe that it's important that you make a first step and even if it's not a full million dollars, I would encourage you to look at least putting something into a fund. Perhaps half that amount. But something that's a start so that we can hopefully grow that fund in future years, put more aside as revenues grow into the county. So that we can avoid having to go from zero to 100% if and when we can get that jail constructed but then we're not going to have any real viable means of staffing and running it.
So I would strongly encourage you to not pull all the funding out of the jail fund, as has been recommended by the CEO. And then lastly, I just wanted to address some of the comments that were made by Supervisor Carbajal in regards to, in essence, rewarding certain departments because certain labor groups may be further along in discussions or negotiations than others.
And I really do not believe that this board should jeopardize the safety of the public because of the fact that one of these groups or several of these groups may be further along in the negotiation process, which is still continuing. The DSA president was here on Monday and said that his organization was working and would work with you to try to address some of the problems that the county has had The Sheriff's Management Association, it's my understanding has agreed in a concept.
So to not take into account what has happened and indeed what is happening and frankly what has not been finalized with any other labor group I think is is not really giving the actual priorities in this funding where it should go. The realities are, and you look at the list of restorations and it's very hard to argue that any of those are not needed. Thank you, Sheriff.
It's
really tough because I think... I'm going to talk for a moment, Supervisor. I think that you identified the theme, and sometimes themes aren't pleasant things of this budget hearing. And we're all feeling this. It's not like you're cutting off the hem of your skirt. You're cutting off a leg. You're cutting off a thigh. And we have to do this. So in order to do it, we're trying to expedite the process People are saying what they need to say, and I so respect you. The entire county, what they've done, have worked on this budget for 12 years.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is we feel this. The theme of this budget is cut off a leg, not shorten your skirt. Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you Madam Chair. You know-
We have one more public comment.
Sure. Tomorrow when we get more concessions, we will be at the table again alleviating these proposed cuts. I didn't mean to propose that in the future when we achieve that, we're not going to be able to revisit some of those cuts. It's just a matter of there's no money. I looked in my drawer. I looked into designations. There's very little designations. There's just no money.
And I know that might sound different from some of the things you saw up there being putting all these things up there, but there's just no money. And so as soon as we get more money from concessions were able to give back more. So it's I don't mean to propose that for me this is the end all but based on the conceptual Agreements that we seem to be having out there. That's really what's guiding my decision-making is not to Insinuate that I wouldn't revisit this issue down the road, but until we have those conceptual items In a more tangible way it's difficult for me to do I didn't mean to close the door and I'm not closing the door But today and today only I am
but all I'm saying is that if we're going through a process Where restorations are to be made and they're based at least in part upon the position that one union may be in versus another There still have been no agreements made. There still have been no votes taken, there still has been no action taken nor any additional revenue saved by the county at this point.
Thank you Sheriff and I wanted to say that one of the things that I was hoping for and I'm not entering into a dialogue here because Supervisor Wolff has her mic on. That was why I appointed that committee we've got seven aircraft sitting in this county and I can't find one single person in my district that thinks that a county oughta have seven aircraft Now that's why Supervisor Lovanino and Supervisor Wolfe asked to get together, work this through and figure out what's the best use of our aircraft money.
I was here when we fought to get aircraft so it's not something that I'm opposed to. I think it's excellent. I was hoping they could do that work before we made the decision like Supervisor Carbajal said, this is all just tentative. What we're going to do now after Mr. Armaderos gives his statement is we're going to ask everyone to say what they think they'd like the support it's not locked in sand and then the CEO and Jason are gonna go work on it figure out if they can find money and come back to us tomorrow at What time? Nine o'clock, nine o'clock and we're going to go again. So this isn't final, this is just working.
I understand
that but Chair Gray what I heard from the board today was different than what I had heard yesterday with particularly in regards to ARRA.
And we're trying really hard to help you here at Sheriff's. Okay Mr. Armadaris you're up. Thank you. Ms. Wolfe, I'm sorry, I went skipping by. Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Ramagiris...
Let me just, I just wanted to touch on that what she said about the subcommittee because I've talked to Supervisor Wolfe. This isn't something we were going to get done in four days. Well, we knew that! Okay, I just wanted to make clear that we weren't gonna fix this before the budget.
I was hoping. Well,
I mean this is a huge issue that I think we've put a time frame on of about six months that we can sit down with the experts but when you still get down to the very last decision and we have to be mindful that the sheriff is an elected official and once again as far as budgeting goes we can budget where some money goes but he's going to make the determination of where that goes in his department so I think we're looking at a six-month window, and we'll come back. But right
now, I
think the smart
thing to do is... Mr. Amadeiros, welcome to you.
4:28 – 4:348 turns
Thank you Chairwoman Gray. It was a little uncomfortable moving the Sheriff away from the podium to come up and speak. I know how you feel. If he gets three minutes then I don't feel so bad. I only get three minutes. You know this is one of the most interesting budget hearings I've seen probably in 15 years. It's indicative of the fact that we have obviously a major major crisis on our hands. And you know I would suggest that maybe the crisis is not fiscal or even economic as much as it's political I mean in sitting there and looking at these budget priorities, these restoration priorities and not seeing Sheriff, DA, Probation, Public Defender. You know all of our public safety departments not being ABCD&E but all this other stuff to me is really just an indication of the fact that as Supervisor Carbajal said there's a propensity to always try to kick these cans down the road in hopes that maybe the next fiscal year we'll find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
That's not the way it works. The way it works is you right-size county government, you prioritize the essential programs and services. We do it in the city of Carpinteria, they do it in every other city in the county, you do it at the county, you do it at state level. Essential programs and services in my view are public safety, roads, public health. Those are the things that need to be fully funded Period.
You need to fully fund your law enforcement and public safety infrastructure, first. Everything else is second in my view. It's what the taxpayers, it's what the residents and citizens of this community pay for. And it's something that they are willing to pay for. Indeed sometimes they're even willing to pay more for it because it's that important So I would encourage this board to really think about this and fully fund those departments.
Give your DA more DAs, give your sheriff more deputies, give your probation and your public defender more people to do the job that they need to do to keep this county safe. Quality of life as I've said quality of life and public safety are inextricably linked You can't have one without the other. You also can't have a strong, growing economy without public safety.
It's essential. Just do it. Just do it. Prioritize, fully fund those departments and then deal with everything else. Finally, where is the budget committee? Where is the budget task force that you established a few years ago? The Blue Ribbon Budget. Where are those folks? They're still in the community I assume. It was a great idea, Supervisor Carbajal and Firestone put that thing together it was the right thing to do.
It's even more important now and they're nowhere to be seen. It seems to me this would have been a good fiscal year to really use the collective talent of those folks.
Thank you Mr. Armadaris.
Thank you. The question was asked about finding money, I just want to state that my budget restorations were a little over $5 million and I've identified 5.8 million in many of the ones where ones that Supervisor Farr had mentioned so I don't believe that I'm kicking the can down the road. I believe that what I put forth is a very reasonable budget It covers the issues that have been raised by the public, and it does indeed serve public safety.
By giving $1.5 million to Public Safety, $500,000 directly to the Sheriff, and money to Probation and Public Defender. For Probation and Public Defender you only had two board members up here that were willing to put forth money into those departments. I don't look at this budget or any budget As a game because it's because especially in this climate. We are all a little bit of a loser and I don't want to hit one group against another yes, we've had negotiations but it is in my opinion full hearty to To get into the issues of who has done what, when, where, how much. We have a job to do and I believe that I have made my recommendations. I believe they're responsible recommendations and I look forward to discussing this more in depth tomorrow and making our final recommendations.
Thank you.
I'm trying to figure out where we should go from here. Pardon me, you passed out the green sheet? I think if there are any questions about that and then these folks don't have them. Somebody didn't pass them out. Here she comes, here she comes.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray, members of the Board...
So I think we could do... We know we're coming back tomorrow on this. It gives us a chance to go home and take a look at
this. Don't we need to know who's got three okays so they don't have to chase something that doesn't have three okays on it?
So Mr. Marshall, help me out on this. I want to be sure I'm not taking a vote but giving a feel that could be changed if as we look at it again tomorrow okay?
4:34 – 4:4129 turns
I think what I'm hearing is you're going to give some tentative direction to the CAO for purposes of doing calculations, which may subsequently change the final outcome. So I don't see this as a final vote.
Can I just make a change when this comes back to us tomorrow? Can you look at the helicopter operations and change my amount $1,003,000 to $1 million?
Okay. Supervisor Lovanino, did you want to say something on this?
I guess if I'm going to go home tonight and work on this, I do need a little clarification from the Sheriff of Santa Maria Jail because obviously I don't have the votes to fully fund it and I feel like we're punting. You know, I really do. I just feel like it's the largest city in our district. It's something that Constituents have already paid for. We're going to pull the rug out from under them, and we're going to tell them that they need to go to Santa Barbara.
I just don't want to lock the door like it feels like we have and send a letter off to the city. And it's going to be business as usual for us, but it's going to be terribly impactful. And I want to know what alternatives do we have? Is there something that I can offer to my colleagues that's something less than full measure here?
Mr. Brown?
Just one second.
And because I haven't said that, I would do anything other than get a map checker.
You know, I see another correction on here and that's the district attorney for Supervisor Farr.
Wait a minute. Let's say that again, Supervisor Wolff and then to Supervisor Farr.
And Supervisor Farr, you can correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that you were going to put some money into that.
Yes actually I said 500 and whatever that was for the treatment. Which one are you
guys talking
about? I'm looking at the district attorney where it says
Drug Court?
Oh, maybe that's where it's down. That's where it is. It's farther down on the list. Where it says drug court.
Okay.
Thank you. Rather than under discretionary but also Madam Chair, maybe Supervisor Carpajal could double check? I thought he was on the list for the $25,000 for the warming centers
Well, because I think the difference is that when I gave my amount, I gave a lump sum amount rather than specifying. So when you see the discretionary all of those move into my column except yours actually for the DA.
I think Madam Chair, it would be better if the money to go to specific departments was kind of put together rather than split up. You know because I was specific in what I was hoping it would be used for but I think more important we need to know how many supervisors are interested in giving any money to a particular department Yeah, I think that would be helpful.
How do we do that? We'll just have to revise this list.
What I was going to suggest is that possibly now that we believe we have gotten everything that each individual mentioned as you go through to discuss The general support that you may have, we can get clarification on the numbers and what you'd like to see put together. And that may be helpful versus folks kind of looking at different places on here and trying to make sense of it.
So my suggestion would be to bring back up the form and then we can have that discussion line by line so that we've got clarity on what your intent was and that would give us the opportunity as well if you wanted to combine things, we could combine them
Could you do another one of these? I mean, so we have one like this and then tomorrow just do what was already suggested and do it by department.
We certainly can. What I haven't gotten clarity from your board yet is whether or not you wish for us to address all of the things that you have on your list or whether your board was going to sort of refine a list. And I don't know that you've made that decision yet.
Okay let's get back To answering Supervisor Lavanino's question of Sheriff Brown.
Madam Chair, members of the board, Supervisor Lavanino in particular, the sheriff's office identified three options that could be done short of a full operation of the North County Branch Jail Facility. The first option would be to keep the facility open only during evening hours from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., seven days per week, and to do that would require $743,287. Option number two would be to keep the jail open the same hours but only on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings And that would cost $360,912. And then the third option we identified but I don't recommend it. I don't think you should consider it because it's predicated on the other agencies entering into some kind of a contractual agreement with Lompoc and what it would cost us to do the additional transports to Lompoc so I would suggest that those two would be the only other viable options that you'd have other than The ones that you've already had.
Okay, Supervisor Carbajal?
Yes I see that there's a mistake in mine. I said I would do $25,000 for the warming centers it's not reflective in there and I was supportive of the $1 million for the jail. I'd be open to the option that the sheriff laid out, taking part of that fund from the jail that CEO Waller recommended, taking part of that to do option number two, 300,000 for the Santa Maria Jail.
What?
360. 360. Let's call it 300.
4:41 – 4:4848 turns
And I certainly would support that. Well, you need to get people off the street when they're beating up on people and that's Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights are the big nights. And you know Sheriff quite frankly if you did Thursday, Friday and Saturday night there's no reason that Santa Maria and maybe the Highway Patrol couldn't do Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or who knows?
They might. Because Lompoc does their own booking and holding.
Chair Gray, they do but it really wouldn't be a practical option for them because you have to have...
No I mean they pay you to do it.
Oh if they paid us to do it we could
do it. You'd take the money wouldn't you? Sure. Okay, we got a deal here. So basically...
It's basically $100,000 a night. Is that dollar wise?
Boy that's higher than the Ritz Carlton. Okay, so now the issue is we don't have it clear about putting departments together and I think that's basically a Supervisor Farr and a Supervisor Wolf's Uh, problem. I mean not, I don't mean problem but they could probably give it to you more clearly so if, if Supervisor Wolf looked at her discretionary $350,000 for the DA and looked at what Supervisor Farr said that would be drug court And with that, would that nourish or not?
Madam Chair. I just think it's more important to look at it holistically by department and so you know I outlined what I would like to see the money used for which is I think in most cases were The top priorities on those particular lists anyway. But I think it's more important to know whether we have at least three nods for a department to get some money to do something with.
And it doesn't appear that we have the three nods. For the discretionary, right? Where am I? Well actually
for the discretionary because even Supervisor Carbajal, the 240 he was specific in his and wanting it to go to the deputy DA's. Mine was more general so I think if we could just make it more just do it more general and then we can figure it out later.
Madam
Chair, I'd like to hear from the DA if possible of what you want An amount that's general or specific? I mean, my inclination is to support the two DAs. But if given a choice...
Madam Chair, Supervisor
Carbajal, I'm sorry what was your question? I had personally recommended $240,000 for two DAs but there's a question of discretionary would you want it discretionary or towards the two DAs
Madam Chair, Supervisor Carber-Hall, discretionary.
Okay.
Well madam chair if that's the case then mine can go up to that discretionary line.
Okay so then that gives us some amount We've got three people interested in further
funding.
OK, so if it's not 240, it's not a deal because Supervisor Carbajal will withdraw his vote.
Could we also get clarity on Supervisor Lavinino's please?
On this item?
Yes,
yes. Mine would be I could go discretionary but it would be maximum at the 240.
Okay so 240 DA discretionary you've got three to do that. You've got four actually you've got me too. You've got four no you've got three no you have three because Supervisor Wilk wants 350 and Supervisor Farr wants 587.
But Madam Chair those are both over 240 so they've got five votes for
For $240,000 anyway. Is that clear folks?
May I get some clarity on that please? Is the amount that you're asking us as staff to put in there $240,000 and to seek funding options for $280,000 or is it some different number?
$220,000
Okay I just wanted to make sure. Let's do the same thing if we could with probation because I put the discretionary amount of 400 and Supervisor Farr had two separate items and I would ask
So intervention and is there any there's no but there's not a third on that.
No, but
my mind was wrong and I had my D.A.. Drug court was actually the probation drug court. But I don't want to make that discretionary. I've been to drug court and I've just seen
its drug court or nothing with you.
Yes
OK we're still not clear are we?
I believe we are clear on what you did with the DA. If you're now discussing probation, that's what we're doing. We don't see three nods there so we're looking for whether or not you
have some number of nods. Is there a third nod? Again, again, now that we're getting into decision making I think this is good to clarify and. And I would just ask that we hold off on the decision making until tomorrow because the fact is, is that you know the 107 is better than nothing but I think we also need to understand We've committed, or I don't even know if we've committed but in our budget we have $50,000 going to the City of Santa Barbara for a gang task force. And yet we have no gang work from the Sheriff and we're taking it out on probation. So I'd like us to think really hard about that.
You know, as much as we talk about gangs and youth, we're not funding anything. And so I would like us to think about this tonight. We
will.
Can
we have that back up please? Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you turned it off. Okay. So is there any other thing that's not clear?
On that particular one, our clarity that we are requesting. Do you want us to keep it with the three separate? Do you want to combine those and then I'm still looking for clarity on... But you don't
have three now.
Why don't
you put it as discretionary 400 350 and then put 107 under Law Vignino in parentheses DC standing for drug court We know that
that's how I'm looking for direction from your board on that. Right now you have three probation, none of those three have three individuals. So I'm seeking clarity on what you want us to do with that
right now? You don't have three to do anything.
It doesn't matter that you don't have three just put it in the same line and we can discuss it tomorrow.
4:48 – 4:5427 turns
Madam
Chair.
I can't get an agreement to put it in the same line.
Madam Chair, I don't want anything... Keep it in separate lines. I would highly recommend that nothing goes to tomorrow that doesn't have three.
Okay we don't have three.
No, I disagree with that. No, then we're doing our budget right now.
Okay.
No because two minutes ago you all changed your mind on the district attorney who's to say yes you added Supervisor Gray and Supervisor Labagnino added 240 to that? Who's to say that you won't change your mind tomorrow? Why are
we rushing on this? That was not a change of mind That was looking back on this. I hadn't added it in, so I already saw it up on the wall and Didn't know that I needed to go through everyone that was already up there, but so it's not a change of mind. Just OK, so that was
just a
clarification, but I
want everybody to know you can change your mind tomorrow. This is not locked in. You can say tomorrow that you've changed your mind Supervisor Ford and you have something.
Well, I mean again, I think on probation the same as the district attorney that we do have three votes probation, two specifically had been mentioned for the drug court. Am I correct, Supervisor Levin? You know? And one which was discretionary, which certainly could go for the drug court. So I would think at minimum there's money for the drug court person in the probation.
How about we go this way? Drug Because there's, we've got three that are at four. If it's drug court, then it'll help drug court continue. But I don't want to say just probation or just DA or just public defender because it might be the courts that are running it. That's the way I want to slot it so that it actually works in drug court. So we can't do it by going department because for years, we did drug court with no DA there and public defender in once in a while.
But we always had the courts there. I don't know how to get there. Jason, you're the budget guy. How do you get us to drug court?
A possible solution Are the individuals that have shown an interest either through discretionary or through gang intervention? I don't know if part of that discretionary was consideration of drug court. If, if that was Supervisor Wolf's thought, I think that you could say that you have three that are interested in drug court.
Drug court but not necessarily department wise.
They all
have different departments.
That's correct, unless you feel differently but going just on what you did on the previous one as a model that's where I would recommend you go at this point obviously we're looking for some clarification there. You
know I don't want to time myself in on the drug court but yet I don' t want to lose his funding my way I was looking at this was the gang intervention officers And that's where I was coming from, that that was very important. It's important to me. I think it's important to the community and drug court is great but you know that I think that we need to again it's the prioritizing and that's what
So I don't, we don't have three there so. Madam Chair, I guess. Supervisor Farr and then Wolfe?
Thank you. You know what with all due respect to Supervisor Carbajal, I don't know that. Well
let's hold it till he gets back.
He's probably listening in the restaurant.
It's a good time to say it.
I guess I'm kind of to the point where I'm ready to just kind of let this rest. The way it is, just the way it is and let all of us think about it. I mean it probably is that the things that are on this list that only have one person interested in them you know are going to drop off but I would hate to drop off any that have two now and only come back Because we're still having difficulty trying to decide what we even have at three. And, you know people may also change their minds overnight so I'm starting to feel a little rushed on something that I don't want to be rushed on.
I certainly can and it's not like the average IQ of this audience right now is probably 175. So you guys can go back and maybe think about this also Give us some ideas. It's obvious and let me say that I've been at this, I keep saying that 12 years and this is the most cooperation and work together and structured that I've observed so thank you all. You've done a really great job of understanding the county as a whole and not just your own department And so I think that we will come back tomorrow morning. We have closed session at 8, and the rest of you can be here at 9.
So we'll see you tomorrow. Thank you.
4:54 – 4:551 turns
¶. Yeah.