BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 November 6, 2012

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:047 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role0:01 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Well, good morning everybody and welcome to this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of November 6th 2012. Also election day of course so if you haven't voted we strongly encourage you to get out there and vote today Yes, some of us haven't been paying attention at all to when election day was going to be. Polls are open until 8 o'clock so make sure you get out there and vote. We also have a very special presentation this morning. A presentation of colors by the Vandenberg Air Force Base Honor Guard in honor of Veterans Day. So we are gonna be changing our normal schedule around a little bit.

Having that and then we will also be going right into our first two resolutions, which are going to be presented Then we will take a break for reception In honor of those and then we will come back and do public comment and do the balance of the administrative agenda before we move on So with that I'm going to ask this all stand now in honor of the presentation of colors. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:14 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Ready, two. Colors, halt. Present arms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:11 · ≈ 9:02 AM

¶.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:20 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Now would you all please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:36 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Indivisible, with

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:37 · ≈ 9:03 AM

liberty and justice for all.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:07 · ≈ 9:04 AM

You may all be seated. All right, Mr Allen will go ahead and call the room.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:22 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Ms. Gray, Mr. Lavinino, Mr. Carbajal, Ms. Wolfe, Ms Farr.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf approve
Show transcript
Certainly our sincerest thanks for the Vandenberg Air Force Honor Guard to be here with us today that was really a beautiful way to start today's ceremony all right we'll go ahead and now we'll go back to our regular agenda first to take up the approval of the minutes of our October 16th meeting do we have any changes if not I'll have a motion to approve Motion by Supervisor Carbajal, seconded by Supervisor Wolf. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. And then also the approval of our minutes for October 30th. Our special meeting that we had. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal. Second by Supervisor Gray. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. All right, and now we'd like to do a motion to approve just items A1 and A2. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal. Second by Supervisor Wolff. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, we're going to present our very first resolution which is to adopt a resolution of commendation Honoring Bee Marroquin and Tara Braun of the Department of Social Services as our November 2012 County of Santa Barbara Employees of the Month. So this is something, of course we do every month. Come on up! And we are so pleased to do it, to be able to recognize members of our county family for the wonderful work that they do for the residents of this county every day of the year. So Mr. Allen if you'd go ahead and read the resolution and I'm going to come down and give it to him.

0:06 – 0:084 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:13 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Madam Chair, Members of the Board, this is a Resolution of Commendation for Bea Marroquin and Tara Braun, Employees of the Month for Santa Barbara County for November 2012. Whereas, Bea Marroquin is an AOP2 in the State Hearings Collection Unit and Tara Braun is a Social Worker Senior PSL in the Santa Maria Ongoing Unit of the Department of Social Services.

And whereas, Bea and Tara have been noted for their willingness to not only support their co-workers in their respective units but also give aid and support to their supervisors and workers throughout the county. And whereas, Bee and Tara are known for their easygoing dispositions and their ability to easily get to know those they are serving in such a way that those who are being served by them feel comfortable in their dealings.

And whereas, Bee and Tara consistently go the extra mile, take pride in their work, and hold themselves to a high standard in all that they do. And whereas, Bee and Tara adhere to the mission, vision, and values of the Department of Social Services and the County of Santa Barbara. And whereas anybody who meets Bee and Tara instantly is taken by their warm smiles, willingness to listen, and the feeling that you are important to them.

Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes Bea Marroquin and Tara Braun as the November 2012 Employees of the Month passing adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed7:56 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I just am very grateful for this honor and I'm especially grateful that we were able to share it on such a, with such a wonderful... I told Delfino I was going to probably get him verklempt but just with the Honor Guard and our heroes that are in the room with us so I'm very grateful thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed8:19 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Likewise, good morning Madam Chair members of the board. It is indeed an honor to be here today and The work that we do couldn't be done without the team effort of lots and lots of employees Many of whom I feel should be here today with me because they make my work So much easier, and I'm grateful to work for the county it's an honor to be here. Thank you so much

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role8:43 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Thank you All right, and for our second resolution to be presented we'll turn to Supervisor Carbajal.

0:08 – 0:132 turns

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction8:56 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Thank you Madam Chair if we could have Mr. Michael Cook come forward? I think today being the great exercise in democracy that our country is going through, as well as the upcoming celebration of Veterans Day. It couldn't be more appropriate than to do this resolution now and it is a great honor for me to present this resolution Honoring, proclaiming Santa Barbara County as a Purple Heart County in honor of the men and women who have honorably served our country in the armed forces. And who have been wounded and or killed in serving our country in combat.

Mr. Michael Cook is the commander of the Sergeant Michael Cook de Raymundo Chapter 750 Military Order of the Purple Heart, which is our local chapter. Again, the military order of the Purple Heart has a mission that fosters an environment of goodwill and camaraderie among combat wounded veterans to promote patriotism Support necessary legislative initiatives, and most importantly to advocate and provide services to all veterans and their families.

Distinction of the Purple Heart is that it is given only to combat veterans who have been wounded in war or posthumously to veterans who were killed during combat as a result of their wounds. The importance of our community reflecting and honoring veterans as Veteran Day approaches couldn't be more important. Mr. Cook and I are also working with our state legislators to go beyond just the honorary resolution that we're passing today To go through the official process to designate Santa Barbara County as a Purple Heart County. And there's a legislative process to achieve that, and we're working with our state legislative delegation on that.

Before the Clerk of the Board reads the resolution and we turn it over to Mr. Cook, I also want to recognize the Pierre Clayson Veterans Museum and the library for sponsoring the reception that will ensue in a few minutes. In particular Hazel and John Blankenship who are in the audience as well. And I will say that the cater seems to be running a little late.

So we're hoping that while we conduct our program in the next few minutes, I am getting the word that the cater is here so we're on schedule. So Mr. Clerk of the board if you could read the resolutions while I go walk down and present this to Mr. Cook

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed11:46 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming Santa Barbara County as a Purple Heart County. Whereas the Purple Heart Medal is awarded to living members of the armed forces of the United States who are wounded in war at the hands of the enemy It is awarded posthumously to those who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action.

And whereas by proclaiming Santa Barbara a Purple Heart County, our community recognizes the contributions and sacrifices of the men and women from Santa Barbara County who have served in the armed forces and their role in protecting our country. Which includes many veterans who have received the Purple Heart as a result of being wounded or killed while in combat.

And whereas, chartered by Congress, the Military Order of the Purple Heart is a veteran service organization formed in 1932 for the protection and mutual interest of all those who have received the military decoration. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is composed exclusively of Purple Heart recipients and it's comprised strictly of combat veterans. And whereas, the mission of the Military Order of the Purple Heart is to foster an environment of goodwill and camaraderie among combat wounded veterans, promote patriotism, support necessary legislative initiatives, and most importantly provide service to all veterans and their families.

And whereas, November 11th is Veterans Day which is a time for all residents of Santa Barbara County to express their gratitude and appreciate for all the men and women who have honorably served our county in our community in the armed forces. Now therefore be it and is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims Santa Barbara County a Purple Heart County in honor of the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the Armed Forces who were wounded or killed while protecting the freedoms we all enjoy. Passed and adopted today by the board.

0:14 – 0:204 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:00 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Supervisors Salud Carbajal and Joanie Gray. Salud was the first that I contacted in regards to the proclamation and I contacted Supervisor Gray as well. And thank you to Eric Friedman and Susan Warnstrom And much of what you see today is Eric Freedman's organizing. Thank you, Eric. And thank you to Master Sergeant Hector de la Concha and the Vandenberg Air Force Base Honor Guard Thank you to the Pierre Clayson's Veteran Museum Foundation for their kind gift of the reception refreshments.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are all in this together. We are all part of the interlocking matrix of American society Imagine a spear with a long shaft and pointed tip. All taxpaying citizens have their hand on the shaft of the spear. Our combat forces and Purple Heart recipients are the tip of the spear. Society through our elected representatives asks its combat soldiers to jump off the spinning carousel of our civilized social order.

We asked them to jump into the netherworld of seeking out, closing with and destroying the enemy of our homeland. When the mission is done some combat soldiers find it difficult to jump back on to the carousel. And this is where the Military Order of the Purple Heart steps forward, to help veterans and their families. The Military Order of the Purple Heart coordinated with the supervisors to organize today's proclamation The Military Order of the Purple Heart is made up exclusively of Purple Heart recipients who were wounded while engaging forces hostile to our country.

The Military Order of the Purple Heart is a veteran's service organization and an IRS recognized charity that is all about helping veterans and their families. I ask anyone who is or is related to a Purple Heart recipient to consider joining the Military Order of the Purple Heart and aid in our charitable work. Now, I'd like to introduce many of the success stories of combat wounded veterans and members of my chapter, the Military Order of the Purple Heart.

Jim Daniels, please stand. Frank Johnson, please stand. Hapke Simone, please stand. Bill Conran, please stand. Are there any other Purple Heart recipients that I have missed? Will all other veterans please stand? Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, your proclamation today honors all veterans. For this you have all of our gratitude. Thank you sincerely for today.

Your action today will resonate for decades to come. I have a little pen for the supervisors that the clerk could take these These are Purple Heart supporter pins, Salute has his already. And it is our chapter's gift to you in such a small way but thank you again. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role18:41 · ≈ 9:18 AM

you.

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated18:41 · ≈ 9:18 AM

And

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role18:41 · ≈ 9:18 AM

again we want to sincerely thank you for your service your sacrifice and the ongoing work that you're doing to not only help and improve the lives of those Purple Heart veterans, but those that are now maybe at this very moment earning their Purple Hearts. So thank you so much for that, and all of you for being here, and for the reception that we are now going to have to honor all of our Purple Heart veterans. So we're going to recess, and we will go over to the conference room over here, and we want everybody to join us. Everyone is welcome.

Yeah. ♪

0:21 – 0:421 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed21:40 · ≈ 9:21 AM

You. ¶. Yeah. ¶. Music ♪ Thank you. ♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ Music Hi, everyone. ♪♪ Yeah. . . ♪ ¶. ¶. Hello. ♪ ♪ Good morning. ♪ You. ♪ Music You. Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music playing ♪ Music

0:42 – 0:509 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role42:32 · ≈ 9:42 AM

♪ Hi. ♪ Good morning again, everybody. The Board of Supervisors is going to come back into session. We're going to go ahead and take up public comment first and then we're going to take up the balance of our administrative agenda. Mr. Allen, why don't you go ahead and call the name of our speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed44:24 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Madam Chair, we have three requests to speak. We'll start with Jose Navarrete to be followed by Jeff Bard.

CommentJose NavarreteProposedself-stated44:37 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Good morning Madam Chair, honorable members of the Board of Supervisors. Again I am here my name is Jose Navarrete and I'm a court certified interpreter. I work here at the criminal courts and civil courts in town for the county. I'm here again to invite you all but mostly for you all to encourage your department heads and all of your bilingual staff that you have throughout the county to attend my bilingual clinic workshop it is this Saturday the 10th at 11 o'clock at Casa de la Raza It's free admission, it's just a chance for bilingual professionals and students here in town to understand the nuances that you have to know in order to translate from English to Spanish and vice versa.

I'll talk about terminology that we use in and out of court, the proper Spanish terminology. And then tips on how to translate and interpret. I think we can all use a refresher in this. We as professionals have to take continuing education courses to continue to improve our Spanish interpretation and translation skills so it just behooves everyone in the whole community, I think.

To prevent miscarriages of justice, I think it's very important that we take this seriously as a community. It's not just for Spanish speakers. Just imagine if you are, God forbid, a victim of a crime or a family member and the only eyewitness is a Spanish speaker, You want someone to interpret with accuracy on the particulars of that subject. So it really behooves everyone, it behooves me to have a surrounding community of professional bilinguals in town so we can have uniformity A professional Spanish out there being used in all the different entities. So again, you have your probation department, your DA's office and a myriad of services that you all provide across the county in Spanish. And please I encourage you to Have your staff members attend my workshop.

Again, it's this Saturday 11 to 1 free admission at Plaza de la Raza. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role46:48 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Thank you Mr. Navarrete. Supervisor Carbajal? Madam

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction46:51 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Chair, here we're having somebody who is giving a free resource to allow our staff who do a lot of translation and interpreting to take advantage of this resource. And I don't know, I haven't heard much about it other than last time when you spoke but it seems like a great opportunity so I may just show up myself. I think it's a great offer to the county and all public employees who have that role in county government and I sure hope they'll take advantage of it. So thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role47:22 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Thank you. Our next speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed47:24 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Our next speaker is Jeff Bard to be followed by John Thorndike who's our final speaker.

CommentJeff BardProposed47:31 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I am one of the two incumbent public advocates on the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee. And in conjunction with that, I've been particularly focused on prevention of preventable diseases which exact a huge cost in human suffering and health care expenditures. I formed two related non-governmental organizations that are still in their early stages focusing on public health from a prevention perspective.

I think I'm unique in the array of community-based organizations because most of the others are more involved with surveillance and treatment, which is, of course, very important. And sometimes there is conflict between prevention interests and treatment interests. Specifically, one is called Teach Everywhere About Community Health. And it has received very good broad-based support across the political spectrum, both locally and nationally.

The other group is called Teach Cough Hygiene Everywhere. And that's focusing on developing and implementing bilingual education protocols to teach the same thing that we teach K through 12 to people who find themselves experiencing homelessness, living in shelters or unfortunately incarcerated. A key component is the development of posters actually and other ways to incentivize people who cough on buses, in the back of patrol cars, in homeless shelters, jails and hospitals. If you have a bad cold, you need to cough into your elbow. And I may be the developer of the double-elbow cough.

Be that as it may, you will find around the world that World Health Organization-sponsored NGOs in third developing countries are vigorously promulgating very careful attention to what people do when they cough because we know that they promulgate infectious disease. And after the SARS epidemic in China and various other epidemics, we know, science knows That you can save millions of lives by a simple, simple thing like educating and cough hygiene.

So I'm finding a lot of support. I noticed also I was being razzed by the angry poodle which is great. Any publicity is good publicity but I certainly am not in any way associated with doom and gloomers or any of this kind of wacky paranoia that is promulgated on the internet And I don't have any particular agenda regarding vaccines one way or another. They have a role. So enough said, and I'll be going over to Project Healthy Neighbors. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed50:28 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Thank you Mr. Barra. Our final speaker is Mr. Thorndike.

0:50 – 0:549 turns

CommentJohn ThorndikeProposed50:34 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Good morning all. Most of all. Good morning. Joanie's not here. The court clerk, I had a situation which have you all gotten a copy of this thing that I had for you to the board? Have y'all seen this or somebody has it okay. All right, now I'm going to talk about something else. I have my car here not long ago and I went up on the property and I collected my avocados. I met the next door neighbor that day backwards so I'm in front of the car and she's got her car behind me and she said come over to my place when you're through here. I come over to her place, she's gone okay?

Now That's called the Taj Mahal, her place. Okay now how did the owner Thorndike retrieve his Chevy Corsica which was taken from me the following day as I parked it at the Methodist Church two easy blocks from here? With proper, I'm a member there, I mean I get mail for them for years and years and I have permission to park it there. Well the court clerks Authorized owner Thorndike to get a police release to Love's Toy.

And to take the car as the rightful owner, victim of an and or trap which is a very common trap that occurs when one of the two owners dies and it's an and Mr. and Mrs., and it should be and or. It should be or, Mr. or Mrs., maybe that's the way it is. Anyway, that's what had happened and the AAA got the death certificate. The guy that sold it to me was a member, I was a member immediately and I joined, I brought the registration tag to Love's Towing by round trip train But too late to commercially save the avocados, and paid the $800 tow-and-store charge. And was given the vehicle and told okay all's taken care of so I returned to Chula Vista with the car. I've since given it to my son who is in Santa Barbara. And I've had nothing but headaches.

I went to get my license updated after Operation Doctor approved me I went to DMV and to my shock, they said you gotta pay $1,662 before we'll give you a license to drive. Now, this is ridiculous because now that's decimating my credit. They're trying to get it from me. The court here sold it to some junkie credit organization and I mean, it's criminal what's going on. Thank you Mr. Zornbeck, your time is up. I thought you should know this.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role53:39 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Thank you so

CommentJohn ThorndikeProposed53:40 · ≈ 9:53 AM

much. Actually

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role53:43 · ≈ 9:53 AM

your time is up sir, you need to

CommentJohn ThorndikeProposed53:44 · ≈ 9:53 AM

leave the podium.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role53:49 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Actually, you need to go ahead and leave. The clerk will go ahead and take it from you if you have something for the board. Thank you. All right we're going to go on and we're going to continue with now our pick up the balance of our administrative agenda. Any members of the board want to pull an item? Supervisor Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed54:09 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Madam Chair, I think Supervisor Carbajal and I jointly would like to hear on A11.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role54:14 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Okay and I think we probably had a speaker slip from the public for that as well so maybe you'll read that into the record

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed54:20 · ≈ 9:54 AM

please. Madam Chair, members of the board, item A11 comes to the board from the District Attorney. The request is that the Board receive and file a report in the District Attorney truancy program including the signed MOU with school districts and the signed addendum to the MOU with county departments and community organizations All of which are participating with the County of Santa Barbara and the Truancy Profession Partnership Program. And the District Attorney Joyce Dudley is also here to speak on this.

0:54 – 1:0018 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role54:45 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Okay, Supervisor Lavagnino and Supervisor Carbajal did you want to make some comments now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed54:50 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Well Madam Chair just as members of the subcommittee on truancy we're I'm sure as the rest of the board is interested to see how we're progressing so I'd like District Attorney Dudley to go ahead and lead us off.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:02 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Okay DA Dudley would you like to come forward please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed55:07 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you for the tremendous leadership this board has shown in the truancy program. Supervisor Carbajal, Supervisor Lavagnino right from the beginning but for you too this never would have gotten off the ground and then the rest of the board members all of you voting to give this program ongoing support thank you so much on behalf of the program, the children, the family that are already Appreciating the value that this program has given to this community.

You now have the MOU before you, it was a very exciting process everybody couldn't wait to sign it we were all exactly on the same page but I wanted to tell you a story about why we changed the name of the program. I was up in Santa Maria at the Head Start Program and I was talking to the administrators there about how important it is that the parents of the children who are graduating Head Start, the four year olds That they understand how important it is to go to school. And I said that I was the district attorney and they had this truancy program, and I realized that it's such a negative connotation because there was the assumption that people wouldn't go to school. So I turned to David Chinn and Karina Trevino, two people who are running our program, and I said can you come up with a term that really expresses what this program has come to mean to this community?

And they came up with a great name. The name of the program now is CLASS, Community Leadership in Achieving Student Success. So we have a very classy program and I just wanted to thank all of you for your support and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role56:42 · ≈ 9:56 AM

And thank you. And I think you have members of your team here if

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed56:45 · ≈ 9:56 AM

you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role56:45 · ≈ 9:56 AM

want to stand

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed56:46 · ≈ 9:56 AM

and recognize them. And Chief Gordon Ockenfoss?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role56:51 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction56:53 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. District Attorney Dudley District Attorney Auchincloss and District Attorney Chan and legal super professional Karina Trevino. I appreciate the report, there is one suggestion I'm going to make but aside from that I just want to say that everywhere I've gone, everybody's just so positive. The collaboration is obvious and if all goes as we intend and as the program is intended to be implemented, I think we're going to see much success. And I think the success, we're already seeing it.

But the fact that we have all the MOUs and you and all the relationships and everybody's on board. It just it feels very good, and the report was excellent. The only one thing that I hope that in the future as we're able to collect the data so that we can really create the baseline of how we want to challenge ourselves to do even better As you recall from our previous efforts, we have statistics about 5,000 letters went out. Then the next level there was 2,000 and so just so that we're able to create a baseline and track our efforts I'd hope that in the future as the data becomes available because I know we just kicked it off so it's not available.

That were able to really make sure we're tracking the type of data that we want to be able to reflect on to really gauge our success but That's the only thing I wanted to add. And aside from that, I just wanted to congratulate all of you for just doing an extraordinary job. Everybody is so positive and I see David and Karina everywhere. I was at a meeting last night and Karina was there. It was late in the evening.

So anyways, kudos to you all and we have big expectations.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed58:46 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Thank you very much. And if there's any questions like be happy to answer them

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed58:51 · ≈ 9:58 AM

one thing that I'm sure it's not a question but and it's Congratulations to the school district that you were speaking about that seems to be doing the best.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed59:03 · ≈ 9:59 AM

So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed59:03 · ≈ 9:59 AM

let's set the challenge out there for everybody else.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed59:05 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Of course, well just to give a little bit of an update everyone has well received this program they're fighting so hard to get fully operational as you know there are five steps of intervention before it even gets to a prosecutorial standpoint and everyone's been going through the interventions from step one through five And they're sending out notification letters. They're scheduling appointments with our office in terms of having truancy mediation team meetings after school meetings and my goal by the end of the year is to get everybody up to Lompoc Unified School District speed because they've been keeping up with I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing. We've been working on everything since 2008 ever since it was cut and it makes it easy for me makes my job very easy to just follow that long poke model so everyone is pretty much fully operational.

There's half of the regions, 6 regions throughout the entire county that are operational from steps one through 4 and they're a hop skip in a jump away from getting a star board together. So we're forming Other than that, Lompoc's ready to go and those are the sights that I have in the immediate future.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction1:00:12 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Madam Chair, I couldn't help but to look over at Supervisor Gray and she was beaming with pride and even rolled her eyes like did you expect anything less? So congratulations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:00:23 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:00:24 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Madam Chair, I think it's obvious we've got the right people, we've got the right team together and I'm very confident that we're going to see the results that we all anticipate so Very, I think money well spent and I'm sure next budget cycle we'll hopefully see many results we can point to. Of course. Thank you.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Janet Wolf · Seconded by Salud Carbajal approve the balance of the admin agenda
Show transcript
Yes it's very exciting and we take great pride in the work that you do and of course as a county family we think that all of our departments are a class act including the district attorney's office so I'm glad we have a program out there with that name on it. So we look forward to hearing about the results of your work here in the near future. Thank you again. All right, no other requests to speak on the administrative agenda. So with that I'll go ahead and we'll have a motion to approve the balance of the admin agenda. Motion by Supervisor Wolf, seconded by Supervisor Carbajal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. We're going to move right into our departmental agenda

1:01 – 1:079 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:01:26 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, your departmental items 1 and 2 we have requests to continue both of those items to your meeting on November 13th. Item one is from the county executive office. It would be a hearing to accept the fiscal year 2013-15 financial outlook report and item number two It's from planning and development, and it's the Goolsbee and Goolsbee K appeal regarding the Verizon wireless facility at the Montecito switch station. This is in the first district. And we could have one motion to continue both those items one week.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:01:59 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Okay, we have a motion to continue both the items one and two to our meeting next week of November 13th. We have a second? Second by Supervisor Wolf. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alright so now we will move on to our agenda item, departmental agenda item number three from probation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:02:20 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item 3 is from the Probation Department. It's a hearing to receive and file the Public Safety Realignment Operational Impacts Report for July through September 2012.

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:02:34 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Okay. Chief Taylor? Good morning. Good morning, Chair of Foreign Supervisors. I'm Beverly Taylor, Chief Probation Officer and with me today is Chief Deputy Sheriff Don Patterson and we'll be here today to provide our first quarter update for public safety realignment. Also here is Damon Fletcher and would be available for any financial questions that you might have.

Public safety realignment, as you're aware, was implemented in October 2011 as a solution to the state's prison overcrowding and as a relief to the state's fiscal concerns. Realignment directed the responsibility for offenders with convictions for certain lower-level felony offenses from the state to local jurisdictions. Counties received formula based funding to manage this new local responsibility.

Each county was charged with developing a local plan for implementing public safety realignment. Santa Barbara County based its plan on the notion that success would require a multi-pronged approach. The approved plan balances funding across incarceration alternatives to detention, case management and supervision efforts as well as evidence based treatment and services.

Today we will highlight population trends over the past 12 months which include the number of realigned offenders under probation supervision, what impacts these offenders have had on the court and jail operations. Chief Patterson will provide a staffing update and an update on the overall impacts AB 109 has had on jail operations over the past 12 months. A financial update of the first quarter will be presented and closing remarks from Sheriff Brown.

Realignment transferred two state populations to local jurisdictions. The post-release community supervision parolee, or PRCS, who are now under the supervision of probation and the offender serving time in local custody rather than in state prison, the nonviolent, nonserious, nonsex offenders, or the NX3s. The NX3 offender can be sentenced to straight jail or to jail with a period of mandatory probation supervision.

As of October 1st, there were 364 offenders under supervision.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:03 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Mr. Allen, I don't and at least Supervisor Carbajal doesn't have a copy of this presentation. Did we get any hard copies?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:05:14 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Yes, those would have been distributed. I can go get copies though and bring this in right now.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:05:19 · ≈ 10:05 AM

And I'm looking online and don't... Is it online? It is. Do you have it st... No?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:25 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Okay. Yeah why don't we just take a break for just a couple of minutes until we can get the rest of the materials. ¶.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:06:13 · ≈ 10:06 AM

♪ ¶. ¶.

1:07 – 1:237 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:07:37 · ≈ 10:07 AM

¶. ¶. A. All right, we'll go ahead and reconvene here. And Chief Taylor I'm sorry if you'll go ahead and continue your presentation.

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:09:22 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Thank you Chair Farr. As of October 1st there were 364 post-release community supervision offenders under supervision. And this number is consistent with projections included in our fiscal year 12-13 realignment plan. Through the first 12 months, there were seven mandatory discharges for PRCS offenders who did not have a violation that resulted in custody time for 12 consecutive months.

It's too early to know how this particular outcome is going to relate to the states, but we should know that in the next three months or so. Flash incarceration is a tool under realignment that provides a swift consequence for a minor technical violation. Probation officers are authorized to incarcerate a PRCS offender for up to ten days without a formal court hearing.

During the first 12 months, there were 221 such bookings. In the same time period, there were 21 revocations which resulted in a recommendation of over 10 days in jail and of that number 15 waived a formal court hearing leaving six who impacted the court with a formal court hearing. Post-sentence supervision offenders are ordered to serve a split sentence, including a portion of their time in jail and a mandatory period of probation supervision.

This number is also consistent with projections and as of October 1 we were at 62. Since implementation, there have been 219 NX3 offenders who have been sentenced to local custody time. Which is consistent with projections. This includes the 62 offenders who received a split sentence. Locally, offenders with a split sentence accounts for 28% of all of the NX 3s.

The state's average after six months was 24%. Local partner agencies, including the court are all in favor of split sentences. A concerted effort to better inform attorneys of this benefit And to conduct an analysis of the types of cases receiving straight sentences will help us to pinpoint how to more effectively use this sentencing option. Actually, just a moment. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:11:56 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Wolf? Thank you. Ms. Taylor I was interested in this because you mentioned it in the body of your staff report about kind of alluding to some concern about the number of straight sentences. So in your comments just now, you mentioned that you're going to be working with the parties too. What

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:12:28 · ≈ 10:12 AM

we need to look at. I think it's going to be a two prong approach one. We need to look at the types of cases that are being sentenced to a straight sentence only in our first six months The remaining time for all of our split sentences was approximately 240 days. So there were some split sentences that maybe they had served all of their time and were released at the time of sentencing.

I believe again it's two-pronged. One, we do need to provide information to the attorneys as to what services these offenders would have in the community, the benefit for a split sentence but also take a look at our numbers and what is a true percentage that we should be trying to attain? There are some counties that have as high of 80% split sentences and some you know have none So to better gauge what Santa Barbara County's threshold or standard should be, we really do need to look at what those cases that are being ordered with split sentence. What are they? And analyze them to see how many of them potentially could have been a split and how many were more appropriately sentenced to a straight jail only. So we need to do a little more work on our end.

Thank you. Go ahead. Okay, I'd like to turn it now over to Chief Patterson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:14:04 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board. With me today is Lieutenant Charles Powell who's in charge of our alternative sentencing that includes a GPS and early release programs. I will be discussing three main areas today. Staffing updates, incarceration trends, and AB 109 bed days. Over the last year, we have made a concerted effort to hire custody deputies. We are seeing the culmination of over a year of intense recruitment and hiring so far.

So far in this calendar year 2012, we've hired 27 custody deputies. To help put this intense hiring effort into perspective during the calendar years of 2008, 9, and 10, we hired a total of 23 custody deputies. So we've hired more this year than we did in the last three years combined. We currently have nine custody deputy vacancies And we have 12 custody deputy applications being actively worked and plan to open recruitment for a new custody deputy test by the next few weeks.

In an effort to address the shortage of custody deputies in the jail, the Sheriff's office transferred 12 deputy sheriffs from law enforcement operations through the jail in August of 2012. These sheriff deputies will augment the staffing shortages until enough custody deputies can be hired to replace them, and they will then be returned to law enforcement operations.

Our compliance teams have been selected, and the vehicles have been outfitted. And we will be online with our compliance teams and operational on December 10th of 2012 this year. Our social workers and community program coordinators, we're still looking to hire them. We have exhausted the list. We're not able to hire anyone off the current list, so we're looking at having a new list for that.

Under our incarceration trends In the first year of AB 109, we housed 954 AB 109 inmates in the jail. This housing ranges from as little as ten days for flash incarceration to the longest sentence of 23 years. A single day snapshot on August 1st of this year showed that we had 155 AB 10 9 inmates in jail and custody. We had an additional 22 AB 10 nine inmates on GPS.

The requirement to absorb the 155 inmates into our system that was already overcrowded, reemphasizes the need for the North County jail construction that was approved by this board last month. The new North County jail will ease the inherent liability that comes with overcrowding and provide an environment that is more conducive to longer sentences created by AB 109.

The average daily population of a jail continues to rise over previous years when comparing the months of October 11 Excuse me, when comparing the months of October 2011 to October 2012 we had an increase of 168 inmates or 19% in our average daily jail population. By these numbers alone you can see the increase of 19% is mostly a result of the AB 109-155 that we had in jail in October.

We have seen a 22% increase in our GPS population year to date and our Sheriff's Work Alternative Program which was our SWAT program is actually down 30%. This program is our community service program. We believe this program has been lowered because of the lack of ability to put people in certain locations because they have to give them workers' compensation, and also we're really screening people out more for medical reasons now to avoid liability with the department and the county.

Our cap release or early releases per the court order on overcrowding are starting to slow down from those we experienced in the first six months of the year. I attribute this reduction to the fact that we are starting to experience the impact of a longer sentence as AB 109, and there are simply less inmates coming to the end of their sentences who are eligible for early release.

Currently, year to date we have seen an increase of 7% in early releases over 2011. And you may recall last time I mentioned that actually 2011 was a record year low and we're still well below those of 2008, 9, and 10. At the central core of realignment is the effort for the use of evidence-based practices to address decisions on incarceration programs and services that ultimately reduce recidivism.

We've reported before that we use three main instruments in determining eligibility for alternative sentencing. These instruments are the initial screening tool, or the IST, the COMPASS tool and the static 99. The IST and COMPASS tools are used for everyone except sex offenders. The static 99 is used for sex offenders since it was specifically developed for those purposes.

These instruments provide a variety of information regarding the risk for recidivism and violence criminogenic needs that can be taken into account to determine proper programs and services offered to those who are released. With the assistance of probation officers funded by AB 109, we have fully implemented a plan to screen everyone in the jail to determine their eligibility for alternatives to incarceration.

While our current emphasis is on post-sentenced inmates, we also consistently scan for pre-sentenced inmates who qualify for GPS monitoring. You may also notice that in report depth so far, we have not released anyone in GPS in lieu of bail. The requirements for consideration for release and GPS in lieu of bail are that inmates are held in jail with no other reason other than the inability to bail themselves out.

They can have no other warrants or holds placed upon them. Misdemeanors must have been in jail for 30 days, and felonies in jail for 60 days to be eligible for consideration. The simple reason that we have not released anyone in lieu of bail is because the courts are doing a very good job of releasing individuals on their own recognizance and setting bail where most can afford to bail themselves out of jail.

We also site-release most misdemeanors on a promise to appear in court. Those who are left in jail have egregious crimes, extensive criminal histories or a history of noncompliance opposed to threat to public safety if released and so we have not released any of them to this date. The number of those on GPS monitoring has held steady for the last few months. Similar to the early releases, it appears we're hitting a wall with respect to individuals who fit into our selection criteria.

The annual AB 109 conference in Sacramento last week, there was a lot of discussion about using a combination of instruments to provide secondary filters to assist us in refined decisions concerning releasing individuals on GPS and other alternatives to incarceration. We will continue to coordinate And collaborate with probation and investigate how we might use some of these secondary instruments. In conjunction with the ones we are using now to assist us in our decisions and programming.

We've also seen a decrease, as I mentioned, in the number of people enrolled in our swap program. Concerning bed days, for this quarter the number of reported AB 109 jail bed days has been modified to remove offenders being held on new criminal charges and technical violations. While the percent of bed days is lower overall than in previous reports, the last three months have showed a continuation of the leveling trend we experienced last quarter. I expect this leveling trend to continue steady as we head into next year's full rollout.

We are on schedule to complete a program and revision in January to our computer system that will allow us to further refine our calculations and determine them electronically rather than our present method which is all done manually. Once the computer reprogramming is complete, we can go back and update last year's database with these new refined calculations methods.

In the annual AB 109 conference held last week in Sacramento, Dr. Joan Perdicillia, one of the foremost experts in crime and sentencing in the United States stated that the first year of AB 109 was mostly planning, organizing, and collecting data. The second year is for polishing collection methods and analyzing data, and that will be where our efforts are put next year.

I will now turn the information in the presentation back to Chief Taylor who will present the financial status of the program.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:21:40 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Thank you, Chief Patterson. Supervisor Gray has a question and then I have some questions as well.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:21:44 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Actually, I have a statement that I'd like to make. I am now serving on what is known as the Correctional Facilities Executive Committee in Sacramento and we have $500 million that we are tasked with handing out for correctional facilities in local areas. And I'm one of two supervisors that's on this committee, there's one from Contra Costa and myself. There's four sheriffs, two probation officers and one mental health representative.

And the reason I'm bringing this up because I just want you all my colleagues and everyone in the room to know that Santa Barbara County is just head and shoulders above what other counties are doing With these programs in specific example with Santa Cruz County probation officer was on the is on this commission. And he kept talking about, well we've just got to do a whole lot of things before we do anything else. And finally I said, well what is it that you're specifically referring to?

And he was talking about OR release. I mean my lord, we've been doing OR release in this county since 1987 that I know of. So all of these things that our folks are telling us about are truly cutting edge of what's going on in every other county I was, I just was amazed to know that. So as we listen and try and solve the 108, the commission that I'm on is AB 1009 handing out that kind of money but it is just a great feeling and so it was a hello to me because it was, we just hear them all the time and so we don't really know how far out they are So thank you. Congratulations to this board, the CEO and the sheriff, everybody involved. It's not like we're behind the eight ball here. We're right ahead. So congratulations. That's what I had to say.

1:23 – 1:309 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:55 · ≈ 10:23 AM

OK, great. Thank you. Supervisor Wolf, it's always good to know that when you're at the statewide level how well we compare which is not a surprise for us but still nice to hear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:24:07 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair and I would second what Supervisor Gray said when we were in Sacramento just as these plans are being developed. And I think I may have mentioned it at one of our board meetings someone from another county just literally wanted to take the plan out of my hands So that they could use it. Um, so yes we are. We are one of the model model counties and I think that this collaboration of all of you has has been terrific. I wanted. I'm glad Mr Patterson that you touched on the reason why we're not seeing any any releases, the way it's written here. We're not seeing any releases to home detention in lieu of bail.

So what I think I heard you say is that these folks are at a level that they should not be considered for bail. The courts have already allowed folks to be on their own recognizance or reduce their bail and for whatever reason when you have evaluated them they are not eligible And I just want to confirm that, because I have looked back over the last three months and the same pattern exists where there have been no releases in lieu of bail.

So will that ever change or do you expect this is going to be a static statistic?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:25:39 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, I believe it's probably going to be a static statistics. There are some potential cases that we review individually that may come up. I actually have a sample of a couple of the ones who were held on lieu of bail and of course I won't say their names but I can talk about the charges in their bail just to give you an example of the ones we're holding in lieu of bail.

This was actually done a few months ago. But the first one is a million dollars bail. It's mostly drug-related charges, vehicular manslaughter, speed in the highway, possession of less designated controlled substance and drug related charges. So that's one of them. The other one is $100,000 bail on possession of burglary tools, illegal possession of a firearm, participation in a criminal street gang.

Have another one that's $400,000. That's receiving stolen property attempt attempt to commit a crime burglary driving on the suspended license and destroying evidence in possession of controlled substances. There are several of them in here where there are sexual assault cases that you know those go for themselves in terms of public safety and I can go on but those are the types of crimes that we're looking at now that are eligible for consideration in lieu of bail but we've decided not to let them out

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:26:55 · ≈ 10:26 AM

I appreciate that, but wouldn't sexual assault? They're not, I thought that they're not considered to be part of this population. They're not a NX3 as I understood it. That they wouldn't even be considered for this program.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:27:10 · ≈ 10:27 AM

They may not be considered part of the NX3s, but we do have some misdemeanors sentencing. We do have some in on misdemeanor that are being tried for misdemeanors that are eligible under the criteria because again, the criteria is if you're a felony, if you're in for a felony for more than 60 days and only have a bail amount with no other charges and holds, you fall under consideration for being released in lieu of bail.

And so because they're not sentenced, they don't fall into the index three part that's only to sentence people. So the unsentenced ones where they may after sentencing fall into that category but this is pre-sentence

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:27:41 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Okay. But I just think it's important for me to understand that this population, the NX threes are not those high level criminals that we would never consider anything in lieu of bail as part of this program. Give me an example of one that you would consider. You mentioned $400,000 bail or a million dollars bail and because I'm not familiar with The legal justice system, would someone for instance be in jail and be held on $10,000 bail? And it'd be an NX3, it would be a misdemeanor or not.

Basically what I think you're saying is that no one who comes into jail and has a bail will not be released under this program or under supervision.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:28:39 · ≈ 10:28 AM

The NX3s are only considered NX 3s post-sentence in terms of whether they're actually sentenced to the jail or not. They may be tried, but in terms of actual after their sentence then they actually are placed into jail in terms of serving their sentence. This is all pre-sentenced so they're still in trial and haven't been tried and convicted of anything yet. So some of these may go to trial and may end up being sentenced as NX3s. Other ones maybe sentenced as non-NX3, so we're talking about both. Sometimes you actually may be tried on a felony but found guilty of a lesser included crime or misdemeanor, so they might have been tried as an NX 3 but sentenced as a misdemeanor. So this includes all of them. And I'll give you an example of one of the ones that we may consider.

We're talking about maybe drunk driving. Maybe someone's in jail for drunk driving. They've had two or three priors of drunk driving. They're in jail on $25,000 to $50,000 bail. They've been sitting there for 30 or 60 days. They're eligible and are under this criteria to be considered for release on GPS monitoring. That would be some of which we would consider, we'd probably put them on a scram, which is an alcohol device also, and do a combination of both if we actually let them out. But those are some of the ones we would consider releasing. We don't have any of those that's come across my desk at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:29:48 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Okay. Ms Taylor, did you want to say something?

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:29:53 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, yes just so the in lieu of is for any offender in custody who meet certain criteria it's not only for the AB 109 the PRCSs or the NX3s but as anyone in custody misdemeanor or felony who meet It's the total population of the jail that can be considered for

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:30 – 1:4322 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:30:33 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Maybe then for these reports, I'm just not clear why we would have that as part of our information then. If it's not related...if these folks are not 109ers, why would they be included in our report? Other than I do think it's interesting information but...

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:30:53 · ≈ 10:30 AM

And it came about as part of realignment. So it was a tool that was given to local county, the sheriff so that gave them an opportunity or vehicle to release other types of offenders to make room potentially for the AB 109. So I would say it's a tool we can certainly take it off.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:31:16 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Chief Patterson, I wanted to go back and ask you about the staffing. Because I know that having the vacancies for the custody deputies is having an impact on overall operations because you said that you have had to pull 12 other deputies in to kind of fill in. So you said you had nine vacancies that you're trying Right now. Now are those existing vacancies or were they additional vacancies created by AB 109? I mean, additional need for custody deputies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:31:53 · ≈ 10:31 AM

There are existing vacancies. AB 109 funds, I believe about 15 custody deputies throughout the custody operations and we don't necessarily separate those out. These are actual vacancies on the actual main floor of the jail. So to answer your question, yes there are nine hard vacancies we have right now that we're trying to fill. Some of them may be funded by AB 109 depending on where we actually eventually put them but we don't really separate those out and we draw down the AB 109 funds based on where people actually are assigned so when they get hired and signed up they may be put in those positions but we haven't made that decision yet

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:32:26 · ≈ 10:32 AM

OK, well what I'm trying to do is get a good understanding of what the overall custody deputy need is. So I'm assuming that the nine vacancies that you're trying to fill now are kind of the bare minimum and then there are going to be others that will probably need to be filled after that? Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:32:46 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Madam Chair, that is correct. We have nine vacancies that we're trying to fill now. I believe we're having three more come online after the first of the year that was authorized by the board last year. We're also looking at a fair amount of custody deputies moving over into the deputy sheriff world so that'll create some more vacancies for us within the next couple of months. So all that's going to equate to probably another 14-15 vacancies by the first of the year.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:33:09 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Okay, and so I know it's probably impossible to guess but if you had to how long do you think it's going to take before you'll be able to fill all of these? So that the people that you've had to transfer from the other operations can be transferred back to what they were doing before.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:33:27 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Madam Chair, we're planning on starting that transfer probably after the first of the year. We really want to wait until maybe February or March till we see how many people actually retiring with the actual vacancies are but we will start transitioning them, the deputy sheriffs back to the street after the first year. We currently have 17 custody deputies on training right now and as those deputies get off of training that'll allow us to assign them to posts that deputy sheriffs are currently filling so it'll be a transition process over the next two to three to four months

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:33:53 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Okay, so hopefully maybe by the end of this fiscal year some of this will have kind of balanced out as far as having been able to do enough hiring of custody deputies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:34:04 · ≈ 10:34 AM

That's correct Madam Chair but in a physical year into summer we wholly expect to have all the custody deputies hired and they may still be in training at the time but our plans are moving forward 100% just like we have the last year and hire as many as we can

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:34:17 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Okay, it's just that I've heard about this from some other directions like the school resource officers and other kinds of things. So trying to get a sense for that. Also you had said between October 11th and October 12th that overall there was kind of an increase of 19% in the jail mainly because of the AB 109. Now was that what you were expecting? Or is it more or is it less on target?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:34:45 · ≈ 10:34 AM

The AB 109 impact is higher than the anticipated, even with the revision of the statistics. The way we do it, it's still over what we expected. So that impact is higher. We weren't really expecting that many. But the actual number of AB 109 inmates in the jail, you can separate that out from the actual of AB 10 9, the impact because we're moving forward and trying to get more out on alternative sentencing alternatives to incarceration.

So really, it's a two-pronged answer to your question. The first one is we're experiencing a little bit more than we expected based on the projections.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:35:16 · ≈ 10:35 AM

What did you expect from the projections?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:35:18 · ≈ 10:35 AM

We expected 127 inmates at any one time and the snapshot we had on October 1st was 155, just as a snapshot of the day so that impact is more than we expected. That's in the overall jail system with where their forecasts were. That included actually inside the walls and outside the walls and alternative sentencing. Our focus right now is trying to get people more in alternative sentencing and GPS to reduce those numbers inside the wall

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:35:41 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Okay. And when you talked about a leveling trend, you're not anticipating then that this percentage increase is going to be getting worse because of these other efforts that you're doing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:35:53 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Madam Chair, that's correct. The leveling trend we saw during the second quarter of last year for April, May and June. The AB 109 impact started to level off. The leveling trend as you can tell by the reports we gave you for this quarter are virtually even so I expect that leveling trend to have hit a maximum and to continue and if we do our job correctly it may even come down a little bit.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:36:14 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Okay. And then my last question for right now is... I know that we're just talking about the AB 109 Issue, but since we're also trying to look at what's happening in custody operations in the jail holistically. During this same time have we seen an overall increase in non AB 109 inmates in the jail so that the whole population is coming up in other ways?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:36:42 · ≈ 10:36 AM

In general, I don't believe we have seen an overall increase. Our actual bookings are up 18% this year over last year and if you look at the overall impact of the AB 109 that's probably about equal to a lot of the impacts so I wouldn't think we are statistically higher than last year in terms of non-AB109 inmates. The main impact is AB 109. Okay

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:37:01 · ≈ 10:37 AM

thank you very much. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction1:37:04 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Thank you. First of all congratulations on I know we have certain assumptions of what we thought or assumed or hoped. It would be great if we could get something that says this is what we thought, this is where we're at. It's just sort of a fact sheet at a glance. It also allows us to see the challenges that we're having. It becomes somewhat of an executive summary of what we're doing or not doing. And it would be, I think, helpful not only to us but the public. So I want to encourage you to do that if you can.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:37:52 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Thank you. Chief Taylor? I don't know if you want to comment on that, but I know that I think you have more of your presentation as well.

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:37:59 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Yes, we certainly, Chair Farr, Supervisor Carbajal, we can certainly do that. $1.1 million or 11.3% of the fiscal year budget was expended at the end of the first quarter. Hiring challenges continue during the first quarter of the fiscal year and has impacted spending. But based on Chief Deputy Patterson's presentation, there should be an increase in jail detention alternatives and collaborative efforts by the end of the next quarter. So we should see some increased expenditures there. In addition, there are claims from contractors and partner agencies that are pending In the collaborative efforts treatment housing categories which will also have an impact.

And lastly contracts are in place the needs of offenders are being assessed and referrals are being made however we are seeing that the actual experience at work scene is resulting in the use of less offender slots than then anticipated and particularly in housing and in our program attendance in Lompoc. But these are two areas that staff will continue to review and look at, and find ways to motivate the offenders in Lompoc to attend the treatment sessions. So it's on our radar, and it's something that we'll continue to monitor.

So in closing, while it is still too early to discuss the long-term success of public safety realignment and that's something that's shared by state counties and researchers in the field. We do have some local positive short term Outcomes and trends that we're seeing, that we'll continue to monitor and provide to the board. We have our evaluation with UCSB that we should be seeing some information from them in early spring.

We also will continue to take advantage of any opportunities for technical assistance or participation in research projects. And in fact, we've been invited by both Stanford University And the Public Policy Institute of Corrections to share our data with them. They are looking to incorporate 10-12 counties within the state, they're working with the Board of State and Community Corrections so that the data that they're looking at We'll mesh with what the state is also collecting. So those are two opportunities that we were fortunate enough to have those two educational entities request that we participate in and additionally, the sheriff is taking the lead on a technical assistance opportunity that we're working with him to take a look at our jail system and transition for inmates from jail to the community so that's another opportunity that we have as well In the near future.

As the chair of the CCP, I wanted to just take a moment after our one year anniversary October 1 certainly can all take a side deep sigh of relief but I wanted to just as a chair just say how thankful I am to the CCP. They're a dedicated group of individuals who certainly has made this first year of realignment bearable. It's been non-stop and grueling for a lot of our staff who are doing the work in the field.

I want to recognize that the CCP saw the need and the benefit of research where the state didn't require counties to have evaluation, we saw the benefit in that and allocated funds for research The CCP also recognized the need for a multi-pronged approach, that it wasn't just top heavy on incarceration. It wasn't just top heavy on treatment but it really was a blended approach with treatment, incarceration, alternative incarceration and supervision.

They're very active in our statewide efforts. Last week we had eight individuals that went to the second annual AB 109 conference, and I saw that other counties are hamstrung in their efforts and that was in large part due to the inability for their CCPs to communicate, to collaborate and to really make decisions and move their plan forward. So I again as the chair, I just am very thankful of this county, this board, the board that approved a plan that was on the first plan in 2011 from the 58 counties that was in place.

We've not only had our initial Second year plan where we've made modifications as we've seen needs to in the system of service. So I believe that we are forging a path. We've got you've got a group of stakeholders who want to I would now like to turn it over to Sheriff Brown for some closing comments. Thank you.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:43 – 1:5213 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:43:31 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Okay, thank you. Supervisor Wolf did you have anything that you wanted to say before the sheriff spoke? No go ahead.

CommentJeff BardProposed · by introduction1:43:38 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. Criminal justice realignment remains a huge challenge for us and for every other county in California but it continues to have some very strong potential to greatly improve the criminal justice system by enhancing the reentry process thereby revitalizing lives and reducing recidivism and making our community much safer You heard earlier a comment that was attributed to Dr. Joan Peter Cilia, who is a professor at Stanford University, probably the preeminent criminologist involved in reentry and an expert in that field who we are proud to claim as a Santa Barbara County resident by the way.

At this conference that we all attended last week, Dr. Peter Cilia indicated that there are three key ingredients to recidivism reduction. The first is partnerships, the second is good data, the third is patience and as far as the first goes you would be hard pressed to find a more collaborative criminal justice team anywhere we all recognize the need for blended strategies as well as the incredible power of synergy Last week, as you heard a group of us from the Sheriff's Office, the Probation Department, the DA's office, the Public Defender's office, County Counsel's office and the courts attended the Criminal Justice Realignment Conference in Sacramento as a team.

We have come away from that experience with some new ideas on how we can improve our system, but also confident as you've heard that we're doing the right things. That we're headed in the right direction and that our collective and collaborative efforts are ahead of many others and are on target. Whether through combined efforts to assess risk, to deliver important programs and services both inside and outside of the jail system.

Communicating with each other at our regular Criminal Justice Coordinating Council meetings, or by taking steps to strengthen and customize discharge plans and post-release supervision and treatment options. We work together in many ways to make our system stronger. You heard earlier that the Sheriff's Office and the Probation Department are collaborating on a combined compliance response team project, an effort that we believe will ensure that those who are released early from jail or are on alternatives to incarceration are properly supervised and held accountable.

We believe that this will be the first of its kind in California and that this program holds great promise to become a model practice in our changing post-release environment. The two other components that Dr. Cillian mentioned are also coming along well here in Santa Barbara County. We are capturing good data, and we're working as you've heard on ways to improve how we harvest that data and assess it.

And lastly, we are exercising patience as we put strategies into effect and await the results of our efforts. All of this is being done on the heels of the worst recession in our lifetime and despite being reduced to bare bones levels every agency and everyone involved in this effort has really stepped up and made things work despite significant cuts in staffing and in essential programs and services that have occurred We still have major funding challenges to deal with at both the state and the local levels.

But we are committed to making realignment work in Santa Barbara County, and we thank you for the support that you continue to provide to us in that endeavor. And my staff and the staff of the probation department are available if you have any other questions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:47:21 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Thank you so much Sheriff. Supervisor Gray then Supervisor Wolf.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:47:27 · ≈ 10:47 AM

The AB 1009 money, one of the discussions that seemed to go on and on and on was about program space as opposed to bed space. So now there's this $500 million for capital improvement in program space which is kind of a new concept for the construction of jails. Does that fit in any way with what we're doing at our jail program level? And how does it fit?

CommentJeff BardProposed · by introduction1:47:55 · ≈ 10:47 AM

It's funny you should mention that because as it turns out, we were very desirous of learning whether or not our award of an AB 900 Phase 2 grant would preclude us from applying for any of this funding stream. And I'm happy to say that it does not and we are currently looking at What our additional needs are and have plans to look at applying for an additional grant under the terms of this program. It's very similar in terms of its match requirements, a 10% match but it does allow us to do refurbishing of existing facilities for example or adding program space as you indicated. And I think there are a lot of things that are going to occur. Remember we're building a new jail now but we still have an old jail that's quite antiquated and parts of which are in great need of refurbishment or remodeling to a more modern design, and a more effective means to allow us to provide the types of programming that is essential to the success of the re-entry process.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:49:01 · ≈ 10:49 AM

As I was listening to the conversation of this commission it became very apparent to me that the interest was primarily not totally but primarily on program space because there had been A real vacuum as far as the ability to build program space. So I know we'll do a great job in applying for some of those

CommentJeff BardProposed · by introduction1:49:22 · ≈ 10:49 AM

dollars. We are definitely looking at it and will be working towards that.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:49:25 · ≈ 10:49 AM

And it appears as if there's already been, of the 500 million, it appears that 100 million has already been committed to the smaller counties of which we don't qualify. So there's the 400 million left, but seems to be some real enthusiasm. Sheriff Baca is on the commission also in making sure that the middle size smaller because in a way I heard the larger counties say You know, that's not enough to really do much good for us. So it appears to me like the Santa Barbara County would have a great opportunity, great opportunity.

CommentJeff BardProposed · by introduction1:50:05 · ≈ 10:50 AM

It may well be a great opportunity because the maximum that can be applied for under this for medium-sized county is $30 million. Which wouldn't be enough for a county that wanted to build a new jail, for example. And it might be that there are fewer people applying for the funding and we might be able to be in an advantageous position. I believe it's $167 million that's available for the medium sized counties. So where we may-. I don't think

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:50:29 · ≈ 10:50 AM

that was sentenced in concrete yet. It was just kind of discussed but that's possible. And they could partner, there was also going to be emphasis on partnering. I don't see that in our future. We seem to have the jail ready to go and so it's just program space that I want to be sure and urge us to really be looking at because that's so new.

CommentJeff BardProposed · by introduction1:50:55 · ≈ 10:50 AM

It is definitely something for us to look at. And one of the things that we're looking at is, you know, we're already doing two very successful day reporting centers in the north and south counties that are for people coming out of the state prison system who are on parole. But we're looking at ways to expand either them or to put a A new type of facility that could either be for people coming out of jail or a blended facility that would cater to both ex-offenders, both types of ex-offenders because many of the services are very similar that we would be providing to all of them. And that's an example of what this money could be utilized for.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:51:37 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Thank you Supervisor Gray. Supervisor Wolk? Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:51:42 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Chief Taylor, the facility that's at the Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall is a location I think that Supervisor Gray is maybe talking about. That maybe we can enhance it or have more of those because isn't that the place where we have the alternative sentenced folks go for job training? There's mental health services, social services. Is that what we're hearing here, that there is grant money for more of those places?

1:52 – 2:0212 turns

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:52:23 · ≈ 10:52 AM

The sheriff may have more information about just the specifics for that, but I do know it's a reentry and our Report Resource Center does serve as a re-entry as well. So for individuals coming out of jail we prepare a treatment plan in the jail they can come out and continue services at the Probation Reporting Resource Center so it would be looking at something like that where offenders are receiving treatment in the community at one location. So yes. Basically, the

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction1:52:51 · ≈ 10:52 AM

answer is yes but it's adults. It's not when you said juvenile it threw me off. Did I say juvenile?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:52:56 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Yeah. I didn't mean juvenile. I meant these are, it's the post sentence, I mean it's the alternative sentenced part of the

GuestBeverly TaylorSheriffProposedself-stated1:53:03 · ≈ 10:53 AM

109ers. Felony offenders who are receiving services there. Right. It' s the juvenile campus at our Hollister site in Santa Barbara but we have our adult offenders there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:53:13 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Yes, that's where the juvenile came in because it's the juvenile site serving these offenders. And Sheriff Brown before you leave I just want to thank you for your comments. This has been an evolving process. I sit on the committee and have enjoyed the challenges that all of you face. And it's really from the leadership from you Chief Taylor we have our DA and public defender here It's a collaborative.

Team and it's we certainly have you certainly have faced challenges, but I think every time we see these reports. We're seeing something a little bit better. We're moving in in a direction that I think is a little bit better. You mentioned beds bed stays Chief Taylor and I think last time we noted that was That was a challenge for us and things are getting a little bit better But it will take patience And perseverance and you guys are a great team. And I just want to thank you all for everything that you're doing to make this work.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:54:23 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Carbajal?

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction1:54:25 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Thank you. I too want to echo congratulations to all of you. But as we're considering 109 and another budget looming, coming. Recently I had a very good meeting with Beverly Taylor and the one thing that stuck in my mind was the numbers. We actually got into the weeds of talking about the numbers of how many probationers. And what really caught my attention was that Certainly we've made some cuts to the probation department, but whether it was serendipitous or the department was able to restructure in a way to meet the need.

But the need also interestingly enough went down dramatically. So without objection from my colleagues at some point in the future I would really appreciate CEO Waller working with all our public safety agencies here. Some kind of report that gives us a quick analysis on the five year tenure trend of incarceration, bookings, probationers I mean what has occurred?

In terms of our public safety with all the numbers, because oftentimes I know you're going to do your job and you're also going to come tell us comes June how we need to fund more. And some of the things is that we're just doing it differently. 109 has forced us to do things differently, and I think having a lot more success. But I really would like to understand the data, How things are going in terms of the impact, the need and how we're matching our resources to those. So anyways if that's something that would be very helpful to me that would I think amplify what we're doing with AB 109 but more importantly also set us up for Our continued discussions on budget in months to come. So I want to encourage that we get a report in the future, public safety report that focuses on all the arrest data and all the numbers in probation, district attorney.

Now we have a diversion program that's going to really focus on, if I remember correctly, 2,000 of 2,500. So, I know that everybody is being innovative and creative on trying to do things more efficiently The question is how are we able to translate those efficiencies into continued growth in the areas we do need them, in terms of our public safety department. So it would really be helpful to me to see that data in the future.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:01 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. And I just wanted to say that as part of future reports, I would also like to know what kind of trends you're seeing with any of this population dropping into homelessness? Because in looking at the financial status for It's sad to me to see so much money there for mental health and alcohol and other drugs, housing sober living. And so little of it expended and I think that goes to your comment Chief Taylor that there are some issues or problems with perhaps getting people to access the services in a way that we're hoping that they will.

And I know this is an issue that came up at the beginning as far as where people were going to be housed when And a lot of them thought they were going to be living with family members and whether that is actually transpiring or not, or whether for other issues. They are not living where we thought they would. I think that we should track that as well because as we know eventually they're going to end up back at the jail for other reasons if we can't keep them housed and get them back into the programs that we know that they need so.

Thank you, Sheriff. I think we have one request to speak from the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:58:24 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Madam Chair, we have a request to speak from Andy Caldwell in Santa Maria.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:58:29 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Mr. Caldwell? Thank you for waiting.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated1:58:33 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Thank you madam chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. We have full confidence in the staff that's running these programs so I think we have exemplary We have a number of exemplary people both in the Sheriff's Department and the probation department. It was unfortunate that the public didn't get the report. What's on the web was woefully inadequate, it was a cover letter and a couple of charts with no narrative whatsoever.

There's not a lot of people that can come during the day, there's not even a lot of people that can watch during the day but some people might want to read these reports and they weren't available. And, you know, it also is not helpful to have as I think Supervisor Carbajal alluded to just a full on narrative with no pictorial analysis or no graph. We at the public, you know, as you know we supported We supported the creation of the North County jail because of the overcrowding in the South.

And previously, we've all heard the reports that they were barely booking anything less than a felony at the jail. Well, we'd like to know what's happened since AB 109? There's a lot of talk about releasing people on their own recognizance. How many of those people have committed crimes while out on their own recognizance that if it weren't for AB 109, they may have been in jail?

That's just kind of a basic little question that the public would like to know. A lot of people are wondering what happens if Prop 30 fails. Is this situation gonna get worse? The bottom line is we had an overcrowded jail before, we now have the state dumping prisoners into the county. Are we supposed to walk away and say all is well? Or do we incarcerate too many people? Is there enough people out there that if they just get threatened with jail will mind their Ps and Qs?

What is the recidivism rate of the people that were not through AB 109 and the ones that were just here on their own? How many people were a victim of a crime because somebody wasn't in jail? Those are the kinds of questions we'd like to have answered. And again, we hope in the future that for all departmental matters every single piece of information that the board gets will be posted online days ahead so that we can intelligently partner with you To review this and comment accordingly. Today, you know we had to fly blind into this hearing because the material was not available in that in this day and age is inexcusable. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:01:48 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Thank you Mr. Colwell. And that's our only public speaker on this item so we'll bring it back to the board for any final questions or comments on this? All right, this is a receive and file motion to approve by Supervisor Carbajal. Second by Supervisor Wolf. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much everybody all the members of the team that are here we appreciate that and so as long as the rest of the board is okay we'll go ahead and we'll push through and take up our last departmental agenda item of the day number four Mr.

Allen

2:02 – 2:1115 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:02:25 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item four is from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. It's a hearing to receive and follow-up presentation from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System regarding the funding status of the plan and the impact of the recent Pension Reform Act on the members.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:02:58 · ≈ 11:02 AM

We're doing a 60-second stretch here while they set up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:03:02 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Forward and back?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:03:05 · ≈ 11:03 AM

OK. Yes, please.

CommentJose NavarreteProposedself-stated2:03:16 · ≈ 11:03 AM

OK.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:43 · ≈ 11:03 AM

All right, good morning Mr. Emilio thank you so much for being with us today and doing the presentation on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:03:52 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Thank you supervisors for inviting me here to address you. You have a I'll have a PowerPoint on the screens in addition, you have received in advance a paper copy this is intended not only as a visual but it's also the full written report. It contains a lot of information that I suspect you want to analyze and answers a number of questions that I think or on your minds. The presentation is based in two parts.

The first slides, which are 2 through 11 address the actuarial assumption. In other words that will be the The employer's rate that the county will be paying next year into the pension. And then the remaining slides deal with recent pension reform and how it impacts the employees and the retirees in time dependent, I'll try to go through a few of those slides.

This is intended to be an overview. I want to make sure I leave plenty of time for your questions, the outline is for your future reference and I'm certainly glad to address any questions after going forward if you want to get in depth or have your staff follow up with our office later on. On slide two, you'll see what was intended to be a water tank. It kind of looks like a dog bowl on toothpicks. But what this is actually is intended to show both the inflow and the outflow of money into the county's defined benefit plan. And this is a snapshot, very much like a balance sheet. It's at one point in time. It certainly doesn't look like this every day but this one happens to be very good because it's based on our last audited financial statements and what you'll see is right now the water tank, the assets of the fund were about 72% funded.

Okay. And the money comes in, and one of three ways it so happens that in the year we're looking at which closed at the end of June of 2011 that the earnings that came into that tank were $350 million. The county contributed $94 million, which was a little over 20% of the intake in that given year. And then employees contribute to the fund and the employees contributed that year $10.8 million.

And I believe the number of the following year is up close to $15 million. The purpose of this is to show, because oftentimes public pension funds very recently have always been very heavily exploited in the media. They're being very costly at government and some might have the perception that 100% of this inflow comes from here and you can see in this year it was about 20%.

Now it won't be the same in the year that closes at the end of June 2012. We don't have those audited financials yet, but nevertheless all three of these faucets contribute to filling the tank okay? At the bottom, money certainly comes out of the fund every year and a significant proportion of that about 97%, and that's on average every year goes out to member benefits. In other words, to the retirees. Certainly the plan has expenses. It's a modest 3% and that's about average every year. Those are things, well certainly we have to pay rent. We have to pay staff and we have a small staff of 20 folks that administer the fund. Most of those costs go into investment management fees, investment advisors, investment consultants, legal counsel, the actuary etc.

On slide three, there are just a couple of things I wanted to highlight for you. First of all the investment return if you look in the middle of the page up at the top that will show you the different breakouts from the prior slide by the way going back over the past four years. This in the middle will show you the benchmark is what the professional plan consultants and our retirement board established as to the investment performance, the fund ought to achieve. And what you'll see above it is what the fund has actually received and you'll see we have exceeded the benchmark investment wise in this fiscal year over three years and over five years and you'll find when we get the figures added up Over the current fiscal year and they're not finally audited.

We've done it again, we outperformed for example at the end of 12 just based on public statements with the big California pension funds and many others who have reported so that the fund is being very well managed by the retirement board and its consultants.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:08:51 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Madam Chair?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:51 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Yes, Supervisor Lavenino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:08:55 · ≈ 11:08 AM

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this to me is very, very important. So I'm going to ask questions as quick as I can. But on the five year benchmark and I'm looking back at the returns and yes, this year was outstanding. How do we get to where that we beat our expectations when the first two years? And I don't know what happened in those seven I guess so we only show four years.

No, but the first two years we lost close to half a billion dollars. How do we at the end of that say that we beat our benchmark?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:09:34 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Two things first supervisor through the chair. I would like to say that the fund didn't lose anything that term is used quite frequently. The fund experienced significant declination in value in the years 08 and 09 we wrote nothing off. Had we sold or written off assets, then it would actually be a loss. What's happened is the value went down. The values have now since come up. The fund currently holds $2.2 billion. It's the highest it's ever been so we didn't actually lose anything there was a decline in value but that's a technical point to circle back. The benchmarks are still impacted by what's going on in the markets and these are averages that the investment advisors look at. So certainly there were significant declines in values

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:10:22 · ≈ 11:10 AM

I'm going to remember that term when next time I look at my bank account. We never lost anything, it was just a decline in value.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:10:28 · ≈ 11:10 AM

It was.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:10:29 · ≈ 11:10 AM

No, I mean, I'm not disagreeing with you. So we declined in value half a billion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:10:34 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Significantly yes. It declined in value but you'll see now That the fund actually is worth more than it's ever been because we didn't have to write any of those assets off. What's happened is they've now come back, and that's attributed by the way to in the fiscal years that closed June 30th 10 and 11. We had super outstanding performance. That's not because we did a great job. It was simply because a lot of those We're going to have to look at everything over the long term as opposed to just in an OK, and you see the plan assets at the close of the fiscal year were 2.0 I think you'll see the closed audits are going to will come in over a two point one. I don't think they'll quite hit 2.2 but since then they have and that's where the fund stands to date.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:11 – 2:1710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:11:48 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Madam Chair,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:11:49 · ≈ 11:11 AM

yes supervisor. Sorry

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:11:51 · ≈ 11:11 AM

can we go over those other two columns that you have there? The unfunded accrued liability in the unfunding liability And the funded ratio, I see the funded ratios down to 73 but explain to me how let's just take 2011 and just kind of walk me through that chart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:12:13 · ≈ 11:12 AM

The unfunded liability right here if you take what the, actually it is on I think on the next slide These two slides, the prior slide and this slide go hand in hand. And what you'll see here is This line is the rate that members are paying The white line here is what the normal cost for the employer, the county and the other 10 systems that participate are in here.

The green is also part of the rate and we're soon getting there to what the rate will be assessed against the employer but this is the piece of the county and other employers contributions That go to picking up the cost for unfunded liability. Right now we've got $2.2 billion in the fund and if you look at our liabilities In this column and you subtract them out from what the assets are in each given year, you'll see the unfunded liability piece. So for example, in this year 11 that closed our unfunded liability was $741 million so that's why we're not completely funded or underfunded by that tune. That number I believe is going to come down a little bit once we get the audited numbers For 12 not significantly, but somewhat

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:13:46 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Supervisor Carball.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:13:48 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Are you done supervisor? Is it correct to say that the unfunded liability means that if we had to pay everyone out and zero out the program worth seven hundred and forty one million point nine seven forty one point nine million short of Having all the money we need To make the system whole. The dangerously brief answer that would be yes, thank you. There's a but and the but is

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:14:29 · ≈ 11:14 AM

The investment process and the payouts are over 40, 50, 60 years. This isn't a long-term vehicle. So theoretically you're correct but you have to step back. It couldn't be because not every member and all their beneficiaries is going to die in one day and have an instantaneous payout. This is projects where we pay the actuaries because it's over a 40 50 60 year

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:14:56 · ≈ 11:14 AM

I understand. I just for my sake of my basic math trying to understand it That's just want to see if it meant the same thing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:15:11 · ≈ 11:15 AM

So On slide 5 What you're seeing here, and this is the debate that goes on with the county as well as really every other public entity that has a defined benefit plan are the projections for the employer rates. The number is coming up soon, but as you look and this is a projection to remember these projections do change every year. Next year I will know they're based on a couple of things and you'll see the next two slides, and I don't want to rush ahead. But what you're going to see is this.

The rates will continue to go up the rate that the county will pay into the pension fund for its share of the cost. For yet another fiscal year beyond this one and the reason for that is simple. We have a five-year smoothing that we're running out those huge losses that the supervisor mentioned before in 08 or 09, we have one more year of those huge losses that have been amortized over five years each. The last 20% of 09 has to work its course through the system And then all we'll have left are those two big years in 10 and 11 that will help to start bringing the employer's costs down slowly, gradually, consistently.

Assuming nothing else major would happen like another major recession or depression or something along those lines out and it will continue to decline. But there are other assumptions in the next couple of slides will show you how this can be impacted in a number of ways. So we do have another year of increases, actually two more because I'm going to announce one today that you've already seen.

And you'll see yet another year after that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:17:12 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Mr. Emilio, before you go on- Yes? I just noticed up there at the top one of the things maybe just Yeah, OK. Maybe this is maybe that is the because this one doesn't does not reflect expected impact of legislation so the next one does we're talking about although nothing would happen possibly before 2018 the whole idea of having to pick up half of the normal cost rather than the half rate.

That's where we're going to get this next chart that's gonna drop it a little bit.

2:17 – 2:2313 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:17:52 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Keeping the base chart and keep in mind. The assumption here is that the plan is going to return 7 3 quarter percent that number could. And I'm hopeful, most likely will change and go down in the middle of next year when the Retirement Systems Actuary does its three-year experience study. They'll look at all the assumptions that the board makes. The trending has been with all plans in the country to take these down. By the way these are You'll only find these kind of numbers with public funds in the United States. If you look at private plans in the United States, or public or private plans around the world, you'll see they're much closer to the high 3% and low-to-mid 4% range. We're permitted to have these kind of loftier expectations and public funds in this country but we're the only group of entities that are allowed to have those.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:18:54 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Supervisor Wolf has a question?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:18:56 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Mr. Amelia, so how does that reflect with the other 37 at counties?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:19:04 · ≈ 11:19 AM

We're really in the middle of the 2037, there are 2037 act counties and we're about in the middle. You've got some that have already moved down to seven and a half and seven and a quarter you may have one or two of them still up over 8% but the bulk were in the 7 1⁄2 to 7.75 range but the trending is and my colleagues and I all discussed this excuse me The trending is as each system goes through its three or five-year experience rate, there's heavy pressure from the actuaries and investment advisors to make this a more realistic number. In other words, to bring it down—bring the rate down. Our own investment consultant tells us that this particular number, 7 3 quarters, that I'm not saying what the board will do. Our retirement where we'll make that decision, not staff or the actuary.

They'll do it based on a variety of factors. But it's there and I'll show you the impact this will have if they do take it down on the next couple of slides.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:20:12 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Supervisor Levin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:20:14 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Thank you, Mr Mealio. What? What you just said their kind of scared me a little bit as far as why are somewhat maybe nontruthful

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:20:28 · ≈ 11:20 AM

assumptions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:20:32 · ≈ 11:20 AM

If you say that the real world has to be in the 3 or 4% range and we're predicting 7 ¾, obviously you know the system what do you think we should be at?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:20:44 · ≈ 11:20 AM

It's historic, and I think eventually the system will follow the trends of everyone else and eventually see those rates come down. They probably would have come down sooner than now but for the fact public systems have an obligation and in California it's not as Public system's highest rate is to act in the best interest of members. But a secondary duty is to work with its government partner, in this case the county and the other employers, to ensure fiscal stability that we're not upsetting the apple cart if the retirement board took that right down to let's say 5%, it would I understand the answer. But

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:21:40 · ≈ 11:21 AM

That just gave me the willies a little bit. I mean, it almost seems like we're projecting assumptions that in reality aren't there and that the only real reason why we're not going to fix the problem is because the problem's too big to fix.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:21:56 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I don't believe the problem is too big to fix. We're fixing it every year and will continue to. I think the next couple of slides will show how we might be able to do that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:22:07 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Supervisor Carbone?

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:22:08 · ≈ 11:22 AM

No, I think maybe your slides will answer my question. I was just going to say that I know we were on track to lower our assumption rate to 7.5 and we sort of put that on hold based on the actuarial studies that are forthcoming so in light of some of your comments I almost feel like Perhaps we should have put some money aside to address this issue, this past budget and we didn't.

Maybe at some point also as part of your slides, if you could share with us the timelines by when you're expecting these actuarials to be complete. Because I think that'll give us some insight as to how that perhaps jives with our projected budget schedules and that might be helpful.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:23 – 2:3312 turns

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated2:23:10 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Go ahead. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:23:16 · ≈ 11:23 AM

The next two slides will show you other things that can impact the county's contribution rate to the Defined Benefit Plan. What this slide does, and you will see the yellow line is the same line that was on the previous chart, okay? That's where we continue ahead. What the green line here reflects when you lay it up against the yellow is the impact of PEPRA, which you all probably know better to be this recent pension reform.

The intent of this pension reform or the expectation was it would bring the cost down for municipalities and counties and state funds. And it will do that over the long term, and you might sit there as a reasonable person and say gee that doesn't look like it does a dog gone thing. And basically it doesn't for the next 10 years and there's a reason for that.

All of the savings that will come from pension reform will come from the new hires. Those hires on or after January 1 of 2013. So until we cycle through an entire structure of employees where virtually all of us are gone and retired, And all of the new employees were hired on or after January 13. You won't get the full impact of pension reform, there will be a little bit as you can see but not a whole lot in the first 10 years again this plays into the fact this is a long term vehicle which is why we invest for the long term it's why we project for the long term it To wring hands and be overly concerned about the overfunding will get there eventually, but it's just it's a long slow process that you know pensions don't. Pensions are like huge ocean liners.

You can keep jerking on the wheel but it doesn't mean the boat is going to turn its course very easily. Perhaps the biggest, oh there's one other change. Let's say we would take the rate down to 7 1⁄2, the retirement board and do it all in one year. That's what this slide shows again. The yellow line is the line on the first graph that we started with and the green line 7 1⁄2 is right here and I believe that we've got those lines reversed. And we do and I apologize for that. We had that corrected on the paper slide, but apparently this was an earlier slide if you and I apologize for this. If you would envision the lines being the same but reversing them what you will see is If the retirement board should take the rate down to 7.5% from seven and three quarters, what happens is in these first couple of years the employer's cost would go up a few more percentage points and you could see it right in there but then what happens as we play our way out to 2017 everything else being the same The costs continue to come down steady, consistent along the same line.

So it's only a couple of years that you have that added pre-funding and as the supervisor had mentioned earlier if you wanted to try to eliminate the gap and just contribute the 741 million it wouldn't be that whole amount but it would be some piece of it so this is really what happens as you take the stated return rate of return down that assumes that the fund will have less performance it means that the employer I think we need to make sure that we have a plan in place for when we're going to pass the pony

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction2:26:52 · ≈ 11:26 AM

up a little more earlier on supervisor. I'd like to suggest that we go online and make that change because this is confusing when I read this yesterday, I thought it doesn't make sense to me. So please let's get that changed online because some people go back and look at that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:27:10 · ≈ 11:27 AM

It's already been provided.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction2:27:19 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:27:26 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Now this colorful slide unfortunately this one is correct. This shows you the magnitude of the impact from investment performance. Again our yellow line from the very first slide is if we continue on at seven and three quarters The other two lines and I am hesitant to give these these numbers out because the actuaries have explained that they use an awful lot of averaging but.

What the red line suggests is if the pension fund did not perform very well from an investment perspective, and again this range is 4 to 10%, but if we were in the 75th percentile meaning bad rather than good. And we were only yielding about 4.8%. What would happen is because the earnings are down, And the other employers' rates would be forced to stay up here above 40% contributions to make up for that investment shortfall. We're not expecting that.

What the green line shows, and usually it's quite the opposite. You expect to see lines going up being positive news. That's bad news. What you see from this green line is if the pension fund performs exceptionally well and the actuaries would say top 25th percentile, maybe 9.6% a year on average every year? You'll see how much more rapidly the employer rates decline than this line.

So one of the things that we can be hopeful for is if we have good investment performance, it helps lower the contribution rates. It doesn't mean that we go out and invest in highly risky investments with high hopes and expectations because that's usually when you wind up with real losses. You make risky investments and things get written off but if your prudent stay the course were hopeful to look a little more closely at this line than But the whole purpose of this slide is to show you that there are factors external of a county paying money into the fund that can help the funding status.

These are just some demographics of who is participating in the plan. You'll see the active number of employees is slowly and steadily decreasing that participate, and you'll see that the average age is going up a little bit of employees. And you would expect this in any place where hiring has slowed down, et cetera. The number of retirees is going up on a gradual basis. Their average age is remaining about the same, and that's because of the influx of new retirees.

On the funding, this is the number that I think I certainly know your staffs are interested in. Excuse me

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:30:32 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Mr. Emilio, Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:30:34 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Mr. Emilio can you go back to the previous slide? I think it's important just to point out the average monthly benefit of our retirees, mainly because you know it's been an area of contention and certainly I think across the state. And we read the newspapers of folks who are getting incredibly high retirement benefits But I think this is an important slide in that it reflects the average amount of a monthly benefit of $2,800. And that's for all of our employees general and safety. Is that correct? It's the entire system?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:31:22 · ≈ 11:31 AM

That's everyone in the system.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:31:24 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:31:26 · ≈ 11:31 AM

That's the average monthly benefit as of in 2012, $2,817. So you take that times 12 and that's the average. Again, you'll see some reports in the media they're always looking for the $100,000 a year club or in the bigger cities $200,000 dollars a year and as you can see this is a modest payout to a lot of folks. So this is, again, probably the most important single number that your staffs will be concerned with. The bottom line here which is the total employer rate.

We run on a fiscal year July 1 to June 30 and right now June 30 2012 fiscal year. This is what the employers are paying. This is the overall stated rate and I think you know this. I keep using the word employer but Santa Barbara County represents 92% of the fund. There's the court system and nine special districts that also participate, and we do blend those rates in for purposes of the overall numbers. And what you will see for the next year is the rate is going up about 2%, a little over 2%, to 38.3%.

And again, we have one more year of increases. We have to get those losses from 08 and 09. We have one year left to factor in after this rate. One more increase here from that last year of 09 and then the rates start to come down.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:33:00 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Supervisor Wolf? Thank you. Mr. Melio, can you explain the employer normal cost rate and the UAAL rate?

2:33 – 2:425 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:33:13 · ≈ 11:33 AM

The rates that the supervisor has asked about, if you recall back to the slide where we went back when I was answering questions and let me. These white bars are the normal cost. This is the rate you would pay to fund the normal costs. That is what's going on in the county and with the other employers this year. The rate that you're paying on top of it, which is being amortized over I believe it's 17 years, is the unfunded rate. In other words, it's just not practical for any public system to do what we discussed before as great as it would be and have you pony up $741 million this year and eliminate that green.

If we could do that, you would eliminate the green or the rate. And all we would have left going forward would be the rate in the white which would be I think it was 16 point something that we saw on the slide for the normal cost if you take it over and that's where we are. That's the difference between the two. So between the liability for benefits that's accumulating currently versus what's been accumulated in the past and is not yet funded.

And again, on this slide you'll see the rates are highlighted. We do break out the rates between general and safety. This is the rate for general employees that would be virtually everyone other than safety employees. Here's for all plans. These are the actual dollar contributions being made for each, keep in mind the safety members although their costs are higher do not participate in social security.

The numbers if you try to go back and actually add them up won't add up just for the county because once again we've got the other 10 employers who represent about 8%. So the second portion of the presentation is on California pension reform and I'll just hit a couple of highlights here if I may. On this page we really detail out all of the information As to how the laws were actually enacted and pension reform was imposed upon every public retirement system in the state of California, except for a couple of the large chartered. I'll say cities there's one county which is a city and county so The one group that was exculpated was the University of California, and then you've got Los Angeles City, San Francisco, San Diego City and Fresno City.

Those were the only funds exculpated from pension reform. Everybody else participates. It took us, by the way, the lawyers almost a week and a half to figure out whether the 37 act counties were subject to this act or not. So there was a 66 page act and it's very complicated and we're still working through its impact but we've managed to get the large interpretive pieces put together. And we're trying to make sure that all of the public systems agree with one another. There's been great cooperation amongst the systems to come up with an interpretation of this act and how it applies to the members.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:36:58 · ≈ 11:36 AM

And I think Mr. Emilio, it's been interesting. I think a lot of people realized that this was going to affect not just state employees but all county employees and municipal employees except for those that were excluded. I mean, I think a lot of people just thought it was gonna be state employees only. They did.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:37:16 · ≈ 11:37 AM

But PERS, STRS all of the cities and all of the counties except those which have an individual charter. And I highlighted those on the prior chart. Those are the only ones that excavated in the University of California. I'm sure there was a reason for that. I wasn't privy to it. This is not a nail, this is a spike. And if you're not, this is the whole purpose of pension reform.

As you know that there's been an awful lot of criticism in the media, not only about high salaries and prohibitively high pension amounts but how they got there. And usually they get their through spiking which is in someone's last year They get moved temporarily into a position that pays a lot more than they had or they accumulate a lot of payouts, a golden handshake and parachute as it were.

And all of the sudden wind up with a much higher pension than they truthfully should have accumulated over a working lifetime. I am very pleased to tell you we've seen no evidence of that here certainly in recent years and I couldn't tell you about early on. But in any event, we haven't seen it but nevertheless we and a lot of other systems The next couple of slides.

One details current members, that's those of us who are hired prior to January 1 of 2013. And this was of most interest at the manager's retreat the other day and I just want to highlight a couple of the more prominent changes because most of the changes from pension reform will impact the new hires. One is our time airtime, which is additional retirement credit is being eliminated. So if you qualify for our time now meaning you have your 5 years of service as long as you get your application into the retirement system by the end of the year. You may purchase your are kind enough to pay for you have a 120 days either pay for going payroll reduction but in any event This will be the last group of folks who will be eligible to purchase our time.

That is where we're getting the most questions from employees, although interestingly enough since the legislation was enacted only 20 members have actually put in to purchase our time at this point. Of course yesterday was the close of open enrollment and we were jammed so I expect that the last week of the year will have a line at the door turning in their papers.

The other has been more visible where members are going to have to start paying 50% of the normal cost. And as you'll recall, when I was answering Supervisor Wolf's question, the difference between normal costs and the accrued unfunded liability. But for current employees, those of us who work now, this cannot be unilaterally imposed upon them until after 2018. So we're perhaps putting less focus on this because we have a lot More urgent questions that need addressed, but I wanted to make you aware of that.

Some of the other caps on compensation and benefits will not apply to current employees. Nobody wanted to fool around with constitutional lawsuits of taking away vested benefits rights. I'm going to get to that on the next page. So we'll let that go. That won't apply to current employees as well, and there are formula changes that would be perhaps negotiable.

No retroactive benefits benefit granting, and I will tell you one of the things that I had planned to do that were not going to do was to ask the board to eliminate Plan 7 I called it the Weiner request because now the retirement system is going to have to manage Plan 7 for the next 40 or 50 years with less than 100 participants. But when we realized that if we asked you to vote on that, it could be perceived as giving that less than 100 people a greater benefit because that's what would've happened. The public perception would not have been good. So we decided we'll just go ahead and bear the cost and let the plan remain with a small group of members in it.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:41:50 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Excuse me, Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:41:52 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Mr Melio, so what would be your estimate though to the cost if by keeping that Plan 7 how would that impact the cost to the system?

2:42 – 2:4713 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:42:09 · ≈ 11:42 AM

It's really not determinative to determine the cost, because it would be so many employee or staff hours plus some small fraction of what we pay the actuary every year. We couldn't even give you a cost to say this is what it will cost and that's why I called it the whiny request, because I couldn't justify an actual hard dollar number. It wouldn't be material.

The biggest concern for cost isn't the ongoing cost, it's because it's such a small group some day 20 years down the road we may make a miscalculation because it's so small and we do it so infrequent there could be a cost because we've overpaid somebody but that's not guaranteed either.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:42:51 · ≈ 11:42 AM

So the bottom line is it's your recommendation that we maintain it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:42:54 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Yes. Supervisor? Through the chair. This is new in the law and it also applies to current employees. Bad people are now really going to get their knuckles wrapped, so if you get convicted of a felony that somehow related to your work with the county or one of the other employers, you will forfeit your pension. That's I actually surprised we didn't have that in the law, but we didn't,

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction2:43:28 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Supervisor, I simply don't understand that. I don't see how you can if it's vested and it's their money how? It can be taken away And I'm trying to get myself a legal principal Dennis. Maybe you can help me that would answer that Because it's an earning

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:43:51 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Gray. I share your confusion over how this would actually be implemented but one area that I would see it being implemented would be in those instances where someone engaged in fraud and I think the law is well established that you can't keep the benefits of your fraudulent behavior so The basis for rescinding the pension benefit if that fraud is related specifically to the pension benefit as compared to just having... So,

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction2:44:27 · ≈ 11:44 AM

you simply robbed a bank that had no connection whatsoever to the county. And we're convicted of a felony. You're not going to lose your pension?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:44:38 · ≈ 11:44 AM

That would be my interpretation of this section. It may be intended to be broader, but it's going to run into the nexus issue of the vested benefit.

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction2:44:49 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Thank you. I hate to ask an irrelevant question, but it has bothered me tremendously. But I get it now. Fraud, OK.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:44:57 · ≈ 11:44 AM

I completely agree and I'd actually like to see somebody test it constitutionally, but that's a different issue. And that's far beyond where we are so and I probably shouldn't have said that. Okay, so on slide 16 all of these changes in pension reform will most certainly impact those individuals that we hire on or after January 1. You can see that there's a formula change, we'll have new rates which are less beneficial than existing rates.

The normal cost sharing will come in a little earlier and we're working with the county HR department on that. Interestingly, of all the questions I got from the county managers, and there were 150 of them last Friday at the manager's retreat, virtually all of them surrounded this one. And there was quite a question. Right now, we have two formulas for determining your pension benefit. Some of us, and we have a number of plans within the pension.

For example Plan 7 has been talked about. Some of us have, I shouldn't say one year. It's actually 12 month compensation. We look at the 12 consecutive months of highest compensation and that's how your benefit is generated. Not just us, everybody uses this type of a formula it's just how many months you have. So some of us have 12 highest months not necessarily your last 12 usually your last 12 but not necessarily And we have other plans that have 36 consecutive months. So we look at 36 consecutive months, find the highest in their career and that's how your pension benefit is calculated. For example, Plan 7 already has the 36 month in it.

What this law now says is you must use three, well actually it doesn't say you must, it says three-year final average is the minimum. I suspect if someone wanted to put in five year you could do that. But you cannot now grant the 12-month any

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:47:03 · ≈ 11:47 AM

longer.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:47:04 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Madam Chair, is this when I raised the fact that for me personally as a staff person, I actually went down in salary when I became an elected official. So it's- There's a real

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:47:21 · ≈ 11:47 AM

compaction issue even in the Board of Supervisors offices.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:47:24 · ≈ 11:47 AM

So I went down in salary. I just wanted to point that out.

2:47 – 2:5414 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:47:31 · ≈ 11:47 AM

I might tell you so have I, but I have reciprocity and so I'll get the higher salary as will you. We will go back and find your highest. I'm assuming you're in a 12 month plan, you may be 36 months. Here you can see the caps on pensionable income. It's interesting, I call this the UC. The University of California had got some notoriety on some of the salaries and pensions they were paying and so this found its way into the law although that particular system has been exculpated from pension.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:48:04 · ≈ 11:48 AM

So was there no cap on pensionable income before?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:48:07 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Well there was the IRS tax cap out of the qualified plan but then what systems could do would be to set up a non-qualified plan in other words not part of the pension but it would be paid out as if it were wages. Compensation and we've gone through the rest of these on the other. The one other thing that I want to point out that we have had a couple of questions on, and it doesn't even get to these changes in pension reform.

Most of our members do know that when you're retiring, you may take up to one year accumulated sick time that's not being used and have that converted to up to a year of service That's not going away because that's not a cash payment. That's a conversion of sick time into a year of credited service, you otherwise wouldn't take the cash for it so that is not impacted by this pension reform.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:49:06 · ≈ 11:49 AM

But the vacation is?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:49:09 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Vacation is.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:49:12 · ≈ 11:49 AM

For new employees?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:49:13 · ≈ 11:49 AM

And I had jumped ahead Plan 7 remains and We've got the, I guess this is still being talked about as we say it's negotiable. I put it up the issue with COLA with general and safety and that's still under discussion I believe with the HR department in the unions.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:49:42 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Madam

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:49:43 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Chair? Supervisor Carball then Supervisor Lavinina.

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:49:48 · ≈ 11:49 AM

I don't know that we have a matrix ourselves, but I think that many of these PEPRA reforms, Santa Barbara County was able to implement them in advance of PEPRA. And I guess I point that out because I know we have a matrix somewhere that shows that. But it's interesting that it all came together at the same time.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:50:15 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Supervisor Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:50:16 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you, Mr Amelia. I think great presentation and I'm sorry we at least interrupted you a number of times but to me this is like pretty much the backbone of a lot of what we've been charged with working on and so I guess my question is if the goal eventually At least in my eyes. And maybe I'm looking at this wrong, but the goal is to eventually eliminate the $741 million unfunded liability. So what in your opinion?

You know, I heard you talking about the big ship that's difficult to turn around, but give us some short term and longterm things that we should be looking at that maybe we aren't looking at that need to be addressed to fix that problem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:51:03 · ≈ 11:51 AM

I think the retirement board Does a very good job of evaluating and assessing what needs to be done. One of the most appropriate things is In June of this coming year, I should say 2013. In June of 2013 the actuary is going to come forward with its report at work with our investment consultant and with staff and they will provide a report to the board. And I think the Board needs, the Board of Retirement needs to be obviously do what it's done in the past, be free of any kind of constraint and make a decision to go on the recommendations of its professional vendors and we've got very good ones that are all nationally I think beyond that, really staying the course is the most reasonable. The plans that have got in trouble in this country have done so for two reasons mostly that have much more than our $741 million.

Number one is something you don't see in California. You see it more on the East Coast and in the Midwest. It's where the government decided not to fund the pension. Not to take a holiday when we were already funded, but don't fund it because we have other things to spend the money on. And we never did that here, so that's good. That's why we're really not in that bad of shape compared to most. But the second thing is, we're not out chasing returns. The worst thing a retirement board could do is engage consultants and money managers to go out and invest in highly risky ventures with the hope and expectation that we'll invest our way out of that $740 million. It doesn't work. And we've seen that time in memoriam. If you go back, you can Google results and see funds that have lost money so give them time be patient it's hard to do.

You're the ones that deal with it your elected officials and you have to hear from taxpayers who look at these bills and say you expect us to pay this it's not sustainable. This fund and I think I tried to show you our pension fund is very sustainable It's just going to take two more years of getting through the tough times in 08 and 09. Once we pass that, the rates are gonna keep coming down, it'll get a lot easier. Something else is gonna happen by the way after 2 years. I suspect you're going to start granting raises and hiring more people and This is, I know it's kind of weird. It's the world of actuarial sciences but the more employees we have and the more money they make, the more they contribute into the pension which means the less the employer has to contribute.

The less employees we have it may not cost you as much in salary expense but it drives your pension costs up because you're getting less on the employer side. So those are just the concepts I would throw out. Be patient. We've got a great retirement board and a good long-term plan and we'll work our way out of this. Last

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:53:53 · ≈ 11:53 AM

for me is, and maybe I think you just answered my other question is. I was looking at slide nine that's the demographic detail and it's just confusing to me that as the, is that the one? Hold on a second. It just seemed like the fewer employees we had, the worse situation we were in. As it relates to, let's see where was it? Oh, I know what it was. OK. It's the relation to... Let me see. Was it the count?

Well, I lost it somewhere in the presentation but never mind. I'll ask you about it afterwards, I guess.

2:54 – 3:0320 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:54:44 · ≈ 11:54 AM

We do have one public speaker but I did want to ask you one question and looking at this slide as far as the percentage that's funded So we're at about 73% right now, is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:54:58 · ≈ 11:54 AM

We are and that's probably going to come down about 2% for this year but then after that I anticipate it will start to go back.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:55:05 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Okay well since all the retirement systems were kind of in the same boat as far as You know what happened to the economy and the markets and investments taking a hit. I mean for do you have a sense for counties like ours in their 37 counties? What percentage they're funded at now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:55:27 · ≈ 11:55 AM

We haven't asked for each other's statistic on that. We look more at comparing each other with stated rates. I would say we're probably somewhere close to the middle, maybe the bottom of the middle but certainly in the middle. There's only one plan that I'm aware of in the state of California that actually is still overfunded and we kind of kid around those figures are jerry rigged and another that's close. And there are some that are certainly significantly below us. So I would say we're comfortably in that middle tier

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:55:58 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Well, I think that would be interesting information You know for the board to have because clearly you know This has a tremendous impact on the decisions that we make for our budget and and we want to move that number Back up to where it used to be as quickly as possible But I think it's also good to know where we are relative to you know similar Supervisor Lavanina.

not transcribed≈27s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:56:47 · ≈ 11:56 AM

A ratio is the amount of employees, the current employees that we have. Does that impact this at all? I mean, I noticed it in 2012, we have a very high count for retirees when you look at the ratio to what we have with active employees as opposed to like if you look at 2007, we had that ratios significantly different. Does that impact us at all or does that matter?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:57:13 · ≈ 11:57 AM

I don't think that particular ratio in and of itself is an impact. Some of the natural attributes though, that would come out of it would be the larger this number is, the larger that fountain at the bottom of my dog bowl water tank pours out but it's not a significant number. I think the more important numbers this up here if it keeps going down that will keep the pressure on the county with respect to its contribution rate.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:57:42 · ≈ 11:57 AM

It's

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction2:57:43 · ≈ 11:57 AM

interesting, it's antithetical. It's counterintuitive because you would think the more you lower it lowers it but actually if there is too rapid of attrition it creates the hole that you're talking about. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed2:58:04 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Welcome to the art of actuarial science.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:58:07 · ≈ 11:58 AM

It's better for salary expenses, but not as good for retirement expenses. All right, Mr. Allen our public speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:58:15 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Mr. Caldwell and Senator Moore.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated2:58:19 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you. Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. As you know, I have a daily radio show I have people, experts from throughout the country on that show probably at least once a month. Sometimes more often and they would beg to differ that your pension plan or any public employee pension plan in America is sustainable.

One of the charts that you have there that explains the difficulty of county finances is back in 2005, your employee contribution rate was 20%, now it's nearly 40%. It's doubled. What you've been paying for people to be at home retired has doubled in essence And that leaves you that much less money for people that are actually working. And we're coming to the point where it's going to get worse, it's not going to get better.

We were chagrined to see that you had the one rate, one chart where it showed the contribution rate going or the return going to 7.5%. Your contribution then goes up to nearly 45% We'd sure like to see what the chart would look like if the estimated return on investment was 5%, which is what the rating agencies are telling you it should be. What you should really have is a sense of panic, and the public should have a sense of panic because in reality, the report before you tells you two things.

You're completely dependent upon investment managers to be able to pay your bill, and you don't have any control over them. And you're completely dependent upon this retirement board setting the rate, and you don't have any control over that. You're not at the helm of the ship, you're passengers with the rest of us. And that's a scary thought, we think the law needs to be changed. Now ultimately you could be in the driver seat because all of these costs are a function of what you decide to pay your workers.

We've never seen you reduce the salaries. We've seen you freeze colas. We have seen you force people to take leave for a few days a year. But for instance, instead of paying $225,000, don't mean to pick on Chandra or $225,000 for a CEO. What if you went down to 190? What if for a mid-level department head, you went from 150 to 125? For entry level, if you went down 10% or 15%, what would happen then because that's what drives these ultimate costs but we've never heard you have that discussion and that's the only thing you really have control over.

Now, the other thing I want to bring up Supervisor Wolf in our opinion lots of times tries to stick up for the unions especially SEIU and she tried to point out the fact that well if you look on average their retirements aren't really that high. But what SEIU likes to trick the public into believing is that the county retirement is all they get. But we all know they get Social Security on top of it, and the county has to pay into Social Security to give them that benefit.

So don't try to pull the wool over our eyes that the average county employee is only making $30,000-$40,000 a year in retirement when in reality the county is matching that social security and they're probably up there with public safety.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:30 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Thank you Mr. Call

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated3:02:31 · ≈ 12:02 PM

I've

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:31 · ≈ 12:02 PM

given you an extra minute

PresenterAndy CaldwellCOLABProposedself-stated3:02:34 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Well, it would be helpful too for you to break out the public safety from this because what you looked at today was averages. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:44 · ≈ 12:02 PM

All right, we'll bring it back to the board unless there are any other questions or comments. This is a receive and file. Thank you again Mr Melio wonderful presentation motion to receive and file by Supervisor Carbajal second by Supervisor Wolf Supervisor Gray

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction3:03:03 · ≈ 12:03 PM

I just wanted to say how well done that was very impressed

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:03:07 · ≈ 12:03 PM

All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you everybody. That's the last of our departmental agenda we will be going into closed session but Supervisor Graham I'm gonna give you an opportunity now if you want to go ahead and remember somebody.

3:03 – 3:054 turns

GuestBrownProposed · by introduction3:03:23 · ≈ 12:03 PM

I'd like to adjourn in memory of...I'm gonna start with Chuck Richard King. Chuck is a seventh Eighth generation Santa Barbara, descendant of the De La Guerra family. He's a cowboy. It's a real old-fashioned vaquero. I mean it was amazing. Member of Los Rancheros Vistadores. He also raises cattle. He sells property, ranches all throughout basically the western states and Chuck Chuck died just recently, he was 74.

The other person I'd like to recognize is Marge Purcell Funk. Most of us know her as Marge Funk. She worked for the county starting in 1954 and she was the first employee of the county new complex and that new complex is what we now think of as the old complex on Cook Street, where she was the receptionist and she managed the switchboard. She retired after 23 years from the county as a, she went for the county, she went to the clerk's office in the courts and then in 1997, she took a part-time position at the Santa Maria Credit Bureau where she worked for nine years so Marge was a busy lady, Marge Funk and Chuck King.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:04:55 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Thank you very much Supervisor Gray, I appreciate that. And now, I'm sorry CEO

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:05:02 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Waller? Thank you Chair, I just wanted to make a note of an issue that we have going on right now that some people may have come to their attention. Our fire department are reporting that we have about a two acre fire that's in the foothills above Montecito and Cold Springs Road. The helicopter is on the way, and right now we really don't know much more but I did want folks to know if they happen to be looking out and seeing smoke that we have identified it and we are responding.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:05:34 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Thank you very much. And before we ask for the closed session agenda, I also would like to close today and again as we started in honor of our veterans and Veterans Day. That was really wonderful. Council, Mr. Marshall, do you want to read what's on our closed session?

3:05 – 3:064 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:05:52 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. A closed session item today under your conference with legal counsel existing litigation a state of flood V County of Santa Barbara Martinez V County of Santa Barbara Bull V County of Santa Barbara Conference with legal counsel anticipated anticipated litigation You have one potential case and then you have public employee appointment interim director ADMHS Interim Director General Services Interim Director Department of Social Services

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:06:21 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Thank you. So we'll go ahead and recess to closed session. Yes, Supervisor. Madam

CommentJim DanielsProposed · by introduction3:06:26 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Chair for everybody who just loves to watch the Board of Supervisors I want to remind everybody to go out and vote. It's very important.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:06:33 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Thank you