BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 December 13, 2011

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.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:039 turns

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈28s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:13 · ≈ 9:00 AM

You.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:42 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Merry Christmas to everybody. This is the last meeting of the year for the Board of Supervisors. Is that me? It is me, are you sure? Okay. Okay we're going to try and do this without being irritating. Welcome anyway to the Board of Supervisors and Merry Christmas glad to see everyone here and everybody looks so darn cool. Happy holidays! Let's have the Pledge of Allegiance after the roll call Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Lavagnino? Here. Ms. Wolff? Here, Ms. Farr? Here Mr. Carbajal? Here Ms. Gray? Present

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:54 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Thank you. The reason, I'm sure no one really cares but the reason they give me these mics like this is because I'm too short to reach the mic mic so they are kind enough to put it on my collar. Mr. Allen we need to approve the minutes is that correct? Do we have a motion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We're now going to go to the administrative agenda at this point in time we have County Council asking to speak on A-41 there's someone from the public that would like to speak about A-12, A-19 Supervisor Lavinino anything from you?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:36 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Madam Chair I need to pull 17 19 34 and 41

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47 · ≈ 9:02 AM

We also have A4. 17,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:50 · ≈ 9:02 AM

19, 34,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52 · ≈ 9:02 AM

41. 41, we've got 41. Supervisor Carbajal? You're fine. Supervisor Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:02 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Madam Chair I would like to pull A12, A13 and A15. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:10 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Wolff? Okay. All right, let's do it this way then. A4 came from the public Mr. Allen?

0:03 – 0:0815 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:19 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Madam Chair we just have a quick one on A4 from Tom Fairam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:23 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Fairam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:24 · ≈ 9:03 AM

And item A4 is resolution proclaiming the week of December 12th through 16 as Flood Awareness Week.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:30 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board I just wanted to make note of this resolution which is not presented at 1.30 but wanted to advise the board and the public of the presentations not only here in the Government Center in Santa Maria but also in Santa Barbara these public outreach activities all lead up to a 20% reduction in flood insurance rates for the citizens of Santa Barbara County so these types of activities along with many other things we do are Helping our citizens save money every day and please take time to take a look at the materials and pass it on to your friends. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Thank You, Mr. Faram. So let's go to A12 now Mr. Allen

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:11 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item 812 is from County Council. The recommendations that the board consider are recommendations regarding a contract with outside counsel for potential eminent domain litigation and we have one request to speak on this from Mr. Dave Stockdale.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:27 · ≈ 9:04 AM

And just before Mr. Stockdale comes up to the mic and makes his statement could I have a motion to approve everything that hasn't been pulled? All in favor, say aye. Aye. So if in fact you have an item that hasn't been pulled and you'd like to go back to work, you can do so. So we are now on A12 is that correct? That's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:57 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Morning. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. The reason I'm here really is because I would like to kind of read into the administrative records some of the background this particular legislation so that it just didn't get passed over. When the EIR for Union Valley Parkway was presented in 2009, it referred in a passing manner that the property acquisition we're talking about was for the Taylor property that the acquisition was underway.

At the time Walmart had owned the property for two years. The oversight was so egregious that Walmart itself retained counsel to commit To commit to notify you that they in fact own the property, which of course everybody would have known. And that the public should be told that the county did not own it. Make a point of telling public the county didn't own it. Essentially they were telling the parties involved at the cost for that piece of property would be dear and maybe the parties involved should think about the cost, about committing the costs or proceeding on the project But the city and the county went ahead anyway. And now we're talking about retaining council just to discuss eminent domain proceedings with a contract of up to $150,000 without having to come back to the supervisors for further discussion.

Univac Parkway between Highway 101 and 135 is in fact critical to our transportation needs in the county. The section between 135 and Blosser Road which has been built, which the city went ahead with is one of the most egregious and gross misallocations of government funds imaginable. When I went to numerous, here's my point because virtually $10 million has been spent on this worthless piece of property, this worthless road.

What we've essentially gotten for it is a nice bike path, a nice walking road and two really dangerous intersections where there have been multiple injury accidents where only by the grace of God has nobody been killed yet I went to numerous meetings regarding this and in all that time virtually everyone who spoke on it was either an elected official, they worked for the government, they were on a planning commission for the government or they were an urban planner who derived most of their income from working for the government.

On the other side was a loud and sustained Disagreement from the people who actually infected, the people who had to pay for it saying this road's a waste of time. This road is useless. It's going to cost too much money. We don't want it built now. Maybe 10 years from now. Maybe 15 years from now. Maybe 20 years from now but not now. We were ignored and so here's my point.

This is not sour grapes. This is not an envy. My point is this. The next time you have an issue here where Everybody on one side works for the government, derives their income from the government, is associated with the government. And everybody on the other side is the people. Make note of that. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:02 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Thank you Mr. Stockdale. Was there another? Someone else

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:06 · ≈ 9:08 AM

had a... Madam Chair, I'm just wondering whether we could trail this item until after closed session.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:17 · ≈ 9:08 AM

All right, so we will be trailing 12. Anyone else on 12? Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:24 · ≈ 9:08 AM

No further requests to speak from the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:26 · ≈ 9:08 AM

I also have 13 now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:28 · ≈ 9:08 AM

That's also me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:30 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Let's read it into the record.

0:08 – 0:082 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:32 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Madam Chair, item A13 is for the County Executive Office to approve budget revision requests.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:37 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Ms. Barr? Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes I would like to pull out the transfer number 1923, the $75,000

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:44 · ≈ 9:08 AM

for parks and we can either drop it and put it back on the agenda after the first of the year or else we can just continue into February but I haven't had a chance to talk to the new Community Services Director Mr. Parker about it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:58 · ≈ 9:08 AM

okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:58 · ≈ 9:08 AM

and other park staff

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:59 · ≈ 9:08 AM

no problem A15

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed9:05 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item A-15 Assembly County Executive Office requests that the Board consider recommendations regarding advisory revision for the new Orchid Library tenant improvements.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:15 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Ms. Farr is that you again? Yes it is. You know, Madam Chair I have a number of questions about this But I guess what the first is, is that when we've had so many bids come in so much under estimate to have one come in so much over

CommentElizabeth WilsonProposedself-stated9:31 · ≈ 9:09 AM

estimate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:33 · ≈ 9:09 AM

You know it's rather concerning but I think that the piece that concerns me the most is taking another $12,000 from the general fund contingency and adding it in there And a year ago when you brought this to us, I was happy to support it then as a loan. Although now it looks like it's going to take even longer for that to be paid back because some of the money that was going to be paid from the AB 1,600 fees now needs to go to this additional cost and I'm okay with that. But I think right now there is so much need in the county for all of the county libraries and I hear about it from the libraries in my district all the time. And I'm constantly looking for ways to find money not only for the libraries and not large amounts of money like this And other projects as well.

It's really hard for me to add another $12,000 coming out of the contingency without being able to get similar amounts of money for the libraries in my district or maybe countywide and I know that they're all really suffering. Anyway, I'm having real difficulty adding more money to it when there's so much need in the other libraries. And I don't know whether any of the other board members have concerns about this or not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed10:52 · ≈ 9:10 AM

either. Mr. Carbajal? Keep in mind that we've had to reduce hours at all the other libraries in my district as well and if we allocate a similar amount to all districts, I think it would be equitable. If not, I think there are valid concerns that Ms. Farr is raising.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed11:11 · ≈ 9:11 AM

You know, I think it might be wise just to go ahead and pull this off if we have an objection to this. I know that it's a loan, it's not a gift. And I know that 99.9% of the fees are Orcutt dedicated fees. It's not like they're library fees that we can take and give to the other libraries. So we need to know that. We need to talk about that. And we need to recognize that $45,000 came from the Friends of the Orcut Library And so maybe we need to pull that or do you want to just vote on it right now? I hate to see this go down. We've bidded out twice and this is as low as we've been able to get it. This is the second time we've gone to bid, so I certainly would like to see us do that but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed11:59 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I don't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed11:59 · ≈ 9:11 AM

know what else to do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed12:00 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Madam Chair, I'm happy to support all of it except for the extra $12,000 coming out of contingency and I would be happy to co-sponsor with you something coming back That adds that $12,000 back in again and for the other libraries as well. I just can't add that into it now without some corresponding assistance for the libraries in my district and the other libraries. As Supervisor Carbajal said they've all cut back. They're all really suffering right now. Could we do that? Yes Madam Chair what I would suggest is as you're indicating the 12,000 we need to show the full amount of revenue recorded to again go out to bid on this but 12,00 may in fact not be needed

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction12:44 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Can I just ask a question on this item? Supervisor Gray, this $12,000 you mentioned is a loan. Yes So it corresponds with the other loan that we had given that was to be paid back with AB 1600 fees

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:01 · ≈ 9:13 AM

But I think we whittled that quite a bit down That's correct. Because we weren't happy with the bid on the library was just too high.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction13:12 · ≈ 9:13 AM

You know, I think it was last time that I had talked about using contingency money for another project in Guadalupe and I know that wasn't received well. I think that this amount of money is less. It's going to be repaid. It's part of a loan It's part of a larger project, it may not even be used. I totally agree with the concern about all of our libraries and I think that is something we need to keep in mind as we move forward into our next budget cycle Because our libraries are hurting. But I think, you know, I sometimes think that we have to look at some of these things in independent ways. And while I understand the concerns raised, I feel that I could go ahead and move forward with this specifically and particularly because it is a loan.

So I'm okay with this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:25 · ≈ 9:14 AM

So do we need to hold this? Do we need to vote on it? What do we need to do?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:30 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Madam Chair, I'm willing to support it at the end because again, I don't want to be so parochial and I think that while Supervisor Farr and I have raised legitimate issues for consideration as we go into our business in the future. I'm willing to support this because it's before us now. It's a minimal amount of money, but it's important to raise the issues because they're very valid and it's easy today vote $12,000 and yesterday to not vote $25,000 for something else and tomorrow not. So it's important to get perspective to be equitable and I'm willing to support this but just keep that in mind.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed15:13 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Madam Chair, you know if we hadn't already voted the $100,000 it's not just the $12,000 it's a $112, 000 and even as alone it's going to take much longer to be paid back than I think that we originally thought a year ago when we voted for the hundred thousand And you know, I want to be supportive but I just can't be supportive in this case because I just am hearing from my library people all the time and I don't know how I look them in the eye and add another $12,000 on top of $100,000. And as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:46 · ≈ 9:15 AM

you talk to them Ms. Farr, you might indicate to them that I think maybe Goleta... You have library fees in Goleta, don't you? And ORCA has library fees and some of the libraries don't have library fees, and that makes a difference. Ms. Mosnage?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed16:03 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Yes, I just want to point out something because there might be a bit of confusion. What we're hoping to do as part of assembling the funding for this project is actually we'll be accessing more of the AB 1600 library funds and delaying the initial year repayment to the general fund but we have received additional funds in that account more than anticipated when we originally approached the board on this item In addition, we'll be using administrative development fees also dedicated to the community of Orkut. We are in fact reducing the amount of loan that was originally planned from the general fund. If I can draw your attention to page 3 of 4 of the agenda item it indicates on 10-26 we had originally asked the board for $130,000 of general fund But given the disposition of the new funding and ORCID development fees overall, we will only be requesting $112,000 in general fund contingency.

And then we'll be making up the rest with the restricted funds.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:14 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Okay. Do you want me to pull that Supervisor Farr and vote separately on it? Okay, so let's do that. So I'll make a motion that we approve A15. Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you.

The next item is... Is it 17? Where am I? 17.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed17:38 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item A-17 is from the Fire Department. The request that the board consider reconditions regarding the Hazardous Materials Program Fee Ordinance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:47 · ≈ 9:17 AM

And that was Mr. Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6817:49 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Yeah I just wanted to pull that so I can stay consistent. I voted against this previously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:54 · ≈ 9:17 AM

All right shall we... Is there any other discussion on that one? Is there a motion to pass? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:03 · ≈ 9:18 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:05 · ≈ 9:18 AM

A-19

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:07 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Madam Chair, item A-19 is on planning and development. The request that the board consider rescinding the county's 2005 rejection and now accepting an offer to dedicate public open space in fee and grant public trail easements from Rice Ranch to the County of Santa Barbara. This is in the Orchid area in the 4th district.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:24 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Mr. Lavinino did you pull that? No go ahead. Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:28 · ≈ 9:18 AM

All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:31 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Okay we have five minutes. Let's hear from the public first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:34 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board we'll start with Lori Tamura to be followed by Sunny Russell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed18:42 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Yes.

0:18 – 0:2412 turns

CommentLori TamoraProposedself-stated18:45 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Good morning, my name is Lori Tamora with Urban Planning Concepts. I'm here today with Jim Loloja from Rice Ranch Ventures. The Rice Ranch Ventures have been involved in this project since 2004. They are the developers that have provided to the county the Orchard Community Park, trails, roads, infrastructure, signalized intersections at Rice Ranch Road and Patterson Road. They have met every commitment of required conditions for the first phase of the project.

We heard three weeks ago that this item was going to appear both at the Planning Commission and now at the Board of Supervisors. We understand that county staff and County Council have advised The board It is critical that we work with the county staff and county council on some kind of an easement for temporary construction in this open space. Once the county accepts the land, it is hamstringing the future development of the rest of the project. We need to have some kind of working relationship with the staff, an agreement written prior to transfer of the land so that we can complete sewer water infrastructure. Meet the conditions of approval which we have bonded for which are the trails, the biological mitigation landscaping, irrigation and the infrastructure to complete the full subdivision.

So again we understand what's happening but what we do need from you is a working document that says we have rights to work within the county land that you are accepting to complete the project So we need your

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed20:51 · ≈ 9:20 AM

help.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed20:52 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Thank you. Next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed20:54 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Our next speaker is Sonny Russell to be followed by Rick Corbo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:01 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Mr. Russell, welcome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed21:03 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Good morning. I represent some of the landowners up there that have been managing property up there for the last five years and I've been trying to run cattle up there where you want to put this bike trails and everything. And I'm opposed to it. They've cut my fences. Put ruts this deep in the ground by mountain bikers I've had. Several of them threatened me.

One of them just come up and said, hey I've been doing this for several years. I'm going to continue doing it and nobody's gonna stop me. The deputy that was giving tickets out up there, a woman argued with him about it. He said he was gonna take her to jail and finally she accepted the ticket. Who's gonna pay for all this? Is the county gonna come in and fix my fences that they've cut I've put no trespassing signs up. They tore them down. One year, I even put trespassing signs up that said survivors will be prosecuted. That morning, that night they were gone.

I'm losing money. I can't run cattle up there. Paul Rigetti has had problems with the fences being cut. The mountain bikers... We've got lost forest ranch for the mountain bikers and horseback riders. Why can't they go over there? I mean landowners have no rights up there on Orchard Hill. We've talked to them, they have said well we're not hurting anything I said well how about if I come to your house and walk through your backyard? Well that's different it's not different they're trespassing and if they get this in there they're going to keep spreading out spreading out. The oil companies had nothing but problems up there. They put fences up they cut them down put no trespass signs up they tore them down big welded No trespassing signs and they've torn them down.

And Ms. Gray, I know you're for it but and I thought you were for the cattle people in farming around here too but it don't sound like it if you're pushing for this. And I've had it, you know? I don't know what else to do. I keep losing money. They stole my rolls of barbed wire And once they get their foot in there, they're going to continue the spreading out.

Thank you for listening to me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:21 · ≈ 9:23 AM

I'm glad that you were here today because you're the first one that's actually contacted so we need to get together okay? Because you know I run cattle and I know what you are talking about and they said it was fine but I'm glad you were here today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed23:37 · ≈ 9:23 AM

In fact they just had some cattle fence cut and some cattle got down on... That was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:41 · ≈ 9:23 AM

the cattle that were on Bradley there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed23:43 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Yeah, and that's from a fence being cut. And it's you know... And who's going to be liable for the insurance and everything? And couldn't money being used for this bike park or whatever is gonna be used for something like a county jail?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:01 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Well thank you for being here today Mr. Russell. Who's the next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:04 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Our next speaker is Rick Corbo to be followed by Jeannie Sparks

0:24 – 0:3519 turns

CommentRick CorboProposedself-stated24:15 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Rick Corbo. I'm a resident of Orchid. I've lived there for the last 14 years. Since that time, I've raised three kids. One is in college now. He went to Pine Grove, went to junior high, went to high school, and now he's in college. I have a daughter who's in eighth grade who goes to Lakeview, and she's gone through nursery school, preschool, everything up to that time. I have a son who's in first grade now at Patterson.

During that time in 1997 The Orchard Community Plan was enacted and it had an appendix that talked about a trail plan up there in that development area, all that open space. It's been sitting there. Nothing has been going on with that development. We need the open space for our kids. My kids often say, can we go on a hike? Well if we want to go on a hike, we've got to go to St. Louis. We have to go to Santa Barbara. We can't hike in our area. What Sonny was saying is valid. There are concerns. We don't condone actions of people who cut fences and dig holes. That's something we don't want done. We want a space for the Orchid Committee where we can hike, where we can go with our children. And it's been years. I mean, I've lived here and my kids can't go up in the hills and hike around because of that issue.

We have a plan in place. Let's move forward and have this land for the people who live here, the citizens who vote in Orchid need this land. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:39 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Thank you for being here today. Next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:41 · ≈ 9:25 AM

is Ginny Sparks, followed by Luis Escobar.

PresenterJeannie SparksNorth County Green TeamProposedself-stated25:47 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Hi, Jeannie. Good morning, Joni, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Jeannie Sparks. I represent North County Green Team. It's a new organization focused on environmental issues in the north county. So I'm here to say that they support this, you accepting the property and hope to move forward with it as quickly as you can. And as a founding member of Winners of Off-Leash Freedom, or commonly called W.I.F., who was instrumental in getting the dog park at Walden, which your board supported. Of course the county developed that and also the dog park at Rice Ranch. I'm in touch with a lot of dog owners and being a dog owner myself, I really see the need for trails to recreate with our animals, with our dogs specifically. And of course people have horses they have those needs too and the bikers but as a dog owner who enjoys both of the dog parks I find myself going also out of the county or to surrounding areas to walk with my dogs because while my dogs get exercise in the dog park I don't so I like to go on trails with my dogs and it's just a nice thing to do as a person we need to have that area outdoors for us just to be able to recreate, get our exercise and I hope you'll do your part.

And I know you will do your part in hopefully today or sometime soon to take these trails along and expand our open space areas for people to recreate in. And understand the rancher is really difficult because he's got a private property but here we're talking about land that has been dedicated for the public because of the development and it's not his property We need to keep people off of this property by giving them an alternative so they can go and recreate where they're allowed to. You know, we have so much open space here but it's not accessible to most of us. Most of us do not own ranches. We can't just go out and walk in the hills. We need to have some places that are public and are legal for us. So thank you. Thank you Ms. Sparks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed27:37 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Our final speaker is Luis Escobar.

CommentLuis Escobar I'mProposedself-stated27:43 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Hello my name is Luis Escobar I'm a member of the San Bernardino Valley Open Space Partnership, and I'm high school cross-country coach here in town. And I just simply want to say that I support this and the whole group of us are ready and willing to donate our time and our resources to make this project happen. Thank you for your support and thank you for the opportunity. I have also a letter of support from the Orchid Area Advisory Group that I'd like for you to have.

Simple as that. We're ready to go to work. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:11 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you.

CommentLuis Escobar I'mProposedself-stated28:11 · ≈ 9:28 AM

You've

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:11 · ≈ 9:28 AM

put a lot of time into this. Thanks Mr. Escobar And that's the final comment on 19? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Lonino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6828:23 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I do want to thank... There is another speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:29 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:48 · ≈ 9:28 AM

We have a request from Jennifer Weston

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed28:50 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Larson. Good morning. As Lewis indicated, we provided letter of support to the Santa Maria Valley Open Space Partnership Lewis and John Blanchard came to one of our meetings and gave an excellent presentation. And we see they've been very active in inquiring into a lot of necessary areas and thought, you know, of a lot of issues that still have to be worked out in all kinds of different areas.

And in addition on our letter We advised Lewis that we also are strongly supporting item A-19, which of course is Where the Rice Ranch will seed land to the Santa Barbara County for public open space and also easements for the public trails. And I guess it comes down to the fact that This action would be really consistent with advancing the goals and policies of the Orkut Community Plan. And I think, you know, I just was looking through once again a couple nights ago The compendium of some of the policies and you know, it's all there.

But again if we don't take action to implement it then we're not going to have that vision. down the road if there aren't steps taken. And I think this is one of those necessary steps to go ahead and approve that the county accept this and approve item agenda, administrative agenda item A-19. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:08 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Thank you. Is that the final speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed31:11 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Yes, Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:12 · ≈ 9:31 AM

At this point I wanted to call on Supervisor Labanino and before I do that I want to thank him and his office incredibly just so much for helping and working and we've really worked this as teamwork because it affects all of us and Supervisor Labanino has...I have had some illness in my office some of my staff have not been real well So we're all getting better now. Not me, I'm okay. The oldest one is the okay-est one. It never makes sense. So I wanted to thank Steve and his staff for helping out so much on this and you've just been great. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6831:51 · ≈ 9:31 AM

you Madam Chair. Well in fact I want to start off by, for those that have worked on this they know that Corey Bantalon who's my Chief of Staff has kind of been the point person on this And I think he needs to be mentioned in this as far as being a real mover on this item. I also want to... To Mr. Russell, I totally agree with you that we do have a problem up there. There's no doubt and I've been up there. I've met with Brightburn and I really believe that if we provide a legal alternative, hopefully and I hope everybody here that's a trails person today is listening to this as well. Is it you're going to need to police other folks that are on these trails when they eventually come up?

I'm going We can legitimize the area that folks are going to be going into. I gotta be honest with you, I am not a hiker. I don't ride a mountain bike. I have a Yorkie so it stays in the backyard and I take it out for long walks. But I have heard from many people and part of this job is representing everybody in your district. So... I'm really interested in moving this forward. I will say too that I want to thank Mr. LaLogia, the developer for working with us on this, but I also want to caution us that there are still many items that we need to get our arms around on the Rice Ranch project.

I think Mr. Moore brought up a very interesting one today with the construction easements. I don't want to see people going up there and Hiking through a ghost town, basically. We want it to be a vibrant community. I'd like to see Rice Ranch get completely built out. I know we're not agendized to talk about a lot of the items today but we'll be putting on the agenda for our next meeting January 10th.

pathway of how we can get to where we need to be there so that the developer gets done what they need to do. They made a step forward today, but I think this is probably the largest development we have right now in the county. The market's changed. It's stagnant. There's possibility of losing it. I really feel like we need a point person in the county that we all can go to that has a clear path of how we're going to get there. Because when I look at the project, not only is it providing us these trails and open space but it also is gonna be providing jobs if we ever start building houses out there. The property tax that we so desperately need to fund the projects that we have here.

And so I think there really needs to take a look at what the vision is. What can that be out there with the trails and a beautiful community out there? Or if we don't do anything at the county, what it's going to turn into be. And that's not something I want to see. I don't want to see a project like that's up behind the Santa Maria Raceway where it's just a ghost town with a bunch of empty homes there.

So really excited about today but I think there are some larger issues that need to be discussed. We can't discuss them today but I will be agendizing this for January 10th so we can come back and tackle some of the big issues.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:39 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank you, Supervisor. Supervisors Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed35:42 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. On item 841 if the Clerk of the Board could read it for the public.

0:35 – 0:4423 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:50 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:53 · ≈ 9:35 AM

I don't think so. Hang on. He's going to sign it. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:57 · ≈ 9:35 AM

yeah. Item 841 comes to the board from Supervisors Gray and Lavagnino is to consider recommendations regarding the formation of the Orchid Trails Commission.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed36:06 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Thank you. To that end I wanted to commend Supervisor Lavinino and Gray for initiating this trails commission that is basically The impetus for working on these issues that we're talking about. I would appreciate though if we could clarify the fiscal impact a little bit more, this is a little bit broad and you know as having been on the board broadness always gets you in trouble and what it says is under fiscal impact is resources needed will be based on the level of activity necessitated in the future by the commission Well, I would appreciate it if before we do any work on this project, if staff could bring back to us a budget and a fiscal impact.

Because here we know there's going to be a significant fiscal impact and it's important to understand what that is and for this board to approve that because this doesn't itemize what that is. And I know we're also fiscally prudent that it's important to understand what kind of expense we're talking about.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:15 · ≈ 9:37 AM

And I think County Council wanted to add something on 41 also that had just basically to do with language.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed37:22 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Madam Chair and Supervisors, the supervisors who brought this item requested minor changes to the resolution drafted by Parks Division. Those substantive changes include clarifying at paragraph 5 of the resolution That it's the board itself, not the commission that would determine an alternate meeting place. And in paragraph six, that a quorum will be a majority of the members, not necessarily five members. We've made those changes. We've distributed those to each of the supervisors and clerk at the board has distributed them in the back of the room and also in Santa Barbara at the hearing room.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed37:56 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Thank you, Council. Supervisor Farr? Madam Chair, actually now I have a question. How would this group interact with the County Riding and Hiking Trails Committee that we already have and make appointments to or not?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:10 · ≈ 9:38 AM

You

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed38:10 · ≈ 9:38 AM

know how

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:11 · ≈ 9:38 AM

would they interact? My vision is very similar to the Sports Commission that we have at Waller Park. What they do is they get together and specifically work on the trails and so on in Orkat And then about every, oh four months or five months there's just kind of a report from their trails group to the larger group that says these are the kinds of things we're considering. And that would be what... That's the way we do it with Sports Commission at Waller, that's now working in the Waller Park

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed38:42 · ≈ 9:38 AM

area. So they report on a somewhat regular basis to the county?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:46 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Somewhat informal but it's basically to the Trails Commission Okay, and so... And I think Steve will have someone that's... Is Louie on? He would be. One of our people is on the Big Parks Commission or the Big

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:03 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Trails Commission. So then to Supervisor Carbajal's question about the cost, how do we have any kind of a model then for the sports commission that would give us some idea about what the costs are? If it's a similar kind

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:21 · ≈ 9:39 AM

of group? It didn't cost us anything. They just met and worked with plans. John Karamentos

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:28 · ≈ 9:39 AM

is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:28 · ≈ 9:39 AM

the chair, so...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:29 · ≈ 9:39 AM

So but there was no like county staff in that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:30 · ≈ 9:39 AM

county? No county staff. John was the chairman and he wasn't a county staffer at the time. Other questions? Supervisor Wolfe, anything? Supervisor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed39:43 · ≈ 9:39 AM

I was just going to say this, this doesn't seem to be like the sports commissioners or task force. This seems that it would be staffed by county staff based on what I've read and that's why I think a sense of the fiscal impact would be really important. I see this very similar to a compendium to what we do with all other community plans And this is the Orca Community Plan, and yet it's another expense that I would anticipate is the case.

Having this group come together working with county staff to address the trail issues. I think it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's important to codify and understand what the fiscal impact is and call it what it is.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction40:27 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Madam Chair? First of all, I think this is a wonderful project to have in your district. And I was trying to figure out why in the past a previous board didn't accept it. I didn't get into that but I think now is the time to move forward. I kind of liken this to what happened at San Marcos Foothills and that was before I became a board member When part of the land that was purchased by the developer, it's a little bit different. He deeded a portion of that to the county and then what we did is Through parks, they have been working with community members to work out a trail system.

And part of that trail system was in place but it wasn't up to really any very good standards I guess you might say. So they've been working with the community to put together a much better plan for that trails portion You know we don't, in my district we have a CSA assessment for open space so we're trying to use some of that money for that particular project. I think however in your project there is an allocation of $60,000 from the Parks Department The way I would envision this, I guess that goes for the maintenance of the area. And I would imagine that this commission if they work like the advisory group, they just have different names at San Marcos Foothills are more of an advisory group so they're not appointed by the board but they work with Parks Department and as you mentioned there really is no substantive cost, except there is some staff time that goes into it.

So I don't know. I understand the concerns raised by Supervisor Carbajal about you know it's very open-ended about the fiscal impacts maybe we can just tighten that up a little bit but I think that you've got Folks here who've spoken and I've looked to see, and they actually are the members that are on the advisory committee. I have a lot of confidence in the work that they're going to be doing. I think it's going to be monitored very well. It doesn't make me necessarily happy that we're taking money out of the Parks Department for this project but on the other hand, this is such an incredible opportunity for this community to have a trail system. So I'm inclined to go with both pieces of this and again, I'm just taking a leap of faith that our Parks Department's going to be working well with this group and really getting it up to speed so that folks like the speaker who was here Can go hiking with his kids and not lose this valuable asset that we have.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6843:46 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Madam Chair, I think it's interesting if somebody flip the TV on just now it's the North County is fighting for open space and trails and my first district supervisor is pushing for the fiscal oversight. Get a little reversal today. One thing I did want to bring up is I know there's a specific plan application in the system. And...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:11 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Who is your question going to be for?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6844:13 · ≈ 9:44 AM

For staff, for Diane I guess or Glenn. There's a specific plan application in the system or county council, not sure. The lines are different from what is proposed of For the property that we're taking in, their application is different. And I understand that eventually we will be doing a land swap to give back property. I just want to make sure that's not at a cost where the developer will then be buying back from the county the property that he has now conveyed to the county.

0:44 – 0:4714 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed44:48 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Leveny, no. We did have an opportunity to look at this and discuss it with staff. There is an application, not an approved I'm going to I'm

not transcribed≈39s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6845:37 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Bringing that, I think part of the motion would be then to direct staff to come up with some sort of MOU or understanding so that when we get to the January 10th where we're getting a plan of what we're doing there. That's part of it at least we have a research of making sure that something is legitimate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed45:57 · ≈ 9:45 AM

All right. Thank you. Madam Chair, I just a point of clarification. You're asking this to come back on January

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6846:03 · ≈ 9:46 AM

10th? Not this come back on January 10th. I think we have bigger issues at Rice Ranch.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed46:07 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Right.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6846:08 · ≈ 9:46 AM

So I want to have a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed46:11 · ≈ 9:46 AM

But you want the bigger things to come back on January 10th. So have you talked to staff about that as far as timing with the furlough and everything?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6846:18 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Well,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed46:20 · ≈ 9:46 AM

I mean it just seems like it's a pretty short window to try to do something that big.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6846:24 · ≈ 9:46 AM

The problem is also we have the developer is under time frame themselves and it's something we have been working on this project has been going on for years and years and I think staff already has But we just need to kind of put it together and get it before the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed46:43 · ≈ 9:46 AM

I'm supportive of the motion, I'm just concerned about the timing. Mr. Russell?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed46:48 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Madam Chair, we certainly can come back on, is it the 10th or the 11th? It's the 10. We can come back on the 10 however Supervisors far as comments are relevant in that we would basically have to dock at that pretty soon almost immediately so if we were to come back in February we might have a more comprehensive vision How things would be done. So, if you can go quick and probably have a less thorough vision or we can come back in February and have more time to prepare but either way is...

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6847:20 · ≈ 9:47 AM

I would prefer that we do January 10th and then if we have additional questions or something we can trail that and we can knock out some of the early stuff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed47:28 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Any other comments on A-19? Shall we go on? Everybody's okay with this one. Let's go on to A34.

0:47 – 0:5015 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed47:40 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, item A34 from the Sheriff. The recommendations are regarding the reinstatement of the Rural Crime Enforcement Program.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6847:48 · ≈ 9:47 AM

That's me madam chair. Senator Vazelavino. Thank you. I just wanted to thank the sheriff's office, Sheriff Brown and Commander Pallera For going after this grant, this is something that's very important in our districts. In the last two years, we've suffered over half a million dollars in losses out in rural areas both of the last two years. Property being stolen, cattle being taken. We still have cattle rustlers apparently but a lot of stealing of property so it's good that we went after this grant and now we're going to have a full-time employee working on this issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed48:29 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Any others Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed48:31 · ≈ 9:48 AM

That concludes the comments on the administrative agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed48:33 · ≈ 9:48 AM

We need a motion to approve? Madam, oh...

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction48:37 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Ms. Wolfe, I'm sorry. Well, I was going to make a motion because we had a lot of things that were that we decided during discussion but if Supervisor Carbajal wants to make the motion because I know one item is trailed. We have the item with the revision requests that we're pulling part of that so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed48:55 · ≈ 9:48 AM

So you've got the motion to approve with modifications Mr. Allen Is that accurate? Okay. Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, we have now completed the administrative agenda.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction49:09 · ≈ 9:49 AM

I just want to just a point of clarification on item A13 this was the budget revision request so the only item that were bringing back is the issue that Supervisor Carr brought up about Kachuma everything else is being approved correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:27 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Oh, and we needed to announce that the duck pond got finished. Right Mr. Rooney? Before you leave the duck pond is finished! Everybody visit the duck pond.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction49:36 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Mr. Allen is that... Very good thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:43 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Okay I didn't want the Parks Director to get out of here without hearing about the duck pond being finished. Okay, are we ready to go to departmental things? I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed49:54 · ≈ 9:49 AM

believe

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:55 · ≈ 9:49 AM

we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed49:55 · ≈ 9:49 AM

need a public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:56 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Oh, we need a public comment. I'm sorry. Public comment.

0:50 – 0:5712 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:01 · ≈ 9:50 AM

We will start here in Santa Maria with Kate Smith to be followed by Dr. Robert Jones in Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:07 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Ms. Smith? Let Wes handle it, Terry. Smith?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed50:46 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Chair Gray and members of the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors There is deep-seated and widespread school and government corruption in Santa Barbara County. Taxpayer paid lawyers, such as county council, the DA, and school district lawyers collude, conspire, and cover up wrongdoing. The retaliation against whistleblowers is rampant and severe. I am suffering from legal abuse syndrome.

I hope you'll Google that. I would also like to say that I was too late to speak on A5, I just drove down from Carmel and the World Health Organization has declared that the services for the mentally ill are appalling. Something needs to be done. I have given you the Terry Frank email that explained how it was impossible for me to be found guilty of trespassing at a private lawyer's office because it was a school board meeting, which is public property.

Because there is judicial And prosecutorial misconduct. I was found guilty and will be sentenced on Friday, December 16th. I am calling for a federal grand jury to investigate the election fraud in 1998 and 2008 where I was thrown off the school board ballot without due process. My daughter is the only child in the history of the United States served by two school districts, Santa Barbara and Santa Ynez.

I hope you have read the Santa Barbara Independence Nick Welch's column, Angry Poodle. I am honored by his words. I am just a part of a process that is sweeping the world. We are called To rise up. Thank you, Ms Smith against corruption. Your time is up and he has mentioned the school

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed54:06 · ≈ 9:54 AM

to prison pipeline. Thank you your time is up West will help you out our next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:12 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Our next excuse me doctor Robert. I am going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed54:14 · ≈ 9:54 AM

to call for the accommodation so just I have my. And you can talk to your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed54:22 · ≈ 9:54 AM

so we're now gonna work now going down Miss Smith Bye-bye. We're now going down to Santa Barbara for Dr. Johns.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:31 · ≈ 9:54 AM

That's correct.

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction54:39 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair. I realize this is your last meeting of the 2011 and we'll have a new chair. I hope the new chair would be as gracious as you are and as understanding as you are. I want to wish everyone a happy Hanukkah, happy Kwanzaa, Merry Christmas. And I want to add to this that in this day we've just got to remember as we all are sitting down, we need to say something about the homeless people in this county And keep in mind that 60 to 70% of homeless people in this county are veterans. These are people who have defended this country.

And we've got to keep this in mind when we open up these warm shelters, we've got to do more for veterans. So even if you don't give anything, give your mind, your mind, your mental, your consciousness too and if everyone will give their consciousness to veterans, we have to remember that I mean 60% of homeless people are veterans who are mentally ill, alcoholic and they're homeless. And the crucial issue here is they have learned how to survive on the street. Once you've learned how to survive on the street then you're caught up in the whole homeless issue. You've learned how to survive on the street And that's something, that's a technique that's tough to get ahold of. But once you've done that, you see, you don't want to come back to the reality, the stress, the factors of real life and that's something we need to think about.

We need to image it. We need to put our consciousness to that and we need to do more for the homeless people in this time And I realize as I walk down State Street, I see the children, the youth, the adults. There's a lot of joy there. A lot of joy. People are happy and we deserve to be happy. This is tough times so I'd like for you to give some thought to that. Thank You Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed57:11 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Thank you Dr. Johns and Happy Holidays to you too! Mr. Allen anybody else want to do a public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed57:18 · ≈ 9:57 AM

No madam chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed57:20 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Okay board, let's do... Let's come back when the big hand is on the two. So we'll take a ten minute break. Mr. Allen we're on item one on the D agenda.

0:57 – 1:0510 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed57:44 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number one is from the auditor controller. It's a hearing to consider record additions related to fraud, theft and loss policy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed57:52 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Mr. Geis?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed57:54 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Heather Fletcher is here from my internal audit manager. She's going to do the bulk of a very short presentation. Theo Fuati, my assistant, is also here. We were the basic team that worked on this fraud theft loss policy. I just want to help you guys put this in perspective a little bit and to remember we're, and help the public remember, we're a really big organization.

We manage a lot of assets. We move a lot of money. And so therefore, and we're a pretty complex diverse business with 24 different departments that do a lot of things that make us susceptible to this fraud theft and loss. So make sure we keep the big perspective when we say what's happening in county government. And I believe really this policy has existed since 1947 because it really is in the law If there's financial matters where there is fraud, theft or loss under the government code that really always has been reported to the auditor controller.

And so I'll let Heather go.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed59:14 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Ms. Fletcher? Good morning, Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. The policy we're presenting for your consideration today applies to fraud theft and loss over county funds in property. It provides for a mechanism and requirement for departments to report these occurrences centrally and reinforces the auditor controller's responsibility to investigate losses. It emphasizes coordination with other departments to achieve the most beneficial outcome. The policy also highlights departmental management's responsibilities to implement and enforce appropriate policies and procedures to prevent these losses from occurring.

All organizations are subject to the risk of fraud. The need to protect public funds is a top priority for our county. Many laws recently enacted focus on fraud prevention. As you know, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased the focus on transparency and accountability in government. Also, over the past few years due to highly publicized accounting scandals enhanced audit regulations focusing on fraud detection and prevention were issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.

The Government Finance Officers Association also recommends that governments establish policies and procedures over the reporting of fraud. Increased numbers of theft are reported during economic slowdowns. These occurrences have affected us locally. The rise in reports may be a result of increased financial pressures or greater examination over finances due to cutbacks.

Regardless of the reason, during these times it's important to reinforce an ethical culture of honesty and integrity. The policy provides for a consistent process to evaluate allegations to help the county minimize its losses. It also provides for reporting out to your board annually to promote public transparency. Based on these reasons we're recommending that your board adopt this policy and if you have any questions would be happy to answer them Any questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:01:42 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Any public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:01:44 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Madam Chair, we have one request to speak in Santa Barbara. Dr. Robert Johns.

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction1:02:11 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Now I have read this item here over and I find no mention of the supervisors. Supervisors are subject to fraud, loss, theft and I think that the auditor controller ought to add to this, you have every county entity person employee groups and all that but you haven't added the supervisors to that. And I'm wondering are you excluding the supervisors from this?

I think not and I can think of some instances and when we get down to item number four this item is totally fraudulent. It's fraudulent Okay. Bye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:02 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Thanks, Dr. Johns. Any other questions? Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Mr. Geis, Ms. Fletcher, thank you. Merry Christmas. Next item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:03:19 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Madam Chair, before they move on I just was curious this is obviously the audit for 2010 do you have any indication for this year even though you haven't done the audit yet whether I mean it looks like you've really been very strong and proactive in going after any of these cases has that started to take effect now with some changes to internal processes?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:03:41 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Farr, I can tell you that my staff went and did surprise cash counts at Halama Beach on Saturday. We went to Kachuma Park on Saturday and we went to the transfer station on Saturday And two of the three did very well. One, we had a small $10 shortage that we couldn't figure out so obviously we're going to continue to work on our cash handling. Another thing that we did for the first time since things have really changed out in the you know a lot of people used to pay by cash and check and now they're paying by debit and credit card We realized that we hadn't updated our cash handling policies since 1987. And so, you know, we've updated those policies, got those back out to the department. So this is a proactive thing about...

The hardest thing to do is update your policies and procedures and change those policies and procedures as the business world changes. And so, you know we're working on some other proactive things like the parks reservation system that will really change the operations out at the parks in terms of how sites are reserved and the amount of cash that's handled. And so I think we're making proactive changes and I'm not sure if we've had any other reported losses since this list for the current year but maybe Heather might know. I think we have a few

1:05 – 1:097 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:05:12 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. We have approximately six or seven instances for the current calendar year that have been reported.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05:22 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Mr. Geis I also have a question. The Wall Street Journal today was talking about now there seems to be more theft of things like copper pipes and And bases and we don't monitor that. How is that monitored for the county of Santa Barbara? And tools, that's another thing that seems to sprout legs and walk off.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:05:45 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Madam Chair if you look on our report we have had theft of tools at the Not the Tahecus Landfill, so we have had some incidents like that. We run into... I can tell you just a little one in my office somebody had a duplicate car key made to a county pool car and would use that carpool on weekends to do personal business. You know? So we have, and Supervisor Gray you bring up a good point. We manage a ton of assets. We manage a lot of assets that you wouldn't think of.

You know, we have lots of computers, we have lots of buildings, we have lots of surplus furniture and so over my career We've investigated a lot like that. This policy to put in writing, I think of it as an analogy. It's like the reason to put the policy in writing now is we have a lot of new department heads. We have a lot of interaction with... The auditor used to have a lot more manual interaction with department financial staff. We have a lot less of that today because of the efficiencies of the electronic world and so we're just re-emphasizing the policy about How to report and how to have a procedure in place so people know what to do. It's like if you're in a county car and you get in a vehicle accident, and it wasn't your fault, and you say well what do I do?

Well you look in the glove compartment there is a set of instructions to say here's all the information to collect and here's how to report that accident. You know, so there are a lot of issues of other assets that we should be concerned with.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:07:33 · ≈ 10:07 AM

You know one of the things on your recommended to adopt where it said reinforce the ethical culture you know how many times do people think well I don't have a pen I'll just grab one at work and take it home or if the kids are out of paper we can just you know grab a stack And it's just, you just need to think twice about that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:07:56 · ≈ 10:07 AM

And Chairman Gray one last thing we have done two presentations at the department head meetings to the directors directly related to the subject of fraud so CEO Waller has invited us in there and Ms. Fletcher has done two good presentations to the department heads to reinforce that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:08:20 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Thank you for the work that you've done here. I mean, obviously on the list that we have here some of the amounts are quite small and some of them are quite large but over time we can see that the county would lose a lot of money If you weren't as proactive as you are in this case. And I think this kind of refers back to something we talked about earlier that Supervisor Lavagnino mentioned about the Rural Crimes Grant, because in the same way that we've had losses of equipment and material from the county property, that's what's happening in the rural lands with copper and pipe and equipment and all kinds of things too. So with the economy down people are pretty desperate out there. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:08:56 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Thank you. Thanks very much, Mr. Geis and Ms. Fletcher. Appreciate it. Our next item

1:09 – 1:1717 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:02 · ≈ 10:09 AM

is Item 2 from Supervisor Gray. It's a hearing to provide direction to the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors California State Association of Counties representative regarding a position on the CSAC Finance Corporation funding for the constitutional amendment ballot initiative.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:16 · ≈ 10:09 AM

You know, I thank you all for thinking about this for a moment because on the fifth week, I have to go back and vote whether or not the CSAC should in fact spend the money to put an item on the agenda or on the ballot. And that's about a $3 million cost. And then there's a $ 3 million cost to make the election work, to support the election And I really, normally I know pretty much where you're going to be and I don't bother you with talking about this. But if you have any ideas and you have anything that you're thinking about because I kind of go back and forth I think wow we just need a way to guarantee the fact that any services that were required to do that have collected revenue that we get that revenue back to work with it. However, the flip side of that is we're going to have to spend six million dollars to get it on the ballot not knowing whether or not it'll be successful.

And then after we get it on the ballot, not knowing whether or not we're going to be successful if we want to take it to court because we have been less than successful with Measure A. I think it was Measure A wasn't it? 20-1A That Measure 1A where we had an initiative that said, we don't want the state to take money from locals anymore. And so they don't take it. They figure out a way to slip it out the back door.

So that's where I am and would love to hear what you have to say so I can represent our board at the way you want to be represented.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:10:54 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Doreen? Yes, Manager. I just had a question. It looks like on the chart our dues would go up about $20,000 a year And the staff report said that the dues haven't been increased in about four years normally. And the reason for the increase now is that some of the private funding that comes in, it helps to offset it would then have to be redirected towards this campaign effort because you can't use public funds for that. So my question is whatever happens assuming a ballot effort goes forward whatever happens with it would this then be the new fee structure? Or would it just be temporary and then revert back to the same or slightly lower amount?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:11:36 · ≈ 10:11 AM

I'm guessing in a way, but my guess is it would just be temporary because the Finance Corp really generates a good amount of money. We're up to three to four million dollars a year within providing services and I happen to be on the Finance Corp also so... But it doesn't say that and so that's why I ask. So I'd probably best find out. Thank you. Any other thoughts? Anybody? Salute?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:02 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Madam Chair, what are your thoughts?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:12:04 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Well that's why I tell you. I flip back and forth. You know, and that's not a good place to be. Janet, you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:10 · ≈ 10:12 AM

went too.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:12:11 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:11 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Ma'am, I'll tell you it is one of those catch-22s awkward predicaments because on one hand it seems like a small investment because of the benefit and opportunity this provides for local governments and our constituents. On the other hand, it's an interesting precedent Because there are so many initiatives that come before the residents of California that have a positive or negative impact on our residents and county government.

And if we're not going to get into contributing money towards efforts, campaign efforts, it's a slippery slope. And quite frankly, it gives me great pause. Certainly I think CSAC oughta do everything they can from the finance corporation and all the other resources But I tend to lean a little bit more on the side of this is a terrible precedent. In the future, we're going to be asked to contribute towards other and many other initiatives.

And it's a slippery slope. Like I said, I think you could go either way and make good arguments for it. But I'm inclined to not spend the money. Here we're talking about still being in a difficult predicament where we're asking our employees to sacrifice and this is actually saying, we're going to spend money for this hoping we can get money in the future that will help county government and everybody's resources we need to continue our employment opportunities So it's a catch-22, it's a double edged sword.

I tend to lean towards not spending the money but good arguments could be made either way.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:14:00 · ≈ 10:14 AM

I agree with what both of you said, and I sat at that meeting with Supervisor Gray. And going around the table there were certainly some counties who felt that their boards may not be supportive of contributing. And I think that was one of the reasons why the folks at that time didn't want to make a decision. They wanted it to come back to the individual boards And then send it back as Supervisor Gray will take our vote back. I also have been going back and forth, but the more I think about it the more You know, I think that it's a wise investment for us to spend this money given the potential negative impact that realignment will have on us if we don't have some guarantee on all of our social services, law enforcement. Everything that we have been saying we need those guarantees and this is our opportunity to make that statement So I think we should go ahead with this.

There is still no guarantee that we're going to be having to pay for it because it may not pass at your level, Supervisor Gray. But I do believe that our Board of Supervisors should support our CSAC executives who have looked this over understand the importance of it. I think our county understands the importance of making sure that we have that funding stream coming into us every year. So I would be willing to make a motion that we move forward and fund this allocation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:15:42 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Hey, there's a motion. Supervisor Labadino you had your light on.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.681:15:45 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Well, I agree with everything that's been said and I think it's sad that we have to get a constitutional amendment to guarantee that we're going to be funded what the state has told us that they are gonna fund us but that's the reality of where we're at I also echo Supervisor Farr's concern that it's almost like taxes. Once they go up, it's very difficult to get them back down and I just want to make sure that our CSAC dues are going to go back, that this is a one-time $20,000 investment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:16:13 · ≈ 10:16 AM

And that would protect against in a way what Salud has said which is if we cooperate with this one then they're going to come back and say well how about this one? We actually CSAC actually turned one down last year or the year before that the cities were carrying because it didn't benefit the counties enough But it was a pretty much of a fight to get there.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.681:16:35 · ≈ 10:16 AM

I will second Supervisor Wolfson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:16:37 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Thank you all very much, I know that we have other... It's important, it is really important that we get that money even if we got two or three million a year, it would be worth the investment.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:16:50 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Thank you Supervisor Grave for bringing this to us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:16:52 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Oh thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, I'll get back to you. At the next meeting we'll be able to report because I have to go up there on the 5th Next item, Mr. Allen?

1:17 – 1:2512 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:17:04 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Madam Chair and members of the Board, Item 3 is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to approve a memorandum of understanding with the Deputy District Attorneys Association effective December 12th 2011 through December 8 2013 implementing the changes summarized.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:17:18 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Ms. Muth? Good morning Chair Gray, members of the board. Before you today is an agreement with the Deputy District Attorney's Association that group represents 39 employees in the district attorney's office we have met and bargained with them in good faith over a number of months to come to a concession agreement That would save the county approximately $186,000 this year and an additional $496,00 next year. The concessions that are contained in that contract which their members did ratify and approve include a three-and-a-half percent across the board wage reduction for deputy DA fours and seniors And that's for any who make more than $54 an hour. There is no general wage increase for the term of the contract. There is a freeze of merit and performance-based increases for the term of the contract.

We are reducing the salary on promotion from 10% to 5%. They have eliminated an 80-hour vacation cash out. They've eliminated a biweekly payment of $9,604 that the county has previously made towards their retirement contribution. They have agreed effective June 25th 2012 to pick up the increase of the normal cost of the retiree COLA with a cap of 2%, which is consistent with our other groups. And they've also agreed to implement a new retirement tier for employees hired beginning June 25, 2012, which is also consistent with our other groups. I want to thank the Deputy District Attorneys for engaging with us in open, honest and difficult negotiations. They are making considerable sacrifices in order to assist the county and we appreciate their efforts.

Thank you Ms. Smooth.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:19:10 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Any public comment? Supervisor Carbajal I think. Is there one?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:19:15 · ≈ 10:19 AM

We just have one request to speak from Dr. Robert Jones.

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction1:19:36 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Yes, this is 39 employees in the District Attorney's Association. This is the county prosecutors. Now I've commented before about this and I've called Dudley a racist and so has Sneddon but let's get back to Dudley. Why aren't there any Mexican-American prosecutors and why aren't there any black prosecutors? Now you members of this District Attorney's Association, you have the power to tell that dumb deadly to get some black employees, get some Mexican American employees in here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:18 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Dr. Johns let's be polite. I'm sorry about that. I know you are, so let's be polite.

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction1:20:26 · ≈ 10:20 AM

It's curious that we're talking about here in Auditor-Controller fraud, theft. This is actually theft of the people, of the information of the people and Miss Dudley is stealing information because she's fearful that if there was a Mexican American or a black attorney, information would get out about how she operates that racist department And I'm going to keep pounding on this issue until I get a Mexican-American or a black, I want both of them in this and you supervisors have the power to do that.

You need to sit down with Ms. Dudley Tell her that there needs to be some changes in this department Evidence VA and I'm not going to go into it evidence VA how her decisions are being made about the current And you know what? I'm talking about cases in this city. I'm not gonna get into that right now Thank You supervisor,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:21:30 · ≈ 10:21 AM

thank you. Dr. John's Supervisor Carbo, I think that was it wasn't Mr. Allen supervisor Carbo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:21:36 · ≈ 10:21 AM

I just again wanted to thank our District Attorneys Association for stepping up again as we did with SEIU 620, ETA, the physicians, our public safety groups. I think these are difficult times and it's... I greatly appreciate the sacrifice that they as well as our other groups have been making to meet the county halfway on all these issues so just want to recognize the successful outcome of this agreement

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:09 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Thank you, Supervisor. And we all feel very much that way, that everyone has worked together well and recognized the many, many cuts and changes that have to be made in government, and we're moving forward. Supervisor Wolff?

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:22:25 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. So we have an agreement with the association, and I'm happy for that. I guess I'm going to make the same comments as I made before, that one of the issues and I think it is interesting that we're asking for a 3.5% wage reduction for the higher paid attorneys And part of the reason for that is that when we instituted the leadership program, we gave a lot of discretion at that time to our then district attorney.

And perhaps I'm not saying that's exactly what happened. The gap in wages was significant and apparent. Again until we get our arms and hands around this leadership project, we are going to continue to see unfortunate gaps. And I feel that because we continue to move in that direction, I don't want to say it's unfair, but you know these are the folks who are taking the brunt of an action and a result of our county policies.

So I also think it's interesting that there was in here, this is the fourth bullet down, A promotion, folks were getting a 10% increase in their salary. Now it's 5%. When I talked to staff about this, it was told to me that that was never in the contract before. It was a side letter, the 10%. So I guess if I'm seeing any other positive benefit come from this is that we're getting a better handle on the MOUs. We're cleaning up the MOUs. I think that's a good thing.

I just wish we could move in that same direction when it comes to leadership because when this MOU is expired, we will simply go back to the old way of salary increases and we will most likely get ourselves back into this predicament. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:25:01 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Thank You supervisor do we have a motion? Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. Item number four.

1:25 – 1:3110 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:25:12 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board, item 4 is from the County Executive Office Human Resources. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the placement of Santa Barbara County's Equal Employment Opportunity Function.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:25:23 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Ms. Muth. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the Board. As you may recall back on September 20th we brought forward to the board a recommendation to merge human resources with the CEO's office at that time one recommendation was to reassign The board pulled that item, that recommendation off and directed staff to go back and look at what other counties do. And then also to obtain input from the Civil Service Commission and then return to the board with recommendations for the placement of the EEO function.

Since that time, staff has met with the Civil Service Commission and has looked at what other counties do. We found that although there's only one county that responded EEO function placed in the CEO's office, it certainly is an option. And then in addition, the Civil Service Commission, the consensus of that group of individuals was that placement of the function reporting directly to the CEO worked in the past. I believe it was prior to 2005-2006 that assignment was in the CEO's office. They felt that that worked appropriately and made the recommendation to us That be the proper placement for the EEO function. We are in the process of recruiting at the management level for a position to perform these duties, the full duties of the EEO office and therefore the recommendation to the board today is to reassign the EEO function from human resources which is now part of the CEOs as a direct report to our CEO Ms.

Waller.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27:07 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Questions? Supervisor Lavinino

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.681:27:11 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Meuth, we talked about this previously because I was concerned that we're hiring somebody in the management level when I believe there were five cases that came before this that were directed to this office in the previous year. So can you explain that it's not a full-time employee and kind of go over what we had talked about? I think that's important for people to understand.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:27:40 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Yes, Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinino, other members. Currently there is a part-time attorney in County Council who conducts the bulk of the investigations and a full time office professional who does intake, supports the Commission for Women, does the EEO4 report, the Workforce Report and coordinates sexual harassment training. And the supervisor is correct that workload has been not sufficient for that level of staffing. In fact, the office professional in the past has worked in human resources to make up the difference.

The, so we would be going to a .8 single management position that would take on the full duties of the office. And one thing I would like to clarify is that the five complaints were the formal complaints. There's also informal complaints that come in that are not reported in that way that also must be reviewed and looked into. We believe a . 8 staffing of a management level position would be appropriate for the workload And be able to be responsive to the needs of the organization and its employees.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:28:54 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:28:56 · ≈ 10:28 AM

I want to thank CEO Waller and Ms. Muth, and everybody else who played a role in this. I think this restructuring hopefully will give confidence to our employees that there is an independent process that has integrity by which they could take their grievance to on any other protected class issues that exist by law. And I think what's being presented today is satisfactory to me but again I just want to thank you for your due diligence talking Civil Service Commission, and given this consideration.

This is an extremely important issue to me in any organization but especially in county government that our employees feel they have a vehicle and an avenue by which they could express their grievances and make sure that they are adjudicated in a fair fashion for all parties involved. And I just want to thank you for it.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:29:53 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I also want to commend staff for moving in this direction. This has been as you know a huge issue for me since I think two years when we didn't fund this position and so So you're moving ahead and I'm glad to hear it's a .8. I actually thought it was just a half-time position, so I'm pleased to hear that. I think that in this position there is also opportunities for this management person whoever they may be to also be proactive and do more education in the departments. I know we all have to do our online training but I think going out to the departments And speaking to the managers, speaking to the employees will be really beneficial. I'm also pleased that we've moved the office. I think you folks have been very responsive to the concerns that have been expressed so I appreciate that greatly.

I think this move is transparent as far as folks feeling That there is some fairness. I appreciated the request to have them be part of the County Council's office, but as I said in past meetings, I think that it could've perceived to be a conflict of interest. So I think this separates it a little bit more. I think being under the CEO's office is a perfect solution so thank you very much and I'm happy to move this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:31:26 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Thank you. And we do have two public comments that I didn't call on yet, so we'll take the motion and the second and ask for the public comments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:31:35 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Our first speaker is Dr. Robert Jones in Santa Barbara to be followed by Mr. Caldwell here in Santa Maria.

1:31 – 1:368 turns

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction1:31:59 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Thank you for your patience. I see no independence. I am requesting a separate EEO office, not under the rubric of the CEO or the Human Relations Department. I'm looking for a separate independent office and employees have no confidence, Supervisor Carbajal, they have no confidence in the fact that Information, and as you say there is no or I should say there is transparency because information is flowing.

Flowing freely because this county is constantly under attack by employees filing lawsuits and what you want Carvajal and the rest of your supervisors is you want that information to flow to you thereby corrupting the process And once you started out here with the auditor controller about fraud and theft, as I've repeated before, this is fraudulent. You're stealing information from the people in order to prevent yourself from losing money.

So this whole thing is a fraud. You need to think about more ethical moral issues here What you're really trying to do is to crack down on employees who have grievances against this county, and baby there are many of them. They're just fearful, you know, to come forward because their managers get that information and they start working those employees, start banging those employees until they either stop filing grievances or fire them.

This is a racist, discriminatory move and you better get busy because if this isn't done I'm writing a letter to the Attorney General. I want it down here for investigation. Transparency? Yes. Fraud? Yes as you try to cover up this okay and I'm wondering why shouldn't the Service Employees Union file a lawsuit against this county for that type of transparency thank you Supervisors

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:34:20 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Thank you Dr. Johns, my mic was off I apologize next

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated1:34:23 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:34:23 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Caldwell.

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated1:34:26 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Madam Chair members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. We couldn't quite tell from the staff report whether this item is going to cost the county more or less My guess is moving from having a quote-unquote professional do this to having a manager do this Would be that it could cost more money. It's just not clear from the staff report I'd like to know, I know it says it's budgeted but how many of you know if it's going to cost more or less than what you're doing right now?

And we just believe that the function is important and it should be done but by virtue of the fact that the county employee force is being reduced We don't think you should be ramping up on the managerial or executive levels that the managers that are there should expand their sphere of control or span of control. And we just believe that You know it's an important function but again the workload here you have to ask yourself how high a level do you have to have doing the actual function when you got people above them supervising that person. So we would like a clear answer what are they paying right now and Would they be paying if you approve this? We think that should have been included. We know the last staff report kind of had a mishmash of what happens if they transfer HR to the CEO's office, etc., etc.

But we'd like to see a breakdown on this item before you approve it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:11 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Thank You Mr. Caldwell and Ms. Mooth I'm kind of interested in that also so maybe you could provide it either now or soon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:36:18 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Madam Chair we can send it to you via email later on we don't have it here today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:22 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Okay, thank you. We have a motion and second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? We're now ready to go to item number five. Mr. Allen.

1:36 – 1:4625 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:36:32 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, Item 5 is from the County Executive Office Human Resources. It's a hearing to approve the implementation of changes in terms and conditions of employment for the Service Employees International Union 721 effective December 12th 2011.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:47 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Thank you, Mr. Allen and so that everybody knows what's happening why don't we just kind of look at how many speakers do we have Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:36:53 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Ten requests to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:54 · ≈ 10:36 AM

We have ten requests to speak and Ms. Muth how long will your presentation be?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:37:00 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Just a few minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:37:02 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Okay, so 10, 11, 12 requests to speak okay So any other kinds of logistical things that we need to cover? Okay, Ms. Muth

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:37:15 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. As you're aware throughout 2011 we have been bargaining with all of our labor organizations for concessions even those that have been in locked-in long term contracts and with most of the unions we have successfully reached agreement as you know we have also met with local SEIU Local 721 for many months and have been unable to reach an agreement As a result of that, the staff provided Local 721 with its last best and final offer which the union took to its membership for a vote but was subsequently voted on down by their membership.

Therefore, by law the board may impose elements of the county's last best and final offer on any bargaining unit with which we've been unable to come to agreement after doing good faith bargaining which we have done The recommendation before you today is to impose upon the members of Local 721 the following key conditions. A 3.5% wage reduction and a 40-hour furlough, freezing of merit step increases, eliminating the ability to use sick leave towards overtime calculations, elimination of a $25 biweekly employer offset to retirement that the county has been paying Requiring members to share in the increase of the normal cost of the retiree COLA with a cap of 2% effective June 25, 2012. Implementing the same new retirement tier as we have for other general members effective June 25th, 2012.

And the savings resulting from implementation of this contract would be approximately $1,040,000 for this fiscal year and another $1.866 million for fiscal year 2012-2013

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:39:15 · ≈ 10:39 AM

I do. Supervisor Wolff? Yes, Ms. Smith you mentioned that after presenting the last best and final and the union had voted it down you said then that the board may impose what would have been our other options?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:39:34 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, I ask Mr. McLeod to please respond to that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:39:42 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Mr. McLeod? Madam Chair, members of the board. Your mic on? Madam Chair, members of the board we can either implement or we can do nothing. Further negotiation would be futile. We've exhausted that alternative in my view very clearly so we either do nothing and have no revenue savings through concessions or we impose as we've recommended you do today.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction1:40:11 · ≈ 10:40 AM

So when you say it's futile, I mean that's an opinion. Yes it is. Okay. All right thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:17 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Other questions from board members? All right let's go to public comment Mr. Allen if you'll call the name and then who the following speaker will be. And we're going to have asked everyone to keep their remarks to three minutes so thank you Mr. Allen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:40:33 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Madam Chair, Members of the Board, the first speaker we're going to start in Santa Barbara with Ray Ibarra to be followed by Katrina Voigt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:39 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Mr. Ibarra in Santa Barbara. And Mr. Ibarra is followed by whom?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:40:54 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Katrina Voigt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:56 · ≈ 10:40 AM

to be followed by Dr. Jones in Santa

PresenterRay BarraSA Local 721Proposedself-stated1:40:58 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Barbara. Good morning and good morning. Good morning ladies and gentlemen of the Board of Supervisors, Madam Chair. Also a union yes hello to union brothers and sisters over there in Santa Maria who showed up in force there. My name is Ray Barra, Santa Barbara County Chapter President of SA Local 721. Our chapter represents eligibility workers, social workers and social services, public health, Public Defender's Office. We also represent Public Defender Investigators, Career Employment Specialists and the supervisors in these classifications. Two weeks ago This chapter voted down the last, best and final offer from the county to us. We voted it down 98.1% to 1.9%. Now this wasn't done lightly.

It's been frustrating having to deal with the COs office, the HR component of the COs office. Throughout the years we've had difficulty trying to get information from them which makes it difficult to come to a negotiated settlement. The other thing that irritates us the most and irritates me is that this county understands that our department, our bargaining unit brings money into the county for every $5 That comes in, you get 15. So every time I show up to work, you get federal and state funding. We're almost 98% completely self-sufficient.

So to come to us and ask us to give money while you're hiring more division chiefs, you allocated five division chiefs altogether and a deputy director for the department for the WEA. You also have a former division chief, Melissa Horstery who was kept on The department's payroll for three months after she left the department and was brought back from Texas at taxpayers expense.

to be a consultant. That is not correct, so if you're coming to me and asking me to tell my members to give back money when you're hiring more managers that's not right. Also we're bringing in money why should I give up my money when I'm not asking for anything else? There were other components to the contract that we were working on. A lot of our members are not the high-paid members that some of the other bargaining units have. Remember 620 was given a 48% increase when they did the negotiations when Mike Brown was here So to come to us and say give up money when we really don't have to, and the percentage that we're supposed to give up isn't there is not for our memberships. A lot of our members are on Medi-Cal and on Healthy Families.

You should be embarrassed to have county employees having to have two and three jobs while you're hiring more managers. Something has to give. I ask you to get your negotiators, to get back in the table and start negotiating with us. We've always been wanting to work with you and I come to this board and I talk to Chandra, I talk to you folks. We want to work together on a solution but don't take my money and then spend it on things that you don't tell us you're going to do it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:43:57 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you, Mr. Ibarra. The next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:59 · ≈ 10:43 AM

is Katrina

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:01 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Voigt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:44:02 · ≈ 10:44 AM

to be followed by Dr. Robert Jones.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:05 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Welcome Ms. Voigt.

CommentKatrina VoigtProposed1:44:07 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Thank you. You'll remember me from the last time I spoke to you in June. I've been a dedicated social worker with Child Welfare Services for the past 12 years. Myself and my coworkers detailed to you the difficult dangerous and emotionally draining situations that we encounter on a daily basis And as you know, we provide critical services to our communities abused and neglected children. And most of the work we do goes unnoticed and without public awareness because our cases are confidential.

Our jobs are difficult complex not for the weak of heart but we continue to provide the best service we can to our community in efforts to protect our children. During the last six months we've been provided with updates regarding our ongoing contract negotiations but we've had difficulty understanding these proposals At the onset of negotiations, our members were informed by the county that due to severe budget cuts all the county employees would be asked to make concessions in order to avoid layoffs and maintain services. However during the last six months, the county spilled over 25 vacant positions and as Ray mentioned earlier has created four to five management level positions which are six figure salaries In turn, our team has requested information regarding how these positions are being funded and if our county is in such dire straits where the concession funding is going.

But these facts and figures have yet to be provided. Our union is the last to come to a final agreement but our members as Ray said are unique because only 8% of our salaries are from county funding and the majority are from state and federal fundings. Given all this information, I as well as my co-workers cannot understand why the current proposal which is the only proposal to county employees that includes such a large cut to our base salary is being proposed. And unlike the district attorney's office we don't make anywhere near $54 an hour.

We're all willing to do our part to create fiscal responsibility, but we urge you to take into consideration the severe fiscal impact the proposal that is currently on the table would have upon our employees and our families in these already difficult financial times. It's hoped we can continue to work together to create transparency through ongoing discussions of how to best provide for a county's needs and most importantly the families we serve. Thank you. Thank You Mr. Allen next speaker is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:46:19 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Dr. Robert Johns in Santa Barbara, then we're going to come back to Santa Maria for Maria Contreras.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:46:26 · ≈ 10:46 AM

OK. Dr. Johns?

1:46 – 1:548 turns

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction1:46:47 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Oh boy. Board members. And here we are in a joyous season. This is shameful, Carvajal. I'm going to tell you something. This is shameful or a sham. You have to remember and I've spoke on this before many a time the people here are willing to renegotiate they want back to the negotiation table This is really shameful. It's almost as if a prophecy that I have spoken about in many a time, you Democrats here are nothing but the 1960s.

That 1960s fought where people fought for their rights. People had to fight for their rights and these people, as I've said before this group, this employee union Bring more money to this county. The people ought to hear this, I've told you this before they bring more dollars to this county than any other unit in your... They should be having bonuses for the money that they're bringing in!

And you, and it's just shameful. It's the slave economy in Carbajal. If you don't do something about this I'm going to run you out of this town on a rail. This is shameful. Disgusting! Now if people are willing to come back and talk about this more there should be options. I want to hear those options You know, and this whole the day. This whole thing we start out with an auditor controller in the loss theft and prevention no mention of use. And then we go to the county executive officer human relations The CEO, this is planned. This is planned change. The racism, the lodging of the EEO into the county executive and then we come to this is nothing but a planned slave economy. I want you to come back to this table board of supervisors and see what can be done about this.

This is nothing but racism. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:49:28 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Thank you, Dr. Johns. The next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:49:30 · ≈ 10:49 AM

I'm here in San Luis Contreras to be followed by Elizabeth Wilson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:49:36 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Good morning. Good morning. I am a lifetime resident of Santa Barbara County. This is my first time ever doing something like this, so please bear with me. I want to start off with a little dream that I had when I was a young girl. We were in unfortunate circumstances and my mother had to ask for Medi-Cal and food stamps. We were able to qualify for a brief time but I remember the feeling that I had when I went into the office with my mother going with her tail between her legs having to ask for this service. I said when I was a little girl, I'm gonna grow up and I'm gonna be one of those workers and I am going to help the community and make them feel better and move on Well, that dream did come true for me. However, it's also become a nightmare I'm a homeowner and I pay taxes and I pay property insurance and I pay for many services in this community Unfortunately the salary that we're giving is being Negotiated down and that makes it hard to make a mortgage payment I have my youngest child without any health care this year because I couldn't afford the health insurance premium Thinking that my child might get sick This is personal to me.

It may be a matter of opinion for some that we can't afford this, but it's my life and it's my family's life. And I ask you to please consider us. We're families. We're members of the community and I love working for social services, but it's simply not affordable. I thank you for your time, being patient

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:51:09 · ≈ 10:51 AM

and understanding. Thank you Ms. Contreras, thank you for being with us today. Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:51:15 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Elizabeth Wilson to be followed by Joel Perales

CommentElizabeth WilsonProposedself-stated1:51:21 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Ms. Wilson? Yes, good morning. Honorable supervisors my name is Elizabeth Wilson I live in the city of Santa Maria and I've worked for the county for 13 1⁄2 years it's my job to deliver services to the most vulnerable Santa Barbara community in order to help them one day achieve their dream of becoming a member of the middle class. The work I do as a supervisor is important for the well-being of Santa Barbara County and for many I am their last hope to live in dignity Today before you is a vote to do the same for the employees and your constituents.

You represent my employees' last hope to live in dignity, to not become as a county employee a member of the same vulnerable community we serve. My fellow co-workers and I have stepped up. We have seen higher caseloads with fewer resources. From September 2010 to September 2011, CalFresh alone saw a 12% increase in caseloads and our responsibilities have increased as well.

When we were hired, we managed one program. Now the majority of us manage two. Yet despite the increased workload and skill set acquired, we have not seen a raise for a number of years. To say that we have done our part as public employees economically for the good of our community is factually wrong. The majority of my co-workers live paycheck to paycheck to meet their responsibilities to their families yet they are willing to work overtime and through breaks to make sure the community's needs are met Today, Honorable Board, I am asking you to rise to the challenge that I meet every day.

I'm asking you to do your part to keep your employees off the same services they provide. I am asking that you make a decision to maintain a strong and healthy community by standing up for the services we provide. I am asking that you send county management back to the table one more time to resume negotiations. The cuts that you're voting to force on us are too high to achieve any of these goals.

Now from a personal opinion We are willing to work with them, but what they're asking is unreasonable. And just like Maria, we also struggle. I've had to personally work a second job for over five years, a seasonal job. I also have to depend on community services. My children are also unhealthy families because I cannot afford to have them on the county's health insurance because it is too expensive. I've also lost my home as well recently because I could not afford to pay my mortgage being a supervisor as well.

It affects us all. We're all part of the community as well, and so I ask that you please ask that this go back to negotiations. Thank you for your time. Thank you Miss Wilson. The next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:53:59 · ≈ 10:53 AM

is Joe Perales to be followed by Joe Mora.

1:54 – 2:0010 turns

CommentJoel PeralesProposedself-stated1:54:05 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Good morning Madam Chair. Morning. And honorable supervisors including your Cabo Hall. Dr. Roberts always got it for you huh? My name is Joel Perales, and recently I passed a huge milestone in my career. I received my 30-year pin acknowledging my 30 year service to the county of Santa Barbara. When I began my career, Santa Barbara County was a wonderful place to live and work.

There may have been struggles but ultimately public services or servants could build a life, a future, and raise a family by making a career out of providing essential services for a healthy community. Like most people in my generation, I thought things would be better for the next. Unfortunately we have allowed the bar to be lowered by not guarding against things like faulty real estate practices and economic inequality caused by unequal wealth distribution.

Most importantly the working middle class was not supported and instead slipped into a lower-class bracket as anyone who deals with victims of the economic downturn every day I truly believe this. Today, I'm not sure if things will be better for my co-workers or future co-workers. Right now, I am more concerned that we are taking steps far back than we are able to recover.

I am worried that the county may not be a place where someone may build a career, build a home and retire with dignity. The county may not even need the standard as a place where people can simply Make ends meet without taking a second job. We recently hired new employees and one of the saddest things I heard was that one chose to leave his job to come work for the county because of their perceived economic stability.

After hearing about the proposed cuts, he mentioned he would have thought twice before accepting the job offer. This is a person who is extremely competent and who has a lot to offer to the people we serve. What will county service look long after I'm gone if our employees can't meet basic needs? Will we be able to recruit capable people whose qualifications go beyond simply needing a job.

Although I am in the twilight of my career, I am before you today because I care about my current and future co-workers because I love Santa Barbara County, and I am concerned for those in my community that depend on us for the work that we do. My paycheck did not cost Santa Barbara's deficit, and the CODS proposed would not create substantial savings. At least not the type of savings would justify your employees possibly having to lose their homes, cars and other essentials.

Look beyond austerity for political gain or symbolism and use this as the opportunity to take, to not step back but step forward. Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:16 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Perez, your time is just about up.

CommentJoel PeralesProposedself-stated1:57:18 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Ten minutes? Okay. No, not ten minutes. Ten seconds. Vote to let the Senate Barbara be the county that supports a strong middle class with a commitment to the programs we provide that help the desperate... I'm going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:31 · ≈ 10:57 AM

to stop you because you're 25 seconds over and I've got to keep it equal. Thank you so much for being here today. Well thank you for your time. Thank you for your dedication.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:57:38 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Our next speaker is Joe Mora to be followed by Gabriel Gomez.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:43 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Mora? Mr. Mora, welcome.

CommentJoe MoraProposedself-stated1:57:46 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Joe Mora. I work for the Workforce Resource Center and I'm a proud father, labor supporter and public servant. My mission is to provide training education and employment services for job seekers and employers. Simply said when Santa Barbara once again is economically thriving chances are my work and the work of my co-workers help make it happen.

Now we're turning to you to help us stay in good economic standing in our own personal lives. We know the road has been rough, bargaining is exhausting but we also know that we have been realistic and what we hope to get out of bargaining. At the beginning we only had a 3% cost-of-living adjustment on the table as well as non-economic improvements in contract language We knew given the economic climate that we were unlikely to attain this despite the fact that we are behind other units in pay and sure enough, we quickly took it off the table.

On the other end of the spectrum, the county presented us with a 7.5% salary reduction. A freeze in merit performance based increases, a reduction of $25 in unit cash allowance, a reduction in the county payment toward medical insurance, Standardization of bilingual pay at the lowest current level, a voluntary furlough and elimination of employer offset of another $25 per pay period.

And on top of all that employees were to pay one half of the post retirement COLA costs. All of this is about 16% for many workers despite the fact that the majority of our membership is concentrated in the non-general fund Department of Social Workers. What you're voting on right now, a 3.5% decrease plus a 40% furlough, another wage decrease, plus concessions and retirements brings us to well over 7% in cuts.

Simply put that would mean for many of my co-workers is choosing childcare to work over food on the table. Bargaining is not a one size fits all process and even though the county's initial proposal did not reflect any consideration For our situation and standing within the county, we still managed to move in a good faith effort to get to something that made sense for our members, our community and our county.

We still think we can move some more so I'm asking you to send the county back to the bargaining table. To say that bargaining is futile, I think it's totally wrong. We should be able to work on this. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:00:24 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you Mr. Mora. The next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:00:26 · ≈ 11:00 AM

The next speaker is Gabriel Gomez to be followed by Esmeralda Garcia.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:00:30 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Mr. Gomez, welcome.

2:00 – 2:1216 turns

CommentGabriel GomezProposedself-stated2:00:35 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Gabriel Gomez and I am a dual eligibility worker. I provide social services to this county via Medi-Cal, CalFresh, to our fellow Santa Barbara County residents. Our role is to provide services to members of the community to be self sufficient in these hard economic times. But yet, this last year I looked over our salary and if you arrange it from highest to lowest we're on the bottom third in regards to salary.

My co-workers and I fall on the bottom third are employees who actually do the work that is required for this department to be existence get paid less than almost every other position on this list including our support staff How can this indicate anything else than a history of compromising for the good of the community and at the expense of our own families and well-being?

At the very least, it indicates that we have not seen the type of increases others have seen during our good times. Yet now during the bad times, the county does not remember this. Another way to put this is that the bulk of SEIU 721 represented employees also represent our least paid in our department. Get the last, best and final proposal that you take the most away from us so I brought the salary table here if you guys want to review it and if you look at it we're pretty much paid less worth about a third and our clerical Actually get paid more than us when it comes to the hourly wages. So ultimately, I mean the savings you guys are getting from cutting 3.5, I feel is not worth the cutting and putting all the other workers also in bad times.

And I feel that we could come up with a better solution and we can compromise a little bit more but appreciate

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposed2:02:45 · ≈ 11:02 AM

your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:46 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Thank you, Mr. Gomez. The next person

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:02:48 · ≈ 11:02 AM

is Esmeralda Garcia to be followed by Rachel Flores.

CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposedself-stated2:02:53 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Ms. Garcia? Good morning members of the board. My name is Esmeralda Garcia. I'm a social worker for Adult Protective Services. We provide vital services to our elderly and our disabled. To keep them safe at home, we provide quality of life for them. Not physically but we assist them in having quality of life. We deserve a quality of life as well. Now as an educated single mother I struggle to make ends meet month after month.

Many of my co-workers along with myself must keep two jobs not as a luxury as a necessity This Christmas, I had to opt for either buying a Christmas tree or buying a gift for my son. Now this from a person who decided to go to college and get a master's degree because she wanted a better life for her child. How does it make you feel as an individual when secretaries make much more than you will ever make with the full term with the county?

Now to say that negotiations will go no further, well hopefully your secretary doesn't make more than you and maybe you would consider negotiations a little further. Now cutting our salaries is not the answer as you've heard time and time again today we actually bring money into the county we're not pulling very much so how does that make sense? To say we need to take pay cuts it doesn't Now, all we ask is that you instruct management to go back to negotiations with an open heart and actually willing to negotiate.

Now at some point we wanted a 3% increase and yet as we've heard before, we quickly step back and say we are willing to do our part. We're doing our part by having higher caseloads, working through breaks, working through lunches and not asking to be compensated because we love what we do. We're passionate about what we do but we also deserve quality of life.

So please, we ask that you instruct them to go back to negotiations and actually far from imposing a contract taking a look at what we actually do and what we actually bring to the county and not take. Thank you. Thank You Ms. Garcia. The next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:05:23 · ≈ 11:05 AM

is Rachel Flores followed by Joanne Hudson

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:28 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Folks, I know you want to clap but I would ask you not to because it gets too riotous. So if you really want to do something just kind of go like that. Thank you.

CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposed2:05:37 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Good morning Rachel, Madam Chair, Supervisors. At the beginning of bargaining the county gave lists to us of massive concessions that hurt workers and families in the community. We were presented with this list that had huge impacts on current employees Not only did these proposals cause great harm to current employees, but they forfeited federal and state money that the county receives to provide services for the most vulnerable and some of the not most vulnerable as we're hearing today.

That's what that federal and state money has always been meant for right? To serve those in need. Temporary assistance for folks who needed Some help. Additionally, the county has now secured enough money to meet the goals set when you establish your budget. So why are the cuts to the current employees so punitive? The cuts proposed mean the difference between your employees and the members that I represent, we represent keeping their homes. You've heard people here or folks here they're going to lose their homes Some are going to lose their cars, how are they going to get to work and on and on and on. They want to establish a future in Santa Barbara County. This is a great place to live.

And at one time it was a great place to work and we hope that we can continue that because of the detrimental effect to our workers. We asked management to share with us where does this cost savings? This money that you're extracting from our employees. Where's this money going to go? I think that's fair. It's a basic question. To this date, we've received no answer.

I think that if we could get some more answers that would help us further along in this process. All of this leaves us to believe that the county's proposals are more based on previous history in negotiations rather than the economic reality Already there is a massive inequity between our workers and their peers, as you have heard. And further cuts widen the gap.

Workers will you stand? Supervisors, the fate of your employees here lies in your hands today The results mean your workers will not be able to meet the basic needs for her childcare, food. Have you ever had to make a choice between buying food, putting food on the table or paying a bill? Because I have. I come from an impoverished home and I'm grateful to be where I'm at today to help others to be able to make a difference for many families here. I don't know if you've ever had to make that choice. I believe some of you had but it's a difficult choice to make We're talking childcare, shelter again basic things.

So we're here asking today is for an opportunity one last opportunity to get back to the table I hear your employees here saying, oh it's futile. We don't believe so. We're asking again for one more opportunity to get back to the table. And thanks for being with us today. Thank you for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:09:06 · ≈ 11:09 AM

coming up here. Appreciate

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:07 · ≈ 11:09 AM

it very much. Next speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:09:09 · ≈ 11:09 AM

is Joanne Hudson to be followed by our final speaker Sophia Pitacqua.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:14 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Last name? Ms. Patakwa?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:09:19 · ≈ 11:09 AM

This is Ms. Hudson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:20 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Ms. Hudson, thank you.

CommentJoanne Hudson I'mProposedself-stated2:09:23 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Joanne Hudson I'm a social worker in child welfare for the County of Santa Barbara. I've worked for this county for 11 years. I'm speaking not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my extended Department of Social Services family. There are not many people who can do the work that we do and sometimes it is a challenge even for us to get up every day and see the things that we see. It weighs on our minds, our hearts and our souls. The hours are long and sometimes our own families suffer for it but we get through it because of our commitment to child welfare in our community and the hope that we are making a difference. We have a tightly knit unit partially because of the bonds we form due to the difficult work that we share.

On Wednesday one of my co-workers had to remove a child from a home that had quite a few weapons in it. Long after 5 p.m., when most people were at home many of us were still at work Shaken for our co-worker, the child, the family, the entire situation. Yet trying to get through it because of our dedication to our work. What we do is essential to Santa Barbara County and can't be compromised because children's lives in our community are at risk.

Additionally, according to the fiscal year 2011 budget our staffing has trended downwards while our service demands have jumped dramatically. In the last four fiscal years child welfare social workers have seen a 66% increase in caseloads But I can assure you we have not seen a corresponding increase in staffing or in our salaries. I know sometimes it is easy to get stuck on numbers, but I'm here to tell you I feel every one of those extra cases as do my co-workers.

Looking at the last best and final offer, I see many things that I think we can come to agreement on. We know the difficult position the county is in financially and maybe someday we can stop looking to solve those problems by reducing services when they are needed the most. Until then, I know we must all do our part but let there be common sense in the process. Let's not impose for the first time cuts driven by punitive or historical reasons.

As a current member of the bargaining team, I know we have yet to reach a point of mutual agreement but I am confident that we can. I know there is room for movement, so I'm appealing to this board to not take action that cannot easily be undone. Action that has not been imposed upon other bargaining units. No one else has been asked to have their base salary cut a percentage That is going to be, will be starting at that point again once we go back to the bargaining table. All the other units have given up either done a furlough which yes that comes with a salary cut but once you go it's over and once you go back to the bargaining table your salary is back up at where you were. Other units have given up future pay raises that were previously agreed upon they haven't taken an actual pay cut from their current salary So these actions that will have very real and negative results, both in the sentiments of your employees' relationships and in the resources that we have available.

I'm asking for the board to support your supervisors... I'm sorry, support your employees, support your constituents, and support your community by sending management back to the table to truly negotiate with us. Thank you. Our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:12:40 · ≈ 11:12 AM

final speaker is Sophia Pitakwa.

2:12 – 2:309 turns

PresenterSofia Pitaquacounty for 12 yearsProposedself-stated2:12:45 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Ms. Pitaqua? Good morning, my name is Sofia Pitaqua. I'm an eligibility worker and have been with the county for 12 years. I was born and raised here in Santa Maria. And what I do here is I serve the community, the underprivileged community. And I love what I do. This is truly the first job that I can honestly say There's been other jobs that you say, oh I hate that job. I don't hate this job.

And when I see what the proposed cuts are for us it makes me think that I might be one of those people that we might have to serve. I'm just on the sole income in my household. I already fall under the working class poverty group which is sad. It's sad. It feels degrading at times, I must say. So what I'm asking from all of you is that you keep everything you're doing in balance and know that we've already given a lot.

I'm just the one little person but I feel that I've given a lot for the 12 years I've been here and I know we're willing to work with all of you Because we need to make this successful. We all need to be content in what we're doing, and at the end I think this will all work out but you also all need to see the way we're going to be affected and it's not going to be a little bit.

It's gonna be like everybody said do I have an empty fridge or do I pay my mortgage? And the thing is that if even now with the salary I get paid and if it were to go down, I still wouldn't qualify for food stamp benefits. So something for all of you to think about and that's all we ask just for you to go again try to bargain again and hopefully this will work out for all of us. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:54 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Thank you. Next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:14:57 · ≈ 11:14 AM

That was our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:00 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Do we have any questions? Supervisor Wolf?

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:15:03 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Thank you, Chair Gray. I want to thank all of you for being here And to those in Santa Barbara as well. I don't believe it will come as a surprise to my colleagues that I am not going to be able to support the imposition of this contract. This is a huge step for us to take I know that there may be some other counties or governments that have done this, but it's few and far between.

I do want to clarify one issue about some of our groups taking pay cuts. We did have our physicians and dentists group take a 1.5% pay cut as I recall, is that what it was? Some of our district attorneys did take a three and a half percent cut. This imposition though, of a three and a half percent cut just in salary alone affects the entire group. And it's a group that impacts some of our lowest paid workers.

We had asked and just received from Our HR department, and I know this has been alluded to the salary level of some of you folks that work in local 721. And the range is for an eligibility worker one $15.60 an hour up to a social services supervisor two at $36 an hour. If you just take the three-and-a-half percent cut to the eligibility worker That's a decrease of $640 a year.

I can go on and talk about the wages that all of you receive, some of you are working more jobs. I appreciate those sentiments but I honestly believe That the imposition of a contract is not the way that we should be operating. That we should be working with our employee groups, I don't care if it's till midnight, I don't care if it's seven days a week, that we work with our employee groups to get to an agreement. I know that our team feels at times frustrated and maybe that there is no movement But we have, and I give them credit even though I haven't always agreed. They have been able to make agreements with our other groups. I think it's time, it sounds like folks are ready to make even more changes and concessions as was stated you started at a 3% salary increase and you moved down to a status quo level.

I don't know what my other colleagues will do, but I cannot support this and I just think this is a horrible step for us to take. We are, I think we are entrusted to work collaboratively with our groups, with our employees who do such incredible work every day. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:48 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. And I'm going to pretend that I turn my light on first because I wanted to first of all thank all of you for the hard jobs you do. But as I say what I have to say, you're probably not gonna be very happy with my thank-you. But I mean it. I've worked with many of you, particularly when we've had to go into children's homes and help them get out and save them from their parents.

This is a very difficult time in county government because the economy is no longer what it used to be. And so every single group of employees in this county have had to change what they're receiving and what they're getting So in the fiscal year 2008-2009, the concessions that were given by 721, that's your group was an 80 hour furlough. But on the other hand 620 it's very similar did a 64 hour furlough and delayed 8.7% equity adjustment from 08 to 2010 Fiscal year 2009-2010, the concessions given and assistance to trying to work within what the county budget is.

SEIU Local 721 gave no concessions. Local SEIU 620 delayed a .75% equity adjustment from June 9 to June 10. Eliminated a combined 1.5% equity adjustment previously delayed, delayed a 2.5 percent wage increase scheduled for April and delayed a $20 per pay person increase in their benefit allowances And I know you can say to yourself, well you know that's them and I'm me and I can't do it. But we're very very similar each and every one of us in 2010 and 2011 the concessions 721 none 620 none. In fiscal year 2011-12 the concessions 721 none 620 Agreed to freeze merit increase in each year of a two-year contract. Agreed to a 40 hour furlough in each year of a two-year contract. Eliminated the ability of employees to convert their 40 hours of vacation balance to cash.

Eliminated the inclusion of sick leave in calculating overtime obligations. 620 went on to eliminate a 2.5 wage increase scheduled for June 2011. They went on to eliminate a $20 per pay period increase in unit cash benefits allowed scheduled for June 2011. Unit 620 also eliminated $25 per pay period employee paid retirement offset. They agreed to have employees share up to half of the increase in the cost of retiree COLAs.

They agreed to a new retirement tier for new employees with the following components, A 2% 60 at one-fourth benefit, half rates, three year final average salaries, reduction of COLAs from 3% to 2%, and elimination of retiree medical programs. That's the kinds of things that all the other unions have done, and you know we all just deeply wish that was not the case because it is always better when the county and our, all of us economically are picking up 7% increase. We're not. We're barely stable. Each and every one of us have this.

And so those are the cards that we at the county and the public employees, and the private employees, and schools. And all of us have been dealt with simply unfortunately are having to do more with less. And that's what you folks are being asked to do today. Supervisor, you had your light on?

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:23:08 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Thank you Madam Chair I appreciate you sharing that information. You know It really saddens me and I'm sorry that we've reached this point. I would not be in favor of the imposition if this was the first contract or the first group that we came across this predicament. Regrettably, I think that on a 5-0 vote 5-0 vote have accepted the agreements and the concessions of six other groups. 620, ETA, District Attorney's Association, Physicians and Dentists, our fire and sheriff deferments as well, even though their contracts didn't expire. So on a 5-0 vote we told everybody else thank you for agreeing to all these concessions some of which Supervisor Gray read.

And ICS is a county family and this is an unfortunate troubling economic time and obviously it's required sacrifice by many We had a $72 million deficit last year, of which we still continue to have a structural deficit. We're projecting a $15 million deficit for this coming year. Two years ago, we had furloughs if all of you recall. We supervisors were told we didn't have to take that furlough.

If you check in the county records with our auditor and our CEO I wanted to take that furlough and I took it because I wanted to experience the same thing that our rank-and-file employees experienced. I took that furlough. If I recall correctly, it's about $3,000 that came out of my pocket not because I was required. I didn't send out a press release. I'm only sharing that with you because I believe we can vote different ways. There's a lot of rhetoric that goes along but actions speak louder than words And I've always been consistent and true to my beliefs.

So on a 5-0 vote, we've accepted six other agreements. And I do look at our county family just like I look at my family. And when I have a number of children and it would be so unfair to treat one so different than the other And for that reason, it's very difficult for me to move in this direction as recommended by staff. But I think that in these difficult times everybody has to make sacrifices and if this imposition was the first of many groups, I would absolutely be against it but the fact of the matter is we've had six other groups And including SEIU 620 that's given up a lot.

And I could not look at other workers in the face with integrity and say, thank you very much for you giving up. But there's a small group that we didn't ask that of for whatever reasons. Thank you for your sacrificing. So it just, it's that kind of a predicament for me. These are difficult times. This requires difficult choices and regrettably, I so much appreciate your work but I think this is one of those instances where we have to collectively do what's right for all of us as a county family and it saddens me that this is before us but I think that we have little choice.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:56 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you Supervisor. Supervisor Wolf?

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:27:00 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Thank you. I probably should have let you go first, so I could have responded. You know, I wasn't going to bring up the issue of compare and contrast on what different groups have done but since it was brought up, I do think it's important because In one instance, the negotiations that we have with our different bargaining groups is so complicated and every group is different. What has happened in the past and what may happen in the future is different for every group. Local 620 did give up some of their future raises because that was something that had been negotiated in the past. 721 can't give up future raises because it has not been negotiated, and that's based on one of the charts I received or we received from our HR department.

Also in another chart that we have, benefit comparisons by group. Percent of general wage increases since January 2008. It starts with confidential district attorney, sheriff's fire etc., but 620 is being brought up. Local 620 had 10% wage increase since January 28th And Local 721 had 7.5 of an increase since January 2008. Now, so if we're going to compare you know we have to look at those numbers as well.

I also think it's not fair to assume that Local 721 has not come to the table without bringing some proposals And I clarified that yesterday with Ms. Muth to get some idea of what they did come to the table with, and it wasn't just that they decided that they were going to drop their request for 3% to zero. They did come to the table with other issues. That dealt with freezing merit increases, removing increases in benefit allowance.

Discussions about COLA increases for retirement. I I This 3.5% cut, which we have never done it with any of our groups is just a... It goes against my belief in working together with our employee groups and like I said before, we have got to do whatever we can to come together. I believe we can. We've done it before. We have to work hard to come to an agreement and an imposition is just not acceptable for me. Thank you.

not transcribed≈29s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:30 – 2:366 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:35 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Thank you, Miss Wolf. Any other comments? Do we have a motion?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:30:42 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Madam Chair I'll make the motion that Board of Supervisors implements the changes in terms of conditions and employment for 721 as shown on attachment A and B.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:30:52 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Is there a second? Madam Chair, I didn't realize he was going to make a motion because I do want to make some comments. All right, I'll make the second. Ms. Barr? Okay, thank you. First of all I do want to thank everybody for being here. I know that you're taking time out of your day and how critically important this issue is for you every day of the year. I so value the work that you do. I know that your jobs are very very difficult and it provides an incredible service for this county as do all the jobs in our county family.

So I just want to let you know how valuable I feel that you are. You know, a number of issues have been raised here that have been discussed over a long period of time and I do want to comment on a couple of them. First of all, it's clear that we can't keep going down the road that we are with the structural deficit. And we do have to look at revenue generation and we are doing that and I am certainly personally committed to doing that. We'll be coming forward with some other ideas next year but in the meantime we have had to make all of these cuts And it has been my goal all along to make sure that the sacrifice would be shared, that it would be spread amongst all bargaining groups, amongst all levels of government.

All salary ranges, all departments and have supported consolidation of departments to eliminate department head salaries brought hiring freeze to the board And which we did implement and so on and so on in order to bring this deficit down. And I'm committed to doing that. And I think that as far as timing goes, I know that 721's contract actually expired over a year ago in October. So that contract was allowed to be continued for a number of months so the timing of your bargaining could be the same as everybody else's and that did happen.

And if I thought that more time, that we could reach something. I mean, I'd be happy to hold a special meeting next week if there was enough support on the board to do that. I don't think that there probably is. But I feel that everybody has really tried. I think a mediator was brought in a number of months ago. I was extremely disappointed that didn't result in that.

But at the end of the day, I have to agree with Supervisor Carbajal. You know this really is not the first group that we've considered imposing on. We composed on a confidential unrepresented people who are my staff and all of our staff that sit up here. And I look to my staff who have not had a merit increase or a step increase since we've been in office, because since I've been in office we have only had increasing deficits every year.

And they belong to Confidential Unrepresented, and we imposed on them all of these terms that are part of this contract that's being concerned here today. As well as with the other bargaining units and particularly 620. They make in the same salary range as all of you. It would be hard for me every day to face them and say, I didn't do for you what I did for somebody else.

So I'm just so sick that we are at this point but In negotiating since April to not be any farther along than we are now. I mean, if we could make it happen in a week that would be great but it's hard to think that when we haven't been able to make it happen over the last eight or nine months.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:08 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank you Supervisor. Are we at this time ready to vote?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:35:12 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Well, I just want to say Madam Chair that lack of comment doesn't on my part I think everything has been said I agree with Supervisor Carbajal and a lot of what Supervisor Farr had to say. So, I didn't want that to come across as trying to ramrod this through or anything. I just feel like it's all been said. I really understand where the employees are coming from and I am one of those people that have had to make those tough decisions in my past but we are charged with keeping this county running unprecedented economic hard times Everybody has to share in the pain, unfortunately.

And I mean we can talk about it till we're blue in the face but eventually it gets down to a time when we have to actually make a decision so I'm ready to go ahead and move this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:59 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank you Supervisor. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Thank you all for being here. We'll take a five minute break. We'll be back at 12.

2:36 – 2:4313 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:36:31 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:36:48 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Mr. Allen, we are now going to be doing resolutions and before we start the resolutions I wanted to...I've had this policy of recognizing volunteers. Mr. McLaughlin you're here to help me with this aren't you? Okay. Recognizing volunteers throughout the year because oh my gosh as we have to downsize and anybody that was here just a few minutes ago saw what the downsizing is We really need these volunteers. And one of the things that is such a huge thing for the County of Santa Barbara, is the aerial squadron. That's Sheriff's Aerial Squadron and this group of pilots who are private pilots volunteer to fly for all they get paid is their fuel And they volunteer to fly county staff all over the state, and even sometimes into other states if it's not too far.

They basically truly make it possible for Santa Barbara County to have a seat at Sacramento that does nothing but pay off as far as getting Sacramento kinds of dollars. And Mr. McLaughlin you pretty much had an experience with them also?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:38:02 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Yes, thank you Madam Chair. In our capacity in Public Works we're pretty active on the County Engineers Association of California and we fly up to Sacramento every now and again and there's really no easy way to get to Sacramento from Santa Barbara or Santa Maria. So true. And being able to utilize the Sheriff's Squadron has been a tremendous benefit to us and it's a tremendous savings because we just pay for fuel and it saves us time. We can go up into a one day meeting and come back on the same day. And it's a tremendous service to our county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:34 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Another thing that they do, I don't see any fire folks here but they also do things like during fire season they fly over and find the fires help the squad and all of this is done just for whatever the price of fuel. Bill would you mind coming up and talking just a tiny bit about them too because I know you love them It's just imagine donating that amount of time and saving just the county huge amounts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:39:00 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board you're absolutely right they are a very dedicated group of very generous individuals who volunteer not only their aircraft But the most valuable thing that anybody can give to another person, that's their time. And as you say we only pay for their fuel costs. It's a savings in terms of both cash and time. to get to and from Sacramento or other places where there is no easy commercial route.

In many respects, it can be cheaper than flying a commercial route as well. So they're a very, very dedicated group of people. They've been in existence since the World War II years and they are a very tight-knit group. They meet regularly. They, as you say, are available not only for the executive type transports but also they do The red flag fire warning days, they'll be up and checking to make sure that there are no spot fires in the area. They also are utilized from time to time on Prisoner transports and special investigation type flights that we have to do to areas as well.

So they're really a tremendous asset, not only to the Sheriff's Office but as you've indicated to many other departments within the county as well so I appreciate you taking the time to mention them and recognize them. Yeah and I'm reading

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:40:23 · ≈ 11:40 AM

here automobile surveillance searching for downed aircraft Missing vehicles at sea, vessels I mean at sea. Overdue hikers, prisoners and witnesses I understand also for court cases.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:40:39 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:40:40 · ≈ 11:40 AM

And like we're just all repeating ourselves it's time. That's a lot of time. They literally will fly people to where they need to go and then sit and wait for them.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:40:50 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Madam Chair, can we look at this for our next CSAC trip so that we don't end up with all of us spread all over.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:40:57 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Inside

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:40:57 · ≈ 11:40 AM

joke.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:41:00 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Madam Chair I think this is extraordinary and I'm really glad that we're recognizing this group. You know I don't want to be a red blanket but you know what comes to mind is I think there's risk with anything, but when these pilots are assuming official county business what is the risk? And how do we identify what's acceptable or not doing certain flyovers for county government or not?

I think that most of these vessels have to adhere to certain rigorous federal standards of readiness and pilot licensing and all that. But it just comes to mind, and I put it out there because when you have a tragedy You start saying, why didn't you ever ask these questions? It all sounded so great but you never weighed out the risks. And I guess has counsel and risk in anybody in our organization juxtaposed the risks procedures to what is official business, what's not, how the amount of activity to this wonderful benefit that we're getting. If that hasn't been done, I highly recommend we do it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:42:15 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Well, and I'll defer to County Council for some of the technical response to that. But I can tell you that the organization has operated as they say since the 1940s, has never had a fatal or even serious accident of any kind. They are a very dedicated group. They are all licensed. Their aircraft do all meet all federal standards and have Annual checks and everything as does any aircraft that flies in general aviation. And those rules are stringent, they are you know I frequently fly with them and I have a lot of confidence in them.

In terms of the actual insurance and all of that if we're on county business I believe they are completely covered under the County Insurance umbrella but fortunately we've never had to take advantage of that and use that.

2:43 – 2:4917 turns

CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposed2:43:10 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Madam Chair, since I've been here, I have not had occasion to look at that liability issue. It had come up in my previous employment and pretty much what the Sheriff said we had extra insurance to cover in catastrophic but I think it's a good question. We'll follow-up working with the Sheriff's Department and Risk Management to see what steps we've taken to protect against those kinds of liabilities.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:43:35 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Yeah and to leave this back again at the really positive a big, big shout out. Thank you Supervisor they've only been around since 1940 you weren't even born. A big, big shout out to the Arrow Squadrons and please pass it on but Mr. Allen's going to write them all a personal letter Bill.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:43:54 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Well thank you very much I know that they'll be very delighted

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:43:57 · ≈ 11:43 AM

to hear that from you as well. They are just dedicated and Supervisor Wolf flew with us a couple times but I don't think she loved it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:44:07 · ≈ 11:44 AM

I think that's the concept of flying, not who she's flying

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:44:09 · ≈ 11:44 AM

with. I don't know that I would say I loved it but it was very nice.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:18 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Really some special now recognitions that we're going to be doing and I think it's only fitting that we start with Supervisor Wolf who has written an accommodation for a very special lady Patty Stewart that has decided that she's going to take her ball and go play in another court. And I say that, you are just a remarkable woman and have done a remarkable job and we're going to miss you Miss Wolfe.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:44:49 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Gray. And funny enough the last time I did fly in the Air Squadron I was with Chief Stewart and it's not in the resolution but she is a great flying partner as are you. I think that's part of it is who you fly with and whose hand you can hold. I think

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:45:06 · ≈ 11:45 AM

I peppered the pilot with so many questions. Yes,

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:45:09 · ≈ 11:45 AM

you did. If you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:45:09 · ≈ 11:45 AM

had

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:45:10 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Frank he would have answered every one of them. No we've they're terrific and Patty You are terrific. And I've done these a few times, but I felt like I just need to read from my notes and it's not to be disrespectful. It's because it's a little emotional and also, you know, I just want to make sure I say what... I don't forget anything although I know there is nothing that I can say that will really express my deep appreciation and respect for you.

So this is a dubious honor for me to present this resolution on behalf of the board, because selfishly I don't want to see you leave the probation department or the county family. But as with most of your decisions, I respect it because I know you did not arrive at it without enormous amount of thought, consideration, preparation and integrity I hope your kids are watching this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:46:23 · ≈ 11:46 AM

They will watch it, they're actually ironically making a presentation on Neanderthal Man at San Ynez Elementary School. They're not excused but they'll learn how to do video streaming.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction2:46:35 · ≈ 11:46 AM

So I've had the privilege of working with Patty from the time that she was first appointed as chief in 2007 and that was my first year serving as supervisor. And I was appointed to serve on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council which is chaired by the Chief Probation Officer. Over the next few years, I worked closely with and learned an enormous amount from Chief Stewart and her staff Chief Stewart has had to weather some of the deepest cuts of any department in the time that I've been here and yet she and her department have remained responsive, professional and effective as ever.

And I cannot speak on behalf of your staff because again there are no words that could adequately do that But what I do know is that there's a sense of sadness that you're leaving, but as with everything that happens with you there's also a sense of excitement and a lot of parties because they get to plan all the parties. The respect that they hold for you, Patty is I think knows no bounds.

And the folks that you work with be it the judges, the other law enforcement agencies there's incredible respect among those folks. Patty and I spoke we were on a panel discussion for the Women's Political Committee And Patty said something that was so striking and I just love so much because she said that, you know her days are spent with her colleagues who are men.

She doesn't shy away from speaking her mind But using a little bit of charm always helps. And you are full of intelligence, charm and wit. And Patty we will miss you terribly but know that you will continue to be in the county and we look forward to seeing you and sharing in this retirement that we all know is well deserved.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:46 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Mr. Allende would you like to read the resolution? Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:48:54 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Madam Chair and members of the Board, this is a resolution of commendation for Patti Stewart, Chief Probation Officer upon her retirement from the County of Santa Barbara. Whereas, Chief Probation Officer Patti Stewart was born and raised in northern Santa Barbara County, grew up in Guadalupe, attended local schools, and graduated with highest honors... I think

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:11 · ≈ 11:49 AM

as Mr. Allen reads everybody wants their picture taken with Patti so let's go down there and get it done.

2:49 – 3:0114 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:49:19 · ≈ 11:49 AM

She graduated with the highest honors from the University of California in Santa Barbara in 1981 with a Bachelor of Arts in Law and Society with a criminal justice emphasis. And whereas, Patty began her career with Santa Barbara County Probation Department as a student volunteer in 1980 was hired as a Deputy Probation Officer in October 1982. Whereas, Chief Stewart has served in all operational divisions of the department and has received numerous awards and commendations. Promoted to Supervising Probation Officer in 1993 was appointed to be the first female director of Los Prietos Boys Camp in 1996 and promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief Probation Officer assigned to the Institutions Division in August of 2004 Whereas after a statewide recruitment process, Patty was selected as Chief Probation Officer by the Superior Court and sworn in by the Honorable Arthur A.

Garcia in May of 2007 and has since represented the department well as the Southern Region Chair for the Chief Probation Officers of California As the chair of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the Community Corrections Partnership, as a member of the First Five Children's Families Commission, County Law Enforcement Chiefs, Collaborative Courts Policy Council, Kids Network, and Fighting Back Executive Committees.

And whereas, Chief Stewart's appointment in 2007 was followed by multiple years of recessed economy and fiscal challenge resulting in layoffs, facility and program closures. However with the support of dedicated staff probation was undaunted and reorganized. A department wide business process improvement project targeted efficiencies grant funds were obtained and innovative evidence based strategies and programs were implemented And whereas, during Chief Stewart's tenure, juvenile alternative detention programs were opened. Evidence-based risk assessments were fully implemented. Adult probation report and resource centers and offender kiosk reporting were initiated.

Vocational programs expanded and grant funds secured to increase use of electronic supervision with GPS for the highest risk offenders under probation supervision. The Chief was also responsible to coordinate the development of a collaborative, strategic and balanced implementation plan for criminal justice realignment pursuant to the 2011 Public Safety Realignment Act which initiated the most significant changes in local community corrections in the last 30 years.

And whereas, Patty plans to continue her service by applying to be a community member of the First Five Children and Families Commission. Will maintain juvenile supervision duties on a caseload of two for twin 11-year olds Connor and Sarah. And will finally be able to return to her study of Tang Soo Do read something only because she wants to take a cooking for idiots class And go fishing.

Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does hereby commend Chief Probation Officer Patty Stewart upon her retirement for over 30 years of faithful, dedicated and innovative service to countless probationers, the citizens of Santa Barbara County and to the Probation Department passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52:29 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Now, Patty let me ask you this. They are chomping at the bit up here to speak before you do so do you want to speak first or do you want them to speak first? I don't want to make the decision.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:52:42 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Madam Chair, I am Chief Probation Officer for the time being but you are still the bosses.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:52:48 · ≈ 11:52 AM

So Supervisor Farr, you're up first. Thank you Madam Chair. Well Chief Stewart I just wanted to add my words to Supervisor Wolse and I know those that will come after in thanking you for all of your years of wonderful service to Santa Barbara County I think the first time I heard you speak at the board, I was so impressed with how intelligent and articulate and well organized your presentation was.

It covered the subject matter thoroughly and was just so impressive. And since then getting to know you better having you take me out on a visit to the Los Prietos Boys Camp going to the wonderful annual recognition events that probation has Hearing and feeling what a wonderful family you have there at probation, and how so much of your efforts have continued that. It's just been so impressive. So for your enthusiasm, for your passion, for your dedication, and for all your hard work, all the reasons and more why you are so well respected by all of us, thank you so much. And I know that you live in the San Inez Valley, so I'm hoping to see you from time to time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:54:03 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Thank you, I'm honored. Thank you Supervisor Farr. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:54:06 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Patty everything's been said but I'll add a little bit more to it. You have just been an extraordinary example of what a county and public service executive is all about You have done a great job. You've been a great role model to many, and I'm sure a mentor to many. I've appreciated also working with you on the first five and my colleagues don't know that we have been able to convince you to consider staying on in the near future on that commission as part of your continued service but in a different capacity.

So I'm just grateful for having had the opportunity to work with you To learn from you and to just be in awe of you. Congratulations on your retirement, and thank you for all your many years of service.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:54:55 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Thank you so much. Supervisor Lovanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.682:54:58 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Patty thanks for taking a newbie under your wing a little bit showing me the ropes and probation and all that I just can tell by the way that they've talked about you behind the scenes how much you've meant to the county so congratulations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:14 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Patty, I want to just thank you really as a woman for your charm and grace and intelligence. It's a role model beyond belief. And I'm positive that you could thoroughly enjoy law school if you won another challenge.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:55:32 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Stop that. No, you'll love it!

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:36 · ≈ 11:55 AM

I've been

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:55:37 · ≈ 11:55 AM

told I need six months to transition.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:40 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Well put it on your list thank you good luck and now what do you have to say?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:55:45 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Thank You Madam Chair members of the board Patty Stewart Chief Probation Officer I just wanted to say that one more time. You know thank you so much I appreciate this resolution and I'm so grateful to have the opportunity To thank this county for giving me such a tremendous 30 year career and the probation department for giving me a mission and a purpose in which every day I got up. And whether I was a line level deputy probation officer or the chief probation officer, I felt like I had such an important job to do every single day. When I walked in, a student volunteer 30 years ago, probation was a misunderstood cog in the criminal justice system and today I'm walking out chief where we are truly in the spotlight of the governor and the legislature defining probation as being one of the primary solutions to a broken state correction system and I think we really need to relish that.

And this board needs to know that you, before it was in style, you were supporting probation. You were making the rounds. You were learning about our operations. You are touring our facilities. You are understanding evidence-based programs and even though we were in a period of reduction You were still supporting it, as I said, before it was in vogue. And because of that we have such a strong foundation to build upon and move into the future. My mom and dad couldn't be here today. They're watching from their home in Santa Barbara and they were both public servants. My dad was a justice of the peace for the courts, my mom an educator.

And I learned from a very early age the value of public service and really learned from them to honor my calling. And I did so every day. It's rather unfortunate that the public servant is now kind of being painted as a public enemy, and I think that's a diversion in a manipulation that needs to change. I think we all know here the good work that we do from line level personnel on up through the ranks.

I do think that we're very fortunate here, and we need to support public service because we need to maintain the best of the best. And that's what we have in Santa Barbara County. We're so lucky. I've been throughout this state, and I've said before, we're large enough to be cutting edge, and we're small enough to know each other by name. And we can pick up the telephone and solve problems without three months of meetings. And I think we have true collaboration. It's not collabo-babble. In a lot of places, it's just collabo-gabble. But we truly collaborate and I think coming together and being able to develop a public safety implementation plan from giddy up to woe in two and a half months really shows the level of collaboration that the diversity of our leadership can come together and produce.

To the probation family All I can say is thank you. They've stood shoulder to shoulder with me and many of them, I know are streaming and watching now because they are good dedicated public servants. Shoulders to shoulders through thick and thin some thin general fund allocations and shortfalls in revenues and a thickening waistband but they have been by my side And have really promoted the vision. And it's really by their good work that they have pushed me and the department forward, and allowed my vision and my goals to be achieved so I can walk out today feeling so fulfilled when I do finally leave the building and shut off the lights, so to speak. They came to the table with solutions. And we had to reorganize and we had to make reductions but we also built new programs that you heard about in the resolution.

And you know, I believe we succeeded because we have been able to balance the strategies and mechanics of implementing change with the sociology of inspiring people to embrace change. And I think those are two very different things that we need to learn to balance. We've stayed focused on our mission as the county has in general. These are unprecedented fiscal times The toughest times our department has seen, five years of tough times in the 103 years of our history and I'm proud that we're still moving forward and staying focused. Thank you to this executive team, Bev Taylor, Damon Fletcher, Steve DeLera, Melanie Davis leaving the department in exceptionally good hands and I stand ready to support the transition along with the new chief that may be coming in with the appointment I also want to thank Mike Perkins, a sergeant in the sheriff's office part of our county family who is my partner in parenting and without his support I could have never applied for this job.

And to Sarah and Connor who've given up a lot so that their mommy as they say could be chief and now I get to give them a gift this holiday season where I don't have to attend a meeting check an email or take a phone call I do thank the County of Santa Barbara. I thank each and every one of you, and now I'm going to go learn how to cook, and I'm going to go fishing, and i'm gonna look for your good work in the headlines. Thank you.

3:01 – 3:084 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:28 · ≈ 12:01 PM

What a remarkable, remarkable experience to hear Patty's speech. And I think that's probably one that we ought to get a recording of and keep it on our shelf. I wanted to say to folks that Joe Valencia who is the Planning Commissioner for my district just called to say this is the most beautiful Tuesday in the history of the world because after 45 days in the hospital bed, I am finally home.

So, whoo! Hi Joe. Boy it's been a long one imagine that is a long long time. Mr. Allen, we're going to go now to Supervisor Farr for a resolution. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:02:15 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Farr? Thank you Madam Chair. Well it's certainly my honor today to be able to present a resolution to the Solvang Conference and Visitors Bureau for their 25th anniversary. I see Tracy Farhad here, Laura Cass, other members coming forward. The reason that Solvang and the Santa Anas Valley are so well known, not only locally and in the state but now internationally is because of the work of this organization. And certainly this year with Solvang Centennial Year which we'll be honoring in a moment they have just put their heart and soul into so many different events in so many different ways To not only promote the area for people to come and visit, but also for those of us that live there with events every month that have touched on the history, the culture, the community.

And it's just really wonderful to be a part of that community and have it be a part of Santa Barbara County. So Mr. Allen would you read the resolution please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:03:17 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Yes, Madam Chair and members of the Board. This is a resolution celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Solvang Conference and Visitors Bureau. Whereas travel matters to the nation's economic prosperity in its image abroad, to business wealth and individual travelers it's one of our most fundamental freedoms. The travel industry substantially enhances our personal growth and education while promoting intercultural understanding and appreciation of our history geography and culture.

Whereas travel to and within the United States provides significant economic benefits to the nation, generating $1.8 trillion in economic output in 2010 with $759 billion spent directly by travelers that spurred an additional $1 trillion in other industries. Measured travel accounts for more than three quarters of all trips taken in the United States and spurs countless benefits to travelers' creativity, cultural awareness, education, happiness and wellness. And whereas travel and tourism is an important sector in Santa Barbara County economy And in 2010, countywide visitor activity generated $1.4 billion in direct spending, supported 16,000 jobs and generated total fiscal impacts of $39 million of which $28.5 million was transient occupancy tax with tourism revenue and overnight lodging and solving contributing 8% of the countywide total through $2.35 million in TOT collections.

In recognition of solving 100th anniversary year and the unique significance of the American travel industry We would like to recognize the 25th anniversary of the Solvang Visitors and Conference Bureau, a non-profit 501c6 marketing agency that successfully secured national designation for Solvang as a Preserve America Community and markets and promotes Solvang in the Sanchez Valley as a premier destination for leisure and business travel year round. Now therefore be it resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County Hereby recognizes the work of the Solving Conference and Visitors Bureau on their 25th anniversary for an excellent job they do of promoting solving in the Santa Ynez Valley domestically and abroad. Passed and adopted today.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:05:41 · ≈ 12:05 PM

I've never been one not to pass up a microphone opportunity. That sounded so impressive, I'm actually beaming larger than I was earlier and I feel so proud to be part of this organization. I haven't been there 25 years so I can't count a 30 year quite like that. This is value of its neighbors and it's been a wonderful opportunity to be able to promote and do something on a daily basis that you know makes somebody else smile. So, you know being part of the travel industry where they want to come here, they want to have a great experience, they want to feel good about it and they wanna tell everybody about it. So, it's been an extremely rewarding career and industry to be a part of. It is great to be a part of something that is so green.

We love visitors. They come, they spend money, they leave. That's a great thing to do too. And, but none of it would happen without the support of our City Council. So I wanted to thank our council member Joni Jameson who's here with us tonight. Our full city council we have 85% of our budget that does come from city because it gives more than 55% of our bottom line there so we really thank the city council for being on there also all of our marketing partners because we can't do it without the hoteliers, the businesses The events, the wine tours that also are willing to pony up and say here I am let's help make this a better experience. The journalists, the travel writers, the tour operators everyone who keeps making that experience that much more richer but especially today the staff is standing behind me So I'd like to introduce Laura Kaff, our publicist who answers every journalist question.

So Ms. Kaff. Brenda Ball who is our digital media specialist who does all of our social media so you'll see her on our 100 Reasons To Smile campaign on Facebook and that's Ms. Ball right there, our administrator in operations and Tiffany Valdez who handles all of our sales and events. So our UFS event right there and our six visitors, our six specialists at the Visitor Information Center who run that visitor center.

But I feel like it's a much larger family, so I want to just say thank you on behalf of all of us. It's nice to be recognized for having kept the business alive and well for 25 years. And we're also proud to continue to bring money to this county. So thank you for this recognition today.

not transcribed≈23s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:08 – 3:136 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:08:27 · ≈ 12:08 PM

And actually, we might as well just stay up there for the next one and maybe we can invite Council Member Joan Jamieson to come on up. As we honor the City of Solvang for their 100th anniversary. And as you know, the city has been celebrating all year long with a number of events, a lot of events. We had a wonderful kickoff in January and then we're going to have another event next month as well to kind of close off the year.

But Council Member Jamieson, thank you so much for being here and for representing the city. I have to say that I have learned so much about the city in the last year and am proud that even though I'm not one of the family members from the founders that there are so many there that are still contributing to the community. And everybody who comes there just appreciates what the City of Solvang means to all of us into the county. So I have some resolutions here, I have more than one. And so I'm going to give them all to you and you can distribute them as you see fit.

But Mr. Allen would you go ahead and read the resolution?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:09:35 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. This is item A3. It's a resolution honoring the 100th anniversary of the city of Solvang. Whereas in 1911 Danish immigrants purchased approximately 10,000 acres of prime land in the San Ynez Valley and named it Solvang meaning sunny field and placed glowing advertisements in Dutch language newspapers to encourage the success of the new colony In West, the founders built a folk school in 1911 that later became the Outer Dag College thus establishing a long-lasting legacy of Danish culture and pride in their community that's still strong today. And whereas in 2009, Sullivan received federal recognition as a Preserve America Community For its commitment to protect and honor the unique cultural and historic value of this extraordinary city.

And whereas, during the 2011 Solvang Centennial Committee has produced hundreds of events throughout the entire Solvange community which have showcased its rich heritage in history And whereas the success of the 100th anniversary of Solvang is the result of the hard work and support of the Solvang Centennial Committee, whose mission is to honor and promote the 100 years of Solvang's existence as a community that blends Danish culture and heritage into a rich quality of life and visitor experience through a year-long series of events for the enjoyment and education of residents and tourists. And now therefore be it ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors hereby honors and celebrates the 100th anniversary and centennial celebration of the City of Solvang, passed and adopted today.

Council

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:11:02 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Member Jamieson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:11:08 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Yes, Chair Gray. I have to share something with the people out there that don't know this but Joni and I went to high school together and we have to thank Ward Kincaid and Gil Hodges who are civics and our history teachers for the fact that they made us want to be what we are today public servants and elected officials and they were outstanding teachers and we miss them. We

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:11:34 · ≈ 12:11 PM

miss

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:11:35 · ≈ 12:11 PM

them. Thanks Joni. On behalf of Mayor Richardson and the City Council, on behalf of Brad Vidro and the city staff, on behalf of Eddie Skiff who is the chairman of the Centennial Committee and his great committee which I am a part. On behalf of the founders of Solving and their families that are still there, on behalf of all the citizens of Solving thank you so much for recognizing the fact that we are 100 years old and I think we look great!

Somebody asked me, what are you going to do to celebrate the 100 year birthday of Solvang? And I said we're going to have a party every day. So if you come to town let me know and we will have a party for you. So Ann Jen came with their bicycles. We had a party. Consort of Denmark came, we had a party. The Mayor of Aalborg came, we had a party. There were Christmas parties at the Elverhoy which is a little jewel. It's our very priceless museum in the City of Solvang and if you haven't been there please come and take a look.

We have had party after party after party and I'll tell you It's going to be nice when it's January 7th because January 6 is the last official centennial party and we invite you all to come. Again, thank you so much for recognizing the small little Danish community of Solvang. And last night we had our only December council meeting and since Solvang was chosen as one of the nine Christmas-y cities in the United States, we all wore Christmas hats. So I will provide you with a better picture and you can only make the printer copy with the regular piece of paper but that is quite an honor to be in the entire United States. We are one of the nine best places to be at Christmastime. Again, Time Magazine right? So thank you so very much.

Thanks Joni.

3:13 – 3:166 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:13:41 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Well, I'm glad I'm not on that city council. I just hate Christmas hats. Oh they're nice

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:13:48 · ≈ 12:13 PM

ones.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:13:50 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Speaking of Christmas and all the holidays and stuff before we adjourn to go into lunch I think we've done all the resolutions now. I want the board all of you to know that this is just so absolutely moving Becky Grant who is Steve's assistant and you all know Becky really, really well told me yesterday she said I love you guys all so much meaning all of us.

And I so appreciate my job that I'm buying lunch for the Board of Supervisors today. So lunch is on Becky. So how about that? Shout it out! Isn't that something? Steve, this is not a we thing. This is a Becky thing. Believe me. Becky kind of shocked us when she said that's the way it feels to really enjoy working with you when we all have that. So we're going to break for lunch. Hopefully we'll be back by one. Dennis wants to announce what the public or what the closed session is going to be?

CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposed3:15:04 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. You have four noticed items under existing litigation in Safe Kiama Valley v. County of Santa Barbara. Anticipated litigation deciding to initiate one case. Conference with real property negotiator properties in the vicinity of 4470 Orchard Road in Santa Maria and conference with labor negotiator employer relations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:15:26 · ≈ 12:15 PM

All right 115 but maybe I should just say 130. One thirty, one thirty. Yeah all right thank you all. One thirty. Six

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:15:51 · ≈ 12:15 PM

And I'm sorry. Here it is, my very last Chairman's Stip and I'm still forgetting to ask Mr. Marshall what happened in closed session?

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:16 – 3:367 turns

CommentEsmeralda GarciaProposed3:16:18 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Each of your noticed items with the exception of the existing litigation item Save Keyama Valley v. County Santa Barbara were heard and of those three items heard there were no reportable actions. Thank You madam chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:16:36 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Thanks, Ms. Marshall. Mr. Nesbitt? And actually Madam Chair before we move on I'd like to go ahead and move item... I think it's A12 that we trailed before.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:16:44 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Thanks Supervisor Clark. Mr Nesbitt.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:16:53 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Thank You madam chair members of the board today as mentioned by the clerk we have a presentation on the work counties workers compensation program no action is required by the board today except to receive the presentation Nearly 18 months ago, the board elected to join California State Association of Counties CSAC's Primary Workers' Compensation Insurance Program. This action became effective July 1st 2010 and the county made a three-year commitment to this program.

Previously, the county was a member of CSAC excess workers compensation program and the essential difference between these two programs is that the excess program is essentially a self-insured program where we have a $500,000 self-insured retention. So below $500,000 we're self-insured and then have insurance over $500 per claim. The primary program, the one we switched to 18 months ago provides first dollar coverage for all claims. The program bears the cost of administration and defense of all the claims Claims that occurred prior to the switch from one program to the other are referred to as tail claims. And until recently, these claims were administered by the county and the defense of those claims are handled by County Council. On June 21st of this year, the board entered into a contract with Corvell to administer these tail claims for a one-time payment of $302,000.

When the board voted to enter the primary program, they requested a couple status reports during the three-year period. And so here we are today halfway into the three year period making one of those status reports. So this slide simply shows some of the highlights over the past 18 months and the first bullet point is what I just mentioned. We move from self insured to the primary worker compensation program The next two bullet points occurred on November 2nd, 2010.

Your board adopted an ordinance which updated the safety ordinance for the county and we also implemented the IIP. This acronym stands for the Injury and Illness Prevention Program and currently this department training is rolling out this plan to the departments. Bullet point number four, our emergency action plan was just recently updated. This is essentially a comprehensive building evacuation plan and this is something that's also coordinated with all the departments.

The fifth one down is an interesting policy change that we made recently in that this is when employees are in county vehicles and they are in accidents where it's 100% positive that it was a fault accident, they're required to take driver's training from the county. And then finally I mentioned bullet point number six, the move to Corvell to handle the administration of our tail claims. And the last point really is the most important. Everything we're focusing on now is to reiterate safety as a core value. Our training, our newsletters, audits etc., it's all about this value. Next slide please Ray.

This slide shows the number of employees in risk management over the past eight years. And although I believe the cliche up there, do more with less is a bit overused it really does apply to this division by making the decision to outsource claims administration move to insurance for workers' compensation and combining several programs safety HIPAA back-to-work program and disability management into two position positions we really are doing more with less and remember in workers' compensation, more actually is less.

As it's our goal to prevent claims, first and foremost. And then minimize the expense of those claims once they do happen. As a side note on this slide by reducing the number of FTEs down to seven, the division is also saving on the cost of space. They are currently on the second floor of the Naomi Schwartz building where they must pay the debt service on that building. This floor can accommodate probably 20-25 employees so it makes no sense for Riz to be there And we're currently in the process of moving them into the admin building on the first floor, where they won't have any rental payments. So it'll be free space. Next slide please. This graph shows the total county financial commitment to workers' compensation or the rate as we call it over the past 11 years Including the projected rate, the last number on there is a projected rate for fiscal year 2012-13 of $11.7 million.

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:21:41 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:21:42 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Sorry Mr. Ness but I will try not to bother you and let you finish your presentation. What struck me in this entire report was that we initially went to this new approach in dealing with our workers' comp with the understanding that we were going to save a lot of money and we did But this spike back, I really want to understand and ask you to explain it better to us because it looks like we're going right back where we started from. We could even play that song right now.

And I know we're still far from the 14 million 11.7 to 14.6 is still a significant savings but I hope that's topped out and if we're gonna continue in that direction it would be good to understand what that projection looks like because we saved in the short term, which is great. But if we're going to go back to the original, what a great play to get our business and get initial savings.

It just concerns me that we're inching our way back and of this entire report, that's what caught my attention.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:22:48 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Sure. Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal great point, great question and in fact I would say the predominant theme of the rest of the presentation is that question and why it is what it is and was the program successful and so forth and so on? So absolutely by the end of the presentation you can let me know if your question was answered. So for that point, this slide is very interesting. I think it's a very interesting slide to look at the 12-year trend and as you can see, as was pointed out by Supervisor Carbajal, the eight year trend let's say from From point number one through 2001 through 2008, we were paying on average $14 million a year was the commitment to workers' compensation. And during this period the fund was actually running at a deficit so during those years 1.9 million approximately was a surcharge on the rate actually to get the fund out of the deficit The last three years, as you can see, the average commitment to workers' compensation has been just around $10 million.

And this is due I would say for three reasons. One, the fund got out of the deficit. So we were in a deficit, we were adding a surcharge to the rates to get out of the deficit and once we got out of the deficit, we dropped the surcharge. That's one reason. Second reason is in the last couple of years there's actually been a conscious decision to give rate breaks to the departments due to the challenging economic times. So some of the symptoms that we're looking at today, we knew about, we were conscious of and we artificially I will say held the rates down to actually get by these challenging economic times so this is one of the tools out of all the tools your board was using to give breaks and to avoid service level impacts. And then the third decision Or the third reason I should say, is the decision to move to the primary program.

I believe it absolutely did allow us to lower the rate and although we are inching back, I'll get to that in a second, I still think in the long term it's a good decision. The other interesting... So that's the other interesting point of this graph. You can see that downward trend cannot be sustained and the difference between the rate this year and proposed for next year is 2.1 million.

And I'm gonna get into that increase in the next couple of slides. So this slide illustrates the point I just made about being in a deficit and having to commit an extra 1.9 million for 9 or 10 years in a row. As you can see, in 2001 the first point on this graph the fund was actually at negative 15 million. This means that the assets of the fund which is primarily cash We're $15 million less than the predicted liabilities of the fund. And when I say predicted liabilities, that's predicted by an actuarial. We have an actuarial study done every year.

So at this point in time 11 or 12 years ago a 10-year plan was put into place to eliminate the deficit and as you can see There's the plan to get out, it's a straight line. And we actually did better than the plan as times were good and we were able to charge that $14 million, 14 million dollars a year and as you can see we got out a couple years early and actually ran a surplus for two years.

However, the latest actuarial that we just received a month ago predicts a new deficit of 4.2 million, the last dot on the slide predicted as of June 30th 2012 And this quick downswing, I think more than anything demonstrates the volatility of this fund. The fund is volatile because there are numerous variables at play that are difficult to predict and so very small tweaks to the parameters or the assumptions behind these variable can cause quick and substantial changes to the equity of the funds as you can see here.

For example it's current policy to maintain the fund at an expected level Which is essentially a 50% confidence level. This means at any given point, we are only 50% confident that the assets in the fund are enough to cover liabilities. Each year an actuarial provides the county an adjustment of the liabilities that must be recorded on the balance sheet and although the total liability is slowly decreasing as the tail claims are closed if it decreases less than the predicted by the actuarial then an adjustment must be made and this is one of the factors that is happening Effectively with a 50% confidence level, it's a coin toss.

So this slide is a very simple slide that in three steps shows what we believe are the three factors that have led from this surplus in two years to a predicted deficit of 4.2 million. So point number one, for two years in a row there has had to be claims loss adjustments. And this is the point I just made where each year we have a new actuarial study done and if the liabilities have to be increased based on the actuarial's opinion then an adjustment needs to be made. So point number one is two adjustments have been made in the last two years 1.3 and 1. 3 million and this is one contribution to the change.

The second one is the other point that I've mentioned and this is that rates were kept low to lessen the expense to the departments during these challenging economic times. And this amount, if you add those two together it's approximately 1.9 million. And then the third point here is that the interest rate assumption was changed from 3% to 1%. We assume that the fund is making money interest on our money and 3% is just unreasonable right now. So it was agreed by the actuarial, concurred by the auditor controller that it should be 1% from the time being and this alone amounts to a negative 2.3 million. So those three factors together gets us to the negative 4.2 million.

Next slide. Given this new projected deficit, we have an internal committee, the Risk Management Evaluation Team. This group is made up of the CEO, the budget director, auditor-controller, county council and myself. This group met, looked over the numbers and recommended a seven year recovery plan similar to the 10 year recovery plan we were on 12 years ago.

And this recovery plan takes the projected 4.2 million deficit and simply amortizes it over seven years So in other words, we're calculating what the rate should be. Take the 4.2 million divide it by seven you get 600,000 and so for each year for the next seven years will add $600,000 to what the rate would have been to get us back to zero by 2019. It was felt by ARMET, the internal group that a seven-year recovery period was appropriate since the county still experiencing these challenging budget times.

I just want to underscore one point. As stated earlier, the proposed rate for fiscal year 2012-13 is $11.7 million. This amount includes the $600,000 as part of this recovery plan and although this is 2.1 million increase over this year it is interesting to note that it's still over two million dollars less than what was committed in that eight years span where we're averaging 14 million dollars a year.

Next slide. So back to the original purpose of the presentation today and Supervisor Carbajal's question. Was the decision 18 months ago, to move to CSEC's primary workers' compensation program a good decision? And the answer I believe is yes. In the actuarial report, the actuarial actually states in his report and this is a quote. If the county had not elected to participate in CSEC's primary program it is estimated that additional 2012-2013 funding of approximately $1,872,000 would be needed to meet the marginally acceptable loss and loss adjustment expense for its self insured program.

So back to my comment that the division is doing more with less. So not only is the primary program less expensive than being self-insured, but we are now operating under a higher confidence level. So since participating in the program as I said provides first dollar coverage, we are nearly at 100% confidence level. The actuarial tells us that we should assume 95%, but in essence we have insurance We have transferred the risk of handling those claims, and we have transferred the risk of those claims increasing in expense over their life to a third party. So we really have eliminated this idea of a coin toss where much better than 50% now, we're at 90%. Next slide please.

So this savings is shown in more detail on this slide and I draw your attention to the heavy orange bar at the bottom. And the point of this was simply again to do the comparison of where we are today, which is column one versus if we were self-insured and column two is being self-insured at a 70% confidence level and column three is being self-insured at a 90% confidence level. And as you can see that punchline on the far right side is that the savings are anywhere between 1.5 and 3.7 million depending on what confidence level you compare But the apples-to-apples comparison is really the 90% confidence level because we now know we're at a 95% confidence level.

Next slide, please. So to summarize the benefits of this program as I just stated, we have a 95 percent confidence level versus the 50 or 55 percent confidence level we were operating under when we were self-insured. There's administrative and salary savings under the primary program. We showed the drop in the FTEs, also licensing a claims management software system is no longer needed that's done by the third party administrator for us.

They do all the mandatory federal and state reporting for us and are on the hook if there's any fines if we're late. And then as I mentioned our reduction in office space supplies etc., as our staff has gone down to only seven people. Next slide, please. So where do we go from here? And as I said at the beginning, in my opinion safety must be a core value of the organization. Prevention really is the key.

Once a claim occurs, we must do our best to manage and close that claim at the least cost to the county. And I believe we're doing an incredible job in this area. However, preventing claims before they happen Means safe and healthy employees, and zero cost to the county. Because a claim that doesn't happen costs nothing. So I'll say it one more time, prevention is key. I really can't stress this point enough and so here's some programs or some ideas we have for the future under the idea of prevention and safety. Bullet point number one, we're going to have a CSAC rep come down, review our program, go through it thoroughly, provide a report, provide recommendations. This is something that's already paid for as being part of the program.

Number two, we're going to get out and meet with the departments on a more regular basis. Have department head meetings where we work with them individually on statistics about where claims are happening in their departments. So more one-on-one attention to certain departments like the Sheriff's Department, fire etc., and try to isolate where we need to put our attention to prevent claims.

The next point is we're now sending out these letters to employees once they go on temporary disability to let them know about the back-to-work program, try to get them back to work and try to do what we can to accommodate them. And then finally, the fourth point we're doing not proactive but some ergo evaluations. Whenever our disability manager goes out because a claim's been filed or has any contact with an employee she then also takes a look at the setup in the office to see that the computer is set up right and see if there are any recommendations in that area as we know there's lots of claims, carpal tunnel syndrome etc.

This last point we highlighted a wellness program. And this final idea is in its infancy, but we believe a wellness program has merit for numerous reasons and studies show that there's benefits to employees and employers. And so we intend to work with Human Resources they have a similar idea for different reasons to design a program that will work for the county.

So with this I will close the presentation and be happy to answer any questions about the program. One last comment to the question, so it's a three year commitment as I said we're 18 months into the commitment and so it's our intention to have a second report to the board around this time next year maybe November because at that point we'll make a recommendation to either stay with the program or there would be an opportunity to go back to being self-insured So I will close with that.

3:36 – 3:4926 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:36:24 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:36:25 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Thank you, Mr. Nesbitt. Not only did you answer my question but you brought me back around to the positive outlook and the positiveness of what we've done and where we are and where we're going so congratulations great work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:36:39 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Thank you.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:36:41 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Supervisor Wolff? Thank you Madam Chair. So Bob just so I understand so that the issue it's the financial piece of this issue is really the tail claims. Is that what's causing the deficit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:36:56 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolk, that's correct so going forward everything looks like the insurance is working for 18 months it looks good we now have all these tail claims June 30th 2010 back for a very long time some of them that we have to manage And as we slowly close those claims, our fund which is right now at around 27 million is slowly going to be depleted as we eventually close all these claims. So that I really believe is the issue and is the risk for us to pay attention to until we close all these claims.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:37:36 · ≈ 12:37 PM

But it sounds to me that when the actuary came out with this report, we maybe weren't expecting it. And why is that? Were the claims more expensive? Was there more medical cost? What was the issue that caused the actuary to come out with that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:37:57 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf and Ray please. Ray Aromatore the Risk Manager is here also so please jump in if you have more but one of the we met with the actuarial actually this year typically they don't come down but this was such a serious year we invited them down from Sacramento to give us and the auditor controller presentation and answer those kind of questions And their response was it appeared as if the expense of claims was going up. And some claims that were on the books for a certain amount, a predicted cost they had to trend upward and that seemed like the main reason they gave us for them missing that estimate a year previously.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:38:41 · ≈ 12:38 PM

I mean, it's a huge amount of money that wasn't expected. But I guess we have to plan now and look at that study. So we're going to be looking at $600,000 a year to pay off this Proposed debt.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:39:05 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Or anticipated debt. That's what we came up with when we had the discussion internally, We actually had some more I would say severe options. We looked at a three-year plan and again it's not really complicated math here you're just good we're just taking the deficit of 4.2 million and dividing it by 3 or in this case 7 so if it was the three year plan The rate would have been another $700,000 or $800,000 higher. So again given all the factors given the challenges the county is facing we still have a predicted 15 million dollar gap for next year. The consensus of everyone at that in that internal committee was a seven-year plan was about right the right speed to get out of it

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:39:51 · ≈ 12:39 PM

But, so I have that fiscal outlook report that references at 15 million. But under workers' compensation and it includes general liability the amount is 2.9 million. So I'm wondering why it's 2. 9 million and maybe you don't know the answer to this rather than 600,000?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:40:14 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Madam Chair, I do actually and maybe Ray if you can flip back to the slide that shows the graph. The trend graph, slide number three I think it is. Oops wrong way. So I'll start to explain it then so the rate... The rate is actually 2.1 million dollars higher for next year than it is this year in workers' compensation. That includes the $600,000. So when that line item was put into the budget gap projection it's not just the $600,000, it's the entire 2.1. The assumption was that when predicting your gap analysis you go by the baseline of what your expenses and revenue were in this year and see what the changes are going to be projected for next year. And so they said okay So that

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:41:08 · ≈ 12:41 PM

actually goes, so now I'm kind of going back to Supervisor Carball's question. So we are expecting a $2.1 million increase not from the tail claims but from anticipated new claims through CSAC?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:41:26 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolfey it is a combination of both A portion, as I said and I gave the reasons for what's kind of the phenomenon that there's a combination of factors at work here. There's probably underfunding the fund too much in the last couple years. There's the change in the interest rate. There's all these other factors but this 2.1 million you can say is a little bit of both so part of it is that the tail claims are underfunded and we need to catch up But part of that is it's true that we are not doing quite as well.

in the future year as we did in the last couple years. I don't think that, and that's why I said was it a good idea that we switch to this program? I still say the answer is yes just because our premium is going up a little bit. I don't think that's enough to say you know we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here. It is going up so we're seeing a slight trend there but the point was that it still were better off than if we were self-insured So it is true that a portion of this is our premium for next year, is projected to be a little bit higher than it is for this year. So there's both going on here.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:42:34 · ≈ 12:42 PM

All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:42:34 · ≈ 12:42 PM

right. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:42:37 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Supervisor Lava?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.683:42:38 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. So, Mr. Nisbett, so number one priority is basically to avoid future claims. Do we have or have we ever had like an incentive program in the county for incentivizing making sure folks don't miss workdays?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:43:01 · ≈ 12:43 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. You know I'm not aware of any like that. I think in the past, I do recall before I was director maybe a program where fraudulent claims there was more emphasis in that area. Not to say that there isn't emphasis in that area now but I do recall that. To your point of an incentive so back to the idea that we have of a wellness program and a wellness program can be so many things But I read one really interesting study of a program in Chicago where they implemented this wellness program and then it wasn't mandatory.

But they said if you don't participate in the wellness program, your insurance is $50 higher as an employee than other employees that do participate in the wellness program. So maybe that seemed really interesting to me. You know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:56 · ≈ 12:43 PM

maybe I can help out a little bit. Supervisor Lavinino before any of the rest of you were on the board there was a program whereby they came up with a bit of incentive which was back-to-work and it was designed so that That people would get back to work. Even if they didn't have the strength and ability or wellness to do their other job, they would give them another job, a less stressful job.

The rest, I voted for it. The rest of the, I think we decided not to do it and I can't remember why but it was pretty extensive program. It was when oh the person that now is running the CSAC education he worked for Mr. Bill Chiat was running that. He came up with that program but it just didn't seem to be popular but we did give it a bit of a lot of time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:44:52 · ≈ 12:44 PM

And Madam Chair, we still are. I think what you're recalling is whether the program would be a mandate or not and ultimately it's not a mandate. That's correct. So on a volunteer basis we have a person who still works one-on-one with departments and employees to get them back to work but that was the point you were remembering probably 10 years ago was whether it could be a mandated program

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:11 · ≈ 12:45 PM

or not? That's what it was. But there was a lot of studies that it worked but people weren't quite willing to go there. Any other questions or comments? If not, I think we need a motion to just accept I'm sorry, pardon me. And we have one public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:45:28 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Dr. Johns in Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:31 · ≈ 12:45 PM

It's too late Doreen. You've got to learn from all my mistakes. Never forget to call for closed session because Dennis just gets

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:45:41 · ≈ 12:45 PM

going.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:45 · ≈ 12:45 PM

In fact, I think I'm thriving on Dennis Glynn. Dr. Johns?

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction3:45:56 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Yes, board members. I am just thoroughly shocked by today's session. This is the last session and then we break for the holidays. When I can think about the holidays, I can only think about joy but when I think about today's session boy all I can see is nothing but racism and discrimination. I am just totally shocked But we'll work on this in 2012 and I'll be back, I promise you.

Now what do I see here? I see that the county in this program are saving money. They even cut down on their risk management staff and they're over at this building here where they've got this 20... And there's only two or three people in there and they're saving money Oh, isn't that wonderful? We can put our chest out. Let's put our thumbs up and our chests out and our suspenders and oh we're so proud of each other at the same time underneath all of this is racism and discrimination in these programs are designed to work against people Now let's just take it for an example. I've only got a minute and 38, 36, 35 seconds so that means the old professor here is going to have to produce very quickly. And let me produce it.

When you turn down a negotiation of 721, that was the most blunt, and Carver Hall I hope you don't sleep tonight on that one but I'm surprised at you Farr I should have had that other way around. But anyway, a minute and nine seconds. And I don't know whether I'm going to finish this up or not because I'm so devastated by what I saw today from the audit controller to the CEO. That's just racism and discrimination and your refusal to negotiate, to renegotiate with this 721. I got 45 seconds What if, what if there was a massive 721 psychological disturbance that they were so disturbed by this that they'd have to file composition claim?

Now they won't happen to that. But I suggest, and I got 23 seconds to go, that you review missed work days in 721 compared to the whole other county. And Carvajal, that was a miscarriage of justice when you quoted those. They have less missed work days and come to work more than any other department, and they make more money in this department. You oughta be ashamed of yourself, Carvajal.

3:49 – 4:0025 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49:03 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Thank you, Dr. Johns and is there someone else that would like to speak?

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction3:49:07 · ≈ 12:49 PM

No further questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49:09 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Is there a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you Mr. Nesmith. Very interesting. Workman's comp. All the abuse you could follow

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:49:43 · ≈ 12:49 PM

It's, it's okay. I'm going to throw some in here as we speak. No, no, that is good. I will.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:50:18 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Let's see. We are now on number seven, Mr. Allen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:50:24 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Madam Chair and members of the board, item 7 from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an appeal filed by the Quiama Valley Conservancy of the Planning Commission's June 8th 2011 approval of a revision to the Diamond Rock Sand and Gravel Mine and Processing Facility. This is in the Quiama Venticope area in the First District.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:50:44 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Thank you, Mr. Allen. Before we go there let's go to ex parte kinds of discussion. Supervisor Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:50:50 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. My ex parte is I met or interacted with in various capacities Steve and Renee Troche of the Diamond Rock organization, Cherise Troche-Sweeney of Diamond Rock, Sarah H. Bartling, GPS River Rock Products, And also, I don't have a name here but the son of the property owners of Diamond Rock Mines site. Also, I've met with Gene Zannon, Jennifer Lee and Nancy Ingalls involved with the Cuyama Valley Conservancy. So that's my expertise.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:29 · ≈ 12:51 PM

That wasn't Mr. Wiegas that was the owner?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:51:31 · ≈ 12:51 PM

You know, I don't have the name handy but my staff wrote son of property owner of Diamond Rock Mine. So we obviously don't have the name before us but that's who he was.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:41 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Mr. Lavanino, I think you've already done yours before? Have

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.683:51:46 · ≈ 12:51 PM

I?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:46 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Yeah. Do you want to do it again?

CommentSteven Renee TroeschProposedself-stated3:51:47 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Unless you met with somebody else? Steven Renee Troesch, Cherise Troesch Gene Zannon, Jennifer Lee And then I also toured the GPS site and also the Diamond Rock site. And I did meet with the owners of GPS, but I cannot remember the name of the couple.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:52:05 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Madam Chair, I also made a site visit that's when I met the trochias of the actual site in question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:52:13 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Ms. Barr? Madam Chair, I don't believe that I met with anybody. I think I've been copied on some emails that have gone back and forth, but that was all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:52:21 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Ms Wilk, anything?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:52:23 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Same as

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:52:23 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Supervisor Farr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:52:25 · ≈ 12:52 PM

And as far as I'm concerned, my basic position on appeals, I see them as judicial and I don't talk to anybody. Mr. Anthony?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed3:52:36 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. The Diamond Rock Mine and Processing Facility currently has an approved conditional use permit and reclamation plan that allows for a new sand and gravel mine and processing facility within and adjacent to the Cuyama River respectively. And as you can see its location on the slide here. The mine is located on Highway 33, approximately six miles south of its junction with Highway 166 in the Cuyama-Ventucopa area.

Diamond Rock will mine and process an average of 500,000 tons of sand and gravel each year for a period of 30 years under the CUP and reclamation plan. The project was approved by the Planning Commission in May of 2008 and on appeal by your board in September 2008. In approving the project, the county reduced the proposed mining area from 133 acres to 84 acres along with providing setbacks from both the westerly and easterly riverbanks.

Approximately 1,000 feet to the north of the Diamond Rock approved project but not yet built is the existing general production services mine or GPS. It also has a processing facility. Like diamond rock, it extracts sand and gravel from the Cuyahoga River Channel and processes the material on the adjoining river terrace. GPS does not have a production limit per se but the APCD permit essentially limits it to 500,000 tons as well per year.

The GPS mine which has been in operation since at least 1969 is vested and operates under an approved land use permit and approved reclamation plan. And here's a closer view of that. On June 8th of this year, the Planning Commission approved a revision to Diamond Rock's Conditional Use Permit. In an appeal, this decision is not before your board. The CUP revision adds an interim Phase 1 to the Diamond Rock project which we call Mining and Extraction Only.

In this option, raw material from the Diamond Rock mine would be hauled to the existing GPS processing facility using an existing farm road that currently connects the two sites. You can see that on the map. When this occurs should this permit approval by the Planning Commission be upheld, GPS would stop mining from its own mine pit. The Phase 1 extraction and hauling only plan would have far fewer and much reduced impacts on the environment compared to going forward with its normal permit, and GPS still continuing to mine under its older permit. And that's because we basically have one mining operation and one processing operation during this interim period of time.

Full build out of the Diamond Rock project could still occur at a later date, in which case the impacts would be the same as those analyzed in EIR for the project that was approved in 2008. Both the conversion of 14.2 acres of productive agricultural land and the associated visual impact of a new processing facility along Highway 33 would be delayed, however, until Phase 2 would go forward.

GPS would cease as I said earlier to extract raw materials from its property by it received and processed material extracted from the Diamond Rock mine area. All the conditions of approval from the Diamond Rock CUP would remain in effect during Phase 1, extraction and hauling only. The material from Diamond Rock that is processed at GPS could not be transported south on Highway 33 through Ojai among other things. During Phase 1 all Diamond Rock conditions that pertain to mining and hauling would apply but not the conditions that pertain to the new processing facility because that would not have been built yet.

The reasons for the appeal are listed and discussed in the staff report that was prepared for today's hearing. In general, The appeal claims that the CEP revision would adversely affect water supply, water quality and cause erosion. The appeal claims that the addendum prepared by staff and accepted by Planning Commission was not adequate and that the county permit is inconsistent with the state and federal permits that were issued for this project as well in that there would be problems with compliance and enforcement.

However, as explained in the staff report, staff believes that the CEP revision will not have the adverse effects on groundwater resources or on water quantity or erosion. The EIR addendum is adequate and appropriate. The CEP revision is not inconsistent with state and federal permits and the county would be able to enforce compliance with this case as it would be any other case under the 2008 conditional use permit.

Again, to emphasize there will not be simultaneous production from the two mines. Under the proposed Phase 1, it would be a significant reduction in both the area mined and the amount mined than what would occur if both mines were mining and processing at the same time. This means that there will also be a corresponding decrease in the amount, or I've already said that and there would be significant reduction in water use traffic noise and air pollution compared to the simultaneous mining and processing that would have been approved.

In summary, the proposed CEP revision would allow for an interim joint venture between the two mining operations until such time second processing facility is built. I would like to point out that we have received some communications on this project that we believe is beyond the scope of this appeal because it talks about siltation that would be caused from the mining. What I would like to point out is that we have submitted for your board and just for the record a response to that report by our EIR consultant, which is URS. And Mr. Larson from URS is here today if you have any questions.

Lastly, I would like to correct a typo in the staff report so that the record is very clear on page four. The very last sentence It reads, the letter from Dr. Currie did not contain substantial new information and should read, did not warrant further environmental review. And with that my presentation is concluded and we're available if you have any questions. Are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:59:39 · ≈ 12:59 PM

there questions for Mr. Anthony?

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction3:59:41 · ≈ 12:59 PM

If not I do. Actually, I'm sorry. So Mr. Anthony, you said that GPS has a permit for 500,000 tons but now with this combination of the two there will be 750,000 tons being processed at GPS? I think that was one of your slides.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:00:05 · ≈ 1:00 PM

No my understanding is that Once they start receiving material from the diamond rock mine, the newly approved or recently approved diamond rock mine, they would cease any mining from their own property altogether. So we're still speaking of a total of 500,000 tons per year.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:00:23 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Can you go back then to a couple of... There's a few slides that right there I think that was at the very top one will produce additional 500,00 tons per year and it says in parentheses 750 tons maximum

4:00 – 4:0530 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:00:41 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. That's the existing approved conditional use permit for Diamond Rock which allows 500,000 tons per year on average and in peak production years 750,000 tons per year from that one project. And that of course would be added to the vested and grandfathered GPS mine.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:01:04 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Would be added?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:01:05 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Right. That's the project that has already been approved by your board three years ago.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:01:09 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Okay, but just so I'm clear though that the new project, the new phase one would only be at a maximum of 500,000 because GPS is no longer processing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:01:20 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Because the APCD permit essentially limits the GPS processing operation to 500,000 max.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:01:29 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Supervisor Farr? Thank you Madam Chair. Staff I'm trying to understand the timeline here. So Diamond Rock has an approved CUP that's good for 30 years is that correct? And then this revision adds just a phase one so how long is phase one and I'm assuming it's Part of the 30 years, not in addition to the 30 years.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:01:59 · ≈ 1:01 PM

They could, Madam Chair and Supervisor Clark, they could operate for the entire 30 years under Phase 1 and never go to Phase 2 or they could stop in a year. There's no timing restrictions on how long they can operate just under Phase 1.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:02:17 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Okay. So then that means if they wanted to have Phase 1 be their whole 30 years, that in effect GPS would be shut out from also then operating and mining at the same time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:02:31 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Processing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:02:32 · ≈ 1:02 PM

both.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:02:32 · ≈ 1:02 PM

And I should note for the record that GPS does have an application into the county that's being processed to open another area for mining as well but that's still in process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:02:44 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Well it seems like that complicates this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:02:55 · ≈ 1:02 PM

GPS is proposing to shift their mine pit directly west of where they've historically been mining in the same immediate area.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:03:05 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Madam Chair, staff so then apparently the Army Corps has given them a five-year permit back to Diamond Rock

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:03:18 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. Yes the federal permits that have been issued for Diamond Rock are only good for five years they also reduce the area that's allowed for mining the idea being that they can update those permits every five years and expand them or shift them within a larger area that's been permitted by the county and that's why it's appropriate for the county conditional use permit to cover a larger area than the federal permits so they have some flexibility within that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:03:45 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Okay, and when does the Army Corps five-year permit start? Does it start if this permit is okayed they run at the same time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:03:57 · ≈ 1:03 PM

That's a good question. The federal permits have already been issued. So are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:01 · ≈ 1:04 PM

they running now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:03 · ≈ 1:04 PM

I'm not sure how the federal agencies interpret that, whether the time starts when all of the other permits fall into place or whether the clock is ticking. I'm really not sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:13 · ≈ 1:04 PM

When did they issue those permits? How long ago?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:17 · ≈ 1:04 PM

It was in 2011. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:19 · ≈ 1:04 PM

so it was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:20 · ≈ 1:04 PM

this year? Sometime in the late summer I believe.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:22 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Okay and then the Regional Water Quality Control Board also had to issue a permit and how long was that one good for?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:28 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Five years

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:29 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Okay, and when does that one start?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:31 · ≈ 1:04 PM

I'm not sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:04:33 · ≈ 1:04 PM

It's been issued though. And then my last question has to do with on page 5 of the staff report now going to GPS that there was a notice of violation from the EPA. What is the status of that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:04:54 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. I know that the applicant would like some time with that question too but I did talk to the federal EPA officer in San Francisco and they are still working their way out of non-compliance. And I think the final step is a compensatory mitigation plan that involves the donation of offsite property for permanent preservation and it's some to some extent out of the control of GPS As far as the finalization of those land transfers, but they are in good faith cooperating with EPA and there's been no prohibition on the federal permits that have been issued for the project. So it is being allowed to proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:05:40 · ≈ 1:05 PM

Okay so the EPA hasn't shut down GPS then?

4:05 – 4:1022 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:05:47 · ≈ 1:05 PM

I believe in the past they have. I'm not sure what the current status is again that might be a question for the applicant

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:05:52 · ≈ 1:05 PM

Okay, because if they're shut down now then they wouldn't be able to take any new production. All right well I think we have a very complicated timeline here thank you madam chair that's all for I have for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:06:02 · ≈ 1:06 PM

now. Madam Chair?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:06:04 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:06:04 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Carbajal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:06:05 · ≈ 1:06 PM

I would like some clarification on the matter before us. It is my understanding that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit supersedes county permits so they say no it makes us move correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:06:22 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal, correct. I mean if

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:06:25 · ≈ 1:06 PM

they don't have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:06:25 · ≈ 1:06 PM

that federal permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:06:26 · ≈ 1:06 PM

I understand that's what I just wanted to make that point. As I understand this revision it's not the entire project CUP project that was approved in the past that's before us. It's a revision that does two things and I want to make sure I understand it. It redirects From proceeding forward the processing facility to utilizing the mining tonnage material to GPS, one.

Two, it reduces impacts not only through that action but by not allowing the permitted tonnage of diamond rock and GPS to simultaneously proceed which would be a lot more. This reduces it to one The allotment by Diamond Rock, which based on the agreement and permit conditions that are before us shuts out GPS currently from proceeding with excavation as well.

Correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:07:34 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal you are correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:07:37 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Okay that's I just want to make sure I understood what we're talking about here. I guess just for the record I voted against the original CUP project based on a lot of the impacts that were before us at that point. That's not the project that's before us. The project before us is to minimize those impacts from the initial project that was approved. And that's kind of how I see it, but I wanted to make sure that I understood it correctly.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:08:12 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carvajal you're correct may I add also that in 2008 during the approval process at Diamond Rock the routes for which the product would be hauled was a controversy going through Ojai There is a condition placed on the Diamond Route Project that it could not be hauled through Ojai anymore. And by virtue of this revision now, that would stop GPS who has no restriction on which routes they haul on so therefore then no mine trucks will be hauled through Ojai.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:08:51 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Again, this is an enhancement to that impact of the project before us. I just wanted to understand that because I also have a responsibility to working with our neighboring county and the issue. That was a big issue in the past and would continue to be a big issue unless it was part of the conditions that we're considering today which I believe it is. And I'm looking forward to hearing from the applicant. I believe that's condition 65.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:09:19 · ≈ 1:09 PM

I believe it's 64 and I can verify that. 64? 34,

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:09:24 · ≈ 1:09 PM

34. Madame Chair if I could while they're checking on this condition 65 on page 8 It says that it requires the applicant to submit a draft contract between Diamond Rock and GPS That shows compliance Do we have that contract?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:09:48 · ≈ 1:09 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, we do not have that contract yet. But we would get it before issuing the permit.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:09:58 · ≈ 1:09 PM

But that's... Why do you say? I mean is there an agreement to that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:10:06 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Yes.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:10:07 · ≈ 1:10 PM

And why don't we have it for today's hearing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:10:15 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Typically, Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, the department typically does these things as a requirement that these are compliance requirements that are done between approval and issuance of the permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:10:31 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Okay. Madam Chair thank you. Staff along that same line this says that disagreement would have to be produced prior to zoning clearance but someplace else it says I think prior to land use permit

4:10 – 4:2819 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:10:47 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Clark, thank you for catching that. If you recall not too long ago your board took an action so that zoning clearances rather than land use permits would be the vehicle that we would use for permits other than development plans and conditional use permits. So we are now in the land of zoning clearance and so for the record it should be known that a zoning clearance rather than a land use permit is The vehicle we would use for issuing the permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:11:19 · ≈ 1:11 PM

But that's not what the condition says that the Planning Commission approved. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:11:25 · ≈ 1:11 PM

And I believe when the Planning Commission approved, I'm not sure my memory is correct, your board may have not taken action on the amendment to the Land Use and Development Code yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:11:36 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Okay. Well, and then I guess my other comment is to in light of Supervisor Carbonell's comments which I appreciate but the fact that we don't have a defined time for this phase one where we're doing kind of a combination means that even though the proposed CEP revision would defer all of those things It could only be deferred for a year or two out of 30 because there's no, there's nothing defined on how long phase one lasts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:12:07 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:12:09 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Okay and do they have to do phase one at all? Or is it just an option?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:12:19 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr it's an option. I mean if the economy turned around and they wanted to go ahead and start building they could they're already vested to be able to go forward with that permit that was approved in 2008

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:12:32 · ≈ 1:12 PM

So all of this possible minimization of impacts is kind of speculative at this point in time depending on what the applicant decides they want to do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:12:41 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Farr. That's correct though I think the applicant will probably give you a little bit more insight on to the economics of the project however it should be noted simply that the action today would not add any new impacts to the project it would have only the effect of reducing impacts if it were implemented

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:13:02 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Thank you. Madam Chair, one more question if I could? We were, Supervisor Farr was talking about the Regional Quality Control Board permit and I think you said that it was there they were issued a permit but in our folder I have a March 28th letter 2011 that's a technically conditioned certification is that what you're referring to or do we have an actual permit in hand?

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction4:13:32 · ≈ 1:13 PM

That's what I'm referring

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:13:36 · ≈ 1:13 PM

to. Madam Chair, yes that's the document I'm referring to is their intention to issue the permit.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:13:46 · ≈ 1:13 PM

So they don't have a permit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:13:54 · ≈ 1:13 PM

As far as I know, they have what you and I are looking at. I think we should ask the applicant for clarification on the status of that because I haven't been involved in those negotiations.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:14:02 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Okay, because it looks like from this letter that they're asking the applicant to submit reports required by this certification and the failure to submit, they won't issue a permit so we need to clarify that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:14:22 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor, we should clarify that. You know the conditional use permit issued by the county requires certain monitoring and reporting over the next 30 years and this might be one of those things that they're referring to the requirement within the permit to submit reports so that the agency can conduct their monitoring. I think that's probably what's going on but the applicant will clarify.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:14:46 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:14:52 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Now we're going to go to the applicant appellant, and that will be 15 minutes followed by public comment. And then we'll go to rebuttal. Steve and Cherise Troche 10 minutes, staff comment 5, Board of Supervisors deliberation 8 minutes. So at this point in time to Gene Zannon and Jennifer Lee. And they have 15 minutes.

PresenterJennifer LeeQuiama Valley ConservancyProposedself-stated4:15:23 · ≈ 1:15 PM

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Jennifer Lee, and I am speaking on behalf of Quiama Valley Conservancy, and I thank you for this opportunity to speak. Today you will be voting to approve the time extension and modifications to the Diamond Rock Conditional Use Permit to allow a joint venture between GPS and Diamond Rock Mines. When you consider changes to the Diamond Rock Mine Conditional Use Permit to allow GPS to process aggregate from the Diamond Rock Pit, please consider modifying the permit to implement additional monitoring requirements and reflect the Army Corps restrictions to protect the local watershed.

We are asking that the county protect local residents, protect the local watershed, protect the Santa Maria watershed. Set up adequate monitoring requirements for both mines and enforce all of the applicable laws. One of the primary responsibilities of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors is to protect their community, Cuyama Valley and its environment and natural resources.

The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors mandate also requires them to protect among other things water resources that supply the area surrounding the mine pits. The permit accepted by the Commission on June 8, 2011 can irreparably jeopardize water quality and supply to the Venticopa and Cuyama Valley areas by compromising the water table. River channel stability imbalance is already clearly evidenced by the GPS mine pit as a result of historic mining and failure of Koyama River to replenish aggregate that GPS extracted without a permit in 2007 and 2008.

In short, the scope and duration of the excavation activities the Planning Commission would permit will destroy or seriously compromise the natural water supply to the area for decades to come. The Planning Commission has violated the supremacy caused by recommending granting permission of activities specifically prohibited by the Army Corps of Engineers, an agency of the federal government.

By a split three to two vote, the Santa Barbara Planning Commission permitted a scope of activity that the federal government has already after substantial studies found to be unsafe. There is a direct conflict between what the county as a sub-agency of the state government is willing to allow and what the federal government has already forbidden. in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

Section 404 permits issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, after considering the documentation the applicants submitted to them, impose much stricter limits upon the applicant's activities than those the Planning Commission proposes. The Army Corps' order constitutes a new regulatory landscape within which Diamond Rock and GPS will be unable to implement the mining projects that the Planning Commission proposes to permit.

It is important to remember that the Army Corps is not only a federal regulatory body, it is just what its name implies. An engineering body with special competence in these matters at the Planning Commission lacks. We suggest it would be highly irresponsible for this board to permit activities with a scope and length of time that conflict directly with the rulings and determination of the Army Corps and the EPA.

Cuyama Valley Conservancy has provided copies of the Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Assessment for both Diamond Rock and GPS Mines for your information. The following are differences between what you, the county have approved and what the Army Corps found to be consistent with safety to the water supply in the environment. Extraction rate. The commission would allow an average extraction rate of 500,000 tons per year.

For maximum, the Army Corps of Engineers would permit is an average of 200,000 tons per year or a total of 1 million tons in a five-year period. Maximum mine pit depth. This issue impacts directly upon the danger of compromising the underground water supply in the area. The Commission would allow a maximum pit depth of 90 feet, the Army Corps would only allow half the pit depth or 45 feet.

The project footprint this is also a water critical issue. The Planning Commission would permit A footprint of 84 acres, the Army Corps would permit a maximum of one-sixth of that area or 14 acres. Permit duration. The Planning Commission would allow the permit to extend for 30 years. The Army Corps would permit a maximum of five years with renewal to be reviewed by the Corps before approval.

Monitoring plan. The County Planning Commission's approval requires no monitoring program. The Army Corps of Engineers requires an independent surveyor to inspect the site semiannually in April and October of each year New information has become available since the Board of Supervisors approved the Diamond Rock Mine EIR, which includes the United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit and the Corps' environmental analysis, which in order to mitigate the project's potential for causing hydraulic and biological and water quality damage significantly reduced the size and depth of mining pits and limited the overall permit duration and maximum yield.

Diamond Rock and the county should reconsider its own analysis and conclusions in light of this new information. The limitations imposed by the Army Corps permit also constitute changed circumstance which compel further analysis and reconsideration by the county. The section 404 permit constitutes a new regulatory landscape within which Diamond Rock will be unable to implement the mining project as permitted by the county.

New information compelling a supplemental or subsequent EIR also includes new evidence of erosion that has resulted from the historical operation of GPS. As explained in Dr. Curry's June 6, 2011 report and his study, Cuyamavit Valley The Kiyama River Aggregate Mining Impact, dated November 1st, 2011. Photographs of the area in the vicinity of the mine show that ongoing mining operations are causing significant erosion that the Diamond Rock EIR concluded would not occur.

Dr. Curry's report explains These photographs show hydraulic river channel erosion far in excess of rates predicted by the Diamond Rock EIR. The county did not meaningfully consider any evidence of erosion on the Kurama River in the course of its environmental review of the Diamond Rock Mine Project or the cumulative effects of the two mines operating side-by-side.

In January 2007, the county allowed GPS Mine to excavate a new pit without the required permits. GPS Mined 15 acres at a depth of 50 feet and exposed groundwater which is against the law. The EPA advised them not to mine in river and they were fined. Now GPS and Diamond Rock Mines will be operating together in a joint venture agreement where GPS will be processing diamond rock material. We are concerned that the county will not enforce the applicable laws and the watershed will be damaged.

The board should keep in mind that it is dealing with the mine operator GPS who has a history of illegal activities and violations of law in the past, and they need to be monitored more closely than an operator who does not have the same history. The permit that you are being asked to approve provides for totally inadequate supervision of an operated GPS mine already found by several agencies to be undependable, to have excavated without appropriate permits, Without due regard for environmental concerns and to have operated in a way that endangered the environment, and in particular the water supply and water table.

The Army Corps Environmental Assessment prepared for GPS substantially limits their activity in a manner similar to limitations in scope imposed upon Diamond Rock Mine. In 2004 and 2005, GPS was cited by the EPA for discharge of dredge or film material that resulted in alteration of approximately 22 acres of watershed under the jurisdiction of the United States.

In 2008, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency determined GPS had encountered groundwater in 2007 and 2008 in the Unpermitted Pit where they began excavation in 2007. County planning and development staff allowed the Unpermitted Excavation and expansion to take place. County planning and development has not protected the water resources in the vicinity of our mines in the past. The pit still has water in it, which is held in place by a clay barrier. The clay barrier is preventing water from percolating downward to recharge groundwater.

It is of utmost importance that the operations of both mines be strictly monitored. The project you are asked to approve jeopardizes Kurama Valley's single source water supply in a way that cannot be remedied. Okay. Contrary to claims accepted by the Planning Commission, the water in the mine excavation pit is in part underflow of the river not just rainwater. Historic ground water levels on the mine site observation domestic well number one as measured by Santa Barbara County Floods Control Water Conservation District and Water Agency vary from a depth of 111 feet below ground surface in 1975 to 12 feet below ground surface in 1990. Water level in 1995 was 34 feet below ground surface.

Agricultural water recharge from the Cuyama Underflow is critical to Upper Cuyama Valley. This water recharge from the Cuyama River and part of the waters of the United States. Exposure of these flowing waters degrades water quality through evaporative concentration and reduces adjacent downstream recharge. The main purpose of the proposed modifications to the Diamond Rock CUPS ostensibly is to save the cost of constructing a new processing facility at the Diamond Rock site by taking advantage of the existing processing facility at the GPS mine site. The county claims this change will not result in any environmental impacts, but there is no evidence to show that counties actually consider the potential environmental impacts of aggregate processing at this new site.

CAFO revealed the staff report for the proposed revisions to the Diamond Rock CUP reveals that staff has simply copied its description of the aggregate processing at the proposed Diamond Rock site word-for-word and figure-for-figure. This evidence proves beyond any doubt that the county has not even considered Whether moving aggregate processing from the Diamond Rock mine site to GPS will result in any different or more intense environmental impacts. Also, the county's conclusion that the operation of the Diamond Rock Mine would not result in a significant impact on groundwater resources was based on the specific details of the proposed Diamond Rock processing facility and the county's conclusion that 74% of the ground water would be recycled and reused.

The county has proposed an addendum to the California Environmental Quality Act and modifications to the Diamond Rock CUP and operating agreement between Diamond Rock Mine in the county, but failed to consider any changes requested by local property owners and residents. We would like the county to assume responsibility for monitoring the diamond rock and GPS mining projects so that they will not adversely affect the local watershed as the unpermitted GPS pit already has.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, morphological changes to the river are considered to be significant. The county has modified the standard that is generally provided in CEQA and determined that morphological changes to the Cuyama River bottom are only significant if their changes affect man-made structures. GPS Mine which will be operating at Diamond Rock Pit has already had three infractions with EPA which the county did not enforce because man made structures were not at risk.

GPS made significant changes to the river bottom when it dug the 15-acre unpermitted pit. We called County Planning and Development to report the GPS activity, and were told that because no manmade structures were damaged, the county would continue to allow GPS to mine. The EPA found GPS and prohibited them from operating in the Cuyama River until they had all the required permits.

You have been provided copies of page 3.1-18 of the Diamond Rock Mine Final EIR, which reflects the modification of the CEQA standard in the fifth paragraph from the top and the May 13th 2008 letter from Gary Kaiser to Sarah Bartling which indicates how the modified CEQAs standard was used to allow GPS mine to expand out of its originally permitted 80 acres and mine in the Carambola River without the required permits or a completed environmental impact report.

GPS Mine does not have a good track record. Their EIR has not been completed or approved and they have had three violations with resulting penalties inclined assessed by the Federal EPA. Please pay attention to the overall situation and do not make decisions concerning cumulative effects of multiple aggregate mines in close proximity to each other within the Cuyama River in a piecemeal manner. The proposed joint venture between Diamond Rock and GPS Mines constitutes piecemealing and is in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

4:28 – 4:3932 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:28:30 · ≈ 1:28 PM

You have two minutes left.

PresenterJennifer LeeQuiama Valley ConservancyProposedself-stated4:28:33 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Finally, we have entered into the facilitation process with Diamond Rock Mine but have yet to agree upon all the facilitation points in a formal agreement. We are not in a position to give up either the administrative appeal with the Board of Supervisors or the pending legal action with the Court of Appeal for the 2nd Appellate District until we have reviewed a copy of the joint venture agreement between Diamond Rock Mine and GPS Mine and have had our attorneys and experts review the joint venture agreement and the settlement agreement.

We have submitted to you the report of hydrology and geology expert Dr. Kerr, which states that in-stream aggregate mining in the Cuyama River will compromise recharge of the water table in the Cuyama Valley and Santa Maria region, and future generations will have to pay the price. Agricultural water use in Santa Maria and lower Cuyama Valley groundwater recharge will be adversely affected by instream mining activities in the Cuyama River, as will water storage capacity of the Churchill Reservoir. We are depending on you as members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to do the right thing and protect Cuyoma Valley's resources for the future generations to come.

Thank you for the time you have spent on these matters and for giving me the opportunity to participate in the planning process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:29:46 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Thank you for your testimony. We will now go to public comment, Mr. Allen. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:29:52 · ≈ 1:29 PM

have one request to speak from Santa Barbara, Dr. Robert Johns.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:29:57 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Dr. Johns?

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:30:02 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Madam Chair, I think it's customary for you first to go to the applicant and then to public comment. Oh, I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:07 · ≈ 1:30 PM

sorry. Dr. Johns checked that. I've got to go to the applicant. I skipped right over that. It says staff presentation applicant Jean Zanon and Jennifer Lee. That was 15 minutes. Then it says public comment.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:30:24 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Madam Chair, I apologize.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:26 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Dr. Johns, I was right. Come on back down. No, no, no. No I'm not right. We gave you the wrong script. Oh! They gave me the wrong... Dr. Johns, I was wrong. Go sit back down again. No. I

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:30:35 · ≈ 1:30 PM

was wrong so we apologize. Okay. We led you astray.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:39 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Thank you all for being so patient with... Do you have the same script that I have? I do. Oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:30:46 · ≈ 1:30 PM

good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:46 · ≈ 1:30 PM

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:30:47 · ≈ 1:30 PM

it's just as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:49 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Alright who is up then? Ms. Black you want to tell us who it is and how much time they have?

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:30:56 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Madam Chair, I believe the applicant Steve Trosh will speak and I would give the applicants team 15 minutes as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:31:06 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Okay, 15 minutes Mr. Allen

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:31:13 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Welcome. Thank you, good afternoon Madam Chair, Supervisors and as much as I would love for my father to be up here speaking it will be me. I'm Cherie Sweeney and I've been involved in this project since we submitted back in 2003 the original conditional use permit. And I'll keep this short because I know we've been before you a few times but I think The Planning Department did a great job of presenting what the overall project is with our revision or modification to phasing the startup of this project.

We heard a lot today about what this economy and the impact has had on the county, state and also in the private sector it's affected us considerably. When we started this project in 2003 things have changed significantly We've been through two draft EIRs, two planning commission hearings, two appeals. One in which we settled successfully with the city of Ojai.

We also went through a process of two years with our lawsuit that we had from the Cuyama Valley Conservancy, which the EIR did prevail in court and I know you're aware of where we are with that. Here we are in 2011, and the economy has changed significantly. And we've had to change our business plan and change our course of action. And one way that we have had to get creative in starting up and opening this project now that we have our judgment on the lawsuit, we've got our federal and state permits in place to answer your question, Supervisor Wolf, regarding the certification. That's what they call their permit It is a regional water quality certification with the number, and

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:33:11 · ≈ 1:33 PM

it's... If you could stop the clock. I just want to acknowledge my error in that. Okay. I realized that as I was reading it more carefully and I talked to staff that I had erred on that assumption so thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:33:29 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Okay. And that's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:33:30 · ≈ 1:33 PM

highly unusual. So, you know, mark it down. She's pretty sharp. I

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:33:36 · ≈ 1:33 PM

know. Again, I want to stress that this project and again the county did a good job in outlining the mitigation of impacts to this project by phasing it. There will be no noise from right now what is permitted And what GPS is in the process of trying to get permitted, they're moving their mine over because the area that they were previously mining in has been mined out for over 60 years. So the quality of material is no longer good for construction grade aggregates which is what we're mining since it's virgin area.

What's currently permitted is our project with the mining and the processing as well as GPS once their project to move their mining facility if it is approved would be to mine and process simultaneously. What this phase start up because we understand this has been a very controversial project, we've been very sensitive to the residents of the Cuyama Valley, we've had numerous meetings with them and have wanted And strive to be good owners and operators in the area.

We've gone above and beyond what's conditioned on us to, to be able to start this project up. And one being condition 65 which GPS has also agreed to. Which basically imposes on their operation all of our conditions. And they will agree to that and there will be an agreement drafted and submitted to planning and development before we are permitted to operate.

I have with us today Sarah Bartling with GPS, she's our project coordinator. She is here to answer any of the technical questions or questions that you may have regarding some issues that the appellant has raised. I'm going to let her speak to those if there are any questions in regards to their operations and history in the past. I have to for the record say this when GPS Or prior to the original ownership, their permit was a two-page document that basically had a map of the area with an outline of where they were permitted to operate. And like most of the state of California are regulated agencies things have evolved significantly and so for operators such as us as mining operators the regulations in which we have operate by are extreme and in some cases contradict each other by various agencies.

And we get caught in the middle of that sometimes, and GPS has been in the place of being caught in the middle of agencies having contradicting opinions on how to operate and what the requirements are. But they have, they are very committed Operating responsibly, we've put too much into this project and we are a 25 year family owned and operated business in this area. We're not going to operate irresponsibly or joint venture with anyone. That has any less integrity than we would operate by. So just for the record, I did want to say that and I'm asking you to please support the Planning Commission's decision to approve our modification and revision to our project description and we'd like to move forward. And I'm here for any questions.

Thank you.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:37:39 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Actually, Madam Chair before she leaves. Could you respond to the questions that I asked staff as far as the timing of the other permits like for the Army Corps? Has that started to run yet or if so what's the trigger point for that five years?

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:37:56 · ≈ 1:37 PM

My understanding is that they do. They are currently, we obtained those in March of this year and they are running. There are conditions that we need to meet for approval. We've received our sign off from all of those agencies having met those conditions and are already in the process of monitoring because it's a seasonal operation and seasonal monitoring.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:38:20 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Okay thank you.

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:38:23 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Other questions? I'm sorry, to answer your question on the timing for the phasing. This is something that we were not sure how long the phased project would last. It could last for the duration of the 30-year permit and it could last a couple years. We just don't know in this economy and with our resources where how long this could affect us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:38:51 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Well, thank you for that. I appreciate your responses but if GPS is in process with an application to mine a new area assuming they would be successful in that then that would impact your joint operation and you would have to then go to phase two? Is that correct?

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:39:09 · ≈ 1:39 PM

We would have to go to phase 2 and we would have to implement our processing area

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:39:14 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Okay,

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:39:15 · ≈ 1:39 PM

to process our own mined material.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:39:16 · ≈ 1:39 PM

All right and so staff as you analyze the new application from GPS you're looking at this total picture right? Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:39:27 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Other questions? Do we go to public now? I think she's there to answer questions so if you folks have any questions she'll answer them

4:39 – 4:5551 turns

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:39:51 · ≈ 1:39 PM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:39:53 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Ready for public comment? Dr. Johns, you're up.

CommentSonny RussellProposed · by introduction4:40:10 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Yes, my concern here is this is an operation that has jobs for people especially people in the Quiama Valley And we know, Carvel Hall, that you are extremely interested in people getting jobs, jobs, jobs. So I know you're going to support this project in every way as you possibly can because that means jobs for people in the Cuyama Valley. But I do have another concern and this planning commission, they were fumbling the ball all the way. The applicant has all the answers, the planning commission absolutely knows nothing and if we didn't have the applicant here We'd have to take this back and wait two, three weeks or next year anyway to find out what's going on. So supervisors you need to kind of check in with your planning commission I'll try to be as nice as I can because they're fumbling the ball all the way.

I couldn't get, I was trying to get the essence of what's going on here and I couldn't find anything out until we got To the applicant, so anyway I'm looking for jobs to come out of this. Jobs for the Quiama Valley and Carbo Hall you need to sharpen up that planning commission. You see because any delay in this project people need to go to work next year. Thank you supervisors.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:41:46 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Thank you Dr. Johns. That is public comment back to Jennifer Lee Five minutes. You don't have to speak if you don't want to.

PresenterJennifer LeeQuiama Valley ConservancyProposedself-stated4:42:03 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Hello, thank you. I don't really know how many jobs the mining projects will provide to the residents of Cuyama Valley. It's not really clear to me. I'm not sure. I know that GPS has in their processing facility hires some local people, but I don't know how many. And if Diamond Rock, if the Phase 1 project is approved, I don't think there are going to be any new jobs for people in Cuyama Valley.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:42:37 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Thank you. Ms. Tosch?

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:42:51 · ≈ 1:42 PM

We really don't have anything to rebut other than to answer the point made about jobs and local jobs. We did have an economic impact report that was conducted with the EIR, Due to the economics of that area, the impact of what our project does bring to the community is quite significant in both jobs and also ancillary revenue from truckers haulers that are coming into the area.

And so on and so forth tax revenues. So we it certainly It's not a time to stop operations like this. So it is, it is a positive. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:43:35 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Actually Madam Chair before you leave the podium I just wanted to get clarification on one more thing thank you so much. So you had alluded to it before condition 65 as far as coming to an agreement and having that done for staff in time. So you are specifically consenting to all of the conditions Before us, including Condition 65. Yes, absolutely.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:43:57 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Thank you. Thank you Supervisor Farr. Supervisor Carbajal it looks like we now go to staff for their comments.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:44:05 · ≈ 1:44 PM

Ms. Black? Madam Chair, I just wanted to address two points. First of all in Ms. Lee's testimony she indicated that you're considering both the time extension and a revision to the Conditional Use Permit. I just wanted to make it very clear to the Board that it's just the Conditional Use Permit revision. That's before you. The time extension was acted upon by the Planning Commission and was not appealed to your board.

The second point I couldn't help but react to was monitoring and her statement that the county doesn't actually monitor permit conditions. If you look at the conditions that are before you today, in each and every condition there's a section that includes plan requirements and timing and monitoring, a monitoring component. We do have an active zoning permit compliance program for monitoring and we do monitor mines very carefully under the oversight of the State Division of Mines and Geology.

So I just wanted to make that

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:45:07 · ≈ 1:45 PM

point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:45:07 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Any more questions from

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:45:07 · ≈ 1:45 PM

the SLEC?

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:45:09 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Quick question, I originally voted against this project when it first came to us at that time could you please help me recall both GPS was in operation and they were doing their full mining at that time

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:45:27 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, yes the GPS had an entitlement to mine up to 500. So

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:45:34 · ≈ 1:45 PM

I guess what I'm concerned about, I'm feeling okay with this denying the appeal but what I'm concerned about is GPS coming back online So what is, how can I be reassured that either it will, I don't know if it will come back to the board. I know Supervisor Farr brought this up about staff reviewing it but how? If it can, if it will just happen under the radar, I'd like to know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:46:08 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, if I understand your question correctly should GPS want to start up its current pit mining operations then it would no longer be able to process that from Diamond Rock. And that essentially therefore since it has no place to take in the process. But then Diamond Rock

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:46:28 · ≈ 1:46 PM

would open theirs?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:46:29 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Diamond Rock will be required to move forward and build a processing facility

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:46:34 · ≈ 1:46 PM

And so what I want to know is, is there any way that we will be informed of that? Or could that just happen after staff review.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:46:43 · ≈ 1:46 PM

We'd be happy to inform the board if and when that happens. And we'll keep in mind as well, we are in the discretionary permit process for a GPS to move to another pit. To give you some sense they've run out of material in that original pit and that's what they're looking for is a new pit so that they have material to be able to make their own enterprise profitable.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:47:09 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Well, and I think you know, I think I know one of the issues that I had was the was the river in the water. The issue with water and so I don't know if my other colleagues have an issue with that. If they do, I would say maybe we could condition this denial on ensuring that it comes back to the board if and when GPS wants to wants to commence their new project because that changes what we're approving right now.

It doesn't change it, but it will have an impact on it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:47:53 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Supervisor Carbajal? I'll let her

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:47:55 · ≈ 1:47 PM

answer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:47:55 · ≈ 1:47 PM

and then move on.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:47:56 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, on a revision to the GPS mine, the Planning Commission would be the review authority. So a matter like this would only come to your board on appeal.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:48:10 · ≈ 1:48 PM

Okay but that's good to know so we'll go to the Planning Commission. All right thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:48:15 · ≈ 1:48 PM

Supervisor?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:48:16 · ≈ 1:48 PM

Thank You madam chair this is in my district now And I will say that the first time this project and well not this project, the previous CU Project CUP came before this board. It was of a different composition. I voted against it at that time. I believe there were significant additional impacts that would be brought forward. That is not what's before us today and I still stand behind that vote What's before us today is a revision to that approved project that lessens the impacts and provides another vehicle by which less impacts will result.

This phase one, whether it has 20 years, 10 years, five years, it's giving us an avenue for less impact period. And for me, that's in keeping with the values and the decision making that I considered when this project came before us last time. What's before us is not a time extension. The administrative remedy to that was not adhered to. It's an appeal of the revision that reduces those impacts And for me, that is so important. That it move in that direction and provide a vehicle by which we can reduce those impacts.

Certainly is still reserves the right and the opportunity for the applicant to go back to what they already have approval for. To build a facility major impacts to allow GPS to continue with their mining major impacts. What this does is reduce the mining in reduces the building of another facility, and it does that. And so for me it's very clear. I will say before I make my motion that I'm very disappointed that the parties were not able to come together to a global settlement that would have given, I think everybody, a win-win. I'm extremely disappointed. I just can't say that enough Having said that, for me the facts are clear and I believe in being fair.

And what is before us is very simple and very straightforward. Less impacts, less impacts, less impacts. So with that, I only have one minor condition that I need to add. I appreciate that the applicant said yes voluntarily to Condition 65, which is paramount at least for me to be able to move forward as I am going to propose. I would appreciate if for Condition 1 we could add an additional bullet actually no the first bullet that deals with mining Primary crushing, we make that from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.. So that is it's It coincides with the existing transport to GPS from 6 a m to 6 at p. M All we're doing is modifying the 5 a. m. To 6 a 1 hour to make it consistent Are you following me? I have some Rachel, I don't know if you could help me here.

Right now what it says is mining and primary crushing Monday through Saturday 5am to 6pm. I am saying modify the 5am to 6am and that will make it consistent with the transport to GPS Monday through Friday 6am to6pm. It's just modifying things by one hour. I want to make sure the applicant understands that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed4:52:17 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carpell. I think I understand what you're requesting and I think you're asking for two changes and the first is to just change the start time for mining and primary crushing from 5 a.m. to 6 a. m.. And then also to add a time frame for transporting to GPS.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:52:38 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Yes, absolutely.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed4:52:39 · ≈ 1:52 PM

You want that to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:52:41 · ≈ 1:52 PM

be pretty consistent

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed4:52:43 · ≈ 1:52 PM

with mining and primary equipment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:52:46 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Transport to GPS Monday through Friday 6am to 6pm during daylight hours.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:52 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Applicant does that make a problem do you need to crush so you can haul So you have to have some product accumulated. So that's why you start at six and then you start hauling it, crushing it five and hauling the six? I don't know.

CommentCherie SweeneyProposedself-stated4:53:11 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Right now as I understand it's in...I'm sorry if we have it so I can look at it in front of me but right now it's Monday through Saturday

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:22 · ≈ 1:53 PM

We can make that through Saturday as well. I just want to make it consistent.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:53:26 · ≈ 1:53 PM

6 a.m. to 6 p.m.? Yeah, Monday through Saturday.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:29 · ≈ 1:53 PM

6 am to 6 pm and we could make that Monday through Saturday. Okay. For hauling in.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:53:36 · ≈ 1:53 PM

So Madam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:37 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Chair... For transport to GPS.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:53:39 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Supervisor Carbajal, so we're talking about changing the hours for mining and primary crushing to Monday through Saturday from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.? Yes. And adding a bullet to limit transport to GPS Monday through Saturday 6 a m to 6 pm?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:56 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Yes. Is that

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:53:56 · ≈ 1:53 PM

correct? Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:57 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Yes.

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:53:57 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Everybody fine?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:53:59 · ≈ 1:53 PM

And other than that, I'll make a motion to move forward with staff's recommendations with that minor change in conditions as stipulated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:54:08 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Do you have a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:54:09 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Before I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.684:54:10 · ≈ 1:54 PM

second it, can I just say something really quick? No, I'm not going to vote against it. But I do have to say that I am, in my first year coming to understand process a little bit more as far as respecting it But I do have, I can't let this go by without kind of having an issue about the way that this project's going to slowly, slowly move forward. And I understand, I've worked with the federal government before and I never understood why things took so long to happen until you see the wisdom of our founding fathers with, so you don't have changes happen very quickly.

And I really appreciate Supervisor Carbajal stepping in. I was a little worried when I left Quiama that this was going to fall by the wayside, but it just seems to me that when you look at what our staff report is here how detailed it is with every issue that was brought up by the folks that were opposed to this none of it really held any water and I just have to be on the record as saying I mean, I think we... I know we cost the county a lot of time. A lot of money and I'm sure it costs the applicant a lot of time and a lot money. I've seen them here more than we care to but with that, I will second the

4:55 – 4:5812 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:37 · ≈ 1:55 PM

motion. Do we need roll call? All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? End of year. Does anybody have anything to say? Yeah, that's right Mr. Russell.

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:55:53 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Good job Joni,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:54 · ≈ 1:55 PM

good

CommentLaura KaffProposed · by introduction4:55:54 · ≈ 1:55 PM

job.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:56 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Any board reports?

CommentMadam ChairProposedself-stated4:55:59 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Oh too

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:55:59 · ≈ 1:55 PM

many. Everybody have a very safe and happy holiday. And I also want to thank you Supervisor Gray for being such a wonderful chair and we'll say more nice things about you in January.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:56:10 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Thank you Ms. Parr. I'm going to say so many nice things about you because it's gonna be...I loved it!

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:56:15 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Everybody have a great holiday season.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:56:17 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Happy season. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:57:29 · ≈ 1:57 PM

If you're gonna play, you will have to pay. It's in the DNA

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed4:57:51 · ≈ 1:57 PM

that it's your baby. If you father a child, be prepared for the consequences. By law, you must support your children. If you don't, the Department of Child Support Services will sue you to prove you're the dad and establish your financial obligation. Currently, that averages about $350 per month. Are you ready for that? Be smart! Don't have kids till you're ready.

you