UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:0515 turns
I'd like to call this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order. It's also the vernal equinox, so happy first day of spring to everybody. We have a big agenda before us today, so let's go ahead and get started. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?
Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Gray? Present. Mr. Lavinino? Here. Ms Barr?
Here, thank you would you
Right, we'll go ahead and take up the approval of our minutes of our March 13th meeting. If I don't have any changes or corrections to move approval a motion? A second? Thank you. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alright, we'll go ahead right into public comment. I'm going to turn first to Supervisor Gray. Thank you Madam
Chair.
As
the board knows about a week and a half ago Joe Holland announced that he was thinking about closing the Lompoc clerk's office And when I was told about this, I got in touch with Mr. Holland and indicated to him what a huge, huge disadvantage that is to the people of Lompoc. That office has been there since 1970 and it's very important. When you're in a community like Lompoc that's right next to a military base, people need to have access to marriage licenses, birth certificates And the kinds of things that they need for their everyday life. So since 1970, we've been providing those kinds of services for folks and the drive to Santa Maria is getting more and more expensive so I talked with Mr. Holland and he wasn't able to be here today but has indicated he thinks there's going to be a way that will be able to work it out so that we can keep that office open for vital kinds of documents, deeds, marriage licenses, certificates birth certificates and the kinds of things that people just need to live their everyday ordinary life.
So I think there are folks that may want to talk about this in public comment, but I do want you to know that I think we have this worked out and I want to thank Mr. Holland and let folks know it's just really critical that we keep that office open.
Thank you. Thank you, Supervisor Gray. Mr. Allen, shall we go to?
Yes Madam Chair. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Alice Milligan to be followed by Bob Manning
Good morning chairperson Afar and members of the council I appreciate the opportunity to be here It sounds like Supervisor Gray is already taking care of the problem, but I do want to emphasize what a shock it was to pick up the paper and hear that our county clerk's office was going to be closed abruptly on April 1st. And we had had no prior notice of this.
As Supervisor Gray has indicated, it's a real hardship in our community. We have disabled seniors who are unable to travel We have a lot of low-income people who cannot afford or don't have the resources to travel and so it would present a very difficult situation for them. In addition, we have Vandenberg Air Force Base personnel who rely on that That office being open every day and convenient for their needs.
And I really want to emphasize the importance of keeping this office open for the people of Lompoc. I realize the county has a shortfall in terms of funds, and I'm sympathetic to that. However there are probably other areas that should be considered that would not handicap and present a hardship to our community and people in Lompoc. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Thank
you. Our next speaker is Bob Manning to be followed by Bob Lingle from Santa
Maria. Good morning, Madam Chair and Board. I echo Supervisor Gray's comments and Alice Milligan's comments. We need that office to stay open. It's been open for a long time and there are some very good reasons for it to stay open. I would urge you to find other places to cut I do understand that there's a shortfall in budget and that you need to be cognizant of that and take care of your fiscal responsibilities. But this is, in a way, I think the citizens of Lompoc pay for services. And I'd just like to see it continue. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Bob Lingle to be followed by Kali Zulu in Santa Maria.
Mr. Lingle is not here so we'll go ahead with the next speaker. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Kali Zulu in Santa Maria, and then we're going to come back to Santa Barbara with Dr. Robert Johns.
0:05 – 0:125 turns
I will not and cannot lie for you. Good morning, D.A. Joyce Dudley wants violence in public to continue to receive federal funding to protect her and Dan Pedersen and other officials from charges of conspiracy mayhem murders and attempts of. The criminal complaint filed upon me for allegedly committing battering cruelty to childs from a victim witness program and D. A. Joyce Dudley post chemical enhancement and fresh and easy tea for anger was never my idea. Violence for violence is not my idea.
There will be a court hearing on March 27, 2012 concerning trial competency insults and if allowed I will address that the complaint is misfiled and does not reflect their true actors. Freshman EZE staff, DA Joyce Dudley, Lisa and Doug Field. The DA and victim witness staff have surreptitiously made attempts to kill and injure me and piss patriots. This case is not about piss but Joyce Dudley, Lisa and Doug Field's paychecks.
The complainant in this case told twice to leave me alone. To escalate the interaction to this level, victim witness staff, Lucy and Doug Field said again with emotional intensity she won't stop unless you do something, strike her, hit her, batter her. I didn't. Now the DA wants to make me pay for not doing it. This is surreal. I in no way seek to harm others, but the D.A., Joyce Steadley and victim witness staff will not stop.
Who do you know that will indict and or file appropriate criminal complaint upon D. A., Joyce Steadley and victim witness staff? You, the board have a public turn to say what is next. I stand here in self-defense as my person. DA Joicelli boasted about the protection she provides to victims of rape and hands out t-shirts at UCSB for the Women's Center Sexual Assault Awareness Month. However, in every woman's face and public display to support her victim in this program, she not only fails to protect all women from PISS rape I have inculcated upon you and the FBI the need to step in and take control of this Attorney's Office victim witness program to end the insults to every American family.
I've drawn myself to a honest confession of a simple fact, that I have always been an FBI agent lying in wait 41 years to expose a federal program to mayhem, insults, and murders. The beginning or the end to criminal DAs is always about my care and concern for women. FBI Director Jake Hoover devotes political powers that inhibit the FBI from defending the U.S. Constitution, meaning and protecting the public from government officials i.e., Department of Justice, district attorneys involved in keeping the people's belief in an illusionary ideal, God. There never was a god.
Our next speaker is Dr. Robert Johns to be followed by Flora West.
Budget cuts! Budget cuts! I have a little article here that I wrote in 5-1807 when the budget was cut for Casa del Mural. These are developmentally disabled, mentally ill persons and some of them were dual diagnosis. Now this type of budget cutting is doing damage. This is 2007. We were in 2012, this type of budget cutting which was recommended by our failed past CEO Mike Brown who's gone thank God.
Now also Mike Brown recommended that a social worker be put on administrative leave in 2007 Because he supported his clients. And this is 2012, this is just a good example and it's been going on of how you Carbajal misinterpret the roles of professionals Now that sent a message to all professionals in the county, that they had to be very careful about how they advocate.
That's a form of racism, it's a form of discrimination and that's still going on right now. And when we talk about alcohol drug and mental health in D1 I will bring up more racism, I will bring up more discrimination Okay. Thank you, board members.
Our next speaker is Flora West to be followed by Pat Love.
My name is Flora West and I read the article about Patricia Rosen in The Independent as I'm in a similar situation with conservatives who are in control of my money, property, my social security and my mail. When I left town to visit my granddaughter, they rented my residence to a stranger and gave her a year's lease. So when I came home, I had no place to live. They suggested I moved into the Villa Santa Barbara.
I didn't want to leave my residence, but I had no choice. The conservators claim my younger daughter took money from me, but the conservators have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from me to pay themselves large amounts of money. I understand my conservator makes at least $140 an hour and the attorney over 400 an hour. They gave me an allowance of $400 a month. I hear that if I stay in the conservatorship, my money will be gone. I used to help my children but no more. I used to have three houses but they sold one to pay their salaries and now they want to sell another one.
to pay for their large fees. When I brought up my distress in court, the conservators' attorney said I was obsessing about money. They claimed they were taking good care of me. I believe these are the same people mentioned in the Petrucci rules. Thank you.
0:12 – 0:2013 turns
Our next speaker is Pat Love to be followed by Brooke Robbins who's our final speaker. Sorry,
did you say somebody else before Brooke Robbins?
Yes, yes. Pat Love and then Brooke Robbins.
Thanks for this opportunity. I spoke with Flora West, and to me she seems okay and lucid. Having a person on conservatorship is something that should be done with much consideration. There is great temptation for abuse According to my information, a public guardian is in general more desirable than a professional one from the private sector because the public one is elected and therefore more accountable.
And with a public guardian there's a budget so it is less likely that a large bill would be run up Because of pure greed and a public guardian is more likely to accommodate a request for an organic healthy diet as well as other areas of natural health. As opposed to getting involved in toxic medications, which may have a long laundry list of side effects. Also, I feel that with a professional guardian there is a conflict of interest in that the person is more aiming to keep it going rather than recovery.
because of making more money. Thank you for listening.
Thank you. Our final speaker is Brooke Robbins.
Thank you. Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and Santa Barbara County citizens, my name is Brooke Robbins. I am with Occupy SV foreclosures It's an organization that is not against capitalism it is rather for justice and to protect the community specifically regarding the ongoing housing crisis Statistically, in this room every single person in here either has been affected personally by the housing crisis or knows somebody that has.
And this is not limited to our Santa Barbara citizens but even police officers and many other people of our community that work to help and protect us. A lot of effort has been made by Lois Capps, of course Doss Williams, Mr. Crauby-Hall and Mayor Helene Schneider as well as Joyce Dudley regarding this issue but the challenge is that it is ongoing and there are still many serious issues to be addressed The irony is that in respect to Joseph Holland's office for recording and the issue of the law in poke office that is debating over whether or not to be closed over budget cuts, is that with further investigation and prosecution of many companies that are not in compliance with the law regarding recording in the office In attempts to foreclose legally in our community, we are depriving ourselves of much money that is legally owed to the county.
There are companies that are not in compliance with the law or Secretary of State as witnessed by Deborah Bowen herself and signed with certificates stating that there are many companies that are transacting business out-of-state and not in compliance within California. That means that this is not only a local issue, this is a state issue and this is also now a federal issue.
And since the community has been aware of this issue for quite some time as we all are aware by the President's recent speech on the subject addressing the fact that there is proof that there has been foreclosures that have been acted illegally As well as the Attorney General, Camilla Harris who wants to actually hold all foreclosures till further investigation.
It is in the best interest of our community to take this issue seriously and to do our due diligence because it affects us all. Thank you very much for your time and your consideration I submit this today on behalf of Marina Reed who wrote this report and I who did the research for the Secretary of State. Thank you very much, have a great day.
All right, that concludes public comment. And before we go on to the administrative agenda I would like to go ahead and honor our county employee who is the volunteer this week and that is Harriet Heath Harriet has worked as a biologist for the Agricultural Commissioner's Office since 1985. Promoting and protecting county agriculture is Harriet's Monday through Friday job. Developing children in a 4-H goat project is her evening and weekend passion.
Harriet got into goats at the age of nine, and Supervisor Gray jumped in here because I know 4-H is one of your loves too. She received a degree in dairy science from Cal Poly and then went on to obtain a teaching credential in agriculture. She uses this knowledge to serve children as a 4-h community leader. For Harriet, 4- H isn't just about raising a goat. It's really about developing the confidence and communication skills of each child. According to Harriet, to show a goat at the fair, a child needs confidence, to stand before a crowd and verbal skills to answer questions from the judges. She says that her job is to help that child prepare for the event and more importantly for life.
When Harriet speaks about 4-H she also talks about the leadership skills that children learn. A child might come into the program shy But with coaching and practice that child learns to make a presentation, facilitate a discussion and lead a parliamentary meeting. From Harriet's perspective helping children develop these life skills is what makes her day. And thank you Harriet for making our day for all of the work that you do both during the day as our agricultural biologist and in the evenings and on weekends so thank you.
Okay, now we will move on to our administrative agenda. Are there any items that members of the board would like to pull?
Madam
Chair, let's pull
A14
please. All right and any other items?
Madam Chair, Members of the Board, we have requests to speak on Items A1, 2 & 3 from Dr. Robert Johns and we have a request to speak on Item A6 from Robin Barber and request to speak on A14 from John Lopez.
Okay, well why don't we start with A14 because that was what Supervisor Lavagnino wanted to speak to. Madam
0:20 – 0:2719 turns
Chair and members of the board item A14 is a set hearing request from the Ag Commissioner and the request that the Board set the hearing for your meeting on April 3rd consider recommendations regarding a revision to the County Weights & Measures Chapter 34C adoption of the County Commissioners revised fee schedule.
Okay. Supervisor Lavimunas?
Thank you, Madam Chair. As I think this might be an issue for some small business owners in the community, I would like to just request that we have a time certain hearing at our next meeting for this and maybe 10am if that works for the rest of the board.
Okay. We'll go ahead and put that into agenda review. And was there somebody else that wanted to speak on A14?
Yes. We have one request to speak from John Lopez.
Mr. Lopez here? Oh, here he is in
Santa Maria. Mr. Lopez is in Santa Maria. Go ahead sir.
Good morning Chairman. My name is John Lopez I am a merchant in Santa Maria speaking against the implementation of the issue at day 14. I have been to all the meetings regarding this and The Agricultural Commissioner's Office says there is a great deal of overcharging, but I have yet to hear any clamor from the citizens. Anybody come to a meeting and say that I've been overcharged or anybody in any way shape or form claiming that this overcharge has happened to them?
Most people, I believe are taking care of this themselves at the local level when it happens taking care of it themselves I also feel that we do not need to add more people to a payroll system and a retirement system that is already overburdened and sinking. When the ship is sinking, we don't add more bailers. We try to repair the problems, fix the leaks. We should ask the Department of Agriculture that has stated that they are overburdened and can't take care of the work that they're doing To take care of that first, fix their problems first. Then take on more work in new areas of fundraising so to speak.
I see this as an area or a way for the County Agricultural Commission to raise $300,000 or $400,000 close to it in a manner that's not necessary or for a reason that's not necessary, I should say. Supervisor Wolf at the last meeting regarding this stated that we're behind most counties in watching over this problem and spending money chasing this problem. Well, I feel that we're ahead of most counties. We haven't wasted $400,000 a year chasing after something that nobody is complaining about except the Agriculture Commissioner's Office.
Statistics that she brings forth, Mark Twain once said that we have lies, damn lies and statistics. Thank you very much.
Thank you. All right so now we will go back to Dr. Johns with items A1 through 3 then the speaker for A6 and then the speaker for A13 and then we'll bring it to a vote at the board.
Items A-1, 2 and 3 are resolutions. Item A- 1 is a resolution proclaiming March 31 as Cesar Chavez Day. Item A-2 from Supervisor Wolf is a resolution proclaiming March 2012 as Professional Social Worker Month. Item A-3 is a resolution of commendation honoring Frank Kelsey as this 2011 SANE is Valley Man of the Year. Dr. Johns will have five minutes for these three items.
Let's see, I don't want to speak on two. I made a mistake so it'll be one and three. Now Supervisor Carbajal, I'm wondering why do you persist on making resolutions on Martin Luther King Day? Making resolutions on Cesar Chavez, you're far from a Cesar Chavez and I won't even speak about that. Cesar Chavez was a man of the community. He got down on his knees and on his hands and worked with... So what is your purpose here? What is your purpose? I mean, Cesar Chavez would not allow pot clinics in his community.
Casa de la Raza to go under $91,000 tax debt. Those are community organizations. Let me I mean small children where you live were you supposed to live on the west side having problems economic problems boys and girls club? Cesar Chavez would not allow anything like that. You're so far from Cesar Chavez, and it mystifies me. Do you have some fantasy or something concerning Cesar Chavez? Martin Luther King? You drop those issues because you are not that. You are not those persons. You are so far from those persons.
Dr. John, speak to the resolution.
That's what I'm doing. If I... Well, let me go And Madam Chair, I don't know who Frank Kelsey is and I'm just wondering. So in my head, see, I'm wondering because you know that this is he a part of the polo or is he a part of San Ynez Valley Vintners. I don't know anything about him yet we have a resolution here, Man of the Year in San Ynez Valley. I would like to learn more about this person and I'm very fearful this person could be one of those activists in Polo and one of those vintners that we heard testify And we heard racist attitudes six months ago from the Ventiners Association. So I'm just wondering, so I'm sort of paranoid here. Is this particular person from one of those organizations that we are?
Dr. Johnson did you read the resolution? Because that's what you're supposed to be speaking
here. Adopt the resolution committing honoring Frank Kelsey,
man
of the
year. In just a moment then you will hear about him.
Okay but I'm fantasizing that he may be one of those persons that we heard the attitude coming from San Ynez Valley. Ventners was racist. Thank you.
0:28 – 0:303 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. Our final speaker is Robin Barber and this is on item A-6 from Supervisor Lavagnino. It's a resolution proclaiming March 24th 2012 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County. Good morning.
I appreciate the opportunity to be before the board today. I just wanted to say how commendable it is on that particular resolution that we would set aside a day About an issue that's so serious to our community. One that we hope will be thought of fully when it comes before the board, that our x-ray department is going to be closed and in light of the 24th being tuberculosis day I think that would be a serious injustice to our community particularly the least of our community who are vulnerable or homeless who utilizes that facility for X-rays for various number of issues, particular tuberculosis. My understanding that because the population is increasing that particular issue is on the rise so we should be really diligent about that.
I also want to add too, that the people who work in that department who are, the entire public health department are exposed to persons who may have tuberculosis without a facility there on site if they're exposed where they can go to ensure their safety it would be remiss of us and thinking about their health and safety when it comes to this so when it comes to making Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. And that concludes our administrative agenda. I will entertain a motion to approve. Motion, second? Second? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alright we're going to go then to A1 and our resolutions to be presented and we will start with Supervisor Cabajal.
0:30 – 0:364 turns
Thank You Madam Chair if I could have Rogelio Trujillo come up and Renato Valdez and George Solinas You know, it is my honor to present this resolution today proclaiming March 31st Cesar Chavez Day in Santa Barbara County. My father was a farm worker and growing up I would hear about this extraordinary man named Cesar Chavez but as a little boy you don't really understand the magnitude of and the totality of who People were referencing and it wasn't until I got a little older and eventually into college that I really gained much more appreciation for who this extraordinary man was.
When you think of Cesar Chavez, you can't but to think of other great leaders like Martin Luther King. Cesar Chavez did extraordinary things to promote justice for farm workers, economic justice, better working conditions and he was a role model and he made major contributions to our country. He was a great role model to the Hispanic community not just the Hispanic community our entire country those who seek social justice And for me it is a great honor to present this resolution today in honor of an extraordinary man.
And also I will draw to your attention that on, I believe on March 31st there's going to be a march in honor of Cesar Chavez to commemorate this day and his many contributions to our country. If you could read the resolution Mr. Owen?
Madam Chair and members of the Board, this is item A1. It's a resolution proclaiming March 31st, Cesar Chavez Day in Santa Barbara County whereas Cesar Chavez was raised in the fields of Arizona and California as a migrant farm worker where he experienced social injustice and economic inequality. These experiences pushed him to lead a movement that empowered farm workers and their families to achieve safer and better working conditions and promote dignity and respect for all individuals.
As a testament to his legacy, March 31 is recognized as Cesar Chavez Day in the state of California. And whereas, Cesar Chavez was an initial founder of the National Farm Workers Association, the precursor to the United Farm Workers Union which has helped farm workers achieve fair pay, improved working conditions, medical care and adequate housing. Whereas, Cesar Chavez made significant social justice contributions that were built upon the nonviolent methods employed by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. His leadership and efforts led to improved economic, social and environmental justice for thousands of migrant workers and their families.
And whereas, to demonstrate his commitment to nonviolence, Cesar Chavez supported the Great Boycott in 1965, went on a 25-day fast in 1968, participated in the nationwide Lettuce Boycott in 1970 And again fasted for 36 days in 1988 to protest pesticide application practices that negatively affected the health of farm workers. And whereas, Cesar Chavez's struggle for universal civil rights is a testament to his courage and resolve as he led a movement that triumphs over adversity and opposition. The successes continue to be an inspiration for individuals and communities who are still working to advance these principles through non-violent organizing. Now therefore, it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors declares March 31, 2011 as Cesar Chavez Day in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
In the name of Cesar Chavez and these old people here, I'd like to thank you very much. And Cesar Chavez was not only named along with Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi and Teresa de Calcutta, the four heroes of peace and justice of the 20th century But he also was awarded way back in the 80s with the Paul Harris Medal of Honor for Freedom and Justice of the World. So we are not talking about Santa Barbara or California, or whatever. We're talking about the world.
It's too bad that he was born in the most racist state of the United States, Arizona. He was born the 31st March of 1927 on Gila Valley in the county of Yuma. And he died on the 22nd of April in the county of Yuma, in San Luis, Arizona. I don't know if it's a coincidence but he was born on the fields and he died on the fields and his most Worst enemy of Cesar Chavez was unfortunately the President of United States, Richard M. Nixon that in that time declared him a feminist so he took the standard of La Virgen de Guadalupe and went to Sacramento And from that point on, the union was created.
Many people have been talking about Cesar Chavez as a racist because he's here por la raza but not really. The first building he did for the farm workers in Delano, in 40 acres was for the Filipino community. And here I have on my left-hand side the chief carpenter of that building supposed to be costing $2 million and this guy did it for less than $300. His name is George Solinas.
$350,000.
0:36 – 0:397 turns
Okay. So Cesar Chavez was never a racist, never was just for the Mexican people. He worked for the farm workers whoever they were and the fact that he was awarded the Medal of Peace and Freedom of the World by the Paul Harris Foundation. And then he was honored by ONU, Hero of Peace and Justice of the Year 2000 That means everything. Now you can have another three
minutes.
I wasn't intending to speak, but I'm honored to be able to speak for this particular issue. I knew Cesar very well. He was one of the few people as old as I was when we did this. In fact, I was a year older than he was even and he lived just a block from me up in La Paz. And he was a hard guy. I mean, you didn't fool around with Cesar. He was a person that was focused and he knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it. And it didn't make any difference if you had an easy issue. If it had to do with progress for the union then it was okay. And if not, he'd want to hear about it.
And I'm proud to have been thoughtful enough to have done this. It was a hard job. I wasn't a carpenter then. I was a contractor, and I was making all of $5 a week there for you, but with meals too. And so we worked there for two years. And it was a hard time, but it was good time. It was a very, very good time, and I always look back on those days with honor for myself. Thank you.
Thank you.
I just want to show you a picture of Cesar Chavez on 1960, I think it was 1968 right after the March Sacramento when he was ready to die because he went to strike for Supposed to go inside for 40 days, but by the 37th day, Bobby Kennedy came from Washington, D.C., to take him out of the strike. Other wives who would have died that day before his 1992. This was 1968. Bobby Kennedy and Senator Chavez.
And that's all. Thank you very much.
Thank you. And thank you so much for being here. All right, thank you. We need to
move on to our next item now. A2 Supervisor Wolf
0:39 – 0:435 turns
Thank You Madam Chair this item was read into the record correct Mr. Allen?
Yes, Madam Chair Supervisor Wolk.
Very good I'd like to call Marco Medina Mary Alice Baez Veronica Flores Edith V Gonzalez Premi Singh and Chris Borrows and Kathy Gallagher up to the podium And Delfino is here good This resolution is to proclaim March 2012 as Professional Social Worker Month in Santa Barbara County. And it's my pleasure and honor to have you folks here representing your colleagues, the tremendous social workers That do amazing work in our counties and in our county. Well, in all counties but particularly in Santa Barbara County they are.
They are our heroes. They are the folks who work with child protective services. Adult protection services return to work programs dealing with folks who are needy who have issues that need county assistance. The work that you do is incredibly valuable, I've had the opportunity to do a ride-along with a social worker so i have the opportunity to see firsthand the work that you do which is that interaction on a day-to-day basis with the folks in our community who need help the most. So I'm very honored to be able to present this award on behalf of the Board of Supervisors To you who are standing here and to all of those who are working back in their offices and perhaps listening to this, thank you very much.
Madam Chair, this is item A2. It's a resolution recognizing March 2012 as Professional Social Worker Month whereas the theme for Social Worker Month 2012 is social work matters. Recognizing nationally that the primary mission of social workers is to enhance human well-being and to help meet the basic needs of all people especially the most vulnerable and that locally we have a variety of staff classifications in program areas in which social workers carry out this mission And whereas, child welfare and adoption social workers evaluate referrals alleging child abuse or neglect, provide in-person investigations, ongoing case management and supportive services in conjunction with our community partners ensuring the safety, permanence and well being of children in our communities.
And whereas in Santa Barbara County, adult protective and in-home supportive services social workers help maintain elder and dependent adults safely in their own homes by promoting optimal health and safety. And whereas career employment specialists in the welfare to work and workforce investment programs provide education training and work experience services to unemployed and underemployed county residents by utilizing strong case management skills and collaborative partnerships with community agencies for training providers and local educational institutions. Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes March 2012 as Professional Social Worker Month in recognition, celebration and support of our county's professional social workers and career employment specialists and their commitment to dedication to individuals families in our community.
In addition the board encourages all To recognize the important role social workers play in maintaining our community safety net by helping to ensure individuals and families receive the help they need. Passed and adopted today by the board.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, members of the board. I just briefly want to again acknowledge these fantastic people, these folks that they don't recognize or they're... They don't have the opportunity to differentiate what the budget's going to do, what the political climate is. They just get up every day and serve the community, serve their clients and serve the public. The most vulnerable children, the most vulnerable adults in there just do it tirelessly. I'm so honored to be able to support them Our capacity and I think that on behalf of the management staff in the department. And I think from the community, we just want to honor them today and honor the fantastic work that they do in this community and they just get up every day. I'm just astounded every day that they get up and do their work tirelessly.
Thank you.
0:44 – 0:474 turns
Right, I have the honor of presenting the next three resolutions. All are honorees of The Valley Foundation this year. The Valley Foundation is a wonderful organization in the San Andres Valley of longstanding that raises money and distributes it to so many worthy causes. And each year they also choose a number of individuals for their, to be recognized for their outstanding contribution to the community. So first of all if Frank would come up, Frank Kelsey who is going to be receiving a resolution in honor of him receiving the 2011 San Ynez Valley Man of the Year.
Frank has probably been called Mr. Recreation in the Valley, he has raised so much money for recreational fields and programming throughout the years and as we see with so many of the people that are honored they are not just involved in one area but in many areas of the community. And Frank you've also been involved with Meals on Wheels and other volunteer service at Atterdag Village. So, congratulations. Mr. Allen is going to read the resolution and I'm going to come down and present it to you. And then if you'd like to make some comments we would love to hear from you. Mr Allen?
Madam Chair, members of the board, item A3 is a resolution honoring Frank Kelsey as the St. Ness Valley Man of the Year. Whereas, The Valley Foundation has named Frank Kelsey man of the year for 2011. Now whereas, Frank's work to support and create recreational opportunities for The Valley's youth has been critical. And whereas, for 40 years Frank has led the Santa Ana's Valley Youth Recreation Organization which has raised more than two million dollars and funded the majority of recreational fields in the valley. The high school pool and tennis court, the Sawbanks skate park, and Sunnyfields playground. It has donated funds to the arts, local reading programs, and sports teams. And whereas, Frank has volunteered with Santa Ana's Valley recovery residents for 10 years, Atterdag Village for four years, and Meals on Wheels for 15 years.
And now therefore be it resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors and commends Frank Kelsey for his service, tireless dedication and countless contributions to our community. Pass and adopt and stay by the board.
I'd just like to thank the St. Nez Valley Foundation for honoring me with this award and for the Board of Supervisors for acknowledging it. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you for being here. Our next resolution is to honor Terri Ames as the 2011 San Ynez Valley Woman of the Year. And again, Terri is one of these individuals that's one of the mainstays of the San Ynez Valley and has worked to improve the lives of so many people including as a founder for 10 years and director of People Helping People. And I also have the honor of having her and her husband as my neighbors. So this is what's so much fun about living in the Santa Ana Valley.
In any event, we're going to go ahead and have Mr. Allen read the resolution so everybody can hear about all the wonderful things you've done. Terry and I want to come down and present it.
0:47 – 0:497 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. This is a resolution honoring Terri Ames as the St. Ives Valley Woman of the Year whereas The Valley Foundation has named Terri Ames woman of the year for 2011 and whereas Terri's work to bring significant improvement to the lives of many in our community and whereas Terry Ames was founder and for 10 years the director of People Helping People And whereas Terry has personally mentored many Latino families over the past 20 years and linked them with the different services provided by People Helping People, and initiated an ESL program in Solvang in which she also volunteered. And whereas Terry served on the Valley Foundation Board for nine years at maximum time allowed. And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County hereby honors and commends Terry Ames as the San Ynez Valley Woman of the Year for 2011.
Passed and adopted.
Thank you. Thank you very much, I'm honored by this award. As you know just hearing before all these people that work tirelessly as they say it takes a village and we all have to do our part and I've been blessed to be able to do quite a bit in the Santa Ynez Valley and I'm very thankful it's a wonderful community. I thank you again for the honor and thank you for your time.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, Ms. Ains? Terry, I just want to know if Supervisor Farrer ever comes over for a bowl of sugar or something.
Actually as long as her husband Ben is here, I just want to let you know Ben that I need to have you come over and mow the pastures again so... And yes they would be those kinds of neighbors if I were home enough where I could bake and actually need to borrow some sugars.
I signed up Supervisor Farrar to bring you some pies next week
Thank you. All right, and then our next resolution is to commend Richard Christensen as a recipient of the Valley Foundation Lifetime Achievement Award. Richard if you'd come up. He and his wife are kind of the long-standing dynamic duo in the Santa Ana's valley both of them have incredible resumes for all the work that they have done over such a long period of time His wife has already been honored, and so I'm really pleased that you could be here today so that we could honor you as well. And of course again on Saturday night.
Mr. Allen why don't you go ahead and start this wonderful resolution?
0:49 – 0:567 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. This is a resolution honoring Richard Christensen for the Lifetime Achievement Award. Whereas the Valley Foundation has honored Richard Christensen with a Lifetime Achievement Award and whereas Richard Christensen has founded, led and been a member of many organizations benefiting the people of the Santa Ana's Valley. And whereas Richard was founder and director of The Everhold Museum, a charter member of the Vikings, a founder of the Solving Friendship House Foundation and a founder of the Santa Ana's Valley Historical Society. And whereas Richard has also served on the Solvang, Dunn and Family School Boards. The boards of People Helping People, Friends of the Solving Library, the St. Louis Valley Education Foundation and Let There Be Music Foundation.
And whereas Richard is a member of the Danish Brotherhood, the Rebuild Society, the Solving Incorporation Committee and the Cottage Hospital Foundation. Now therefore be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County hereby honors and commends Richard Christensen for his lifetime of community service passed and adopted today.
Thank you very much for this wonderful award. I'm honored, and I'm humbled. The Valley Foundation does marvelous work in the San Ones Valley, and we're very grateful for that. I am also very grateful for the mentors that taught me what I needed to know, and that's one of the reasons I'm here today. The main reason however I'm here today is from the wisdom and guidance—the loving guidance on occasion from my lovely wife June Christensen.
So thank you very much for this award.
Thank you, thank you for being here and for all your service. Okay we will now go on to item A6 and this is from Supervisor Lavagnino.
Thank You Madam Chair well I don't know what this says about me but you get man of the woman man and woman of the year historical figures social workers I get disease of the year so Actually, A6 we are talking about a resolution proclaiming March 24th as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County. And I did learn something about it so I'm glad we're bringing this forward.
And while I'm speaking, if we can get Dr. Charity Thoman, our Deputy Health Officer, Paige Batson, Manager of Disease Control and Prevention and Director of Public Health Nursing, Karen White and Diane Corey to come forward. But I was surprised to learn that tuberculosis was once the leading cause of death in the United States. In the 1900's it killed one of every seven people in the U.S., and one-third of the world is still infected with TB. So Mr. Allen, if you could read this so we can Pay attention and learn a little bit about tuberculosis.
Madam Chair, members of the board this is a resolution proclaiming March 24th 2012 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County whereas on March 24 2012 in honor of World TB day the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department joins that global stop TB partnership and adopts the slogan Stop TB In My Lifetime to raise public awareness of tuberculosis and the effects and the efforts made to prevent and treat the disease And whereas, in their lifetimes children should expect to see a world where no one gets sick with TB and men and women should expect to see a world where no one dies from TB.
And whereas each year 9 million people become ill with TB 2 million people die worldwide and 1 third of the world's population is affected with TB. Whereas in 2011 there were 2317 active TB cases multi-drug resistant cases reported in California with 21 active TB cases and one multi-drug resistant case occurring in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, in 2011 the Public Health Department Disease Control staff evaluated 147 at risk individuals with close contact to active tuberculosis cases to prevent the progression of the disease. And whereas disease control staff works strategically with community partners to promote public safety by identifying high-risk infected individuals, treating cases and controlling the spread of tuberculosis. Now therefore be it ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim March 24 2012 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County pass and adopt today.
Thank you, Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinino, members of the Board. I'm Dr. Charity Thoman with the Public Health Department. I am a Deputy Health Officer in charge of Disease Control and I'm here with disease control staff and Dr. Takashi Wada. And I want to say a few words about tuberculosis in Santa Barbara County. As you heard one-third of the world is infected with tuberculosis that's a phenomenal statistic But that's not what really speaks to me. What speaks to me is an experience with the patients, the children and the families in Santa Barbara County which I treat for tuberculosis.
Just this year I had the opportunity to treat some families where the grandmothers pass it to the granddaughters or the mothers pass it to their children. I've seen little children crippled by this disease and it's devastating because the disease is preventable and it is treatable. In the last 10 years in the world, we've seen the development of a new kind of tuberculosis called multi-drug resistant and extensively drug resistant. And now we have a totally drug resistant tuberculosis.
This is because the bacteria has mutated as a result of improper treatment with tuberculosis medications. At the Public Health Department it's our job to make sure that the residents of Santa Barbara County are properly treated This is an enormous task. We work 24 hours a day, we're always on call even while the residents of our county are sleeping. Our nurses and doctors are still working on tuberculosis. It's a phenomenal task. They do a great job. The staff behind me is amazing. And we are so grateful that you recognize World Tuberculosis Day and the importance that this has in Santa Barbara County. I thank you for your time and recognition.
Thank you. Thank you for the work that you do. I think that whenever we do these resolutions, the public and the board again is reminded of all of the work that county staff does in all of these different areas that is so critically important. And I know having a mother who was a registered nurse from the 1940's on and having her tell stories about taking care of tuberculosis how devastating it can be. So thank you again for the work that you do. All right, with that the board is going to take a five minute very short break here and we're going to allow staff to set up and we'll be back for our first departmental item number one. Ten minutes.
There's a call for ten minutes. We'll be back in ten minutes.
0:57 – 1:042 turns
♪
♪ Thank you. ¶. ♪ ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. Thank you. ¶¶ ♪
1:05 – 1:101 turns
Hi. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪
1:10 – 1:142 turns
¶. Yeah. Yeah. ¶¶ Thank you. Music Take up our departmental agenda. The first item, Mr.
Allen would you read that into the record please?
1:14 – 1:204 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number one is from Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services. The request that the board consider recommendations regarding an alcohol drug and mental health services department
update. Good morning, Ms Nisic. Are you starting us off here on the presentation?
Yes, good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. Terri Nesich, Assistant CEO. This item is on your agenda today to receive a report from the Alcohol Drug Mental Health Department. The report will include an overview of significant historic financial challenges and description of multiple processes and operational improvements now in place to begin to remedy these long-standing issues.
The department will also discuss the current year financial condition, which was previously reported to the board as a component of the second quarter financial report. However at this time they will also present proposed solutions to partially address the issue. Finally, the department will provide information on continued risks facing the department and end the report with a look at some future opportunities.
At this point in time I'd like to turn the report over to Dr. Anne Dietrich, the Department Director. She's joined by Mr. Tom Alvarez, the former CFO of Alcohol Drug Mental Health, now our current County Budget Officer. So with that, I will turn it over to Anne.
Good morning Chair Farr and Supervisors. On behalf of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services I'm very pleased to be here today. Some members of our leadership team are here and I wanted to introduce to you three people in particular that you might not have met before. First Dr. Oli Berenson is our ADMHS Medical Director. Wave. And I'm also very pleased to introduce to you two key fiscal managers who started in our department in 2009.
First, Ms. Christy Boyer. Christy is our Associate Finance Director. Christy came from the Auditor-Controller's Office and she has oversight of our department's cost report and audit functions. Also Mr. Michael Evans Michael is our finance business manager and he's responsible for oversight of our billing, revenue and accounting functions. And I think you all know Christy Thomas she's our contracts business manager and really pleased that she's here with us on the panel today helping us with our slides.
So to begin our presentation I would like to give you an overview of ADMHS. Our department serves as the county mental health plan for specialty mental health services to Medi-Cal beneficiaries with mental health needs. Medi-Cal is the state of California's implementation of the federal Medicaid program. To the extent resources allow, ADMHS also serves uninsured persons from two priority client groups – children with emotional disturbance, adults and older adults with serious mental illness Alcohol and drug services are now available primarily to drug Medi-Cal beneficiaries, individuals who are involved with the courts, and persons served through grants including mothers with young children and young people who are transitioning from the criminal justice system.
In the next slide, we summarize the ADMHS 11-12 budget. And this $76.2 million represents our estimated actual expenses for 11- 12. The area in dark green is the largest ADMH expense, our core Mental Health Fund 44. Both our outpatient and inpatient expenses are included in Fund 44. This dark green piece shows the outpatient expenses which include our ADMHS child and adult clinics, residential programs, and a range of child and adult services operated by our partners, community-based organizations who we refer to as CBOs.
These expenses are covered by Medi-Cal, Realignment and County General Fund. And we will be talking more about these funding streams and how they support ADMHS services. In yellow is the next largest expenditure fund which represents all the services covered by the Mental Health Services Act which is also known as MHSA. This new funding was approved by the voters of California in November 2004.
MHSA funds are generated from a 1% increase on income tax for persons who make more than $1 million per year. The MHSA Fund 48 complements our core mental health fund. There are no county general fund resources in this MHSA fund. MHSA supports best practice services started by counties after the November vote date. There are five MHSA funding streams including community services and supports, prevention and early intervention, workforce education and training, technology and innovation.
The area in red represents expenses for the inpatient services covered by Fund 44. These include the county-operated psychiatric health facility, which we refer to as the PUF, as well as extra acute psychiatric bed capacity we purchase through contracts. Expenses are also included here for people who require longer term psychiatric inpatient care In institutions for mental disease in state hospitals around the state.
The inpatient services in Fund 44 are covered by a combination of Medi-Cal, Realignment and County General Fund. Lastly for Alcohol and Drug Fund 49 There is a combination of federal and state funds, and the general fund contribution for alcohol and drug services is less than $100,000. Since our mental health system is so reliant on Medi-Cal, Tom is now going to describe the reimbursement process for the Mental Health Medi-Cal in California.
1:20 – 1:278 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. The process for state Medi-Cal reimbursement and settlement we've highlighted some bullets here and so first the county on a monthly basis claims are submitted to the state and just so you get an idea of the volume there's about 24,000 claim lines that we submit each month so almost 300,000 per year so a very large amount of services We are then reimbursed at provisional rates that are established. These were based on historic rates. One of our improvements has been that we review these rates quarterly to make sure that you don't get too far off of what those reimbursements are.
Excuse me, Mr. Alvarez. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Alvarez, 24,000 lines means how does that convert to patients? Or what does that actually mean, 24,000 lines?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, it may be the client may have two or three different types of service. They may have claim... I'm sorry, I'm drawing a blank here but they may have a management function as well as individual treatment services, and the treatment services may be different. If you had an inpatient service versus an outpatient service would be a different line. If you had management kind of like overseeing your care that would be another line so you might have two or three lines of service for one visit.
Okay thank you very much.
Then we were saying the provisional reimbursement. So we are reimbursed on a regular basis, although we are paid about six months in arrears from the state that has been the case for the four years that I was involved with the department and it is continuing to be the case annually. We prepare a cost report and settlement The cost report will calculate a settlement based on this provisional rate.
Service units are subject to State validation. Settlement is finalized over a six-year period after service is originally provided. And the final step in this is a state audit, which we'll be seeing on the next slide. But before we go on to the next slide I do want to mention that the ongoing state Medi-Cal claiming system changes that have occurred have been a significant event in our ability to receive timely and accurate reimbursement for our services.
The state has recently changed their claiming system and the change was based on a federal audit that required major state revisions to their system and process In December of 2009, this new claiming system went into effect. It came out with certain problems that existed that were corrected over time but as these came out it required ourselves as well as other counties that may have different software vendors to adjust their systems to be able to accommodate to that and the system wasn't fully tested when it was implemented so there were a lot of these startup problems On an ongoing basis, the State is continuing to make changes and when those changes occur it requires us and others to modify our software once again. And so if you can imagine all the changes that we're going to be talking about and improvements that we've been working on that will be presenting in this report every time the state changes, we have to go back and modify our system when we take a step backward from having that data that's so important for us.
And then the last thing I'll mention is that the denial rates prior state change were less than 2% for our county and very low for most counties. And currently, they're in excess of 10% for all counties taken together. I am aware that some counties are experiencing denial rates in the 20% range which is just a very, very significant change in terms of being able to manage the financial elements of this.
What we'd like to do is show you a little visual example of how this timeline for state settlement works. And so the example we're using is for the 8-9 fiscal year, and so the 8- 9 fiscal year begins on July 1st of 08, and then if you look down at the bottom, this is the actual reporting fiscal period, and during this year ADMHS will be reimbursed for costs at these provisional rates that we talked about.
The next box, and so just so everybody can see. I'm starting at this box here and then I'm going across to the right over here. Generally within, so in the second box annual cost report submitted generally within six months the county files a cost report which details all costs and units of service. This would identify Medi-Cal and other elements. And an important change that occurred here in an effort for our ongoing improvements We have historically filed these cost reports based on claims services. So again, if we submit claims to the State they will come in and they may deny or they will deny a certain number or certain percentage of services which we have to then rework with them.
And that was our historic method of doing this. We're now only using those State approved units so it's a very conservative way to approach this but it should result ultimately in lower settlements down the road. The next is the reconciled cost report submitted. And so one year after the cost report is filed, the county resubmits a revised or reconciled cost report. At this point units are generally will change because as we discussed, we have 15 months to appeal and resubmit claims that were previously denied if we felt that the clients were Medi-Cal eligible.
The next box is State Pre-Audit Settlement Payment. And then based on this reconciled cost that was prepared, a settlement will occur and that will either be a payment to the county or the county will pay the state. And then a full three years after the Reconciled Cost Report, this is the last box I'm sorry that says DMH Audit for Reporting Fiscal Period. So a full three years after, the state will come in and prepare an audit of the county prepared cost report.
And so we have been audited every single year. That's important to understand. We do get audited for every fiscal year. They are running, the state is running within this timeline. They're not going quicker than this timeline. They are on this timeline in a couple years they actually went a little beyond this timeline And both costs and units previously allowed may be disallowed in this process.
Excuse me, I have another question from the Board. Supervisor Levin you know?
Mr. Alvarez why would we what's the difference between on the reconciled cost report that we submit the year after what are we seeing as the driving change is it people we thought were on Medi-Cal but aren't on Medi-Cal? Why is there such a change?
1:27 – 1:339 turns
The issue is when the State denies units for clients that we believe are Medi-Cal eligible, there's up to a 15 month process to correct those, to get those resubmitted and approved. And so during this 15 month process after we file the original cost report, we continue to resubmit these claims and so it's to get a more accurate representation of eligible services for the county. So the change would usually be in units of services provided.
It's appropriate means of treatment. It's not whether or not they're Medi-Cal eligible or not.
It could be a combination of things, and so it may get denied because the State indicated that they were not eligible when in fact they were, so we'll have to get the documentation to prove that they were. Typically relates to that, or maybe there is some detail flaw that the address in one area doesn't tie to the address in another area and we have to go back and correct There have recently been headaches that have been overlaid by the State during these changes that I was referring to, that have caused denials that were inappropriate.
We had a very, very large batch of inappropriate denials that occurred at the end of last year and there was millions of dollars of claims that we've gone back and we've reworked and most of those have now been approved. But they didn't get paid until just, I think the most recent million-dollar payment we received was within the last two weeks. And these were from last year's services. So there is a variety of things that can change and that we continue to work to try to get the denials down.
Why isn't there some sort of an electronic verification preapproval so that we don't go back and forth of what's approved, what isn't? It would seem like you go in You know, your patient comes in and you do an electronic check with the state. Yes they sign off on it and we move forward instead of this continual back-and-forth years later.
That is in fact part of the challenge. What we have done internally is that within our software, we have a series of edits that validates what needs to go up onto the claim and that occurs before our claims are submitted to the State. The State has the most recent information I received from the Department is currently about 60 days behind, 60 or more days behind in getting back to us whether they're approved or denied and so we don't even know until that point and then it may come back and then we have to start digging to find out why.
Thank you. Mr. Alvarez, I think you said that the one thing that's the most encouraging and important to me and that is that despite this dysfunctional system that we have in place with the state and audits approvals or what treatment is allowed or not allowed. What I heard you just say is that we now have systems in place that allow us to do our internal management of our mental health services, in a way that has checks and balances, that minimizes this dance that we have with the state of approvals.
I'm sure we still have it but Because we put this system in place, it seems to be better or we seem to be in a better position. Is that a good observation?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, that is correct as we're going to lay out in our presentation. We have since fiscal year 8-9, we have been making changes to really improve our processes to overlay these internal controls. We are still in the process of doing these with the state ever changing It has to change. We have to change our processes as well, so it's really often one step forward, two steps back and then try it again. But we continue to persevere on this and we will continue to develop systems that are appropriate where we can see our activities, we can see our eligible versus ineligible services, and when we find that claims are denied for those that we believe are eligible services, we have now a process in place that didn't exist four years ago to go in and to rebut these and to take them to the State and reclaim them.
Great. And Madam Chair, just to finish I think it's important to also recognize is that despite this process with the state of going back and forth for many years we were remiss in not having the best systems in place ourselves And I think it's important to come to terms with that, because we as an organization did not have the systems in place that we needed to have in place to make sure that we minimize this exposure. So I just want to state that because I think it's important to not beat around the bush, to pretend that we've been the greatest ever. I think we're getting there but I think for many years we lacked those systems and I want That's also an accurate understanding.
And I would certainly agree with that assessment. So we were then in the last box for the DMH audit for reporting and for a fiscal period, and we had just spoken to the fact that at this point and here at June 30th of 2014 it's a full six years after that July First, 2008 date. It's a tremendous amount of time that's gone by. They can come in and still they being the State can come in and deny these services. And just one brief example. We had a CEC missed program where a lot of services were denied. So in this specific example we had reported these units. They had been settled upon. They had been subject to a state children's services audit.
And had been approved through that point, and then a full six years afterwards they disallowed 100 percent of those services. So the magnitude of this is that we were reimbursed for that program $1.5 to $2 million per year for these Federal and State reimbursements. However, because it was going back six years our exposure was more than $12 million. And so this is an important thing to understand as we change our systems. It's a very slow process and if you make a change that will benefit you often it won't benefit you for five or six years. So it's a very challenging aspect of the system that we work in.
1:33 – 1:401 turns
So, Tom has discussed the lengthy and complex state payment and auditing system for mental health. And now I would like to outline how state issues have tied to some of our department's historic challenges. So beginning during fiscal year 2002-03 through 2005-06 there were 06-07 excuse me There were incorrect billing activities in ADMHS. These activities resulted in increased annual cash flow.
These activities were discovered by ADMHS leadership in fiscal year 07-08 and were self disclosed to the state. In fiscal year 05-06, The department had a $2.4 million deficit, and there was a fund balance at that time that was depleted to fill the budget gap. For FY06-07 in September of that fiscal year ADMHS presented to the board a $5.2 million budget reforecast reducing revenue and expenses.
And in April 2007 a million in general fund strategic reserves was given to the department by the board. The year of FY 07-08 was a pivotal year for the department. And before we go to the next slide, I'm just going to mention a couple of reasons why there was really a convergence of three major issues including the self disclosure matters that were identified in November The identification of a budget shortfall in January 2008.
And in February 2008, as Tom has alluded to, the 0203 audit of ADMHS was conducted by state D&H and that resulted in the disallowance of the Child System of Care Multi-Interdisciplinary Probation Department of Health and Social Services mental health billing for that program. So when we go to the next slide, I want to just give you a bit of an orientation here. We are going to be using this format for 07-08 and the subsequent fiscal years. And we're going to be describing the challenge that the department has faced and our responses to them.
You will see that the challenges impact in some cases our CBOs our clinics, our inpatient services and business operations. So in June 2007 ADMHS converted to a new Medi-Cal billing system and as we said ADMHS self disclosed the billing matters to DMH with at that time an estimated total of $9.3 million. As Tom mentioned, DMH disallowed the multi-interdisciplinary system of care for children that partner agency cost.
And because of the fact that that happened in FY02-03 and we knew were at risk then in years going forward, the total there was estimated going forward of $12.2 million. As I said, there was a budget shortfall of $7 million that was reported to the Board of Supervisors. I started in January of that year when we discovered that budget deficit and we learned that a major reason for that was there had been an overprojection on the amount of matching dollars that were available to draw down federal Medi-Cal, so we had to really reduce our revenue expectations.
We came back to the board three times in that last half of FY 07-08 and appreciate that the department that the board gave money to the department to balance the budget. There were also routine cost settlements, as Tom described in audits and at that time there was an estimate of a cost for those at $7.8 million. So worst case projections taken together, at that time the total identified issues were estimated at $36.3 million.
In response to the budget shortfall of $7 million, we initiated an adult system redesign process for our adult CBO and clinic services. The 0809 slide shows that ADMHS started a restructuring plan And the adult outpatient system of care was revamped. Adult CBO contracts and outpatient clinics were reduced, and we eliminated non-MediCal allocations. We also introduced evidence based programs.
So I would just like to mention that in a relatively short time frame The adult CBO community mental health services funding in ADMHS did go through a significant decrease, and a number of existing residential and community support services were ended and new models were developed. In the summer of 2008, ADMH issued RFPs for new supported housing programs in North and South County and an assertive community treatment program in North County funded through the MHSA Mental Health Services Act.
Recognized as evidence-based practices, these programs provide a multidisciplinary team structure that includes a psychiatrist, nurse, mental health practitioners and case managers. And the clients on this team receive an integrated system of treatment rehab and support services. In another significant change traditional day programs ended and recovery learning centers were established with MHSA money. And these centers promote consumer driven services including self help and peer support.
During this time of change, which was quite rapid over four or five months, services for approximately 300 consumers were altered. And because there was concern from the board and the community, ADMH tracked key indicators for these individuals after they moved to new services and a follow-up period of approximately six months indicated that there were not significant adverse outcomes such as loss of housing or homelessness Also during 08-09, and I certainly thank Ms. Thoma here for her contracts department, there was a significant change in our CBO contracting process so we more clearly specified reporting costs, staffing and service expectations. We also initiated a number of projects with the auditor controller staff to improve fiscal business operations and we appreciate the help of the auditor controller and all his staff.
1:40 – 1:487 turns
For the 910 challenges and responses, the first couple bullets we're looking at here were actually challenges. And this was what we had talked about previously, the new state Medi-Cal claiming system started in December of 2009, and that was a very big significant negative change. I think we had talked about that we did have our own system problems, and it took us about two years to really get that stabilized to where it was functioning well and timely. And right about that time is when the State introduced this new program.
The next item is the inpatient costs hit an all-time high of $9.3 million, so that was another challenge that faced the department. The third bullet down was a response to that increase in cost is that on a daily basis senior managers from mental health met for an hour conference call every day to identify all inpatient clients All available beds, all available services and to determine as efficiently as possible how those clients could be best served.
And to move through the process as efficiently as possible so that our very limited number of inpatient beds could be appropriately deployed. The next bullet down is again a response and this was dedicated staff were added for contract monitoring, scorecards, rate reviews, cost reporting and audits. And so really what was done here was a restructuring of the fiscal department to acknowledge the fact that Compliance issues, which are the audits and cost reports, are so significant to the department that they really need dedicated staff. And it was at that point that we brought on Christy Boyer, a CPA with several years' experience with the Auditor-Controller's Office and a lot of cost reporting experience, to come into the department to help with these audits in cost reporting.
The other element of that was the operational end and Michael Evans is a very experienced manager, outstanding cost analyst skills. And he was brought in to help with that area of the business. The next bullet is another response is that mental health had not updated its published charges since 2000. The impact of that is that we were effectively leaving money on the table. Reimbursement that we were entitled to, we were unable to claim because we were capped by our published charge.
The next bullet down is again a response, and it was established formal settlement procedures with the help of the auditor controller. And these settlement procedures were addressing how we settle with the state, how we settle with providers. They are documented procedures that are written and that staff involved in these processes are required to read and to understand, and we use this as a basis for recording transactions.
Madam Chair. Supervisor Wolf. Mr. Alvarez, you talked about the daily management and triage of inpatient resources. Are you folks still doing that?
Yes. That still occurs on a daily basis so I've been out of the department for a few months and that is still occurring.
Chair Farr, supervisors yes. Okay very good thank you.
As we go on to 1011 challenges and responses, I'll address the first four items. These are all responses and Ann will be addressing the last two bullets. This first bullet is a big one. We now have tools for real-time analysis of our revenue. These can be provided on a daily basis and it's really focused on the clinics and inpatient services And so what we can do is we can determine all Medi-Cal reimbursable services. We can determine it by clinic, we can determine it by individual, we can look at the Medi-Cal services versus indigent services versus Medicare services and that is provided to the management team on a weekly basis to review and analyze and as problems pop up will know them earlier sooner than later.
The next bullet is Clinic appointment scheduling system. So one of the first things as I came into the department that I was concerned about was there was no mechanism to know that every service that was performed was billed, ultimately. There was no control of that completeness. And so with this appointment scheduling system all appointments are now at the clinics are now booked into an electronic scheduling tool when the client arrives they're booked into the same system And as the clinicians finish their notes and create the bill, it's also noted in there. So if the bill is never created, you can run a report now to see that those bills have not been completed. So this is a very important tool for internal controls.
The next bullet is client intake, registration and billing process where processes were standardized. So previously within the clinics the person we refer to them as patient representatives that would check in a client identify their Medi-Cal need and then The services and sign them up. They were reporting to the clinic supervisors, so it was not standard in some of the direction they may have received. So now we've got an under one supervisor that is specialized in these services. We started working denials where they had previously not been done before, and this is done by these patient representatives.
Excuse me. The next bullet is that we started a new or cruel methodology, and this was using the tools that we've now developed. And so this was really based on these Medi-Cal services that we were providing on a daily basis and that we had that early visibility to as you recall, we don't get visibility back from the state for several months after these services have been provided. So this was a tool that enables us to better estimate those And some of the challenges that we found, and we're learning more. I think one of the things we talked about is that we're improving and we're changing, but we're learning as we go. And this is a great tool that we've implemented. However, when it came time to use this for the accrual, we did not overlay the denial rates and the items that never make it onto a claim that we now understand.
So we were certainly short in estimating those amounts. On the next item, I'll turn over to Dr. Dietrich.
In calendar year 2011, The Federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid conducted two audits of our psychiatric health facility. ADMH operated a 16-bed unit in Santa Barbara. The first audit was to assess the PUF's compliance with Medicare regulations as an acute general hospital. The second was to assess the hospital's compliance as a specialty psychiatric hospital.
To meet all of the requirements, additional costs were required for the PUF and I'll be talking more about that later. A very beneficial change that was initiated in the fall of 2010 in our department was the creation of a new regional management structure for the three geographic areas of the county. Each of these three managers is responsible for the leadership of an integrated system of intake assessment, crisis intervention and service delivery activities in their region.
It has been very effective to have a single point of oversight and accountability for clinical and operational activities in each region, and the change helped reduce the number of managers in our department as well.
1:48 – 1:545 turns
So I'm going to pick up on the 11-12 challenges and before we move on, I would echo what Anne just said that change for regional managers was really important. It was very helpful and with the tools now we hold the regional managers accountable for their regions. On 11- 12, we had an external item or a challenge that was again another change to the state system and this went into place January 1st And since January 1st, our systems that would read interpret claims and denials and match everything up. And we were using this to track our accrual progress.
We could no longer read that. We are in the process with our working with our vendor to make those changes now so that we can have that visibility once again. We are using workaround systems to continue to work the denials but we do not have the full capability of our software at this point until probably next month. And then new claims will be submitted under a new fashion starting July 1st. So we don't know what, if any problems are going to come out of that. But if it's anything like the last couple revisions, we will have hurdles to get over when those come down on July 1st and those have been postponed a couple times. They were supposed to originally be out January 1st
The next item is this was a response. This was a response and it was that there were $1 million in children's contract reductions to align costs, clients and services based on our new monitoring process. So where we saw there wasn't the need, we adjusted contracts accordingly with CBOs or community-based organizations. And then the last bullet was another response. And this was that we're making progress with the state on the MISC CEC and other open audits that we had been appealing, and self-disclosed items that we had also submitted to the state. We've recently progressed in those discussions, and hopefully within a few months of resolving at least some of those matters.
So as we move forward, we've discussed prior problems and improvements the department has made. We're now looking at 1112 in this part of our report and in the second quarter financial report that was presented to this board, we identified that the Mental Health Department would have a $6.4 million negative financial impact for this year The department had identified offsetting solutions of about $3.1 million, so the net negative financial impact projected at the second quarter report for the department was $3,300,000.
And of that 6.4 million gross net financial impact that we talked about, there's two elements that we're going to be talking about. One 3.7 million of that is related to accruals and that's what I'm gonna be speaking to on this slide. On the next slide, there's $2.7 million worth of current year issues that Dr. Dietrich is gonna be describing. So as we look at the $3.7 million accrual problem that is impacting us this year it's really the result of 9-10 and 10-11 activity Again, it's important to understand that the state has a six-month delay if everything goes perfect as far as paying us. If there are problems, it may be 15 months to resolve those and as a result of the long delays and denials, the accrual at the end of June 2011 was about $20 million that the department was identifying that there were $20 million that had not yet been paid that were due the county.
So this 3.7 million has not yet materialized And while it may improve somewhat, we've not projected any improvement at this point. We're trying to take a conservative view of what will come in. A million dollars of it was for the fiscal year 9-10. It was tied to denied claims that appeared to us to be valid claims and that we were appealing and resubmitting.
The state was very slow to respond to our requests for information on these claims, and by slow it was about nine months till getting resolution on these. And ADMH is continuing to appeal these however on a lot of these now we're starting to get timed out. We just recently have heard that one of the counties was successful in going back and working with the state to reconcile some of these denials going back to the 2009 year, and we're hoping that we can be included in such a reconciliation. And we are putting forward that request through the Mental Health Directors Association.
The balance of $2.7 million was for 1011 items, and this was tied to the change in accrual methodology that I described previously where we're now looking at claimable services. A lot of these claimable services did not make it onto a claim, and that was something that we have as learning that we will use as we go forward. We also had a higher rate of state denials. That was really largely tied to the changes that I've previously spoken to at the state level.
And then additionally, there were a lower level of services for May and June. So as we got into the process of estimating what was going to be done for this period going back so many months, we had not yet finished May's activity and that sort of June's activity. And the actual that came in for those months was less than we had projected for those months, really in that fourth quarter.
Thank you Mr. Alvarez. Just a moment please. Supervisor Gray?
Thank you Chair. Mr. Alvarez I need an explanation of claimable services not making it to claim
So this is where we identify services that clients are Medi-Cal eligible, but for a variety of reasons they may have the claim, may have not made it onto an actual claim. So this would be kicked out within our system of getting that service up so when I said we had these filters that we put our claims through before they go to the State They would be kicked out at that point. And it could be for a variety of reasons, some of which may be that they've got more than one insurance carrier. So if they have private insurance or if they have Medicare, we have to bill Medicare or the private insurer first, wait several months to get a denial and then resubmit anything that wasn't reimbursed through Medi-Cal. So it's a very lengthy process.
1:54 – 2:018 turns
But it wasn't claim-eligible. Is that the what I'm trying to learn
here? Yes, so we would have visibility that we have a MediCal eligible service and we then said we should accrue for these. And so we accrued for these and then as we go through and go through the filtering process for those months find that they actually have to go through other processes before they can be claimed or for some reason they may not be eligible.
Okay thank you.
And just one point of clarification. So this process of using these new tools, it was April of 2011 when we got our first report of these new tools and we did use that in our year-end accrual process so we really only had a few months of working with it and so it is a new tool. I think it's a fantastic tool but we are learning and improving as we go forward with them.
And so I had just spoken to the last bullet of the lower services. I will say that for 11-12, our estimated actuals and for 12-13 budget, the department has used higher denial factors and has overlaid some of these factors that claimable services may not make it onto a claim. So those percentages, I believe are 5% and about 6%, that will not make it onto a claim. So we're overlaying as we learn these additional items.
On this slide, I'm going to talk about $2.7 million in fiscal year 11-12 impacts related to our department's operations. First of all, 1.5 million ties to the costs associated with our inpatient system of care. So for the PUF, our psychiatric health facility, that represents increased costs related to the audits that I described. We have needed to add a full-time dietician to our 16 bed unit. We have upgraded the food service, added a social work director and increased staffing who are able to respond to the unit when the client acuity is increased.
We also had an unexpected development in that we rely on Medicare for some of the revenue for PUF. And we've learned in this last year that some of the individuals had exceeded their lifetime days of approximately 160 bed days, so that means when you're on Medicare there's a lifetime number of days for which you are eligible for this inpatient care and perhaps because some of the aging population what we have had people who have timed out on Resulting Pretty high usage a few years ago, but in fact the beds we use for psychiatric acute care at Vista Del Mar and IMDs out of county those costs have gone up about $200,000 this year.
The next item, $630,000 that's primarily related to a lack of staff vacancies. Historically our department has assumed a vacancy rate of 5%. However we think with the economy and also with our current clinic business model which identifies the amount of staff we need to generate the revenue that we require it's been important for us to keep staff positions filled This has resulted in the shortfall and we will be making a different assumption going into 12-13 assuming a zero vacancy factor.
Also, because we're a special revenue department, we are affected when the furlough happens. a loss of clinical claiming or revenue generation during the furlough. Our child clinics were closed and our adult clinics were open on some of the furlough days but not others, and there was an impact. So Tom is going to talk about this next slide which is very important to show the amount of funds we have to use along with Medi-Cal revenue.
Okay, so the top of this is our revenue sources. Our largest and what we're looking at here is what we term our matching or discretionary funds. So these are the dollars that we have available to the department to be able to match our mandated Medi-Cal services as well as provide services to those without any insurance. So these sources are primarily realignments and vehicle license fees, which total $10.1 million. We get an allocation through the state for managed care of about a half a million dollars.
And then county general funds of 2.2 million dollars. totaling $12.8 million and just by point of reference at its peak realignment was 11.6 million state managed care was about 750,000 and county general funds were about 3.2 million dollars or a total of 15.6 million to the current 12.8 From that, we have to take away the Medi-Cal matching dollars and that's 6.8 million and that's very important again it's mandated and also it leverages out into about $25 million worth of services through Medi-Cal That 12.8 less than 6.8 for the Medi-Cal match leaves about $6 million available, and that $6 million that's available is to take care of non-Medi-Cal services. And so that leaves us...
We've added here our identified non-Medi-Cal expenses totaling 8.7 million. As we look at these on the right, the first is the psychiatric hospital of 4.8 million of nonreimbursed costs And the next is out-of-county hospitals, $1 million. The following is state hospitals and institutes for mental disease which is another inpatient care of $1.1 million. So if we look at these first three those are all inpatient services provided to clients totaling $6.9 million.
The next item down is outpatient services of $ 1.2 million. This is primarily at CARES that's where the majority of clients without insurance are served currently by Mental Health. And then the last is support for homeless services of $600,000. So again that total is 8.7 million dollars for these services. If we look at bumping those up against our available matching funds or available discretionary funds we've got 6 million dollars and that leaves us short by 2.7 million dollars I'm trying
to assess the information on this slide with slide number
four. That was the pie chart and If you look on the pie chart for Fund 44 between outpatient and inpatient, the total cost is about $40 million. So how do you reconcile that with this information on page 15?
2:01 – 2:0827 turns
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. I have not gone through that reconciliation process but roughly it would be the $6.8 million of Medi-Cal services that I informed you are leveraged out to about $25 million in services so it would be the $25 million plus the $9 million here there would be other services that are grant funded. There was some AB 3632 funding that was approximately a couple million dollars in the budget for this year There are other Medicare revenues that are covered costs. So there are some other funding sources that are not reflected on this slide, that would be reflected in the total departmental slide if that addresses your question?
It just seems way off. You know because when I first saw this slide 15, I thought maybe it was just general fund but it's all revenue
The slide number four is all funding sources.
Right, and is that the case with slide 15?
No. In this we're just addressing those that do not have a funding source. We're overlaying the Medi-Cal because that's the matching that were required to do.
So you're saying that there are other revenue sources that are not listed on slide 15?
That is correct.
That would total, that would equal the amount that's on chart on page 4?
That is correct.
Okay.
So as I had described on the previous slide with the revenues, this is just a visual of what's occurred with the realignment dollars. The largest discretionary pot of money that comes to the mental health fund it peaked in 6-7 at $11.6 million. It's now down to $10.1 million. It is a decrease of 15% and as we talked about all of our other discretionary funds if we look at those they are down 18%.
As we go on to the next slide, this is representing inpatient costs and it's a short period of time. It's looking at 7-8 through 11-12 fiscal year and we just want to bring to your attention that it went from $7 million up to 9.1 million dollars so an increase of 2.1 million dollars or about 30% over this relatively short period. So we've just tried to highlight the fact that the costs are going up, the clients we're seeing are going up, and the available funding sources that the department has are going down.
So I'm going to talk about proposed solutions for the current 11-12 shortfall. We've identified $3.1 million in solutions, 1.2 would be through the use of the ADMHS fund balance related to concessions that our labor force made. This would help to offset losses related to the concession reimbursement losses.
Madam Chair.
Excuse me just a moment Dr.
Dietrich, Supervisor Carbajal?
Dr. Dietrich I want to make sure I understood that is that the concessions that came out of the recent negotiations with our labor groups?
Chair Farr, Supervisor Carbajal that would be correct.
Thank you
We also have the opportunity to move $1.4 million from our CARES program to MHSA. CARES was started after the voter approval date of 2004, and we now have an opportunity with prevention and early intervention monies for that move to be made. And it's a good fit for that because we're the intake and access point for the system, and we serve a high number of indigent clients who have emerging mental illness in cares.
Also, $500,000 we have a funding stream called Early Prevention Screening Detection and Treatment which is for children under 21 who are on Medi-Cal. And we have a higher than estimated allocation so we will be looking to spend that down this year which will be revenue to help solve our problem.
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair. On the $1.4 million moving CARES to MHSA I thought that anything in MHSA has to be a new program and how would you justify that?
Well we've checked it out with County Council. We look at these changes very carefully when we make them and CARES actually did not start until after the voters voted on to approve the act in November 2004. It actually started later, so therefore it falls within the legal guidelines for being able to use it with MHSA.
I just if you can just discuss or just focus on the issue that it can't supplant an existing program. I'm just not maybe County Council can answer that?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff if I might interject. I do recall reading and it's been sometimes I've looked at there are specific regulations on MHSA programs and there was a very specific date of when the programs would be started that tied into the supplementation And what would qualify as MHSA programs. And at that point, and we've been aware it was raised years ago that this program did qualify for MHSA and so it wasn't until recently that the opportunity arose to move it over there.
Okay well that's interesting to know. Are there any other programs that started after that time frame? That you can also move into that fund, 0048?
As we primarily look at Fund 44, it's really providing inpatient services which are specifically excluded from MHSA dollars. And then it's the inpatient clinics which are largely Medi-Cal now. They're a very small portion. CARES is the remaining element that seems to be an appropriate move from my perspective and Dr. DiCiccio I'll turn it over to you.
Okay thank you. And I have one other question about this $500,000. So just so I understand that was money that was allocated and not used? And you want to use it into a...
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff the state has changed their process for allocating these children's service dollars and so it's part of the realignment change and with that the original estimates that were given have been modified recently and there was some additional money that was identified to the county.
2:08 – 2:1311 turns
All that aside, just tell me how that affects children's services on a daily basis. Does this mean that we are providing less services for children? I just need some clarity on that explanation.
Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, I think it was mentioned one thing that has changed this year under state law which is called AB 3632 are the special education Students who need different kinds of interventions to help them in school, one being mental health. That's all now the responsibility of the school system so we don't have that revenue. This will enable us to keep serving a number of the children who are still eligible under Medi-Cal. So it will be beneficial to us. Okay
I appreciate you explaining that because I was hoping that was going to be your answer. It just wasn't clear.
So I would just say that for closing the FY 11-12 gap, there is a $3.3 million balance that we are not able to solve at this time. If we were to solve it, it would really require that we move forward with some drastic program reductions in the time that's left this fiscal year since we're in the middle of May. If we were to change contracts, that requires a 30-day notice. So we potentially could yield $488,000 a month toward the end of the year. But the moves would be so dramatic, eliminating acute hospital beds, long term care and IMDs, homeless programs and various residential programs.
Professionally I just could not advise that but that is one gap that we could fill
Dr. Dietrich, you know when the board has looked at departmental reductions in the various budget cycles that we've had generally what is also offered up is not just program reductions but staffing reductions because that's where a lot of the cost is And I see that you're proposing possibly reducing programs, but you haven't talked about reducing staffing. In looking at the budget book it appears that your staffing levels overall have stayed pretty much the same the last couple of years which is pretty unusual considering what the other departments have had to go through and other departments have also looked at eliminating contract and extra help staffing. I've also looked at services and supply, either keeping it the same or reducing it a certain percentage.
And I noticed in the budget book that the services and supplies budget for your department went up $3 million. So I'm just wondering what other suggestions you might have in these areas that you could bring back to us in May that would help to close this gap besides just eliminating programs for this year and in the future?
Chair Farr, yes I appreciate that. If I can maybe make one comment on the staffing and how that's remained level with the Mental Health Services Act as we've developed new programs we've offered positions to our existing staff so they can move into those jobs and avoid layoffs and that's been one reason that our overall ADMHS number of FTEs has stayed fairly level Well, I just would say
that the board has taken some pretty strong steps and actually eliminated departments and merged departments in order to save the amount of money that we needed to make to close our overall budget gap. So I really do think that you should probably take a look at this because I would like to see what your thoughts are in those areas.
Thank you. I appreciate that Chair Farr.
Supervisor Gray.
Thank you, I'd like to go back to drastic program reductions. I've been listening to mental health problems for 14 years now and they don't seem to get much better. This is the first time I've seen someone even say that you could eliminate these these kinds of services. In the past we've been told that we have no choice, so you're saying that these services could be eliminated?
Chair Farr and Supervisor Gray I'm saying that they could be but my professional opinion is that they should not be. I'm just trying to help the board understand what we would see being able to do now to bridge the gap if we were asked to do
2:13 – 2:198 turns
Supervisor Carbajal.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know I think the department has come a long way and I want to give it kudos for doing that but I can't help but to not put forth a pretty radical Suggestion to CEO Waller. And that is that I think it's time that we start looking at what the State of California did with their services, and that's merging mental health with the Health Department.
I think we really need to look at what that type of consolidation could do to save us resources and to take a different approach. Despite the gains we've made, I really feel that a new paradigm is needed for the mental health department. And I think what I would like to see is some serious analysis done in that respect for a consolidation and to see what the opportunities may be including the downsides but I for too long Have been waiting anxiously to see the drastic changes that have been needed and while they are coming.
And while we have made great gains, it's time to take a different approach so. At an appropriate time in our discussion today I will be putting forth such emotion that our CEO do some analysis in that respect and come back to us. So I don't know if you have any response to that seal wall.
Chair Supervisor, as I know you're aware we have put out on the street requests for proposals for consultants that are very experienced in this area to come in and actually look at our operations. And I certainly think that's one of the options that if your board directs we can consider as a part of that and come back to you with that information.
Thank you. I was going to
hold this until we completed, but thank you Supervisor Carbajal for starting out the conversation. I believe strongly that a huge element of this is that we have a Blue Ribbon Task Force that is modeled very much after what was done for the jail And it includes stakeholders and it is operated out of the CEO's office, not out of mental health. I've sat through the reasons they can't do the job but that sounds cruel. I know that they're trying and everybody's attempting but there are lots of talented folks that should be able to help us and I hope that as you come back with suggestions that this task force is one way to go under the direction of the CEO.
Thank you, Supervisor Gray. CEO Weir? I was just going to respond if I may to that. Chair, Supervisor, that is exactly one of the things that in our report to you today we ask that you consider because we do believe that a group of stakeholders could be very, very helpful in being a sounding board giving input to the consultant And working hand in hand to bring back to you information. So I think that's certainly something we would be open to if your board is agreeable.
Thank you.
Alright, why don't we go ahead and go to the public? Mr. Allen? Oh do you still have...I'm sorry a couple more slides.
12-13, the estimated gap $2.7 million. The one that we're talking about in 11-12 would carry forward into the upcoming fiscal year and the budget that we've been putting together. Again, the CARES move to MHSA would reduce the gap by a million four but we do anticipate that into 12- 13 We would have to address a $1.3 million shortfall and since we have been working on our budget, we've been looking at that. We anticipate what it would mean is that we would manage our beds at Vista Del Mar probably to three A day which is pretty tight for what we need.
We would look to use fewer beds in our IMDs out of county, we might have to start thinking about a small reduction in the homeless programs and those service impacts are actually in the budget we submitted so far for the CEO to review. And again additional general fund contribution is something I'll just mention.
2:19 – 2:269 turns
So the ongoing risks to the department are trying to mitigate exposure due to accruals, accruals was a big part of the issue they are hard to predict and it ties into the long time element there are new tools that have been developed i think that the department has been working towards improving and getting additional tools to help them with these These now overlay denials and I spoke about the changes made for 11, 12 and 12-13 figures.
The last thing I'd say there is that the Medi-Cal expectation has dramatically reduced for the department where they at the peak in 06-07 projected $29 million in Medi-Cal related revenues. The projection in Fund 44 for next year is less than $11 million so the expectation and pressure there is reducing. Pending liabilities, CEC MISC I think as I mentioned previously there are some favorable developments. Hopefully we'll close out the period through fiscal year 05-06 and then we'll have to address remaining periods.
Self disclosure issues, we have a draft document we hope to close up in the next month or two and hopefully some favorable results there. With cost settlements, those are going to be an ongoing issue. We're just going to be starting shortly our audit of the fiscal year 06-07 so once again we've got this very long lag time. State MediCal claiming systems, we talked at length about some of the issues there so that is a significant risk to the department and then the increasing both dollar amount and number of clients that are looking for services in primarily as I see it in the inpatient area.
Mr. Alvarez, can you give the board and the public any idea what the overall total pending liability might be? And the amount of money that's been booked to cover that?
Madam Chair, there are two very large elements of funding sources that should be settling within the next two months and for that reason we're waiting for those to settle before coming back to the board to saying here's what we now know. Here's the liabilities that are known and the liabilities that have been that are estimatable at this point. We're working with the auditor controllers department on that schedule it's been drafted It's not quite ready for publication. We're anticipating that by May, that can be presented to the board with the finalization of these two large items that we hope will settle in the next month or so.
Okay, because I mean it does get very confusing with these different categories because you know we have booked large amounts of money out of the strategic reserve. And and I think it's hard to understand whether that's it or whether we're going to have more than we have to pay and what that is and what the timing is for when that's due.
Madam Chair, that's exactly correct and when we come back in May we'll show you at a point in time what is now known. As I said the 6-7 audit is just going to be starting there could be a liability we don't know coming out of that so it will be an ever changing landscape and we're doing what we can to try to prevent These things from reoccurring, but any changes we made in 910 when additional staff were added won't be audited till far in the future. So it's a very challenging issue and I can appreciate your concern there, but it's an ever moving target.
Okay, thank you. CEO Waller did you want to comment?
Chair I was just going to make mention that we're working very closely with the auditor and controller to ensure that what we bring back in May is as accurate as it possibly can and it will reflect all of the liabilities and all of the funding that has been set aside and may be used to offset those.
Thank you.
All right. Future opportunities, Tom described some of the tracking tools we've been developing that we have developed. We will continue to use those. CO Waller mentioned the RFP to build on existing improvements and that will involve a process of community outreach and input. The RFP will include a look at inpatient system of care opportunities And I think one other issue for the future is, as Tom's discussed, as funds become available that we are able to budget for settlement audits as we anticipate them.
The changing state and federal landscape is significant. In 12-13 state realignment will change. As Tom referenced, the child EPSDT funding as well as the adult realignment and ADP realignment will be coming down to the county. I'm not sure yet of all the changes that are going to be happening with that, but we understand there may be more flexibility in how we use those funds than what we've had before.
A very significant change was AB 1297, that's a state law that now allows counties to draw down more federal Medicaid dollars. Currently the state has a maximal allowable amount above which you cannot, your rates cannot go above that and the Federal Government has said that counties' providers should be entitled getting covered for the cost of their services, so we're looking forward to understanding more about that. Another example is that the state has limited the time in which you can submit claims to six months. The federal government said that wasn't correct. You should have 12 months and so that change has also been made in this state law AB1297.
Our CSAC organization, the Trade Association for Mental Health Directors The California Mental Health Directors Association continues to advocate with the state on how the counties are affected by state issues. And one thing that I think I would really emphasize, maybe on a very positive note here, the Affordable Care Act health care reform expands Medicaid to individuals who do not currently qualify, effective January 2014. I think that's very important for clients in our department for this reason. In the state of California if you're a single adult unless you're eligible for disability you're not able to get Medi-Cal coverage.
When health care reform goes into effect Medi-Cal will be provided according to income level so everyone who is 133% of poverty or below will be eligible for Medi Cal And as I understand it, the federal government will pay for 100% of that cost for the first three years and the state 90% after it. That would be a major shift for our department where so many of our clients are adult and single and do not have a way to get access to Medi-Cal if they're not on disability. So certainly a lot is unfolding on this but we think there's much promise there for indigent people who are so much in need.
2:26 – 2:3519 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board. I'd like to thank the Department for presenting today Dr. Dietrich and our Budget Director Tom Alvarez. Our recommendation at this time is to receive and file the report and direct Alcohol Drug Mental Health Services to return to the board in May with further information on the department's financial projections including which was just discussed information on the liabilities and settlements and what the true delta is at that time Also at that time, we will have the results of the RFP back to us. That is actually due to us next week. We'll begin review of that item and we'll have some recommendations for the board at that time as well. So at this point in time, that concludes the report and we're happy to answer any questions.
Thank you Ms. Nisich. Supervisor Gray and then Supervisor Wolf.
Mr. Alvarez, I just may be confused but I thought we use general fund for CARES for years is that correct? To pay for CARES. We funded CARES out of general funds.
You may be thinking of CARES residential which is a residential
service. That's what I'm trying to get in my mind and we were told that we couldn't use some other We're hearing that maybe we can use another fund, and do we have a letter from the state that says we can? I'm just trying to put it in the right slot.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray, two different CARES programs. One are the clinics. The other is a CARES residential program that has 12 beds. What we've been discussing about moving to Mental Health Services Act, MHSA, is the CARES clinics not the residential that was receiving specific general fund.
Okay.
It gets confusing.
It does.
Supervisor
Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair. Supervisor Farr mentioned the $3 million in services and supplies and staffing, and you talked about the staffing. Can you just expand on the increase in the services and supplies? Is that related to the MHSA or...
Chair Farr and Supervisor Wolf, I'm not sure exactly what that reference is. We can probably get back to you before this hearing is over to tell you that and we'll have our staff check on it. Okay well
I just want to say that I think this has been really important for us to hear from your department especially as we're moving into the budget season and as you've outlined particular possible I look forward to hearing from the public But it also brings up something that happened earlier in the meeting and that was the information we heard about Lompoc closing one of the offices not related to your department, another department.
So I anticipate that we're going to be seeing cuts, and I guess I should be directing this to CEO Waller. We're going to be seeing cuts in departments throughout the county. I don't particularly as a board member like to be surprised when I hear that something was in the newspaper and there has been a significant change to a level of service for instance the community in Lompoc. So I strongly suggest that if there's cuts like that, that it comes to the board.
That's why I think this process is so important. This is obviously a bigger issue. The financial issue is greater but I think it's important for us to hear this so we can have the discussion And I know we're going out for the RFP and there's been suggestions made of how we might be able to consolidate departments. I'm worried about what we're going to do for this upcoming year, and if any of those suggestions will be able to impact what we can do this year.
That's why I am particularly interested in Supervisor Farr's discussion about the I think what it is, it's looking at issues that are not going to directly impact services. What can you do? What can you bring back to us in May? That's going to be a menu of options that we're going to have that is not going to disrupt services that we're providing. This is a big challenge for your department because anyone looking at these numbers can see that the revenue that you're receiving from federal, state and our local general fund has decreased. So you're working with less money and trying to provide the services to our community. Some of whom are probably not getting the services but we're not providing – the revenue is not there.
We as policymakers have to understand that and balance that, and I think we do. We don't have that funding available to us, but we want to be as effective as we can. The whole point is to reach as many people as we can. So if we can cut in other areas that don't impact programs... If I can say anything to you, I think that's what I would say when you come back in May, is provide us with those options. Thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you, Supervisor Wolfson. Before I go to Supervisor Carbajal just in reference to my comment about service and supplies it's page D154 in the budget book the departmental summary for ADMHS and in the actual in 09-10 was about 39.5 Madam Chair, I did just look at the certain financial information that I do have with me. And the 1011 services and supplies for Fund 44, the department we were
reporting
on
today It was $18,950,000 and is slightly down in the 11-12 year at $18.930,000. And so it would imply that the Fund 44 mental health services, services and supplies is actually slightly down almost flat. And the increase I'm certain although I didn't have it with me is in MHSA. There were some MHSA programs that were one-time fundings, Capital and IT was one of them where we're spending a significant amount of dollars in this year. That one time funding will be going away but there was a lot spent and planned to be spent in that area and we can come back with a summary of that information for you.
Okay, I think that that would be helpful. And also again you know you're showing a consistent level pretty much of contract and extra help people and I know that that's something that other departments have looked at so if you could look at that and come back with an explanation on what those positions are and If they're still needed Supervisor Carbajal
Thank you Madam Chair. CEO Waller, I'm just wondering if you could just give us a little overview of when you're going to be bringing that information to us because I will remind my colleagues that you've been working diligently with all departments on identifying the unfortunate process of budget cuts and what does that mean so we could have a balanced budget dealing with The more or less $16 million liability that we're going to have for next year. And what you just heard today is just the tip of the iceberg.
We have Lompoc, we have x-ray issues, staffing, we have various programs. There's much, much more I can guarantee and assure you of that. So 16 million is quite a bit. And I know the departments are going through those painful exercises right now. And, I guess I'm just wondering when that information is coming so that again did I certainly didn't think that That we were going to be absolved of this painful process of $16 million and all those services that we're going to be challenged to keep, and hopefully not reduce our staff as well. Because those are the challenges. Where do we get the money? And how much of it is general fund and how much of it is categorical funding? But the big target so far that I'm aware of is about $16 million for next year that we have to address.
2:35 – 2:4012 turns
We will be bringing a fiscal outlook update to you in April and that will be taking what we provided in November and updating it so that you can see big picture, what issues continue to have and new ones on the horizon. In regard to service level impacts, actually what I'm doing here is reviewing proposed service level impacts that your departments have submitted to the CEO and I would anticipate in the next couple of weeks finalizing those impacts. And then certainly having a discussion with the board as we move forward to the CEO's proposed budget, which will come out in mid-May and then obviously our hearings in June. But a lot of information over the next few weeks you're absolutely correct in that we have a Very significant shortfall once again to try to solve and after many, many years of cuts that your board has already made it's going to continue to be especially difficult and especially painful.
But certainly we want to make sure that you have the information to assist in making those decisions so that's kind of next steps where we're going over the next month or two to provide information
Thank you. All right, shall we turn to the public now then? Mr. Allen.
Madam Chair, members of the board, we're going to start in Santa Maria with Charles Huffines to be followed by Jason Prostowski here in Santa
Barbara. Is there some kind of schedule that you'd like to talk to us about because we've got sheriff's folks waiting and we're up against 12 o'clock?
Right. Okay, so a little agenda management. We will get through this before lunch and then does the board want to take everything else after lunch?
That's what I'd like to see us do so that we can finish this one.
Okay, so we will finish this item. The board will break for lunch and closed session and then we'll come back after lunch, after closed session with items number 2, 3, 4, and 5. Thank you.
Good
morning. Madam Chair and Board of Supervisors, you just received a letter from the Mental Health Commission to which I'm a member concerning the issues on the budget items that Ann Dietrich has proposed with her staff The commission itself backs her 100% behind her. The commission has passed certain legislations during the year that was presented for MHSA purposes to enhance the programs such as the PEI which is prevention and early intervention, The TAY program within that facility, which is those that are 18 to 25.
Innovative, the innovation program, which is to get people on Medi-Cal, 300 people. The WET program, which is Workforce Educational Training, which we had two different peer support trainings over the last two years involving some 70 people Of which 13 people are now employed by this county in an ITT program, which is to transform everything into computers.
We're trying to get those underserved and unserved people that need services But of course the money is not there. And as it looks, the money will not be there but we're trying our best. We recommend to you that you look into what Ms. Dietrich is saying I think she's an excellent director better than the prior director we had because his philosophy was Take care of the clients first and we'll worry about paying for the money later. Now, the problem was that since that situation occurred everybody's been in a recession.
She took the ride of the ship that was going to sink and I believe she is doing the best job available that she can do under the circumstances. And she does have a commission behind her that is fully aware of what's going on And we do make recommendations each and every month to her, to keep the system operating and operating at a full capacity that it should be.
I know that we would like to have more money everybody would but everybody's in a strap.
Thank you Mr. Huffines your time is up. Thank You.
Jason Prestowski to be followed by Deborah Barnes We and
the emergency department here in the Santa Barbara community pride ourselves on the quality of emergency services we provide.
2:41 – 2:469 turns
in the mentally ill in our emergency departments. Some of these patients are coming to the emergency department and staying in the emergency department for days, waiting for a psychiatric bed to open up. My colleague and friend Dr. Chris Flynn is going to give you some more details and figures when Left work this morning at the early hours, there was a patient that had been in our emergency department for over 60 hours waiting for a psychiatric bed to provide definitive care for their mental illness.
This affects all of us. For those of our patients that come to the emergency department for emergency services, this adds to their weight. Beds are being taken up by mentally ill patients in our emergency departments which could also be used to provide care for other patients suffering with illness and disease Please do not eliminate services for the mentally ill and for the indigent. Please help us in the emergency department provide care for the mentally ill.
This is going to have impacts that are going to affect all of us, and again my colleague Dr. Crisplin will give you some figures. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for being
here. Deborah Barnes followed by Margie Hunt.
Madam Chair and Supervisors, thank you for this session today where we can speak. I can only address the issues that I know on the street and as you know I'm a full-time outreach worker for the street people here in Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and Goleta. I am seeing so many more mentally ill who need help, serious help. And we can't call upon who we used to call upon.
I used to be able to call upon Jennifer Frez and I used to be able to call upon CARES if I had a crisis situation. We are having many crisis situations in the street And I'm out there five nights a week, so I speak with frankness in that we don't have anyone to turn to. In my estimation they've already cut those services because we have nobody to turn to that can answer as those people used to do and help us when we're in crisis. I am not a trained mental health social worker. The mental health social workers that were out from their services are no longer out there And we call for help from their emergency center, and we don't get the help we need. We end up either taking a person in our own vehicles to ER or we end up leaving them on the street praying that they will last through the night and that nothing else will happen to them and that they won't harm anyone else.
I beg you not to cut services to the homeless and the mentally ill who have no voice here, and we hope we're being the voice for them. Thank you very much.
Thank You Ms. Barnes
Margie Hunt followed by Dr. Robert Jones
Hi, good morning Madam Chair and board members. My name is Margie Hunt and I am the local program manager for a community-based organization or CBO called Mental Health Systems. And we've had a contract with San Barbara County ADMHS since 2007. I wanted to come here today to give some feedback on how it has been to be a contractor with ADMHS. I want to give you some positive feedback Using a hybrid model comprised of both MHS and ADMHS staff, we have developed and carried out program services for transition-age youth countywide.
The programs help TAY youth in all stages of their mental illness and development from the early stages which we call prodromal symptoms to work on prevention and early intervention of their treatment, to help them in transitioning into the workplace, education, housing, college, anything they need to become independent. MHS has contracts in at least seven different counties across California and Utah. And I have to say working with Santa Barbara County has been one of the most user-friendly accessible helpful and collaborative counties to work for.
A great example of this is their scorecard feedback system for contractors. Following each quarter, contractors receive a scorecard that gives each performance area such as financial, staffing, service level, program, clinical either green light, yellow light or red light and it looks like this. And while it may seem elementary, which they say everything you need to know you learn in kindergarten right?
It's in fact actually a really clear and effective tool easy to remember. That's a great visual, it's easy to use with staff to give feedback and used for training purposes. Along with the traffic light score there is an explanation under each section followed by a live meeting with the CBO in the county to collaborate and discuss feedback and make clarifications and adjustments as needed.
And again it continues to be A pleasure working with Santa Barbara County, ADMHS and from the innovative programs such as the TAE program to the user-friendly contractor tools. I wanted to come here today and share my gratitude. Thank you.
Thank you for being with us.
Dr. Robert Jones will be followed by Dr. Christopher Flynn
2:47 – 2:5610 turns
What's really needed is a group of professionals need to file a lawsuit against this county because right now, is in violation of the state laws of California. They know that, they've been in violation for years and that's why the mental health, the State Mental Health, and of course the County Council would never, he knows it isn't a violation of that. He knows the state law, maybe he doesn't know the state law but so that's why the Mental Health Department, the State Mental Health Department calls The alcohol, drug and mental health department? The worst.
You can check this out. This is the worst mental health department in the state of California. And you support it with 16 million dollars? What are you going to do this time? Support it more? Well I think I heard a little bit like well you know we've been given $16,000. We got to make some change. How long does it take you to make a change? But anyway, sorry if there may be some questions here. I mean, gee whiz boy!
Now, oh I got a minute forty-two seconds huh? Now the report that I heard here was so, such a discontinuity, a gap in what needs to be done. Of course you understand that so now you're going to make some changes tell CEO Walter how long does it take you to make a change? You see and the state of California demands that you see every client that comes to your Clinic.
Any person who demands that you see that person, and that's why they call you the alcohol drug and this director knows that. You turn people away? The state has been lenient on you and your computers don't hook up with with the state mental health. He just now admitted that I've been saying that for five years now listen As long, and the State of California realizes this. As long as you've got racism in your alcohol drug, you're going nowhere. You're never gonna get that money back that the state owes you. The state is very aware of that. They hear me right now!
And I declare that department racist. And you'll never get that money back until you admit it. And that's a powerful statement. Now I've already, I got 16 seconds here Madam Chair. I've already said this turn this alcohol drug department over to Cottage Hospital they're building for this. I've said it for years thank you.
Next speaker
Dr. Christopher Flynn to be followed by Nancy McCready
Good morning doctor
Good afternoon. I'm Dr. Flynn, an emergency specialist and director at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and a former director of Goleta Valley Emergency Department. Madam Chair and Supervisors, I stand with my mental health workers here today to let you know some of our concerns in the emergency department at Cottage Hospitals who are really facing a big crisis in emergency access to care for psychiatric patients And the ED physicians are really asking you to find better solutions for finding access for indigent care for psychiatric holds.
The Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital sees about 43,000 patients annually and we do that with only a limited amount of bed capacity. We have 22 beds and only about maybe 9 beds that can be used in hallways and chairs. The emergency department in Coleta Valley is even smaller. Nine beds, seeing 18,000 patients a year and these departments are being impacted by long psychiatric holds that are being placed by the carers providers in our community.
Santa Barbara really is impacted because the length of stay over the last several years for psychiatric patients has gone from 10 to 15 hours. And you can imagine that we're now measuring the length of stay for patients that are on 5150 holds in our department, that are indigent in days not hours, days that they're being stored in our department. So, we understand the mental health care issues. We want to be a medical screening service for the department. We want to help mental health to do these patient care screenings but now we're being called on to be the solution to the crisis in mental healthcare and patients are being over, you know, overburdening our system for days and days which displaces the community resource that Cottage Hospital needs.
You know, the Community Emergency Department has to provide stroke care, cardiac care. We're a level two trauma center. We're a pediatric referral center. We are called upon now with a new helipad to provide more care for the community and if we have increasing psychiatric burdens, we're displacing citizens to the hallways where they normally were being able to be seen by our staff.
So I just ask, when the county makes decisions in this coming audit and when you start to look forward to the future, you've got to consider that this uninsured population where we're holding them in emergency rooms has to be considered. We have to be more efficient with the mental health resources that we have and we have to partner with emergency services to find better solutions so that these patients aren't just boarded and impacting our emergency departments.
Thank you.
Thank you. Actually, if you could just stay at the podium, sir. Supervisor Carbajal?
Thank you Madam Chair. I really appreciate you coming down from Cottage Hospital to share your thoughts with us. You know, I really think that as we look at strengthening our mental health safety net in our area, I think that Cottage needs to be part of that discussion in a strategic fashion. Cottage is the only hospital in our area Cottage provides a great service, but certainly many years ago the County of Santa Barbara gave up having a hospital with an understanding with Cottage is my understanding in partnering how we could continue to provide medical services and mental health services to this community. And I think we need to continue constructive and strategic discussions in an ongoing basis so that we can both work together in addressing these issues, at least in the South County.
And I know we have hospitals in the North County but somehow that strategic communication and constructive planning I don't think has been at the level that it can be. So as we look at continuing our efforts to deal with these issues from a county standpoint, I do think that Cottage Hospital needs to be more engaged and more at the table in collaboratively working together to address these issues. So I hope by you being here, that's something you can take back to Cottage Hospital, that we look to you to be part of our ongoing discussions as to how we can deal with some of these issues starting with the geriatric psych unit that was once contemplated that Cottage was going to possibly look at continuing that service, which is not the case today.
So something needs to happen where we need to be collaboratively more involved to address some of these issues and this is one of them.
I can't speak for the administration. I'm only an advocate for emergency services, but I can tell you that mental health issues are a big part of our process. We have Five East which is in a voluntary unit that takes care of chemical dependency and also serves the needs of many patients with psychiatric illness. The issue we're talking about is the uninsured population, the ones that everyone continues to put on our doorstep without any resources or funding. And in the past, we had a 5150 hold. We could place them in the PUF or psychiatric hospital but now the uninsured are being limited in terms of not allowing us to transfer to Vista or other resources. There's available psychiatric beds there's just no one that's going to use a funding source to allow them to be transferred.
So what happens is they spend days and days and days in our emergency department, which is really the most inefficient way to deal with medical patients. And the mental health patients really don't get care when they're being boarded. They're just there for days, and it's just really not a great setting for anybody. And it's affecting our safety net, I agree. So I look forward to conversations with the Board or with Mental Health, and we'll be open to that.
Thank you
very much.
2:56 – 3:017 turns
Nancy McCready to be followed by Ann Eldredge.
Hi, I can't relate to this report. What I can relate to is what I see out on the streets. I see my friends drooling Walking around with chemical lobotomies, I see them. I'm sad when our men in blue have to tase somebody and kill them because this man is in heavy crisis mode and his adrenaline rush is so high that it causes him to have a heart attack. Those are the sad stories that I get to hear And because of these stories, other mental patients on the street react about these stories. One of my friends is now in jail because he went to City Hall for help and instead turned it around and it turned out that he got arrested for terrorist threats. Well, it's all part of mental health.
I would hope maybe, because this department is so big and it sounds like it needs help that perhaps we can get a forensic audit going before we cut any of these programs. Because God knows, I don't want to see my homeless programs being cut along with the rest of the things that are being cut. They just need help. Mental health needs help. All our help. I don't think that we have enough help for them. So, I think we should think about that. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. McCready.
Ann Eldredge to be followed by Tim Rode.
Mr. Rode come to the microphone did you fill out a speaker slip? Okay why don't you go ahead then.
Well Madam Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors, thank you for having me here. It's always an honor. I have some copies of the letter that the Commission sent to the board. I'm here because I want to clarify that the commission is, as Chuck Huffines mentioned in Santa Maria, we are behind the administration. And these are tough times. I also wanted to go over this letter briefly.
You might know that we meet regularly each month in a different location so that we know what's going on in the county personally. So Lompoc, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara Last year the Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services served 4,800 adults and 2,500 children. We are faced with having to also serve people with very serious mental health issues. And as you've heard that is not an easy thing to do.
The situation in the emergency room concerns me greatly, and that is what I see projected if we do not back this part of our services countywide. Is that we will end up paying possibly more for the services that we have now through things like through emergency rooms, crises in the street, the jails, courts etc. So again, thank you for supporting the department and listening to our presentation.
There are some improvements being made and you heard that this morning. Some of the things that we're proud of, the improvements are mental health first aid which I also took myself here in Santa Barbara and enjoyed We have the assertive community treatment teams throughout the county. That's 24-7, that helps to be there when crisis occurs. We have supportive housing programs in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria.
They serve 260 people. Those are people that otherwise might be in crisis because housing is one of the first steps to being brought back into the community and leading a normal life We have peer intern training programs that mean a lot to me. They always bring tears to my eyes to see people who offered little to the community getting back on their feet, finding work and helping others to lift up and raise their life expectations also.
I need to know right now do I have another three minutes or am I almost done?
I also wanted to say it's been my pleasure to meet with quite a few of you privately for different reasons and I've always enjoyed that.
3:01 – 3:0711 turns
Already mentioned is the scorecard process. We've been enjoying that as the commission, it gives us a snapshot view of what's going on with the care that we're giving where can we improve that care etc. It's being looked at with the Alcohol Drug Advisory Board also because we like it so much we want to extend it over to that side of the administration Some of the concerns are crisis residential beds in South County, the unexpected declines in revenue that you've heard about.
The changes at state level that you've heard about that we have to then try to deal with. There's a need for increased outreach treatment and support services to people who continue to be underserved particularly I'm thinking of the Latino communities There's a lack of awareness that one out of four families in this county will be affected by mental disorders of some kind or another.
So therefore, the Mental Health Commission is made up of people who are users of these services and also family members. I'd like to also see a better understanding of the role that alcohol drug mental health services and the CBO services play In preventing people from becoming homeless and helping people to avoid incarceration in our overcrowded jail. So again, the commission commends the administration for their successful efforts in trying to make this system as effective as possible.
And I appreciate the extra time and it's always a pleasure to see all of you. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Road. Thank you for being here and your work on the Commission.
Our next speaker is George Green to be followed by Carol Leaf
Good afternoon, Mr. Green.
Supervisor Farr, members of the board, I'm George Green. I'm staff for SEIU Local 620. I'll try to be brief. I was here in 2008 speaking to you when there was a bigger problem than you have right now, and I've heard some comments that I didn't expect from the board that I kind of had to change. I'm going to have to address but I think the first thing that I'd like to say about we represent staff at Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health.
I've worked for this local for 18 years and have been involved in mental health issues for that long. But the first thing that I'd like to address is, you know, Supervisor Carbajal talked about a new paradigm. To me, a new paradigm would be committing the same amount of general fund, making the same general fund commitment to your alcohol, drug and mental health department that you make to your public health department and social services department, which is like 8 or 10 percent of their budget. Whereas mental health has to give – I couldn't believe it when I saw that the general fund contribution was down like $2.2 million. I think right now your contribution from the general fund to ADMHS represents about 2 to 2 1⁄2 percent of their budget.
The other thing that concerns me is obviously SEIU's a statewide organization, an international organization, a nationwide organization but specifically here in California. We've been getting a lot of information on healthcare reform and what counties are talking about. I don't think that you're being given By the county administrator and your budget folks, an accurate, and if you're going to direct staff to do something I would ask them to make a presentation because other counties are looking at a huge influx of revenues for alcohol, drug and mental health programs, public health programs etc.
based on health care reform that will become effective in January of 2014. We just need to get there. Indigent funding, I think the department touched on it briefly at the end but that's a huge issue. Now we're running out of time. The last thing I want to address is I respectfully don't agree that amalgamating public health and mental health is either a new paradigm or a good idea has been looked Before, it's not the solution to any of these problems and I think it would be a terrible idea. I spent two years of my life on the redesign committee that put together the current system of care.
To put together a redesign committee frankly that is what you pay the folks and it's not my job normally to compliment managers and department heads but these folks are incredibly competent compared to what you've had in place in alcohol, drug and mental health.
Thank you
for your time.
Actually, Supervisor Carbajal. Mr.
Green?
My asking to look into this it doesn't come with any predisposition other than looking at opportunities that we may have in such a consolidation. It doesn't come with a predisposition as to how much general fund or lack thereof would be involved. I'm not trying to taint the process, but rather looking at what a consolidation might provide us in terms of opportunities.
Thank you for the clarification.
3:07 – 3:137 turns
Carol Leaf is our next speaker to be followed by Richard Osborne, who's our final speaker.
Hi everybody my name is Carol Leaf I was told by Kathleen Reddington who is a council member in Carpinteria that there is a 3.3 million dollar unspent fund for the Bringing Them Home program and she is Extremely frustrated that this money has been given to the county for homeless, and it's not been spent. And we have both been wondering where is that money?
The other thing, responding to Mr. Green, it's sort of hard to understand why there was no money when we've got probably a $4 billion unfunded pension liability in this county. And these things are all interrelated. I know everybody here would like you to stick to one subject and not sort of make a whole piece of it, but that's really invidious to the whole process.
I can't help but question Mr. Alvarez' statements And his financial expertise when two weeks ago at this meeting he misstated the results and the findings of the Stanford Economic Policy Institute study. That study, and this is all related to the budget, that study states stated that our county's live assets or pension Returns were based on 7.75 projected revenue in the fund from stocks and things. Mr. Alvarez switched the numbers around, and he said that the Stanford report was based on 5% returns when it wasn't.
So he says that the county has a $740 million unfunded pension liability, and that's wrong. And he either misread the report or he didn't understand it or he intentionally misstated it. I would like to think it was one of the former. And I question, I don't know why you would want to have to hire a blue ribbon panel. Ms. Waller makes almost $400,000 a year.
True she did come from the city of San Diego which was led to bankruptcy during part of the time she was there. And, you know, maybe she doesn't have the expertise to analyze these things. But why we should be spending more money on experts when these people are highly paid? They're supposed to be experts at figuring out how to consolidate departments and things and they know more about this than bringing in an outside consultant.
You know I'm really worried about the municipal bond market crashing in this county. Thanks.
Our final speaker is Richard Osborne
I started my journey in 1995 with the alcohol, drug and mental health system. And my time has been to achieve freedom from my mental illness. Mental illness is real. I'm a work in progress and I'm utilizing the alcohol, drug and mental health system as of today And I choose the path of recovery. It's about recovery, and there are a lot of people who don't know they need help.
Certain amounts of people that I've met that need services and benefit from services, and the basis for treatment Well I'd just like to say that I appreciate the services and it's helped me out a great deal. That's all.
Thank you, thank you Mr. Osborne. And that was our final speaker. All right we'll bring it back to the board. Staff do you have any comments? Okay Supervisor Lavagnino.
Thank You Madam Chair one thing You know, and I haven't talked to her about this before but as our CSAC representative. I'm very curious if CSAC's looking into this as far as it seems like a lot of the problems that were being identified as state issues and problems at our state level. I mean there's 57 other counties, is everybody bleeding money like we are? And if not or if they are, is CSAC involved in this or can we take it to CSAC and see what the issue is? And the other part of that also would be Is our Ledge Committee working with our state representatives to talk to them about problems associated with mental health services at the state level so that we can get on track?
Supervisor Gray. CSAC, other counties don't seem to be experiencing the same problem. Not discussed.
3:13 – 3:1918 turns
Supervisor Carbajal.
I've had mixed messages from the state and this message, I know we've asked you in the past to do a little bit of research. My experience has been that there's a hodgepodge of experiences by various counties. And there is an effort to address some of these issues at the state level. Recently, there was the consolidation with health and mental health. They're in the process of dealing with their systems changes. They're in the process of dealing with healthcare reform that's coming down the pipeline. There's a lot happening. In this message I'm just wondering if you could Perhaps touch on this issue in any way you think would be constructive.
But I know Ms. Gray is talking about CSAC, but I think outside of the world of CSAC there is a lot going on and how CSAC is engaging, I'm not sure, but there is a lot and I'm just wondering if Ms. Nessidge could touch on that?
And before she starts, it might be really appropriate to just kind of define what CSAC basically does. And that's to address issues that affect all counties. So if not all counties are affected, it's not one of the major things because everyone has such a different way to look at it and approaches. So at this point in time, CSAC has not had this on their agenda to be discussed.
Thank
you.
Yes, thank you Madam Chair and Supervisor Carbajal. There is an organization the California Mental Health Directors Association that works statewide to address many of these issues in fact one of the items that was specifically referenced in our future opportunities piece of legislation AB 1297 was an effort led very specifically by the mental health directors association attempt to help all counties Get some relief for many of the items that Mr. Alvarez was discussing as he walked you through that six-year time frame.
A lot of those, as well, the California Mental Health Directors Association was also instrumental in the actual change in the state structure from what was once a system with a Department of Mental Health to a Department of Health Services. So we are now more actively engaged, I would say with the Mental Health Directors Association. Our financial people which are behind me from the department discuss finances with them on a weekly basis on a conference call and frankly as a county I'm very hopeful that we'll be more involved with the organization to seek out additional issues that we can resolve at a state level.
Chair Farr, if I might.
Yes Dr. Dietrich.
The second in command if you will to CMHDA we actually were able to have him on a phone call with some of our leadership here last week with the CEO and County Council and he was relaying a lot of concerns that the counties are having about the changes in the billing system They changed the short billing system in December 2009. They made some other changes now in January 2010 and as Mr. Alvarez said, now some of the denial rates are very high which is affecting the revenue coming in. So he gave us a very valuable briefing and I think at least from that trade association's point of view maybe not necessarily CSAC but from our trade association they're identifying a lot of common threads across county so it was helpful for us to listen to him Thank you.
All right, any other comments? Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair I don't have any other comments. I just again want to thank everyone for being here and for the emails that we received and I would like to move this item 1A and 1B. Thank you.
Supervisor Carvajal or any other supervisors, do you want to make an amendment to that motion?
The motion has been seconded but I am interested in part of the analysis that comes back is looking at what the opportunities that consolidation might provide. I think it's important for us to have that information, so if the motion made consists of that, I'll second it. If it doesn't, I'll make a motion to adopt A and B with Last information I just put forth or last request.
And actually, I also wanted some clarification from the maker of the motion Supervisor Wolf about my concerns about staff coming back in May with looking at some of these other areas that the departments have looked at both the permanent staffing as well as the contract and extra health staffing and the services and supplies budgets.
OK let me just clarify Supervisor Carbajal Because I thought the issue was the RFP that would be going out. That you wanted to include in that, the issue of moving of a consolidation? Or do you want it to be that the department comes back in May?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, CEO Waller what would be best because I also don't want to put us in a box where in May you come back and you're not going to have that information. So I look to you to kind of help us get there.
Supervisors, Chairwoman. I think that perhaps what you would want to do is direct staff to include that analysis as part of what the RFP will bring back to you assuming that when we bring the RFP forward and the associated funding you approve that. I don't think that we'd be prepared in May to have that information and have it fully vetted.
And I'm very concerned that we can make certain that there is a discussion of the task force and that it occurs at the CEO level, not at the mental health department level. And that's critical to me.
3:19 – 3:2723 turns
Chairwoman, Supervisors, again both of those issues certainly we would be open to direction now. I think that they could also be further clarified when we bring forward the results of the RFP to your board for allocation and resources at that point but certainly they could be included at this juncture if you would like to.
OK. Supervisor Gray, was that? Yeah, that's
fine. Thank you. Supervisor
Wolk? I'm
getting head
nods. OK so we'll do A and then B asking directing the department to return to the board in May with further information on financial projections to include the discussion that was outlined by Supervisor Farr as it relates to staffing levels And or any other budget reductions that are not, that would not eliminate programs but other efficiencies in the department. Does that work? Sure. Okay. That includes
the
service
and supplies.
Yeah
those
other areas.
Wait a minute, that wouldn't include any reductions. Are we going to put ourselves in that predicament already? I think we want the analysis. We want the figures. We want the recommendations. We want that RFP to come before us that considers various analysis and looking at this issue including consolidation, including what Supervisor Gray said, and including what Supervisor Farr said which is the numbers issues That Supervisor Farr put forward as well as the task force that Supervisor Gray put forward.
The only if I could just say, I don't disagree with any of that it's just that I don' t know that we're going to that's just the RFP to go out and get the analysis but unless you think we can get soon and that we can have the report done by May. I'm looking at what are we going to do for this budget if you think that we can get everything done by then, that's fine but
Chair Supervisors, I think I'm actually hearing consistent information but two different time frames. The one we're talking about coming back in May with financial projections and budget adjustments for your consideration. The second piece is what the RFP may include and so I think that we can take direction Thank you. information that Dr. Dietrich had about things that could be done immediately to help close the gap, which she also indicated that she did not recommend to you and I think we'd like to have some direction in that regard if you want us to move forward or if in keeping with what Dr. Dietrich said that we not immediately start down that path on what we could do in the next couple of months to close that existing budget gap.
So hopefully that made some sense. We're talking one, financial things and two more requests for proposal things.
Well I guess I need some clarification then from Dr. Dietrich because Dr. Dietrich you said for example in one of the inpatient facilities we now have up to five beds but might cut it back to three maybe not enough but still Is that a part of what you were talking about?
So Chair Farr, we were talking about actually not using Vista Del Mar for the rest of the year and having no beds there. We're talking about starting to send out a 30-day notice and begin to decrease the homeless programs. We're talking about some of our residential programs that we might not be able to fund those or reducing I'm Such drastic moves because I don't think it would be safe for the community.
Actually, Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Carball then Supervisor Lavinia.
So getting to on slide 18 there were three proposals to save 3.1 million dollars and I'm getting to what CEO Waller is talking about for us to take immediate action When I look at those three items, I don't see, at least on its face and what you had talked about that we would be seeing a program reduction.
So Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, what this page identifies is where we have felt that we do have solutions. It's then the next page...
The next page is Something I believe that we can talk about in May. They're much more, to me they appear to be much more drastic and they impact the programs that were concerned about. If CEO Waller wants us to look at making some reductions today, I could see us moving forward on slide 18. Agenda Item Slide 18. May include some of slide 19. But at this point, I don't think we're in a position to recommend any cuts. County Council do you want to weigh in on that?
Correctly stated, Supervisor, the agenda item is not set up for any board action rather to receive the report and then give direction to the staff for their return in I think May 1st report. But I think you're correct there is no action item at this point.
Chairwoman Supervisor, just for clarification on this particular slide what we were talking about is because it requires a 30 day minimum notice if we were to come back to you in May You really would have no ability to do any program reductions then. What we're seeking is a feel and direction if your board chooses to implement some of those what we call drastic program reductions, to get back to your board immediately with Thank you.
3:28 – 3:329 turns
What you're telling us is that from here until June 30th there's a $3.3 million deficit that we have to solve, let alone what we have to do for the ensuing year, correct?
Chair Farr and Supervisor Carbajal, that's correct.
Thank you. I'm ready to make a motion that is basically along the lines of what you said CEO Waller and I think I'm not in a position to make any cuts now, so unfortunately we have three months to go. There's no way we're going to put in draconian reductions now but whatever we're going to do for the ensuing year, now we have three months to start looking at that but to do it now, we would be callous and unstrategic to dump this on those receiving services, on our staff or anyone. So we really have no choice so my motion is that we...
Actually Supervisor Carbajal I think that we have a motion and a second on the floor. We're going to set a record here for how long this motion's been out, but I guess what we're looking for is a little direction on whether or not
And I'm following right along with Supervisor Carbajal on this. I don't see, I am not in a position where I am comfortable enough with what I feel is going on in the department to go ahead and make those cuts to the homeless and those in need of mental health services. So I need to hear the motion again so that I know exactly where we're at.
So my motion is essentially what's stated, which is to receive and file the report and direct the department to return to the board in May with further information on the department's financial projections. Which would include some of the information that Supervisor Farr mentioned. And that would be the end of it. If someone wants to talk about an RFP or other stuff, then let's do another motion but just to make it clean and focused on what we have on the agenda, that is my motion. I will second that.
Okay. And then I think that I would just like to comment that I also don't support the drastic program reductions but what I'm looking for when you come back are other kinds of cuts that would be the equivalent of this because it's not just to close the gap this year. You're showing this as an ongoing deficit into the next year, so you're looking at doing those same kinds of cuts For twelve thirteen and going forward to kind of come up with one point three million. So I'm looking for other options to find that 1.3 million, and that's why I brought up these other issues. All right so we have a motion. We have a second. All those in favor say aye.
Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right now we want to make the second motion to do with the RFP and some of these other comments.
Madam Chair I'd like to make a motion that And CEO Waller, if you could just help out here. Pursue an RFP that you will bring back. I don't know if you want the scoping to come back or this is the scoping opportunity for us but that will include various options for examining the department including consolidation and looking at the task force that Supervisor Gray said in terms of a stakeholder process that could help us in our strategic Potential restructuring of the department
Okay, that's a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All right all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries Okay, thank you everybody Thank You AMHS staff and members of the public that were here The board is going to break for lunch and close session Mr. Marshall would you tell us what we're gonna be talking about and then the board will be back at 145
3:32 – 4:173 turns
Thank you, Madam Chair. Your closed session today includes the following existing litigation, Terrace v. County of Santa Barbara, Naples Coalition v. County of Santa Barbara et al., and SBRHC Inc. v. Santa Barbara Investments LP, State Department of Mental Health v. ADMHS, People v. Quaid, and Palin v. County of Santa Barbara. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. We'll be back at 145. ¶.
Yeah. ¶. Hi. ¶. . . ¶¶ ♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ ¶. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶. Hi. Thank you. ¶. ¶. ¶. Hi. ¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. ♪ Music ¶¶ ♪ ¶. ¶¶ Hi. ♪ ¶. Yeah. Yeah. ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶¶ 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ♪ ¶. Yeah. Thank you. 2A 3.30 (-0.99") ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ♪ ¶. Hi.
4:17 – 4:233 turns
¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶¶
¶¶
¶¶ Hi, everyone. Good morning. ♪ Yeah.
4:23 – 5:101 turns
¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. Hi, everyone. Thank you. ♪ Oh, Hi. Hi. You. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶. Hi. Hi. ¶. ¶¶ Yeah. ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶¶ ? ? ? You. ¶. 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Music Thank you. Thank you. StSq3 3.30 (-0.00), 3F 5.30 x (-0.00?) ¶¶ ¶. Thank you. ♪ 3F 5.30 x (-1.00)(CCoSp4 3.50 Hi, everyone. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Hello. ¶. ¶¶ . . ♪ Music ¶. Thank you. ¶.
2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) 2A 3.30 (-0.99") ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) ♪ ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶ Yeah. 2A 3.30 (-0.00), StSq2 2.60 (-0.00), ¶. ¶. ¶¶ 2A 3.30 x (-0.50') ¶. ¶ ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. ¶. ¶¶ Hi. Thank you. ¶. Thank you. ? ? ♪ ¶¶ ¶. Hi. ♪♪
5:11 – 5:188 turns
¶. ♪ Supervisors is going to come back into session now. We'll have a report from closed session, Mr. Marshall?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Each of your closed session items were considered today and there was one reportable action and that was in the Terrace V County of Santa Barbara. Your board by unanimous vote directed county council and outside council to initiate a cross-complaint relating to the 2006 settlement agreement. And that was the only reportable item, Madam
Chair. Thank you Mr. Marshall. Before we take up agenda item number two, we are intending to move up agenda item number five on the agenda but we're waiting for the applicant to arrive so we'll go ahead and we'll take item number two right now.
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item two is from the county executive office to hearing to consider recommendations regarding the submittal of grants for the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund for services addressing casino impacts.
Thank you.
Ms. Nisic? Yes good afternoon madam chair and members of the board this item is on your agenda today to authorize the middle of grants for the Indian gaming special distribution fund for law enforcement patrol and fire suppression and emergency medical services This year, the state allocation set to come to the County of Santa Barbara from the state is $9.1 million. On January 17th 2012, the county received notification from the State Comptroller's Office that 9.1 million dollars would be available statewide to address casino gaming impacts within 26 counties.
The purpose of the grants is to provide local jurisdictions with funding to offset the impacts of tribal gaming. Typically, acceptable uses are fire and emergency medical services, law enforcement services, water services, wastewater disposal, behavior health, public health, roads, recreation and child care. The cost allocation to the County of Santa Barbara this year is $736,752. This is approximately half of what the county typically enjoys from this allocation.
60% of the allocation or $442,000 is awarded to jurisdictions meeting a nexus test based on geographic proximity of a jurisdiction to an individual Indian land upon which a tribal casino is located. There are various points of discussion to determine if a nexus tax is met. The other or remaining 40% is allocated to discretionary grants, again for the services I noted earlier.
This year, Santa Barbara County Fire has submitted a grant request for $501,000 to fund a fourth firefighter paramedic post position at Station 32 in San Ynez. This will reimburse the county fire department for the full costs incurred for providing this service through fiscal year end 11-12 or this fiscal year. The firefighter paramedic position has been in place since 2002 and the response data for the last several years continues to reflect that this is a necessary position.
The Sheriff's Department has requested a grant for the total amount of the funds available, $736,752 to reimburse costs for law enforcement services provided through June 30th 2012. However, also they are requesting reimbursement again for $267,000 to reimburse their costs through fiscal year end 11-12. They're requesting that the remainder of the funds or the 468,000 be considered as part of a multiyear grant and rollover to fiscal year 12-13 to provide proactively for the funding of law enforcement services.
It is my understanding that the sheriff will also be contacting the tribe independently to secure supplemental funding for the full cost of providing such positions. The full cost of a position throughout one fiscal year, for one post-position is $798,000 not the 267,995 being requested through the year end of this grant. The combined county request funding totals $1.2 million, however as I indicated earlier the total amount of funding available for consideration and distribution by the Indian Gaming Committee is $736,000.
Therefore, I'd like to propose this funding scenario With the $736,000 it's recommended that the Board consent to funding the full Sheriff's Department request for 11-12 in the amount of $267,000 and the balance of the money be directed to the Fire Department for services in the amount of $468,757. So again, in summary our recommendation for you today which is slightly different than what is reflected in your staff report. Your staff report anticipates a different sum of money however what we are recommending to you today again is that we submit grants in the amount of $468,000 for partial reimbursement of county fires cost and reimbursement and again another grant for reimbursement for the county sheriff's costs of $267,995.
That concludes the staff report and I'm happy
to answer any questions. Thank you, Ms. Nisich. Any questions from the board at this time? All right we have any speaker slips Mr. Allen?
We have two requests to speak Dr. Robert Jones to be followed by Carol Leaf but I don't see Carol Leaf in the audience so Dr. Jones Dr. Jones, would you like to speak on D2 or would you like to pass?
5:19 – 5:3420 turns
Dr. Johns?
Yes, thank you for waiting. These funds would be greatly appreciated by the county and through the goodness of the Chumash I think the county could use these funds and I certainly would be very very happy to see that Chumash distribute those funds so thank you Madam Chair.
Thank you. Dr. Johns
was our only speaker.
All right, I'll bring it back to the board then for comments. Madam Chair
move to approve.
There's a motion. Is there a second? A second from Supervisor Lavinino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Alright we're going to skip ahead in our agenda to agenda item number five. Do we have everybody here that we need to have here?
Madam Chair, members of the board. Item five is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement in consideration of consent to transfer agreement.
Okay, before we go ahead and start this item I just wanted to say what the order of the hearing is going to be. We're going to have a staff presentation from Ms. Black then we will hear from the project applicant Deborah Rosenthal and David Thurman for about 15 minutes then public comment then we'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Good afternoon Ms. Black
Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. The item before you today is consideration of a request to consent to a transfer agreement between SBRHC Inc., and there's lots of initials, and CIP2BRSBR Limited Reliability Corporation for the Santa Barbara Ranch Project as specified in the Inland Development Agreement for the Santa Barbara Ranch. Staff recommends that your board receive the written request for the county's consent to a proposed transfer agreement between the parties and either authorize the chair to execute the written consent-to-transfer agreement prepared by staff and provided in attachment 4 to your board agenda letter, and find that CEQA is satisfied through CEQAs section 15162 relying on the Santa Barbara Ranch EIR.
Determine that the county cannot reasonably and presently consent to the proposed transfer because the proposed transferee has not provided adequate evidence of its own financial resources. To be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed I'll begin my presentation with just a bit of background, providing a short history of the actions related to the Santa Barbara Ranch Project.
The project was originally approved by the Board of Supervisors in October and December 2008 The board's approval included two separate development agreements, one for the coastal portion of the development and one for the inland portion of the development. The Coastal Development Agreement was rescinded by the board on November 9th 2009. The Inland Development Agreement remains in effect. On November 20th 2008, the Naples Coalition Environmental Defense Center and Surfriders Foundation filed suit challenging the county certification of the EIR and approval of the project for Santa Barbara Ranch.
In May of 2010, First Bank foreclosed on part or all of the inland project property and transferred its interest to SVRHC Inc. On April 5th, 2011 your board heard a request from First Bank, SBRHC Inc. and the original developers to acknowledge the developer's performance is extended throughout the period of litigation and to receive and file staffs compliance report. The matter was continued to May 17th where the item was withdrawn.
On February 7th of this year your board approved a notice of compliance pursuant to section 8.04 of the Inland Development Agreement On February 14th, the county was served with an amended complaint regarding the quiet title litigation between SBRHC Inc. and the previous developer which includes the county as a defendant in the litigation. Bringing us to the, that brings us to the current request. The applicant's current request was made by letter dated February 13th 2012 from SBRHC Inc and is included in your packet.
Also included in your packet are two letters from Cross Harbor February 13th and March 8th of 2012 which provide information regarding the financial resources of CIP 2 and the reputation of all the partners. The Inland Development Agreement provides the county 45 days from the date of the request to respond. If the county does not respond within that time frame, there's a conclusive presumption that the county consents to the proposed transfer.
Consent to transfer by the county is provided for in Section 8.02 of the Inland Development Agreement. The county may, and this is a quote, the county may refuse to give its consent only if In light of the proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources, such transferee could not in county's reasonable opinion be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed by such transferee.
As to financial information, Cross Harbor provided the current financial statement of CIP2 owned by Cross Harbor, the major financial partner in this arrangement CIP2 is capitalized with approximately $425 million of discretionary capital commitments from institutional investors. You can tell I'm not used to that many zeros. CIP 2 has 125 million subscription secured line of credit, and CIP 2 would make $300,000 available to the transferee to meet its obligations under the Inland Development Agreement.
Those obligations equate to approximately $300,000. I've included on this slide the financial and other obligations contained within the development agreement. Included are payment of a hundred thousand dollars for preparation of a creek restoration plan that has occurred an offer for reasonable assistance in completing that plan. And then prior to commencing grading or construction of the inland project payment of $300,000 to implement the creek restoration plan.
With respect to the information about the reputation of the proposed transferee The Cross Harbor letter dated February 13th 2012 provides information about the reputation of all of the partners. The information specifically addresses Preserve Communities one of the partners and projects that preserve communities has undertaken in areas with sensitive resources As with the notice of compliance that your board considered last month, the determination of Inland Development Agreement rights and obligations remains the subject of ongoing litigation.
Staff recommends that if the Board of Supervisors consents to the transfer, the Board specify in the consent to transfer that the county reasonably cannot at this time certify those respective rights and obligations But consents to SBRHC Inc.'s proposed transfer to CIP2-BR SBRLLC of whatever interests, rights and obligations that SBRHC Inc. has under the Inland Development Agreement, inland project approvals and the subsequent approvals. And the consent to transfer included in Attachment 4 does include that language.
Staff recommends that your board receive this written request again and for the county's consent to the proposed transfer agreement between the parties, and either authorize the chair to execute the written consent-to-transfer prepared by staff provided in Attachment 4 and find that CEQA is satisfied through CEQAs Section 15162 relying on the Santa Barbara Ranch EIR or determine that the county cannot reasonably and presently consent to the proposed transfer.
And that concludes staff's presentation. I'm happy to try to answer any questions that the board might
have. Thank you, Ms. Black. You know, I neglected to ask whether there was any ex parte from the board on this particular item. So Supervisor Levin, do you know?
Madam Chair, I have met with representatives from CIP2BRSBR LLC
Supervisor Carmichael?
I did the same as well, as well as members from the Environmental Defense Center and had a conversation with Mr. Mark Stillo. All
right.
Supervisor Ward? I also met with the group that starts with the letter C and representatives from EDC.
Okay. Supervisor Gray?
Nothing.
And I did meet with Nathan Alley and David Landecker of EDC and Jay Hart, Tom Bray and David Thurman from the partnership. So OK do we have any questions of staff at this time? Otherwise we'll go to the applicant. Okay, we'll go to the applicant then. Ms. Rosenthal, there's 15 minutes allotted for yours and Mr. Thurman's presentation.
Thank you very much. I'm Deborah Rosenthal with Shepherd Mullen Richter & Hampton. I am representing First Bank and SBRHC Inc., owner of the property. I have to tell you that I'm delighted to be here today because this is an indication that that the bank has entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the CIP entity. And I'm very pleased to introduce them to you.
If anything in this project is simple, this question before the board today is a single very narrow question. The question is whether CIP 2 SBR, which I call CIP has the financial resources and the reputation to take over the obligations of the developer under the IDA. And the county board would have to find that they do not have the appropriate stature In order to in order to refuse this, the consent. So it's a very narrow question and it was intended to be a narrow question to make sure that whoever took on this development agreement could undertake the obligations.
I would like to briefly summarize because there has been a great deal of discussion and comment what the decision is not There's always a temptation to start talking about the entire project. I think staff has the question exactly right. This is not a chance to reconsider the project, it is not an endorsement of the project as approved. It's not even an endorsement of CIP or an opportunity for personal attacks on CIP or the owner of the property. It is a simple question of whether the reputation and the financial resources are there. I also point out that it does not involve any coastal issues because the Inland Development Agreement does not include any coastal property.
We believe it's not premature, this is part of the due diligence process that we've been working with CIP to complete for a number of months This is an opportunity for them to introduce themselves to the county, to make sure that you can work together. It's something that needs to occur before the purchase because it's really part of the due diligence. I also would just comment as an attorney, I don't think this is a CEQA issue either because the project is already approved.
What's going to happen on the property? This is who the developer is going to be, which is typically not a CEQA question. So as I said it's a simple narrow question which staff has outlined and it's the same question just a different side of it that the bank had to investigate when we first met CIP and When we were entering into the purchase and sale agreement, were they going to be able to undertake the obligations to close on the property and to go forward?
And the bank's conclusion at least was that they were extraordinarily well-funded. I only wish that all of the landowners and developers that I work with had this kind of funding and ability to go forward. In terms of the reputation, they will be speaking for themselves but the reputation of a development company is always based on the people who are involved And on their experience. And I think that the experience that is summarized in the written materials is very extensive and when they looked at the project and realized they needed more experience with conservation, with environmental working with environmental issues, they brought in another partner and they've proven in our discussions to be very serious, very thoughtful about what needs to go forward.
And I think you've probably had that opportunity to conclude that yourselves. So as I said the bank and SBRHC hopes not to be in front of the board on very many more occasions and I'd like to introduce David Thurman Who is a project representative with Mondrock and also to assure the board that if there are any questions, we're happy to answer them.
5:34 – 5:4313 turns
Thank you Mr. Thurmond.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, fellow supervisors. Thank you for the opportunity. I wanted to...I am a partner with Mondrock Partners and I'm a partner with SIP2BRSBR which is our entity to acquire the Santa Barbara Ranch. This seems very simple and very clear cut to us that we are qualified on Wednesday January 25th We conducted a conference call with Ms. Diane Black, Mr. Mike Gazzone, with the CFO of Cross Harbor, Patrick O'Sullivan, Jennifer Dumas-Hall who's head of investor relations for Cross Harbor.
We also had Norm Breuer from the bank and Deborah Rosenthal on the call A number of questions were asked of us about our financial capability. Patrick went to great lengths to explain that information was requested of our parties. 35 pages were provided to you and to the public about our financial capability and our development experience. There was one clarifying point that came up, we dealt with that last week and that was handled in a subsequent letter dated March 8th We have provided all information that has been asked. We are not aware of any pending questions or anything at all that questions our capabilities.
We feel unequivocally there is no basis at all for any disapproval. And it's a very clear-cut choice that you have to make today. We're very, very excited to be before you. It is our goal that we plan to create jobs and to bring increased revenue to this county. And with that I thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. I'd like to introduce my partner who flew out yesterday from Boston, Mr. Jay Hart with Cross Harbor Capital Partners.
Thank you.
My remarks will be very brief. Cross Harbor, as you saw on the slides is a Boston-based real estate investment company. We manage money for some of the largest pension funds in the world on a discretionary basis and as you saw on the slide because there were so many zeros we have more than enough capital to carry out this project in a very successful way. We're very excited about it. We think it's a beautiful piece of real estate and I appreciate the nice weather here in Santa Barbara and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about Cross Harbor.
We'll go ahead and finish your presentation then we'll see if there's questions. Thank you.
Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board I'm Richard Monk and I am local counsel for CIP 2 which I will refer to as the transferee I think Deborah Rosenthal has really crystallized the issue that's before you, and of course it goes to the financial capability of the proposed transferee to be an assignee of a development agreement. And Mr. Thurman has summarized the telephone conference call that was had on January 25 between the CFO for CIP and others in that organization and county council Diane Black of Planning and Development.
And after learning what quality and type of information the county desired required in order to be submitted, they did submit a 35 page statement of their financial qualifications. Since the delivery of those documents that proposed transferee has not received any requests for further financial information from planning and development or from the CEO's office or the County Auditor's Office or the County Treasurer's Office or any other county department.
In view of these facts, we and the transferee are perplexed as to why in your agenda item you would even be presented with the alternative that a county cannot reasonably and presently consent to the proposed transfer agreement because the proposed transferees has not provided adequate evidence of its own financial resources to be able to perform the obligations proposed to be assumed We question how in view of the state of these facts and the information that's been provided to you, that your board could not reasonably or presently consent to the proposed transfer.
And again as Deborah has explained all this before you today is the financial demonstration of capability to perform that this proposed transfer is submitted And all other issues that have been submitted in writings to you and that you will probably hear in public testimony today as to the need for details on this potential developer's approach to the project or possible changes in the development proposal are really irrelevant to what's before you today. If those types of situations were to occur, the county would certainly address them at the appropriate time as they were presented which is speculative as to whether that would ever happen.
So with that, we urge you to authorize your chair to execute the consent of the transfer and allow this proposed transferee to proceed. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Mr. Gray, were you going to come forward? Okay. So that was, that's all for your presentation? For the applicant's presentation? Okay. Actually I would like if Mr. Hart could you come back to the podium please? Thank you. I just wanted to ask you about the difference in capitalization between Cross Harbor, which you represent and this new, I'm assuming it's a new partnership that you've just formed with Bond Rock and with Mr. Gray.
Because in the letter of March 8th, even though obviously you have, Cross Harbor has very substantial financial backing. In the letter you say that you will go ahead and make available $300,000 as a sum total of what you feel is needed to go ahead and effectuate responsibilities in the development agreement. Is that correct?
Well, the $300,000 number comes from the agreement I believe came from staff if I'm not mistaken. So that's what the ask of us and that's what we're happy to do.
Okay because if you learn that there was a greater financial obligation than that how would that go? Are you prepared to just go ahead and advance whatever amount of money is necessary?
Well, we're prudent business people. We want to understand the agreements we enter into naturally but our understanding is we are stepping into the shoes of the developer under that existing agreement and we intend to honor all the conditions of that agreement and that is our position so the quick answer I guess is yes then
Okay. Well, you know it's a little difficult at this point in time given the fact that you have two court dates coming up next month one of which is going to talk about what exactly is going to be transferred And, you know, depending on how that turns out there are other obligations that are implied in the development agreement that do have a cost associated with them. That's not necessarily spelled out in a dollar figure so and I'll just go ahead and ask you about a couple of them if you don't feel that you're the right one to respond then maybe one of your other Team members could come up.
Very good. One is that having an agreement with Dos Pueblos Ranch is integral because that's what the development agreement is about, although they are not signatories to the development agreement. So can you talk about that? Because if there's not already an agreement then there would probably be some financial obligation to try to make that happen another way.
Well, I think that's a little bit of speculation on everybody's part to see what would happen. We're only agreeing to step into what that agreement obligates us to do. And yes, that's part of the obligation but clearly if we can't make that happen, we can't move ahead with the development in general. But I would defer to Debra Rosenfeld for additional backup on that.
Thank you.
5:43 – 5:515 turns
I think we should separate some of the issues. The first issue is that the decision today is about the obligations of the development agreement, and the obligation to provide an ACE or an agricultural conservation easement is a condition of the development approval That is still in effect. There's no court decision that would be affecting that, and that is something that it is in essence a condition of approval and will need to be addressed as the development goes forward. But it's having the ace at some point Um, will expire.
It doesn't expire before the court decision and that's something that is um it happens but it's not part of the development agreement obligations and as of right now that agreement remains in effect. So the ACE is not an issue that is going to be before the court, and it's an issue that will be addressed as all of the conditions of approval will be addressed by whoever ultimately develops the property. We hope it will be SIPP. The second question is the court hearing, and the court hearing has to do with Some disputes between the prior owner of the property and SVRC.
Those will be resolved before or at the court hearing. However, that again is not part of the question that is before the board. The question before the board right now is not whether SBIRHC and the former owner are having an argument, it's whether SIP meets the financial and reputation requirements. So it's possible to ask lots of questions about the development, some of which can be answered, some of which are going to be answered over time but neither of those questions Although relevant to the development should affect the issue in front of the board, which is financial capacity and reputation. Does that? Does that, I wish it was all settled and finished.
Well so do I. And I think that's part of what I'm struggling with now because you know what we're trying to do is ascertain what the financial obligations are and clearly Cross Harbor individually is extremely well capitalized. They've said in writing that they're willing to advance $300,000 and what I am trying Because of the obligations in the development agreement, whether or not they are a subject of discussion of the impending court case still represent I think significant financial responsibilities of the developer for anybody that's going to end up in those shoes so to speak. So and actually, some of these agreements don't necessarily run with the land. So you can be the property owner but not necessarily, and I think this is what you're going to go to court about is are there other agreements that are needed to effectuate the development agreement that don't necessarily run with the
land? What I would say, and I'm happy to discuss all of those agreements, The question of whether an agreement runs with the land or doesn't run with the land, doesn't make a difference in terms of whether SIP has the financial capability. And Mr. Hart has said that SIP is prepared to step into the shoes of Undertake each of those obligations. The $300,000 request is and I was on the telephone call where that was discussed. That request was about the question of what this is to step in and to be a transferee of the development agreement.
Are there any special obligations? That come from the development agreement and not from the conditions of approval. So, it was staff's understanding that they wanted to make sure that as a transferee in essence the obligations that related just to the development agreement were essentially in the bank. That money was there. And then the obligations of development, the conditions of approval will be handled the way a normal development would be approved and that will go forward and just like the infrastructure those are all Investments that need to be made and the evidence is there that there is funding available.
Okay, well I'm looking at page 43 of the Inland Development Agreement under section 2.02 public benefits of which the restoration the money for the restoration was listed there but it also talks about The final approval and recordation of the agricultural conservation easements. And the consent of Dos Pueblos Ranch with respect to the activities that occur on Dos Pueblos Ranch. So clearly, some things were pulled out of the conditions of approval and specifically named in the development agreement. And I guess that's the focus of my question here is what those cost? Is CIP prepared to go ahead and advance Whatever money it takes in addition to the 300,000 to this specific partnership.
I believe.
5:51 – 5:579 turns
I believe that Mr. Mr Hart said that CIP is prepared to undertake all of the obligations And I think that what this says is that before there's grading or construction, $300,000 has to be paid. So before anything can occur on the land, the 300,000 needs to be paid and then the implementation would occur at a later date with the cooperation of the project owner. But as of today, the ACE agreement, I mean there's certainly nothing in the record that suggests That that would not be able to be implemented. And it also doesn't really have to, the financial resources are clearly there to be able to obtain whatever can be attained.
Okay thank you very much I appreciate that. Are there any other questions? We'll go ahead and go to the public. Thank you
I have two slips in, one for Marcia Tello to be followed by Nathan Alley.
Supervisor Wolf has a question. I'm sorry before we got a public comment. I think this is the issue that is just troubling me and that is And I think it was at the last hearing we had someone from the bank and Mr. Osgood here, and there was some issue about who owned the property. So it sounds like that's going to be taken up as a court issue in April. Within the transfer agreement or the Inland Development Agreement, there is all of these procedures about giving consent based on the transferee's reputation and financial resources.
But I'm sitting here and I'm thinking but who's the owner? of this, who will be giving that transfer. And it sounds like that issue as the attorney mentioned will be either decided that day I think is what she said either that day which is April 17th or earlier so why don't we just wait and see who is the current owner because how can you transfer something if you don't know You're transferring it from you have to have two parties and we don't know. We don't know that first party, so I'm very I'm really uncomfortable moving forward until that has been decided. Those are my comments.
Thank you Supervisor Wolff. OK, so we'll go ahead and start public comment then.
Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Mark Shutillo and I'm here on behalf of the Naples Coalition. I want to first correct the letter that I submitted dated March 16th. I added an extra 20 words in the block quote and so on the second page Mr. Casoni had pointed that out to me so I wanted to own up to that. As to the matter before you, we believe that the transfer agreement should not be approved. First, we believe it's premature both for the reason that the development agreement litigation with Mr. Osgood is ongoing as we stand here, as is the challenge by the Naples Coalition and other environmental groups contending that the development agreement at issue here is void for a number of reasons. So until that litigation is resolved, those two lawsuits are resolved, it's premature in our view to move ahead with consenting to any transfer because we believe the development agreement itself is void.
Secondly, on the issue of the financial resources, one of the findings you need to make is whether CIP has the financial resources for a sustained fight. It's one thing to put up $300,000, but as we know from say the Hyatt or any major Contested coastal development project in Santa Barbara County. This is a 10, 15, 20 year project that they face in trying to perfect their entitlements and the question is do they have the sustained resource, the resources to sustain that fight? Certainly as we've consulted with the people that are investing in CIP, that is the universities and our own California Teachers Pension Fund is one of the investors with CIP. They're aghast to learn that they may be actually unwittingly underwriting the development of our own Gaviota Coast, so as more people understand that they have invested in this kind of a speculative real estate development here in our community I think we'll see some erosion in the support that CIP has to be able to underwrite and continue this fight.
There's also the issue of the reputation. We've seen that the developer that's before you has developed a number of hotels and ski resorts, never had they attempted a residential development in our coastal zone. We have seen another part of the parties that has pursued a development which basically introduced sprawl into rural lands in Monterey County which turned out to be ecologically very problematic And there was great community outcry in response to that. So we think they don't meet the necessary criteria. Quickly, Madam Chair, on the issue of CEQA, we think that there are changed circumstances which necessitate your board to make specific findings and not the blanket findings offered to you by staff. First of all, I point out that the agreement with the Dos Pueblos Ranch folks expires by its face in March of 2012.
That's this month. So I know that there are efforts to try and renegotiate that but the core mitigation measure for the agricultural impacts from the conversion of these agricultural lands is at risk as we sit in it. If I could have another 30 seconds back here.
Actually, I'm sorry Mr. Shatola your time is up.
Okay, thank you. I addressed the other issues in my letter so I appreciate your careful look at these issues.
Thank you.
5:57 – 6:0921 turns
Mr. Alley?
Thank You Madam Chair and Supervisors Nathan Alley with the Environmental Defense Center also speaking on behalf of the Surfrider Foundation today. I just want to note that I was out of the office last week and therefore didn't have a chance to sign on to Mr. Shatillo's letter but I certainly would have endorsed it in its entirety except maybe for the block quote on page two.
I would just reiterate several of the points that Mr. Schottillo already made. One is that there are two lawsuits out there specifically speaking to this issue. Our lawsuit does indeed attack the validity of the underlying Inland Development Agreement But it also, as a slight clarification to something I think Ms. Rosenthal said, our litigation also attacks the validity of the ACE itself because of the Williamson Act issues that underlie it and so it's my position that all of those things are actually in question at this time.
I'd also just reiterate our position which we've, I think expressed to you on several occasions over the last couple years. Which is that regardless of its underlying validity we don't believe that the Inland Development Agreement is operative at this time because certain conditions precedent have not been complied with and therefore seeking to transfer it is certainly premature.
I would just say that given the history of this property in particular specifically on the Gaviota Coast Caution is necessary in a prudent course of action. I think 12 years ago, we all probably would have thought that the previous owner had the fiscal capability to move forward with the project to completion. Obviously that has not happened and so the future's wide open.
If you have to move ultimately please do so carefully and cautiously And it's probably not appropriate to make a decision today. So with that in mind, we'll look forward to seeing you again. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other public speakers? No further requests.
I'm very sorry but I would like to correct the statement that the ACE agreement was expiring this month. That is not only irrelevant to the question of the financial capabilities, it's also incorrect. Thank you.
Yes, I will call on you Mr
Hart. Another incorrect statement California State Teachers Pension Fund has nothing to do with this investment and there is none of their money here and I think that's just a mistake in the record should stand corrected so thank you.
Mr Gray Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'm Tom Gray and I just want to make a comment on Mark Sciatello's comments about the preserve. The preserve is 20,000 acres, 18,000 acres of which has been put into permanent conservation with a $25 million endowment. There is nothing in the record that supports Mr. Shifter's allegations, he has no scientific evidence about the terrible environmental disaster that's been created by the preserve. Quite to the contrary, the preserve has been written up in a number of periodicals not as being perfect because it certainly isn't but it's as close as one has gotten so far into blending very limited development 300 lots On 20,000 acres which is 10 times the size of this piece of property.
Thank you Mr. Gray.
So I would ask for some something to be put into record that supports Mr. Citillo's allegations. Thank you.
Ms. Rosenthal?
And I certainly will have been trying to go quickly I just wanted to sum up, I was hoping to avoid some of this discussion about what we believe are extraneous issues. The development agreement was very clear that the property was intended to be able to be transferred and this is perfectly normal transfer of a developable property. And the county staff, it was referred to the board, was going to be looking, was required to look only at the financial capability of the proposed transferee and the reputation of the transferees.
Uncertainty about whether the development was going to occur, uncertainty about a whole variety of issues. Uncertainty about whether everyone's questions would be answered is unfortunately a fact of development but it's not one of the issues that the board is going to be looking at and I personally would have preferred to have the April 17th date Earlier, I knew this was likely to be an issue even though it's not a legal issue or one of the things that the board was going to be voting on. I knew it was likely to be an issue but because the question is really whether CIP can be shown not to have The capacity to go forward, because that's the county's burden.
That narrow question could be decided as part of their due diligence. So I really understand that there is uncertainty and I understand that there is unhappiness with various pieces of the development but The current owner, and it's the owner of the property. There's no question about the ownership of the property is before you asking that the county and the board look at the question that is before All of you in the development agreement, and I assure you that whoever the transferee is will wind up back in front of the board asking with a lot of these questions coming
up. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Can I just ask a question? Yes, I'm sorry. Supervisor Wolf has a question.
So you said there is no question of who the owner is?
The question is really The owner of the property that's subject to the Inland Development Agreement is SBRHC, Inc. That's not going to change. That's not being disputed. What we are trying to resolve in the lawsuit is that the SBRC took as the holder of a deed of trust And the deed of trust was signed by five of the signatories to the development agreement.
There were two signatories to the development agreement who didn't sign, and so we're trying to clarify that the fact that there were two non-owners who are part of the development agreement, who signed the development That the development agreement still transferred to SBIRC. It does say it runs with land, so the development agreement has a provision in it that says that the benefits and burdens run with the land. It's really a very sort of esoteric question about Development agreement, whether we're sole owners, concurrent owners. But it's not about the ownership of the land and we also have the question that the original owners of the property would like to have it confirmed that they are released from obligations under the development agreement if they no longer own any portion of the property which they don't.
So I think there's been some misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It's really, I heard the issue that's in court although near and dear to my heart described as a wonk issue last week. It's not a kind of basic ownership question.
Thank you. And again, I'm trying to quantify what first of all the resources are of the partnership not just of CIP as one member of the partner. I realize that CIP is the funding partner but I'm trying to figure out how far Mr. Hart, your organization is willing to capitalize this, I assume it's a new LLC between your organization, Bond Rock and Mr. Gray. And also then with that if that then is large enough to cover what I see as additional and probably substantial financial responsibilities that are implicit, implied in the development agreement that are not necessarily spelled out in a dollar value like the $300,000 are. So that's why I asked about Dos Pueblos Ranch as one of those agreements that's a separate agreement that is not something that necessarily runs with the land because that land isn't even part of this property that was foreclosed on And the other is the agreement with Morehart, land on the state water entitlement.
As I've said, if we become the SNE of that agreement, we will live up to that agreement.
But who is we?
Myself and my partners, a vast majority of that capital would come from my organization. All that being said, we understand that if we don't settle the ACE issue by way of example, there's not financial penalty to us. We're not obligated to pay if the Moreharts want $1 billion. We don't have to give it to them. We just can't build what the county approved. So to say these are all financial things we have to do, that's true but we wouldn't It's not simply a blank check. It's the whole business plan that the county approved. There are certain things that we have to do, there is an expense associated with those but if we fail to do that it's not an unlimited checkbook the county has that they can demand financial resources from us. We simply can't move ahead with the development.
That's the deal and so we stand behind that deal.
Okay anybody have any other questions? All right thank you very much. No other comments? Staff?
6:09 – 6:1513 turns
Madam Chair, I think we're available to answer questions but would look to that.
Well, we'll bring it back to the board then for deliberations. We don't have a slip up here. I'm sorry. The public comment time was closed. No? The clerk of the board says he doesn't have it. So we're in deliberations now Dr. Johns so public comment is closed. So comments from the board. Supervisor Carpenter.
Chair, a lot of the concerns that have been raised in terms of the ambiguity and the uncertainty are of concern to me I'm just trying to reconcile all those concerns with the issue before us and it's on one hand it seems so simple on the other hand it's a lot more complicated I'm just trying to reconcile all those challenging issues And continue to have some of the concerns that you all expressed as well. What comes to my mind is that I don't seem to be in a position to do an up or down here.
I kind of want to say come back to us after this court hearing, everything will be nice put together in a ball. It'll allow us to move forward with certainty. It'll provide a clear lay of the land And for me, that's what feels more appropriate. We don't get into an up or down today but rather continue this item until after those hearings and take that approach.
I think with Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Lavagnino?
Yeah, I would agree with Supervisor Carbajal's assessment. You know it's based on some of the questions that I had in the discussion. You know, until that issue is ultimately decided. I'm more concerned about the first issue than the second one about the CEQA case although I know that's important but in moving forward with this until I have those questions answered And I really do appreciate your answer, but it still sounded. It was, I guess very esoteric and so I guess for me, I'd like something that's final and it's not you know we have till April 17th. You even mentioned it might happen sooner.
I think that's important for me to make this determination.
Madam Chair, I'll move to continue this item until for the sake of discussion. Until after the court hearing that is pending.
Okay, I think Supervisor Lavagnino and then Supervisor
Gray. Thank you Madam Chair. I mean, I don't see any ambiguity or uncertainty in an issue where we're being asked. The only way we can refuse to give consent is in light of the proposed transferee's reputation and financial resources. Probably the most well-funded entity we've seen come before us, I don't think there's any way we can question that. No one has said anything in the record that questions their reputation And I would just remind us that, you know, I would not want to put ourselves in a position where we could put ourselves in great financial risk. And I guess I would look to county council on this is what is our how are we being exposed if we don't move forward at this point?
Madam Chair, Supervisor, we have given attorney-client advice on this issue. Before we respond to that question, we would like a majority vote of your board to allow us for your board to waive the attorney-client privilege before we respond.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinino. We may have an easier solution from Ms. Rosenthal indicating that her client SBRHC will accept a continuance and if we can have them state on the record a date certain by which they're extending the otherwise 45 day clock of the Inland Development Agreement I believe that would help to resolve the issue.
Madam Chair, I think we have a meeting on... The first one after the 17th would be May 1st here in Santa Barbara? If that's good for everybody else, I'll make a motion that we go ahead and continue.
Actually, I think we probably need to have Ms. Rosenthal come as a representative for the or maybe the partners, somebody from the partnership needs to come in. Ms. Rosenthal? One of you.
Well, representing the transferor, we are disappointed but we like to make things easy for public officials if possible And so we would be willing to continue this or to waive the 45 days through May 1st. If that's acceptable to our transferee.
6:15 – 6:3119 turns
On behalf of SIP 2, I appreciate your comments Supervisor Lavagnino and I agree you know we are more than qualified You don't have any basis to not approve us. It's just mind-boggling to me. There is no confusion, however in the show of good faith and spirit cooperation we will agree to continue this until May 1st but we would hope that we might be treated a little more fairly because as you mentioned I think you'd be hard pressed to find It's a reputable and well-capitalized group, and I think the bank probably wishes that they had done this much due diligence on their former borrower than they've done on us.
But having said that, those are my words not yours, we would welcome the opportunity to come back before you on May 1st if that's acceptable.
I appreciate that very, very much.
I'll second the motion but first I want indication from County Council that this 45-day waive is based on recent court cases. I'm afraid to take the chance unless you feel that this waiver works.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray. The term of the short answer is yes. Okay. The expressed consent of both parties would take the county lawfully past the 45-day clock otherwise applicable. The only clarification I would ask or recommend is that CIP has indicated their consent. There is a separate entity, CIP 2BRSBLLC through abundance of caution be prudent to have their representation if they also consent.
And who can give that? I
can. On behalf of SIP2BR, SBRLLC we consent.
Thank you very much. Call
to the question Madam Chair.
Thank you very much. So we have a motion and a second to go ahead and continue this to May 1st. Thank you to all parties. I really appreciate that. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. We'll see you back on May 1.
David, if you'd come up to the podium please. It may seem unfair to you, but we have many constituents that are our masters as you know. And I just for one want to really thank you and appreciate that you were willing to step up in good faith. That means a lot to me and I think it means a lot to my colleagues. So I know you would've liked this to have been a slam dunk with the cherry on top? Yes sir.
But sometimes we can get there together. And I really appreciate you stepping up and doing this, and not making this as painful as it was to you more than it is also.
Thank you very much for those words. And I think secretly my partner Jay Hart's kind of happy because now he's going to have to come back out from Boston first week in May, so I don't feel that sorry for him. So
thank
you.
All right. Thank you. Thank you very much.
All
right. We will now go back to the order of our agenda and Supervisor Carbajal at the record reflect. I guess he has to leave.
I have to go represent you at another meeting which I will be leaving too And I'll see you guys
later. Okay, thank you. I guess a five minute break here and we'll let staff set up for item number three
♪ ¶. ¶. Yeah. ¶. Thank you. ¶. ¶. 2A 3.30 x (-0.00?) 3F 5.83 x (?) Yeah. Thank you. ♪ ¶¶ ♪ Hi. . . ¶¶ ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ♪
6:31 – 6:4730 turns
All right. All right, the board will come back into session. We're going to take up agenda item number three. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?
Madam Chair and members of the board, Item 3 comes to the Board from the Sheriff. The hearing to approve a sole source request from the Sheriff's Office to purchase medication for an inmate who has life-threatening condition from DRG Pharmacy in Oxnard, not a local vendor. Good afternoon Sheriff. Good afternoon Madam Sheriff, thank you. Members of the
Board here today have been given the seat
Soul Source Authority purchase from DRG Pharmacy and Oxnard. By way of background on this, the sheriff has mandated and therefore the county has mandated to provide medical care to inmates. The inmate in question has a serious and life-threatening medical condition that requires several doses per week of a medication which is extremely expensive. It was originally told us that it was $3,200 a dose We were able to negotiate a price with the DRG pharmacy of $2,700 a dose.
But it is nevertheless something that will have a big impact on our pharmaceuticals budget line item. Prior to this person's incarceration his medication was funded through a federal grant however this funding source like many is not available if a person is in custody This person has some very serious charges against him. He's in jail for attempted murder.
He has a significant bail that he is unlikely to be able to post and is unlikely to be released on bail. Electronic monitoring would not be appropriate for this inmate based on the charge against him. The District Attorney, his defense attorney and others in the criminal justice system have been working to try to attempt to move his criminal proceedings along as quickly as possible but it's still likely to be some time before his case is adjudicated.
Our healthcare staff, Horizon Healthcare people in our jail have been in regular contact with this person's former primary care physician. We've consulted with Dr. Wada and the public health department, the manufacturer of the medication and a number of different pharmacies in order to determine any appropriate alternatives to this very expensive medication.
We were directed to DRG Pharmacy who specializes in providing this type of medication, and as I indicated we're able to negotiate a reduced rate. And I misspoke it was $3100 originally and down to $2700. Unfortunately because of the cost and the amount of medication that's required, the estimate is that if this person were to be in our custody for a year, the cost of this medication could reach upwards of $500,000.
That exceeds our annual budget for the entire jail pharmaceuticals. The Sheriff's Office therefore needs the ability to obtain this medication in a timely fashion and we're asking the Board authorize this sole source ability to purchase. We will continue to monitor this situation very closely and continue to explore any alternatives that could reduce costs while at the same time preserving public safety.
At this time, we're not asking you for a budget revision since we still have remaining funds in our pharmaceuticals line item. But it's likely that if this person does stay in custody for length of time, we will have to look at doing some kind of budget adjustment to address this. I'll close by just indicating that although this particular inmate is not an AB 109 inmate, therefore.
In other words, this is an inmate who we would have had no matter what before AB 109 was passed into law. It does sort of underscore the fact that we are going to expect to and A number of serious challenges as far as medical and mental health care in the jail, particularly as a result of AB 109 with longer term inmates. We have right now an ability to sometimes postpone certain medical treatment if it's not exigent, if it's not needed immediately. But when someone is going to be with us for lengthy periods of time we wouldn't be able to postpone that so you could have anything from dentures that would be required or advanced mental health care or additional medical procedures or surgeries that might have to occur that wouldn't occur normally on short-term Impacts with inmates.
It's just one more challenge that we're all facing as we see this whole criminal justice realignment situation occur, but I do want to make it very clear that this inmate is not an AB 109 inmate. This inmate is in jail for a very serious and violent offense and would have been with us regardless of the law change. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you might
have. Thank You Sheriff. Supervisor Lavagnino?
One question is, okay so he would, he's bail eligible. He just can't make bail? Correct. So if he was out on bail, if he somehow made bail and he was out on bail would He be at that point covered by Medi-Cal or is he still considered in custody?
I would think that at that point, he's posting bail in lieu of being in custody. He might become re-eligible for the medication but I'd have to defer that you know for a legal opinion but I believe that he probably would be. But that would be the whatever requirements are under that particular grant program that he was under.
So if somebody that's eligible for, where do you draw the line between somebody that you, that the court's determined is eligible for bail and he could be released if he could raise the money. But where we determine or you make a determination that he's too violent to be put on like an ankle bracelet type of situation?
Well, the purpose of bail is to obtain something from someone to assure that they're going to not flee the jurisdiction. That they're gonna continue to obey laws and come back and be held accountable for whatever the crime that they're charged with is. And in this instance if he couldn't post a bail but someone else posted it for him then The onus of the loss of that bail would be on someone else. And it would just depend on what the relationship was, I suppose, between him and that person as to whether or not that would be sufficient to keep him from reoffending or from fleeing the jurisdiction.
I think my question – I probably said it wrong – guess what I'm getting at? Who makes a determination whether or not to put him like on an ankle bracelet? Do you have that power? I have that authority to do that, yes. So then where do you how do you make that decision if the court says yeah he could make bail if he had the financial wherewithal but then You or your guys make a decision that he's too violent,
right? Think of it this way. If you put someone on an ankle bracelet is basically like you're releasing them one step above them being on their own recognizance. It's not something that you utilize in cases where the it's a serious or violent offense because the reason that his bail is actually as high as it is is because the offense is a very serious one so we don't want people to be very easily able to get out of jail in those sorts of cases. And that's why, you know when we do our sorting of people to determine who is going to go out if we have an early release for example someone like this prisoner would not even be under consideration for whatsoever
Well, I can sense you're frustrated. I know we're all frustrated.
It's one thing I wanted to add there's a lot of people that are very upset and very frustrated about this and I understand that frustration and I share it believe me I would much rather be asking you for $500,000 to pay for four that could be four fully loaded custody deputies in the jail if this if this ends up staying with us for years so it's a significant impact to us and it's certainly not the way I'd like to see money spent in our budget, but unfortunately the law is the law and we are obligated to provide medical care just as we're obligated to provide food and shelter and clothing and laundry and everything else when someone's in our custody. Right.
And I think, and we had talked about this before the meeting was that I think this really did shine a light on something else is whether this guy's in our custody and we're paying for his medication Or he's out, he's not actually buying it himself. The taxpayers have been footing the bill for this medication and probably will for the rest of his life. Now it's just concentrated to Santa Barbara County but it does shed a light on something else.
And the same, on the same token, the same holds true if he goes, if he's held in state prison versus held in our facility. It's still the taxpayers of California that are ultimately paying for it.
Okay. Other questions for the Sheriff? Sheriff, I have a couple. You said that you had been talking with the district attorney and public defender and all that. What's the best estimate out there now as to how long it might be before he would come to trial?
I just don't have that information. It could be a number of months before that occurs.
Okay. But I mean, can you give me a range? Would it be somewhere between 6 and 12 months that he would be in jail waiting
for... I really can't. And I spoke to the district attorney today about this and tried to find out what the potential would be but it's very difficult when you're dealing with a justice system You know, you can't really accelerate a case based on something like this without everybody's consent and you know the defense. And he is represented by private counsel not the public defender but it would not be, you know, something everybody would have to agree upon in terms of moving forward as rapidly as possible and I'm sure that everything that can be done will be done to make that happen It's a process that is not easily adjusted. Let's put it that way.
Okay, thank you and then just one more question about where you can obtain the necessary medicine from? I know that you've already kind of looked around to find the lowest cost. You know, people are always talking about getting medication from outside the country. From Canada. That's not an option here to not just shop around in the United States but shop around outside the country?
I would probably hand that one off to Dr. Wada. I'm not sure if that is something we could do or not. I would presume not but I'd let him address that if he has the answer.
I mean, you know, I always keep hearing how much cheaper it is for people.
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'd have to research that. This is a somewhat rare medication that's not readily available and so I'd have to talk with our pharmacy staff. I know that they did do research. We've been working with the Sheriff's Department and looked at other options to see if there were any programs that are available through our department that could help in this situation and there were none.
So I can ask them again about other international sources for the medication.
I mean, I think at this point if we could explore whatever avenues we have would be helpful. All right, Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Madam Chair. This is an issue that NACO has been talking about as far as getting reimbursements for folks who've been on Medicaid but now that this has come to our attention, I think CEO Waller that we should ask our budge committee to look into this and And talk to our California delegation or our state folks to see about getting some legislation passed that at least when we have an instance like this where there's a certain cost that's incurred by the county.
that the state will come in and pick up the cost as if they were on Medi-Cal. Because I think they're reluctant to do that for everyone, but at some point it's going to break the bank. And I'm sure we're not the only county This is not incarcerated and now we have to come up with the money, and it was not budgeted. I mean, I think that's the thing. It's a new cost incurred by us. But I also wanted to ask you another question.
If an individual has private insurance and they go into jail, does private insurance normally do they pay for medical treatment in the jail or medications like this?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, the answer is that it depends on the policy. Some policies have an exclusion for people who are incarcerated just as the federal regulations have an exclusion. Some other policies don't and would pay for it so we have the ability in certain instances to bill or to receive reimbursement from insurance companies for certain medical costs but in this case we've researched that in any event this inmate has no insurance then So it's kind of a moot point.
Okay, and then do you know about the new insurance program that may be coming through the Federal Medical Reform Act? Do you know
anything? I don't know how that would impact this at all.
No, we don't know.
We'll certainly find out but I would suspect it probably is similar to the current situation where I think it's what the perception is, is that if you know and it's a double-headed dragon but I think the idea is that people say well look we'll pay for your medication until you become a criminal and break the law in which case you're not going to receive it from us. In that case they have to receive it from The county or the state or wherever they're.
6:47 – 6:5126 turns
Which is you know
that
I understand, but then someone has to pay. You know what else will take on that? It's really a catch 26 situations. Yeah. Thank thank you
Sheriff. Supervisor Gray.
Sheriff, I know you've looked forward to this day with enthusiasm. So now my question what happens if this guy would have gotten caught in Alpine County? 1200 people live in the Would those 1,200 folks have to come up with the $500,000?
As far as I know, unfortunately they'd be just as obligated there as we are obligated here to provide this medical care.
So it theoretically could
be worse. Now, I don't think Alpine County has a jail. They're one of the only counties that doesn't have a jail so whatever kind of jail they use would probably... I
mean they
share
but the arrest was made in their...
Yeah, I think they'd still be on the hook for it.
So it could theoretically bankrupt the county. Yeah, no we should. If we could come up with a legislation we can certainly take it to CSAC and see if we can't get
someone... One other thing that I'll just let the board know and that is there are insurance policies that the county could take out that would cover catastrophic things like this but the premiums are so high on them You know, had we had the opportunity. We did have an opportunity I think back in 2005 to do it but we would've spent more on the premiums than we will be spending in this case so it's a, in some respects it's crap shoot as to what happens with who and what medical condition an inmate happens to have.
Well that's really, just give me an idea of what was the cost for
that? As far as I know the costs were plus or minus $100,000 a year for the insurance Risk management I think told us that had we taken the policy out, it would have covered this. The county would have already been out
1.3?
Between 500,000 and a million is what we would've paid so the likelihood is we'd actually pay more up until this point until what we're going to pay for this.
But I wonder if it would've covered some other medications from other inmates.
It might
happen. I don't know, I'm just thinking that there's more and more expensive drugs out there that it may be worth it then to take another look at that?
We'll certainly take another look at it along with risk management but the problem I would imagine is though the more the drugs go up the more of the premiums I'm sure are going to go up so it's just again this is a difficult situation for being a self-insured entity that has to deal with things like this
So I mean, I would agree that I think it's important for it to come to the Ledge Committee because obviously we have this particular situation. But it does point out the increasing difficulty we're going to have because of AB 109 going forward and whether it's looking more to this insurance option or hopefully having legislation that makes it easier for us. We're gonna have to do something because there's nothing to stop us having a half a dozen cases with very expensive medication in the future We're responsible for, for years and years and years. So right. Thank you, Sheriff. I think that we have one request to speak.
Dr. Jones?
No. Okay. All right. So bring it back to the board. Um, so we're being asked to approve this sole source request for the sheriff's office, not a um, not a request for funding at this particular time. Motion second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries, thank you very much We'll move right into our last item Item number four
Madam Chair members of the board Item 4 is on planning and development It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the housing authority of Santa Barbara County Pescadero lofts apartment project This is located on Camino Pescadero in the Isla Vista area third district
6:51 – 7:028 turns
Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and first have the staff presentation and then we will have the project applicant Mr. Polanski. We'll have up to 10 minutes and then we'll go to public comment and then bring it back here. So who's going to make the presentation here? Mr. Tuttle
Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the Board. I'm here today to present to you a brief description and overview of the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County Pescadero Lofts housing project in Isla Vista. This project was considered by the Planning Commission on February 1st 2012 and has been forwarded to your board with a recommendation for approval.
The project is located in Isla Vista near the intersection of El Calejo and Los Caneros. The project site is surrounded by various residential uses including a sorority, apartments, senior care facility as well as several vacant residentially zoned properties. The site as you can see on this project vicinity map is in close proximity to downtown La Vista as well as UCSB.
The project site is currently operated Occupied by a fraternity house. It was purchased by the County Redevelopment Agency in 2009 and is currently leased to the fraternity Existing zoning on this site is student housing residential high-density which allows 20 units per acre The Isla Vista master plan, which has been locally adopted would rezone this and other sites in the vicinity to a 30 unit per acre density However, the timing for that is unknown at this time as to when Coastal Commission will certify it The project before you involves establishing a new zone density of 30 units per acre within the high-density student residential zone, bridging the gap between what is currently permitted and what is envisioned in the Isle of Vista Master Plan.
Once the Isle of Vista Master Plan is certified, the zone will be superseded by a new zone of mixed residential 30 which would have the same zone density. Given the size of the project site, a zone of 30 units would allow up to 24 dwelling units However, because the project is providing affordable housing it is granted a density bonus of 35% pursuant to participation in the State Density Bonus Program.
This equates to up to 33 residential units which for this project would be composed of one two-bedroom apartment for the apartment manager, six one bedrooms and 26 studios. As part of the project, the applicant is proposing text amendments to Article 2 establishing this new zone density SRH 30. The applicant working with staff has proposed ordinance standards that would limit projects taking advantage of this zone to requiring 100% of the units being affordable.
The target population for this project includes individuals who are homeless or living in substandard housing. The project site is a single building approximately 21,000 square feet in size and three stories tall. It does meet its parking responsibilities with 34 vehicle spaces and 68 bicycle spaces expecting that the majority of the residents will be walking and biking as their primary modes of transportation.
In addition to the apartments, the project includes common area facilities including a kitchen, meeting rooms and communal space that will provide opportunities for training and meeting possibilities including job training and life skills. Here's a copy of graphic showing the site plan. This is the ground floor level it has the same configuration as the existing development on the site with the structure in the front and the parking lot in the rear of the property this shows that the ground floor would provide the lobby and meeting and community rooms As well as the apartment managers residents, and then the second and third floors would include the rest of the apartments The project proposing development is consistent with the build-out projections of the Isla Vista Master Plan.
As a result, the EIR prepared as part of the Isla Vista Master Plan is considered adequate environmental review under CEQA. As a result, with this project no further environmental review is required. Applicable mitigation measures from the Isla Vista Master Plan EIR have been applied as conditions of approval. These focus primarily on mitigating construction-related impacts including noise, dust, erosion control, construction traffic and water quality impacts.
The project has been found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan, including the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Gleada Community Plan. Examples of these consistencies include the affordable housing provided as part of the project, the access provided for non-vehicle forms of transportation including walking and biking, and the onsite infiltration provided as part of the project to avoid degradation of water quality.
As I mentioned, this project qualifies for participation in the State Density Bonus Program. And as part of that, in addition to the density bonus, the applicant is entitled to several project incentives. As one of its incentives it's asking for a reduction in setbacks. At the Planning Commission, the applicant also requested that as the other incentives that their development impact fees be waived.
The Planning Commission in consideration of the project agreed with that and recommended that all of the impact fees be waived as an incentive request. However, it was determined subsequently that AB 1600 fees, the development impact fees cannot be waived without identifying alternative funding sources to provide backfill for those waived fees. As a result, and you'll hear from the applicant momentarily, the applicant is withdrawing the request for waiver reduction as a project incentive in order to keep moving this project forward.
However I will point out, and you received a staff memo last week dated March 15th that the traffic fees had been recalculated in order to provide a greater credit for the existing fraternity house and as a result did lower the fees for traffic related impacts. The conditions of approval have been modified accordingly to reflect these changes and the updated motion that you'll be taking action on reflect these changes as well.
In addition to the incentives, the State Density Bonus Program authorizes the waiver, outright waiver of development standards if they're shown that application of the development standards would physically preclude construction of the project at the allowable densities. In this case, the 35% bonus density permits development of 33 units. However there is a standard in Article 2 that limits for this site bedroom density to a total of 29 bedrooms.
Clearly you cannot have a 33 unit project with only 29 bedrooms as a result this standard was shown to physically preclude construction of the project and such it should be waived. I just wanted Point out the Planning Commission's action on this project before moving on to your board's recommendation, recommended actions. And that is that the Planning Commission reviewing this project voted 5-0 in support of the project and recommended approval to your board.
In doing so, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending approval of the new SRH 30 zone district and rezone in general plan amendment for the site from 20 to 30 units per acre. As mentioned previously, the Planning Commission's action did include a waiver of impact fees. However, due to the requirement that your board identify an alternative funding source to backfill those fees, the applicant is withdrawing that request.
Your board's recommended actions on the project include that you make the required findings for the project specified in Attachment A of Attachment 1 to your board letter including the CEQA findings That after considering the previously certified EIR for the Isla Vista Master Plan, determine pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21090B and 21166 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that as reflected in the CEQA findings no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for this project.
Three, that your board approve a text amendment to Article 2 to establish the SRH-30 zone density and limit rezones to this zone district or properties or projects meeting certain affordable housing criteria. And approve an amendment to the land use designation of the Coastal Land Use Plan map for the subject parcel from RES 20 to RES 30. An amendment to the zoning map for the subject parcel from SRH 20 to SRH 30.
And lastly, that you approve the project subject to the conditions included in attachment 4 to your board letter as revised in the staff memorandum dated March 15th 2012 and including the conditions 30 retention of conditions 36 and 39. And that concludes staff's presentation. Happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you, Mr. Tuttle. Any questions for staff at this time? All right we'll go ahead and we'll turn to the applicant. Good afternoon, Mr Polanski.
Madam Chair just a reminder that at some point you will need to do ex parte.
Oh okay well maybe before you start we'll go ahead and do ex parte.
I have none to report.
Okay Nothing. Okay, and I don't have anything specific but I have talked with Mr. Polanski and members of the community have come to me and asked me about this project when I've been out in Isla Vista so. Supervisor Wolf?
Mr. Polanski when you speak about this project can you touch a little bit on whether or not there if there's opportunities for disabled folks to rent apartments If there's if there are any that are designated for that are available. I know homeless was mentioned and another category but I didn't hear disabled and I would just be curious.
7:02 – 7:105 turns
Thank you Madam Chair members of the board my name is John Polanski I'm director of housing development with the Housing Authority at the County of Santa Barbara and our associated non-profit surf development company Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to consider this exciting project in the community of Isla Vista in the 3rd District. First, because if I don't say it right up front I will forget Pursuant to Alex's comment, we are withdrawing formally our request for the waiver of the development impact fees. And this is done primarily because of the requirement that would preclude the project from being able to move forward as quickly as we're hoping. So we're doing that in the interest of keeping the project moving forward.
And then I also want to thank very much The Community Services Department, specifically the Housing and Community Development Department. Sharon and her staff. The former RDA staff, Aaron and Mark Paul. The Planning and Development Department, Alex and Diane specifically. The Planning Commission, SBAR, the IVPAC. And then last but not least, Father John St. Brigid who appeared and spoke very eloquently about the need for this project at the Planning Commission And was unable to attend today's hearing.
But we consider him a very important service partner. Supervisor Wolf, in direct response to your question, we do have our architect here and I do not remember the exact number of units but To maximize the accessibility for persons with disabilities, first it is a three story but it's not a three-story walk up. The two primary residential floors are served by an elevator and I'll need to look to the architect at the end of my presentation to give us the exact number of ADA accessible and adaptable units. I don't recall that number.
But we definitely will be serving folks with disabilities at this property, as we do at virtually all of our sites. This would be our third project in the county specifically to address the needs of the homeless or we like to say formerly homeless. The first one is in the fourth district in the city of Lompoc based on G primarily a studio SRO development And then there was one, and it's actually my understanding the first of its kind in the state to serve formerly homeless families.
And that was recently opened last October in the fifth district in the city of Santa Maria known as Rancho Hermosa. So this would be our third and we're trying to spread them throughout the county because the need is throughout the county. One of the reasons that we did have an emphasis on homeless as well as you know There was recently last year, almost exactly a year ago there was a point in time homeless count and it identified a number of people homeless currently residing within the Isla Vista community.
So it's very important to consider addressing the needs of the entire community and we hope this project moving forward will do I also want to thank our neighbors. We've met with student co-op, we've had discussions with the sorority and the other property owners to understand what it is that we're doing and the fact that there will be a lot of supportive service provision on the site as well as very intense management. We will have a resident manager on the site And finally, I just really do want to thank the Iowa Vista community, the PAC and the other community members.
It is unprecedented for us to have a project of any size let alone 33 units approved in one planning commission hearing as this one was or recommended for approval in one planning commission hearing And the fact that every community member that I've spoken with, and there have literally been dozens, nobody has indicated a concern about the need for this particular project or the project moving forward. So thank you very much. I am here to answer any questions. I will ask Tom Jess, our architect, to respond directly to the accessibility.
Thank you Mr. Pulaski.
Hi, I'm Tom Jess with Aris Studio Architects and thank you very much for the opportunity to be here. We are lucky to be a part of this project. This is one of those projects that you really feel proud to be part of and the team has been really great to work with all the way through top to bottom. When we approach a project like this, Just kind of keep it global. And I will keep this presentation very brief, and we are here to answer questions as well. But basically identify a need.
John's done a great job of telling you how he went about identifying the need. The need is obviously there to serve the homeless people and formerly homeless and threatened-to-become homeless in the community. He has great experience. We drew upon that when we designed the project You can see that we placed the building in approximately the same location where the fraternity house is now, with the parking in the rear. But what we've done is we've preserved a couple of the real nice oak trees out there, put a plaza out in front and really opened the project up out onto the street whereas now there's a chain link fence between the street and the parcel. On the ground floor we put a lot of the community services recognizing the needs of the individuals that are going to be living here Provided the manager's unit on the ground floor with his eyes and ears on the courtyard space that we've created.
The elevator you can see is kind of tucked back behind so there's a controlled access to the residences. Specifically, and then up above the residences are wrapped around some of the common areas spaces that draw people together. I mean a really good example of that is the laundry room. Everyone has to come do their laundry so we put the laundry room in the center with a nice outdoor area right adjacent to it so that as your laundry's being done it promotes a social interaction among the residents. We don't you know we want them to have the privacy but also be able to have the social interaction and that overlooks the courtyard just little things like that that really help address the needs of the tenants. As far as the accessibility issue, 100% of the units will be adaptable units which means that they'll have the provisions in there, they'll have the grab bar blocking in there, they'll have the space requirements so that they can be easily adapted and 5% of the units will have the full-blown grab bars and lowered sink and the other applications actually installed but 100% of them are adaptable And then we just have a couple of views of the building.
You know, you can see this is from the street here with nice wide open views from the street pedestrian paths large windows out onto the community space. We really wanted to reach out into the community not be an island. We wanted to reach out and grab across. This is the view from the back where the sorority is and you can see that there's the landscaping and the parking area act as a buffer between them And the rear of our project and then.
We've done a lot of outreach to the community. We've addressed what they're looking for in terms of the look, the feel, the character of the building, the site planning. We've incorporated numerous green features into the building. We are going to have solar panels on the roof to produce electricity for the project. I don't know if we're going to be able to produce 100% of the electricity but that's our goal is to treat it as environmentally friendly as possible obviously. So with that, I'll conclude and then we are available for any questions that you may have. Thank
you very much. Thank you Mr. Jess. Any questions? All right do we have public speakers?
Dr. Johns will request to speak.
7:11 – 7:134 turns
Well, looking at the architecture this is really a wonderful project. There's going to be some very happy people in this community, Isla Vista. This is just beautiful. I'm so glad to see there's going to be 39 people in that place. It's going to be just wonderful. You know, I'm going to go home happy. Thank you.
Thank you Dr. John and I agree with you 100%. So does staff have any other comments that they want to make?
Madam Chair, members of the board, staff doesn't have any comments again just if you have any questions happy to answer those.
Okay thank you well this is in my district I'll just go ahead and lead off but this is the kind of project that I've been hoping would happen in Isla Vista since I first came into office There's been a lot of discussions about the homeless community in Isla Vista and also not only just the specific need in Isla Vista but then getting folded into the bigger discussion about needs in the community for more single-room occupancy with wraparound service type housing for this population and for the disabled. So I'm very excited to see this project, and I can't thank Mr. Polanski and his team enough. I think they've gone above and beyond certainly any expectations that I might have held for a project like this, and it's going to be an incredible asset to the community So I'm prepared to move staff's recommendations 1, 2, 3 and 4 including as revised in our staff memo today.
Including the retention of conditions 36 and 39 Motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much that concludes our agenda for today did we have any Supervisor Gray do you want to close?
7:13 – 7:152 turns
I'd like to adjourn in honor of John P Jack Forrest age 95 He passed March the 15th, graduated from UCLA in 1941 with a degree in physics, emphasis in meteorology. He served in the Navy Reserve during World War II training fighter pilots both stateside and overseas in meteorology. In 1950 he returned to the States and went Building guided missiles for Boeing.
In 1960 he came to Vandenberg to work on the Minuteman missile program and then later started working on the National Space Program. After retiring in 1970, that was a long time ago, he attended UCSB taking anthropology with an emphasis on archaeology. He also took pottery classes at Allan Hancock and he joined the Sierra Club. In 1985, he became a docent at La Prisma Mission. He was a master soap maker and during special events at the mission, he served as the mayor, a historical figure who oversaw the mission ranch lands. Last year, he took up a new trade and became a master weaver so in honor of Jack Forrest. Cool huh?
Yes. That's right, thank you Supervisor Gray for that and with that we will be adjourned we will not be meeting next week our next meeting will be April 3rd back here in Santa Barbara Thank You ¶. ¶.