BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 November 13, 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 – 0:049 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:13 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Good morning everybody. We'll go ahead and call to order this regular session of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of November 13th, 2012. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed0:24 · ≈ 9:00 AM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:30 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Here. Would you all

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈14s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:31 · ≈ 9:00 AM

please rise with me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Mr. Allen, why don't you tell us about the changes that we have to our agenda for today before we go forward with public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:24 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board, several things to report. First of all, we did post an addendum to the agenda on Friday which added one item to your agenda and that's item 826. It's from planning and development. The request is that the board adopt a resolution to extend the Summerlin Planning Advisory Committee term of office for one year and

Roll-call vote Passed 1–0 Moved by Joni Gray · Seconded by Janet Wolf approve? Motion · 1 under review
Show transcript
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. All right, now we'll take up our minutes of our meeting of November 6th. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion. A second by Supervisor Wolf. Motion by Supervisor Gray. All those in favor say aye.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:44 · ≈ 9:01 AM

reduce the SUNPAC To the following eight members, and those are listed on the agenda appointed by the first district supervisor. In addition we did get a memorandum from planning and development regarding item number 8 today on your agenda. And that is the Goolsbee and Goolsbee K appeal of the Verizon wireless facility. This is in the first district. And the request is that that item be continued to your meeting on March 5th 2013. And we can take this item up at the beginning of the departmental agenda if you'd like.

In addition, on item A13 I just would like to read a slight correction into the record on the recommendation. This items from general services that the request that the board consider recommendations regarding the landmark designations for the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial building this is in the second district And recommendation A should be read as follows. Authorize the county architect to prepare and file a landmark nomination request for the Santa Barbara Veterans Memorial Building through the landmark process of the city of Santa Barbara. We just want to be clear that's not the county's landmark process, that's through the city of Santa Barbara.

And I just also would like to note that on item 825 today, that's a resolution from Supervisor Farr. We had that listed to be presented but that will not be presented. That's going to be presented at another function and I believe that's all I have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:07 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Okay, thank you. So we'll go ahead and then we'll move into

public comment. Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:14 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Yeah just one thing I'd like to note on item A20 which is on the agenda today, on the administrative agenda This is from Public Works. The recommendations are to consider the recommendations regarding the Tahequs Landfill Resource Recovery Project, contracts for preparation of a subsequent environmental impact report and air quality technical report first, second and third districts. And there's a request that we trail this item to the end of the day today to be heard as a departmental agenda item when we can make that as part of the motion on the administrative agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:47 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Okay. Supervisor Wolf, why don't we wait until we get to the A agenda and then we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:51 · ≈ 9:03 AM

can speak to that? I just wanted to comment on 820 just real quickly. I just wanted to thank staff for moving that to the departmental agenda because of the significance of this item so I appreciate that and look forward to having a further discussion on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:09 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Thank you. And Mr. Allen, I'm sorry did you say something about D3 and that we would also trail that to the end of the D agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:18 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Madam Chair, members of the Board. Item D3 is from the County Executive Office and Human Resources. The request that the board approve a memorandum of understanding with the Service Employees International Union Local 721 regarding terms and conditions of employment. This is effective from November 13th 2012 through June 22nd 2014. And we would also request that the board trail this item to be heard at the afternoon session After return from closed session so in the afternoon. I think the plan would be to Hear item number three and then here item number 20 after Adam a20 after that in the afternoon

0:04 – 0:086 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:59 · ≈ 9:04 AM

All right, thank you all right now We'll move into public comment do we have any members of the public that wish to speak?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:05 · ≈ 9:05 AM

We have no request to speak

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:07 · ≈ 9:05 AM

All right, well before we move on to the A agenda then. We do have a volunteer today that I want to recognize and it's some... Yes? Oh, I'm sorry. Mr.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated5:19 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Caldwell. Sorry, we didn't get a slip. You should've gotten a slip. I sent one down. I sent three down. Did you get any of them?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:26 · ≈ 9:05 AM

No, I don't have them so we'll try to resend those if you could try to re-send

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated5:29 · ≈ 9:05 AM

them. Alright. I'll do that after public comment because I scribbled out the numbers on there. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. I think one of the most interesting subjects or controversies that's come up in a long time has to do with the events ordinance or having events And we acknowledge and recognize that nobody wants to live next door to a party house.

We realize that some people would like to subvert ag zoning, and create an event center in the middle of agricultural area that could disrupt the neighbors and agriculture even. So we realized there's a need for balance. Well, the Cattlemen's Association. I came up with a pretty darn good proposal that actually measured impacts in terms of lighting, traffic, sound, noise, everything else like that.

And it was so well received by the community that people in the events industry asked if it could be expanded to be a countywide proposal and a very efficient attorney, a smart attorney Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber and Schreck or whatever the heck their name is. Beth Gardner came up with basically a ready-made ordinance and it was presented at the Planning Commission last week and much to our chagrin staff kind of wanted to back out saying well you know this thing's bigger than we thought. We don't have the money. We don't have the time. We don't have the budget and when pressed We said, we want you to go from subjective complaint to objective standards that are easy to enforce.

And how much work could it be if in fact you have a ready-made ordinance that could be tweaked through the hearing process? I said all of that to say this, this is a multimillion dollar business primarily in the urban areas with some spillover in the rural areas. Are you not concerned? Is this not, are we not in the throes of a recession and should we not be looking to create a balance between the need for revenue and the need to protect urban and even rural neighborhoods from unforeseen impacts and or abuse.

The other issue that got brought up is people have a constitutional right to assemble in their home. And they have a constitutional right to private property and government has to present a compelling need to try to regulate what happens on private property, and we believe if there's no offsite consequences, there's no compelling need.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf approve that first and then we'll take up the balance of the calendar
Show transcript
Thank you. All right, and then before we leave public comment I do want to honor our volunteer for this week as somebody that many of us know and has been in this hearing room on numerous occasions to advocate particularly for animal welfare. And that's Dr. Lee Heller She's volunteered with County Animal Services for over 15 years. She's certainly a very active and effective animal advocate, committed to the welfare of all animals and to helping the county animal shelters increase live release rates through adoption promotions, outreach to rescue organizations, and networking. She's always willing to offer services to foster animals in need, and she is especially talented in the rehabilitation of animals recovering from orthopedic surgical procedures And if you know Dr. Heller, she's always talking about whatever the group of animals that she has in her house that she is tending at any particular time. She's also been very generous and has donated significant amounts of money to the county to help with shelters and with the adoption of animals. She also has contributed her energy, creative ideas, grant writing skills and as I mentioned her financial assistance. She's assisted county animal services with donations of funds for capital projects, adoption promotions and medical care for animals. So she's truly a friend of the animals, a friend to Santa Barbara County and we're pleased to honor her today as our outstanding volunteer for this week. All right, we'll go ahead and we'll move on now to the administrative agenda. And since we just have the one resolution to present I'm going to ask the board if we can go ahead and have a motion to approve that first and then we'll take up the balance of the calendar. A motion by Supervisor Carbajal seconded by Supervisor Wolf all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right, the resolution that we're going to present is gonna be presented to Penny and Jeff who are foster parents and they are here to help us proclaim November 2012 as National Adoption and Permanency Month in Santa Barbara County And I just have to tell you that this is always personally a thrill for me when we honor our foster care and adoptive system in this county, and our parents. Because it was almost exactly 31 years ago today that I found out that I was going to be an adoptive mother for the first time. So when we talk about adoption, we talk about permanency so many times we're talking about infants or young children. But once you have adopted children they are permanent to your family forever and I'm very proud I have three adopted sons, and the oldest is now a father himself of a 3-year old son. And his two adoptive brothers were in his wedding and are very proud uncles to his son. So this is just the beginning of a lifelong journey that you have, and we're so proud of what you have done. For those of you that don't know, Penny and Jeff were foster parents certified through Angel's Foster Family Agency And in 2009, they accepted placement of a beautiful six-month old baby girl. And then in 2010 her equally sweet and beautiful infant sister was also placed in their care. They provided the girls with extremely child oriented home filled with all the things that little girls need. But most of all, they loved and nurtured the girls as their own despite considerable uncertainty regarding their future with them. Ultimately it was determined that both children would need a permanent adoptive family and on October 10th 2012 the girls became permanent members of the family through adoption. So a wonderful story and not only wonderful for this family in particular, but all it represents for all of the hundreds of foster parents and adoptive families that we have in this county. So Mr. Allen I'm going to go ahead and have you read the resolution. I'm going to go down and present it.

0:12 – 0:1912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed12:52 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, this is a resolution recognizing November 2012 to be National Adoption and Permanency Month. Whereas the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors does hereby recognize that it is every child's basic right to belong to a nurturing, loving permanent family. And whereas in 2011 approximately 107,000 children in foster care nationwide were waiting for adoption and whereas in 2010 4800 children were adopted from foster care and finalized on adoption day And whereas in 2011, 105 adoptions were finalized in Santa Barbara County and it is anticipated that at least 95 adoptions will be finalized this year. Santa Maria Juvenile Court will celebrate Adoption Day on November 28th when at least 20 adoptions will be finalized.

And whereas, adopted children feel whole as they have the stability and permanency and will not have to wonder where their home is during the holidays. And whereas advocates and organizations both locally and nationally support programs that promote permanency. And whereas those children waiting for adoptive parents as well as the families who've adopted these children deserve community and public agency support in Adoption and Permanency Month applauds the dedication of relatives, foster families, and adoptive families social workers public and private adoption services, and community partners who've worked together to ensure a better life for the children of Santa Barbara County. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the month of November 2012 as National Adoption and Permanency Month.

Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed14:36 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. This is I think our most exciting meeting here at the Board where we get to celebrate all the work that our staff and our foster families do for the health and welfare of our children in our county. This is going to be 95 this year. We are so excited about it. We are going to have our celebration at Juvenile Court in Santa Maria on November 28th and everybody's welcome to attend.

And I want to take a moment to recognize Penny and Jeff, but also recognize some of our adoptive staff that we have here. Some of the social workers. These are the folks that work with both with the natural family and the adoptive family to get this finalized and get this all worked out. But I also want to take this special moment to recognize the person who provided the leadership for all this. For the last nine years, and this is her last adoption month with us. And I think, I believe our last board meeting with us. And this is our director Kathy Gallagher who's gone on to a new opportunity and she has inspired us and led us. And I think every year that she's been here has led to increase in our adoptions every year. So like to take the thank everybody for this day and hope to see you on the 28th.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed16:05 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Miss Gallagher, we're gonna give you an opportunity to say something. You can't get away that easily.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed16:10 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Oh darn. Thank you very much. Yes this is indeed my last appearance before your board. Very bittersweet for me I have been in Santa Barbara County now for 15 years and I tell my folks that you know I wish I could just pick up my entire department and take them with me. There's no better group of people than the staff and the leadership in the Department of Social Services. They've done, they give me credit that I truly don't deserve. The work of the department comes from those folks. They've done an absolutely excellent job.

I leave them in very good hands and under very good leadership, CEO Waller and your board. I will continue to be here in the county through the end of the year And we'll be in touch with my staff and with some of you. But I do want you to know that this is a very bittersweet decision on my part, and much of it is personal to return to where I have close family and friends while I take care of my elderly mother. So it's not an issue that Came lightly, a decision that came lightly on my part. So I want to thank each and every one of you. I've appreciated your support and leadership in that of Sean Rewaller the CEO and thank you all very much.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:39 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Well Kathy actually I think Supervisor Carvajal wants to say something.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction17:43 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Kathy, since this is your last public meeting with the board I just want to share with you that I am really going to miss you. I think the entire county family's going to miss you. You've been an extraordinary executive for the county. You've been a great leader for your department. A great leader for all of those that we serve in the community especially those most in need And I just can't speak enough about your competence and everything about you. You're just always so professional, so respectful with everyone and I think you embody what public service is all about. So I just want to wish you the best and thank you for your service.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:27 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed18:28 · ≈ 9:18 AM

you, Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair. Of all days this is not the day to have laryngitis because maybe everyone else is happy. I just want to thank Supervisor Carabajal for what he said because I want to say the same thing and also tell you that I've learned a great deal from you. You are an amazing teacher. You know so much about what you do, and this county is so better off for having you. And I know personally, I'm going to miss you, but I wish you all the best.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed19:05 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed19:06 · ≈ 9:19 AM

you so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:06 · ≈ 9:19 AM

much. Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Gray?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:09 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Yes, I can speak for the state level in how much you're respected at the state level and just what a tremendous administrator you are. Best wishes. They're lucky in Contra Costa, and you'll find them to be a very interesting board.

0:19 – 0:228 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:29 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Supervisor Levin.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7519:31 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Did you know that before you took the job? You didn't tell her? Well, Kathy I also want to thank you for as being the new person up here of walking me through your department and teaching me exactly what you do and how you do it. You've been a great resource for me and I'm going to miss you as well. And I just know that up in the Santa Maria area You know, on behalf of all of our constituents that in this time of the recession how you guys pulled together and we had so many more people coming to us for help and how your department stepped up and was there to take care of people.

We appreciate it. Thank you so

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed20:10 · ≈ 9:20 AM

much. And I just have to say that working with you since I've been in office there hasn't been one moment when I haven't thought that you were doing just a sterling job And for those of you that are not familiar with the social services department, it's a very large. You have what? Over 600 I think staff in social services doing an amazing array providing an amazing array of services that are so vitally important to the people of this county particularly the most vulnerable.

The homeless seniors disabled children and foster care And you and your staff, and I think that some of your staff are here. Is the foster care and adoption staff here? Why don't you go ahead and stand too so we can see you. Providing miracles every day that we so appreciate but don't always know are even going on. And today we're recognizing those miracles to do with adoption.

But thank you so much for helping to work those miracles for Santa Barbara County through your staff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed21:17 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thank you all so much too. I really enjoyed your support and your friendship and collegiality that you bring to this job. Thank you all very much.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction21:26 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thank you. Kathy, before you leave... Madam Chair? You know they say that one of the signs of a great leader is how their subordinates perceive them. And I want to tell you that from all the folks that I've spoken to You are not only respected, but you're greatly liked. So I just wanted to share that with you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed21:51 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. Thank you all very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:02 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Right, we're now going to turn to the balance of our administrative agenda. And Mr. Allen you've already made some comments on that and I think that there are some items that members of the board want to pull. Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction22:22 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Item A10 and A12. Can you read that Mr. Allen?

0:22 – 0:2510 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed22:31 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item A-10 comes to the board from the County Executive Office and is to approve the appointment of Terry Nisich, Assistant County Executive Officer, to the SenCal Health Board as the Santa Barbara County Representative. And item A-12 from General Services is regarding the Elwood Pipeline's consent to assignment assumption of performance and this is the first amendment to a lease agreement and this is in the First District.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction22:59 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. First of all I think this is a great idea, 8-10 to make sure Ms. Nisic can step in now that Ms. Gallagher's in transition but the one word that was glaringly omitted was interim. I think once we get our social services person back we need to make sure that post goes back to that individual Having sat on SEMCAL, the reason that social services director is so important is that the population that it serves are much of the indigent and those who are uninsured and under-insured.

And have Medi-Cal actually. So that's why that perspective is so vital. I just want to make sure that interim is in the board letter and we all have that understanding.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:47 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Just a moment, Supervisor Carpel before you go to the next item. CEO Waller did you want to comment on that?

CommentCEO WallerProposed23:54 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Certainly that's the board's decision. However, the reason that we thought Ms. Nitchish would be extremely beneficial to that organization is the fact that she does have the broad oversight of not only social services but also mental health and public health and we thought that would bring a very good balance to the organization and also help with the leveraging but Typically this is a board decision and so I'd be looking to your guidance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:26 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Well, I suppose we could make it as an interim and then once the new social service director is hired go ahead and decide at that time whether we wanted to make a change or whether we wanted to keep it the same.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed24:38 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Madam Chair. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:39 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed24:39 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Yeah, I sit on the CENCAL board and I did discuss this with staff and I don't see any reason why we can't make it as an interim appointment and do as you said when when we bring someone else on staff at that point we can decide if Ms. Nesich remains or we move to the standard that we have right now

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:02 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Okay. Any other comments on A-10? Supervisor Carball, did you want to go to the next item then?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction25:08 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Sure. Do we need to make a motion on that or no? Just leave it

0:25 – 0:2919 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:11 · ≈ 9:25 AM

as is?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction25:12 · ≈ 9:25 AM

I'll move to make it interim and we'll revisit it later.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf
Show transcript
Motion by Supervisor Carball, seconded by Supervisor Wolf. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Now A-12.

Yes. You read that already right Mr. Allen? Yes. An uneventful item, it's regarding a pipeline that the county gets certain lease royalties for. What caught my attention was the $100,000 indemnification. God forbid there be a ruptured pipeline somewhere where we have extraordinary oil that seeps out It doesn't seem to me that $100,000 would be adequate to clean up the mess.

So it just didn't sit well that even though we have a bond for 100,000 that unless I'm assured or were assured that should there be a major rupture act of God or something that the company is on the hook for cleaning up the mess not county government or the taxpayers

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed26:22 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Mr. Nesbitt, thank you for being here. Can you go ahead and speak to that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed26:25 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Sure. The insurance that Veneco or Elwood Pipeline has is actually $2 million of pollution insurance. The $100,000 bond is for performance on top of the insurance.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction26:40 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Thank you. I would just like to counsel If even that is adequate again if there's a big rupture it's two million dollars enough to cover. Such a mess and should we request more what would be the appropriate level of indemnification so if you. That tells me everything the fact that we don't know I would really like to look at that issue there's no timing issue that's it.

Can can we continue this or that could be looked into because I would hate to have some Major catastrophe in the future and then we're like, well we thought it was enough.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed27:18 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, we could certainly continue the item and look into that.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction27:22 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you and I apologize for not catching this sooner. It just dawned on me after I was reading the staff report again, I thought God it just doesn't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed27:31 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Sit well. I began to look at the requirements just as you spoke and there's two million per occurrence, it's kind of specific how it's specified and I'd hesitate to make a call right here on the spot so probably better that we just continue it and come back and explain that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:50 · ≈ 9:27 AM

I would like to step in here

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed27:51 · ≈ 9:27 AM

and give you the other part of what you need to know. I can't see the number, but D on page 3 shows grantees shall carry pollution liability coverage with limits of not less than $10 million per occurrence. Is that adequate? Maybe it is. We're just one of several pieces of this link so that's ten million dollars for ours. Is it adequate? You can't tell until after the fact but it is a very significant amount of insurance that's on this.

That's for pollution cleanup which is specifically what you asked for.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:25 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Well, Mr. Reddy, I think Supervisor Carbajal, I don't know that it hurts to continue this a couple of weeks- Just to look at this hypothetically. Because I think now that I'm looking at it closer to existing submerged, I would be interested to know how old the pipelines are and when they've been worked on because that would get, I think, to the issue of how likely it is that something might happen and we would want more insurance.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction28:50 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Madam Chairwoman, I just wanna make it clear, I want this to move forward. I didn't see any other issue but Again, this is one of those things that when something happens usually hindsight is 20-20. So all I'm trying to do is just make sure that the taxpayers are taken care of. Other than that if you come back to us and tell us it's adequate fine and if not then you'll let us know what we need to do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:09 · ≈ 9:29 AM

So continue to December 4th will that work? Gives you a couple of weeks

PresenterVinnie RiveraGolden Eagle TattooProposedself-stated29:15 · ≈ 9:29 AM

okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:18 · ≈ 9:29 AM

All right. And let's see, we had Supervisor Wolf, were there some items that you wanted to pull?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed29:29 · ≈ 9:29 AM

No Madam Chair, it was just the issue with item A-20 and the clarification on A-13 that Mr. Allen read. That was it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:40 · ≈ 9:29 AM

OK. Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7529:43 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I'd like to pull item A3 please.

0:29 – 0:3411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:49 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item A3 is from the Agricultural Commissioner and the request that the board consider recommendations regarding the expenditure of weights and measures revenue. And I also would note that Mr. Caldwell has a speaker slip in on this item as well. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:04 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Lavinia?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7530:05 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Thank you madam chair and I apologize with the weekend, the holiday weekend that I didn't get with our Ag commissioner before but just one question on it is in adopting The resolution, do we know when these individuals would be hired? And I guess my point is we are starting a new pension tier starting January 1st. So I want to hire as few people between now and January 1st as possible but where are we on that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed30:34 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavin, you know with the recruitment process we are scheduled to hire them after the first of the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7530:39 · ≈ 9:30 AM

year. Okay thank you That was one part of it for me. The other part is, I'd just like to pull this and do a separate vote. I've been opposed to this program before and I'll be voting against this. So if we could just pull it for a separate vote.

Roll-call vote Moved by Janet Wolf · Seconded by Salud Carbajal
Show transcript
Madam Chair, I'll move this item. Second. A motion by Supervisor Wolf, seconded by Supervisor Carbajal. Mr. Allen roll call vote please?
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed31:03 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Gray? Aye! Mr. Labunino? No. Mr Carbajal? Aye Miss Farr?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:10 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed31:10 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Passes 4-1

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

And actually, you know what? I think that Mr. Caldwell wanted to speak to it. I'm sorry, Mr. Caldwell.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated31:22 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board... You know, I noticed this one required a four-fifths vote I was kind of hoping that we could get another vote besides Supervisor Labadino to hold off. This is one of those issues, again, we're in the middle of a recession. Some of the businesses have been hit the hardest are family owned businesses such as the guy that testified in front of you that has a water vending machine or the guy that owns a shoe store.

This is one of those programs where you're gonna spend over $400,000 when you could accomplish the same exact thing without spending a penny or hardly a penny. This program is going to send inspectors out to check price scanners, maybe once a year. So once out of 365 days you're gonna have an inspector go in there and see at that moment in time does the scanner and the price on the shelf match?

You don't know what happened the day before, and you don't know what's going to happen the day after because especially in grocery stores and other things these prices can change pretty quickly. Shoe store not so much. What we had suggested is you put a sticker on the cash register or a sign on this, you know, cash stand saying advising and alerting consumers that if the price on the shelf and the price on the scan didn't match please call the Ag Commissioner.

How hard is that? That way you've got literally the public inspecting 365 days a year. There's nobody more motivated than them to report this thing and to make their claim that they've gotten ripped off in some way, shape or form. And it doesn't cost you anything. And why in this day and age when you can't pay your bills And business is struggling to survive. Do you just willy nilly dump $400,000 of new program fees into our community?

And I believe at the end of the year, you're going to have nothing to show for it. I wish he'd re-vote and I wish that at least one other board member would join Supervisor Lavagnino and say this is not what we need right now. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:02 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. Mr. Allen, we have other items that the public has pulled?

0:34 – 0:3918 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed34:10 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, we have requests to speak on A9 and A13. First off on item A9, this is from the county executive office. The recommendations that the board consider co-sponsoring the 2012 Toys for Tots campaign in the Holiday Unity Food Drive from Santa Barbara County employees. And Tom Reed and Jeff Havlick have a speaker slip in to talk about it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed34:35 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board, gosh it's an honor to address you this morning. Unity has been around for 95 years we are the largest direct distributor of food and clothing school supplies and toys in the county and we're very excited about this holiday season It's grown to about 23,000 people that we're taking care of during the year. You may not know that the role of the Unity Shop is to catch people as quickly as possible that are in a struggling mode and crisis.

And so we have 300 agencies in the county, social service agencies, schools, churches, hospitals, all of the people from food stamps to unemployment that will send people to us as quickly as they are identified as people struggling. We get them back on their feet and our goal is to get themselves efficient as quickly as possible. The average client that comes to us of the 23,000 they only come about six times a little less than seven times they're back on their feet we don't see them again however usually if they're struggling during the year they have extra problems when it comes to the holiday season sometimes less working hours less work days the added burden of toys in the holidays So we're going to see probably 3,500 families and households coming to us between now and Christmas Eve.

We appreciate your efforts on the Toys for Tots. The Marine Reserves, we work collaboratively with them. We are the distribution arm for Toys For Tots so the Marine Reserves are all about Toys For Tots. Unity Shop is the distribution mechanism at least in South County. We're countywide. We take care of about 3,000 people in North County, 850 seniors But from a Toys for Tots mechanism and program, Unity Shop is the distribution mode. So we're so thankful for all of the help and all the county employees that will help with those boxes apparently for toys all over. Food is a almost emergency status for us this year. The economy hasn't helped for sure.

If you've been over to parking lot number five, And our warehouse has been severely impacted by the demolition of their call Donations are currently down over 80% Over 80 percent and not to be honest. I'm not sure how we're going to take care of these families from a position of food so the food boxes that are around in the county buildings and all of them The assistance from them when the county is really really helpful this year We have hundreds of families right now coming for Thanksgiving soon-to-be thousands and the sad News is we don't have enough food. We don't have the money to buy it We would buy it in bulk put it on the shelves and so we really need help So that's that's kind of the mode and we're thankful for all of your help and your assistance And we're trying to do all we know to do to get the word out We have designated parking, and we have signage to try to get around the fact that our donation place has been obliterated but it's not working very well to kind of Fight all the construction over there.

So we really need the help of the community, and we thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning. Thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed37:42 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Thank you. Thank you so much for this effort that we do need to all do our part not only to help but to get the word out. And I think particularly at this time of the year. So thank you for all of that. Mr. Havlick, did you want to make any comments?

CommentAlan MurrayProposed · by introduction37:56 · ≈ 9:37 AM

No. I see there's some toys here. Is it all right if I pick

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:00 · ≈ 9:38 AM

them up?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:00 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Absolutely. All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:01 · ≈ 9:38 AM

right. Thank you, Sloot. Thank you for all your help. Madam

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction38:07 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Chair, I was just going to ask what's that branch that does this Toys for Tots? It's a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:13 · ≈ 9:38 AM

little-known branch of the military. It's the Marines.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction38:16 · ≈ 9:38 AM

I just wanted to be clear. I understood correctly. As

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:19 · ≈ 9:38 AM

an Air Force pilot during Vietnam, I have the highest regard for you Marines and we thank you for all your help with Toys for Tots.

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

And are there bins in county buildings for food donations?

CommentAlan MurrayProposed · by introduction38:43 · ≈ 9:38 AM

These boxes will be down in the lobby here on the third floor and I'll put one of them up so you can get to the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:48 · ≈ 9:38 AM

courthouse.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:49 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Okay, so but they're not just for toys. They're also for food if people wanted to donate food.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed38:53 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Correct. There'll be full food and toy boxes next to each other.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:56 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Okay great. So everybody knows thank you all right and then we had another request on the A agenda Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed39:04 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Madam Chair our speaker Mr. Kiriakou has indicated he no longer needs to speak so that was our final speaker okay

0:39 – 0:4319 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:11 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Then we have no other requests to speak. We'll go ahead and vote it on one of the items, but we'll go ahead and have a motion for approval of the balance of the administrative agenda including continuing 8-12 to December 4th. Supervisor Carbajal that was your request right? About the Oakwood Pipeline. All right Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:33 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Wolff. Thank you Madam Chair I'll make the motion with the amendments as you so stated.

Roll-call vote Withdrawn Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino withdraw this item?
Show transcript
Motion by Supervisor Wolf, seconded by Supervisor Carbajal. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay thank you very much we'll now go on to our departmental agenda and Mr. Allen since you've already mentioned this do we need to go ahead and have a formal vote on withdrawing the sheriff's item departmental number one
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:05 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Yes, Madam Chair. Item number one is from the Sheriff. It's a hearing to approve the project delivery and construction agreement in Board of State and Community Corrections Construction Agreement. And this item is going to be withdrawn at this time and will come back as appropriate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:20 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Okay, so do I have a motion to withdraw this item? Motion by Supervisor Carbajal. Second by Supervisor Lavinino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay and then we will go to departmental agenda item number two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:38 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Madam Chair, would you like to just go ahead and make a motion at this point to continue the Goals B and Goals BK appeal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:44 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Yes. Why

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:45 · ≈ 9:40 AM

don't we go ahead and do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:45 · ≈ 9:40 AM

that? And that's a departmental agenda item number eight.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:48 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:49 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Allen, you want to go ahead and read that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:51 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, Item 8 is from Planning & Development, and the item is requesting that the board consider recommendations regarding the Goals B and Goals BK appeal Of the Montecito Planning Commission's approval of a Verizon wireless facility at the Montecito switch station. This is located in the Montecito area and the first district, and the request is that the board continue this item to your meeting on March 5th 2013.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed41:14 · ≈ 9:41 AM

March 5th? Yes. Is that normally do we do continuance for that long or do we normally just drop it and then re-agendize it?

CommentOakwood PipelineProposed41:28 · ≈ 9:41 AM

I think you're permissible to continue it so that we can forego further noticing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed41:37 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay, Supervisor Carball this is in your district?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction41:39 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Yes Madam Chair and I guess I just wanted to recognize the parties. I appreciate them continuing to work together to try to find an amicable solution that meets everybody's interests. So I appreciate their continuance. I'll move to continue this item for March 5th.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed41:58 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay, we have a motion. We have a second? Second. Supervisor Labanino all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, now we will go back to departmental agenda item number two and also just to remind everybody that we are going to trail a departmental agenda item number three on the SEIU memorandum of understanding until this afternoon or after closed session and we have Trailed the admin item 20. I think it was to the very end of the D agenda today Okay, so we'll go ahead. I'm sorry supervisor wolf. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed42:40 · ≈ 9:42 AM

just have a question madam chair If if time permits is there a reason why we can't hear item three before? I'm just wondering does it have to be after closed session

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed42:52 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Yes. I think the idea was since it would be an opportunity to discuss in closed session, is that not correct?

CommentCEO WallerProposed43:01 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Chair, that's correct. We did receive some correspondence from the union that we wish to share with you before you make your final decision. Okay. Thank you very much.

0:43 – 1:017 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed43:11 · ≈ 9:43 AM

All right, Mr. Allen item number two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:14 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Madam Chair members of the board, Item 2 is from Supervisor Carbajal. It's a hearing to receive and file the Children Health Initiative, Senator Barbara County progress report and presentation for fiscal year 2011 and 2012. OK. Good morning.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed43:27 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Good morning. Chair of the Board of Fire and Supervisors Carbajal, Gray, Lavagnino and Wolf. Without the county support for this year in the past five fiscal years there would not be a Children's Health Initiative and we thank you. You can be proud of what your support has accomplished. As you know in 2001 Santa Barbara County had the highest percentage of uninsured children in California and the Children's Health Initiative was formed in response to that Since 2006 with state, county and foundation funding we have focused on increasing the number of children identified as uninsured. Linking those parents of uninsured children to a certified application assister for health insurance enrollment assistance and then further assisting the parents as necessary in making health appointments.

Also at enrollment, parents were informed as to the importance of preventive medical and dental visits as well as the importance of having a primary care provider. Since 2006 when we began our enhanced outreach enrollment retention efforts, Santa Barbara County has had a decrease in the number of uninsured children by 94%. Here's a chart showing the dramatic drop in the number of uninsured children in Santa Barbara County.

The reduction in uninsured children in Santa Barbara County is dramatic, and it's not present in other comparable benchmark counties such as Monterey, Tulare and Solano where there were no or few outreach enrollment retention activities. As you can see, Santa Barbara County with more outreach enrollment and retention activities than other counties did significantly better when it came to reducing the number of uninsured children.

Nearly 11,000 Santa Barbara County children have been enrolled in public health insurance since 2006 which is a 24% increase in the number of covered children. 42% of Santa Barbara County children and youth aged 0 to 20 were receiving Medi-Cal services, compared to 20% in 2000. Comparing 2012 enrollment to that of 2005, enrollment in Medi-Cal increased by 21%, and healthy families enrollment increased by 28%.

How does increased health insurance enrollment benefit the county? There has been augmented state and federal revenue to Santa Barbara County medical providers due to the increased enrollment in the public insurance products of Medi-Cal and healthy families. The 21% increase in Medi-Cal enrollment in our county since 2005 has resulted in an estimated more than $9 million dollars in additional medical services reimbursement to community clinics, hospitals, and private providers in 2011.

The 28% increase in healthy families enrollment in our county since 2005 has resulted in an estimated more than $2 million of additional medical services reimbursement and community clinics, hospitals, and private providers in 2011. Since the implementation of Healthy Kids Santa Barbara in 2006 there's been an estimated nearly $5 million of additional medical services reimbursement provided to previously uninsured children.

This means that more federal and state dollars are supporting the care of our local children And has resulted in a total estimate of over 12 million dollars of enhanced county medical providers revenue just in 2011 alone due to increased Medi-Cal and Healthy Families insurance enrollment, and the implementation of Healthy Kids Santa Barbara. When more children have health insurance there are fewer children accessing the public healthcare center, the healthcare center system, and the hospitals as uncompensated care or at a reduced reimbursement rate.

How did we make such a significant improvement? This is a picture of participants at our recent Certified Application Assister Conference held in September 2012, in which 72 certified application assisters attended. The Children's Health Initiative is a good example of utilizing collective impact strategies to achieve results. One strategy was increasing families' access to enrollment assistance by nearly doubling the number of certified application assisters in our county who are primarily located in community-based organizations and they're often school linked. These certified application assisters are able to assist families to enroll all their children in whatever public health insurance product they qualify for at one time and in one place.

Another important strategy was our cross-sector approach, in which public and private agencies made it a goal to institutionalize procedures to identify uninsured children, link those children to health enrollment assistance, and preventive medical and dental appointments. Agencies and organizations that serve low-income children, such as WIC, city parks and recreation, and schools screen their clients for health insurance status and either enroll eligible children on site through referral to a certified application assister or to an outstation Children's Health Initiative health advocate on site, as is the case with public healthcare centers and Marion Regional Medical Center.

An example of Certified Application Sisters in action and a community-based organization is that of Santa Maria Healthy Start, a joint program of the Santa Maria Bonita School District and Santa Maria Youth & Family. School linked they received referrals from school staff, nurses, and from parents who want assistance in health insurance enrollment. In 2011-12, Santa Maria Healthy Start Certified Application Assisters assisted parents of over 650 children in either newly enrolling or reenrolling their children in MediCal Healthy Families for Healthy Kids.

Santa Barbara County Education Office's Health Linkages Program also has certified application assisters assisting families, and they assisted parents of 545 children with health insurance enrollment retention in utilization in 2011-12. Our large network of over 100 Certified Application Assisters countywide will continue to play a key role to help make sure that the uninsured in Santa Barbara County will get the assistance they need with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

They will be navigators assisting low-income families in the expanded MediCal enrollment process, as well as obtaining coverage through the state health benefits exchange now called California Covered. Healthy Kids utilizes pre- and post-parent surveys taken at the time of the first health insurance enrollment, and a subsequent survey at three months and at annual reenrollment. Results consistently illustrate the benefits of having health insurance and the difference it makes in families' lives in their ability to access health services for their children.

Families receive support from certified application assisters not only in the enrollment process, but also in navigating healthcare system and learning the importance of establishing a medical dental home. Making it an initial appointment and learning the value of preventive medical dental visits for children. Healthy Kids Enrollment dramatically increased after the county began supporting it in 2007-8. This chart shows the snapshot of Healthy Kids Enrollment each year in June.

Since its inception in November 2005, over 1900 children have been enrolled and accessed health services through Healthy Kids Insurance. There has been a steady rise in the number of children on the Healthy Kids waiting list. To cover all the children on the waiting list would cost an additional $1.5 million dollars. In Santa Clara County last week, the voters approved an eighth-of-a-cent ten year increase in the sales tax which will provide sustainable funding for their Healthy Kids insurance product.

Santa Clara County is now the first county in the nation to commit to the goal of providing health coverage to 100% of its children. We have admirable community clinics and emergency rooms that will not turn anyone away from inability to pay, however these services do cost The working class patient just as they would if you or I went there and the cost can be high. Furthermore, uninsured patients who do not pay their hospital or clinic costs increase the cost for other patients and the health care system.

Families adjust and ration their healthcare utilization when their children are uninsured. This year we have again seen an increase in the percentage of parents who indicate that they have delayed seeking medical, needed medical care for their child in the last 12 months. When parents delay seeking any type of medical care for their uninsured child as they cannot afford self-paying medical services, uninsured children may develop more severe symptoms and are more likely to miss school and utilize hospital emergency department or public health care centers services for treatment.

In addition, before health insurance enrollment one in five parents reported that their child had never seen a dentist and almost half had not taken their child to a dentist in over a year. Untreated dental disease is the most common preventative medical condition and can lead to severe health problems if left untreated. Almost one in three parents reported that they had concerns with their child's development and growth that were not being addressed.

This slide shows how utilization of health and dental services increases after health insurance enrollment. For doctor visits, 72% of parents of previously uninsured children reported that their child had seen a doctor in the past year but that rose to 98% after a year of enrollment. For seeing a dentist these responses are much more striking. At enrollment only 34% of the parents of uninsured children reported taking their child to the dentist in the previous six months. But after a year of health insurance enrollment, 89% of the children had seen a dentist in the past six months.

Healthy Kids Enrollees also have a significantly higher utilization rate of medical services than both Medi-Cal and Healthy Families members. Across the board on HEDIS measures, Healthy Kids Enrollees accessed medical care and complied with medication management at higher rates than Healthy Families or Medi-Cal members. In addition, Healthy Kids utilize the emergency department 68% less often than Medi-Cal members. This translates into savings for our public health department and for the hospitals, for uncompensated or reduced care costs. Since 100% of Healthy Kids enrollment was performed by a trained certified application assister we posit that the education families receive regarding the importance of preventive visits and establishing a regular primary care doctor instead of utilizing the emergency department has made the difference.

In one local hospital, Children's Health Initiative certified application assisters spend four afternoons or evenings a month assisting parents with uninsured children who are accessing hospital services. Children's Health Initiative has achieved a 30% drop in the number of children utilizing emergency services in this one hospital alone in the past two years.

Again, with the support in not only getting health insurance but also education about preventive visits and having a consistent primary care provider families utilize the emergency department less often. Moving forward with Affordable Care Act implementation, I will continue to work with the countywide network of Certified Application Assisters to ensure that all families seeking to navigate their way through the maze of expanded Medi-Cal coverage in the state health insurance exchange will have the knowledgeable assistance they need to successfully complete their application and set up a primary care provider.

With support from local foundations, we've also been able to develop a network of promotoras. They salute and have trained nearly 100 promotoras countywide to work within their communities to improve health outcomes including access to healthcare. They will be a crucial partner in our county's efforts to implement the Affordable Care Act and get as many families enrolled in health insurance as quickly as possible in 2014. Thanks again for your support of the Children's Health Initiative.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:02 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you very much for that very thorough presentation. Any comments or questions from the board? Supervisor Carbajal.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction55:08 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. You know I think it's important to recognize that the Children's Health Initiative has been around a lot longer than before the Board of Supervisors started supporting it with a significant contribution but I think when the board began its support it was able to have a multiplier effect And as a result, we went from one of the highest or the second highest to one of the lowest now counties in terms of per capita uninsured children.

I want to recognize health linkages especially you Tara for Just being a great leader in this, we wouldn't be able to also do this if we didn't have the extraordinary agency of CENCAL. Because CENCAL is really the one that makes it all work. They are our local Medi-Cal manager They're a unique agency in the state of California. We're able to manage costs down and I see Mr. Bob Freeman in the audience, the CEO of SenCal and my colleague Supervisor Wolf sits on that board for our board.

I see first five Pat Wheatley's here and certainly Pat Wheatley was able to work with various statewide and local foundations to draw some funding down for this program as well So this is a community wide partnership and I'm just elated as in terms of the outcomes that we've reached and achieved for our children. But above all, I think what this tells us is that This program is cost effective in the long run because we save the health care system lots of money.

By less utilization of the emergency room, I think that we know that all the uninsured costs from the hospitals and the emergency room wind up being paid for by county or state government and or absorbed by the hospital and the insurance companies which in turn Then pass on those costs to the broader population at large when they go get health insurance for themselves.

So I think we have healthier children, less utilization of the emergency room which costs us a lot more than prevention healthcare. We have more children going to school, which is good for society and good for the schools in terms of their ADA resources that they draw down. And the bottom line is we have healthy kids, which means a healthier community. So I just want to thank you all that have a role in this.

And it's just – I'm elated to see that our children are being taken care of.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed58:07 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carpahal. Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed58:10 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Tara, I just... Every time you come and make your presentation, I continue to be awestruck by what you and your team have done as a very old application person, whatever... What did you call them? Certified application assister. Certified application assister. I always thought how important it was to get the word out And have more of those application assisters to get people enrolled. And what you have done has been nothing short of remarkable.

Now that we've got so many children enrolled in Healthy Kids, Healthy Families and Medi-Cal through that program I always view that the next step was making sure that the children got to see the doctor because having insurance wasn't, was the first step but it wasn't enough. So I was particularly pleased to see the chart that you had put up there about the number of visits that are being, that parents are taking their children to the doctors.

I also want to acknowledge CENCAL staff because, you know, being on the board, I do see the amount of outreach to our Spanish-speaking families, English-speaking families, to the providers. To do whatever can be done to bring those families into their offices. I went on the CENCAL website. That there are a couple statistics that I think are really important and they go to the point of what you said about the number of kids going in to see the doctors.

For Santa Barbara County, childhood immunizations in our county we rank in the top 10% nationally. For immunization for adolescents we rank in the top 25% nationally For well child visits, we're in the top 50% nationally. Adolescent well care visits, top 50% nationally. Counseling for nutrition, top 25% nationally and counseling for physical activity, top 50%, nationally.

I've seen some of these numbers improve over time. I know that we will continue to see those numbers improve, but in all of those measurements, we are at or above the top 50% nationally in those really important benchmarks. So I think as we continue in this program it's going to be even more exciting and very challenging in moving these kids into the Medi-Cal program.

With your work and the other community support that we have along with CENCAL, I know that this is going to work. And we're going to continue to support our children in this community. Thank you.

1:01 – 1:0711 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:01:26 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Thank you Supervisor Wolf. Supervisor Lavin, you know?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction1:01:30 · ≈ 10:01 AM

You know and as Supervisor Wolf was talking about those bench warrants we can't leave out our number one public health hero Dr. Wada who makes sure that in addition to health insurance and all these other things he's really the one who Who shepherds this big ship of health care for the needy in our community and certainly he is continues in the tradition of making sure we continue to increase on those benchmarks that Supervisor Wolf mentioned.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:02:01 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:02:03 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Tara I was just curious if any of the changes that we've had at the state level, if there's been changes traumatic changes to healthy families or Medi-Cal and how that's affecting your enrollment process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:02:17 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Right now we're, my basic job is working with the Certified Application Assisters who have done a lot of work with the families, with Healthy Families and informing them as to the changes in the transition from Medi-Cal, from Healthy Families into Medi-Cal so they are getting a lot of questions from families and they are informing them as what's going on. So basically the big news is that no child is going to be losing coverage due to the Healthy Families transition So we want to make sure that families understand that, and that there's actually a new Medi-Cal program specifically designed for the Healthy Families Transition.

And there'll be some benefits for some of the families that are going into Medi-Cal, better coverage, and also some families won't have to pay premiums. So there's nothing major happening as a negative impact that we see at this time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:03:11 · ≈ 10:03 AM

And I know Supervisor Carbajal is waiting for me to become the wet blanket here. But, I'll leave that for budget time because I do think...I mean, I really applaud your efforts to get people into a health insurance program. We disagree on some of the issues but I think that reduces ER visits it reduces the cost for all of us in the county and I'll take up my other concerns at Budget Cycle so I will not be the WB today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:42 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Supervisor Gray?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:03:44 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Yeah, I won't be the WB either because I have been consistently. This is one where I really feel like my vote against this was incorrect because I think it's actually worked quite well. I think the most difficult thing to get your head around is the idea that insurance means Medi-Cal and healthy families. It doesn't mean go out to Allstate And that may be very simple for everyone else in this room to understand, but the folks in my district were just struggling with that because it looked as if the dollars were going to be spent in the private sector. or that people should be doing themselves, you know, that kind of thing.

But the fact that we have accessed Medi-Cal Healthy Families and the different programs so that the state and federal dollars were coming here instead of local county dollars is a good thing. So my hat's off to those folks that thought of this, and I got that one wrong.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:51 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Thank you Supervisor Gray. You know I think that this clearly this program has been an enormous success and you know your charts indicate that but obviously cannot indicate the full beneficial impact of all of this because it's looking at individuals where the beneficial impacts just multiply out from there because if you have a healthy child then you have healthy siblings and then you have healthy parents, you have You have a healthy community and a healthy county. And so not only is it good for individual health, but it's good for everybody's health in the community. And I think that's also true for the positive financial benefits that we've already talked about.

Individual families, but ultimately helpful to all of us that are paying medical bills and hospital visits as well. So thank you so much for that we do have one public speaker I think Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:05:53 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Madam Chair members of the board Mr. Caldwell would like to speak to this he's in Santa Maria. Mr.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated1:05:58 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Caldwell. Thank You madam chair members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. You know, we always believe that it's a good thing to put this thing into context. We certainly do believe that nobody should be turned away from adequate medical and dental help and that the county must be the provider of last resort. But we don't ever want to forget to tell the public that you have public health clinics That the taxpayer support with tens of millions of dollars a year.

And so, the fact is they treat anybody that walks through that door especially if they have no insurance. So it's not an issue that if you have no insurance you have no treatment. The issue was is if you don't have insurance there's a public health clinic to go to and it would be interesting for us to know what are the stats Since you have this program, you've given stats that there's less emergency room visits. Well the lowest amount of emergency room visits was several years before you had this program at less than 500 per year.

Having said that we'd like to know as a result of this program are there less visits to the county clinics? The other elephant in the room so to speak Is what does Obamacare do with regard to the necessity for this program and the county health clinics? I've asked this question for over a year and have never gotten an answer. If Obamacare gets implemented, which it seems like it will, do we still need public health clinics? Do we still need this insurance program?

Thank you.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Janet Wolf
Show transcript
That was our only public speaker, so we'll bring it back to the board. This is receive and file of this progress report. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal, seconded by Supervisor Wolf. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you again. Does the board want a break or do we want to go one more item? Yeah, we'll be back at 1030 for item number four. ♪ All right, the Board of Supervisors will come back into session here after our break. We've heard departmental agenda item number two. We're going to trail number three until later today and now we're going to take up departmental agenda item number four. So Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?

1:09 – 1:175 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:19 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item number four is from the Public Health Department. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an environmental health services body art fee resolution for fees related to tattooing, body piercing and permanent cosmetics.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:32 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Good morning Ms. McIwitz. Mr. Brumman thank you for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:09:37 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Yes thank you madam chair members of the board we're here today with the resolution for your boards consideration on body art fees We're asking your board to consider some adjustments in body art fees due to recent legislation that has been passed at the state level. But before I turn it over to David, I wanted to take just a minute to introduce your board to our new Environmental Health Director Larry Faye. And Larry Faye comes to us from King County Washington Seattle area We're fortunate to have attracted him to come to Santa Barbara County, has many years of experience at management and director level in environmental health programs in Colorado and in Washington State. So just please welcome him if you would.

And I'll turn it over to David.

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

Welcome Mr. Fay, I've had the pleasure of meeting you already and seeing you in action in several meetings and clearly you were real fine for our county and we're very fortunate to have you with us so thank you for joining our county family. Mr. Brumman

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:10:40 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Good morning. Thank you Michelle as indicated I'm here to speak about a few resolution that cover the body art program which includes tattoos permanent cosmetic and piercing and it's a little bit of background oops As a little bit of background, the first attempt on the state level to regulate body art as an industry was in 1997 when Assembly Bill 186 passed and it became effective in January of 1998.

As part of the bill that amended the State Health and Safety Code and required that body art practitioners register with the local health department They were to pay a one-time registration fee and then they were also to pay an annual inspection fee. And then as part of the registration, they had to agree to meet health department standards. Resolution, the act in itself did not establish any standards. It was up to the bill required that the California Conference of Local Health Officers develop sterilization, sanitation and safety standards as part of this assembly bill. Unfortunately that never happened. There were a number of drafts that were developed over the intervening years but none of them ever came to fruition and as a result a number A number of local jurisdictions, cities and counties started adopting their own regulations.

At that point, the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health and a number of representatives of the body art industry got together and worked on legislation to be carried by Assemblyperson Ma. And that became Assembly Bill 300 which is also known as the Safe Body Art Act. This was signed into law in October of 2011 and became effective in January of this year.

What it did was repeal the provisions of AB 186 and amended the health and safety code to include standards for body art facilities and practitioners. This is a little unusual because normally regulations are developed under the authority of a statute or a code, and they're contained in the California Code of Regulations. In this case, the standards are actually contained in statutes so it will be a little bit difficult to change them in the future but that's how they had to do this to get it into law.

Under the new law, practitioners are now required to register with the local enforcement agency as they did before. But now instead of a one-time registration fee they have to renew their registration annually and as part of the registration one of the conditions are there are a number of conditions those include basic they have to be knowledgeable of basic sanitation Uh, have a certain amount of experience. They have to have vaccinations for hepatitis or indicate that they declined having that vaccination. They basically have to illustrate a knowledge of safe body art practice and blood board pathogen control and that type of thing.

A new provision of the law now requires the owner operators of body art facilities to obtain a health permit for the facility. In the past that was not a requirement, now we will be issuing health permits to facilities themselves and as a result of that, the law requires that the owner operator or body art facility pay an annual permit fee to the Health Department And that the facility must meet certain construction standards. They have to have sinks to wash their hands, the walls have to be made of certain material, the floors have to meet a certain materials, has to be certain lighting in the facility and if you are proposing a new facility, the law now requires that you submit plans to the health department for review prior to opening. The law also establishes standards for vehicles and also establishes new standards for temporary body art events In your packet you have a You have material in there about the fee structure.

I thought I would address that now Under the new law it establishes new categories and eliminates old categories So it's difficult to compare our old fees to the new fees As I said, the the new law requires that facility have a health permit There is no requirement for that There was no requirement for a vehicle health permit, which is now a requirement. In the past, the practitioners had to pay one time registration fee and an annual inspection fee but under the new law they must pay an annual registration fee. And then of course as I said that they must pay a fee if they're going to propose a new facility and they must submit the plans ahead of time for review.

The you'll see our fees are higher than other counties in the past as I said that. The new laws did not become effective until January of this year, so there were a number of counties in California that opted not to do any kind of active body art program. They were not going out and doing inspections. They were not interviewing the practitioners. They were waiting for the state law while other counties were proactive and developed their own regulations and code and had an active program. So our fees are We have been providing this service since AB 186 was passed back around 1998.

So we have 12 years of practice and experience in the field, and we feel the fees are based on the time it actually takes to do the job in a efficient and thorough manner. So as I said, the fees are based on the time spent and the structure now reflects the current law. The annual health permit facility is new, the vehicle permit is new, the annual practitioner registration fee is new.

The temporary event organizer fee is a continuation from what we've done in the past. The temporary event practitioner fee is a continuation of what we've done in the past. And the plan review fee is, of course, new. So at this point, our recommendation is that you receive this report. Consider adopting the proposed fee resolution and approve a notice of exemption pursuant to CEQA guidelines.

And this completes our presentation. I'd be happy to try to address any questions the board may have.

1:17 – 1:2213 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:17:24 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Thank you Mr. Brumman. Supervisor La Venena?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:17:27 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I've got some serious issues with the fees, but let's go back to the construction standards. So if you're an existing business, you've got a tattoo parlor, you're running this operation and now this new state law passed, are you grandfathered in or do you have to go back and revamp your entire business?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:17:47 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor LaVendinier, no we would grandfather them in if they decided to move to a new location then they would have to submit fees and have a plan check conducted.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:17:56 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Does that also, I'm thinking about people that you've mentioned sinks and I know in public health there are times when now you require somebody to have a sink which can be very costly. Does that also fall into the grandfathered area or is that something you would require an existing business to change?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:18:14 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Well, we have hoped that we have pushed very hard to ensure that any place had running water and access to hot and cold running water. If it's not immediately available in the store, it's generally immediately available next door or in a communal restroom type facility.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:18:37 · ≈ 10:18 AM

OK. Then on the fees, I'm interested in hearing from the Speakers as well, but on temporary event sponsor. I mean we're looking at some of our benchmark counties We just seem to be And I don't know if it's because our costs are higher But we seem to be considerably higher and and especially in temporary event sponsor. I mean we are five times what the average Other counties are charging what's driving that and how do we justify that?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:19:13 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. We have had several temporary events in the past and the hours has been fairly consistent with the time that we spent with the event organizer. That actually represents an average of the time that we spend with the event organizer Helping them be organized so that the facility meets the basic sanitation standards and things are set up so that we can come in, do our inspections and our interviews rapidly. And be out of there in a reasonable amount of time and so they can get on with their work.

Those are as I said real life numbers based on our past experience.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:19:55 · ≈ 10:19 AM

I hear you.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:19:58 · ≈ 10:19 AM

You'll also notice that we did reduce the fee for the temporary event practitioners, in the past it was $95 and we have reduced that to $40 but raised the fee to the event organizer. Okay thank

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction1:20:16 · ≈ 10:20 AM

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:17 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Supervisor Carvalho?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction1:20:18 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I know we have to recoup our costs, so I appreciate the fee schedule that you provided for us to consider today. But I will say that the one thing that does strike as really exorbitant is a temporary event sponsor. We couldn't be the only county that provides this type of oversight, comprehensive technical assistance. I'm sure that other counties provide a certain level of technical assistance and guidance and support but we might be doing overkill maybe which leads to more hours, which leads to more money?

Something's wrong if... This really glares at me I'm supportive of pretty much overall fee, but it throws the whole fee structure into question. I will tell you that I want to want to make sure that we're recouping our costs But that that fee right there is just It something's wrong and And I would ask us to look at What other, what Ventura's doing. Is Ventura only having for these types a different protocol? Do other counties have a different protocol? We need to look at that because we might be doing overkill that goes above and beyond what the state is requiring of us and that is on us certainly it makes for a healthier more big brother handholding but this is not just a little higher This is a huge amount of money for the temporary event.

So I would urge us as we consider this proposal today, which again for the most part I'm supportive but that one doesn't sit well with me it just doesn't feel right unless it can be justified in some way so I will look at other counties because I would really appreciate that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:37 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Thank you, Mr. Supervisor Carball. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, Madam Chair.

1:22 – 1:3833 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:22:44 · ≈ 10:22 AM

One thing that I started to think about as I was reading this is that this applies to body piercing but I know sometimes you could go to a store where they sell jewelry or whatever and they'll pierce ears. Is that not covered? I would assume it's not covered in Is that covered under another health section?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:23:10 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. Piercing of the ear is purposely excluded in the statute up to a point. They do make it an option for the local health departments to register facilities that do ear piercing and they provide standards for those. And if you opt to register the facilities that do ear piercing The law does provide for establishment of a one time fee that they would pay to register as it because it was an option for the local health departments. We opted not to register ear piercers but there are standards for them however they are excluded from the main body of the law.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:23:52 · ≈ 10:23 AM

OK so that is something that we could choose to do I mean and even just registered them without even a fee but anyway that is a possibility it's not what you're recommending

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:24:04 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf that is correct. That is a possibility but we opted not to do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:24:08 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Okay and let me ask you about permanent... Cosmetics? What was it? Permanent cosmetics. So that kind of opens up another can of worms. You know beauty salons that might do permanent eye makeup Are they covered under a different code section or is that also something. That has covered I don't and I'm just not clear.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:24:39 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Madam Chair Supervisor Wolf permanent cosmetics does fall under the definition of body art that includes tattoo body piercing and permanent cosmetics so they do they are required to meet the standards in the law they are required to get a facility permit and register with us and be subject to inspection.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:24:56 · ≈ 10:24 AM

So a beauty salon that does have Has to follow this.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:25:01 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf that's correct yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:25:07 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Doesn't their cosmetology license or certification or whatever they're licensed to operate doesn't wouldn't that cover it?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:25:16 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, no the standards under the Safe Body Act are different than those that they meet as a beautician and their state license. It's a different set of laws.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:25:32 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Is that constituency aware of this?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:25:37 · ≈ 10:25 AM

We sent, Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we sent notices to all the facility owners that we have on record at the last address that we had for them to inform them of the law, inform them of your hearing. And we have been telling them for the last year when we have done our inspections that these laws were pending and would be taking effect soon so we tried to get the word out as much as we could.

So we did the best we could to get the word out to them yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:26:06 · ≈ 10:26 AM

I just want to say that I think what we have before us is a good thing. You know, we've got obviously public health. We want to make sure that the facilities are clean and sterile and that our constituents when they walk into that type of environment have a sense That they know that there is a license, that it is being monitored and that it is clean and sterile. And I do think that that is a county responsibility. So I have no problem with it. In fact, I would even say not to do it today but at some point later on consider at least the registration of facilities that do ear piercing. I think as someone who goes into a facility They would like to know or I would like to know that they have met some certain, that they have met a standard and I think that is something we could do as a health department.

The fee issue that has been raised by my colleagues you know will hear from the public I think maybe after we hear from the public, if you could also address that once again. You did say that was the time that you spent in reviewing the sponsors when it's off-site. So I'd like to hear a little bit more about the actual time that you spend. Doing that. Otherwise, I think that you folks have done a very good job in putting this together and I do appreciate it for the sake of all of us and I think just before we do hear from the speakers Body art is something obviously that I'm, I don't have. But what I have heard is that Santa Barbara is known as a place where we have some of the best people in the industry who do that type of work and we don't often times know about it or think about it.

I think this item has kind of brought it to I do appreciate the fact that we are known around the state as having some of the best artists who do this. So, I think this is a good thing. I would imagine that they too would like to make sure that they're certified, that they can put that health certificate on their wall so that their clients know that they've met the standards. So the issue is really for me that last fee. Thank you Madam

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:28:45 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Chair. Supervisor Lavinia and then Supervisor Gray?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:28:49 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. So you brought up an interesting point Supervisor Wolf that so a cosmetologist that's also doing permanent makeup would then be required to also fall have this inspection done by the county?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:29:02 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinia, yes that is correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:29:06 · ≈ 10:29 AM

But isn't through department like of consumer affairs at the state aren't barbers and cosmetologists they're already they're already getting this so now we're gonna have a state A state inspector is going to come in and make sure that their items are sterilized, and they're going to have to get their license through the state. And now I just don't understand when they pass a state law why don't you just have that inspector also do...

So now we're gonna have two inspectors coming into businesses. These guys have to get two licenses. They're gonna be subject to two different type of fees and penalty systems it just seems like A complete duplication of what's already being done. I just don't understand why this fell to the county instead of the state just picking up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:29:55 · ≈ 10:29 AM

and... Madam Chair, I might be the most help here of anybody at this dais. Because she has a lot of body

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:30:03 · ≈ 10:30 AM

art.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:03 · ≈ 10:30 AM

I do, I truly

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:30:05 · ≈ 10:30 AM

do. Supervisor, I wasn't going to say anything but Supervisor Wolf was not willing to cop to it so maybe Supervisor Gray will.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:11 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Supervisor Gray is happy to tell you how much body art she has. It's all right out there. It the eyebrows, it's the eyeliner and it's the full makeup on the lips and it is completely different than what a beautician does It's, they take a needle and they go meh, meh. And after you finish for the week afterwards it's swollen and it's uncomfortable. So this is a whole different thing than having your hair done or dyed. I hadn't even thought about this when I did it.

When this came up and this issue hit us today, I thought I am very very grateful that there is inspection and there ought to be hot waters in sinks, and they ought to know how to sterilize. Now I was going to ask because I've had friends that have gone into doing this that have had huge infections and it's way different so I'm glad that I could tell you all about how I have all kinds of body art But I think it's very, very critical that we be sure that this is safe and sterile.

It's big time stuff.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:31:38 · ≈ 10:31 AM

And I'm going to get it soon but I don't disagree with that. My argument is we should have one agency doing it. I don't care if it's the county or if it' s the state but To require a business to go get duplicate licenses, duplicate fees, duplicate everything to do both doesn't make sense to me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:31:59 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Thank you Supervisor Lavagnino. Mr. Brumman I think I need you to help explain for me and maybe the rest of the board some of what has to do with the temporary events in the vehicles because I'm at a loss I mean, I understand a place where tattooing happens or there's body piercing as a fixed location. But when you're talking about vehicles is this some kind of a mobile facility that goes out like to a music festival or something? I'm sorry to be showing my great ignorance here but I don't understand the vehicle and yeah and my age.

And in the whole temporary events is that what we're talking about here?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:32:47 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Madam chair members of the board. Yes, the vehicle is a for lack of better term a mobile tattoo facility if you can't make it to them they will come to you and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:59 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Is it is it a is it just any kind of a vehicle? Is it like just a car with stuff in it or is it more like a little motor home that's a little moving office

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:33:10 · ≈ 10:33 AM

madam chair members of the board that's That's fairly nebulous area right now. Santa Barbara County currently does not have any vehicles operating within the county, so we don't have one to fall back on. We have a technical advisory committee that is composed of representatives from most of the Southern California counties that are trying to establish what What a vehicle should have. It's amazing, although this isn't the law I don't think any of the jurisdictions report any operating in their county so we're all kind of grappling as to what exactly would an appropriate vehicle be? The law stipulates that they have to have certain standards, they have to have the walls and floors made of certain things, they have to have water, they have to have a holding tank But beyond that, it kind of leaves it to the individual counties.

So we're working with this technical advisory committee so we can set some uniform standards that all the counties would be enforcing. And so somebody in San Diego County could come to Santa Barbara and the standards would be essentially the same. As far as the temporary events, we have had three or four of these in the past. And essentially what happens at these is the organizer will start advertising and practitioners and artists from all over the state and all over the country and in some areas all over the world will come They'll set up a temporary stand and then you will come in, the public will come in and be able to receive a tattoo or piercing from any one of these artists that happen to be attending the event.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:34:41 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Okay, so it's a special event just to do with body art. It's not necessarily a booth at a music festival or something where there may be a lot of different kinds of booths and this is just another one?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:34:54 · ≈ 10:34 AM

There isn't, Madam Chair, members of the board, there's a fine distinction. Occasionally the The law does set up standards for a temporary boost, so if somebody were to come to a music festival and want to provide body art at a music festival they would still have to meet the standards. A temporary body art event would be when there were dozens or multiple artists appearing to provide their services and then we require the organizer And we would work with that organizer to make sure that they are meeting all the criteria of a temporary body art event.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:35:32 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Okay, so because we've already been talking about the fee of $1,150 for a temporary event sponsor, that would be specific to the sponsor of an event that's just to do with body art. Not necessarily a music festival sponsor where a body art booth may be located.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:35:55 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board that is correct. It would be a single special event illustrating body art.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:02 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Okay. And then in trying to get to the cost, I noticed that the hourly rate that you were charging for reinspections, consultation services and other things is $136 an hour but if you kind of multiply that out then the fee, the 1150 fee is like eight to nine hours Equivalent of that so I think that this is kind of getting some of the questions that you've already heard from The board is how is that fee being? Calculated and if it's kind of based on this hundred and thirty six dollars an hour Where is eight hours worth of work coming from, you know to go ahead and justify that fee So I'll just kind of put that out there and add my question about that as well supervisor Carbajal

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction1:36:50 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Thank You madam chair No, I just I don't know if I was Clearly or not, I do support what we're doing here. I think it's important. I have a little bit of art myself, Supervisor Gray. But I will tell you, I got mine and that's what I think this is trying to address. And with the epidemic of hepatitis C, we really need to make sure that the best sanitary and health precautions are taken We have a hepatitis C epidemic in the United States that is transpiring.

And the small art that I got, I got at a swap meet when I was a kid and you know there was no sense of are the tools being used? Is it appropriate or not? So I certainly understand the importance of what we're doing here Again, I just want to reiterate. I appreciate and want to learn more about how we reached this fee for temporary event sponsor but again, I want to reiterate it seems so odd that it's not just 100% higher than the highest county.

It's a lot more than that and I really want to understand what do other counties do that's different than what we do? So that's the one that I'm going to have trouble Supporting that specific one until I learn more about that, but the rest. I pretty much am and I do understand your explanation about temporary the sponsorship whoever's doing the festival maybe But it just seems like a lot

1:38 – 1:4822 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:35 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Thank you. There's no other questions or comments from the board at this time I know we have a number of public speakers just so you know when your name is called and come up to the podium here, you'll have up to three minutes there is a little light there it works just like a stoplight green as go yellow means you've got less than a minute and red means that you need to stop So we look forward to hearing your comments. Mr. Allen, why don't you go ahead and start calling the public speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:39:01 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, we have seven requests. We'll start with Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria and come back to Senator Barbara for Mallory Johnstone.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated1:39:10 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Mr

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:39:10 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Caldwell.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated1:39:10 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. We had concerns on the fee schedule as well. We're appreciative of Supervisor Carbajal bringing out the temporary event sponsor. The bottom line is an event sponsor should be handed a piece of paper telling them everything that would be required, and that should be it. You should not have to be the organizer for the sponsor, and that fee should be cut way down. The other one we're concerned about is the annual practitioner registration.

We're not sure why somebody has to spend $300 every year to be registered. This should be based on the amount of time it takes your staff to process something. We're not sure it should take two hours to inspect a facility, so if they're charging a rate of $140 or $150 an hour, does it take two, three hours to inspect a facility? Does it take two or three hours to process an annual practitioner registration?

We believe there should be, maybe the initial registration. Maybe that's time intensive but to just renew it on an annual basis we're not understanding how much that could be. The bottom line here is between the facility and the practitioner it's over $665 a year. We're also not sure why they can't check the practitioner when they're checking the facility The bottom line is there's lots of times when the board is dealing with fees, they think well does it come out of the general fund?

And it seems reasonable, we're gonna go ahead and improve it. But this is the cost of doing business in Santa Barbara County. And as you can see in every single one of these categories, the cost of doing business in Santa Barbara County is higher than the benchmark counties. And in fact San Luis Obispo doesn't collect any fees at all. So if you put that into the average, you're really high. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:41:34 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell. OK. We also don't allow that in the boardroom either. All right. Next speaker, Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:41:44 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Mallory Johnstone to be followed by Alan Murray.

CommentMallory JohnstoneProposedself-stated1:41:46 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Hi. Members of the Board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:41:53 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Excuse me just a moment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:41:57 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Just a note to those in Santa Maria, we can still pick you up on the mics. So please keep your comments away from the microphones. Thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:42:08 · ≈ 10:42 AM

All right. You can go ahead and start.

CommentMallory JohnstoneProposedself-stated1:42:10 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Hi members of the board, thanks for letting me speak. My name is Mallory Johnstone and I've owned and operated my business for the past two years called Merkaba Tattoo. And currently I pay a fee of $250 which covers my annual facility inspection and my registration. And under the proposed fees it states that I would have to pay A new fee of $365 and an additional $300 registration fee. I would just like to make sure that this is cleared up, that this is the correct form that you intend. And also yeah, I just wanted to know if that was what you meant

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:42:52 · ≈ 10:42 AM

for that? Okay. I think we'll go ahead and make your comments and then we're going to have staff respond to all of the comments and questions at the end.

CommentMallory JohnstoneProposedself-stated1:43:00 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Okay, as far as the inspection goes it takes around 30 to 40 minutes to inspect my studio. I am the only practitioner there and I have no employees. The only thing that I see significant in the new assembly bill is that if you were to use disposable equipment It needs to be logged, like previously you had to log your sterilized equipment that goes in an autoclave.

So this is the only thing that I really see significant as far as checking and I don't see any significant time that this would take more time to inspect my studio. And that is my only comment so...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:43:48 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you. Thank you for being here. We'll have your questions answered at the end.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:53 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Our next speaker is Alan Murray, to be followed by Daniel Loudman I believe.

CommentAlan MurrayProposedself-stated1:43:59 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Hi how's it going?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:44:00 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Good morning.

CommentAlan MurrayProposedself-stated1:44:02 · ≈ 10:44 AM

My name is Alan Murray. I've been a body art practitioner for nearly the last five years. The notice that we were sent from the health department Is vague as to exactly why some of our fees will be raised to the amount proposed. I don't really have any objections at all to the new Assembly Bill 300, I think it's a good bill. But reading through the new act and the former regulations of the Health Department, the Assembly Bill 186 including the standards of sterilization, sanitation and safety there is really little difference.

The language and details are slightly clearer. There's very few new things as Mallory mentioned, the logging of our equipment in each procedure that's one thing that's new and I agree with that. And if we're talking about a more detailed inspection on the previous and the new regulations, I can also agree to a fair hourly rate For a more thorough inspection makes sense, but only if we can have a way to make the process more efficient for the inspector and the practitioners.

Like a concise list in order of what needs to be inspected and presented. In relation to all the state regulations, and a list that can be shared with the health department and the practitioners so we basically have a checklist of everything that needs to be done. What I take argument with is why our annual facility and practitioner fees are raised to such an amount. It's nearly double for what owner slash practitioners are already paying, and twice and a half what each practitioner pays. I understand state requirements but I'm not being made aware of how these new fees are reflected on that.

I concern the proposals are using the new act to squeeze more money than should be required out of small business owners and responsible professionals in compliance with previously existing and new additions of standard safe practice in this profession. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:46:40 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments and go ahead and have staff respond later. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:46:47 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Daniel Loudman to be followed by Ken Knox.

CommentDaniel LandmanProposedself-stated1:46:52 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Hello, good morning. My name is Daniel Landman and I would like to just address what the justification of the hike in fees are because Just from our neighboring counties, they're much higher. Like LA County it's $40 to register. Now we're paying $300. So it's not just the event fees that are higher than everywhere else but it's across the board pretty much.

I'm in support of all like the public health department coming in and checking out Shops, and I'm also worried about like what these new fees may impact people who don't wish to pay them and tattoo out of their homes illegally. And how are they going to be held accountable? And also I agree with just any kind of body art or anything, any kind of business that where there's blood being opened from shaving to waxing to pedicures. How are they affected by this? Like are they exempt from it? Or are we the only ones that this is coming down on?

And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

1:48 – 1:544 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:48:33 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Morning

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:48:33 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Alex. How are you Madam Chair, members of the board? Yeah I'd like to say first of all that nobody takes the safety of our customers more seriously than the actual people that do piercings and body art. Really the buck stops with us you know we have oversight from County Health and really it's just like you know once or twice a year we see these people It's really up to us. We have a history of being a low maintenance industry with a history of self-regulation too. A lot of the best advances in body art and sterilization and everything were onset and things that our industry borrowed from medical field, and it being regulated is really much newer than the actual act of tattooing These rate hikes are pretty crazy from where we're standing. I personally just got inspected after the new AB 300 laws came into place and it took less than an hour for the health inspector to come in, do three individual artists at our shop and the facility itself which is the same maybe marginally different than what it was before so And we're just worried that these other fee hikes may give less incentive for people to want to work in a health department-approved sterile area, might drive people underground.

And it's basically taking money and we get no real tangible evidence of it going anywhere. And it's really troublesome to us. It feels like they're just trying to take an extra little bit of chunk of change from us for no real reason, and it's a little bit disturbing. You know, this crunch in the numbers they stand to make about $16,000 extra dollars from the different practitioners and facilities in Santa Barbara County. And nowhere in the paperwork we got which some of us just got mere days ago so we weren't unable to really get a solid presentation together and meet with each other.

There's no itemization or anything reflecting how this may be spent It would be a little bit easier to swallow if the county was a little bit more clear about how this money was going to be used. Because there's a lot of people doing tattoos outside of facilities, which is really dangerous and that's where the vast majority of staff infections and hep C I feel like some of this is kind of misdirected at the shops when we're the ones that are really doing the most to protect our customers. Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterVinnie RiveraGolden Eagle TattooProposedself-stated1:51:41 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Hi, my name is Vinnie Rivera and I represent Golden Eagle Tattoo. We have been an establishment on State Street for the past eight years. We employ about six to seven artists there. We meet all of the standards. We're very sanitary. We follow all of the regulations and work with the health department on all this and have done our best. As a business owner and manager, raising this fee honestly I think makes it a lot more difficult and more of an obstacle for our artists to stay registered. This is the sort of thing that forces people to go underground and start tattooing out of their garages.

It's things like this that really put businesses in danger especially downtown Santa Barbara no one wants another empty business. We are a small business and a lot of people in the city support local businesses And we're doing our best to keep, you know, in business. But it's hard to regulate six to seven artists and to make sure they are on time. Something like this could really force us to go out of business and put people out of work. Our employees have children, families. They're good people in the community. We support a lot of the community. We tattoo more tourists and local people than we do whoever you would think would come through a sort of tattoo shop, but I did receive this bill from Lisa earlier this year and I did go over it and on page six it does state That set fee of an amount not to exceed the amount necessary, but that it is sufficient to cover the actual cost of administering the program.

Now I never said anything as far as how much. I just received this a week ago, as far as $300 goes. It's kind of ridiculous. I don't understand why it's got to hike up so high. And as an owner practitioner, it was 250 and that was fine but not you know the end. That was the original registration. I just you know it doesn't say that that's what it needs to be so we just want to find out where is this money going? How is it helping us with the safe body art act?

How is this preventing people from tattooing in their garages? We offer a safe place. We offer a clean, beautiful establishment and we've never had any issues with health problems as far as that. We're very sanitary. We're up to date on all of the current laws and we just want to find out how this is going to help if anything so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:54:21 · ≈ 10:54 AM

thank you. Thank you for being here. Our final speaker is Ellen Murray.

1:54 – 1:596 turns

CommentAlan MurrayProposedself-stated1:54:29 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Sorry, I accidentally filled out the request for twice because they forgot to put the item number But if you do want if you would allow me 30 more seconds perhaps to close

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:54:39 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Actually, I'm sorry sir. Okay. We're gonna bring it back. That's fine Thank you. Thank you for being here had great comments all right so that concludes public comment supervisor Carbajal

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction1:54:52 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well like I said earlier, I do support us recouping our fees for what needs to get done to make sure that we protect the public's health but I'm still in a quandary regarding the temporary event sponsor and I think the one issue that I have heard from many of the folks that spoke that resonates and it's...I think we don't want to create An underground which if you have any sense of understanding of this world That's a very likely situation, and I think that whether we like it or not That's why I think the we need to recoup our costs We need to protect the public health but the the fees need to be reasonable and these fees again they They seem for the most part reasonable But they're on the high end And I mean, always being the high end doesn't always make me feel the best.

But in particular, the temporary event sponsor, even though I think you did a pretty good job of attempting to explain that, I'm in a quandary of wanting to support this notwithstanding the temporary event sponsor. But making sure we're not so far out there that we're creating an undue inadvertent environment by where, as many of the speakers said, they won't register.

They won't be on the list of tattoo artists or what have you with one of these. Instead they'll just, hey hit me up at home. We'll do it at home. And so what we're trying to solve I want to make sure that we're not inadvertently Creating an environment where that is more common and instead of addressing it from a public health issue, where we think we are. We're actually creating unfortunately more of a problem so I don't know what the answer is but that resonated with me certainly I would imagine that illegal tattooing at home is illegal period But it's not to say that they won't do it without having, if they could save $300 or you know. If it's so far out there they would rather save that money and somehow work with the network to get those tattoos.

So anyways I don't know the answer but that did resonate with me notwithstanding a temporary fee issue that I have a concern with.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:32 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Supervisor Lavinino then Supervisor Gray.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.751:57:34 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Thank You Madam Chair well I also see the need for it but It just seems like to me these seem to be pretty far out of whack. So I guess what I would like to see is if we do the annual it sounds like it takes an hour that the folks have said and maybe staff can say that this isn't the case but even if we threw another half hour on there and we said OK, an hour and a half to inspect a facility that's still at our hourly rate only takes us to $204 instead of 365 And if we said it would take an hour to charge and we put an hour on an annual practitioner, that's still only $136 instead of 300. So I don't know if we're at a point yet. And to me, the Annual Vehicle Health Permit, we don't have one in Santa Barbara County so I'm not really sure. You know, I don't care what that one is but I mean that would be my proposal is that we knock down the Annual Facility Health Permits to 204 which gives an hour-and-a-half And change the annual practitioner registration to 136 which gives us an hour of staff time to deal with it.

And as far as a temporary event sponsor, maybe it's just the case that we haven't had that many yet so we don't really know what the cost is but there's no way I could support five times the average. So I don't know if I have any support from that on the board but that's where my vote would be.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:05 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Okay, and Supervisor Lavagnino I just want to make sure that staff That I'm clear on this. I think that some of the numbers that you Just put out there are lower than what our existing fees are so I just want to be clear Staff for the annual facility health permit it has been $250 now to go to 365 Am i reading the old chart correctly

1:59 – 2:1021 turns

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:59:37 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board that's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:39 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Okay and then the annual practitioner registration is already at 125 proposed to go to 300.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:59:47 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Madam chair members of the board that's correct

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:49 · ≈ 10:59 AM

okay and then the temporary event sponsor is at $500 now to go to proposed it to 1150

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed1:59:57 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board that is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:59 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Gray and then Supervisor Carbajal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:00:02 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you I certainly support the inspection and I'm delighted and happy that AB 300 passed however I think these fees are way way too high. I can't understand why we wouldn't simply look at what is the average fee for all of the counties and adopt that fee schedule because these are small business it's just it's just too high To just go from what it was before to encouraging it to go over a double. So the logical thing is to take a look at the average and be average.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:00:39 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Gray. Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction2:00:41 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you. I don't want to get into setting personally a threshold of this, do this, do that. But I think in light of what you've heard, I'm wondering if rather than getting into that today and doing a vote and being all us all over the map if maybe you can one of my suggestions is that maybe you go back re-examine this give it some look at it with some a new fresh set of eyes And come back in a way that protects the public health, recoups your fees. But really maybe just does a quick re-evaluation to see how we're similar out of whack with other counties and whatever you come up with it's again I don't want to discourage you from recouping your fees but give it a little bit more of an assessment to see if they would change now having heard what the board is saying Because again, I support what you're trying to do.

It just seems that we're on the high end and maybe if you can come back to us and justify that a little bit more, I'll be supportive of that but it would be great to just give it one last analysis and evaluation to see if you had to change it based on what you heard from the board that still allows you to fulfill your mission to protect public health But it's a little sensitive to some of the issues that we raised.

I would say that might give us another reconsideration and if it changes a lot, great. If it changes only a little bit so be it but you'll be able to explain it to us. And that feels good to me instead of trying to get from the dais decide what's appropriate and what's not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:31 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Carbajal. Supervisor Lavagnino if I can ask you to just wait just a minute. I have a couple things that I want to ask staff to respond to that came out of public comment. So the first one is the first speaker as a single sole practitioner with her own place right now is paying $250 for an annual facility health permit and $125 as an annual practitioner Registration for a total of three hundred and seventy five dollars a year and with these fees that would go to six hundred and sixty five dollars the 365 in the 300 so that's correct I'm trying to figure out what her increases per year.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed2:03:16 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I spoke with Mallory before we had this item come up for hearing and that is incorrect. A practitioner who's also the owner of the facility would be charged the facility permit fee only not the practitioner fee so she will pay $300 a year not $600 a year

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:03:38 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Okay, so she would only pay the annual facility health permit fee. Is that what you said? So that's $250 now proposed to go to 365. Madam Chair and

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed2:03:47 · ≈ 11:03 AM

members of the board, that's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:03:49 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Okay thank you. So that explains your question all right and then we had a comment about what about other activities that may draw blood shaving waxing pedicures and I'm assuming that those do follow Fall under a different category because perhaps. Even if they might draw blood it's not a puncture kind of a procedure is that correct? Or how is there different?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed2:04:16 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, the Safe Body Art Act is pretty definitive on what constitutes body art which is again tattooing permanent cosmetics, body piercing and branding. Those are all covered under the statute and The pedicures and that type of thing. I'm not certain which code covers those, but that's where the license from the Consumer Affairs Department comes from and that is separate and different than this one.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:04:43 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Okay. And then we've had a couple of comments about illegal tattooing people going underground doing it out of their houses or kitchens or garages. I'm assuming that this kind of activity follows the same kind of enforcement procedure that the county does for anything else that's illegal. So it would have to be complaint driven, somebody would have to complain to the county and we would then go out and inspect and is there penalties or how does that work from an enforcement standpoint?

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed2:05:18 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Yes that is something that we respond to it and as you suggested it is generally complaint driven. It's very hard to do enforcement because we basically have to be there and catch them in the act. We get a lot of allegations of people tattooing in home and in their garages again it's very hard You have to basically have the place under surveillance 24 hours a day in order to catch them, so it's very difficult. We try but it is very difficult. But we follow the same enforcement standards as we do with anything else. Under the new code, it does provide us with a greater level of enforcement than we had under the old AB 186. So we have a few more enforcement levers to pull than we had in the past. But again, it's very difficult to nail that down because again, we have to catch them in the act.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:06:05 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Okay, thank you. And then there was a comment about what the money is used for I think from the public and clearly with any fees that the county assesses what we're trying to do is get just at full cost recovery for whatever it is but I think that kind of brings it back to the core question you're hearing from the board Which is more specific information as to how you came to these fees. Particularly based on the hourly rate that is stated there, and so it may be that what we need to do is to continue this item to allow you to come back to look at these again and then come back with a more detailed justification for the amount of time that you see involved with each of these activities And perhaps you come back with the same numbers or come back, perhaps you come back with different numbers or something that splits the difference between what we have now and what you've proposed.

But I think that's perhaps where the board is heading. Supervisor LaVagnino? Okay. Supervisor Wolff?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:07:06 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. You know in looking at all of these it seems like the annual facility health permit, the increased amount of 365 Certainly seems within the ballpark of the other counties. In fact, there's three counties that are greater than that. So I think that that fee as proposed seems right where it should be. I mean, I really want to give... I know we've heard anecdotal comments about how much time it takes For you folks to do the inspections.

But I also want to look to you guys as the professionals and to make sure that we're doing and charging the right amount. And when it comes to that annual facility permit fee, I think that that looks like based on what you're recommending in the other counties that it's fine I think the annual practitioner registration fee of $300 is much higher than the others.

So, I know you're going to come back to us. It sounds like that's what the board wants you to do but I would like just for my own edification, What do you, why are you folks recommending the $300? What will you be doing that maybe some of these other counties aren't doing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:08:50 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Yes, Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff I was going to just add David's done a great job answering the questions and we're happy to do whatever work your board wants us to do in making this policy decision. I was gonna say that David has some additional information about Some of the things related to the temporary events and and how that is but how we're calculating that different in a way In our county, I'll let him speak to that. And then I was going to say with respect to these Comparison County information David talked about it a little in this presentation and I'll try to clarify this before we come back to your board too Remember everyone is in a different place in the implementation of their fee schedule some counties For example, San Luis Obispo had no program.

So that you don't see fees here means that they're in the process of bringing to their board exactly what we're bringing to you so we don't have that comparison information. Some counties have implemented the new fees based on their implementation of law and other counties are still in the process of having their old fees. So this is not an apples-to-apples comparison and we'll try to make that clearer for your board when we come back. And then I'll turn it back over to David and let him tell you a little bit more about Temporary events and how we're looking at that in a way that we hope will make it easier for the individual practitioners.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:10:12 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Chair Farr I would just, I appreciate staff's willingness to go into more detail however based upon what I hear your board's general discussion I would recommend that We go back with your direction And we have that further discussion when we come back to you but certainly that's your discretion

2:10 – 2:157 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:10:33 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Well we do have, do you think you'd be prepared to come back to the board on the 4th of December? We have time then.

CommentSanta BarbaraProposed2:10:42 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Madam Chair and members of the board yes we can come back on that date

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal continue this item to our meeting of December 4th
Show transcript
Okay. Does the board want to hear any more at this particular time or shall we just hold it until the fourth? Okay, all right well thank you very much I think and you have sufficient direction in what we need, what we're asking of you. Thank you all members of the public that have been here and waited and spoke and we'll have a motion to continue this item to our meeting of December 4th. Motion by Supervisor Carbajal seconded Supervisor Lavinino, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. I want to just do a little bit of agenda management here. We are going to go ahead and go right into item number five then we're going to break for lunch and close session so after that, after closed session, we will come back for departmental items number six, number seven, number three, and also the trailing A item. On conversion technology. CEO Waller?
CommentCEO WallerProposed2:11:43 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chairwoman, just a clarification because we may have some of our union members join us. Would your board be open to handling the 721 immediately after lunch? That's fine. Thank you.

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

All right Mr. Allen why don't you go ahead and read item number five for us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:12:04 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item 5 is from Public Works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding speed limits on various roads to include those in the 1st, 3rd and 4th districts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:12:15 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Good morning madam chair and board members. Public Works is before you this morning to conduct our semi-annual item to adjust speed limits in the county. Our short presentation this morning will be given by the county's traffic engineer Mr. Gary Smart

CommentAlan MurrayProposed · by introduction2:12:31 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you Scott. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. We are here presenting the speed zone update for our county roads. This is in line with the county's goal to keep County speed zones current and enforceable. The county follows the state required methodology for setting speed zones using the engineering traffic surveys. Those surveys expire every seven or ten years and need to be updated to keep our speed zones enforceable and current.

A new engineering traffic survey is performed Those results are presented to our county's Traffic Engineering Committee, which are members from the law enforcement community, CHP, sheriffs, Caltrans. Our Bicycle Coalition has a representative. AAA has a representative. Also the schools and the transit make up the traffic engineering committee. They make recommendations for the boards for any changes we have on our speed zones And if the board approves them, they amend the county code. And then the appropriate signage and roadway markings are installed. Documentation is provided to the courts and the CHP for enforcement.

Speed survey that's done to update the speed zones. We look at the flow of speeds. Usually about 100 cars are done looking at their speeds. We get a critical speed, and that determines the speed limit. Also, the roadway conditions are looked at Roadside development, if it's a rural area or urban areas such things as that. The volume of traffic is recorded. Collision data is collected.

Conditions that aren't readily apparent like driveways or lack of pedestrian facilities are noted and then we analyze the 85th percentile critical speed and the pace of the vehicles. Before you are the results from our recent update. We have 8 roads we have looked at in this update 21 segments from those roads 18 of those are reduced. We reduced them by five miles per hour from what the critical speed was determined. This is enabled by Assembly Bill 2767, and those were for conditions that aren't readily apparent to the motorists and need a little bit more caution from the motorist that the speeds were reduced.

One of the speed limits was reduced from the current speed, and that was on Hot Springs Road From Riven Rock down to Mountain Drive, the current speed is 40 miles an hour and it went down to 35. The rest of the speed limits are staying the same. One speed limit is new and that's on Apollo Way, the little section by the hotel there where you get off the freeway.

That's being incorporated or joined in with the Burnt Mesa section and that speed limit is a new segment and it's going to be 35 miles per hour as the recommendation. If you have any questions, I'm available for...

2:15 – 2:186 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:15:45 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Thank you Mr. Smart. Any questions or comments from the board? Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction2:15:51 · ≈ 11:15 AM

I was elated that no road or street in my district actually got increased. If anything one was lowered so again just want to thank you for all your good work. I know this can be a little tricky sometimes because our constituents Don't fully understand the state law and the 85th percentile formula, and what have you. So it's hard to grasp. And I know in the past we have talked about including this, and it is one of our legislative priorities that we have attempted to float to CSAC in Sacramento but we haven't really gotten much traction on trying to change that formula.

Again, focusing very parochially on the first district. I know that the numbers were able to allow us to stay at the same speed limit and lower that one road so thank you very much for your good work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:16:49 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Thank you Supervisor Carbajal and I have to say it's not just our constituents who don't understand it. I don't understand it either so...I mean I just don't...it's just so counterintuitive. Alright any other questions or comments? Otherwise we'll have a motion Okay, a motion to approve. Second? Second by Supervisor Gray. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

The board's going to break for lunch and closed session. Mr. Marshall would you tell us what we're gonna be talking about?

CommentOakwood PipelineProposed2:17:20 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Thank You Madam Chair. In your closed session today you have conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation. You have three potential cases. You also have conference with labor negotiators, with the agency designated representatives as a CEO and Human Resources Director Jerry Muth who I understand will not be in attendance today because of illness. Employee organizations all bargaining units, unrepresented employees.

Lastly your board has public employee appointment interim director general services department, interim director Department of Social Services.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:17:53 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Thank you and how long when will we be back about one o'clock? Okay, sometime by about 1.15. All right, the board will go into closed session. All right, we're surprised to come back to this session on a lunch break and having closed sessions so Mr. Marshall would you give us a report from closed session please?

CommentOakwood PipelineProposed2:18:38 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Madam Chairman, let me repeat. Your board held each of the notice closed session items. There was no action taken that is reportable. Thank you.

2:18 – 2:2013 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:52 · ≈ 11:18 AM

All right, and so now we're going to pick up our departmental agenda item. And we had trailed Item Number 3 which we're going to take up now. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:06 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board, Item 3 is from the County Executive Office in Human Resources. It's a hearing to approve an MOU with Service Employees International Union 721 Turning terms and conditions of employment effective from November 13, 2012 through June 22, 2014. OK.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:19:23 · ≈ 11:19 AM

CEO Waller I'm going to turn to you. Thank you Chairwoman. Staff is asking that we continue this item to your December 4th meeting to allow us to clarify with union membership communication that we received from them late last week.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:19:41 · ≈ 11:19 AM

All right actually do we have any public speakers Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:45 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. We had one request to speak from Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria and I don't know if he would be willing to then defer to our December 4th meeting?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:19:53 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Mr. Caldwell we're going to continue this to the fourth actually...

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated2:20:00 · ≈ 11:20 AM

I'm sorry is this for the SEIU?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:03 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Correct

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated2:20:05 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Okay. And your table, you're going to continue it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:08 · ≈ 11:20 AM

No we're continuing to the 4th. We had some communication with them that we need to clarify before we take it up and discuss it so it's just going to be continued.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated2:20:16 · ≈ 11:20 AM

You're gonna continue till four o'clock?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:17 · ≈ 11:20 AM

No no to the fourth of December.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated2:20:21 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Oh I'm sure I'll be around thank

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joni Gray · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino continue this item to the 4th of December
Show transcript
you. We're sure you will be too so thank you. All right, so we have a motion to continue this item to the 4th of December. Do I have a second? Motion by Supervisor Gray, second by Supervisor Lavagnino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. All right and now we're going to pick up the rest of the departmental agenda and we'll go to item number six.

2:20 – 2:306 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:20:52 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Members of the board, item six is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to accept the fiscal year 2013 through 15 financial outlook report and receive a presentation on the economic context and impending financial challenges faced by the county in fiscal years 2013 through 2015.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:21:10 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you. CEO Waller? Thank you, Chairwoman and board members. What we have for you today is our annual update to our fiscal outlook report and I have with me our budget director Tom Alvarez. He and his staff has spent a great deal of effort compiling information working with the various departments and I believe that we have a report that will be very clear concise and certainly we would welcome any questions or comments that you may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:21:36 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Okay thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Alvarez, thank you for being here.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:21:41 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Good afternoon Chair Farr, members of the board. Today's presentation is the 1314 fiscal outlook report and it's combined report of the CEO's office in the auditor controller and as CEO Waller mentioned it's also a great amount of input from the departments as well so we want to thank everybody for their input and help on this Similar to last year, there's three sections to this report. The first is an overall economic outlook. The second is a discussion of the fiscal issues and the third is the projected gap.

This year we're providing a summary of the gap earlier in the report so that the board and the public can put these figures into context. But before looking at the gap, we'll have a brief look at the economic conditions as shown on the next slide. When we look at the economic recovery, it's been a slow recovery. We've had 12 quarters of growth however the current annual projection for gross domestic product growth is a modest 2%.

GDP was 1.9% in 2011 and 2.4% in 2010. Although the county generally lags behind the nation in economic recoveries, we're seeing the housing market is now starting to show signs of improvement. It is projected that the unanticipated negative growth in Section 51 assessed properties in fiscal year 11-12 will significantly improve in the coming years. In terms of unemployment, unemployment has been very slow to recover. I think much slower since any time since the Great Depression. However, the county has seen significant improvement from 8.6% last year to 7.1% this September.

When we look at our revenues in fiscal year 11-12, we experienced a modest increase in the larger revenue accounts with good growth in TOT which is our transient occupancy tax and sales tax. In 12-13, the current estimate anticipates only 0.8 percent growth in the significant property tax accounts and a net reduction in year over year TOT and sales tax growth and this is related to the expiration of the Goleta Neutrality Agreement.

We see that costs are continuing to increase faster than revenues and as we've stated in prior reports, our revenue growth has slowed while costs primarily employee benefits have risen at higher rate of growth. So we'll see this the impact of this is we go through this presentation. And as we look at this slide, this is just a little bit more on the unemployment. And some of these were in the actual report themselves. So here we've dramatically come down from last September we're at about 8.6. We're now down to 7.1 and back in this point here was the high point January 11 was about almost 10.5%.

As we said a little while ago, we're going to start with the summary And this will provide a little more context as we go through the individual issues. You can see their relationship to the total gap. By way of background, the gap calculation assumes ongoing revenue and expenditures as the baseline and then we overlay these incremental changes from fiscal issues that we've become aware of and we depict those as being positive or negative to our budget. To the extent it's not balanced, this is gonna create a gap.

Positive issues such as revenue growth are favorable and are shown as unbracketed. Bracketed figures are negative or unfavorable, thus the bracketed expenditures of 17.9 represent increased expenditures. So as we look at our summary gap here, the 8.1 million is the total of all revenue changes so that's positive. Expenditure issues which will be going into in a minute are showing as a negative 17.

And then the use of one-time funds, and this is where departments have been using fund balances or reserves to fund ongoing operations and are now running out of such reserves. To provide the same level of service 2.6 million in additional revenues or some other funding source would be necessary. These three elements result in a projected gap of 12.4 million dollars.

Now we're going to start with the detail of the revenue changes. This was a positive $8.1 million and it's comprised of 5.7 million associated with state and federal reimbursements for salaries and benefits. So much of our services provided by the county are federal and state mandated programs that are funded with federal and state sources. As these costs of providing services increase, the county's reimbursement from these funding sources also increases.

As an example, social services typically has a very high percentage of their costs reimbursed from federal and state sources. On the next one is RDAs 2.5 million so the redevelopment agencies are what we're talking about here and with the dissolution of the former RDAs The tax transfers previously distributed to the RDAs will now be used to pay off the existing debt of the former RDAs and the balance will be distributed to local government, special districts and schools.

The 1.5 million of ongoing RDA-related tax distributions were budgeted in this fiscal year but we're now seeing that they are approaching $4 million and so we've got a pickup here of about 2.5 million dollars.

The next item is 2. 5 million in property tax revenues So in fiscal 13-14, we're projecting an increase of 2.2% before the fire tax transfer. Leading indicator accounts such as property tax transfer fees and supplemental fees are increasing but are partially offset by reduced property tax delinquent fees resulting in a net projected increase of $2.5 million or 1.4% growth.

The next item is a negative $900,000 And on May 22nd of 2012, the board passed a resolution whereby 5.9 million dollars of prior general fund allocation is now shifted to the fire department as part of the approved fire district property tax allocation. This allocation will incrementally increase by 25% of the growth in property tax each year until a full 17% of countywide property tax is appropriated to the fire district.

The resulting increased property tax allocations to the Fire District is projected to be 880,000 in fiscal year 13-14 and an incremental 824,000 in fiscal 14-15. The last item on our list is a negative $1.7 million and $1,600,000 of that is related to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes or PILT program. And this applies to local governments usually rural counties containing non-taxable federal lands and seeks to compensate them for foregoing tax revenue from these federal lands.

The U.S. Department of the Interior has announced it will be cutting these programs and so we've currently got $1,625,000 in our budget and we're not expecting that that's going to recur in 13-14. Risks on the horizon. The departments identify fiscal issues that they perceive will require an increase in the amount of general fund contribution or utilization of their departmental fund balances, in order to balance their funds without service level reductions.

These issues are then categorized into one time versus ongoing and then they're segregated into tiers based on the probability of occurrence. Tier number one items are issues that are expected to occur within two years and the impact is estimated and included in the gap calculations. Tier number two items are issues that are not included in the gap as the amount, timing, and or certainty of these issues are not yet known. Or it may be that these items have existing reserves for these issues in which case general funds would not be required.

In such situations where reserves exist, the department and CEO's office will evaluate necessary action to work towards a sustainably balanced budget.

2:30 – 2:3514 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:13 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Why, if there's money set aside for it already that we have in a reserve so we can cover what we think is going to be owing. Why is it on this list at all? It seems to me we're looking at impacts and things that were either unsure about the amount or you know, we're gonna have to come up with the money for somehow in the budget.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:30:37 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Chair Farr, that is correct. So the Tier 2 items are not going to go into the gap calculation. However if we are seeing that a department has an out of balance situation that they're using reserve balances for at some point those reserves will run out if they don't fix the underlying problem so it's not gonna show up in the current gap but if we see that there's a problem and we'll see a little bit later on with public health They have sufficient reserves to cover their issues. However, if it goes unabated it may be a problem down the road so that's why we would talk to them separately but it's not included in the gap.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:12 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Okay but it seems like you know where it's come up is with ADMHS and some of the audit settlements or some of the delay in timing or whatever and some of these things seem like they're fixed that we have specifically set money aside for to cover as opposed What you're talking about, which is some sort of an ongoing structural issue that's going to have to be addressed because it's being used with this one time. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I think there's a difference here and so it just made me wonder why some of those things were included at all.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:31:50 · ≈ 11:31 AM

So Chair Farr, I think I may have confused the matter when I said my last comment about that if they have reserves that we would talk to the departments. It's not included in the gap because they do have reserves so when things like the mental health situation you were talking about where the reserves are set aside those are not showing as an ongoing gap going forward. So I think we'll see that as we get to the individual items and hopefully that will help clarify.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:17 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Okay, I thought that it was included so maybe I was confused. CEO Waller?

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:32:20 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Chair, I was just going to elaborate a little bit on what Mr. Alvarez said. The other reason that we brought them up even though they're not included in the gap analysis is we want to be completely transparent with your board and recognize these issues but as Mr. Alvarez said since they do have solutions at least for the next year we haven't included those in the gap but it was really to make sure that everyone was aware of upcoming issues as well

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:49 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Okay, well. All right. Well, I'll just ask my question later if it comes up. Thank you. Go ahead. Very good.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:32:58 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Chair Farren, so just one more time to clarify, if there are sufficient reserves set aside we're not including any of the gap? So with that we'll go ahead and proceed on to the next...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:33:06 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Okay actually before we leave it well I'll just wait till we get to that part of the report. It's, I think it's the ongoing versus the one-time that I questioned. I think, I think the one time I wondered why it was on the list at all if it's covered as opposed to the ongoing. So

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:33:21 · ≈ 11:33 AM

very good. So if we go on to slide number 8 then, this next slide is the detail of expenditure changes and includes the following. Pension fund stability 6.7 million, expiration of concession and salary changes 3.7 million, health insurance 2 million, workers' compensation 1.9 million, assessor's funding gap 1.6 million New northern branch jail $1.3 million and retiree health care of $700,000 for a total of $17.9 million.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:34:03 · ≈ 11:34 AM

I recall that last year we had budgeted more than we had expected and I think by maybe, was it six or seven million dollars? Maybe it was less than that. My question is how certain are you of this two million dollars and has that come from our insurance carrier because I know We've been working hard with our employees, with the clinics and so forth to get these numbers down. So I'm just curious about the $2 million amount.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:34:35 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, you are correct. Our actual we had budgeted a 15% increase. The actual increase was only about 4%. And the gross savings were about $2 million for this current year. And we're going to be talking about that a little bit as we get further down. But because of the Affordable Care Act The CSAC is recommending that we use a conservative 15% for budgeting purposes until we know more about that and how we might be impacted by that. And we will be talking about that as we get a little further in the report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:35:08 · ≈ 11:35 AM

So we're using 15%, which is what we used last time, last year? And then we found out it was supposed to be 4%. And what you're saying is CSAC is suggesting 15% because of the Affordable Care Act?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:35:22 · ≈ 11:35 AM

That is correct.

2:35 – 2:5120 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:35:26 · ≈ 11:35 AM

I guess maybe this is a question for the auditor or someone else. Have we confirmed that internally, that that's accurate?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:35:34 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, we have not done a lot of work on this. We will be doing so as we start detailing our budget at this point that we've put this is kind of a red flag warning that there will be some changes coming and we need to do some more work on it. And at this point, we've used the recommended amount from CSUN.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:51 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Alvarez. Thank you. And Mr. Alvarez while we're on this sheet in talking about the Northern Branch Jail I thought that the increase was going to be greater from year to year than what you're showing here, the 1.3 and then another 1. 3 for 14-15.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:36:13 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Chair, if I can hold off on that, I do have a slide covering that exact issue. Thank you. And so actually we'll move forward to the next slide. So as we... We're gonna jump onto this slide because we're gonna be talking about the first issue is the pension fund stability And on this slide, what you'll see is the bars are the total county contributions. And you can see that if we start out, we're looking at the first year here is 05-06 is a little less than 50 million. You can see it growing all the way up. This is next year 112 million going up to 117 million. This line that we've overlaid here is showing the rate of increase. So as we're looking at the rate of increase from 12-13 to 13-14, that is 6%.

However, we were as high as 22% in the 10-11 year. So it is coming down as we absorb some of these losses. As we look at pension costs they are actuarially computed and you can see on this graph that they have been increasing and it's primarily associated with the losses that were incurred in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009. The formula includes an assumed rate of return of 7.75% on the roughly $2 billion that are invested in these funds.

During lost years, the fund not only did not achieve the assumed rate of return, they actually went negative creating a larger amount of required funding to replace the loss of funding that was anticipated in these returns. And so as we think about $2 billion being in the fund, the amount coming out every year is about 120 million. So there's a great deal of money that's in the fund that we have earnings from and I think that Gary Emilio presented that last time to the board that shows the funding sources and the amounts coming out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:00 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Excuse me Mr. Alvarez, Supervisor Labagnino did you? Madam Chair, I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:38:04 · ≈ 11:38 AM

think I'm going to answer but so the crazy line that's gone through there is the rate of return on our investment over that Now what's the

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:38:13 · ≈ 11:38 AM

supervisor 11 you know that that is the rate of increase from year to year. So where we had traumatic spikes going from 70 million to 85 point 8 million was a 22 percent increase and so what we are seeing is that we had this significant increase in 10 11. The rate of increase each year is going down to offset rising factors. The county has controlled costs by negotiating changes to general plan members And safety plan benefit provisions are still pending collective bargaining negotiations.

The required contribution rates for 13-14 are 31.7% for general members and 56.8% for safety members, resulting in a projected increase of 6.7 million for a total contribution of $112.6 million. In fiscal year 5-6 as we mentioned these contributions were only 50 million dollars or were actually less than 50 million dollars. The large losses in 2008 and 2009 are being recovered through a five-year smoothing for funding purposes.

These should be absorbed by fiscal year 14-15, however it is anticipated that the assumed rate of return will need to be reduced from 7.75%. A lower rate of return would help stabilize ongoing contributions, however it would result in short term increases to county contributions. Other changes with pension Include PEPRA, which is the Public Employees Pension Reform Act of 2013.

And this will impact new employees hired after January 1st, 2013. Retirement provisions of PEPRA include a 2% at age 62 for non-safety members and 2.7% at age 57 for safety members. Final compensation will be the highest average annual compensation over a three year period. It requires all new members to contribute at least 50% of the annual normal cost of their pension benefit.

It also establishes a cap on compensation used to calculate a retirement benefit equal to the Social Security Wage Index limit for employees who participate in social security. That's 110,000 currently. So it would be based off that as the cap and if your plan does not participate in social security there is an adjustment that would not apply to us. PEPRA will generate future savings however the impact is currently unknown and these savings will gradually occur as new employees are hired.

An actuarial study to determine contribution rates for employees hired after, rather on or after January 1st 2013 is underway and is expected to be completed in late December 2012. So we're going to go back now to the prior slide that we just finished the pension fund stability. The next one is the concession agreements and bargaining units during 11-12 and these included both permanent and temporary So we had the concessions that had both elements. The temporary concessions are set to expire at the end of 12-13.

The impact of 13-14 is estimated to be about 3.6 million dollars and 800,000 in fiscal 14-15. And just briefly The permanent type of items included elimination of pay increases and elimination of benefit allowances. And some of the temporary ones were furloughs, deferment of scheduled pay increases and freezes on merit pay.

The next item is $2 million health insurance costs These, and this is the item we were talking about previously. These have been increasing but at a lower rate than in prior years and what we saw was that it was 4% increase in 12-13 versus a budgeted of 15%. But given the uncertainty of the impact of the Affordable Care Act, it has been recommended by the California State Association of Counties to use 15% rate. And so at this point we've identified that in our fiscal outlook report.

Efforts to contain such costs will be continuing.

The next item is 1.9 million, the workers' compensation estimated ultimate cost for the past three actuarial periods has reflected an increase for pre-July 2010 claims of about $8 million. Premiums for 13-14 are projected to rise about $3 million over the 11-12 rates. The combination of these factors is resulting in increased premiums which are continuing to be absorbed over a seven-year smoothing period. The main drivers have been identified, and the programs to stem these increases have begun.

The next item is $1.6 million and is the assessor's funding gap. Property tax administration fees and supplemental fees have gone down in recent years based on cost reductions in the department and less supplemental billings. As a result, the assessor has a funding gap. However, their workload has not diminished. This work is critical to property tax revenues being properly assessed and we will be working with the department on this issue as we get into the target setting process but we do see this as being an issue that we need to address.

Regarding the new North County Jail I have a slide on that so we'll skip over that for the moment and get to that in just a sec. Retiree health care $700,000 Other post-employment benefits or OPEB plan provides medical benefits to eligible retired county employees and their eligible dependents. The county has adopted an initial 3% employer contribution, this is of covered payroll. This contribution is intended to cover the annual cost of $8.7 million For fiscal 1314 in order to keep up with the current pay as you go funding method. The county's total unfunded liability was estimated at 172 million at the end of fiscal 1112 it is recommended and reflected in the country in the contribution rate That we increase it by .25% per year or about $700,000 annually to gradually increase funding and reduce this liability.

Future increases will most likely be recommended as well so we're saying we've been pay-as-you-go. We're trying to increase that so we can start setting aside some reserves to address the unfunded liability there. We're going to skip forward two slides, and so this is the incremental funding by year and fund balance for the new jail. So parts of this slide I believe the board has seen before we've added the line to this.

And so just by way of a little background and particularly to the public earlier in 2012 the county was awarded Conditional funding from the state of $80 million for a new jail construction, leaving a one-time unfunded capital cost to the county of approximately $9.7 million. The 9.7 million is estimated to be incurred over a three to four year period and could be financed through the issuance of debt, the use of current county cash or combination of both.

In September 2012, the Board of Supervisors conceptually accepted the $80 million state grant and directed staff to return With the appropriate documentation to move forward with this project. Once constructed, it is estimated that the annual operating costs would be $17.3 million and may be increased by debt service payments. The county developed a funding plan to set aside incrementally increasing amounts of general fund to accommodate the estimated actual...

Estimated annual operational funding of the new jail. This graph demonstrates the buildup of these funds. And so This is how it works and as I said, I think elements have been shown before. So in year one these light bars all the way across this is the incremental increase in general fund required each year to build up this fund. So the first year was $1 million that was the increment because it was new that year.

That $1 million carries forward to the dark box is the new base The increment in the second year is $1 million for a total of $2 million. That now becomes the base going forward of 2 million, and we add 1.3 million in 13-14 as our target. And so the increment ranges between one million to a high of 2.5 million is the incremental increase every year but we're building that base. So the actual contributions you can see grow larger until they get to the point where they can sustain the operations of the jail Out here you can see it's $18 million in this year that would be contributed and the incremental increase would be 2.5. So as we build these each year before we start operating the jail, those funds will accumulate in this operating fund and that's what this line is.

This shows the accumulation of those funds. In Year 1 it's one million then it grows to three which is the two million from 12-13 plus the one million we set aside in 11-12. Then it grows to 6.3, 10.9, 15.8 and then as the jail opens we'll start using and depleting that in combination with the current funds we're setting aside so you can see this is going to be depleted until we have adequate funds to operate the jail on an ongoing basis.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:47:35 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Okay, Mr. Alvarez I guess maybe my question is one more of procedure or protocol so and I might know the answer to it. I guess you know why it's listed the way it is in this fiscal outlook is the key is impact or additional impact because it seems to me just from a straightforward budgeting standpoint that we're not just looking at 1.3 we're looking at the total of each Right?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:48:04 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Chair Ford, that's not quite correct. What we do is we look at the existing baseline of how we're currently using general fund dollars. So the one million that we used last year is already in our base. When we look at this gap analysis, we're really looking at the incremental new changes. So in this case, the only incremental change is the $1.3 million.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:24 · ≈ 11:48 AM

And it's being handled that way because this was included in our budget principles, as opposed to things that the board has funded every year. That's always a new appropriation, like the million dollars for the Children's Health Initiative or the money for the Human Services Commission which has come back to the board every year as a whole new appropriation that the board has to talk about. As opposed to saying well it was in the budget last year so it's already there so it's only if you want to add to that that you have an incremental impact.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:49:00 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Let me see if I can answer your question. That is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:04 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Okay, so in order for those items to have the same status as this they would have to become a part of our budget principles. And so they get built into the baseline?

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:49:13 · ≈ 11:49 AM

That is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:13 · ≈ 11:49 AM

correct.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:49:15 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Chair just a little bit of clarity on that. As you may recall during your budget discussions last year there were a couple of items that you directed would be eligible for ongoing funding and those have been built into the baseline. You also had some things that you added that you said were one time only and those aren't in the baseline.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:34 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Okay, well I think it would be certainly helpful for me if you know first part of next year when we start to talk about budgets more that That came back to us again in the form of a memo because I do remember that We gave that kind of direction But it would be good to know what is now built into the baseline for the budget and and what is new Because some of these things we've talked about before supervisor wolf and then supervisor Carbajal Thank You Madam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:50:02 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Chair I continue to be extremely concerned about the funding of the jail. And I know that you folks have explained this over and over again, but I'm going to just try and ask the question so I can try and just get a clear answer. Not that you're not being clear, just so that I fully understand it. We're putting in money incrementally over the years to get us to $17 million, and it looks like that happens around 2017-2018.

So the next year the jail opens we spend that money. It appears then that we would be back at zero, that we have to start building up again or is it for instance if you look on the chart in 2021-2022 That little line comes down to .1, but then there's that big bar that's $15.5 million. Are we anticipating that that's coming from the general fund? How are we building this back up again for the second year of operation?

2:51 – 3:0033 turns

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:51:25 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. You are correct. In the 11-12 year, it's the 15.5 plus the increase of 2.5 million so a total of 18 million would be part of the Sheriff's General Fund contribution. So all of this is an ongoing increase to the Sheriff Department General fund contribution budget. And it is very, you know, it's dependent on future growth because we'll need the growth to be able to fund these on an ongoing basis. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:51:54 · ≈ 11:51 AM

I guess I just can't stress enough that this, to me, is one of our biggest challenges. It is how in the... You know, we've been putting in the $1 million 1.3 now. We did take it out for... To backfill that 9.7. So I can see us making these incremental changes up to getting enough for that first year of operations. After that, I have no idea how this county expects to fund that jail every year.

And what I'm hearing you say is that it's going to come from the sheriff's general fund. It's the money that we give to the sheriff through the general fund.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:52:43 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, that is correct. This would be an increase to their general fund contribution. Madam Chair?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52:49 · ≈ 11:52 AM

And actually just a moment Supervisor Levin you know again I think in looking at this chart it's unclear to me if the jail opens in 17-18 and we have that one year's operating money that 17.9 that's there ready why after that point in time since we're going to need 17.9 every year, that all those bars aren't all the way up to that amount because we're going to have to find that money. We can't just find $11 million, we've got to find $17 million in 18-19 right? Chair Farr, so in 18- 19 we will have 11.2 million dollars here

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:53:34 · ≈ 11:53 AM

So we have 11.2 and we'll have to backfill using 6 million of the reserve funds. Well,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:53:37 · ≈ 11:53 AM

that's what I'm saying so really that little bar that you have on the top is not accurate it needs to go all the way up because we're going to have to add that much more. So Supervisor Carbaugh then Supervisor Levin you know?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction2:53:51 · ≈ 11:53 AM

I was just gonna say in addition to our pension costs this is as Supervisor Wolf said the most significant other looming challenge and I think this is what we've all been fearing. In order for us to move forward, it's going to dampen our ability to continue funding things as we know it today, all other services. The growth of the general fund will be the most important factor as to how badly we are impacted.

No doubt it's gonna be painful. It's gonna be painful and I mean we're between a rock and a hard place because the state has dangled this money in front of us that to address a very important need that we have, and yet it's almost like you can't kick a gift horse in the mouth because we're between a rock and a hard place. It is just...I must say as Supervisor Wolf is I think expressing, it is just such of A frustrating predicament to be in because we almost have no choice. I mean, we have no choice it seems. We could definitely not do it but we don't solve that issue that we're trying to solve with the jail expansion but it's just a terrible predicament to be in.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:15 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Carball. Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:55:18 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Thank you Madam Chair and I'm...I don't mean at all to say that this isn't, you know, I mean this is obviously the water in the face I don't think it's being explained quite clearly enough because in 2020-21, it's not like we're going to be coming up with a new $18 million out of the general fund. Am I correct Mr. Alvarez? It's 15 million that we've already carved out.

That increment across the top is the only part of the new part of the general fund that we will ever see so Twenty nineteen twenty twenty it'll be another commitment of another two million dollars because we will already have that carved out of our general fund. Not to say that we're not taking away from programs that already exist but it's going to be built in as we move through this process. Am I correct.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:56:10 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Supervisor Levin you know these will be ongoing amounts that need to be carved out of the general fund

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:56:15 · ≈ 11:56 AM

right. But what I'm saying is we're building up to that point.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:56:18 · ≈ 11:56 AM

That is correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:56:18 · ≈ 11:56 AM

OK so For example, let's go back to 16-17. We had 6 million then we're going to carve out I mean we're only carving out another 1.7 to get to 7.6. We're only carving out another 1.9. Am I correct?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:56:33 · ≈ 11:56 AM

You are correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:56:33 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Right so there's no point where we're carving out 1. 9 and then we've got a carve out 18 the next month the next year well that's what I think that the misconception is.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction2:56:40 · ≈ 11:56 AM

So if you and I don't have the number in front of me but the sheriff's total budget right now is something like 120 million dollars and I believe their general fund allocation might be 50 60 million and I apologize for not having that number off the top of my head What's going to happen is that 60 million or so? That is currently identified to the sheriff will soon become 70 75 and it'll be increasing So we'll have to come up with that each and every year

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction2:57:08 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Madam chair, I think it's important to clarify. This is the most important point here because I As I understand it We're building up to create a soft landing in But it doesn't take away from the fact that Supervisor Wolf is pointing out. That soft landing with the phased in, it'll help us with the phase-in of the jail if we did it in phases but at the end of the day...

The rubber's going to hit the road and we still have to come out of the general fund, the 17 million to continue ongoing operations. Because at some point this saving reserve escrow account that we're creating is gonna be used and we still have to come out not with 1.7, 2.0 We've got to do the entire 17 million. Am I correct or wrong?

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:57:59 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Supervisor, you're absolutely correct. You have a complete understanding of it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:58:03 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Well then okay then I've got a serious question because so you're saying at one point we're going to zero it out and we will have to start over that whole process again. That's not what I heard for the last two years.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:58:17 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Perhaps I can help a little bit.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.752:58:18 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Let's

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:58:19 · ≈ 11:58 AM

hope so. What we're going to be doing is each of those bars shows ongoing funding, the light part of the bar is how much you have to add every year of ongoing funding. The line is how much you have in your savings account that you will be able to draw against and actually bring down until such time as you have adequate ongoing funding.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:58:44 · ≈ 11:58 AM

OK, but so again I'm trying. I mean, I don't think that we have a soft landing here because if the jail opens in 17-18 and we need that approximately $18 million which we would have the next year, we still have to come up with $18 million. And so according to this plan, we're not going to get to that point for another five years.

CommentCEO WallerProposed2:59:11 · ≈ 11:59 AM

So Chairwoman, in 19-20 you will have 16 point or 15.6 million and to make up the deficit between that in 17 million You'll have to draw down from your savings account, which is why you see the line Drawing down each year until such time as the ongoing bar equals the ongoing need

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction2:59:34 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Madam chair but not so much Certainly we could use the reserve But what you're saying is No matter how you do it, reserve or general fund that you've got to squeeze and decrease services. You've got to come up with that amount. I mean if we do it from the $30 million reserve great but we've got to do it from an ongoing source so it wouldn't be the reserve. In an ongoing fashion.

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:00:01 · ≈ 12:00 PM

So Chairwoman, Supervisor each year will be a combination of the ongoing and a drawdown of the reserve until the bar ongoing equals the ongoing costs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:00:15 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Supervisor Levin, you know?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:00:17 · ≈ 12:00 PM

And then

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:00:17 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Supervisor Wolff.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:00:18 · ≈ 12:00 PM

OK so I think we need to clarify too when we say reserve we're not talking about the strategic reserve we are talking about our because I think that got a little bit confused here okay

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:00:29 · ≈ 12:00 PM

That is correct, we are talking about the jail operating fund reserve. And I did get the figure of the current allocation for the sheriff in general fund dollars is about $69 million currently. Okay so if

we'll move on to the next item and I kind of lost where I was at here so let's

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated3:00:52 · ≈ 12:00 PM

see

3:00 – 3:1023 turns

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:00:55 · ≈ 12:00 PM

that we held for last right? So we'll go on to the next next slide. Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:01:02 · ≈ 12:01 PM

you know what? We need to talk about this some more. I think hold on. I think I mean, I'm looking across and I see four people kind of dazed personally. I mean, I think we need to We need some buy-in on this plan because I think some of us up here don't think there is a plan that works and maybe some of us think there is a plan that does work. And maybe this is the jail presentation that the sheriff was going to bring us today, but I mean, I understand this plan at least the way I think I understand it. I'm sold on it, but I don't want to get us all the way down the road where we're just about ready to take the $800 million and we get some backup.

I think if it takes us another 5-10 minutes to figure out this slide, I think we've got to work on this thing.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:01:49 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Supervisor Lavinia, this is very large amount of money. The $9.7 million that we need to come up with for the construction is nothing compared to the annual ongoing operating costs. They are very significant. It is going to require to set aside funds and I think the concept here was similar to what we're doing with the fire district. We're incrementally increasing every year to build up their base And that's the same approach we're taking for the sheriff. And so when you think about our long-term plan, whether we're talking strategic plan or just ongoing budgeting, we're now starting to carve out pieces of our future growth for the fire district and for the Sheriff's North County Jail.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:02:28 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Okay, so maybe let me ask this question so you can clarify this a little bit better for me. When that line stops drawing down, that's the money we're taking out of the reserve. Not strategic reserve. Taking

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:02:40 · ≈ 12:02 PM

it out of the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:02:41 · ≈ 12:02 PM

jail operations fund. Let's call it something else. The jail operating fund not the reserve.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:02:46 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Yeah

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:02:46 · ≈ 12:02 PM

this is

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:02:47 · ≈ 12:02 PM

a jail operating fund and it would have actually been a higher point up here but this is the first year we started drawing down funds.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:02:52 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Okay correct.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:02:53 · ≈ 12:02 PM

It looks like my pointer is starting

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:02:54 · ≈ 12:02 PM

to... So let's get to 2020-2021 for an example. It's not that we're going to take 1.9 out of the jail operating fund, we will have already carved out by this point 13.2 million out of the general fund and we will be asking for an additional 2.3 out of the general fund from the year before is that correct?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:03:18 · ≈ 12:03 PM

We will be asking for an additional 2. 3 increase to the general fund allocation for the sheriff and we will reduce our reserve balance from 5.6 million to 1.9 million.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:03:28 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Okay so then when we zero out that jail operating fund At that point, we will be taking the entire amount. But at that point there'll be no more jail operating fund. At that point, we will have built up to the point where we have carved out a big enough portion of the general fund as we incrementally did to get us there, but at that point we will be able to manage the jail. That is correct. That's the way I always understood

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:03:51 · ≈ 12:03 PM

it. And well, and I understand it that way, but I'm concerned because what this is assuming Is that we are either going to see an increase in revenue or we're going to see significant cuts in the county. So what I, because those are so significant it just seems like we should be working on a plan whatever that fiscal plan is to help us get to this, if we want to move forward with this jail we need to be able to fund And I think the issue of taking away other county services is really concerning to me. So, I would like us to come up with another funding mechanism and I'm sure the sheriff knows that.

I think one of the other issues is that the sheriff has tried to keep the operating costs down by eliminating some of the space at the South County Jail So that we're actually, and I think this is another thing that we have to realize too. Is that we're only seeing a net gain of about 175 new beds. So while we're building the 370 bed jail, the net increase is not that much. 175 new beds so we're closing down a part of the South County Jail.

I just think we need to come to terms with this. And as Supervisor Carball said, it's really difficult to not think that we're going to accept the $80 million. I mean, I was with the sheriff asking for that money. We've got it. He's done a terrific job. All I'm saying is let's go into this as we move forward with our eyes wide open. What is our plan to pay for this? You know, I know that there was a TOT thing. There's been things that have been thrown, not thrown around, have been brought up and you know, it think it's time we revisit that. We need to have a strategy in place so if we're going to move forward with this which sounds like that's what the board is going to do. We need to figure out how we're going to pay for it because it's such a significant hit.

All of these little millions of dollars, $17 million in 2020 is gonna be significant and that's not that far away.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:06:31 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. I think that you raised a good point that I remember that I had also questioned is that the assumptions for the annual operating costs of the jail are based on a number of things happening including the cost savings from part of the South County Jail but I think when this comes back, one of my questions to the Sheriff is could we possibly get into a situation where they're still going to need that space In addition to which is then going to bump the annual operating costs up that much higher You know past the 20 million dollar mark and so then this chart gonna have to be revised This is also of course totally dependent that That the board now and in the future stays committed to keeping this as a budget principle.

So that that is built into the budget every year because if that changes Then this whole chart falls apart because the amounts are not there. Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:07:35 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Correct me if I'm wrong but I guess the only thing that will ease our pain a little bit is the fact that I think we're gradually going to take this money from increased general fund Increase in the general fund, correct? To build that reserve.

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:08:02 · ≈ 12:08 PM

That's correct Supervisor.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:08:04 · ≈ 12:08 PM

But at some point we will have to fund the entire amount. Is that correct? I just want to make sure I'm understanding it. No no but we're building for this jail reserve now.

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:08:17 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Supervisor Chair yes that's correct.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:08:20 · ≈ 12:08 PM

So right now we're taking advantage of new growth in the general fund to build that reserve but at some point We're just going to have to buckle up and fund the entire amount. And I guess the only thing that will, does this lend itself to a gradual reduction in service as well if we have to? This scenario?

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:08:41 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Supervisor Chair. Our hope would be that you will have ongoing increases in revenue that will enable us to meet the ongoing little light colored box. If we don't have growth at least equal to what those little boxes are, we will certainly have to reduce our costs and our service levels than other departments but it was based upon the projection that there will be future growth in general fund revenues

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:09:10 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Because I see that the biggest factor that we're going to have, and as Supervisor Wolf said, we're going to have to revisit is really...I know we've had conversations and I know we've differed on different revenue generation strategies. But that's definitely gonna be something that's gonna have to come back. And you know, maybe we'll all coalesce and agree to a number of those. But I don't need to enumerate all those different items that have come before us but we're definitely going to have to revisit those because it kind of...

The urgency is there when we have this situation before us in terms of the alternative options of revenue generation The TLT, the oil tax and all these different options. So I think as Supervisor Wolf said the sooner we get that back the better so at least we could time out if we were to have the right amount of votes what would be the timelines for those because there's also legal constraints on you have to have a supervisor on the ballot and some of these measures So it would just be good to have that as a cheat sheet, fact sheet in front of us so we could just clearly understand when the discussions can and should occur and when we could actually reconsider these items.

3:10 – 3:1710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:10:40 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Okay Mr. Alvarez I guess we'll go back to you now again thank you.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:10:44 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Thank You Chair Farmer. So we're going to

move on to the next slide which is use of one-time funds Okay, so we had talked about that in some departments they are using one-time funds for ongoing operations and we've been trying to reduce these over the years. And as you can see this table identifies those departments that have anticipated costs in excess of ongoing revenues. These departments are not projected to have available departmental reserves to address their anticipated excess cost in fiscal year 13-14.

All of the above departments have significantly reduced staffing levels in recent years to balance their budgets and have been controlling costs to generate additional savings, which may help to offset some of these anticipated needs in fiscal year 12-13 and 13-14. And you'll see some examples of this as we look at the first quarter report. This table shows the tier two items. So again, these are not included in the gap calculation and as the amount timing and or certainty of these issues are not yet known or perhaps they have existing reserves that can address these. These include Social services of 4.2 million and social services has anticipated for several years now that this condition exists but they have not required the funding and funding sources have been adequate to take care of their needs so due to this difficulty in predicting these reimbursements we're not showing it as a tier one item, we're showing it as a tier two item in the gap calculation.

The property tax administration fees, this is $4.1 million. The legal issue in dispute is in the calculation of administration costs that counties recover from cities. The Court of Appeal of the State of California issued a decision in favor of the cities however Los Angeles County has appealed and was granted a review by the California State Supreme Court.

The next item is mental health and partner agencies. This is 2.8 million. This matter relates to cost reimbursements of a discontinued program, it was discontinued in 2008 which is under appeal. Reserves exist for this fiscal issue and therefore it's not being included in the gap. Mental Health Services Act is 2.5 million. Current programs, if unchanged may result in exceeding available funding.

Funding for this program comes from state income taxes and the exact amount of the revenue is not known at this time. Further, programs may be adjusted to operate within anticipated funding so for these reasons we're not including it in the gap calculation. Deferred maintenance we've included as $2 million. The current unfunded backlog is estimated at $291 million.

The unfunded backlog is projected to continue to grow. The CEO's office will be working with the impacted departments to develop a long-term plan. Two million was added to highlight the need, but the analysis is needed before a specific funding plan has been proposed and we will be coming back to the board in the spring with that specific plan and the recommended funding for that.

Public Health Department, $2 million. Declining revenue for indigent patients, patient visits and an increasing unfavorable payer mix could result in a reduction of Medi-Cal clinic revenue of approximately $2 million in fiscal year 13-14 and 1.5 million incrementally in 14-15. Next item is 1.1 million related to a FEMA audit. The amount in dispute is $1.7 million. The majority of the findings, 1.2 million related to purchasing procedures by Roads Division used during a storm.

An additional finding of 500,000 is not being appealed. Public Works has requested re-obligation of 1.1 million in road repairs supported by additional documentation that has been provided.

The next item is the fire department, and this is unknown at this point. Increasing salary and benefit costs of about 6.9% in 13-14 from previously negotiated wage increases and rising retirement costs are driving the gap. Increasing property tax transfers of about $750,000 in unbudgeted RDA tax increment revenue for FY13-14 will help reduce this but is not projected to close their gap until FY16-17.

The Fire District's fund balance will offset the projected 13-14 operating deficit of $1.6 million and therefore it is not included in the gap. The anticipated operating deficit of 1.8 million in 14-15 would deplete the existing fund balance so there would be a problem in 14-15, so we'll be keeping an eye on this but again we are seeing some additional revenues that weren't budgeted from the RDA dissolution.

So to summarize the projected 13

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:15:38 · ≈ 12:15 PM

excuse me Mr. Alvarez, I just want to go back because this is the question that I raised earlier and on this chart you don't have all the information that you do on page 13 of the report because all of these are shown as ongoing except for number 10 mental health at 2.8 is a one time And then the 2005 emergency storm damage repair 1.1 as one time, as well as the number 16 ADMHS cost report settlement.

In all of those cases, the narrative says that the money is there and has been set aside or in the case of public works that if they have to, their appeal isn't approved, that they have money that they can cover it. So I guess I'm just wondering why those are included in this impact total when the money, we already have the monies just sitting in an account.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:16:36 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Chair Farber these figures are not going forward into the gap calculation it's more informational so this is not included in the gap these are just informational saying these moneys have been set aside these conditions exist Some are one time, some are not included in the gap because they can't be precisely estimated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:16:55 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Okay well I guess to me if we have the money set aside already from previous budget years, I guess I just don't see it as an impact that needs to be listed.

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:17:09 · ≈ 12:17 PM

So Chairwoman what we will do is take the total off here Because all we really are trying to do is give you information on the particular issue and the amount of funding. So I can certainly see how it would be confusing to have a total there, and we'll remove the total.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:17:28 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Thank you.

3:17 – 3:2418 turns

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:17:34 · ≈ 12:17 PM

So this is the summary slide, then. And the projected 13-14 gap is a negative $12.4 million, comprised of 8.1 million in projected revenue increases offset by increasing expenditures of 17.9 million and anticipated structural departmental imbalances of 2.6 million dollars. As in prior years, departments continue to control costs in an effort to retain funding to avoid further reductions in services. These efforts are currently projected to generate general fund savings of $4.6 million in FY 12-13 and will be demonstrated in the Q1 budget and financial status update that will be presented immediately following this presentation.

Additionally, the county has been preparing for difficult fiscal year 13-14 and 14-15 and has set aside funds in prior years to help counter the rising benefit related costs. Some of these funds and savings are shown on the next slide. So our funds available to help balance the 13-14 gap are 7.5 million that was set aside from 11-12 and added to the strategic reserve that is now at 29.2 million dollars, 5.6 million of the Prop 172 and public safety realignment funds remain unspent at the end of 11-12, and are rolled forward for use within the departments.

$5.1 million in 11-12 concession savings was set aside and is available for use as necessary. 4 million of 11-12 concession savings for Sheriff and Fire were left in these departments to help them balance 12-13 and 13-14. 2.1 million is earmarked for facilities maintenance, and is available for deferred maintenance backlog once the prioritization is established.

The total of the above.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:19:26 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Excuse me Mr. Alvarez, Supervisor Lavinino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:19:28 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Quick question thank you Madam Chair. So Mr. Alvarez those other ones I know the seven and a half says it's added to the strategic reserve and you mentioned the strategic reserve is a little over 29 million are the rest of those balances in the strategic reserve or are these in addition too?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:19:41 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Supervisor Lavinino these are separate funds outside of the strategic reserves.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.753:19:44 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Okay thank you very much

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:19:48 · ≈ 12:19 PM

The total of all these items that we just discussed are $24.3 million. In addition, we currently project general fund savings in 12-13 of about $4.6 million and most departments are performing very well against their budgets. While we are well prepared to deal with 13-14, the top four expenditure increases in the gap are in employee benefit costs including pension, concession expiration, health care costs and workers' compensation.

This rate of increase in benefits is not sustainable over a long period of time and we need to continue our efforts to control such costs. This concludes my presentation or our presentation and we can address any questions at this time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:20:28 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. CEO Waller?

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:20:29 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Thank you Chairwoman. So what I am hoping big picture that we have been able to share with the board is that for the future year 13-14, I believe that we are in fiscally fairly good standing and will be able to meet our shortfall with reserves that we have The big concern will be 14, 15 and beyond. And so those are the years that we're trying to project for your board. And as we move further this year into our budget, we are going to attempt to give you a five-year glimpse so that we can actually show you how you're going to need those particular reserve accounts for future and how they could be addressed in that manner. So bottom line I'm hoping that we've been able to give you information We're hoping for a year of somewhat stability and then 14, 15 and beyond we have concerns whether the increase in revenues will meet the increased needs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:21:31 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Thank you. Mr Alvarez, if you can put that last slide back up again the one that talked about funds available to help the balance kind of hard to get away from the North County Jail but I know that in that discussion we talked about the fact that we would probably be needing to use Both strategic reserve as well as I think prop 172 money has cash up front for some of the beginning costs.

Weren't they like nine or ten million dollars with the idea that if the board wanted to then later to go ahead and replace that money if we did, you know, did COPs or bonds or something? Isn't that correct? So is that impact all going I mean, I know we have more money than that in the strategic reserve. So we're probably still OK. But it's a bit of double whammy.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:22:31 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Chair Farr, you are correct. The $9.7 million that we were discussing using was the necessary construction money that we would need to come up with to match the $80 million. And we've got options there. We can borrow those funds or if we want to use our portion of the reserve dollars then that prior graph that we were looking at with the sheriff costs would come down, we included $840,000 a year in debt service payments in those. So those could be used to repay the general fund or strategic fund whichever was used to front that money.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:23:03 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Okay but I thought that even if we decided that we wanted to borrow that money that we still needed to use this cash that we had in the short term before the bond process could happen and could be repaid that might be a couple of years there is that correct?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:23:18 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Chair, that is correct and it's my understanding that the reason for that is if you use COPs for instance there's only a three year period when you can incur these costs and the construction might be a little over four years. And so that was the reason why we would need to use some of our own funds initially and then if we chose to do a COP then take out the COP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:23:37 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Okay so if we look at 9.7 million coming out of those two, that's about 13 million if you add those first two numbers together in the short term we don't have as much money there as it appears to help with the 13-14 year.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:23:53 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Chair Farr I would say that I would look at that first line as being the total balance and the strategic reserve is about 29.2 million dollars as we speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:24:02 · ≈ 12:24 PM

Okay, that's what I said. I know that even if we can't count on all that money, we still have other strategic reserve money to help with the 13-14. That

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:24:10 · ≈ 12:24 PM

is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:24:10 · ≈ 12:24 PM

Okay. I just wanted to point out that that money is already kind of designated for the jail in the short term. All right. Other comments? Questions? Anybody? Members of the public want to speak? All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:24:24 · ≈ 12:24 PM

We have one request to speak from Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.

3:24 – 3:3512 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:24:33 · ≈ 12:24 PM

Becky, Mr. Caldwell not there? He's already left. Okay thank you. You're welcome. All right I think then that we bring this back to the board today it's a receiving file All right, motion to approve. I have a second, Supervisor Lavinino. Thank you very much CEO Waller, Mr. Alvarez your team for putting this together and all of the county staff and departments that contributed to it we really appreciate it. Alright all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries thank you very much.

All right we'll go ahead and go to item number seven

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:25:19 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Item seven is from the county executive office and the auditor controller. It's a hearing to receive and file per the provisions of government code section 29126.2, fiscal year 2012-13 financial status report as of September 30th, 2012 showing the status of appropriations in financing for all departmental budgets adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:25:46 · ≈ 12:25 PM

All right Mr. Alvarez you get to start us off again.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:25:49 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Okay. Chair for our members of the board, having concluded our first the fiscal outlook report will now review the first quarter budget and financial update report. This presentation is again a combined effort of the CEO's office and the auditor controller's office. The purpose The purpose of this meeting is to communicate significant financial variances, identifying timing versus non-timing differences with a materiality level of $300,000 for general fund departments and $500,000 variances for special revenue funds.

When non-timing variances are identified in this presentation we will address potential impacts on fund balances. The first quarter financial status reports, so just as a reminder the financial summaries are attachment A for the general fund and attachment B for the special revenue funds. And these show sources and uses against the budgeted versus the projected at this point in time.

The presentation will review both general funds and special revenue funds. The general fund departments performed well against the budget. However, these results were offset by $1.3 million in negative 1.3 million in general revenues resulting in a net positive of 114,000 so pretty much tracking onto target for the first quarter and again what we do is we project out for the full year. So the department's performed well but it was partially offset by this 1. 3 million negative in general revenues.

And the negative in the general revenues was due to a lower than forecasted fiscal year 11-12 tax role and will be discussed a little bit later in the presentation. No general fund departments except for the General Revenue Department had reportable negative variances. On the special revenue funds excluding timing differences, all major special revenue funds are on target with the exception of the Public Health Department.

With public health as we discussed on the prior presentation, they've been impacted by reduced clients with Medi-Cal and increasing mix of clients without insurance. As we look at this slide, this is the signal chart that we've used in prior presentations and what we do here is give a visual. The green first of all these are the various funds within the county and the top left section there Over here, these are all the general fund units. And then there's a variety of other funds below fire sheriff parks and so forth.

And so what the signal chart shows is if it's green, it's tracking to budget. If it's yellow, it has a significant variance either positive or negative. And if it red that indicates that the fund is expected to end the year in a deficit. There are a total of 69 funds that we're following on this schedule. 62 are green, 2 are yellow in a positive fashion, 5 are yellow in a negative fashion and there are none that are tracking for a deficit at the year end. So the positives on this are 64 of the 69 or 93%. So we're tracking very well with all the different funds.

Next we're going to talk about variances and the general fund by category. So as we mentioned, the general fund is positive by $114,000 but includes negative general revenues of 1.3 million dollars and the major elements of these are that secured property tax is tracking $700,000 below the adopted budget The property tax in lieu of VLF is 400,000. TOT is negative 480,000, property tax transfers are positive 400,000 and all others 120,000 for a total of a negative 1.3 million dollars. So the general revenue variance Is primarily due to the 1112 tax roll at the very end coming in lower than we had anticipated. And when that happens, that's really the baseline for our ongoing projections. So it really threw off... That final year-end adjustment threw off our 1213 budgeted figures.

And so this was really impacted by an unexpectedly high number of Section 51 which are temporary declines in property value assessments. And this was communicated to your board on 6-1-12. And at that point, the projected impact of this was $1.5 million. And it's now looking like between the secured property tax of 700,000 and the property tax in lieu of 400,000, it's tracking about 1.1 million. So a little bit better than we thought in the June time frame.

TOT is 480,000 behind target and 250,000 of this is based on actual receipts being lower than they were in the prior year And then also the fact that we're not projecting growth going forward. So property transfer taxes, as we mentioned was positive $400,000 and this is a leading indicator and this indicates improvement to the housing market and points to increased activity.

On this next slide I'm sorry, on the prior slide we looked at revenues and expenditures by category. In this slide we're going to look at it by department. So by department we said the General Revenue Department was the only one and we keep that in a separate department is the only one that was really negative. All the other ones are positive. And here we've shown the Ag Commissioner at $353,000 favorable, Auditor-Controller at $273,00, General Services at $206,000 and all other at $593, 000 bringing the total to $114, 000 positive.

So if you'll note that all three of the operating departments shown above were identified in the fiscal outlook report as those with potential use of one time funds for ongoing operations. So to the extent that they do have savings These can be used for fiscal 13-14 to reduce such structural imbalances and will extend any unused departmental reserves that they may have.

With the Ag Commissioner, the favorable variance is largely due to a new device scanner monitoring program. The fees have been assessed and will provide funding for staff to perform the monitoring function. The staff are now being hired so that most of the favorable variance is really one time Okay. This slide shows elements of attachment B and attachment B was the special revenue funds, and those in total are showing a negative $13.7 million variance.

So the healthcare as we discussed before is negative 1.3 million and this variance is due to 865,000 from a decline in Medi-Cal patient visits and 319,000 from a delay in receipt of Medi-Cal EMR incentive revenues which is a timing variance. So the variance there is expected to be 865,000. Mental health, the combined components there are 5.3 million negative and the majority of this variance is both in mental health fund 44 and mental health services act fund 48 are due to large year-end accruals based on the state's delay of up to six months in reimbursing for mental health services These result in revenue timing variances that are expected to be eliminated as the 11-12 revenues are received, excluding the timing differences both funds are projecting positive year end results for fiscal 12-13.

So continuing on with the attachment B variances, we'll move on to social services which is currently showing a 500,000 favorable variance due to cash assistance and CalWORKs programs being reduced thereby reducing certain costs and creating cost savings. With the risk funds, this was the largest contributor. The variances shown in both workers' comp was 8.2 million negative and general liability was shown as 900,000 negative are the result of moving the funds from general services to the CEO's department. This is not a real variance and these have been adjusted in October so these will not show us variances as we go forward.

As mentioned in the fiscal outlook report, workers' compensation Workers' Compensation Fund is significantly underfunded by $7.8 million as of June 30, 2012 per the actuarial report. Thus this fund is underfunded at the beginning of the year but for this fiscal year so far they're on target. So to provide a summary of anticipated

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:34:46 · ≈ 12:34 PM

results...

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:34:46 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Madam Chair?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:34:47 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Excuse me Mr. Alvarez, Supervisor Carball.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:34:49 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Tom if I remember correctly at some point we were going to get an update On the workers' compensation balloon that, the unanticipated balloon that we are experiencing now. Was I accurate in my recollection of that?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:35:05 · ≈ 12:35 PM

Supervisor Carbajal you are correct. We're coming back in December with that report. I think we're just moving

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:35:10 · ≈ 12:35 PM

it to December

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:35:10 · ≈ 12:35 PM

11th.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:35:11 · ≈ 12:35 PM

Okay great thank you.

3:35 – 3:4223 turns

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:35:15 · ≈ 12:35 PM

Okay. So on this slide to provide a summary of anticipated results to the board and to the public, this schedule eliminates those timing differences to give us a true picture of what we're looking at. So we're going to start with the financial summary which was an attachment B of a negative $13.7 million. Then we're going to add in some unbudgeted revenues. We have 2.5 million from the former RDA dissolution.

These are ongoing revenues so that's adding $2.5 million. Next we're adding One-time RDA asset dissolution proceeds of $2 million. Then we're eliminating the timing differences from mental health of 4.8 and $1 million. And finally, we're going to add back the adjustments to properly reflect the actual budgets for the risk funds that was the 8.7 million and 900,000 that we described to arrive at a current projection of 6.2 million favorable for our year end. This is our current projection at this point in time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:36:11 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Excuse me, Mr. Alvarez, I want to go back to the one-time RDA asset dissolution proceeds. So is that estimate coming from the activity of all of the various RDA oversight boards and decisions that they have already made or anticipated to make? And what our share then would be?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:36:34 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Chair Farr, the majority of these monies are coming I believe from the housing element and that these funds have already been identified and the distribution will be forthcoming shortly. I believe there's going to be a secondary distribution but we don't know those amounts yet so nothing has been included for those.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:36:50 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Okay, so actually CEO Waller since you are sitting on these. I'll ask... Sitting on the oversight boards. So that the housing trust funds, the $2 million that's coming from the housing trust fund is that just coming from the Isla Vista Housing Trust Fund or a conglomeration of all of the housing trust funds?

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:37:11 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Chair, I'm gonna defer to our auditor controller as he's been involved in putting together these estimates.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:37:18 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Thank Good afternoon, Mr guys.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:37:24 · ≈ 12:37 PM

So this is always interesting so that distribution that we've calculated for the county general fund is coming from the seven RDA dissolutions and so of those seven Six of the seven are returning housing cash balances that they had as of February 1st to the taxing agencies. And that process is right in the middle of the State Department of Finance reviewing those, they were supposed to have the review done on November 9th which was Friday. We've received letters on four of the six agencies and we're waiting letters on Guadalupe and the city of Goleta.

That revenue is still fairly accurate for The general fund of the county, but it's still an estimate that process that the State Department of Finance uses. If they send you back a letter and say we don't agree with your distribution there is a 30 day appeal process. But we are beginning the distributions once the state gives us our letter or gives the agency their letter. The agency has five days to pay. Once we receive the money in our office, we have five days to send it out to the taxing agency. So we're gonna be doing six different distributions and the city of Santa Maria does not have a distribution. Just to put it in perspective, I think this city is Santa Barbara returned 2.9 million in cash. The Isla Vista Redevelopment Agency, 2.4 million.

Buellton about 1.7 million. The city of Goleta about $192,000. Guadalupe just over a million dollars and so there was a significant return of assets and as Tom said the next step is then the regular successor agency cash balances are all going to be sent back to the county and that distribution happens next April But that's a little bit, I'd say a little bit and a lot more complicated.

And so we're not ready to make an estimate or really haven't put that together at this point but there should be another fairly significant one time distribution of assets then following that will be the distribution of any property assets they have or the dissolution of those which would take a lot longer than These two distributions are going to happen this year. So does that help?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:39:53 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Yes and no. So for this one time, 2 point million that's up here, that's in effect the county share of what was in all of these different RDA accounts including ours for Isla Vista for housing only. That was the RDA housing pot of money.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated3:40:11 · ≈ 12:40 PM

And then to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:40:12 · ≈ 12:40 PM

make it complicated... Then in the spring we're gonna get which we don't know what it is yet, it's going to be for Other the other pot of money that was not spent. The

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:40:23 · ≈ 12:40 PM

successor agency cash balances?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:40:25 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Correct, and then at some point in time as decisions are made about property that's held by each of them and whether that is a yay or nay with the oversight board and then with the DOF if that's a no then that goes into another pot and then that's going to get distributed over time so there's actually gonna be three One time. Distributions of cash separate from whatever ends up being an ongoing from the property right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:40:56 · ≈ 12:40 PM

if you're looking at the housing one time. The successor agency cash balance one time and then the distribution of assets one time which could happen a lot more than one time it would be over a period of time. And then Supervisor Farr, I saw you writing down those numbers I gave you. But to complicate those numbers are each individual agency for the general fund gets a different proportionate share back from those agencies. When we get our six letters all done and we can wrap that package up, we'll give you a distribution spreadsheet so that you can see how that distribution works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:41:29 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Okay, well I'm particularly keeping an eye on Isla Vista so that's why I'm writing it down. You're in my favorite place. Thank

CommentCEO WallerProposed3:41:35 · ≈ 12:41 PM

you Mr. Geis. Chairwoman, I was just going to add in addition to what auditor controllers said, you'll recall that not only the county but also several of our dependent special districts will receive those same type of distributions. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:41:52 · ≈ 12:41 PM

thank you. Thank you Mr. Alvarez.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:41:55 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Supervisor Farr, if I could just one final point then so of this 6.2 million 4.6 would relate to the general fund and the balance of 1.6 would relate to these special revenue funds. So when I had said previously that we're anticipating at this point four point six million favorable results for the general fund that's what I was referring to.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:42:13 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Carbonell?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:42:16 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Mr. Alvarez in this number wasn't because we want to make sure we're clear on what this number is at the end of the year This wasn't projected and included in the other financials you gave us earlier, correct?

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:42:31 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Supervisor Carbajal this was not included. I think I referenced it at the very

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:42:35 · ≈ 12:42 PM

end but it wasn't included. So whatever that number was if we end up having a 6.2 million surplus that gets to be applied towards potentially that gap that we saw for this coming year.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:42:49 · ≈ 12:42 PM

That's correct, Supervisor Carbajal. Great. That would be added to the $24 million I think that we looked at.

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:42:53 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Great, thank you.

3:43 – 4:0813 turns

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:43:01 · ≈ 12:43 PM

All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:07 · ≈ 12:43 PM

right. Mr. Alvarez? Go ahead.

GuestDoreen FarrProposed · by introduction3:43:11 · ≈ 12:43 PM

Any further questions? Is that it? I'm sorry. That concludes my presentation. Is that it? OK. Oh, nope. I forgot the summary. Sorry. In summary, actual activity is tracking ahead of budget. General fund should end positive 4.6 million. The signal chart showed that most departments are performing very well so 93% are favorable. General revenues was over-budgeted based on the final tax roll and this is offset by the unbudgeted RDA dissolution related revenues.

Departments are continuing to generate salary and benefit savings and will continue to monitor the health funds And this concludes my presentation and we're happy to answer any questions at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:53 · ≈ 12:43 PM

Thank you Mr. Alvarez, I appreciate all the good work that went into this report. Any other questions or comments from the board right now? Any requests to speak Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:44:04 · ≈ 12:44 PM

No request to speak.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Salud Carbajal · Seconded by Steve Lavagnino
Show transcript
All right. Supervisor Carbajal says he's numbered out, so all right. So this is okay receiving file motion by Supervisor Carbajal second by Supervisor Lavinino. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you so much again. And now we do have one more item to consider. This was an administrative agenda item that we trailed to make it a departmental item and I think And Mr. Allen, why don't you just for the sake of clarity go ahead and read that into the record here again?

Madam Chair, members of the board, item A20 is from Public Works. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the Tahecus Landfill Resource Recovery Project contracts for preparation of a subsequent EIR and air quality technical report for second and third districts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:45:02 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the board trailing this item. When I looked at this item over the weekend, I actually was surprised as I was reading it because it seemed to me as if the scope of this Tejiguas landfill, the CEQA process was different than what I had recalled from our January meeting. And a particular concern is the alternative sites that are noted in our staff report, there's mention of alternative sites throughout the report But I think it's, it was surprising to me because oh and in the report they talk about alternative sites on the south coast.

I happen to know that the city of Santa Barbara is has this same item on their agenda this evening. I looked at their staff report and they specifically called out the transfer station as a possible alternative site Being that the transfer station is in the second district, this of course was very concerning to me. Mainly because it's not listed in our documentation and I needed some clarification from our staff about whether or not it's specifically being called out as an alternative site.

The other thing that is concerning to me is that in the city report It says that this alternative site, the landfill plus the other alternative site Marburg might not need any further environmental review. Again that's extremely concerning to me because in the original scoping process the transfer site was never called out specifically nor did my constituents have an opportunity to comment on it.

The other thing that concerns me is that when we met in January, we had talked about the fact that Mustang was going to pay for this environmental report. And as I'm reading through our board letter it now states that the tipping fee will be increased hence the ratepayers will have to pay for the environmental report and the city of Santa Barbara confirms And it concerns me because this was an item on the administrative agenda.

That changes or modifies the environmental aspects of this and also has a likelihood. Of rate payer increase, and I just feel like at the very least we need to hear from our staff. Who by the way Mr. McAulpin was very kind to call me and talk to me yesterday exchange emails with CEO Waller. So I appreciate them doing that on their time off but I just wanted us To get a full hearing and I wanted to hear from legal counsel to make sure that we're moving ahead properly as we move forward with environmental review. Thank you, Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:48:42 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Thank you Supervisor Wolf. So Mr. McAulpin, I think we'll just go ahead and notice you have a presentation here if you want to go ahead and do that but you've heard from Supervisor Wolf what her specific concerns are so maybe at the end of the presentation you can go over that Certainly, Supervisor Carbajal and I have had the benefit of being on the working group as the county's representatives. And we've had a number of meetings and have a better understanding of how this has evolved to this point. But clearly, Supervisor Wolf and the rest of the board need to be brought current on that. Supervisor Carabajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction3:49:18 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Thank you. I just wanted to add that regrettably because of the Brown Act, we couldn't brief any of you or what have you. It's great that you are raising these concerns so that I think staff has an opportunity not only to answer your concerns and your questions, but it gives the board a quick down-and-dirty update on where we've been and why certain things have evolved and changed.

So it'll be great.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49:46 · ≈ 12:49 PM

And also for the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:49:49 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Yes and Madam Chair, Board Members good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to trail this item so we could come back in and put a presentation together to get the majority of the board up to speed on where we're at with the resource recovery part. And Supervisor Wolf, yes thank you for the time yesterday and appreciate hearing about your concerns. So what we're going to do in the presentation is take a few steps back and kind of review how the decisions your board has made over the years if you will and specifically in January to kind of set us On the CEQA path that we're on today and as we go through the presentation Supervisor Wolf, I hope that we hit the answers to your questions or talk perhaps in general terms why we're doing what we're doing under the CEQUA process so we can follow CEQUA law as well.

Hopefully by the end of the process, the board feels like they've been thoroughly briefed and we can move forward at that point. So if that sounds like a plan to the board, we'll kick it off and Mark Schleich, Deputy Director of Resource Recovery and Waste Management will do the presentation this afternoon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:50:56 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon Mr. Schleich. Ms. Wells?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:50:59 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Good afternoon board members and thanks again for kind of let me share this exciting project with you once again. I've been working on this thing for almost a decade now it's a very significant project in our community in moving our reduction on landfilling forward as well as many other environmental benefits. It's been a regional project. It is not just the county of Santa Barbara it's four cities as well it's the city of Santa Barbara Goleta built in solving So it's basically a public partnership. Again, in 2002 is the last time this board considered the expansion of the landfill. It was a very contentious process as many of you may remember and at that time your board direct us to develop some additional recycling programs as well as look at alternatives to long term landfilling.

You know we're very successful in our recycling programs. We're at 70 percent on a statewide level. This is not new information I've shared it with you for many many times before however the amount of waste that our community generates is not decreased and that same percentage. In fact we're probably about flat on landfill disposal This is not, again, unique to Santa Barbara County. This is a statewide issue. The state's actually addressing it and I'll come back to that in a bit. Nationwide, it's still the same problem.

Next slide please. There was a formal working group started many, many years ago through the multi-jurisdictional Solid Waste Task Group. And at that time it was supervisors from both the 1st and 3rd District that were appointed. The current membership is Supervisor Farr in Carbajal. Again, this is kind of a public-private partnership. It was a lot of different jurisdictions coming together identifying an opportunity for private enterprise to work with us to come up with a long term waste management plan.

We started in 2007 with goals and objectives. Those goals and objectives became criteria. That criteria became an RFP and we sent that RFP out to the nation actually internationally in 2009 Throughout the process, we've reached out to the public to talk about this project. Initially, we were very open and to any potential solution which included at that time thermal gasification and other things of that nature.

And through that public process, we've narrowed it down to the project we're looking at. We've spoke to UCSB, we've spoken to business groups, we've spoken environmental groups. We've spoken to South County memberships. We'v espoken to North County memberships. I spoke to NACO in the state of Portland or Oregon as well as Florida on this project and I gotta tell you there's a lot of community support for this project it doesn't matter what side of your community or your particular group is on they support this project they want more to be done with the waste that they generate Landfilling is no longer acceptable.

So what did we come up with? The project that we came back to you in January last year was a 20-year waste management plan. How do we continue to maintain local control over our waste management? Well, we're going to do this with two new recycling facilities. The two new recycling facilities, the first is what we call a dirty MRF. A MRF that goes through the trash can, picks out the recyclables that can now be returned to traditional markets. It also segregates out the organics. Those organics as you can see from the second one can be anaerobically digested which generates energy as well as continue to be composed which becomes a soil amendment. Unfortunately, that only solves half the problem. We still have to dispose of 50%.

That 50% is actually good news because it doubles the life of the current landfill. It will take us to 2036. We, our board, have spent lots of money in developing a landfill liner system. Landfill liners are about five feet of various materials to protect groundwater Such that we don't have environmental impacts. By doubling the life or extending the life of the landfill to 2036, we don�t have to buy those assets again. We just make them last longer. So this is a really good long-term project that gives us local control over the waste our community generates for the next twenty years.

Upside down triangle is what we refer to as the EPA hierarchy waste management. We can reduce it or reuse it first, that's the best thing. If we can recycle it or compost it next, that's the second best thing. The worst thing we can do is landfill it. If you look along the left hand side, you know, we've got 70% by doing the top two. We get 30% landfilling with the last two. Actually, we dispose of 30%.

And there's landfill gas or energy that's recovered through a landfill gas system. So we get a little bit of energy recovery. With this project, we'll take that diversion level up to 80%, 85%. And we'll only be landfilling 15% to 20%. Again, this project is a 20-year regional waste management project. Regardless of how we got here today, we would be having to do some long-range planning. That's the responsibility that the County of Santa Barbara has taken on since AB 939 was created.

Again it achieves 80% to 85% diversion. This surpasses the regions and goals of that amount as well as a state goal is 75%. There's legislation out there now called AB 341 that's just coming into place That this project actually hits the sweet spot of what they're proposing as we go forward. That will allow us to be in compliance with those, with their desires of reaching that goal.

Now they don't, they talk about this as being a state call but the state has to go back to legislator with recommended legislation and regulation to achieve it so it's a goal today. It will more than likely be a mandate in the future. has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. Compared to all the climate action plans, this thing is significantly more beneficial to our climate than any of the climate action plans. I think if you add up all the plans together it doesn't come close to this project.

In total, this could divert or convert 133,000 metric tons of carbon This project helps the county not only meet that but exceed that. Regarding green energy, why this doesn't generate the amount of energy that you would see in thermal gasification? It does add one megawatt of renewable energy back onto the grid. There is a Senate Bill 20 that requires that we purchase or develop 33% renewable energy by 2020. Again, this moves us in that direction.

There's also been talk about this energy actually being converted to a transportation fuel and that actually has additional benefits as far as our dependence on foreign oil or other petroleum products. Regarding economic development, it's one of the things I probably haven't emphasized to date. But this project will have significant construction development. It'll buy significant materials and equipment to be run inside of those things. So on the construction side, it should generate about 40 jobs to build.

It'll probably create 56 green energy jobs to operate. Based on the improvements, there's a property tax amount that the developer or the construction will have to create which will generate $862,000 in year one of new property tax. These are some of the benefits of the project. We also think it's cost effective. When you look at your trash bill, it kind of breaks into these various components.

Disposal being the brown one there of between 21% it may be a little bit higher in other jurisdictions So as we pay slightly more for this in a higher tip fee It only impacts the ratepayer For every dollar of increase at twenty-one percent for your county residents so we believe its cost effective when you look at it in the long term cost of disposal building a new landfill will not be cheap if at all possible on the south coast If you start looking into long transportation costs, those energy savings that I talked about now become cost.

My guess is that energy's only going to become more expensive going forward and this gives us an opportunity to meet a lot of issues, mandates at a cost effective proposal. It creates economic development. Was at a seminar, or a summit about last week or two weeks ago where they were talking about climate change and the effect of rising seas. There's an anticipation that with the current projections in climate change and sea rise we could see a three foot rise on the South Coast.

Now this isn't going to solve climate change but it's a step in the right direction And do we do this, or do we relocate our wastewater treatment plants next to the ocean? Do we relocate the city of Santa Barbara's airport because both of those are in the coastal zone. And you see that climate change not only with rise in sea level but tidal surge as we saw was a storm in New York and New Jersey creates a lot of damage not only to infrastructure but society.

Next slide please. So it's a great project. The question with every project is where do you put it? So in January we came to you with the selected preferred vendor, that being Mustang Renewable Ventures, with the project that I talked about that had a way of extending the life of the landfill for 20 years. The County of Santa Barbara is the lead agency so it's not a private development project. Tthe county itself is actually taking the lead And we're doing that on behalf of our regional partners, that being the City of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Buellton and Solvang.

That's the CEQA issue. It's separate from the term sheet and this is one of Supervisor Wolfe's concerns. When we were here in January, the original RFP had the cost of the EIR borne by the developer. The proposed project developer. What we found when looking through his financials is yeah he was paying the upfront cost but actually the rate payers were paying it through the tipping fee throughout and not only were they paying the cost, they were paying the additional costs of his return on investment So it actually is much more expensive.

Looking at his performer for him to fund it on our rate payers backs into the future. There's a lot of discussion as to why we made that change and there are some events that happened I'll get into those in a moment but that was kind of what we found regarding the term sheet And council can probably opine on this. If the board were to make a commitment via a contract or term sheet that was binding, then we would have to do CEQA first because in essence by you making that decision to go forward and binding yourself, that's a project or it leads to the potential outcome of a project and therefore you need to do CEQUA. There's a lawsuit and I won't talk get to the specifics that kind of sort of through that detail. So the term sheets are non-binding agreement if that's convenient, right?

And it talks mostly about the business terms and we took the terms that were actually in the RFP. We're going to come back on December 4th in a departmental item and talk more about the nuances of that. But it talked about probably the other issue that you need to be aware of. And again, we are going to talk about that on December 4th had to do with what's the exclusive right to negotiate?

When we were here in January I think the public comment that I recall was one, due thorough and complete environmental review. Two make sure we had commitments from the other jurisdictions as we went forward. So I think we tried to incorporate that recommend those those concerns at that time as we went forward. In preparing the sequel first step is to do what's called a notice of preparation there's a public hearing associated with that.

We did the typical noticing and as well as sent out about 250 letters to individuals and organizations The scoping hearing for the project was actually done in May. We received lots of comments, as you always do. And the three comments that I would say were probably the most common or had some consistency if not from just a single entity was one, why are you taking this material up the coast when it should be done closer to the location of generation? So why not do your MRF in the urban area?

Include the consideration of other technologies, that being aerobic composting compared to anaerobic digestion. And then many of the regulatory agencies that ultimately need to permit this facility regional water board state agencies what have you expressed kind of their agency regulatory concerns. Regarding the MRF we heard in the urban area I think it was the League of Women Voters as well as the Gaviota Coast has expressed that concern And there was one property owner, Marburg Industries which is in the city of Santa Barbara that actually suggested their site as an alternative.

With that information we prepared a draft project description. Today we're talking about our agenda item today was to get the CEQA process moving forward and awarding contracts to vendors. Pottery & Associates was identified through a procurement process. We interviewed Sent an RFP, got three companies to respond. Padre was the one we selected and are recommending today.

There's a number of technical studies that need to be done. Traffic, visual, blah, blah, blah. They're all under $100,000 so they're within our authority to award but we need to let you know that they're out there. One of the key areas has to do with air quality in particularly a lot of modeling associated with that That contract amount exceeds $100,000. So it is also on your agenda.

How did we get to the point where we're suggesting we fund it through the tip fee? That was through a series of meetings, as I mentioned. We actually got the city managers and our CEO involved with working through that. We shared that information with the subgroup of elected officials that included the other cities that were participating. When you add up all the consultant contracts, it's about $1.2 million under thorough and complete CEQA evaluation.

Typically these things would be funded through our TIFI anyway. We're an enterprise fund. We have to find the money to do our own projects. So we suggested that this is going to be a multi-year process so let's fund it over Two to three years, excuse me. It turns out to be a $2.45 tip fee equates about 20 cents a month to South Coast rate payers in the county And again this was something that We vetted with the city managers and the CEO's office and then shared with the elected officials of the participating jurisdictions Eventually we have to reconcile this cost There could be cost overruns for the need to do more studies.

It's a per ton fee, so it depends a little bit on how much tonnage we receive at the landfill as the denominator. If we get more tons than the cost per ton should go down if the tonnage continues to go down for various reasons then the cost per ton would go up. The CEQA document that we're talking. Excuse

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:08 – 4:149 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:08:53 · ≈ 1:08 PM

me just a minute Mr. Schleich,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:08:54 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Supervisor Wolf. Mr. Schleich? Yes. Just going back on the funding part so what we're being asked to do today is to approve some contracts and we're identifying the funding sources as you've outlined there But how do we know that that, what is the process for us to assess rate payers an additional fee to cover the cost?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:09:24 · ≈ 1:09 PM

The calendaring of rate changes for our facilities as well as the haulers for the County of Santa Barbara's. We typically bring that in May with implementation date of July 1 Regarding the cities they typically ask us what our tip fees will be for the following year Typically in February which we share that information with them, and then they build it into their rate structures and their rate increases

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:09:52 · ≈ 1:09 PM

So we just were anticipating that that will all be approved

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:09:58 · ≈ 1:09 PM

Ultimately the decision to change rates or approve rates is with your Board of Supervisors

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:10:04 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Thank you. It's at a four-fifths vote

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:10:13 · ≈ 1:10 PM

It's a simple majority vote as I'm getting. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:10:20 · ≈ 1:10 PM

just concerned that we approve this contract and that we have the money available to pay for it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:10:39 · ≈ 1:10 PM

And I just want to make sure we're clear on this, This is to pay for these consultant services. We also have other costs associated with our fund and a reserve balance that your board has approved previously that actually plays into, additionally plays into rate requests when they come in June. And I just want to make sure that this is not the only rate increase. This is the rate increase to deal with this environmental review.

So the document we're preparing is actually what's referred to as a subsequent EIR, to include a MRF and anaerobic digestion at the Tahequs landfill with the residuals buried at the landfill. Again, this takes the current closure date of 2026 and pushes it out to 2036. Therefore roughly a 20-year plan. You know disposal changes that as Supervisor Carbajal had mentioned we have a permitted capacity how efficiently we use that capacity actually dictates the closure date but using projections on today's tonnage this theoretically will take us to 2036 We are required by CEQA to do a range of alternatives.

Includes doing nothing, which I guess might happen if no one agrees to pay for it and then I'm not sure what that would do. Landfill expansion. The alternatives to the Mer site in the urban area, which we just talked about and leads to the potential for the Marburg proposal on Quarantino Street. And just so you know that just because they have said that it might be an alternative that doesn't have environmental impacts.

We have not seen information from them to understand whether it's feasible or not. So we're going to ask them to submit under the same guidelines that everybody else submitted their RFPs under. And there's a whole list, I think it was up to three or four volumes of information that they're going to have to provide, rather detailed information that they're going to have to provide.

One of the other key components that they'll have to confront is A deposit of $100,000 in whatever forms acceptable to the county. Everybody that previously responded to our RFPs had done the same thing and in fact last January you gave us the authority to return that $100,000 deposit to those that we weren't moving forward with meaning we still have Mustang Renewables power deposit on hand.

Additionally you know we are looking at other Urban areas, who knows where they would be? This I think you know obviously the transfer station would be one that would be studied under that. Typically alternatives not your project but your alternatives you do baseline studies and if they prove to have you know potential you continue to study them until a point that they no longer have that.

You know who knows this could be at the airport this may happen at the transfer station This could happen at the Marburg facility. You know, we talked with council about this particular issue and some of the comments that were made in the staff report of the city of Santa Barbara and I feel comfortable that the approach that we're taking letting the process and the facts determine location is the appropriate way to go. And that's kind of why the approach that we've taken on this project.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:14 – 4:2112 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:14:38 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Well, Mr. Schleich that's actually what I wanted to hear because there was a true disconnect between what our report was saying and the Santa Barbara report because they specifically called out the South Coast Transfer Station that should be an alternate site to be looked at The other thing that was concerning to me is that in their staff report, they said that the environmental review of the Marburg Industries and a South Coast site will be studied in sufficient detail such that these locations could be selected as a preferred location when certifying the EIR and without further detailed environmental review being necessary.

So what I'm understanding, and I just want you to confirm this that what I'm understanding that what you're saying is is that it's any location in the South Coast urban South Coast that could include the transfer station as one alternative And that there will be sufficient environmental review on whatever alternative is selected by the public. So that it's not a fait accompli, that once the environmental study is done, that's it and I'll look to Marie because you're shaking your head.

You're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:16:04 · ≈ 1:16 PM

absolutely correct. It's always important in CEQA to let the analysis guide your decision. You don't predetermine a site and make assumptions before you start the process, so for all of the alternative sites that we look at it'll be a gradual process if they meet the first hurdle then they go to the next hurdle. If they meet two hurdles You continue to study them if they look good and feasible.

That's how you get to the top of the heap, you don't assume anything about the alternate sites before you do the analysis.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:17:01 · ≈ 1:17 PM

And there is a formal process for public input?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:17:04 · ≈ 1:17 PM

Oh absolutely! The way the city wrote their report is a little bit confusing. The one statement that you quoted, I think what they meant was that those two sites would be evaluated so thoroughly during the CEQA process that you would have all of the information to make a decision and that you would not have to do a second EIR. I think that's what they meant.

But

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:17:46 · ≈ 1:17 PM

there is an opportunity for comments on the EIR which we don't know what that would necessitate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:17:52 · ≈ 1:17 PM

Absolutely. And we may find that urban locations are not feasible because of traffic, air quality, a whole host of reasons but we won't know that until we start the EIR. Thank you for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:18:13 · ≈ 1:18 PM

that and thank you Mark and Scott

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:18:17 · ≈ 1:18 PM

for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:18:17 · ≈ 1:18 PM

going through this. Again, I just wanted because of conflicting reports, I just thought it was important for me and my constituents to understand and to get it on the record and I do appreciate it. And let me also say that I've been in support of and have been as well maybe not as excited as you Mark but have supported this project in moving forward So my questions were in no way meant to derail this at all. It was just to clarify.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:18:47 · ≈ 1:18 PM

Supervisor Wolf, if you think that Mr. Schleich is excited, you oughta talk to Carlisle Johnston. He's the biggest cheerleader that I know. Okay, Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction4:19:00 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Assure Supervisor Wolf that I think her concerns were well founded because one of the things that we've talked about in terms of things that will be definitely analyzed is there's a lot of smells associated with this, noise, air pollution. And there's an amount of acreage that's also needed to be able to host such a facility so it's good you brought these forward because those are the types of things that need to get analyzed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:19:32 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Chair Farr, Supervisor, to put some clarification to the Marburg site. We have built within the consultant budget the necessary funds to study it to extremely high level. Okay? That doesn't mean that the environmental analysis will say it's the right site. There might be problems. I don't know. That's the purpose of an EIR. I just want to make sure you're clear on that. The second point is, the County of Santa Barbara's the lead agency. You're the decision-making body on ultimately certifying this EIR.

So yeah we'll solicit enormous amounts of public support or public comment hopefully public support if we can but ultimately at the end of the day I have to, we have to come before you for certification of this document so I think that's an important factor as we move forward Regarding upcoming calendar today, we're asking again for the approval of a couple contracts so we can start this analysis and get some facts to move forward.

The term sheet is something we'll bring back on December 4th for discussion, bringing you up to speed on that. You know there was a lot of connectivity between the term sheet and CEQA back in January. It's not as connected as it once was and so we'll talk about that. Regarding the rates, we bring those back to you in May for implementation in July of next fiscal year.

The city of Goleta will be having an item next Tuesday on both the CEQA issue that we're talking about as well as their approval of the term sheet. City of Santa Barbara I think is having a meeting right now on this subject as you stated and I believe they're going to go to their council on the 18th with the term sheet We're trying to schedule built-in insolving. So we're available for any questions and thank you for letting me cheerlead today.

4:21 – 4:238 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:21:37 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair, I don't have any questions. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:21:43 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Do we have a request to speak Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:21:46 · ≈ 1:21 PM

We had a request from John Dewey. Is Mr. Dewe still

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:21:49 · ≈ 1:21 PM

here? Yeah I think he left.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:21:50 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Okay then we have no further

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:21:52 · ≈ 1:21 PM

requests. Okay Supervisor Carbajal?

GuestSalud CarbajalProposed · by introduction4:21:54 · ≈ 1:21 PM

I was just going to make a motion to approve the item

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:21:57 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Okay, we have a motion. Supervisor Carvajal seconded by Supervisor Gray. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much. Appreciate that presentation and do we have anybody that we want to adjourn in memory of today? Alright well thank everybody. We will be adjourned until December 4th. Thank you very much and Happy Thanksgiving to everybody!

You.