UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:021 turns
¶. ¶. Hi. StSq3 3.30 ¶. I would like to call our Board of Supervisors meeting of Tuesday, March 19th to order. Mr. Allen if you could read the roll call please?
0:02 – 0:1011 turns
Mr. Adam?
Here.
Mr Lavagnino? Here Ms. Wolfe? Here Ms. Farr? Here Mr. Carbajal?
Boy, we have a full house today. Is there motion to approve the minutes of March 12th? Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Not having any all those in favor? Aye. Passes unanimously. We will now move on to public comment, and we have two speakers. Mr.
Allen? Our first speaker is Jeff Bard to be followed by Christopher Brown.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. It's always a great honor to be able to participate in the proud tradition of public comment which is a privilege Enjoying the United States of America and in many parts of the world, people who go and speak truth to power are suppressed. My name is Jeff Bard. I was appointed to the Board Authorized South Coast Advisory Committee which has now merged into the C3H.
And this has enabled me to found and now be the director of the alliance to teach, teach everywhere about community health. I'm project manager of Action Versus Infectious Disease and the Cough Hygiene Initiative. We have many petitions, one of which is now declared a success. Of course not solely because of our efforts but we petitioned for President Obama to sign into law the Pandemic Preparedness Reauthorization Bill which he did do last week.
The pandemic preparedness is something every citizen and every elected official should be aware of and actively participate in Many people have taken the CERT training, and certainly Galita Prepare now has a very proactive campaign to assure that every household does have adequate supplies in case of service interruptions which may occur. Part of what we do is we track what's going on and the good news is that the very worrisome novel coronavirus which has transmigrated from Saudi Arabia to London And involved human-to-human transmission. It's turning out to be not as infectious as they had feared, so that's good news. However the bad news is that there is a new H1N1 which is Tamiflu resistant. The United States has maximal stockpiles of Tamiflu.
I've always been rather skeptical as to Tamiflu but it does help. But apparently the virus is now evolving. So coming our way soon in 2013-2014 There's always the possibility of a replay of the 2009 pandemic, except it could be much more lethal than we had in 2009. So whatever happened back then consider that to be the kindergarten sandbox dress rehearsal. The H3N2 is very worrisome. Science made a decision, a very difficult decision to go ahead and in the lab turn this very lethal form of influenza into a mammal-to-mammal transmissible if it ever gets out due to accident or terrorism we will have a very serious scenario on our hands So again, I'm here to declare a victory at public comment and remind you that pandemic planning is part of the Santa Barbara emergency preparedness.
Please stay aware. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Martin.
Christopher Brown?
Good morning, Chair, members of the board. I'm speaking on fire protection primarily going back 20 years to the Paint Fire. I realize that there are missing pieces from the public information. For instance in the Paint Fire three days after the fire there was an individual that crashed off a 154 who had been seen screaming and yelling driving up down the road throwing $100 bills out of his window That made the news and disappeared. We never heard anything about it, I think he was interrogated and released.
In that same situation Lenny Ross was accused criminally, couldn't be convicted and then went into civil trial. And I learned from Charlie Drew who was a friend of Lenny's that he attempted to provide witness at the civil trial and was denied access to the witness chair to provide alibi for Lenny which he had and knew well. So I wonder about this issue of fires now, the paint fire.
I learned from someone that learned from a neighbor up there that the party Ended up starting the fire, was shown to have started the fire. Entered the gate with a key the evening before. This was kept out of local association discussion and I don't think anybody really knows that. And recently, Maria Ignacia Canyon, I visited there to do some work early in the morning and I'm surprised to see smoke, smell smoke I see ashes, obviously a structure fire, pieces of plywood floating by.
Bullets going off and I go, oh somebody had some ammunition. And I figure well it's time to get out of here because this place is going to be basically covered with fire trucks. So on my way out, I discover a fire truck coming in. This is a very bad road. And of course dispatch knows the roads. Firefighters when they're not fighting fires are examining the roads that they have to use to get to fires.
And see pretty near a 30 foot truck trying to go down a road. There's another one behind it. Well, after about a half an hour it made it around one corner. It took about 20 minutes to get around one corner and the next truck about another 20. And then finally at the end a couple of small trucks. And I'm wondering why the big trucks were first? And I learned sometime later that one of the neighbors called up second person reporting the fire saying send your small trucks and a helicopter.
And he knows his stuff. He's been there twenty years. What happened was basically almost getting stuck. Now had that truck gotten stuck and had this been in the summertime, nobody would have gone in and out of that canyon. And the fire department knows this. These drivers of these trucks were not happy about driving their trucks down this road. And I have huge respect for them even taking a truck down that road let alone fighting fires in the summertime.
So I know to go to the fire department doesn't help and I'm here just to say Thank you
very much. I believe we have another speaker.
Yes, our final speaker is Carol Rowe.
0:10 – 0:134 turns
Yes, hi. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Carol Rowe. I'm with the Aurora Ensemble in Santa Barbara. We've been in business for about 15 years and I happen to notice a headline in Sunday's paper that said, bring in an estimated $1.4 billion each year. The reason I'm here today is to urge you please to consider reading, analyzing and voting for the Good Neighbor Policy Ordinance for it to preserve the events industry in Santa Barbara.
Thank you.
I guess that's it for public comment. We will now move on to... No, we have admin. You're noted for another item coming up so we have public and then comment on admin items. As a matter of fact the last speaker might've been best placed for the admin but it's okay. So we will now proceed to the administrative agenda We, the first order of business that we will do is adopt resolutions 8 through 7.
Then we'll come back and do admin speakers and then we will break for the reception. So is there a motion to adopt resolutions 1A through 17?
So moved.
Motion has been made. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Passage unanimously. We will now move on to our resolutions and if I could have Bob Vitamonte, Chairman of the Santa Barbara Chapter of SCORE come forward I am honored to present a resolution honoring SCORE for its service to small businesses and proclaiming March 19th as SCORE Recognition Day in Santa Barbara County.
And Bob, in awhile will share with us some of the great things they do but this organization just on a voluntary basis Does so much in our community to mentor other businesses, so that they can succeed. As most of you know the failure rate for small businesses is very great and it's this type of non-profit voluntary mentoring service that really helps many of our small businesses succeed in the community. So it's a real honor for me to present this resolution. Mr. Allen if you could read the resolution please?
0:13 – 0:233 turns
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is item A1. It's a resolution proclaiming March 19th 2013 as SCORE Recognition Day in Santa Barbara County whereas SCORE is a resource partner of the Small Business Administration that provides free mentoring and educational services to entrepreneurs and businesses throughout the county through the volunteer efforts of 13,000 successful entrepreneurs business executives and managers working through 350 chapters And whereas, businesses with fewer than 20 employees comprise more than 85% of all private sector employers in the County of Santa Barbara. The entrepreneurial spirit of these small businesses generate the economic drivers that lead to innovation, cultural diversity and enhanced opportunities for all in the local marketplace.
And whereas, the Santa Barbara Chapter of SCORE has supported the endeavors of local entrepreneurs, enterprises and schools since 1968 through the contributions of thousands of volunteer hours Which include face-to-face and online mentoring, workshops and other activities and conferences in support of local business building efforts. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara continues to benefit from the contributions and expertise of SCORE volunteers who help establish successful local owned businesses and the corresponding community benefits of gainful employments, career development and economic success.
And whereas, SCORE volunteers contribute their time and effort in the spirit of helping others and giving back of their individual expertises and experiences. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims March 19th 2013 SCORE Recognition Day in Santa Barbara County and recognizes SCORE for their efforts to promote the success of small businesses in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Thank you board members, thank you Mr. Cabajal. It's really been an honor to be here and actually to represent a very very powerful force in this community. The SCORE chapter of Santa Barbara is one of 365 chapters of SCORE around the country. SCORE as you probably may know is an affiliate resource arm of the Small Business Administration. It is comprised totally of volunteers, of which there are 13,000 at present operating through our 365 chapters. Our local chapter has been in existence since 1968 And SCORE itself is approaching its 50th anniversary in 2014. So we've been here most of the time and we have really enjoyed a very powerful impact on the community. From my perspective, we have people who have been involved right from the get-go And they have empowered many, many small businesses.
The majority being minority businesses in all phases of startup from the very, very initiation of a business concept right through to the execution of a business plan right through to ongoing clients that we serve today. At present, we represent almost 4,000 companies and individuals who participate in SCORE programs here locally. Last year, we served over 400 clients and we've participated through over 4, 000 hours of service That included face-to-face conferences and consulting, free and low cost workshops, online mentoring, and various other periodicals that we create. We write some articles for Newshawk and some other publications so we're trying to get our name out even further.
Our present group is comprised of roughly 70 total counselors of which 30 are active And we are always looking to grow that in various specialized areas. Those individuals, anybody who is a SCORE counselor has been a successful entrepreneur in one shape or form or has been a successful business professional. At one point in time, SCORE stood for retired executives at one point and they've dropped that term. About a third of us are continuing to work in one shape or form. We're either managers or executives or consultants in local corporations etc.
So in a sense, we are continuing to contribute but it's our way of giving back. In fact, we're giving a workshop in a week from now where closely aligned with the Chamber of Commerce and we also work very closely with Women's Economics Venture and the Small Business Development Corp., SBDC. So we're really very, very much involved in trying to propose and really not propose but really continue to support the growth of individual organizations.
Since my background is in finance I thought I would share a couple numbers because statistics can be fairly impressive. The total number of hours that we supported last year was 1.3 million hours through 41,000 businesses. We created 67,000 jobs countrywide and we mentored over 140,000 businesses. Here in California we helped over 6,000 businesses and we created 7,000 jobs We've also mentored about 22,000 businesses here in California. Now what's interesting is that when we look at the demographics about two-thirds of our clients are minorities either women or other minority status so it's really about empowering those from the lower level and it also comes from the perspective that business for many people is the only community that they have We may not acknowledge that in our communities, but most people's lives show up through their business life.
And so we do that in a way to really create that empowerment that really promotes and contributes to the economic and social welfare of Santa Barbara County. In terms of other things I would mention is that we are always looking for, since we are very thinly funded by the Small Business Administration, By all standards, a budget. We also are actively soliciting donations and sponsors so we've been sponsored in the past by banks like Union Bank and Montecito Bank and others. So we're always looking to do that further because that really allows us to propel ourselves forward. And one of the main achievements right now in the honor of this, is that we're having this as an opportunity to again highlight to the community the availability of SCORE to virtually anyone.
And I would mention that all of our services are totally free and confidential. So there are free tools and templates online, there's free mentoring, there's free online mentoring for those who don't want to do a face-to-face. So it's all about contributing and how we contribute. And that is the core of what we do. We sometimes call ourselves the best kept secret in Santa Barbara.
What's interesting though, if you speak to anyone who has received services from SCORE by and large they rave about the impact we've had on their businesses and again helping them sustain particularly through the difficult times that we just had in terms of an economic climate. Score stands ready, and we really very much appreciate it. And I feel very honored to be the chairman of the chapter and to be able to accept this award in recognition of the services of really many people over the years. So that's my gift to the council. So thank you. Thank
you, Bob. Next, we're going to go to item A2. If we could have Dr. Frank Barajas come forward? Every year I try to sponsor this sometimes with my colleagues, sometimes alone. Resolution honoring the legacy and life and service of Cesar Chavez. Being that my father was a farm worker it makes more of an honor for me to sponsor this. But today, as I have done in the past, I invite somebody from the Latino community who has excelled in their own career. And in this case, Professor Barajas is somebody whose work has covered the labor movement in Oxnard and in honoring Cesar Chavez and all the great things that he's done which our clerk of the board will go over in reading the resolution I want to read just a little bio for Dr. Barajas, who also happens to be my childhood friend that I grew up with and very proud of him.
Dr. Frank Barajas is a professor of the United States history at California State University of Channel Islands. He obtained a bachelor and master's degree in history at California State University Fresno and doctorate from the Claremont Graduate University. Dr Barajs is also a veteran of the United States Marine Corps Dr. Baraha specializes on the history of Southern California. He has published peer-reviewed essays on agriculture labor in Ventura County, the Sleeping Lagoon trial, Oxnard schools and the 2004 implementation of a civil gang injunction in the city of Oxnard.
In the fall of 2012, the University of Nebraska Press released his book titled Curious Unions Mexican American Workers and Resistance in Oxnard California 1898 to 1961. The book explores the ways in which the Mexican community forged intriguing partnerships with other ethnic groups within Oxnard in the first half of the 20th century and the resulting economic exchanges Cultural Practices and Labor and Community Activism. Professor Brahas examines how the Oxnard ethnic Mexican population exercised its agency in alliance with other groups and organizations to meet their needs before large-scale protests of labor unions were engaged. Curious Unions charters how the cultural negotiations that took place in Oxnard ethnic Mexican community helped shape and empower farm labor organizing.
Mr. Allen, if you could read the resolution please?
0:23 – 0:302 turns
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution proclaiming March 31st as Cesar Chavez Day in Santa Barbara County. Whereas Cesar Chavez was born on March 31, 1927 near Yuma, Arizona. At age 11 his family lost their farm during the Great Depression and became migrant farm workers. As a farm worker, Cesar traveled throughout the fields, orchards and vineyards of California He experienced firsthand the hardships and injustices of farm worker life that would serve as the foundation for his later commitments to social and economic justice.
As a testament to this legacy, March 31 is recognized as Cesar Chavez Day in the state of California. And whereas, Cesar Chavez was an initial founder of the National Farm Workers Association, the precursor of the United Farm Workers Union which has helped farm workers achieve fair pay, improved working conditions, medical care, and adequate housing. And whereas Cesar Chavez made significant social justice contributions that were built upon the nonviolent methods employed by Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, his leadership and efforts led to improved economic, social, and environmental justice for thousands of farm workers and their families.
And whereas, to demonstrate his commitment to non-violence, Cesar Chavez supported the Great Boycott in 1965. Went on a 25 day fast in 1968. Participated in the nationwide lettuce boycott in 1970 and again fasted for 36 days in 1988 to protest pesticide application practices that negatively affected the health of farm workers. In a 1978 article for the Maryknoll Magazine, Cesar Chavez wrote, The greater the oppression, the more leverage nonviolence holds. Violence does not work in the long run and if it is temporarily successful it replaces one violent form of power with another just as violent. And whereas Cesar Chavez's struggle For universal civil rights is a testament to his courage and resolve as he led a movement that triumphed over adversity and opposition.
His success continues to be an inspiration for individuals and communities who are still working to advance these principles through non-violent organizing. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors declares March 31, 2013 as Cesar Chavez Day in Santa Barbara County pass and adopted today.
Thank you Board of Supervisors for this recognition and for honoring a truly great historical figure in the history of the United States, Cesar Estrada Chavez. As Supervisor Carbajal mentioned many of us are the sons and daughters and grandchildren of farm workers or also packing house workers and other workers that labored in the agricultural industrial complex.
It was a complex because it was interlocked with private and public agencies, state, local, and federal in which the industry utilized its leverage, political leverage to subordinate The life of farm workers to maximize profits. And this needs to be understood, to truly appreciate what Cesar Chavez and the United Farm Workers and people in the community and supporters achieved.
It truly was a David going against a Goliath. A Goliath that denied the basic humanity of agricultural workers. And that's what Cesar Chavez fought for. He fought to give dignity to a population of people that were often treated in an inhumane manner, And he did this nonviolently, but we should not mistaken non-violence with pacifism. Cesar Chavez took up strategies that were very militant marching throughout the state and in local communities having sit ins, protests, boycotts a whole range of militant actions in which captured the attention of public and private industries, excuse me, entities, agencies that ignored them.
And this militancy was necessary in order to bring about social change. And he did this as early as 1958 when he was a part of the community service organization in which he established Cells, cells if you will or organizations in Oxnard the community that Supervisor Carbajal and I are from but also in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. And the Community Service Organization Mobilize Organized to a greater extent along with other communities Anglo-American African American Asian American supporters to lobby and capture The attention of agricultural workers, particularly with the Bracero program.
It's also called a guest worker program that's being reconsidered at this moment and I would urge you to use your political influence to oppose any sort of guest worker program because it sets a different set of rules for migrant workers outside of the United States to labor that are not That are enjoyed by U.S. citizens and residents here so again this is one thing that was you know I always say in my history classes the history is not it's not about the past it's really about understanding the present So with that I want to let the Santa Barbara County community know that at my university, at Cal State University Channel Islands we're going to have a celebration starting March 27th. Wednesday an exhibit, a photographic exhibit, artistic exhibit of Jess Gutierrez of Oxnard and also Chico Gonzalez On the evening of March 27th at Cal State University Channel Islands opening a debut and having a month-long celebration of Cesar Chavez.
So I thank you supervisors for having me here and I hope you all read my book, Curious Unions which concludes with Cesar Chavez's arrival in Ventura County. And also establishing organizations in Santa Barbara County to understand the true importance of this man in history. Thank you very much.
0:30 – 0:354 turns
Thank you. Now we will go on to item A3, if we could have Al Meskimen come forward? And this is a resolution of commendation honoring Al Meskimen for his dedication to designing the Santa Barbara County Fallen Firefighter Memorial. I don't know if you guys have been to it But it is an extraordinary sculpture and memorial that has been erected. And not only are we honoring Al for that major contribution, But you'll see from the resolution that's going to be read, we're honoring Al for the many contributions that he's made in the field of firefighting.
Al is a retired Santa Barbara County Firefighter and he has gone on to do extraordinary academic Things and develop tools that are enabling our firefighters to be more effective and to be safe. So it is a real honor for me to present this resolution to Al. Mr. Allen, if you could read the resolution please?
Chairman Carl Hall members of the board this is item a three it's a resolution honoring Al Meskimen designer of the Santa Barbara County fallen firefighter memorial. Whereas retired fire captain Al Meskimen who served 31 years with Santa Barbara County Fire Department designed the Santa Barbara County Fallen Firefighter Memorial which After 10 years of planning was completed and dedicated on March 31, 2012.
And whereas the Santa Barbara County Fire Department Fallen Firefighter Memorial is located at the entrance to the fire department headquarters and is a tribute to the eight Santa Barbara County firefighters who have died in the line of duty since the department's inception in 1926. And whereas, Al volunteered over 1,000 hours of his time and attended over 50 meetings as he helped lead the effort to design, fundraise and oversee the implementation of the Fallen Firefighter Memorial.
Al Meskeman studied to earn an Associate's Degree from Santa Barbara City College in Environmental Horticulture with Option of Landscape Design, where he made it through the Dean's List Honor Roll and was named the 2007 Outstanding Student of the Year at Santa Barbara City College in Environmental Horticulture. He went on to receive a Master of Architecture from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.
And whereas, Al Meskimen's thesis project at Cal Poly, Assessing and Improving Fire Resiliency of Structures Located in Wildland-Urban Interface was designated the 2011-12 Outstanding Thesis of the Year Award and contributed to research that influenced the design of the Fallen Firefighter Memorial and the accompanying plant selection, hardscape layout, and materials.
Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors honors and commends Al Meskimen for his dedication to designing the Santa Barbara County Fallen Firefighter Memorial, passed and adopted today by the board.
I want to thank the board for this honor and Chairman Carbajal. This was an effort to pay back the fire department for my career, which I benefited from and also to recognize the sacrifice that those firefighters. paid ultimately. When I was going through this project, I went ahead and became more aware of the price that every firefighter pays. Their lives are shortened.
They have a lot of stress. And they go silently into retirement, and this was a tribute not only to the ones that paid the ultimate sacrifice but to the other firefighters that sacrificed their lives for your safety. I couldn't have done this without the help of Many people, including Chief Dyer who set things in motion. Dave Niels, Captain Dave Niels who started the Benevolent Foundation and the current Benevolent Foundation President Ken Murray.
So I want to thank you for that and pay tribute to the firefighters that paid their ultimate sacrifice and to all of the other firefighters that contribute to our safety. Thank you.
I guess I should pass it on to my colleagues so they could do a few resolutions themselves, right? So now we will move on to A4 and my colleague Supervisor Wolf will do this resolution.
0:35 – 0:403 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair You know, sometimes today we do have a lot of resolutions and sometimes people say well it takes a lot of time and we need to get on with the business. But when you hear The people who are being honored in the statements that they make. I think it is appropriate for us to sometimes acknowledge the people who do so much in our community and make our community what it is.
And given that, it's now my pleasure to move this resolution forward which is recognition of March as Social Worker Month in Santa Barbara County. Before I call up the representatives, I just want to make a statement about the social workers in our community. Whether they work with children, the children's parents, Helping people get back to work, going into homes, going into schools. The work that they do on the ground is so important in making this community what it is and helping people, the most vulnerable people getting back on their feet.
I know my colleagues have heard me say this before but I'm gonna say it again and that is I did a ride along with a social worker who was working in the Child Protective Services Division And to see and witness the type of work that this woman did along with her team was shocking. To know the types of things that are going on in our community, but also the type That our social workers do along with our sheriffs, our police out in the community and the schools. In working with these children it's very sad but the work that they do is heroic so with that It is my pleasure to honor our social workers, and I'd like to call up Edith Gonzalez. She's a social worker for in-home support services.
Judith Sotelo, Social Worker from Adult Protective Services. Carrie Martin, Social Worker Child Welfare Services. Mary Allen Baez, Career Employment Specialist, Welfare to Work Program. Delfino Nera, Social Service Deputy Director and Ted Myers, Social Services Interim Director. Thank you all very much for being here and accepting this recognition on behalf of all of your peers those that are doing the work right now in their offices and out in the streets. Now we'll hear from Mr. Allen.
Chairman Carbajal, members of the board. This is a resolution recognizing March 2013 as Social Work Month whereas the primary mission of social work is to enhance human well-being and help meet the basic needs of all people especially the most vulnerable and whereas everyday social workers address the emotional psychological economic interphysical needs of millions of people and help them use their strengths resilience and self advocacy to navigate life's challenges And whereas child welfare and adoption social workers evaluate referrals alleging child abuse or neglect, provide in-person investigations, ongoing case management and supportive services in conjunction with our community partners ensuring the safety, permanence and well being of children in our communities.
And whereas, in Santa Barbara County adult protective and in-home supportive social services workers help to maintain elder and dependent adults safely in their own homes by promoting optimal health and safety. And whereas career employment specialists in the welfare to work and workforce investment programs provide education training and work experience services to unemployed and underemployed county residents by utilizing strong case management skills and collaborative partnerships with community agencies, training providers, and local educational institutions.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes March 2013 as Professional Social Work Month in Santa Barbara County pass and adopt it today.
Thank you, Supervisor Wolf, Chair Carbajal and members of the board for this recognition. I know we do this almost every year. March is Social Work Month and social work has a long history going back to the 1800's Helping people on the battlefield and health sectors, education sectors as was previously mentioned. And of course in poverty and child abuse and elder abuse.
So we in the Department of Social Services, we have these outstanding social workers who are frontline representatives for the county. In helping strengthen the fabric of our social welfare network, and I really appreciate their recognition that you've given them today. Thank you very much.
0:40 – 0:475 turns
Do any of our social workers want to say anything? You're welcome. It's okay, we'll move on to A5. Supervisor Adam, we'll begin with this one.
Thank you Mr. Chair. We are going to adopt a resolution or I guess we have adopted a resolution of commendation for Kim Densmore, probation manager upon her retirement from the Probation Department after 30 years of dedicated service through the County of Santa Barbara
Chairman Carbajal, members of the Board. This is a resolution of commendation for Kim Densmore, Probation Manager upon her retirement from the County of Santa Barbara. Whereas Probation Manager Kim Densemore was born in Okinawa, Japan as a child of the United States Air Force and was raised in England, Michigan, Bermuda and California attending junior high and high school in Lompoc, California.
Whereas Kim attended Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria, earned an associate's degree in psychology in 1980 and graduated from the University of La Verne in 1983 with a bachelor of science in criminal justice and psychology. And whereas she began her career with the Santa Barbara County Probation Department in February 1983 as an extra help group counselor at the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall who worked a variety of assignments including home supervision And in the Counseling and Education Center, where she worked in collaboration with personnel from the Santa Barbara County Education Office and Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services. She was subsequently hired full-time in August 1983. And whereas Officer Densmore was promoted in November 1989 to Deputy Probation Officer in the Juvenile Services and held many assignments including investigations, gang officer and code officer.
She was promoted in 1991 to Deputy Probation Officer II in the Santa Maria Juvenile Field Services and was assigned to the Multi-Integrated Systems of Care in the Santa Maria Adult Intensive Supervision Unit where she specialized in gang cases and management of sex offender caseloads. Whereas in 1999, Kim was promoted to Senior Deputy Probation Officer in the Santa Maria Adult Field Services Intensive Supervision Unit and worked on the capacity as Acting Supervising Probation Officer in the Santa Maria Juvenile Court Services Unit.
In 2008 she was promoted to Supervising Probation Officer assigned to the Lompoc Juvenile Special Programs and Adult Units and in 2010 promoted to Probation Manager assigned to the Santa Barbara and Lompoc Juvenile Division, Santa Barbara Booking and Transportation Center, the Susan G. Infrito Juvenile Justice Center, and Special Projects. And whereas Officer Densmore has been a member of the California Probation Parole Corrections Association for over 28 years and has served on the CPPCA Legislative Committee for the past five years, during her career she was recognized as the Adult Deputy Probation Officer of the Year Probation Peace Officer of the Year, and received a California Probation Parole Corrections Association Star Award. And received letters of recognition from Judge Herman for extraordinary service while performing court hearing officer duties.
Chief Patricia Stewart for the Gap Fire Mutual Aid response and from Jim Thomas, Sheriff, for participation in the Special Enforcement Bureau Gang Unit. And whereas Kim is the mother of four children, Kristen, Bill, Sean and Danielle has the grandmother of six. She's excited and ready for a next phase of her life which will include spending more time with Danielle, attending high school events and enjoying more time with her grandchildren.
Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors hereby commends Probation Manager Kim Densmore on her retirement for 30 years of faithful and dedicated service to countless probationers The citizens of Santa Barbara County under the probation department passed and adopted today by the board.
Chair Carbajal, Supervisors. Unfortunately Chief Taylor was not able to be here today. What she'd like for me to do is extend our gratitude, the probation department's gratitude to the Board of Supervisors for extending this resolution to an outstanding employee who has decided to hang up her hat when it comes to probation, set aside her badge and go on into public life. And so I introduce to you Kim Densmore.
Chair Carbajal and Supervisors, thank you for the recognition and the opportunity to speak today. For the past 30 years has been an incredible journey. A journey that should I have the chance to do all over again, I would without hesitation. As an employee of the Probation Department, I've had my ups and downs, my challenges and victories but never a dull moment and never have two days been the same. I can't imagine a more challenging or more rewarding career, and I can't imagine a greater department for which to work.
From my beginning as a group counselor at the Juvenile Hall, to working the streets as a gang officer, to representing the Department in court, to eventually managing the Juvenile Hall and most recently project development, I may have looked back but I have no regrets. What I do have are many exciting memories and many friends. I'm thankful to have been blessed with the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of the youth and the families we serve, and a difference to the staff I have had the privilege to work beside as well as those I have mentored.
As I prepare to leave this leg of my journey, I am thankful to now have the time to devote to my children My current children and to myself, time I never seem to have enough of for the past 30 years. Thank you supervisors and thank you Chief Taylor it has been an honor and a privilege
0:47 – 0:548 turns
We have one, the next resolution A-6 will also be done by my colleague supervisor.
Thank you Mr. Chair we are adopting a resolution to commend of commendation honoring Robert Ritchie upon his retirement from Santa Barbara County Department of Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services Mr. Allen, will you read? I'll do my job this time, Mr.
Allen. Actually before you go on, Mr. Allen, we had one retirement and we had a framed resolution. Now we have another retirement and we have a resolution that isn't framed. It's because we have an inconsistent way of doing these things so I don't want you to feel in any way That this, as a matter of fact my office is going to frame this resolution. Because it doesn't make sense to give somebody a nice framed resolution on their retirement and somebody just a piece of paper. So we will make sure that we get our policy consistent and I apologize that this resolution isn't going to be framed. We will get it framed afterwards. Supervisor Adam he's new so we're gonna help him out here.
Mr. Allen would you read the resolution? Thank you.
Chairman Carbaugh, members of the board. This is a resolution on commendation to Robert Ritchie for service to the Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services in the County of Santa Barbara. Whereas, Robert Ritchie, Ph.D., has actively served the Department of Alcohol, Drug and Mental Health Services from January 16th, 1996 to March 29th, 2013. And whereas, Robert Ritchie has worked tirelessly as a licensed clinical psychologist to improve the health and well-being of individuals with mental illness, their families, and their loved ones. And whereas, Robert Ritchie as program manager provided strong leadership to his subordinates, wise counsel to his peers and supportive response to the administration. And whereas, Robert has provided powerful guidance to the courts in individualized real world instruction to the coming generation of psychologists.
And whereas, Robert Ritchie has consistently rendered compassionate, caring and mindful treatment to mentally ill and disadvantaged youth working individually with the executive team to develop programs to assess, treat and care for emotionally disturbed children. And whereas, Robert Ritchie has made a strong positive and enduring mark on the methods and resources available to promote the welfare of underserved youth and families in our community. And whereas Robert Ritchie steadily promoted the well-being and professional development of the clinical staff under his charge. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes and commends Robert Ritchie, Ph.D., for his exemplary contributions to our community and extends its best wishes upon his retirement from the County of Santa Barbara passed and adopted today.
Chair Carbajal, members of the board. Dr. Ritchie truly exemplifies the values that guide ADMHS in its mission of service. He's worked as a psychologist, manager and forensic expert all the while maintaining his focus on serving the youth and families of our community with innovative clinically sound interventions designed to promote wellness and full participation in society. He has remained a leader in all his roles and his presence will surely be missed. With me is also Michael Kraft, Regional Manager Who has worked closely with Dr. Ritchie for the years.
Since I've been with the department for only a short while, I've asked Michael to come forward with a brief specific example of how Dr. Richie went above and beyond his duties to provide excellent service for the county.
Chair Carbajal and members of the board. It is a pleasure to be here and share with you just one small example of the many, many contributions that Bob has made to our department and also to our community as a whole in 2006 when he stepped down from his manager position and returned to being a psychologist conducting forensic evaluations, he created an internship program in partnership with universities throughout the state that brought into our system the best of academia infusing our teams with cutting edge information about the nature of services and assessment.
And also providing mentorship to those specific interns And expanding the range of services and testing that are available to those youth. And I can say that as a staff member who came in under his mentorship, that our whole team has really benefited from his style of leadership, from the way he has mentored, from his tireless caring and wisdom. We will both miss him and we congratulate him on his years of service. I present Dr. Ritchie.
Thank you. When I came to interview, to become a psychologist with Santa Barbara County, I was working as an adult outpatient supervisor in Pomona at a community mental health clinic and I would leave work and there'd be bullets flying overhead and usually all the potted plants were stolen over the weekend And so when I came up to Santa Barbara County to interview, I thought this would be a real cupcake job. And I looked at Santa Maria and I thought it was very nice community. I didn't think there would be very many problems. Maybe a few high school dropouts. A little bit of teen pregnancy I'd heard about but...
It didn't take me long to realize that there were some very, very high risk children and families. And if one did their job right they became productive citizens happy. And if you didn't do your job right there were suicides, homicides, chronic mental illness, chronic substance abuse And career offenders. So when I came in the MISC program, I had the opportunity to work shoulder-to-shoulder with probation officers, child welfare workers, public health nurses, CBOs and it was a very exciting time with state of the art treatment.
The sky was the limit and you know I'd like to think that we saved a lot of children and families. Had the opportunity to work with Ms. Densmore It was fantastic. At this point, children's mental health has fallen on very hard times. The resources are sparse. The challenges have never been greater. And only through renewed collaboration and clinical direction are we going to be able to adapt those challenges. Anyway, I would like to thank the board and Michael Kraft and Dr. Wada for this award. Thank you.
0:54 – 1:006 turns
We are now going to have Mr. Supervisor Lavaniello do item A7. Thank you, Mr. Chair
and as is tradition I have disease of the month but I have a very good working relationship with our public health department and don't want to... Are you
getting open surgery today?
No, I'm not getting a TB test today so In all seriousness, TB we don't think too much about tuberculosis anymore but there are 9 million people worldwide that get sick from this disease. It kills a million and a half people a year. There were 2300 cases in California last year and it's a very expensive disease to treat. Costs the state over 70 million dollars so I want to congratulate our public health department For the emphasis that they've put on educating our public, dropped from 82 cases in 1993 to just 24 cases last year.
And obviously our goal is zero so we still have work to do but hopefully with today we are putting the spotlight on TB. So I'd like to call up Public Health Nurse Jean Borges and Dr. Charity Thoman, our Deputy Health Officer. Mr. Allen?
Chairman Carpall and members of the board, this is a resolution proclaiming March 24th 2013 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County. Whereas on March 24th 2013 in honor of World TB day, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department joins the global partnership Stop TB In My Lifetime to raise public awareness of tuberculosis and the effects made to prevent and treat the disease.
And whereas, in their lifetimes children should expect to live in a world in which no child contracts TB and men and women should expect to live in a world where no person dies from TB. And whereas one-third of the world's population is infected with latent TB and each year 9 million people develop active TB resulting in 2 million deaths worldwide. And whereas, public health educates Santa Barbara County residents with the message that TB can be cured with medication but when left untreated it can kill. And whereas in 2012 Santa Barbara County reported 24 active TB cases representing a case rate of 5.6 compared to California's case rate at 5.9.
And whereas in 2012, the Public Health Department Disease Control staff identified and screened 111 at-risk individuals with close contact to active tuberculosis cases in an effort to break the chain of TB transmission. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does proclaim March 24th 2013 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County pass and adopted.
Supervisor Lavinino, members of the board. Thank you so much for this opportunity. I'm Dr. Charity Thoman. I am the Deputy Health Officer and the Tuberculosis Controller for Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. And this morning we are honoring Jean Borges, one of our outstanding public health nurses at the department. I want to talk briefly about tuberculosis. World Tuberculosis Day is a really important day for public health.
To start off with a little bit of history, 100 years ago so in 1913 tuberculosis was the number one killer in the United States. If you can imagine that it was the number one killer and over the last hundred years through the enormous accomplishments of public health physicians and nurses we have reduced that down to comparatively few cases in our county compared with 100 years ago but it's really important for us to remember what tuberculosis is and how it was eradicated I shouldn't say eradicated. It's still around, but it's off the radar for most people. The reason it's off the radar is that public health departments across the country, meaning every county in every state set up an infrastructure with public health nurses and tuberculosis doctors, and they took a very strategic approach to essentially reduce tuberculosis within their own county.
What they did is they identified a tuberculosis patient, isolated that patient with legal orders, gave legal orders for mandatory treatment of the patients meaning they have to take their medications and then they went out and investigated every single contact who may have been exposed. Phenomenal job on public health's part. Fast forward 100 years that's still what we do today. That's what we do everyday. That's what I do everyday. And these nurses are amazing. They go out into the field Treat the patients and they care for the ones in isolation and they find the contacts, many of which are little children. In our state there's 2.3 million people infected.
That's an amazing number. In our county last year we had 24 cases. In our county we also have cases of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis, which is the most feared form. So the infrastructure that we've set up in public health that's led to this great success in the last hundred years, is really important now in this age of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis because now the challenges that we have are even greater than they've been before. To treat one of these cases takes an enormous amount of work. I want to recognize Jean Borges for her phenomenal job. Jean is one of the nurses who runs the Tuberculosis Clinic meaning she's the one actually caring for these patients when they come in to see the doctor. She has to coordinate between the tuberculosis program meaning the administrators And the clinical folks that take care of the patients.
And she's just done an outstanding job. We want to recognize her as one of the many champions for tuberculosis and for our patients in the county, and I thank you today for that recognition.
1:00 – 1:0519 turns
That concludes our resolutions. We will now come back to our public comment on items that are on the agenda, A through, on the administrative agenda. So let me first go to my colleagues. Are there any items that you would like to pull? Supervisor Lavinino?
829 please. 829. Supervisor
Adam?
A13, 19, 20 and 28.
Anybody else? Okay and we have how many speaker slips?
Chairman Carbaugh members of the board we have one request to speak on item a7 we have nine requests to speak on a28 and one request to speak on 829
Okay. Why don't we come back, why don't we first do our colleagues? If we could go to item A29, Supervisor Lavinino. Chairman
Carpall and members of the board, Item A29. It's from the county executive office, the request that the board approve and authorize the chair to execute a letter of support for a plan to fund a vessel speed reduction incentive program off of the Santa Barbara County coast through California's cap and trade auction proceeds.
Thank you, Supervisor Lavendale. Thank you Mr. Chair and I don't know if
David
Huda asked these questions or I guess Dennis. Sorry Dennis but we had the hearing last week about the Climate Action Plan and how to reduce our footprint and I'm in total support of this measure and I've heard about this through the APCD meetings and slowing marine vessels in our channel It looks like if we were successful that we could drop 370,000 tons of GHG.
Our goal for the whole year that we were talking about in our last meeting was 187,000 tons. So I guess my question is first off why weren't we talking about this last week? And number two is all of that talk that we had last week where we met with so much resistance This would double that whole thing we talked about last week. It would seem like this would be pretty easy, so how does this fit into the whole puzzle?
I don't think I'm the best person to answer that question.
That's why I was asking Dennis Buzanich,
Dennis! And I'm very grateful for
that. Why don't we let our CEO outline who is going to respond to this. CEO Waller
Thank you, Chairman. As I know the Legislative Committee is aware this item was actually brought to the Ledge Committee for discussion I believe just a couple of weeks ago and during their discussion the Ledge Committee actually asked that we bring this to the Board of Supervisors for their input and hopeful support of the items so that's how it came before you today is via the Ledge Committee.
It wasn't discussed as part of the Climate Action Plan mainly because it was not assumed to be a part of the action plan. It was an item that was sort of on a parallel track and a separate track, and sort of late in coming. If in fact we are successful or APCD is successful in getting the grant dollars certainly that would be something that we would meld into the plan as it moves forward.
Well, yeah I think that's critical because to me the goal is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions in Santa Barbara County and the unincorporated area. These vessels are a huge polluter in our channel and I think this is pretty much low-hanging fruit if we're able to grab it then it could stave off some more drastic measures that we were talking about.
Thank you Supervisor Leonardo. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all I appreciate that this item is before the board. I fully support it and I think Mr. Lavagnino brings up a good point as to why this wasn't part of our plan but I think the answer to that is when we were looking at the GHG reductions there was a chart That talked about what are those things that we as a county can do. And then down below were the issues of kind of the larger issues that were state and federally regulated, that we didn't really have a lot of control over.
So this is in fact one of those. So I think to the extent that we can take a stand and tell our legislators That this is indeed having a huge impact on pollution in our county. I think we're doing what we can do, our lobbyists are aware of this and so I think this is great that we as a board are moving forward on this. Thank you Mr. Chair.
1:05 – 1:0911 turns
The board discussed the items that they wanted to discuss, then we're going to go to the public. Thank you very much Mr. Lavinino. We are now going to Supervisor Adams' items A13, A19, A20 and A28. We'll start with A13. Mr. Allen if he could read the item?
Chairman Carmel members of the board item 813 is some community services. The recommendation is regarding Kachuma Reservoir re-roof project This is general services project number eight five eight eight construction contract amendments number five and six this in the third district
Supervisor I got some eye contact going with Mr. Parker and he's approaching the mic. The question is, I have a slight technical problem maybe you can explain it to me on item B of the board letter It says it's in the public interest to waive all applicable competitive bidding requirements. And I realize this is not a gigantic amount of money, but you know the competitive bidding requirements seem to be there for a reason and I'm wondering what the compelling interest was?
So maybe you could explain that.
Excuse me supervisor chairman, perhaps our County Council can be helpful there since this is a general services project And I believe they've worked with General Services. Perhaps they could help us identify the question and the answer.
I'm so sorry. Mr. Parker
Go away, mr. Parker You're right
I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam. The reason why this is in there is that the public contract code, the California Public Contract Code specifies that in certain instances where The amount of the alteration or amendment of the contract exceeds 10% that there may be a need for competitive bidding. But those bidding requirements, there's case law that states that those requirements may not apply If it's in the public interest, including the health safety welfare of the people to waive those bidding requirements. Okay so
that's my question why did we find that this was in the public interest and maybe not some other project?
Supervisor, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam In this particular instance there is a need for this particular work to be done For both expediency reasons and also really just trying to In this particular contract, there's already a contractor on-site doing work. And it may actually cause more delay, more money if this requires going out to bid for somebody else new to come on site to disturb that work that's already being performed by that on-site contractor.
OK, thank you very much.
Do we go on to the next item? Next item is Item 19. If we could read that, Mr. Clerk.
Item A-19 is from Planning and Development. It's to consider recommendations regarding the Caltrans Transportation Planning Grant application for the San Ynez Valley Trail and Township Pedestrian Circulation and Parking plans in the 3rd District.
1:09 – 1:1413 turns
The question here being, are we talking about having easements that we have to acquire from private parties to facilitate this?
Who's going to answer this?
Mr. Chair, maybe I could respond since this is in my district. First of all, Supervisor Adam, through the chair, this is very similar to a grant that the county was successful in competing for for the community of Los Alamos because when the San Ines Community Plan was adopted there were a number of follow-on items including these pedestrian circulation plans for Los Olivos and San Inés Which the county simply doesn't have the money or the staff to do.
This planning grant is a way to, if we're successful, start some of the work on that. It's my understanding that any trail that they're talking about would be in the Caltrans easement along 154. So it's not my understanding that we're talking about looking at private property at this point in time. But I think more importantly, I'm very interested in being able to do improvements for circulation within the townships. Because, in fact, I had a meeting last week with representatives of the new San Ynez Township Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Ziegler and the others, in looking at those kinds of issues. So if we're successful here, we could at least have the grant pay for some of that initial work.
OK, so there's no easements contemplated over private property? Not that I know of. Perfect, thank you.
All right, Item 20. We'll go to item 20 if you could read that item Mr. Allen?
Item 20 is from planning and development the recommendations are to approve and authorize the chair to execute amendment number one to AMEC environmental and infrastructure inks existing contract in the amount of $60,000 241 dollars and 49 cents for a total not to exceed of two hundred fifty four thousand three hundred thirty five dollars which includes a base contract of $236,690 and a contingency of $17,645 in order to complete additional analysis in association with preparation for the EIR for the Goleta Beach County Park Managed Beach Retreat Project 2.0.
Supervisor
Adam. This is more of a comment, I just didn't want to let it slide by here without saying you know we're going to announce here later that we've got a $10.8 million deficit and we're gonna spend here 300,000 bucks to take some rocks out there all covered with sand And I don't expect to change anything by this comment that's actually going to happen here. But I think somebody needs to stand up, and I think I got elected to stand up and say that we need to consider stopping doing these things that don't appear to need to be done at this point because we're out of money. Thank you Mr. Adam. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to comment the Goleta Beach 2.0 project is in my district this has been going on for quite some time and this is finally we are in the EIR stage and this additional funding is to basically Consider an alternative that came out of the EIR so the comment about That we're just taking the rocks out is premature. We don't That is actually the reason why we're doing the EIR Is to make sure that it's whatever project we move forward with is the appropriate Project and so that is why we're asking or the staff is asking for additional funds And that is to better explore one of the alternatives that has come out of the initial Research in the EIR. So I Appreciate moving forward with this. I believe and county staff is here.
This is coming out of one of our grants Mr. Russell, is that is that correct?
Yes, I can answer that when this is coming from the federal Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service CIAP grant
So I do think this will serve the community much better to have a very robust and well-evaluated EIR. Thank you, Mr. Adam. And it's not general
fund, correct? Supervisor Adam? That was my exact question. It's not general fund. No contribution. Okay. Thank you.
We will now
move on to item 28. If you could read item 28, Mr. Allen.
1:14 – 1:1920 turns
Chairman Carbajal and members of the board, item 828 is from planning and development. The request that the board set a hearing for April 2nd to consider recommendations of the county and Montecito Planning Commission's Which would amend respectively the County Land Use and Development Code, the Montecito Land Use and Development Code, and Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance. All of Chapter 35 zoning of the Santa Barbara County Code to modify existing regulations and implement new regulations regarding the use of property for temporary uses special events.
Thank you. Mr. Adam, before you go I just want to say we're going to get to the public comment right after this. This is the last item that my colleagues have but on this particular item I believe we have 11 speakers and I just want to let you know that if you're planning on a long speech it's not going to work today. Today's really on setting the hearing yes or no? That's really all we would want to hear from people providing comment so again Yes or no, not really getting into the item today. That's in the future agenda. Mr. Adam?
You know I'm going to forego in the interest of time my comments because they're probably going to be duplicated by the public so thank you.
Thank you very much Mr. Adam we will now go to the public and why don't we start with A-28 and again if you're here to speak on item A- 28, the item that the clerk of the board just read we are again if you had a long comment Today it's really just setting the hearing, yes or no. Really nothing much more beyond that. You could forgo speaking if you want when your name is called because know that that is really what we're seeking from you.
Mr. Allen?
I'll start with Mary Harris to be followed by Hans Dues.
Good morning. My name is Mary Harris. I'm the Executive Director of the San Ynez Valley Hotel Association, representing the 32 hotels in the six communities of the San Ynez Valley. I would urge postponement of the consideration that you are talking about so that we can also consider the good neighbor policy which has been proposed by this special events industry and supported by many of us in the hospitality industry.
Thank you very much.
Hans Dues to be followed by Dorothy Lawson
Good morning Mr. Chair, Supervisors, staff I'm Hans Deuss. I'm a resident of Solvang business owner in Buelton. Question is what is good government? Good government the way I see it exists to provide for the common good and to create a social environment wherein all have the opportunity to pursue happiness. The current special events ordinance With its proposed amendments, it's fraught with legal problems.
Excuse me sir? Could you speak to whether setting the hearing or not? We're not going to get into anything else
today. I would like the hearing postponed and the good neighbor ordinance considered. Thank you very much.
Next. Dorothy Alonson to be followed by Jessica Cuppers
I'd like to propose the opposition of 828 and a consideration of the good neighbor policy. I am a homeowner, and the good neighbor policy addresses my concerns. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Jessica Cuppers to be followed by Reverend Miriam Lindbeck
Good morning. Jessica Kuypers, Bijou Events. And I'm in favor of postponing the hearing and I too would like to see this special good neighbor special events ordinance. So thank you.
Thank you. The Reverend Miriam Lindbeck will be followed by Lynette Lamour.
Good morning chair. Good morning everyone. I am in opposition for the amended ordinance and am in favor of postponing the hearing, in favor of the Good Neighbor Special Events Ordinance. Thank you.
Thank you. Lynette Lemire to be followed by Leigh Rosenberg.
Thank you so much for your time. I know you're so busy. I'm Lynette Lemire and I'm asking you to delay the adoption of the amended ordinance Additionally, 503 signatures and you've been emailed a lot of the opinions and comments from other people who would also like you to consider the adoption of that before you proceed because there's so many mistakes in it. And the issues aren't even addressed in the amended issues. So
there we go. Thank you. Lee Rosenberg followed by Jeff Alexander.
1:19 – 1:2530 turns
Chair Salud and Supervisors, thank you for letting me speak. I speak in favor of the Good Neighbors Special Events Ordinance. I request that the little parenthetical item in A28 be considered and that the item of the amendments to the special events ordinance be postponed for three or four months in order to give the county and the public an opportunity to analyze, examine, be educated on the issue of the Good Neighbor Special Events Ordinance. So with your permission I sincerely recommend That you postpone that particular item on your April 2nd agenda for this purpose. Thank you very much. And may I submit comments for the
record? Sure, absolutely.
Jeff Alexander to be followed by Stephanie Armstrong. Good morning, Chair, Supervisors. I'm Jeff Alexander, Santa Barbara County Film Commissioner here today actually on behalf of the Conference and Visitors Bureau. I would like to respectfully request that the hearing to consider the proposed revisions which is scheduled for April 2nd be removed from the agenda. And I thank you for your consideration.
Thank you. Stephanie Armstrong to be followed by Bonnie Hope.
I don't believe she's here. Next?
Bonnie Hope. And our final speaker would be Nanette McIntyre.
Good morning board, thank you for hearing us this morning my name is Bonnie Hope and I am the owner of a private disc jockey service in town as well as a wedding fair producer and I'm asking you to postpone the hearing and also I am also supporting the good neighbor special event ordinance and hoping that you'll take that into serious consideration thank you
Thank you. Nanette McIntyre is our final speaker on this item.
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to be heard. I am a life cycle celebrant and an officiant in Santa Barbara, and I am very much in favor of the good neighbor special events ordinance and urge that you postpone the hearing for the current ordinance. Thank you so much.
Thank you. This is our last speaker on this item. I want to thank you all for adhering to the instructions we provided, it's very helpful. Thank you so much. Supervisor Adam?
Is this an appropriate time to ask to handle this item separately?
Sure.
Can I
ask a
question first before we do that? Supervisor Lavagnino? Do you mind if we have other items that we want to go to the public too?
My question was for P&D. Whether...I noticed it was...I noticed the Good Neighbor The policy was attached to this item, I mean on A-29. Are you prepared to discuss it on April 2nd or how long would you anticipate it taking before you were ready to take a look at
it? Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Lavagnino the policy has been an alternative ordinance if you will has been submitted I would need policy direction and resources to kick off a major effort to review that ordinance. It's certainly nothing that could be adopted by any stretch of the imagination at the next hearing, and consequently it would be policy guidance and some desire to come back with resources necessary to do the ordinance development and outreach.
So before Mr. Adams goes, Mr. Russell, did I hear you say that to study it's going to require
resources? As is the case with many ordinances. It is a major undertaking to develop an ordinance and do the environmental review. So in addition to being a significant policy change from our current ordinance, it would require resources.
Thank you. I just thought I heard that but I wasn't sure. Thank you so much.
I'm not sure how you get out of this thing. At the minimum, I just want an opportunity to vote no on setting the hearing. Is that the appropriate?
You could make a motion if you
like. I will make that motion at this point. I'll second that for postponement.
Motion's been made
and seconded. I didn't make it for postponement. I made it not to be set. Okay, so then I guess... It's postponed
indefinitely. That was my motion. I'd like a time frame. I mean, I want to see an ordinance done. I just want to see Good Neighbor taken a look at and I guess that would be a policy decision that we would have to make.
Well you just had Mr. Russell, Dr. Russell sorry tell you he doesn't have any money to work on it
I will just reiterate to us that this is to set the hearing. Correct. We can get into all the issues when we set it. And I'm trying
to figure out when to set the hearing for, so... Okay, I'll second your motion.
Motion's been made and seconded to postpone the item indefinitely. Further discussion?
1:25 – 1:3523 turns
I'll just make a comment. You know, I've been following this and comments that were made at the Planning Commission back and forth. There's a lot of you have been involved in that process. I think given the comments from Mr. Russell, the item before us is the appropriate item for us to consider I don't believe that we have the resources or the manpower to move forward on a much more extensive analysis. And so, I'm going to be voting against the motion. Thank you Mr. Chair.
I didn't catch the lights, who came on? Supervisor Farr.
Thank you Mr. Chair. You know I won't be supporting the motion either. I do think that a hearing is the time for everybody to come forward make their full comments including all of you who've been here this morning and waited and didn't get a chance to really speak to the issue at hand only to the timing of it. And I think that is incumbent considering the amount of time That all of you and others in the community have spent making comments on this. And that the planning commission spent on it, that we would at least set the hearing and hear from everybody on it, and then go from there. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Lavaniello and Supervisor Adam, then I'll...
Okay, Supervisor Farr, you make a great point that I am voting to extend Indefinitely, I guess with Supervisor Adam. But I am looking forward to the hearing and I think a lot of these items can be addressed and it still could come out of that hearing We could make a policy decision at that time to change paths or so those of you have showed up to speak I'd like to see back here on April 2nd
I'm not sure. I understand, Mr. Lavanino. So you're not voting to hear this item but you want- It wasn't for you. But you want a hearing to proceed? Okay, thank you Supervisor Adam.
Okay I just think this whole thing is a solution in search of a problem and I'm going to be voting no on it. Great,
well I'll have the last word before the vote. Yes. I think time and resources have been spent on getting us to this point. I think there's a new neighbor ordinance that has a lot of potential That we could consider for the future and maybe studying it and getting something done. But without a hearing, we can't even get to consider a good neighbor ordinance like some of you are suggesting. So I am going to be voting against the motion because I think that the item will come to the board. We will have the ability to deal with all the policy issues that are before us and take action at that point. So call for the vote Mr. Allen. We could do a voice call?
Mr. Adam? Yes. Mr. Lavinino? Yes Ms. Wolfe? No. Ms. Farr? No Mr. Carbajal?
No
Motion fails 2-3 Thank
you We will now move on to the remainder of our public comment I was going to call you Supervisor Council Marshall
Mr. Chairman, I think to make the record clear you should have a corresponding motion to set the hearing You had a negative but you did not have an affirmative action.
Well wouldn't that be as part of the overall? Okay, so you're right. Is there a motion to second the hearing as stated by the staff report? Seconded. Not having further discussion all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Why don't we do roll call? I know but it's okay. I didn't hear at all. Mr. Adam
Mr. Lavagnino, Ms. Wolfe, Ms. Farr, Mr. Carbajal?
Aye.
Passes
3-2 Thank you we will now go to our public speakers the rest of the items
We have two public speakers our first is Jeff Bard on item A7 that's been previously read into the record Great and we've read this already Mr. Bard
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm speaking about World Tuberculosis Day and the factual and positive stuff has been covered. It's all true. However, I have to take exception with a triumphalist tone with which the department presented really a forensic model of how wonderful it is that we can force people to take TB meds. Now there are patients that require that service absolutely but 99% of the noncompliant cases are not because of a lack of will on the part of the patient It's because of lack of support services. Typically, they're homeless or wandering people lose track of them and I have a case file in the CDC there's five homeless outbreaks studies and this guy had active pulmonary TB he probably had cavitary lesions they lost track of him.
He lost his meds. He showed up at the homeless shelter And he was there for like four months before anybody even noticed that his severe coughing was, in fact, pulmonary TB. He wasn't even offered his meds. So the answer isn't you know the police power of the state let's form a lockdown unit and do directly observed therapy many cases on people who actually don't probably are not even high risk. That's not the answer.
The answer is first of all this new protocol called 12 times one instead of daily medication They take a weekly for 12 weeks and the compliance rates are up in the high 90s, whereas even under the glowing assessment we heard from the department. The compliance is actually less than 60%. Um, now contact tracing unfortunately is completely not on the radar of the Southern California. Specifically I'm talking about the rescue mission in Los Angeles which is like what records? They don't even know who stayed there that's why there's 4,650 people wandering around Some of them possibly infectious, some of them possibly will show up here next year at the warming center where they have anonymous check-in. And I floated a proposal to get at least email addresses or text numbers of these people next year so that they can do the contact tracing.
So please don't make war on the people who have the disease. Yes there are some people who need to be court ordered but very seldom is that really the solution The solution is if you're going to issue orders order your homeless service providers to keep track of who's staying at these shelters so that God forbid we have an outbreak which is quite possible next year or even next month. We'll be able to track people down and say hey you need eyes and eyes it I had a lot of really positive stuff I have to hold but some of that there's new rapid diagnostic testing promulgating throughout the third world. We're probably not going to have in this county because we haven't paid cash. We don't qualify for subsidies. So let's see if we can get the rapid diagnostics on board as well.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Ward. We have one last speaker.
Our final speaker is Mr. Caldwell. He has a slip in on 829 that's also previously been read into the record.
Thank you Mr. Caldwell for being so patient. Thank you Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, Amanda Caldwell representing COLAB. This item is a perfect microcosm of what's wrong with AB 32 and also what was wrong with your action last week to pull the trigger prematurely ahead of a mandate On a B thirty two climate action the bottom line is your staff admitted last week that we're shooting for this fifteen percent target before we know everything else that's at play with regard to greenhouse gas reduction in the state of California and sure enough one week later you have this item too basically. We spend four to six million dollars a year to try to get ships slowing down in the Santa Barbara Channel. Let's take a step back and explain this to you and the public.
Where does the four to six million dollars come from? It comes from charging businesses in the state of California for their greenhouse gas emissions. So we're going to charge oil companies, cement kilns, manufacturer industrial complexes fees that will probably be in the billions of dollars. Some of those fees are going to be put into a slush fund for the state of California to go out there and pay other people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Now in this perfect little context, this is the best illustration we have. You have boats coming from China to the United States It is full speed ahead with those boats until they hit the Santa Barbara Channel. And there's the state of California handing out tens of thousands, if not millions of dollars for them to slow down for the last 100 miles.
So 5,900 miles at full speed ahead, greenhouse gases galore being emitted in the atmosphere. But California's gonna go it alone, charge businesses here to write a check to these guys to slow down as they break going into the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. And those ports are giving out $2 million a year each for them to slow down in that part of California.
And of course your proposal is to make this proposal statewide, and we don't know. Is that going to cost $20 million a year? $30 million a year? $40 million a year? Is that going to include tankers from Saudi Arabia that slow down in their last 100 or 200 miles? So you're charging California businesses to reduce a pittance of the greenhouse gas emissions that are being emitted globally. And we're gonna feel good about ourselves while we bankrupt California businesses, charging them money so we can pay foreign shipping companies money out of our pocket for them to slow down and what the heck did we accomplish? Absolutely nothing.
1:35 – 1:4116 turns
Thank you very much. Is there a motion to approve the administrative agenda motions been made seconded discussion having none all those in favor aye passage unanimously we will now move on to our D agenda and we are going to take OK I thought somebody we are going to go directly to item 1 We're going to have a reception after this item, and we'll be able to take a break and talk to some of our honorees and have some good food and all that good stuff. So again, to introduce this item, Mr. Allen if you could read it into the record?
Chairman Carp, all members of the board, this is Item 1. It's from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to receive a file or presentation on the County of Santa Barbara Commission for Women's History Month Service Award. Thank
you.
Yes good morning chair Carbajal supervisors I'm here this morning to briefly introduce the county. Could you introduce
yourself
so we all know
who you are?
Cassandra Lawson EEO manager
thank you
thank you once again good morning I'm here to introduce the County of Santa Barbara Commission for Women. March is women's history month, and the commission for women have identified five organizations that are carrying out their mission of serving women and children. And since I'm going to be very brief we're going to start with the first district Mary Beth Carty.
Can I cheer since it's my district first? Yay!
Thank you Chair Carbajal, thank you Supervisors for the opportunity to honor five of the county's most impactful organizations with a service award. First I'd like to call Girls Inc., Victoria Juarez and Jessica Wetzel and Jackie Browdy to the front. Our first district award goes to Girls Inc. of Carpinteria in the Eureka program. And I'll read the description of the program. Through the Girls Inc. of Carpinteria Eureka Program, Carpinteria girls are provided with support to seek higher education through a long-term comprehensive program featuring rigorous academics, tutoring, mentoring and life skills development.
The Eureka program puts local middle school girls, many of whom will be first generation college students on a university campus for four week summer program. Participants agree to a five year commitment and during the first two summers girls spend four weeks on a college campus engaged in hands-on activities focused on math, science, technology, sports, personal development, college readiness and careers During the third summer, girls participate in a four-week paid internship in a career field of their choice hosted by successful professional women. Girls also meet with adult mentors to help further personal and educational goals throughout the year. Then years 4 and 5 will primarily focus on supporting girls as they navigate the college and scholarship application process as well as touring college campuses.
And the program includes a very important parent component. Girls Inc. staff members act as role models and encourage girls to seek scholarships through Girls Inc. and other sources, and they offer support in workshops focused on college applications, financial aid, test prep, career exploration that may lead to alternative post-secondary educational opportunities.
Eureka has become a critical part of the core mission at Girls Inc. to empower young women to achieve personal, social, political and economic success in order to become strong, smart and bold. For that we congratulate them.
I'd like to thank Mary Beth Carty and the Women's Commission for this awesome honor. And we actually have some staff and girls here in the back to come with us to accept awards, so if you guys would like to stand
up. Come on up. Don't be shy.
And they're really the reason that we do this. And they are our first group of girls to come through the program, so we're really, really proud of them. So this award is really theirs. And we're looking forward to the future and bringing another cohort of girls on. And then we hope to just keep these girls coming and have our mentors, Steph and Megan and all the other people involved in the program, to really keep them going. And we really appreciate the support of our community. Thank you.
Great, thank you. Congratulations. Being that this is, we're all as we do the awards, we're doing one for every district gives us an opportunity to say just a few words. Again I just want to congratulate you. This is an extraordinary program that Girls Inc and Carpinteria implements. Girls Inc in general's just a great organization. Mary Beth Carty, thank you for being a first district commissioner. And I want to recognize the other first district commissioners, Alejandra Gutierrez and Melissa Walker as well. Thank you for all your good work, as well as your fellow commissioners on this commission. You guys just do extraordinary work and I appreciate all the great things you guys do to raise awareness of the issues and challenges that women face in our county.
Thank you so much for your good work. Next? Who do we have next?
1:41 – 1:462 turns
Good morning. I'm Minister Gwendolyn Hampton, and I'd like to say thank you for your kind comments, Supervisor Carver-Hall and good morning supervisors. I am delighted to be here to share a little bit about the California Youth Connection Santa Barbara chapter. And in doing so, I would like to invite Meredith Scott to come up and join me please. And I'd like to share a bit about it. The California Youth Connection was founded in 1988 by a group of foster youth and adults to provide a vehicle for California's foster youth to learn leadership and advocacy skills, and to engage directly with policy makers To improve the foster care system founded on the model of youth empowerment more than 20 years ago.
CYC maintains a dual focus on policy and youth development. It is the only organization in California to engage foster youth in the policy making process, and it's now a national model. It serves more than 500 foster youth members ages 14 through 24 via 32 county-based chapters throughout the state. The Santa Barbara chapter was started in 2011. The California Youth Connection Chapter currently serves 20 foster youth and is growing yearly.
For the past two years, they have traveled to Sacramento to meet with policy makers and in 2012 The Santa Barbara Chapter won the CYC State Chapter Debate Competition. The Santa Barbara Chapter currently meets three times a month at La Mirada and UCSB. In May 2013, the Santa Barbara Chapter will hold a celebration to honor the CYCs 25th anniversary. With that, I present the second district award to Meredith Scott who is here on behalf of the California Youth Connection Santa Barbara Chapter.
Thank you. It should be the youth that are here accepting this, but many of our members are UCSB students and they're in the middle of finals. So it was hard to get them here. In January we had 11 foster youth travel to what's called Day at the Capitol in Sacramento. And they were able to meet with legislators and The meeting after, I went to them and I asked them to tell me about some of their experiences. And one young woman who says she's never been political in her life felt empowered just being in Sacramento seeing the Capitol. She said, Hannah Beth Jackson came over and shook her hand and spoke to her. And she was just overwhelmed with the possibility that she could make changes in the system.
The second youth said that he saw a 14-year-old foster youth who was having trouble navigating the whole day at the capital experience so many people. He kind of took him under his wing and helped him throughout the weekend and I said to him, this young boy will never forget you. And he said, I'll never forget him. And then the third one is the one that touched me the most because when we started the Santa Barbara chapter, we gathered a bunch of youth together and asked them How they felt about the California Youth Connection and what they like at Chapter in Santa Barbara. And they went around the room and talked, and most of them said that they were over 18. They were out of the system but they wanted to make a difference in the lives of younger children.
And this young man who went to Sacramento Hadn't been at that meeting, and I asked him what his experience was in Sacramento. And he said the very same thing that these youth had said two years ago. That he's hoping to make a difference for his younger siblings, cousins, friends, and all the young ones still in the foster care system. So thank you for recognizing the foster youth, appreciate it.
1:46 – 1:527 turns
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a lot of comments of appreciation. First, I just want to start off with the Commission for Women and everything that you have done in our community. And I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of our reception that will happen after these presentations. I think all of you working together throughout the county and representing all of our districts is really a statement of all of us working together.
And I also want to specifically thank my commissioners, Tanya Israel who's not here. She's the newest member. Gwendolyn Hampton, thank you so much for your presentation. And Gayle Teton-Landis, chair right, Gayle? Last year, last year's chair of the Women's Commission. Outstanding representative so thank you very much and Where is, where did Meredith go? Meredith.
What a nice surprise to see that you are accepting this honor and I've known Meredith for many years. Meredith was an elementary teacher very much involved in COM and her passion for foster youth in our community is just outstanding and sometimes we can't We up here can't do, we cannot do everything. And so we depend on people like you Meredith who get the ball rolling who work with kids foster youth they have a special place in my heart being involved with Judge Herman's group I can't even think of what the name is but it was a foster youth group that he put together in the county and It was the Blue Ribbon Commission on Foster Youth. And having visited La Mirada myself, and now hearing what the California Youth Connection is doing is just outstanding.
And these types of things could not happen without people like you and the folks that you work with. So I want to acknowledge you and I want to thank all The kids or young adults who are involved in this program taking that step of empowerment to go to Sacramento, to speak out, to have a voice on issues that are so important to them and to all of us. So I thank all of you. Thank you so much.
Thank you Supervisor Wolf. Next we have the third district. I hope I got the right order correct okay? You let me know if I don't.
Hi, I'm Tracy Beard and I'm with the 3rd District. I represent Doreen Farm, very privileged to. Today we have decided to honor the Women's Independent Giving Society. They were founded in 2009. It's a mission for Women's Independent Giving Society. We call them WIGS is to develop and maintain a women's giving society to fund select for human services for disadvantaged youths families and children throughout the Santianez Valley WIGS' founder has chosen to help people helping people on an umbrella organization. The goal of WIGS is to empower women, to make a positive difference in the community providing resources that have a greater impact individually than by themselves It's to diversify within its program areas, family resource centers, emergency services, advocate for domestic and children's abuse prevention.
They help out within the built-in area seeking success after school, youth down business to business. Accompanying 18 different social groups within the valley. It is very hard to fundraise and we felt it was very proper to identify women within our valley that fundraised for all the issues that the Women's Commission stands for. So, we want to honor the Women's Independent Giving Society from the Santiago Valley.
Thank you very much commissioners and supervisors. And we
have an award for you, I think we're giving it to you so.
And now I'll thank you. I'm here on behalf of the Women's Independent Giving Society, the WIGS. And I'm old enough to choke a little bit when I say that. But we were formed four years ago, a very small group of women got together with the concept that we would serve in some way and some capacity to the less fortunate in our valley And over the ensuing four years, we have grown exponentially. We just kind of keep gathering in our friends and then our friends bring their friends.
And we've grown from a handful of women to over 50 women in four years. And what we do is once a year, we make a generous donation. We open our checkbooks and we gather at luncheon Once a year with one check. So time is not the issue here, it is being able to help and fund. And we do that under the umbrella of people helping people so that we're able to put forth a tremendous amount of resource that goes to helping the children and the families in our valley that need the help through People Helping People. This is funding for Groceries, this is intervention in abuse programs. This is after school programs and we are very happy that we're able to do this. We're very glad and we're very proud of the fact that we've been able to do this over the last four years.
And we're planning to grow and continue so we thank you for this recognition. We're very honored.
1:52 – 1:583 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, well I certainly would like to offer my thanks as well to the entire Women's Commission and particularly my appointees Tracy thank you so much for being here today to represent the district. You know I still look forward to this presentation every year by the commission and every year I think oh what groups are they going to be able to honor? And every year they come up with all new groups so I think it just shows what an incredible county we have And I'm so proud and privileged that we can honor them.
You know, I think that the testimony that's been given here today shows that WIGS was an idea whose time had come. That so many women in the area wanted to make a difference with their donations but felt that their donations singly were not that impactful. And so by coming together and pooling the resources that they had, that they wanted to donate. That they have been very impactful and certainly partnering with Dean Pellius and his wonderful staff at People Helping People was just the right kind of partnership in order to focus those donations in a way that The Weeks Group wanted to do which was Help the local community, help people in the valley that they knew were really needing basic services for all of the underprivileged groups that we have.
So thank you so much for what you've done. I think clearly the growth of the group in just four years shows that it's doing really wonderful work and something that women in the valley want to be a part of. So thank you very much.
Next we have the fourth district.
Yes, good morning District 4 Martha Height I haven't had the pleasure to meet you yet. I have chosen from District 4 Joellen Lutz and her program is One Heart. In 2006 after a tremendous amount of loss Joellen Let's Discover Challenge Day, an experiential program for teens that deal with bullying, suicide and oppression. This opened her eyes to a need in Santa Barbara County and she decided to create One Heart.
She began to immerse herself in her community joining Altruza of the Central Coast Future Search. Families United, Searching for Hope and People for Nonviolence Committee. She has managed to create her own programs around connection and empathy. One heart's vision is to strengthen the local community creating an atmosphere where people feel safe loved and celebrated for who they are.
Their mission is accomplished through on site educational workshops in assemblies featuring music and experiential experiences emphasis I'm sorry, One Heart offers workshops and programs tailored for specific needs of all ages with specific emphasis on bullying, health, the performing arts and compassionate communication formerly known as nonviolent communication.
Throughout 2012, One Heart either created or co-created several programs including Soul Shop which brought an anti-bullying program to the YMCA and Boys & Girls Clubs Camp. In September 2012, One Heart presented a program for Peace Week called From Bully to Peacemaker. During 2013, One Heart's focus will be on creating peacemakers In January 2013, she provided 11 programs at Robert Bruce Elementary for 300 students.
The hope is to create a movement of peacemakers in every school program from Santa Barbara to Paso Robles. The program uses an interactive and musical approach to engage the student from grades kindergarten through sixth grade while building life skills and empathy. After working with the Alternative Detention Center on Foster Road for the past year, JLN started a new program this February to allow youth in the system to break down the barriers that make them feel separate from the rest of the world.
She wants them to know that they do matter. Lastly, in February a free class was co-created with Restorative Justice to teach nonviolent communication to One Heart and Restorative Justice volunteers. The hope is to eventually teach more adults these incredible tools for communication so it is my pleasure to introduce to you Joellen.
1:58 – 2:047 turns
Supervisor Adam?
Well, to be perfectly honest my staff put this together and as she said I haven't met her so I'm at a little bit of loss but congratulations very much.
I don't know. She said everything, so I don't have much left to say. I want to thank the board very much and of course Martha Height who said she's been keeping her eye on me. I think I know your family, so that's why. Born and raised in Santa Maria, I really feel a privilege to be able to help my community at Give Back. Where One Heart is a non-profit and I couldn't do it, a nonprofit organization in Santa Maria. Couldn't do it without my board members behind me who not only have kept it together for the past year but are also participants in many ways giving of their own time and efforts to do the events last March 9th we did our second annual This was a women's event, free for women and girls 13 and up. This was a way for them to learn about nutrition and all other kinds of facets along with the other two members behind me.
And we also have a couple of... I have a couple board members who do the non-violent communication which is Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Next we have the 5th district.
Good morning, supervisors. My name is Gail Pratt. I represent the 5th District on the Commission for Women. It is my distinct pleasure this morning to recognize a wonderful organization serving the 225,000 people living in northern Santa Barbara County. That is the North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center and I know their board chair Linda Cordero and their executive director Shannon Rose Chavez are here this morning. Please come forward while I Talk about this incredible organization. The North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center has a long history in the Santa Maria Valley since 1974, has an office in Lompoc and Santa Maria.
With a mission to reduce the incidence and vulnerability to sexual assault and child abuse for providing education and prevention skills to community children and adults. And to alleviate the trauma experienced by survivors of these crimes, by providing direct services. In 2011-2012 they did provide many services, in fact 1700 specific intervention services to more than 590 people. They do that through a 24 hour hotline, crisis intervention, counseling case management and advocacy. In addition, the organization firmly believes in preventative education as such they operate the SAVE program at Lompoc High School and they are also on the campus of Allan Hancock College Until the day arrives that no child or adult suffers the pain caused by being abused or sexually assaulted, the dedicated staff and volunteers of the North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center will continue to work on behalf of sexual assault victims in North Santa Barbara County.
And on behalf of the Commission for Women, the 5th District, and Supervisor Lavagnino, congratulations and thank you for your work.
Supervisor Lavallino. Well, first off it did take me a little bit to appoint a commissioner but I did pretty good huh? Thank you very much Gail. I appreciate everything that you've done and I just want to also thank Joyce Howerton as well. Joyce showed up at our, as well as Shannon did was a participant and a big player in our veteran stand down event And the North County Rape Crisis Center was a big reason why that was successful. And Linda, thank you for all you do in the community and this is actually one nonprofit that I would like to actually see go out of business because I'd like for you not to have anybody to serve but as long as we still have those problems in our society, I'm glad there's people like you that are there to pick up the pieces afterwards so thank you very much if you'd like to say something.
Thank you. I want to thank the commission as well as the supervisors, I agree with you. Our goal is to put ourselves out of business until we can do that will keep providing services. We have been in the North County for almost 40 years. We've reached thousands of people each year with the intervention program that we do but also tens of thousands through our education prevention. Our goal is to educate the community from children to adults about sexual assault and child abuse, so that the community as well as individuals can become involved.
It does take a community to stop these kinds of issues from happening. And the theme today has pretty much been about empowerment. And that's really what our center does through the work of volunteers and staff. We empower survivors, victims of sexual assault and child abuse to become survivors. And we empower the community to make a difference, to step forward and speak out against this. So I thank you for the recognition and the support.
2:04 – 2:232 turns
Congratulations to all the honorees being awarded the recognition today. Thank you so much to the Commission for Women, all that you do. Now we are going to have a motion to accept the presentation and go to a reception that the Commission for Women and Supervisor Wolf now I understand are hosting next door here. Everybody's invited from the public please come Enjoy one another's company and some good food. We are, if I could have that motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion has been made and seconded to accept the presentation today for discussion.
Having none all those in favor? Aye. Opposition passes unanimously. What's the appropriate word? Adjourn? Recess. To our Commission for Women's reception, I would say come back in 15 minutes for the board members and certainly the reception could go on further without us. We'll break.
¶. Music Music ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶. Hi. I. ♪ ¶¶ ♪ you Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Hello, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. ♪ Music playing ¶. Hi. ¶. ♪ Hi, everyone. ¶.
2:23 – 2:3710 turns
I'd like to reconvene our board meeting and we're going to go to item number two. Mr. Allen, if you could read the item
please? Chairman Carbajal and members of the Board, Item 2 is from Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. It's a hearing to receive and follow-up presentation from the county and Santa Barbara employees retirement system staff to provide the board with an overview of the county's employee retirement rate setting and contribution process. Thank you. CEO
Waller? Thank You Chair as your board will recall Recently, we provided you information on the rates that the county would be expected to contribute for our SBCSARES contribution this year. What we have for you today is some additional information that will, we believe, respond to many of those questions that you had. So what we're going to be going through as an overview We will have County Council give us information on what your responsibilities are as a Board of Supervisors and what are those responsibilities of S.B. Sayre's board, an actual funding basics, some funding policies and some actuarial assumptions.
Then we'll have our budget director utilizing those actuarial rates, provide you information on how we bring that forward with the budget process and how that impact of a rate of return could affect our contribution rates. And then lastly our auditor controller We'll share information about the impact of GASB and the new reporting standards on our pensions. So with that, Mr. Counsel?
Before you go, our liaison to the retirement board is Supervisor Wolf and she's going to make a comment.
Just a quick comment and thank you Mr. Chair I just wanted to thank the Board for having this what has been called a tutorial. I do appreciate that and I want to thank in advance Mr. Gary Emilio Executive of the Retirement Board who's here, who will be giving the presentation along with our actuary. And I know Gary will do the proper introductions and I also want to acknowledge Ward Rafferty.
He is in the audience. He is also one of the board appointees and he is currently the chair of the Board of Retirement. And we all know Harry Hagen but just to remind all of you that he is also on the Board of Retirement. And to staff, thank you as well and Mr. Geis for all of your assistance in putting this together.
Thank you. Without my colleague's objection, and if there is objection let me know. I'm hoping we can get through the presentation and after every speaker we can raise questions and issues so that we could be expeditious in having this hearing. So if you could write down your questions as issues arrive and then after every speaker we'll try to address some of those issues or we could do it after the entire presentation whatever works best in us expediting our hearing.
But be assured that the board will focus on specific areas at the end that I think we have the most interest in. So aside from the tutorial, know which areas are the ones that are most interesting so feel free to elaborate on those and be minimal on the basic tutorial by yet covering all the bases. Mr. Emilio? I'm sorry, who's going next? Oh it's Mr. Marshall!
And I will try to...
I didn't call you Mr. Dennis today, I called you Mr. Marshall.
Thank you. I will try to be brief and provide a conceptual framework in which the board may find helpful in understanding the roles and the relationship between the Board of Supervisors and Retirement Board and SB CSRS in the county retirement system Interestingly, the relationship of the 37 Act to the county government throughout this state has been somewhat confusing.
Although the county must take action to adopt the 37 Act and make it applicable in a county, once the board takes that action, the retirement system is deemed to be a separate government entity and independent from the county. You'll hear discussion about the 37 Act today, and that is officially known as the California Employees Retirement Law of 1937. That law governs the operation of the retirement system. It's both limiting and provides optional actions for both boards.
But first turning to the Board of Supervisors role and authority with respect to the 37 Act Retirement Program, I want to look at four different areas where your board impacts the retirement system significantly. First is I've already identified until the board or the voters in a county choose to adopt the 1937 Retirement Act there is no obligation at all to the retirement system Once the board or the voters adopt the 37 Act, and then that triggers a set of responsibilities for the Retirement Board. And it also sets duties and obligations on the Board of Supervisors.
One of the other powers if you will authority that the Board of Supervisors have that impact retirement benefits is the boards absolute authority to determine the compensation for its employees. The compensation determined by your board to be applicable to employees in the various classifications becomes the foundation for the employee benefit calculation. That calculation, as I'll discuss in a minute, is actually made by the retirement board.
The second power, duty, authority that the Board of Supervisors has once there is an adoption of the 37 Act for a county is to determine the various benefit levels under the 37 Act that they wish to make applicable to employees. Now as we've seen recently, the enactment of PEPRA effective January 1st of 2013 has really greatly limited those options Your board in the past and boards throughout the state that have adopted the 37 Act have had a menu to select on different benefit levels, formulas. You most commonly hear them at 2 at 57, 3 at 50.
Those are greatly restricted now with PEPRA having been enacted. And also there were options to determine levels of employee contributions. Now one benefit that interestingly was not affected by PEPRA, and that's the COLA program that some counties have adopted. Your board still has options in that area, both in terms of the type of benefit going forward and the payment of those benefits.
Now, the fourth power that the board has is the power to appoint four members to the retirement board itself. The retirement board by statute consists of nine members, four are appointed by the Board of Supervisors and has been indicated the board has appointed and is authorized to appoint one of its own members to serve on the retirement board. Four of the retirement board members are elected by the membership and the ninth is the ex officio member, the individual holding the office of treasurer in an individual county.
So after the creation adoption of the plan a great deal of authority is then transferred or vested in the retirement board. The source of the Retirement Board Authority It's found in an overarching sense in the California Constitution and supplemented by various statutory provisions in the 37 Retirement Act. California Constitution Article 16, Section 17 was amended in 1992 by the voters when they passed Proposition 162 which was generally known as a California Pension Protection Act of 1992 It was designed to protect pension benefits and prevent the diversion of pension funds to other uses.
Most importantly for this discussion, the constitutional provision section 17 vests with the Retirement Board plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for the investment of the monies in the system and for the administration of the system subject to various provisions. One of those provisions It reaffirms that the Retirement Board has a sole responsibility to administer the system, to assure benefits to participants and beneficiaries.
And that the Retirement Board is charged with discharging their duties for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and minimizing employers' contributions but their overarching duty is to participants taking precedence over all their other duties as retirement board members. Now moving to the Retirement Board System In administration, I've identified three areas of discussion today and I'll touch on them briefly because you'll be hearing more about the third area employee actuarial studies. But the Retirement Board determines members retirement allowance. The board sets the salary And under the 37 Act, there are different provisions to determine how much and what types of salary approved by the board are actually pensionable income.
So the Retirement Board does those calculations The Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to determine what the ultimate retirement benefit is. For example, your board approves certain overtime payments or certain premium pays. They may or may not under the law of the 37 Act, may or may not be pensionable income and that is the responsibility of the Retirement Board to make those decisions.
Secondly, the Retirement Board has the exclusive authority of the system, the money that has accrued within the system from employee contributions, county contributions and past earnings. The third responsibility that I'm going to discuss today is the one that really leads into the heart of your discussion that you're going to hear about And that's how interest rates, member contributions and county appropriations are determined.
And from my perspective the heart of that determination rests with actuaries and the Constitution section 17 again requires and provides that the retirement board shall have the sole and exclusive power to provide for actuarial services in order to assure the competency of the assets. Supplementing the constitutional requirement provision for the actuarial studies, then the 37 Act itself actually requires actuarial studies within certain ranges of time period and requires that based on these actuarial investigation valuation recommendations made by the actuary, the retirement board conveys that to the Board of Supervisors 45 days before the beginning of your fiscal year.
The subsequent section says that within 90 days of the beginning of the fiscal year, your board shall adjust rates, interest rates, rates of contributions for members and county appropriations. Historically from time to time there's been some confusion because the retirement board according to statute recommends to the board based on the actuary study, the following statute It is your responsibility really requires the board to adopt the actuarial recommendations.
Now, there is the one exclusion that the board is not required to adopt rates or set rates in amounts that would reduce benefits. In my experience I've not yet encountered that situation nor has a situation arose in my practice and then again the final A piece of the appropriations that the legislature included was if the board fails to make appropriations, that the auditor then is charged with and mandated to transfer funds to the system, the retirement system from any funds available in the county.
And that provides, I think an overview. I think you'll hear more about how the funding and the actuarial reports really turn into rates and calculations for county contributions. Thank you.
Supervisor Adam?
2:37 – 3:0017 turns
Maybe this is more of a comment. I just would have preferred Mr. Marshall to have that in the board letter, so I could digest that a little bit better than looking at your back while you say that. That's sort of... Makes it hard for me to digest. I mean, I'm just a stupid farmer so you gotta hang with me here. Now another thing you said is and just for argument's sake I'm not suggesting we do this but could the Board of Supervisors repeal the 37 Act as it applies to new hires?
That has been the topic of some discussion among lawyers, whether the county could terminate our involvement. I think there's some legal issues that would need to be addressed as to current employees, as to future employees. That was something that we had explored alternative options in the past. To my knowledge of the 2037 act counties, none have withdrawn. But is it theoretically possible? I think it probably is theoretically possible.
Okay. I just want to know if that's on the table or not. Thank you.
Thank you. Please proceed whoever is doing the next leg of the presentation. Mr. Emilio.
Supervisors, I would like to introduce the retirement system's external independent actuary. Mr. Graham Schmidt has come down and he is a senior professional with the firm Chiron and their subdivision EFI Chiron and he will be addressing you in providing information and you've seen that in your in the advanced materials on the slides
Thanks, thanks very much Gary and thanks to the board for inviting me down here and for your interest in the topic. I've quite a bit to cover but I'll try to do it briefly. I want to talk just a little bit about actuarial funding basics and try to talk through some of the terminology you hear thrown around a good bit. We'll talk a little bit about funding policy and how you set your financing plan to provide the benefits that have been promised and then we'll touch on actuarial assumptions at the end of the presentation I have a couple graphs that I'd like to work through just because I think it's the easiest way to sort of understand what's going on with actuarial funding.
You're looking at an example here that a colleague of mine put together as a way to explain it via funding his daughter's college tuition. He had a goal of accumulating a certain number of assets by the time she went to college from the time she was born. And what you're looking at on this graph on the left vertical axis is an asset target, how much he would like to have accumulated in assets and across the horizontal axis you're looking at time so you see a red dot in the upper right hand corner that's the goal after 20 years he'd like to have set aside $200,000 to pay for her college now we haven't updated these dollar amounts in awhile I think they probably should be higher But if you're looking across the graph, you'll see that there's a path.
And the path in blue is your asset target. What we're trying to accomplish is to put aside a set amount of money every year so that we can accumulate enough assets to meet our goal. On the vertical axis on the right-hand side, you see the amount of assets that are put aside each year. So you see, if you put aside less than $5,000 a year at the green line, You would accumulate enough assets over 20 years to get to your goal of $200,000. That's assuming all of your assumptions are met including how much you're going to earn in investment earnings and the timing of those contributions.
This is nothing more than actual funding. If you look at any point on the line, say at year 15, the asset target is somewhere around $120,000. That's the amount of assets you would like to have at that point in time and we call that the accrued liability. That's the actuarial accrued liability. It's not a debt that you owe to anybody at that specific moment in time. Our goal is actually to accumulate $200,000 But after 15 years, our asset target is around $120,000. And that's what we call the actual accrued liability.
The annual amount that you're contributing every year in actual terms, that's the normal cost. So it's the annual contribution that you're trying to make each year to accumulate up to your goal. Now what happens when you go off your goal path as we know will happen because not all our assumptions will be met in every year. When you look at the red line and that's the amount of actual assets that we have at any point in time. So in this graph it appears as if we have earned less than we would have assumed.
Compared to the asset target, the blue line. And the difference between the blue line and the red line is what we call the unfunded accrued liability. It's just the difference between the assets that you have on hand versus what your target is. So how do you get back to that target? Well, you make a makeup contribution. What we call the amortization of the unfunded liability. You don't have to pay that amount off all at once. You can choose a period of time over which if you contribute an additional amount, you'll get back to your goal.
So we call that the amortization of the unfunded liability. If you add that to the annual contribution that you're making each year, the normal cost, you get your total contribution and between those two amounts you should be able to get yourself back to your goal if you've strayed from the path of your asset target. So again, the asset targets the accrued liability. The difference between the assets you actually have and the target is called the unfunded liability. The amount you contribute every year is the normal cost. And then any difference between your asset target and where you are on the path you make up with an unfunded liability amortization payment.
So that's nothing more. That is actual funding. That's what we do with the pension plan, we just do it over and over and over for each individual employee. We add up what their goal is plus their norm, and then we determine the normal cost, the path that we want to follow to get to their goal, and then to the extent that the assets in the fund differ from the total target of all the members added up, we add an additional contribution, make-up contribution to get you back towards your path.
And then the board's job is to help you set that financing plan. How do you make, how do you finance the plans so that the contributions will be necessary to meet those targets? There are some elements that the board has to adopt in setting those contribution rates. Um, three major areas that go into the financing plan that is set by the board. The first is the actual cost method. It's nitty gritty details in the calculations in terms of how do you split the benefits between past versus future service.
Amortization, that's a big one. That's how long How long should the sponsor have in order to pay down that unfunded liability? If you were to require immediate payment of that unfunded liability every year, you would see extremely large fluctuations in the employer's contribution rate from year-to-year which you could not budget. So by spreading those payments out over a period of time, you stabilize the contributions. The longer the period, the longer it takes you to get back towards that goal path but the longer the period, you also have more stability in those contribution rates And then we have what's called actuarial assets moving.
The assets of the plan are much more volatile than the liabilities, you know? Assets can earn double or triple what you expect them to in a given year, or earn a lot less than that. Whereas we're making predictions about when people are going to retire, how long they're going to live, how much money they're going to make, et cetera. We tend to be a bit more accurate in those projections because people don't all of a sudden decide to live three times as long as they had the year before.
So assets require an additional tool to help deal with the volatility that would be implied in the contribution rates because of the big swings in the investment markets. So we apply what's called asset smoothing where we gradually recognize returns above and below your assumed rate of return, so assume for a minute your investment assumption was 8% and you actually earned 13% in one year. You had a 5% gain or return above your assumed rate In terms of the asset value that we would use to compute the employer's contribution, we would only recognize a 1% gain because we're only recognizing one-fifth of any gain or loss in a given year. The opposite would be true if you had a lot, if you only earned 3% on your assets. That would be a loss of 5% if your return assumption was 8%.
Well, we would actually assume that you only lost 1% in this year's assets and we will recognize the rest of those losses over the following four-year period. What happens is that because investment markets tend to go up and down these gains and losses offset each other so by deferring a portion of those gains and losses to future years they offset each other and you tend to see a more stable set of contribution rates.
So how does the board go about setting what this financing plan should be? While state law has certain requirements, under the 37 Act there's a maximum 30 year period over which you can amortize the unfunded liability. You also have the Government Accounting Standards Board, or GASB. GASB does not set rules for funding policy. They have no control over how much money you put into the plan. They do however determine how you have to...
It looks like you have a question.
Supervisor
Adam? Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a point of clarification where it says requires maximum 30 year amortization up there at top that is actually allows right because we're at 17 at this time right
Right, you can't amortize over a period longer than 30 years.
Right but it says requires so I just want the public that's seeing this to understand that that's not actually the case. That's just a misstatement.
But your 17 year period is shorter than 30. So you're within the law in terms of your current amortization policy.
I'm
just
talking about the phraseology requires.
Pardon me? I believe it requires a maximum of 30 years.
No more than 30 years. Okay, so it allows up to 30 years.
Thank you. Now the Government Accounting Standards Board which sets the standards by which you file your financial statements they also had a requirement That you had for your financial statement purposes, your pension expense had to be determined using an amount where your unfunded liability was also amortized up to a period of up to 30 years. GASB is changing their financial statements where they are completely getting rid of the terminology associated with the annual required contribution because they are not in the business of determining what your funding contributions should be.
However, some systems did use that 30-year amortization requirement as a de facto funding standard which in your case it actually did coincide with the funding requirements under the 37 Act law. But the new GASB standards are to some extent abdicating responsibility for determining what a reasonable funding policy should be. So there are other organizations that are sort of stepping into that breach. There's the Government Finance Officers Association or the GFOA which recently issued a statement saying that you should determine an actually determined contribution and that you should fund that amount. They said that they will be forthcoming with more guidance in terms of how you do the nitty gritty details, how do you amortize, what types of smoothing should be allowed and what sort of actual cost methods should you use?
There are national actuarial organizations, including the American Academy of Actuaries that are also looking at this issue. And the California Actuary Advisory Panel which is a group of appointed actuaries, I'm one of eight members of that panel recently came out with a document providing guidance to actuaries and other individuals on what are reasonable funding methods to look at.
So this guidance was actually just released a few months ago. The document identifies five policy objectives for how you're financing, for things that your financing plan should try to achieve. The number one being that you need to fully fund your benefits. Number two is maintaining generational equity and that's the principle that the taxpayers in groups receiving the services of the public employees on behalf of whom these benefits are being paid should be paying for the cost of providing those benefits.
You also want to try to manage contribution volatility. So again, if you were to amortize your unfunded liabilities over a single year, you would see massive fluctuations in contribution rates that the sponsor couldn't budget for. So your financing plan should also help you try to provide a stable level of contributions. We want to emphasize and encourage policies that support accountability and transparency so you can answer questions like when will I be paying off my unfunded liability?
And then we're also encouraging people to consider principal agent issues. Those can be expressed as issues in which the people making decisions about the financing plan might have incentives that differ from those of the plan participants. So it's sometimes known as the kick-the-can issue. Five levels, the document looked at different types of policies and categorized them according to different levels of evaluation. We were focusing on Sort of a single level cost model. When you see something like model there, it doesn't mean best practice. It means an actual mathematical model. We also looked at other types of practices which we deem to be acceptable practices. These are practices that are used generally and are found to be not problematic with your financing plans.
And then we have some other categories like acceptable with conditions, non-recommended, and what we would consider to be unacceptable. This group, the California Actuary Advisory Panel is an advisory group only. So it has no power to tell any plan sponsor or retirement board how they need to fund their benefits. I just wanted to touch briefly on Santa Barbara serves policies and where they fit.
Currently you're using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. I'm not going to get into details of that other than to say The point, the goal of that policy is to make the contributions for a given member even as a percentage of payroll throughout their career. So if you contribute a certain percentage of pay on their behalf for their entire career and all of your assumptions are met at the end of their career you will have accumulated enough assets to pay their benefits.
And the method that you are using is by far the most common and falls within what we consider to be the model policy within the CAP document. Asset smoothing, you're using five-year smoothing using fixed periods with a 20% corridor on the market value. That basically just means that to the extent that your smooth value of assets differs by more than 20% of the market value it's constrained so you can't defer more than a certain amount of gains or losses.
That also is considered to be a model practice within this document and again, is a very commonly used actuarial smoothing method. Amortization, you are currently using what's known as rolling 17-year level percentage of payroll amortization. That means every year we look at what the unfunded liability is, we set a 17-year time horizon to pay off that unfunded liability because it's considered to be rolling next year you would extend that period by one year so you're basically reamortizing your debt each year.
There's an exception for a portion of the unfunded liability associated with a prior benefit improvement Now, that amortization policy would fall into various levels of the CAP document. Rolling amortization of gains or losses is considered to be an acceptable policy because you expect that over time those things will offset each other. So like you do in your asset smoothing where you're recognizing a portion of each year's gain or loss and expecting that they'll offset, the same is true for gains and losses.
The actual advisory panel document doesn't look as fondly upon rolling amortization of things like benefit improvements, right? Because if you're re-amortizing that debt over and over, you will get to a... You're not actually going to pay off every dollar of that unfunded liability. So in the position of a benefit improvement where a fixed group of employees is receiving that improvement There's a question of does it make sense to extend the amortization payment for that benefit improvement infinitely into the future.
As you could see on the prior slide when you had a benefit improvement for your safety officers, you did have a fixed amortization period so there is a definite date by which that benefit improvement will be paid off. The California Treasury Advisory Panel document is also tending to try to shorten amortization periods or encouraging the shortening. So sometimes you'll hear the phrase 25 as the new 30.
One of the reasons why we're trying to avoid longer amortization periods is that if your amortizing has a level percentage of payroll, And your period is longer than 17 or 18 years, you can have what's called negative amortization. That's where the interest on the unfunded liability ends up being greater than the amount that you're currently contributing. So you could see an increase in the unfunded liability if you're amortizing over a period longer than 17 or 18 years.
When we there was a survey done several years ago the average amortization period for the 37 X systems was about 20 years. Again you're using 17 years for the bulk of your amortization period. I wouldn't be surprised though if that average of 20 has come down slightly since the last time this survey was done Actuarial assumptions, this is where we define what our asset target should be for a given individual. What we're trying to do is develop a best estimate of the future experience so we can avoid these gains and losses and we can achieve long-term stability in the contribution rates. So to the extent that in the long term if our assumptions are correct, the contributions that you put into the plan should be stabilized if your assumptions are true.
However, actual experience is going to determine what the ultimate cost of the plan is. It doesn't matter if we assume 7%, 8%, 9% earnings return. What you actually earn on the investments will determine ultimately what the cost to the employer and employees is. The assumptions affect the timing of the contributions so pay me more now or pay me more later right?
We do a formal review of all the assumptions as part of what's called the Triennial Experience Study. And that's currently scheduled for this year, 2013. For the economic assumptions we tend to look at information from the investment consultant and other outside sources. You're not necessarily making your assumption about what you're going to earn over the next 20 years based on what you earned over the last two or three or four years. Whereas with demographic assumptions, the assumptions about when people are going to retire, how long they're going to live.
To formulate those assumptions we actually do look at your past experience, your recent past experience because that tends to be the best predictor for what's going to come in the future. So we'll look at what have been your rates of retirement death and disability over the last few years make adjustments to them as necessary but it is recent experience that really guides us in terms of trying to set your future demographic assumptions.
The economic assumptions are those that have the greatest impact on setting the current contribution rate. The economic assumptions include not just the investment return assumption, but the inflation assumption, wage growth assumptions and growth in your post-retirement COLAs. We use what's called a building block approach and that requires that these assumptions have to be consistent with each other. You probably hear the nominal return referred to more than any assumption and that's the assumption for the plan is currently 7.75 percent. That's what you expect to earn on your assets over the long term.
That's actually made up of two pieces, what we call the real return and inflation. Real return is what you assume you can earn above inflation based on your asset allocation. Wage growth again is inflation plus something else. It's inflation plus what do you think productivity is going to be over the long term? So if you have a lower inflation assumption, you might be assuming that you would be earning less in terms of your investments. But you also expect that your benefits are going to be less because pay will be less and if pay is less benefits are less because the benefits are pay related.
The current assumptions of the plan are 3.25% inflation and our 4.5% real rate of return for a 7.75% nominal return, and the wage growth assumption is 0.5 percent of real wage growth so based on that same inflation assumption of 3.5 you get to 3.75 percent wage growth 7.75% is currently the most commonly used assumption for 37 Act systems prior to the last set of actual valuations, but the recent trend is for reducing return assumptions primarily based on reductions in the inflation assumptions as well. The inflation assumption of 3 1⁄4 is quite a bit higher than what the investment markets are predicting over the next 10 years for inflation. Their assumptions are generally in the 2 ½ percent range.
So to the extent that the plan has a long term inflation assumption that carries out you know 100 years or more. That currently is a bit higher than the markets are predicting inflation over a much shorter time horizon.
3:00 – 3:1453 turns
Supervisor
Adam was there widespread as you understand it and recall widespread prediction that in 2008 the market would crash?
From investment
from anybody in the investment world.
I think there are some but but I think
mostly
everybody
was just buying and fat dumb and happy right
The
crash. My point being is nobody saw that coming and so now everybody's going to predict a low rate of inflation. I personally disagree. I'm not an economist but that being said we'll let you go on
So the one thing to point out is all of these assumptions are meant to be long term assumption. So none of them are predictions of what's going to happen in the next year or even over the next five years because the benefits that we're projecting out go 30 40 80 years or further
isn't our whole United States economic system based on actuarials assumptions the Fed things that are We try to be volatile and we try to do as best a job as possible in predicting, but that is the foundation of this free enterprise American economy that we all live under. Isn't that the framework?
Yes.
Thank you. The point being is that it's nothing new. This is the American economic system.
If I might disagree just slightly with that,
yes.
Yeah, except with just some commentary. It's on an individual basis though. There isn't a collective wisdom out there because usually when everybody thinks the same thing somebody is wrong. So if we believe that there's going to be three and a quarter percent inflation over time, and we could make this a lot longer but I won't. I just disagree. I think that the inflation is going to be much greater and it's gonna provide a much more challenging set of circumstances in the future than you're predicting. And I hope you're right and I'm wrong but that's the way
Thanks actually ties really well to the last slide, which is we know that our assumptions are not going to be correct. The actuaries do not have a crystal ball so the good thing about the actual process is it's a self-correcting process Right. Every year we re-measure our liabilities and we look at our assets, and we set up a new financing plan for achieving our objectives. And those financing plans they adjust to the fact that our assumptions are not correct every year. We also look at the assumptions themselves on a regular basis. So many plans several years ago had discount rates above 8%. A lot of those have come down because there are thoughts in investment markets Inflation is going to be lower, at least over the medium to near term.
And because the expectation that you can earn a lot in the investment markets, particularly in the bond markets, that expectation has been reduced. So the assumptions also get revised on a regular basis. The important thing about the actual process is that it's self-correcting. That
concludes my remarks. Thank you Mr. Schmidt, that was really helpful in explaining the system. I believe now we're going to Mr. Alvarez?
Yes.
Are we gonna do questions of him? We certainly could have questions.
Okay.
Can I go? Sure. Okay. Mr.
Lavigna. First off and I have to agree with Supervisor Adam on one point and that is well many points but on one in particular is it I would have liked to have had a narrative along with this because when I took this home and started trying to study it I mean like I was looking at Slide 9, which is actuarial funding, which you put down as just an example of somebody's trying to save money for college. And I was trying to figure out how this will fit into the county plan. So I was a little bit lost. But let's go to number 10, which is the chart that you kind of gave us as a tutorial for actuarial funding.
And guess my question is, I'm trying to, so this is the problem with not interrupting here, is I'm trying to go back and look at my notes Okay, so the red line shows a short of where we're supposed to be on the blue line. Correct? So my question is for us do we have and then I see the whatever that is at the bottom this somewhat gray line is the catch-up contribution.
So theoretically if we add our catch up with our actual we should get back to the blue line
If you if you add and you've got some give me I'm colorblind. But I think that normal cost is that a
green line? Let's get you a pointer so somebody could help you. There we go.
OK, so red is short of blue.
OK. I'm sorry. I am color blind
now.
Somebody will help you there. This is the red line here. So this is the red line and he's saying it's short of the blue line here?
Right. We're going to be able to get the green line plus the gray line. Those 2 amounts will be enough to get the red line back to the blue line.
Okay, so that's theoretically some just now bringing this to the county do we have an equation that gets us 100%. So theoretically we, okay so how do you get from the blue line I mean the red line which is our what 74% or 70 something percent funded?
Where's
our other 23%, try to get me to where it gets paid off and where we're at 100%.
You're making a contribution right now equal to the normal costs plus the unfunded liability amortization. I believe those are pretty equivalent in the amount of those two numbers You're using a 17-year financing plan. So it basically says that if you were to contribute this amount as a level percentage of payroll each year, you would get back to 100% funded in 17 years. However, you're currently using what's called rolling amortization. So basically this year you've calculated contribution that would get you back to 100% funded in 17 years But next year, under the current policy you would spread that over the next 17 years. Now there are discussions about whether or not you should close those periods so that you guarantee that any unfunded liability that's been accumulated thus far would be paid off over a fixed 17-year period even with rolling amortization your funded ratio will improve over time.
So even if you continue with that 17-year period and then reamortize every year, you will see your funded ratio continue to improve. You won't be back to 100% in 17 years but you would probably see yourself up in the 90s I
believe. Okay so what I would like to see then is it'd be really nice to be able to see a chart that would say because I'm very interested The rolling amortization seems very close to negative amortization to me.
It's close.
Okay, so when you get in that position we all have seen what that's done in the housing. I mean, when you start getting a negative amortization it's you're chasing your tail. So our counties is anybody moving toward moving off of the rolling and let's just put a fixed time frame 17 years on this? How devastating would that be? What would that look like financially for us?
Interestingly enough, it doesn't really change your contribution rate very much. It wouldn't change at all today Right? Because right now we're using a 17 year period. If you closed that, it would still be a 17 year period. Next year you would see a slightly higher contribution because instead of using a 17-year, you would use 16 years. You would see, but that assumes that all of your assumptions are met. Right? You're going to have future gains and losses and those need to be amortized. So what a lot of people are considering doing is what's called layered amortization where I would amortize the unfunded liability we have now over a 17 year period. And next year if there's a new unfunded liability, I would amortize that over a new 17 year period so because you can't, You have to have some amortization of that unfunded liability or the county can't budget.
Right, it's
up and down too much here.
But you can say if you do this layered amortization then you can say well at least the unfunded liability we've accumulated so far is going to be paid off by a time certain. And there are a number of systems that have moved in that direction recently.
Okay. And any determination of something like that, of saying okay we're going to move off of rolling and moving into a layer to what would be done is done by the retirement board?
Yes.
Okay. Last question and this is just something I've always thought of that has always bugged me and I just want clarifications since you're the actuarial even though I got to be honest I guess I'm getting older but You have graduated from college, correct? I mean, you're very young looking. You're making me nervous. I've
been doing this for 13 years. Great.
OK, perfect. So I have one question about the actuarial part of it and getting out of the theory and into the real life. If we have an employee that comes in And moves up the chain of command rather, maybe towards the end of their career but makes a quick jump and has earned let's say $75,000 for 20 years of their existence. And then becomes a department head or whatever and moves up to maybe 175 and does the last three years and then retires and gets paid off of that 175. How is that factored in? Or how is that taken into the actuarial assumption rate and how are we covered for that?
So two different ways, and it's an excellent question. We re-measure the person's liability every year. So to the extent that their pay has gone up, it shows up in our projections of their future benefits. And that goes back into the financing plan, right? We compare our assets to our liabilities, and we come up with a financing plan to make up that shortfall.
To the extent that that person's pay has grown faster than we would have expected, well, that information becomes data that we look at when we set the assumptions as part of the Triennial Experience Study. So if we see that there are these patterns where people are getting large salary increases at the end of their career, we will build those types of assumptions into our model for how future people are going to earn benefits.
And what's actually interesting is that if you look across the average, across the plan as a whole, you will see certain instances in which that happens. But by and large, the salary increases that people see late in their career tend to be a lot lower as a percentage than the salary increases that they get in the first few years of their career. And we find that to be true across the board.
Okay. Well I want to thank you. This portion has been very helpful to me and I really appreciate The time that we're taking on this, even though these are basic questions maybe for you. These are something that really helps us answer our constituents' questions. I appreciate it.
Thank you.
One last thing. Sorry. So basically when the salary jumps up like that and you do reconfigure It basically becomes part of our unfunded liability.
Correct.
Okay, thanks.
You know I have a question. That example that Supervisor Lavinino gave is there any opportunity to explore different fixes to that? Not just from an actuarial this is the actuarial so the financing plan has to fluctuate But could there hypothetically be a policy that could be enacted that says, you're dealing with that issue on the back end and from just a matter of fact of assumptions which dictates the flow of financing that comes from in this case the Board of Supervisors.
But couldn't the retirement board and or the supervisors, or more than likely the retirement board set up a policy that says from here on out maybe not past employees because that's always an issue. A legal issue of past employees you will get the retirement formula based on the years you have 10 years of 75,000. And then when you bump up to $150,000, you then get a different tiered prorated retirement for those years so that you're not all of a sudden skewing the entire corridor of unfunded liability that you have never really contributed to in the past. So the burden isn't shared by the entire system but rather by the individual Does that make sense?
3:14 – 3:2017 turns
I probably should defer to others on questions of benefit policy. Do you understand
what I'm saying or getting at? I
do, and I think PEPRA addressed this portion of what we're talking about already. Part of
it, yes. I think there are two aspects to answer your question, Supervisor. The first is PEPRA has certainly addressed it and a lot of systems are addressing it by going from one year average benefit It basically mutes out the situation where someone is spiking or in their last year of employment, they're temporarily put into a position and it really ratchets up their income significantly higher. That's an isolated and small group but it certainly is addressed. The issue though with respect to whether or not you're going to provide a different level of benefits if someone moves up. For example, you're in one benefit tier if you're in all of these certain job grades but if you move later into your career let's say I've been to a department head position you should get a lesser benefit.
The employer sets that. The retirement board administers the benefits, they don't determine what the benefits are. The board would for county employees and then we have ten other employer groups in the system and each of them would have to set their own new benefit layers.
And is it correct to assume that these are probably minor instances where you have situations that are really egregious like that, where we have significant bump ups?
My experience and I might defer to the actuary on the situation you're talking about with careers that move up. But the situation with spiking, It has very much been overstated. What happens is it really looks egregious but there are actually a very, very small percentage of individuals who fall into that category.
Thank you very much. That's very helpful. Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair. Just a couple of comments. The first is I know that it was before Supervisor Adam was on the board and maybe it was before Supervisor Lavagnino was on the board I remember that the board had a discussion as far as what kind of a recommendation we wanted to make to the SB CSRS Board about the unfunded liability. And, we had charts that showed 30 year, 25 year, 20 year, 17 year, 17 year rolling And that's where we could see, particularly with the 30 year that we were getting into this negative amortization. And the board was not at all interested in going there even though it certainly made everything really smoothed out and flat and low during this time when you know we were having so many budget challenges. So I don't know whether those charts are still available as some models but that might be very helpful for those board members that didn't get a chance to look at those.
I think that the other thing I wanted to say is, while I appreciated your chart as the example about a parent trying to save for a child's education. It seems like where it differs from what we're trying to do is that was a fixed amount of money over a fixed amount of time. So by golly you better have that money in hand by the time that child is ready to go to college.
And all of it, or at least 25% of it and hope you're going to have 50%, the second year and so on. What we're doing is always this rolling situation. Where we're paying current retirees, we have to be prepared for who's going to retire in the near term. But we have to plan for everybody's retirement and yet it's not like we're gonna have a point in time where we're gonna have to have the money for everybody all at the same moment unlike the parent that's gonna have to have all the money at one time, at what point in time? So do you want to comment on that because I think that even though I'm very much concerned about the unfunded liability and then we get 200%.
It seems like the reality is, is that with county government we're never going to get to the point where we have to pay everybody at the same time.
That's an excellent point about the example. It is a vast simplification on a single person basis, and you are not running a single person plan. You have active employees, retirees, people who are vested in deferred. So you're correct. We always have different new people coming into the plan. The benefits are not being paid all at once like you had that goal in the example.
We are trying to pay these benefits over people's lifetime. So I really appreciate your comment that it is not a matter of you need that. That target amount of money at a certain point in time, even within that one example. Any point at any point within that person's within that timeline. If you were 10 years, you don't need that sum of money at that point in time. You have time over which to pay off an unfunded liability and the county is an ongoing entity right? So you do have time in the future over which you can adjust your financing plan.
Thank you for that. And I think that this kind of gets to even our own projections for what we're going to need to be putting into the retirement plan over the next few years, which is going to start to go down a little bit and I think that reflects the serious reductions in staffing that the board has made due to the impacts of the recession and the budgets that we've had to deal with and then now with Pepper and the change in benefits. So despite it all, that number is going to start to come down.
Yes and I would say well assuming there are assumptions are met right? But I would also say that and just to your very first point when we update the valuation as of July 1st 2013 we will be producing new sets of projections that show not just what is your contribution rate now but what do we expect your contribution rate to look like going forward and what is your funded ratio gonna look like going forward
And that is also dependent then on what the expected rate of return is.
Yes.
Because I know that we were expecting it to go down, the retirement board chose not to reduce it so if that goes down a little bit or a lot then that's going to cause this big bump.
And they'll be looking at that assumption as well as all the other assumptions as part of the experience study that will be taking place this
year. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Ann?
3:20 – 3:2612 turns
My slide 10 is I assume now not a depiction of the actual condition of Santa Barbara County.
That's correct.
Yeah, well you know I'm just going to read a quote from Supervisor Farr. I have them for myself and Lavinino as well but here's what Supervisor Farr said She quoted a presentation about the retirement board, about the unfunded liability, about the forecast and particularly about what is within the purview of the retirement board and what is within the purview of this board. And she went on to say having that kind of a presentation would be important particularly because we have new board members that were not here for previous presentations. And see that's what I thought we were going to be getting today This is a presentation of exactly where we are instead of the generalized tutorial and I know that Supervisor Wolf used the word tutorial in her motion so that's legit.
You know I think we have to go back through where we actually are and especially given the fact that you're new. And and I don't know if it's appropriate to have you review The Milliman work and then come back and report on that or just to allow you to go through life for a while and come up with your own
supervisor. I think we're going to touch on that in awhile if at the end, we don't address some of these issues for you. Absolutely. I think that's excellent. That's great guidance if we don' get there but I think we're going to get there with a few of the other presenters. All right. Thank you Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I was just going to echo what you just said. We have more to come. The word tutorial was not my word it was staff's word. It was a word that was chosen wisely because as Supervisor Farr said and I agree this is important for us to understand The actuarial study and Mister Schmidt while he is not. He is not from Millman, and you might comment on this. You have had a chance to review the actuarial report for Millman and are very well versed in it.
But I think I just put words in your mouth. It would be better if you just talked about that a bit since Supervisor Adam just brought that up.
We actually were the actuary hired several years ago to review the actuarial study of, I believe three years prior. So we did review the last actual analysis in depth or three years prior, we are currently in the process of building our own models to measure the liabilities and compare them to the Milliman valuation from the prior year. When we did our audit last time, we didn't see anything problematic in terms of the assumptions or the calculations that we were using but we are in the process of doing our own comparison to the July 1, 2012 actuarial valuation
And for Supervisor Adams' sake, when will that be done? Those models and the reports thereafter.
The timing for the July 1, 2013 valuation and experience study will be in the mid to late fall period. September or October.
Great. At the appropriate time after your retirement board has been able to consider these and act on them it would be great if we could have a little follow-up on that as well Not only Supervisor Adam, but I think all of us just to continue to stay on top of these issues. So if you could just keep that in mind. Before we continue with Mr. Alvarez who I believe he's going to give us another component of our presentation.
Is there a tipping point where a reduction in workforce has an adverse effect on the actuarial assumptions that we oftentimes use?
What a reduction in workforce will do is leverage the volatility in the contribution rate for the people that are left. Right? What does that mean? I'm going to explain it in non-actual terms, right? You have a contribution that's made up of two pieces. The normal cost and the unfunded liability. If you lay people off You have less normal costs because you have fewer people that are actually earning benefits, right? But the unfunded liability doesn't go away. You still have that unfunded liability and you're paying that off as a percentage of your payroll. So if you shrink your payroll, your unfunding liability payment goes up as a percentage of pay and it becomes more volatile because a change in your asset value is larger compared to your pay So it has, you know, say you have an investment gain or a loss.
That will make your contribution rate more volatile as a percentage of payroll. It doesn't necessarily mean your contribution is more volatile in dollar terms but when you're trying to budget it as a percentage of pay, it is more volatile because you're using a smaller payroll base. Does that make sense?
Yes. Supervisor Adam.
Well, and it's sort of like you just had a decrease in income and your payment on your credit card is, you know, you're maxed out on your credit card. And so your minimum payments never going to go down. So that's not about right?
3:26 – 3:348 turns
It's it actually you're still making the unfunded liability payment.
Right, which is never going to decline it's just your contributions are going to decline in the percentage that has to be applied to the extra payment is greater.
No, in dollar terms the amounts the same as a percentage of payroll it's higher.
Thank you. Can I add one thing to the chair's question as well? You'll recall when I came in November and gave the presentation with the graphs from the Milliman report, I had that water tank that was up on the board and in addition to liabilities going up, the more payroll reduces, that's less employee contributions going into the plan which means the more that has to be made up either from earnings or the employer's contribution so it also has that effect as well.
Great, thank
you. Mr. Alvarez?
Thank you for being so patient there.
Yes, Chair Carbajal and members of the board. So in my presentation I'm going to talk about the use of the actuarial rates and how we use that in the budgeting process. And I'm going to talk about four things. One is how the actuaries contribution rates are used in the budgeting process. Then we're gonna describe the salary model budgeting tool that we use and it's used by all the departments We'll briefly discuss the budgeting process when increased costs result in out of balance conditions within departments. And then we'll talk about providing a little bit of past and future look at the expected contribution trends and anticipated changes.
So our process really starts when we get the recommended rates, and then the board approves those rates. We'll then use those and load them into the salary model. And we'll talk a little bit more about the salary model in just a second. An estimate of retirement contribution rates is also needed for the out year 14-15. So we don't get an actual report for that, but the auditor controller in our office will meet together and say here's what we see coming down the road. We're going to assume a similar contribution rate necessary in the following year because no major things have changed. And in our case, we said in that out year, we think the rate of return is going to change. Let's overlay that and put that into our budget so that we're planning for that.
The next thing The actuarial report breaks out contribution rates into several components, and those components include various retirement plans. And each plan has normal costs, cost of living adjustments for those normal costs, basic unfunded actuarial accrued liabilities, and then the COLA costs associated with those unfunded liabilities, and the sum of all that gives you the total contribution rate by plan. So on this next slide What you're gonna see here, this page is directly out of the actuarial report and it's very small. And I apologize it's difficult to read but what I wanted to do was just reference where we get the information from. So on this slide there's three such pages in the actuaries report. One shows the overall average contribution for all members.
One page shows general member plans and one page shows safety member plans. And each has different plans within them. So the far right column is the total average of all general plans. And so this is the general plan section, the circled amount is the rates that we're actually using right out of that report and I can send larger or actual copies and you can also see this online but the general plan has a contribution rate of 31.7% for general members And so to point out to one of the prior questions is that 18% of that 31.7 on average is for the unfunded liability, so that's how we're paying down the unfunded liability. So it's really 57% of what we're contributing is going to unfunding liabilities.
It also shows the change from the prior year and then the estimated payroll levels. And this is based on their three-year experience study, so it will differ from what we're actually experiencing. So we won't use their payroll numbers. We'll use their payroll percentages and apply those to the real trends in the real dollars that we're seeing. For instance, we haven't seen a lot of raises lately To compensate for the budget challenges and so the assumptions within the actuarial report may assume colas and so forth that we haven't been seeing. So, the actual contribution may be less On this next slide, it's a very similar page. This is for safety plans mainly sheriff fire and probation and it shows the percentages of each plan.
And as we've previously communicated, safety plans are more expensive than general plans and the average of all safety plans is 56.8% of payroll dollars. And that compares to 31.7% for general, and again of that 56.8 average contribution 32 1⁄2% is going towards the unfunded liability and that is also 57% of our contribution So on the next slide, we'll talk a little bit about the salary model. And this is probably the most important budgeting tool that we use in the county.
Salaries and benefits account for 56% of counties operating expenditures. The salary model lists each position in each department, in each program by employee or position and includes the actual rate of pay for these positions. Rates for retirement are applied against each one of these lines And this will be applied on a position by position basis. So it's really a bottom up budgeting process for each individual position within the county using their actual plan.
The cost estimates are then used by the departments to develop their budgets for the coming year. Once the recommended year is complete, these same positions will be carried forward to create the next year salary model so we'll use that same base going forward. So then with the completed salary model, that's a key element in populating the budget. The department then estimates anticipated revenues expenditures to get a draft budget together.
If the budget has a negative bottom line, the department will need to adjust costs or reduce service levels to balance. CEO staff and the auditor controller staff then review these departmental budgets with them to determine that budget policies are followed and that the estimates that are used are reasonable based on available information. Any area of concerns are then reviewed with the department and adjusted as necessary.
The completed budgets are then reviewed by the CEO and a recommended budget is finalized. Any reductions in service levels that have occurred during the budget process are documented and communicated to the CEO and to the Board of Supervisors. Service level reductions will be reviewed with the board later today in a separate presentation. As we'll see in an upcoming slide, retirement costs over the past four years have been increasing at a very steep rate.
These increased retirement costs have been a major contributor to service level reductions, reductions in staffing levels and the use of one-time funds. This slide was included in last year's budget hearings and demonstrates the significant increase in retirement costs since 03 and 04, increasing from $37.5 million for the annual contribution to an anticipated $105 million in the current 12-13 year.
If you'll note the rapid and steep increase to the actual projected retirement rates starting in 10-11. Fiscal year 10-11 was the first year that the fiscal year 08-09 losses were absorbed into the rates, they're being absorbed over a five-year period and are a major cause of the unfunded liability contribution factors that we've been looking at in the preceding slides.
These losses from these two years total $772 million. The S&P 500 during the same period lost 57% of its value during this 07-09 period.
3:34 – 3:4530 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you go back to the previous slide? I had talked to Ms. Waller when I saw this slide and I thought you had sent an email correcting the 122 number because in our fiscal issues report it looks like it's less than that. And can you comment on that?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. That is correct, so this was a slide right out of last year's budget hearings and at that point we were projecting that in the out-year, the 13-14 year, we would have a change to the rate of return and that's why you're seeing the very large increase in that out-year. As we look at our estimated actual for the 12-13 year, so if you'll bear with me a sec, so this 12- 13 year right here Our current estimated actual is $106 million if you can pull that right out of thin. And then what we're looking, if we extrapolate what we've spent so far for the first eight months of the year it comes out to a little more than $100 million. So we seem to be tracking well against our 12-13 projection and then for 13-14 what we have now as a recommended budget that's been loaded to this point is about $114 million.
And so those are the amounts that we're showing as reference points. Okay,
I just think that it's important that we know that because that jump from 104 to 122 is well all of these increases have been significant but that one is particularly difficult and yet We know that that's not accurate. So I would, you know let's make sure we have the consistent information because like I said the number in our subsequent item is much less than this so I appreciate it. So the number then instead of 122 should be 114.
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. That's correct, and then the numbers will change on a regular basis as we go through the period what I wanted to do is say here's what we were thinking last year. I understand. And then I'm going to show from the actuary assumptions going forward what the impact of that would be and then overlay the two together and that'll kind of flesh out in the coming slides
all right thank you
Okay, this slide uses actual projected retirement contribution percentages multiplied by our actual 12-13 adopted payroll figure. And this will provide a consistent perspective of the anticipated retirement cost trend and it does not include any change in the assumed rate of return at this point. It does not overlay any reduction at this point of PEPRA changes which is the Public Employees Pension Reform Act. It has meant...
One
second
Mr. Alvarez, Supervisor Adam?
When you say cost, you're talking contribution here.
These are contribution dollars per year.
OK, thank you.
So it is simply meant to demonstrate that after the 8-9 losses are fully absorbed into the rates and that'll be in 14-15 that they'll be fully absorbed we would expect to see some relief from the rapidly increasing rates that have occurred in recent years these rates will not be precise there will be changes but this can illustrate the trend that were expecting to see So this trend of decreasing retirement costs is expected to continue as losses are amortized over the coming years. And a caution that our office and the Auditor-Controller's Office want to make, is that all the factors you heard about in the triannual review of our experience study can affect this very significantly as well. So we don't want to lock into anything, we're just trying to evaluate some of the trends that we're seeing and really we want to focus on the impact of those very large losses from 08 and 09.
And this is a projection as of today.
These, what we did was we used our 1213 adopted payroll numbers and then if you recall when... No Mr.
Alvarez I'm just saying this is a projection based on today. I'm trying to get your reaffirmation of that.
That is correct?
Yes because next year it could change based on other factors
Absolutely.
And to the extent that you can footnote that on these types of reports, it would be great in the future because it just reminds us as of today this is the projected estimate. Because if you pick it up next year, you know, you want people to have an understanding of the fluidity of it so I would highly encourage that in the future.
Very good. Please continue. Thank you. So on this next slide, what we've done is we've combined the two slides from the prior two slides. So we took the projection that we had done previously and really on the slide that we used in the budget hearings, we had a lot of actual information so we pulled the actual information and then we use the projected retirement costs again without a change for the rate of return or overlaying PEPRA which will be reviewed on a coming slide.
And with this graph starting at $35 million in terms The scale over here rather than zero, you can really see the steepness that's occurred over this five year period. And this is the period when we're amortizing those 0809 losses so you can see the big jumps here and then we level off and this is the last year that were fully absorbing those losses So it's important to recognize, as Supervisor Farr was saying a minute ago, that we've managed through some difficult times with the contributions and sacrifices of all county employees to adjust for the significant investment losses that occurred as the Great Recession took hold.
Because Safety Department retirement contributions are higher than other departments, the impact is much higher on these departments which are predominantly general fund departments. On this next graph, we start with the existing base that we had on the prior slide and that's this green bar here. And then on top of that We're going to be overlaying the actuaries projected percentage rate impact of the change of the rate of return. So here we're assuming that the rate of return is changing from 7.75% to 7.5%. Again, that may be more, that may be less but this is what we've assumed in our 14-15 projection and so what you can see is that's the blue bar up here on top. That's the impact of changing the rate of return by 25 basis points And as you can see in 14-15, the result would be $9.9 million right here and that's a 3.5% percentage as a rate of payroll.
The impact would diminish every year thereafter and earlier in the presentation we learned that the rate of return is proposed by an actuarial study and approved by SB CSRS so again that's something that will be informed about later In the county's 14-15 proposed budget, we have assumed a decrease in the rate of return of 7.75% to 7.5%. And again this is demonstrating what that impact would be over time with no further changes to that rate of return so that's an important point to make as well.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you. Can you just repeat what you said at what year are you anticipating the 7.0 rate of return?
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair. So in 13-14 we know that there won't be a change now to the rate of return that was voted on. The next study will be in the 14-15 year so we're assuming that's when it will take place.
I thought you're expecting the 7.5 rate of return to take place. I thought I heard you say something about seven percent rate of return?
No.
Did I hear you
wrong? No, 7.75% to 7.50%. Okay thank you. And that would be the 25 basis points we're referring to. Okay, so with this gradual reduction in the rate of return... I'm sorry. So previously, I'll just refresh your memory that some time ago about a year ago the CEO's office and the auditor controller had suggested to your board that it is worth considering a more gradual rate where maybe instead of changing 25 basis points at a time we might use a smaller rate of 10 percent or ten basis points rather per year over some predetermined period of time and in doing something like that it would have a more gradual effect on any of the rates and the contribution changes that are coming through This final graph uses the same information on the preceding slides, but overlays the impact of Pension Reform Act or PEPRA.
The positive impact in the early years is very small, but reaches almost $2 million in 16-17 and 5 million in 21-22. So what I'm talking about here are the amounts down here at the very bottom. You can see that these would be positive impacts so it's taking our rate down. And so as we get to fiscal year 21-22 at that $5 million mark, that would represent 5.7% of the county's total contribution.
The combined impact of all changes reduces the total contribution from this projected $120 million per year at 14-15 I'm sorry, 86.4 million in 2223. This is a change of almost $34 million and would be available for use as the board sees fit for upcoming activities and issues that face the county. Again these figures are not expected to be precise but meant to highlight anticipated trends of the reduced actuarial losses that occurred from 08 and 09.
This final slide displays the data that we've used on the preceding graphs for your information so that you can see the impact of each of the elements by fiscal year. So, we're just showing it in a table form rather than a graph form and we've aligned the colors with the preceding graphs. This concludes our portion of the presentation and I'll now turn it over to Auto Controller Bob Geis for his presentation subject to questions from the board.
Thank you. Before Mr. Geis, Supervisor Wolf has a question then Supervisor Adam then Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On this last slide it says the 13-14 pension contributions of $108 million. So going back to that chart that I had brought to your attention before, it was $122. Then I thought you said it's $114 million. So is it 114 or is it 108? Supervisor Wolf through the chair, the $108 million
3:45 – 3:5222 turns
was presented with a different set of facts. So we just used the actuarial percentage and applied that to our 1213 base payroll, so they're not intended to be the same numbers. They're coming at it two different ways. The figures that I gave you of 114 million is what we have currently loaded within FIN based on our salary model that we've prepared on a very bottoms up basis. This is a much higher perspective using an overall percentage.
Okay, and I just want to restate this. And that is that we need between $108 million and $114 million... Again, we're going to be talking about next year's budget. I really do encourage us to get As close to that actual number as we can, between 108 and 114. That's my first point. The second point is the change. I think it's just really important for us to note that 7.5 what the impact will be to our county budget.
And you know, as we talk about some of these other big items that Coming forward, almost $10 million in 14-15 when we're talking about the jail and some of these other high priced items. We have to be prepared because this is a significant amount. And I don't know how, we need to be planning ahead for that.
Supervisor Wolf, through the Chair if I may. Your point...the last point you made is one of what we're trying to do with this information and kind of explains why we have the two different sets of numbers. One is a very detailed number we use in budgeting and that will be our more precise number. And the other one is to give us that longer-term perspective as we start to plan for things into the future. So we'll need to do something like this on a more macro level to get that longer term look but as we talk about the budget we'll come in with very specific numbers based on each specific position.
So are you saying that if we go with a hundred and fourteen million it might be that might be the more conservative approach. And if it comes in less than that that we use some of that balance for 14 15 to help cover that the instance of the additional 10 million dollars is that which is that what you're saying
yes that's what I'm saying that would be a more precise number for our county in the very near term
all right thank you
As we go to Mr. Adams, but Mr. Alvarez at some point after this if you could send us a little brief paragraph or something on these three issues the 108, 114 and 122 reconciling what the difference is just reiterating what you just said because I think these are the types of issues that We get befuddled about when we try to explain it. So, to the extent that you could help give us something to reiterate what you just told us on those three numbers would be really helpful.
Absolutely.
Mr. Adam and then Mr. Lavanino.
Thank you. Mr Alvarez can you tell me what the or can anybody tell me what the current payout is to retirees? No, the total.
I would think that we'd need to look to SBCS for that information.
Per year or for all, everybody in the system?
Yeah, everybody in the system. What's the total? When I say cost, what's the total cost ASB serves to pay the retirees benefits annually?
You're talking about pension benefit payments to the retirees on an annual basis. Correct. Hang on we got that in the CAF. It's the
assets and unfunded
liability
right? We paid out about $115 billion dollars in benefits over fiscal year that ended in 12.
Okay there is no medical in that.
I don't believe so.
Okay, so let's just take it with no medical we got 115 million You don't believe that you're going to end up having to pay more people over time. I just find it hard to believe, with the level of acceleration of the unfunded liability That with more people retiring and with the retiree payout that we have today, you're going to be able to drop these numbers.
This significantly page 27 is what I'm looking at here. Get that back up. Yeah, I mean that's a That says we're gonna go down to an 86 million dollar contribution when in today's world with the colas and and everything else you know it's going to be Quite a bit more than that. You have a lot of money in the bank And there should be some return on that but I find that a little bit hard to believe Given the fact, especially that you're going to lose employees over the next few years I think. It just seems to me that it's going to be a difficult go.
Found that out... So what about the medical? Is there other post-employment benefits figured into this anywhere?
Supervisor Adam through the chair, that is not part of this presentation. This is just a base contribution that is one of the items we'll be discussing in the fiscal outlook report later today.
Okay thank you. Supervisor Lavineau? Thank You Mr. Chair. You know we were talking about 08-09 and S&P lost 57% of its value and we lost seven hundred seventy two million dollars And the system tanked rather quickly. There's a quid pro quo there. How come when the market bounces back like it has, we don't see the correlation as quickly or I don't see it on these charts? As far as, I mean, I would think everybody'd be running in here. Everybody with a 401k is just doing great right now. Why don't we see the return and the good news right now that everybody else is enjoying in the market?
3:52 – 3:5722 turns
One of the reasons is that you, I mean the stock market is about where it was right before the crash. But you were assuming that you were going to earn 7.75% on your assets every year for the last five years, right? You're about back where you started so there's still a loss. There's an overall investment loss over the last five years. You earned less than $7.75 on average over that period of time
Well, I brought up investment loss last time. And I was told we really didn't lose it because you haven't lost it yet. Remember that, Gary? I don't use the it and the lost yet. We haven't had that discussion. OK. Right. I realize it's not a loss.
It's in a band.
It somewhere where we don't have it but we haven't lost it. So we're still just recovering. What I'm kind of taking out of this though is that if these are accurate And I understand it's the best that we can do at this point. There's hope for me, I'm looking at as far as, you know, Supervisor Wolf talked about the jail. You know, we're trying to figure out well how are we going to carve 16 million dollars out?
But by the time the jail opens and if we look at these charts in 2014-15 were supposed to be almost 120 million for retirement costs And if you go out to 2018-19, we're only supposed to be at $100 million. There's $20 million right there that we're going to be saving. So if we follow this along and if this follows the pattern of what we've been told and we don't get crazy anywhere else, just the savings in pension costs alone could help us down that road.
And this doesn't include other PEPRA items that are coming, that are supposed to be implemented in 17-18. So Supervisor Wolf?
I just want to say I never thought I'd see the day where Mr. Lavagnino is more optimistic than I am.
You took him out to Mr. Orozco's classes. I'm not saying all these smart people tell me this so I'm... Mr.
Lavagnino we're hoping you can get one of those pills to our colleague over there on... Thank you very much. Please
proceed. Maybe it's a lack of food I'm starting, you know one o'clock I get a little crazy. I'll take whatever you're
having. Supervisor Wolfe, I think we're done okay please proceed. It's nice to have a light moment on occasion.
That ends my presentation and I'll turn it over to Auditor Controller Bob Geis.
Mr.
Geis,
Auditor Geis should we say. Chairman Carbajal members of the board if it's okay I'll sit over here where I have some materials in front of me but just an editorial comment if you want a dream the dream can this ever get down till its totally funded? I came here in 1978 That board had implemented a 24-year fixed amortization of the unfunded liability. In 2002, if you would look back at Tom's charts when you see those rates for so low, we had paid off our unfunded liability and were 117% funded at market and 102% funded.
If you think it can't happen over the long term, it does happen with these reasonable assumption rates. It just takes a long time. Now when we got to 2002 in retrospect the whole pension world increased benefits and in retrospect we shouldn't have done that but you know we want to make sure going forward when we do get fully funded that we look forward again so anyways With that,
Mr. Gaspi, before you go, Supervisor Adam?
I just wanted a clarification on which board implemented that closed unfunded liability period.
I would say probably the just deceased Bob Coleman was on that board.
You're talking Board of Supervisors? Board
of Supervisors and it was really put forth by Gasby and the legislature that everybody should pay off their unfunded liability similar to what Gasby's doing today
Well so this board then can issue a directive to the pension board that they, I see Mr. Marshall shaking his head side to side, that they not have a rolling period, they have a closed period?
No let me just correct that. The world has changed in that It's been 33 years that the pension boards have a lot more autonomy and they are the fiduciaries. In those days, the Board of Supervisors was more in control of the pensions and eventually it has split and the law has been changed to put a lot more fiduciary responsibility on the retirement board not on the Board of Supervisors.
Okay I like that. Fiduciary responsibility. That's excellent.
3:57 – 4:1322 turns
We have workshops on fiduciary responsibility. It's huge and I think every one of us, I speak for everyone on the Board of Retirement takes that very seriously. That we have that duty to the system, to the retirees and our current employees.
And the second point while I'm doing my presentation is Mr. Schmidt over there, he can turn on his microphone anytime he wants because for every actuary I've seen in the retirement system they're a heck of a lot smarter than I when it gets to these issues and so feel free Graham So we're going to have a bunch of GASBs. GASB is the Government Accounting Standards Board. We're responsible for the financial reporting of the county and it really results in this comprehensive annual financial report. This year, we have a lot of GASBs we face. The GASBS been very active and they're changing a lot of standards that's going to change our report. Two of the significant ones are GASBY 67 and GASBI 68. Next slide JJ. So GASB 67 will require new accounting and financial reporting for pensions for the Santa Barbara County Retirement Association.
The big thing they're going to have to do, remember we're a big pool? We're only the major sponsor in that pool and we have other entities and they're gonna have to report out of their actuarial report and their financial statements What portion of that liability and the portion of those assets are ours? Plus a lot more disclosure requirements that we will have to use to put into our financial report.
They're going to implement their standard for June 30th, 2013. That's this fiscal year. We won't have their information until the following year or one year from there.
Yeah, it's actually for the fiscal year ended June 30th 14 for the plan. For the plan? One year after these dates
and we're 15 okay that's why I said Graham can speak up and so it's going to be a while before we fully get this implemented of course we would like to early implement so 13 Graham is that possible no anyways next slide So I want to remind the board just a little education and the basic financial statements of the county in Gatsby's wisdom, Gatsby 34. There's two sets of financial statements one for the governmental fund more related to the budgetary aspect more related to what's going to happen in the next one or two years And then we have the government-wide financial statements, which is a bigger look and a longer term look at the financial condition of the county. It includes your assets, your related debt, and it includes now long-term pension liabilities and long-term OPEB liabilities.
So you're getting a different look on the two different statements And for the fund financial statements, pension expenses are really called pension expenditures. That's the amount we're contributing to this system. On the entity-wide financial statements they use the term pension expenses and it's possible That if you don't meet the actuarial standards that Gatsby saying, that reasonably acceptable. That your pension expense might be different than your pension expenditures. We in Santa Barbara County think we have the right assumptions in place that we can measure those the same. So let's just roll forward once.
In our today's CAFR, we don't have the breakout of the county's portion so in our note disclosure today We are disclosing a liability of $828 million, but that's the full pension liability. And for pension expense we're reporting $122 million which may be the difference in your report. That's the total pension expense in the actuary report, but that's for all the entities and so Our estimate is we own about 92.9% of that pension expense, we own about 769 million of the unfunded liability and our pension expenses from the actuary report is 113 million. When you put those against the actual budgeted numbers in the real county payroll at the end of the year there's a tendency that it's always less than that 113 million.
Because you don't run at your fully funded salaries. And so it can be less and that's some of the differences that are creeping up into Tom's presentation. So what's going to happen? This is a real simple view of the county's, you know, full page financial statement that we knew would be not legible here if we printed it. So we have total assets of $1.1 billion. We have total liabilities of $322 million. And we have total net assets, which is the net position of the county of 777 million. That's what our net assets are today.
>>:Mr. Grimes, you meant to say billion, right? In the 1.1... >>:Billion,
yes. And so when you look at those, the GASB on the long-term look has really said we want to break your three net assets accounts into three different looks. One, how are you doing on your capital assets net related that are debt? What's the financial position of your assets? What's your amount that's restricted for programs and then what's the amount of unrestricted for programs. Tomorrow when we put in the $769 million of the new pension liability, what it is going to do is take your unrestricted position negative until you amortize and pay that off over a long period of time. So if we're like Graham, we're setting our target on that line item. We want to get to zero in 17 years. That's really where we're moving. And the GASB when you do the write-up of the CAFR they really say well if you're increasing each of those categories of restricted net assets Over a long period of time, that's a healthy look for the entity.
That's just one way to look that you're growing all those long-term categories and that's really how the financial statements are going to change. On the next set of financial statements These are the fund balance financial statements, those used more for budgeting. That pension expense does not have to show up on the balance sheet or the balance sheet of the pension statements. The expenditures will show up and then you know this is more of a look of what are your fund balance available? And of course we would like to grow all those categories of fund balance for future Health, but you know we're using some of those one time and that's really the changes from Gatsby 68 that were going to get implemented by the county in 2 years.
Before CEO closes or we have questions, Mr. Geist this is a digression but as we deal with so many non-profits how do they book? Do they have to abide by Gadsby in terms of booking their unfunded liability as we now have to do that as well? Say that again because do nonprofits have the same accounting responsibility with Gadsby or does that only apply to government?
Because we deal with so many non-profits and understanding their financials.
It does not apply to non-profits.
Thank
you. We did skip a slide, JJ. Could you go backwards? Here's a simple thing about the GASB that I should go over for you. The GASB 68 is It's 39 pages long, if you want to read it at small print. And that's why I have Betsy here because she gets to read this and help me implement it. But it basically says four things we've got to do, four major things. So it says a lot. But the net pension liability on the balance sheet, the employer will now recognize a net pension liability, the unfunded accrued liability. I showed you that in the example.
You could have to for free and my staff corrected me on this. Don't misread this line that when I talk about if the employer funds actually determined contribution and it pays off the unfunded liability over a reasonable period of time, then a lower discount rate is not required I'm not going to go into the details of how we set the funding levels for financial reporting purposes. Don't get that confused with how we set the funding levels because Gatsby is not setting funding levels as Graham described. So if we were using 30 year fixed and a 15 year rolling and 9% discount rate, then With the way our pension board has implemented things, 17-year rolling. Graham talked about how those were acceptable and where the weaknesses were. The five year smoothing is almost marking to market.
And the 7.75 is reasonable and they're going to bring it down. There's no question that that rate is going to be brought down by the investment professionals, the retirement board. Everybody knows that that has to be incrementally brought down because that's kind of what the new standard is and so as we do that we think our pension expenditures And our pension expense will be the same and that we don't have to make a material adjustment to our liability.
The county will only show its proportionate share of the liabilities, and then there's a lot more extensive disclosure that we have to do about pension liability. I'm sorry we missed that slide but Kind of the example helps reinforce that. Thank you Mr.
Guys, Mr. Lavinino and Mr. Adam. Thank You Mr. Chair and I think you kind of touched on a little bit Bob but how does The new opinion and the new talk from Moody's relate to this and how is it going to affect our borrowing when we show these new liabilities?
It's a good question. Graham might be able to help me a little bit, but you know from my rule of thumb, you've got to remember Moody's is one of three rating agencies that are not a standard setting body for financial reporting. They're not a standard setting body for the actuaries And I think they can feel free to use this bond rate that they want for the discount rate and do their own analysis. We probably would say, that's not a rate we would use for financial reporting purposes unless our actuary said, you know, we're going to invest our whole retirement system in bonds and take the rate down to 5 1⁄2%. So but what it would mean if we did use 5 1⁄2%?
As you know, you're decreasing your interest assumption rate by 33%. It probably then has an opposite effect of increasing your unfunded liability by 33% it would then increase the unfunded portion of your rate. It's now 21% by a third up to 28%, which would drive up your actual cost by about 7% of our covered payroll, somewhere around $21 million. And so we understand what they're doing from a conservative and how they might want to do a rating and say, we believe the market is here but...and then you can ask the next question will it change our rating?
Well, they know all that today. They can go into our caffer and apply their discounts and change their opinion. I still think it gets down to a lot of other things about us being a good credit. I don't think our pension liability is A lot of the norm compared to the rest, the county governments. I think we're on the opposite side of maybe what the median is in terms of better funding.
Just want to add one thing you're exactly right. What Moody's was doing is trying to they're trying to make People equivalent so they can do comparisons between different entities. Right? So if you look better than somebody else and you still look better than somebody else under the new measurements, it doesn't mean you're going to have a downgrade in their ratings. And Moody's actually this morning released a statement. They're going to be coming out with their final disclosures next month but they said that they expect that less than 2% of local governments that are issuing bonds will be subject to any kind of ratings review for possible downgrade. So it's really they're trying to identify the outliers.
Supervisor
Adam?
Okay, thank you. Mr. Geis can we go back to 34? That new discount rate paragraph, where it says over a reasonable time. Who is exactly in charge of reasonable time? Is that the SB CSRS Board or is
that us? That reasonable time is actually, GASB put together a test. You have to project your assets forward under your current funding policy Assuming you don't have anybody else coming into the plan, and then you have to check whether or not the assets that you have in the plan are expected to cover your benefit payments. To the extent that they are, you can use the expected rate of return. But who's
you?
Sorry?
Who would you be in
this sense? The system on their balance sheet. So they get to make your actuary and your auditors make the determination of what discount rate you can use based on a test which is a projection of your assets and liabilities. The retirement board. The retirement board. Sorry not
your board. Okay thank you. Then on to page 37. On that assets and or liabilities column, where would the OPEB go in there? It's not represented in there is it?
Chairman Carbajal, Supervisor Adam. Great question. So GASB in terms of having us implement OPEB let us come up with an amortization method and amortize the unfunded liability over 15 years so in that $322,694,000 50 million of that is OPEB And there's another 102 million of OPEB that would be amortized over the next 9 years. So then, you know eventually that number will grow by another 102 million but the GASB just last week came out with a theory that said, hey we think we're going to rethink OPEB and we're going to probably and most likely treat it like pensions. And you'll probably when we bring on that 769 million dollars worth of liability I call that kind of the big bang effect will probably bring the rest of the OPEB liability in at the same time And I think that's a good thing, because you will have negative total net assets in total.
But what GASB really wants you to do is measure that over a period of time that you're then getting rid of that negative. And so I think we have to revisit OPEB and say how we revisit the funding of OPEB. But that can be done through the budget hearings, and I think Tom's pulled that in as part of the fiscal impact report.
4:13 – 4:2926 turns
Right so just so everybody at home understands that 8,000 it's 8,626 right there but that's eight million six hundred twenty-six thousand right? On the very bottom line on the on the right hand side of the screen is going to turn into a 113 million negative.
Let me just give you one more editorial comment you know GASB in their wisdom you know we're marking Pension liabilities and open liabilities to market. If you go up to those invested in capital assets, net of related debt, that's the historical cost of the asset less. their debt. So is that a fair comparison of apples to apples? It's just what it is, you know? And you know, you've got to understand the three categories and the GASB is really trying to get you to manage each of those three to determine the long-term fiscal health of the county. A net negative is not necessarily, you It's net negative today if you really want to get there, you just have to read different parts of the financial statements to come to that conclusion.
Well at the same time debt is a debt right?
Supervisor Carbajal, Supervisor Adam I agree. It'll be interesting when it's on the face of the financial statement if it changes the world of pensions and it probably will. It'll probably help us focus more on funding pensions.
That's a good thing. Now is the unfunded road maintenance liability in there at
all? Chairman Carbajal, Supervisor Adam no
Okay. So there's another $250 million?
If you want to measure unfunded roadway miles, that's a good point.
Okay. All right. Well thank you very much.
Thank you. We have two speakers so we're going to go... Do you want to address it now or afterwards conclude? I'll leave it up to you CEO if you want to do it now and go to speakers or after the speakers close it all together.
Perhaps right now would be a good time. Thank you So I just wanted to just take a moment to recognize all the folks that we have here today Obviously SB Sayers our CEO budget director and our auditor controller lots of information And I think that they were very very skilled in helping us understand it I do want to stress that these are estimates and projections These are not actuals You will see actuals loaded into the budget documents as they move forward and are presented to you in May.
You'll also note how we're building today to a final crescendo, as far as service level reductions. Retirement is the single biggest issue facing our county right now, as far as increased costs. In our fiscal outlook that you'll see after we return this afternoon You'll certainly see retirement again highlighted as Mr. Alvarez indicated, OPEB will also be included in that and then after that presentation we will go to the service level reductions that your departments have proposed and one of the single most critical issues in those service level reductions are the increases in retirement costs so really what we've tried to do is give you the first building block for the rest of the information that we'll share for you today
Thank you so much, CEO Waller. We're going to go now to the public. There's two speakers I understand.
Chairman Carnell and members of the board we'll start in Santa Maria with Joe Armendariz and come back to Santa Barbara for Mr. Caldwell
Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. It's a humble man speaking truth to power. I think I'm getting old because I have to tell you I am extremely frustrated in listening to this very long discussion Supervisor Carbajal Look, I love Bob Geis. Bob is a friend of mine but I'm going to say that what he said for the last 10 minutes is beside the point. What the actuarials have said today is beside the point. What you have in essence is an exercise in government counting the number of angels that will fit on the head of a pin, measuring the size of a tomato, determining whether the tomato should be bigger or smaller or rounder or redder The point is that government shouldn't be in the business of counting angels, measuring tomatoes or managing people's retirement plans.
It's unfortunate that the five of you are sitting up there being subjected to such highly technical information that none of you understand. You need to be an MBA, a CPA. You need to be a chartered financial consultant. You should have a background in asset management, wealth creation. You're politicians and you're good ones otherwise you wouldn't be up there. It would be like Supervisor Carbajal and Supervisor Lavinino two of the probably most talented politicians in our county trying to teach a staffer at Public Works how to be politician with a quote tutorial.
It's not possible. You should not be in the business of managing your employees retirement plans for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is none of you with maybe one exception because I think Supervisor Adam is probably the only one who hasn't received public employee money. You can't do it objectively. You simply cannot do it objectively. You're not advocates indeed At the risk of being too personal, I would point out Supervisor Wolf has taken over $150,000 from public employee unions in the last few years.
She can't be objective. She's not an advocate for the taxpayers. She's an advocate for the tax and spend lobby. That doesn't make her a bad person but it makes her unobjective in this process. You guys have spent hours on something that you have no business spending hours on. A week ago, you're drawing green lines around the unincorporated areas of the county in order to figure out how you can unleash a regulatory reign of terror on businesses, industry, middle class families. A week later, you're trying to figure out how you're gonna come up with $115 million in a couple of years to fund your pension plan?
If you really care about buying jails, paying for them, providing public safety, providing environmental health and public health then start to create a competitive enterprise economy in Santa Barbara County. Create a competitive enterprise zone. Go out to the oil companies, just two more seconds Supervisor Carbo if I may. Go out there and invite the oil companies and the private industry players to make Santa Barbara's economy more dynamic, more efficient, and more prosperous. Thank you very much.
Supervisor Adam. Could I have a little comment there that would just correct the record that I am a wealth creator and I am an asset manager so you have to make an exception for me on that as well Mr. Armendariz, thank you. Mr.
Caldwell. Chairman Carbajal, members of the board, Amanda Caldwell representing Colab. The elephant in the room Detroit learned in San Bernardino and San Jose and a few other places are learning is define benefit plans or dinosaurs. They're a millstone around the taxpayer's neck. And it seems like when are we going to use our considerable clout to pressure the state of California into letting us get out of this dinosaur plan with guaranteed pension benefits for the rest of somebody's life?
It wasn't even mentioned today. You never talk about it, why? You're putting this tremendous pressure on yourselves and on the people you represent, and even in the employees who are being guaranteed something we don't think you can deliver. The second elephant in the room is a 7.5% return. We don't think that's realistic. And there's a lot of people out there that don't believe it's realistic. Why won't you show on a slide what 5% or 6% looks like.
I found it really disheartening that we got an example of a college savings plan versus where the county is right now, and what that gap is right now. And I appreciate that on one agenda you have this, and you have some budgeting issues, and things like that. But these things all have to be melded together And it's not just a road liability, the fire department has a liability. There are several departments with liabilities. When are we going to see the big picture all at once? The other thing is you have other pension costs including social security contributions to SEIU. How does that fit into this?
Where does privatization enter in? There's a lot of things that your staff And or the retirement board doesn't seem to want to talk about. They keep kicking the can down the road, and the bottom line is our county is broke. It's going deeper and deeper in the hole with regard to our ability to pay for infrastructure that we need that were falling behind on, and to be able to set aside the costs necessary to perform basic functions.
You know, unfortunately people like Joe and I who have been following this. I was here when Supervisors Marshall Rosen Schwartz gave $100 million in raises over a five year period and we told him that was not sustainable. We're given three minutes for a two hour hearing when we're the only two people that have been here the whole time. We wish that this was more open because there's a lot of things that are really suspect that you've been told today and also represented in your own comments.
Thank
you, Mr.
Caldwell. Back to the board. This was a receive-and-file item. Is there any further comment? A motion to accept the report? Motion has been made to receive and file the report. Second.
Further
discussion?
I too have a problem, I think the return is unrealistic and I don't...I have reservations about whether this is deliverable to the employees and I think that over time we may be borne out correct and obviously you know if we keep believing in the Great Pumpkin then maybe it will come. It's possible. But maybe it doesn't, and it's really people's retirements that are at stake here. It's not a road that we can live with a pothole necessarily. This is people that worked for you for 30 years. Several of them come through every week that are retiring. And I'm very concerned about these people and making sure that they don't get a letter in the mail at some point You know, there's no more money and we can't pay you anymore.
So to that end I would like to make a motion that when... You have a motion on the floor. Pardon me? It's okay. You have a motion on the floor. There's a motion on the floor? Motion on the floor. Okay well, I'm just expressing a wish. I'd like to make a motion that when we come back next time to talk about this That we really get down in the weeds, even though it may be beyond our collective capability to understand it. But I think we should try because we are in charge and we need to find out who's responsible and get down as responsibly as we can into the weeds and try to make a determination whether this thing is payable in the long term or not.
Okay, we'll take your motion secondly for it to come back for further discussion but first there's a motion on the floor Supervisor Wolf?
Yeah, just as part of discussion. I think it's important that our retirees hear loud and clear that their pensions are protected. That's exactly what the Retirement Board is doing. That's exactly why we just went through this whole actuarial study to make sure... And that's exactly why This Board of Supervisors has been putting more money in every year to make sure that we are actuarially sound so that we can continue those commitments. So I would say that no one needs to expect a letter in the mail anytime soon.
I appreciate everyone coming here and providing us with this information, certainly there's a lot more to know and to learn And anyone is invited to come to the Board of Retirement meetings, to pick up the actuarial books, to pick up our agendas. Everything is online. There's a lot to know and again thank you for coming in your presentation. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Supervisor Adam, did you forget to turn off your light or do you want to say something else? All in favor of the motion? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. I don't know that we need a motion but this item as I said earlier after the actuarial occurs and it goes before the retirement board, we should have another update so that we could address the issues that Mr. Adam brought and have another full discussion on this.
Is that something that we can do? Thank you very much.
Mr. Adam? Well, I was just going to read this into the record so that if anybody wanted to know what I wanted next time they can get it for me. Reporting the projections of payouts to retirees projected total contributions discussing in detail the necessary investment return assumptions over the next 40 years and also wanted to include a discussion of recent change of standards by Moody's And discussion of the ramifications to Santa Barbara County if SB CSRS fails to adopt these standards.
Thank you,
4:29 – 6:114 turns
those are items I'm sure could be addressed in the future. I think that allows us now to recess into closed session Mr. Marshall if you could read our closed session business. We're probably going to take an hour and a half, I believe so we'll be back by 3 o'clock but before that Mr. Marshall if you could read our closed session business that would be great. Thank you very much to everybody who came and presented the report
Thank you Mr. Chairman, on your closed session agenda this afternoon you have two items, employee organizations all bargaining units and representative employees and managers agency designated representatives with a CEO and human resources director also on your agenda is public employment county executive officer. Thank You Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much why don't we take five minutes and we'll see everybody in closed session in five minutes Which room is it guys? Oh, it's the big boardroom.
Music Music Music ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪♪ ♪ Hi. ♪♪ ♪ ♪ Thank you. Yeah. ♪ Thank you. Hi, everyone. ¶. ♪ ¶. ¶¶ ¶¶ ♪ ¶. you You. Music playing You. ♪♪ ♪ Music playing ♪♪ ♪ Hi. ♪ you ¶. The ¶¶ Hi. ♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ You. Hi. Hi. ♪♪ ♪♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ Music playing ¶¶ you ¶¶ ♪ ¶¶ ¶. Music Yeah. ♪ ♪ ¶¶ ¶. ¶. ♪ ♪ Music ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶¶ Yeah. ♪ Music playing Hi, everyone. ♪ ♫ ♪ Hi.
♪ Music Hi. ♪ Hi. Music ♪ ♪ ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ¶ ♪ Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ Yeah. ¶¶ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ You. You. you ♪ ♪♪ you Music playing ♪ ¶. Yeah. ¶.
6:18 – 6:2823 turns
I'd like to call our meeting back to order. And Mr. Marshall, if you can report closed session? I believe we're going to later on continue our meeting again into closed session again.
OK. Thank you. That was my report. We did conclude the first item. The second item on your closed session agenda has been continued to the end of the day.
Great. Okay, so we could proceed with the next item which is Item Number 3. Mr. Allen if you could read the item into
the record? Chairman Carbajal and members of the Board, Item 3 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal filed by Mary Goolsby and Martha Goolsbey Kaye of the Montecito Planning Commission's May 23rd 2012 approval of the Verizon Wireless Facility at the Monticito Switch Station.
Thank you. Staff is, Mr. Marshall?
We just remind the board that they may wish to do ex parte at the beginning of the process again.
And Mr. Marshall would this be ex parte beyond what we reported last time so what's
since last week? I think it'd be sufficient to indicate if there were any new contacts between what you reported last time and what you have Great if any okay, we are done.
We're now doing ex parte since the last hearing if there's any more contact with Any of the parties? supervisor far
I've had no additional contact Thank You mr.. Chair
supervisor Lavagnino no additional contact Supervisor wolf Me neither. I believe my staff has had some communication with both parties, Mr. Shatillo and Mr. J Higgins is my understanding. Plus I ran into him at the reception so I should say that. So now we'll proceed staff. We're going to reiterate The issue before us briefly, and then we're going to go to the appellant and the project applicant since it seems that we have as was agreed to at the last meeting reached a settlement outcome here.
Mr. Russell?
Members of the board Megan Lowry will be making the staff presentation
Thank you Supervisors, members of the public. My name is Megan Lowry and I'm the project planner on the item before you. This is the Goolsbee Appeal of the Verizon Wireless Facility at the Montecito Switch Station. Your board has received a new memorandum dated March 18th 2013 that outlines the project we have before us today. It is a revised project as a result of last week's board hearing where both the applicant and the appellant reached agreement for revised project.
The project remains at 512 San Angelo Lane in Montecito in the Upper Village area on a parcel zone 20R1. It is currently developed as a switching operation station for Verizon California, a landline company and also has an existing telecommunications facility for what was previously Singular now AT&T on the roof of the switch station building. The singular facility highlighted in blue in this image is located on the rooftop of the switch station building and the equipment shelter is in the parking lot of the building. The revised Verizon project would locate its equipment shelter next to the existing AT&T facility and locate its antennas instead on a new 75-foot tall faux tree facility.
This new facility would also accommodate room for an additional future carrier for future co-location opportunities. Here is a photo simulation provided by the applicant demonstrating the visual impacts of the proposed facility design. This view is from Santa Angela Lane as you're looking into the property and parking lot. Here's an additional view from the Upper Village Center And lastly, a view from the El Montecito Presbyterian Church parking lot.
This revised project was reviewed against the Montecito Land Use Development Code including the telecommunication standards and the zone district requirements in addition to the comprehensive plan including the Montecito Community Plan. The proposed FOA design was considered to comply with the telecommunications standards as the design blends with existing trees and is reviewed by the Monticito Board of Architectural Review and received favorable conceptual review comments.
The applicant is requesting a setback modification consistent with the existing development on the property, and the 75-foot height limit is consistent with the telecommunications ordinance requirements. The facility would not be lit and it would be an automated facility and unstaffed. There are existing utilities onsite that would serve the facility, and no additional setbacks are required as the proposed facility meets the federal communications health and safety limits.
Prior to this hearing, both the applicant and appellant requested a couple changes to the conditions included in your board memo. I'd just like to read them out loud into the record. They ask that in condition six... Excuse
me Megan, these are the ones you handed out right?
Correct.
Conditions 6 and 12
Six and 12? Yes. The first change to condition number six is a request to strike out the text relating to exercising the generator since it would not be located on site on a permanent basis, it would only be brought to the site in the event of an emergency. Additionally they requested that we add language specifying that the permittee shall use the quietest generator commercially available and at all times shall comply with the county's noise thresholds.
The second change would be to condition number 12, which is a condition relating to FCC compliance and radio frequency emissions monitoring. The request was to add an additional monitoring requirement that within the first five years of operation of the facility, the director may request a one-time emissions compliance report to provide an additional field test that would measure the actual RF electromagnetic exposure at the site. And this would be consistent with the existing measurement report requirements we have.
With that, staff recommends that your board deny the appeal case number 12-APL11. Make the required findings for the project including CEQA findings. Determine the project is exempt from CEQAs pursuant to section 15303 and waive The six day posting requirement contained in the county CEQA guidelines for good cause. And lastly, approve the conditional use permit for the proposed telecommunications facility with the faux tree design alternative 12 CUP7 subject to the conditions revised.
That concludes staff's presentation and are available for questions.
Thank you very much. We are now going to go to the appellant. Obviously we have ten minutes for the appellant, ten minutes for the applicant but If we could only take a relatively few minutes, that would be most greatly appreciated Mr. Schatillo.
Mr Chair and members of the board, Mark Schatillo on behalf of the appellants. I want to thank and acknowledge the hard work of staff in particular over the last week in coming together and pulling together the revised materials. I think it was a very big effort and it's much appreciated. And also on behalf of the appellants, working with Verizon. We did review the materials yesterday. We requested the changes and I'm happy that we were able to work out those proposed changes to the satisfaction of staff as well as the applicants. So we have no objections. We encourage you to support the project as it has been proposed and revised here and much appreciate this effort that I think has yielded a better project for the community. And will continue to work with Verizon carriers that come on to locate on this tree and make sure that the community's standards are upheld.
Thank you Mr. Shatillo. Next we have the applicant, Jay Higgins. This doesn't look like Jay Higgins it looks
high aged during this process. Paul Albritton outside Council of Verizon Wireless and Jay Higgins is here and he has put quite a bit of effort into this. And we too want to thank you for all your efforts at the board level and also the planning division staff and the county council staff for working with us and the appellant To come to this solution, I want to get on the record that we agree to the modified conditions that have been presented to you now. And it's one of those rare circumstances and I hesitate to say it but it's a real win-win for the community. You're getting improved coverage, a co-location facility And agreement with the appellants in terms of how it's being prepared. And if you've read the materials, you know this actually eliminates the need for some additional facilities for Verizon Wireless and I think that we're very pleased to have been involved in the process and thank you for your time and all the work of the staff.
Thank you so much. I think unless staff has something else to add, we could dive into an action here but I just want to... We do have one speaker, so perfect. Thank you for reminding me. One speaker please? Mr. Allen?
Okay.
6:28 – 6:355 turns
Good afternoon, Chair Carbajal and Board of Supervisors. My name is Martha Kaye and my sister Mary Goolsby and I are the co-appellants of the May 23rd 2012 Montecito Planning Commission's conditional approval of Verizon Wireless' application to build a macro cell antenna installation on the 21 foot tall rooftop of the Verizon landline switch station At 512 San Angelo Lane for the past 10 months with the legal assistance and guidance of environmentally sensitive and incredibly knowledgeable counsel. Mark Chitillo, Cindy Sage and Mary Rose we set out to find a solution to this dilemma literally facing us at our front doors on San Angelo Lane.
To use a familiar saying of my Cherokee Indian ancestors who survived the Trail of Tears journey from Florida to the Indian Territory of Oklahoma back in 1838, you need to walk just a few miles in our moccasins. To appreciate the depth and breadth of this twisting trail we've been hiking these past 10 months. Neighbors, families, friends, parents of children attending Elmo Early School and Elmo staff and parishioners face the overwhelming amount of telecom legislation at every bend of the road.
This legislation protects those corporations from us average citizens who dare to question the safety issues, business implications, aesthetics and environmental impact. Just to name a few of the areas we dwelled into. Along the way, we were advised by many that ours was a futile effort. But as we found out early on, this was the tip of an iceberg that may be melting in a neighborhood near you, threatening to flood your property in much the same way it has flooded ours.
Our thoughts, our actions over these last 10 months With Verizon's loss of their 25-year lease of the QAD property in November, our lives on and near San Angelo Lane have been and will continue to be forever changed. 19 other property owners in Montecito were approached and declined Verizon's offer to lease a portion of their property to install their antennae and not interrupt but improve their Verizon customers' cell phone coverage.
I'd like to ask you not to refer to the faux tree pole alternative as a win-win solution. To this predicament we find ourselves in, we don't look upon ourselves necessarily as winners more like survivors of an ordeal that is still playing out before our eyes But given the option of a 75-foot tree pole alternative over the 21 foot rooftop installation we were faced with back in May of 2012, we ask you to consider and support the tree.
Thank you and we are grateful to Chair Carbajal and Supervisors Wolfe and Lavagnino for taking time to meet with us this last year in small groups, sometimes even including children of the people, the families that were there. And listening to our concerns and advice that was kindly given.
Thank you very much. That was our only speaker? Yes great. I'll bring it back to our board now this is in the first district want to give an opportunity my colleagues if they have anything that's pressing that they'd like to raise or discuss if not I'll dive into the issue and perhaps make a motion. Seeing no comment by my colleagues, I just want to say how grateful I am for everybody coming together. I know it wasn't easy. I know some still feel it's the least of all evils to go in this direction.
Others would see it as a win-win. But I'm really grateful that everybody was able to come together, find the sweet spot and move the ball forward in a way that worked for everyone. My colleagues are smiling because they always call me that I work for that win-win or that common ground and I'm just using the same verbiage that they make fun of me on so... Thank you so much. I appreciate all the hard work that everybody put into this, the families for their patience. Ms. Goolsby, Ms. Kaye, Mr. Shatillo, Paul with Verizon, Mr J Higgins.
I will say that it's also important to recognize Corporate Verizon here because they did step up. They really worked hard to exhaust all the possibilities and opportunities, and when you do have that I think it does lend itself to good community collaboration. I will remind us as a community for everybody that's watching and everybody here that the Federal Telecommunications Act really limits A lot of what local governments and local communities can do when it comes to telecommunications facilities.
Hooks that allow us to look at aesthetics and a number of issues that are helpful sometimes in having people come together. Again, I'm just very grateful that we were able to reach this outcome. To that end council if you could just help me, I would like to make a motion to approve staff's recommendation as outlined in the staff presentation regarding the settlement that was reached and the modifications to conditions 6 and 12.
And I think staff's recommendations are outlined on the screen. Do I need to say anything more?
Mr. Chair, that's perfect.
Great. Is there a second? Second. There is a second. Further discussion? Not having any. All those in favor? Aye. Opposition? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. Thank you so much to everyone. We will now
move on to item number four Mr. Allen, if you could read the item?
6:35 – 6:4514 turns
Chairman Carbajal and members of the board, Item 4 is on the Treasure Tax Collector. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an auction of tax-defaulted property subject to the power of sale.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon Chair Carbajal, members of the board. Should I say Treasurer Hagan? I'll answer to either one. This item before you today is our notification under 3698 of the Revenue and Taxation Code That we will be proceeding to a public auction of tax defaulted property that is subject to the power of sale. These are all properties, there's four of them this year. There were three last year for just for comparison purposes. These are all four properties that we have tried extensive collection efforts on and I am mandated under 3692 of the Revenue and Taxation Code to proceed with a public auction after your approval.
And so I know you've got a full agenda today, and I won't belabor it any longer. But I am here to answer any questions that you may have.
Is there are any questions? Having no questions, there are no speaker slips. Is there a motion to approve this item?
So
moved. Motion's been made. Seconded. Further discussion? Having none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposition? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We will now
move on to Item Number 5. Mr. Allen, if you could read the item please? And I believe Mr. Alvarez and Ms. CEO Waller are going to lead this item.
Chair Carbajal, members of the board, Item 5 from the County Executive Office is a hearing to receive and file an update on the 2013-15 Fiscal Outlook Report presented to the Board of Supervisors on November 13th 2012.
Thank you very much. Mr. CEO Waller do you want to kick this off?
Thank you, Chair. As I mentioned earlier this morning—I think it was this morning, perhaps it was this afternoon—we started our day with retirement to give you information on what retirement costs look like for the county over the next several years. This is the second piece of our discussion today on the upcoming budget process and Mr. Alvarez is here to walk us through what the fiscal outlook report update looks like Just as a reminder, we actually did this in November of 2012. What we're doing today is just updating just those portions that have had some changes. So Mr. Alvarez please.
Thank you Chandra. So as Chandra just mentioned, we're updating the fiscal outlook report and as she stated, we're not reviewing every item it's just an update of things that we've become aware of over time. So if we go on to the next slide we'll say that this report is an update The schedule of fiscal issues and the projected 13-14 gap. We're not presenting an economic outlook at this time.
On the fiscal issues, we'll again look at significant fiscal issues and their projected impact on fiscal year 13- 14, 14-15. Similar to November, the fiscal issues are again broken down into two tiers based on their expected occurrence. Tier 1 are amounts that can be estimated and the issue is expected to occur in the referenced period. Tier 2, the issue will probably occur but may be difficult to estimate the amount. There may be remaining uncertainties if the item will actually occur or the time period in which it will occur may be unknown or it may be one-time in nature and the county may have already set funds aside to deal with this.
The summary tables will identify the current and previously estimated financial impact of each issue. We're also including the same information for 1415. Lastly, we identify if the issue is ongoing or one time. To isolate the impact of any payroll-related issues, we consistently use adopted staffing levels so there is an apples to apples comparison of the impact of the change.
The intent of this report is to highlight the problems and challenges facing the county. Proposed solutions will be included in the 1314 recommended budget. We'll start then with Tier 1 items. The first item is pension fund stability. This is the largest item on the schedule and is again, pension stability. This matter was described in great detail in the preceding presentation so we'll just remind you that in 14-15, it is thought to be our most expensive year and includes a 25 basis point reduction in the assumed rate of return. Does not reflect PEPRA benefit in this fiscal year.
So we did not actually overlay that into the great detail of the salary model. We'll look at doing that for the following year, but the impact will be very modest in that 14-15 year. The assumed change in the rate of return is the primary cause of the estimated increase in November to March. So as we changed, you could see in the 13-14, we were at 6.7. Maybe I'll take a minute and just remind you that the format that we're looking at here is pension fund stability This is the 13-14 section. This is our estimated impact of these expenditure changes with $17.9 million when we reported to you in November.
In March, our current update is 17.8 so we're very close to where we were at that point in time. We've not become of any material changes for the current fiscal year. As we look out to 14-15 this is what we had previously indicated at November 2012 These are the new items, totaling 19.7. The big change here is in the retirement and again what we've done is we've assumed that the rate of return will decrease from 7.75 to 7.5 as we discussed in our prior presentation and that's primarily driving the difference that we're seeing here.
The number two item is concessions, and these are ending in June 2013 primarily. So that's the...that is going away. Healthcare costs. The rate of the increase in healthcare cost has been slowing and was most recently at 4%. However, the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or ACA goes into effect in January 2014. CSAC, Excess Insurance Authority A risk sharing pool of California public agencies and our carrier recommends the use of 15% due to the uncertainties at this point.
And that results in a $2 million increase, to 28.4 million in total health care costs. We are projecting an increase of 12% in fiscal year 14-15 but our experience has been very favorable and we'll just have to wait and see how things progress but again we have this uncertainty with ACA. The number four item is workers' compensation The most recent actuarial report increased the unfunded liability for the work comp tail claims to a total of approximately 7.8 million and that was as of June 30, 2012.
This and increasing premiums on the new claims are the primary drivers of the increase. A plan to address such increases was recently shared with the board and the plan is now being implemented. Recent milestones include reviving a committee to evaluate employees that are no longer permanent and stationary, and are no longer able to perform their duties. And they've not yet been placed into modified work or been accepted for disability retirement. So we're looking at those employees to determine how we might be able to help them find accommodation or move forward in the disability process.
Also, a new dashboard report was just completed last week and the first monthly distribution will occur in this month March. The highlights show major changes in new or open claims, departmental claims activity over time and progress in claims that have stalled for some reason. The next item number five is the assessor gap and so here we're seeing no change here and very little change in the out year And so there has been little change. Balancing this department in 13-14 is planned to require additional ongoing general fund dollars, one time general fund dollars and use of departmental fund balance.
Item number six is the North Branch Jail Operating Fund.
One second Mr. Alvarez. Supervisor Wolf has a question?
Sorry to interrupt Mr. Alvarez but on the assessor funding gap What was the decision making process to allocate general fund money to that department, whereas like when we get to the next service level impact report. I guess my question is what about other departments? You know, I know in the narrative it talked about the importance of having assessments done on time and properly and having the correct number of people.
Is that what the 1.6 million is for? Or is it for IT? What is it actually for?
Supervisor Wolf, through the Chair. So over time their revenues have declined as the overall structure of the infrastructure of the county was declining as we were reducing our cost structure. The amount of reimbursement that comes through property tax administration fees has been declining. So they've had a declining revenue with an increasing workload and it's caused a structural imbalance in their department. And as we did last year as well, we identified departments that were using one-time funds to fund ongoing operations and they were the largest of these departments.
Last year in 12-13, we did address about 50% of those one time needs. And that's one of our budget principles is to try to eliminate these from our budget and to backfill these as we can. As we'll see later, that number is getting smaller for the remaining departments but we are attempting to balance those that have been structurally imbalanced that cannot do so through reduced further cuts to their workforce.
6:45 – 6:5623 turns
What is the 1.6 being used for? That's just, is it for bodies in that department? What is the use of that money?
Supervisor I think that perhaps we've confused you a bit. What we're talking about here is we're just identifying that that's an issue. We're not trying to solve it for you. We are just saying this is an issue further in the presentations with service level reductions and then with the budget hearings will actually have proposals to solve that. So this really doesn't represent anything other than it's an issue.
And it's an amount that you have, you feel will solve the issue? We're not sure how to solve it but you know how much it'll cost.
That is correct we do know how much it will cost. Okay.
Thank you. Please proceed Mr. Alvarez.
Thank you. We'll now talk about the North Branch Jail Operating Fund So there is no change to the plan set aside for jail operating fund. Again, we show the increase in general fund from the prior year set aside. The total general fund allocation to this designation will be 3.3 million in fiscal year 13-14 and 4.6 million in 14-15, a total increase each year of $1.3 million.
The next item number seven is retiree health care. And this is also known as the OPEB or other post employment benefit. benefits. Here we see no change from the prior report. We still plan to increase funding to reduce the unfunded liability, so we have been on a pay as you go method for some time in the 13-14 budget. We had recommended to increase that by a half a percentage point so that we might start whittling away at the unfunded balance and we're planning to increase that another quarter point for the 14-15 budget year. Each of those represents about a $700,000 addition to the set aside funds for the OPEB liability.
Item number eight, and these are now tier two items. And the format you'll see is the same and we'll go through each of these and I guess I'll point out that the bottom line on the 13-14 was 20.3 million, now 19.4 within 1 million of the prior balance it's now slightly lower than the expenses identified at that point. And as we go out into the next year, we'll see that it's relatively comparable as well. It's about $700,000 difference.
So in the first item number eight, social service mandate match, the previously anticipated significant use of $4 million fund balance in 12-13 is not occurring as one time and ongoing base funding has improved and the department is projecting to build its fund balance in fiscal year 12- 13. Based on these conditions, 13-14 reflects reduced general fund allocation to DSS. However due to other issues and complexities we're leaving this on a tier two item and will continue to monitor it closely.
The next item number nine is the property tax administration fee and very little change there It is expected that these funds will be paid out in the relatively near future now as we've further developed. And we had previously recommended that we may want to use the one-time RDA funds for these liabilities, and that's still our current recommendation. Number 10 is mental health and partner agency MediCal billing exposure.
There is no change from the prior report, and the estimated liability is reserved for it. Number 11 is the Mental Health Services Act, or MHSA. This has been removed as an issue in 13-14 based on a recent increased state funding allocation and existing fund balances. The department will be coming out with its proposed MHSA program plan which is expected to start aligning program costs with anticipated revenues.
Number 8 is the Deferred Maintenance Backlog And here we're not showing a change in this report. The CEO's office is revising its capital improvement program to include a section on ongoing countywide maintenance needs, which will be the basis for developing a long-term plan to address the growing countywide increase in unmet maintenance needs.
Mr. Alvarez, I'm sorry to interrupt you but Supervisor Adam has a question?
Yes.
Thank You Mr. Chair.
That's two million dollars is what you're talking about there? In deferred maintenance backlog?
Supervisor Adam, through the Chair. In the more detailed prior report we had gone into detail about this. The number is actually extremely large. It's $250 million in public works. Initially estimated at about $30 million in general services for buildings and another approximately $30 million in parks. So there's a very large...actually I think the number was $297 million we had identified in the prior report What we said at that point is, we really didn't have enough good information and prioritization to say what is the plan to solve this problem over time. And so that's what we're working on now with the departments to better align a plan. It will require additional funding. We're simply saying, we put $2 million here as a placeholder saying we need to increase funding.
With the current pressures of retirement increasing costs and so forth, we could not solve everything at this point. So we're just putting a placeholder here. $2 million is clearly only a small portion
Yeah, that's 150 years at that rate.
Supervisor Adam, that is correct and so really we'll be coming back with a more detailed plan with prioritization of what things really should be occurring in the most near term and a plan to say how do we start identifying more funding for that need?
Okay, thank
you. The next item is public health And the department has been impacted by continued declining revenues, primarily from fewer Medi-Cal visits. Actions to mitigate this ongoing revenue loss have begun and are planned to continue to adjust capacity to needs in the fiscal year 13-14 budget. A challenge in this effort is the uncertainty of the impacts of the Affordable Care Act or ACA with implementation set for January 2014. Number 14 is the 2005 storm damage repair FEMA disallowance.
The 1.1 million represents the maining disputed amount of this claim. The department has fund balance to cover the potential assessment, but there would be an impact on the road funds and as we were just saying, we do have a deferred maintenance issue here so if we were to use these funds, we would just be shifting the problem from one area to another so that we will still have that ongoing funding issue there.
Item number 15 is the fire department. This reflects an ongoing structural imbalance in this department, and this is similar to clerk recorder assessor. We've been looking at this and talking about this for some time. And it's impacted by salary increases scheduled for fiscal year 13-14 and 14-15 as the salary deferrals expire. So this is one of the items on the expansion list last year and was solved through, for the 12-13 period through deferrals of salary increases which really pushed the issue down so we'll have to again address this issue as they're now expiring in the raises are coming in.
The department does have fund balances to cover the 13-14 imbalance, but reserves will be fully exhausted in 14-15. The department will be and is looking at other cost saving measures that might be able to assist. Number 16 is ADMHS cost settlements, and this is really a placeholder. And we wanted to communicate that as we've explained the process for audits in mental health is five years after the year closes. We have tremendous risk not only for whatever year's being examined but if something is disallowed then we have these other five years of exposure so it remains as long as we have this process of delayed audits we have this exposure in this area.
Number 17 is the Health Care Reform Act, or ACA. And here we just wanted to point out there's remaining uncertainty over the number of new clients that will be getting the funding and the implementation costs. So we do have uncertainties in this area. If we go on to the next slide, this is the 13-14 projected budget gap. And on this slide Just a reminder that this top section is the summary of the gap. So again, here was our November information. The summary of all revenue changes was a positive $8.1 million.
The summary of all expenditure changes was a negative $17.9 million. The use of one-time funds was $2.6 million and the projected budget gap at that time was $12.4 million. As we come forward to March, the revenue changes are relatively the same at 7.9, a change The expenditure changes are 17.8, again relatively unchanged. And what we're seeing is the departments through a variety of means have managed to balance this. The district attorney is a good example of that. They had a large out-of-balance position or imbalance some time ago, some couple years ago.
Through changes in their staffing and as more senior staff have retired they've been able to get closer to a balanced budget through some of these staffing changes. And so that's what other departments are trying to do as well. As we come down to, these are now the details of these revenue changes and the expenditure changes. So here this first line as we have increased in pension funds and other employee benefit costs there is a state and federal reimbursement that we're able to recover so we actually as we have increased cost a portion of that is billable so we do bill that back and what we're saying now is it was is now thought to be 5.6 million State RDA agency dissolution, 2.7.
Property tax revenues, 2 .9 and again these are relatively consistent with what we previously thought. Fire district property tax transfer thought to be 700,000. And all other revenues, 2.6 million versus a prior negative 1.7 million and this we talked a little bit about during the second quarter review where we looked at some of the things like TOT that were tied to the Galluda neutrality that we had estimated but the estimates were not spot on.
So that results in 7.9 against 8.1 previously determined. On the detail
of the expenditure
changes...
Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Supervisor Lavallino has a question.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Alvarez, why would the Fire District property tax transfer drop by $200,000 if the property tax revenue is actually increasing?
Supervisor Lavinino through the chair, this is a very hard element for us to estimate. And we actually rely on the audit controller and his staff for this because each individual area has a different contribution rate to the fire district. And so this is what's currently loaded up into Finn. And I'd have to get more detail. We're going
to get firmer numbers when we get to the budget.
That is probably one of the more complex calculations that we have.
OK. Thanks.
6:56 – 7:0419 turns
Okay, as we look into the next section are the expenditure changes. And so down here. So we've talked about the pension fund stability no change there. Concessions, no change there. So really the only thing that changed was workers' compensation and that was within $100,000. So really there's very little change here and Those coming up here and so the last thing I'll say is the use of one time funds is going down. And has improved by $1.7 million, and so we're slowly getting into balance there.
And so that results in our gap of $10.8 million. Supervisor Wood?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Alvarez on the detail of revenue changes, the RDA amount to $2.7 million that we're expecting as revenue. Is that a firm number? Because I thought we were receiving about $4.5 million.
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair. The most recent number that we have loaded into FIN is about $4.2 million and it hasn't been updated at this point or it wasn't when we prepared this information. It will be changing as we get the actual amounts in. If it does go up a little bit that would change it. We had originally budgeted 1,000,555 into this. So I guess
I'm not clear so So would our revenue then, instead of it being 2.7 actually be 4.5?
Give me one second please. So the 2. 7 is the change from what we previously had so the 2 . 7 plus the 1. 5 that we previously had will give us a current estimate of $4.2 million per year of ongoing funding So if it does increase to 4.5, and actually we would expect that this number would be increasing every year as debts are fully paid off and the amount will increase over time.
So if it was 4.2, it would mean that our revenue is greater than 7.9 million?
The 4.2 is what we have right now, I think you said it might be going up to 4.5? That would increase the 7.9 by 300,000 so I think yes what you're saying is correct as that number goes up that would improve our revenue number.
Okay I guess what I'm just trying to get in the column that says as of March 2013 it says 2.7 RDA so what is the amount that you think it might be now?
The amount that we believe it is currently running, that is currently recorded as 4.2 million. The incremental change is showing because we are comparing it to an amount previously estimated a year ago at 1.5 million. That's why you're seeing the difference between the two point...the difference is that we had originally budgeted a year ago. So when we loaded our numbers for 12-13 and 13-14, we loaded up 1.5. As we get further along, we see it's now improving so that 2.7 is the change from 1. 5 says our ongoing amount is 4.2 And so if we were to improve the 4.5, that would be an additional 300,000 improvement over the 2.7 that is currently the improvement over the originally loaded 1.5 and I'm sorry it's a long confusing story. So I think the issue is that we originally estimated on the very conservative side of $1.5 million and as we get up to 4.2 or 4.
5, we'll recognize that differential as an incremental benefit to our revenues.
Mr. Roberts if I could just add, I certainly understand your explanation it makes sense but from a lay person just watching this It sure would be nice to see the 4.2 or the 4.5 instead of the 2.7 and then you have to explain the entire amount To the extent that we can present things in a way that don't require the long explanations Or at least a footnote or something then it really helps the public. I always look at it through the lens of the public If we ourselves are a little confused or need to require, ask a bunch of questions.
It does beg the question of how can we simplify this always so that the public can readily understand it in its most simplicity? So just keep that in mind if you could.
Certainly Supervisor Carbajal and I believe what we did in the second quarter report and the first fiscal outlook report is to include a revenue table and I think we'll do that next time. That might help this situation. We'll do that again next time.
Thank you, because I just learned something from the question Supervisor Wolf asked. You want to ask something, Supervisor? Please proceed.
OK. So as we look at our gap of $10.8 million, we have $7.5 million in savings from 11-12 that we've added to the strategic reserve We have 5.6 million from the 11-12 Prop 172 public safety realignment, so we had increases in our total realignment for all departments that were used to help them balance. 5.1 million in 11-12 concession savings that we set aside for a future need or future use.
4 million in 11- 12 concession savings that remained in the Sheriff and Fire Department. Some of that has been used and some of that will be continued to be used. 2.1 million is earmarked for facilities maintenance and is available to increase the deferred maintenance backlog or to address the deferred maintenance backlog. We have not included anything from 12-13 And so that, to the extent we finish to the positive and if you recall from our second quarter review. We thought we would finish about 5 million to the good with 4 million recommended to set aside for the property tax administration fee liability that we may have.
We also have a strategic reserve of about $24 million and that's after reducing it by 5.3 million for the jail construction fund, and our remaining contingency balance is about one million dollars.
Supervisor Adam? Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Alvarez do you have any idea how fast that deferred maintenance backlog is growing? Any sense of kind of an order of magnitude what the last five years has done for us?
Supervisor Adam, through the chair I don't have those numbers with me. I know in the roads it has been accelerating fairly significantly and we plan to have that information available to you as we look at the CIP Okay.
Yeah, because that's important to me is I think that some of this stuff is accruing and getting worse and so a road that was cheap to fix five years ago or maybe a couple more is now expensive to fix because we didn't fix it in the first place. And so I'm kind of interested as we plan especially for the deferred maintenance addressing that making it some kind of a plan to address that issue that we look at What's the proper sense of urgency?
So in the capital improvement plan that we'll be bringing in mid-April, we'll bring that information to you.
Thank you.
And Joe, if we could for a minute, Joe, could you flip over to the revenue slide? We lost it up here.
7:04 – 7:1130 turns
Mr. Alvarez, as you get ready to go back to that slide if you could help me understand again I want to go back to the question Supervisor Wolf asked. The 2.7 RDA money how that how the new figure of 4 point something would affect our funds available for future balancing? How does that, is that separate? Or are these extra... I want to understand how that impacts if at all the last page.
Supervisor Carbajal so what we've been attempting to do over the years with this documentation is show the incremental changes to revenues and expenditures and how they would drive and create a gap. And so this is a new revenue source that we previously had not budgeted for. This is the slide here that I was looking for. So we were talking about the variance of 2.7 million dollars here and that we're currently projecting 4,000,002-4,060.
If you can see that our adopted...we look at the variance from adopted to 1314 and that's giving rise to the increase here as we go so that gives us additional funds on a forward going basis of 4.3 million given that we budgeted here the incremental piece is 2.70
So this whole, the whole revenue was incremental? Incremental variances? That's correct. Okay that makes sense okay I guess I was missing the base and that's what was throwing me off and I think maybe related to what Supervisor Wolf was touching on but
OK, thank you. Supervisor Carbajal, I appreciate the comment you made a while ago and I think we did add this at the last minute. We were pressed for time to get it into the first report so we'll be using this. So can we get a copy of this as well? Absolutely.
Yeah, I'm just looking so we don't have this slide.
No, I added this as an additional side to address such an issue and I apologize for not getting into the original packet.
Can we get a copy of that Mr. Allen? Mr. Chair?
Supervisor Wood.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Alvarez I have another question when we had our second quarter status report it looked like we might well let me just ask you this do you expect a fund balance general fund and other funds at the end of this fiscal year
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, our last projection through the second quarter projected that we would have I don't have it in front of me. It was about 5.2 or 5.3 million positive
balance. That's what it looks like. So is that incorporated in the information that you're presenting today? I have 5.5, 5.2, 5 .5.
The 12-13 results are not included here. What we're showing is the incremental changes in 13-14 and 14-15. So as we looked at that one slide that had funds available to help in 13- 14 and 14- 15, those $5.2 million would be available to help with whatever balancing items were required.
Well see, I think as I'm trying to put this item together with the next item It seems like we should have included that amount of money into these slides. Because it's carryover, it's fund balance or we're going to put it into strategic reserve. We need to know what are we doing with that money?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, I believe the historic practice of not including that is to be conservative. Things happen things change we may spend a great deal of that money on the property tax administration fee resolution and it may not be there at the end of the year so I think that conservatively they've not included those figures. We can certainly identify that for informational purposes and include it in the slide you know or in our next update presentation
okay thank you
Please proceed. I'm sorry, Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair. You're so far
over there!
Mr. Alvarez were you going to go through the rest of these final comments or can I ask questions on those because that's kind of along the same line of what may be left over what might still be available to address the new gap that we're looking at
Certainly I think I did walk rather quickly through those last items that we have available to help deal with these issues and if you had any questions
on that. I do thank you so let's just take them in order here, I'm looking at the bottom of page 18. So first of all The money that was added to the strategic reserve, I'm assuming that then that was what brought us up to the almost $30 million that we had 29 point something. That then was just reduced when we took out the five point something million for the jail. So now we're back down to 23 or 24 million in the strategic reserve. I'm trying to keep a running tab.
That is correct Supervisor Clark.
Okay so that 7.5 has already been counted in this most recent amount that we got?
That's correct. So it got up to 29.2 or 29.3 million, and then we backed out the 5.3 from the jail contribution.
OK. And then the next one that the $5.1 million that's been set aside in a committed fund balance to help address 13-14 or future funding needs. So I'm just wondering if we have a 12.4 projected budget gap Is this 5.1 all available for that if we wanted to use that? Some of it, none of it?
Supervisor Farr through the chair. So the plan would be that the $10.8 million gap that we have, and I think CEO Waller will be addressing this in her service level reduction presentation. We have the gap of 10.8 million. The service level reductions are 8 point some million. We also have increased use of one time funds which is a relatively modest amount but that's more or less how 13-14 is planned to be balanced without using any of these set aside funds.
It is one thought for use of the remaining 5.1 million, maybe as we have the rate of return change from 7.75 to 7.5 that will put some pressure onto the budget. That's some funds that may be used for that purpose or other purposes as the board sees fit.
Okay, but in other words the 5.1 is still sitting there to be used for this budget gap additional costs from changes in the amounts that we have to owe for retirement etc.?
That is correct.
And that's separate from the $5.5 million general fund estimate that Supervisor Wolf was talking about?
That is correct these funds were set aside from the 11-12 fiscal year.
7:11 – 7:1730 turns
Okay and actually so I want to turn then to the top of the next page, page 19. So then we're looking at the beginning balances of Prop 172 in the beginning of this year for public safety and that showed 5.6 and it's talked about using that money this year in future years So do we know yet whether there's going to be any money left that wasn't used out of that money saved for this fiscal year, that could be available for 13-14?
Supervisor Farr through the chair. I believe and I'll get back here in this figure. I believe that there's gonna be about two million of those funds left going into the next year.
Okay,
for
the public safety departments?
Based on current estimates and so I need to make that caveat.
Okay, and then kind of the same question for the next bullet which is the 4 million from 11-12 for sheriff and fire. And that was also used to address this year's as well as future funding needs will there be anything left out of that going into 13-14?
Supervisor Farr, I believe for the Fire Department and here are the funds. There are several different funds so I'm not sure which exact bucket but they do plan to be fully utilizing all their reserves to balance 13-14 and will not have any remaining reserves for 14-15 based on currently known facts.
Okay thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor
Lavanino?
Thank you okay so I need clarification here. The seven and a half is part of the 23 in strategic reserve. OK, so all that other stuff is available for 13-14? Pardon
me, Supervisor Lavinino. Some of that is being used in 12-13 and 13- 14. So when we prepared this slide, we said this is going to help us balance in 12-'13, 13-'14, and future periods.
OK. So when we say some of it's been used, when are we going to know how much of it has been used?
We, Supervisor Lavagnino, we won't know until the year is closed to see what happens between now and then.
I know that...okay. But
perhaps... Is this
part of the five? Okay getting confused here. Is this part of the 5 1⁄2 that you're predicting will be there at the end? No. No. Okay okay so it's 5 1⁄2 plus whatever we have here minus the four and something that the fire attacks
The fire tax.
Well, the Yes,
PTAP. That's correct. And what may be helpful and I apologize for not having it available we tried to get information out as quickly as we could. I think a schedule of current balances that can be used to help balance going forward in a summarized list of what has been used, what is currently available would be helpful for you to see. That'd be great. We'll look at Any projections that are dependent on year-end balancing, and maybe put those into a separate category because of the uncertainty of those.
That would be great. Very helpful for the next item we're going to hear.
Yes. More questions? Mr., please proceed, Mr. Alvarez.
That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to address any other questions you have.
Great. In light of the information that some of my colleagues have requested That you think you may be able to get or not, maybe not. It'll be in the future. CEO Waller and Mr. Alvarez if you feel there's some information that you guys could gather in 15 minutes or so that would be helpful and informative for our next item we could take a break. And if not let's just proceed with what we have and you'll get us more information later. I'll leave it to you CEO Waller and Mr Alvarez.
Thank you, Chair. I don't think 15 minutes will probably get us the level of refinement that we'd like to share but just as a reminder the service level reductions that are being proposed are really just based upon the board's allocation policies what the departments would have to do to balance to those allocations it does not go the extra step to actually start solving those service level reductions and in fact To solve that we'll use information that comes out of what's left over from 12-13, what becomes available through state dollars and any other sources that we may have such as union concessions. So it's really just to give you sort of a very preliminary look at what some of the impacts could be before we go to the extra effort of trying to solve them for you.
Thank you. We have one public speaker so we're going to go to the public and then come back to wrap this item up with a motion.
We have a speaker for Mr. Caldwell, but I don't see him here. I don't know if he's made his way to Santa Maria or not.
OK, Mr. Caldwell is not here. I'll bring you back to the board. Is there a motion to accept this report? Motion to amend and seconded. Discussion? Having none, all those in favor? Aye. Opposition? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. We will now
move on to item six. Mr. Allen if you could read the item into the record and if our staff could change out the PowerPoint.
7:17 – 7:2611 turns
Item number six from CEO's office is to receive and file a service level reduction budget update for fiscal year 2014 including a presentation describing anticipated reductions.
Thank you, Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a statement before we get started and that is to thank our CEO and staff for getting us to this point a little bit earlier than we might have during the budget hearings. Just looking through these service level reductions it's late in the day but I still think it's important that we have these discussions prior to budget hearing so that you can get some input from us CEO Waller The department heads can also hear from us about some of these proposals. So I really do appreciate it and thank my colleagues for having, what is this? It's not a workshop.
Well,
I must confess that Supervisor Wolf has always advocated for workshops and she got away. And I hate to say this but she was absolutely right. This is the right thing to do. Please proceed TOR.
Thank you Chair. Well, actually Supervisor Wolf was a wonderful kickoff to what I was going to start out our discussion with that we're here a little bit earlier than what we anticipated which is why it may seem that we don't have all the solutions for you because it was our understanding that you really weren't looking for The solutions to completely be given to you. You were looking for an opportunity to help us with the CEO's proposed budget by asking questions about what the departments have proposed, perhaps giving us some insight in things that are particularly of interest that we try to solve and so that's really the purpose of our meeting today.
So as I said, today is Anticipated Service Level Reductions Resulting from Implementation of the Board's Budget Policies and Fiscal Strategies which you approved on October 16th 2012. At that time the Board directed staff to adjust the budget development calendar in order to provide information to the board regarding service level impacts and you asked us to come in March instead of the April that we had originally anticipated As I know your board will recall, you've received several updates as development of the CEO's proposed fiscal years 2013-14 and 2014-15 operating plan progresses.
On October 16th 2012 your board adopted budget policies and fiscal strategies for developing this operating plan On November 13, 2012 you had the first fiscal outlook report describing those concerns that we believe the county was facing over the next two fiscal years. On December 4th your board approved the general fund allocation policy including the policies for how we allocate funding to each department.
Presented earlier today was an update to that November 2012 Fiscal Outlook Report And that outlook report provided you information on the latest key issues that face the county in the coming years. That update was intended to provide the board with an opportunity to review these issues prior to receiving the information on reductions that may be necessary in order to provide a balanced CEO budget, which we'll be bringing to your board in May. And then obviously budget hearings resulting in this will be the board's adoption of a final budget scheduled for June 2013.
Just as a reminder, some of the big budget challenges that we're facing. The county has operated with a structural deficit for several years by utilizing one-time funding for ongoing programs. However, we can't continue this practice because the availability of reserve funds continues to diminish and in some cases these reserves have been exhausted. Although we've made substantial progress over the last two years to structurally balance the budget, we still have some very significant challenges.
We have escalating retirement and health care costs. We have expiring employee compensation concessions. We'll be facing salary increases for firefighters and sheriff's managers. We'll need funding for new jail operations We are very, very much in the initial phases of implementation of the Affordable Care Act and there are a great deal of uncertainty about what the implementation will actually mean for the county.
And then we do have continued reliance on one-time funding solutions. Though ambiguity remains about the future, the magnitude of the challenges listed above require reductions in service levels to match the available revenues provided by our taxpayers. It's currently anticipated there will be a $10.8 million shortfall in fiscal year 13-14. During budget hearings in June, the board will need to make substantial policy decisions and difficult budget choices.
As a result of available revenues and the expected increases to expenditures, it will be necessary to reduce service levels by $8.3 million which will impact approximately 55 full-time equivalent positions. Many of the FTEs that we will be recommending for elimination are currently vacant. Others which are not currently vacant would be considered for transfer into other vacant and ongoing funded positions.
The ongoing cost of the general fund to restore these service level reductions would be $4.9 million. The reason that you see that the ongoing GFC needed to restore is less than the actual shortfall is because we are anticipating some operational efficiencies, we would have matching federal and state revenues in some cases, and we don't know at this point in time what the fund balance may look like.
But just as a reminder, from our fiscal outlook report we anticipate an additional shortfall in 14-15 and any general fund dollars that we utilize to balance our budget in 13-14 will actually increase the severity of the needed reductions for 14- 15. I'd like to take us back for just a moment where we were at the end of fiscal year 2013, or 12-13. Your board may recall our budget hearings where your board approved some ongoing restorations on just briefly Human Services Commission, truancy program, veteran services and pro pay totaling $1.7 million. Your board directed that we look at those as an ongoing restoration. CEO
Waller, Supervisor Farr has questions?
Thank you Mr. Chair, I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation CEO Waller but I just wanted a clarification on in your report you said the ongoing general fund cost to restore the service level reductions would be 4.9 million but when I look at that chart it just totals 3.1 5 million of general fund and then the non-general fund is the rest. So maybe explain that and I missed it, but why is there the difference?
Certainly. There's actually 8.3 million dollars worth of general fund that all those total to. The reason that we're saying there's less actual contribution required is because some of those service level reductions that are being proposed are actually efficiencies and increases in state and federal funding, so they wouldn't need actual general fund to restore. So that's why you see the difference between the proposed service level reductions and what it would take to actually establish those service level reductions that we think would continue to exist.
OK, so if we wanted to eliminate all of these service level reductions the general fund cost would be $4.9 million not 3.15.
That's correct Supervisor.
Thank you.
7:26 – 7:3215 turns
So what you have before you on this slide are the ongoing restorations that your board directed that we include in all future budget years. On the following slide, what we'll see are those restorations that are one time in nature, that your board said that you wanted to restore but just one year and that those would come back to you in the future. So I'll go briefly through those, and I'll explain what we're talking about when you see the FY 13-14 status.
Inpatient psych beds at 216, the department will again be requesting funding for those or a service level reduction. Ag biologist, service level reduction. Clerk of the board, service level reduction that I will not be requesting additional funding for in 13- 14. The Film Commissioner and Visitors Bureau at 195 which staff will be requesting funding for. Then you'll see these parks, water sewer mechanic the department themselves was able to find funds within their existing budget through vacancies in other areas and so they will be able to fund those with ongoing departmental funds.
Additionally your board Also included some, next slide please, shelter services for $45,000 which will be requested again. Guadalupe Dunes we won't be requesting because the department will find funding for that within their existing budget. Engine 11 and Station 22, the department will be requesting those funds again. Last year your board restored those based upon union concessions.
Beacon EIR and Ellen Barkadaro were one-time requests.
The restorations were contingent upon concessions, correct?
Yes, Chair. When you actually made those requests for one-time restorations last year, you specifically directed that those would only be restored if union concessions were forthcoming and they were forthcoming. But since we are a year later, that comes back to us again as an issue. And then the final is custody deputies which your board restored for half a year and that will also be coming back to you as a request from the sheriff.
The application of board approved budget allocation policies resulted in several departments considering the need for service level reductions to balance their expenditures with revenues. These SLRs, and I'll refer to them as SLRs typically throughout this presentation are detailed on attachment A which was included in your report and is on our website. The slurs are arranged by department and in priority of the item with number one on the list being that, that the department would most want to restore.
The slurs presented are based upon each departments understanding of the service level reductions at this moment in time as required by the budget adopted policies. Between now and June budget hearings, additional information will be developed. For example we'll be providing you clear fund balances. We'll be looking at unanticipated state, federal or grant revenue and certainly we anticipate that some of the departments may have other issues that emerge or they may be able to resolve some of these. So as I mentioned this is really just to give you a very early look not to say this is exactly what you'll see when we bring forward the CEO's proposed budget.
Because of the importance of the public and yourselves being aware of all of these, I'm going to take several minutes to go through in some level of detail. If you have questions, I'll probably ask the department to actually come to the podium and respond Because as a reminder, these reductions were proposed by the individual departments and so they will best be able to answer specific questions that you may have.
So to start with the County Executive Office last year with one-time funding Your board allocated $50,000 and this was to enable some transition in the staff there. We had a need for new employees to be trained. We believe at this point in time that we can say that we're pretty well fully transitioned in and so the work will be spread to the remaining staff.
In County Council, they're proposing a reduction of two FTEs. And as you may recall this particular budget year that we're in we had significant need for legal services for our Community Services Department, our Planning and Development Department and our Sheriff. We don't anticipate that same high need for next year. However if in fact we do find the need for additional council, we may need to look at some outside council to supplement.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank You Mr. Chair
when we do the budget there's a line item for Dennis you can help me with this is it legal contingency or and I think we usually put in like 500,000 and
yes
and is that what's anticipated that we're going to be putting in again this
year? Yes that's my understanding.
Five hundred thousand
That's remained static since I've been here for about five years now.
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair, we are again recommending that the money will be there. The $500,000 is budgeted within the county council's department and then as they actually need funds it's just drawn down from the general fund. OK, thank you.
Do we have any money left in that fund?
Yes. If you'll give me a
minute. You can give it to me later. Just wondering.
7:32 – 7:3811 turns
In our probation department, the first item that we have is a result of the SB 678 program. As your board may recall this is state funding which is given to us for specific uses in this particular case the states currently proposing a significant reduction to what they are going to provide, and in keeping with your board's practice in the past we aren't recommending backfilling state programs.
If this money is to go away it would eliminate the gang intervention officers and their supervisor however we would continue to monitor those individuals, the remaining staff would just have additional workload We are hopeful in talking with the governor's administration that they are going to, in fact, reinstitute those dollars. And if, in fact, they do, that would be something that would be dropped when we get back to the CEO proposed budget. But we don't have a final decision from the state yet.
The second item would be to eliminate standby transport staff between South County and the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall. In that regard, we think that we can accomplish this because we're actually transporting fewer and fewer individuals than we have in the past. The last one we have
here. This transport funding, is this for all cities in the South Coast? Is it one city and is this something we do consistently countywide other cities in North County because I remember when we reduced some of the services in North County for the North County Jail transportation was a big issue as well so I'm curious to know if this is consistent in which cities does this support or not?
Chair Carbajal, this money funds all of the transportation services for calls after hours from Santa Barbara to Santa Maria. It primarily impacts the Sheriff's Department and the Santa Barbara Police Department. Both agencies have been made aware of this reduction and are expressing a significant amount of concern to us. There is during the weekdays a transportation run For court from the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall to the Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall where the court is held for minors from Santa Barbara.
And there is the availability to still transport minors from the south coast to Santa Maria Juvenile Hall on that van.
And what about from Santa Maria to the South County?
There's not, there is not a transportation because the only juvenile hall that we operate is in Santa Maria. So this is the current process following the closing of the booking station and the South County Juvenile Hall, which I believe occurred in 2008. Is that we have staff who are on call so when a South County law enforcement agency picks up a minor they contact the juvenile hall and if they meet our booking criteria we will meet them at the juvenile hall and drive the minor to Santa Maria. Okay yes thank you
The last item that we have on probation is reducing staffing at the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and this is actually as a result of the daily population decline. As long as we stay below 90, we are meeting the required mandated staffing levels Without the seven additional staff, so this is something that probation will be monitoring very closely. Right now they average about 84 individuals a day. They feel pretty good that they can stay below the 90. If they were unable to stay below the 90 we would be back to your board asking for either some additional resources or we may need to provide additional concessions.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the larger form that we received in our packet, if the three items were implemented, the savings to the general fund from probation would be about $1 million. And now maybe I can't even see. I need my glasses. $600,000. And this doesn't include the impact to probation, the juvenile hall and the boys camp. If you look when we go further and we look at mental health because there is a recommendation to transfer the mental health services from probation for those two facilities To a private company to save additional funds. I'm wondering Madam CEO Waller, why is it they're saving $685,000 with these proposed cuts?
What is it in probation, what was told to probation that is leading them into this? Not just cutting back but also privatizing services, mental health services in the hall. That seems so, I don't, why's that happening to this department?
Thank you, Chair. I think that what you will see throughout our presentation, particularly when you see the public safety departments, the greatest increase is due to increased costs for salaries and benefits, particularly retirement. And so across the public safety departments, you will see the need for reductions as a result of those increases to balance those. You won't see those, to the greatest extent in the non-public safety because most of those departments their employees have given concessions and so you won't see the need for as many reductions
So just so I understand, was their base level of general fund contribution from last year the same? Or has it decreased?
Mr. Alvarez can you help us with that please? I know that you've got the information on how much it increased.
7:39 – 7:4527 turns
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. Their general fund projected for 13-14 will be $25,150,000 versus $25 million roughly even so it's up slightly for next year.
So we've increased their general fund contribution by $150,000? Approximately. Okay well I guess you know We're basically keeping that I would like to see at some point the general fund contribution What we're what we're giving to all the departments and how much of an increase or decrease? And I Think that would be helpful when we come back
certainly. We can provide you that information supervisor
Adam
Yeah, my question is in the in the big picture Did you get just going back one item to the fiscal outlook report. Did you take these cuts into account when you figured that oh OK we're sorry we're just so I get it straight in my mind this is a potential solution to that okay I'm sorry I'll shut up now
CEO or please proceed.
Certainly I know it's been a long day. We just thought it was really important to try to bring all these items to you at the same time because they really do have such context and are interwoven, but I do understand it makes for a very long day. So next moving on to fire the two service level reductions that you see are the one-time funding that your board Provided last year as a result of the concessions. The concessions have gone away And so we have need to make these service level reductions that were proposed last year These are the same two that you saw last year You will notice that the amount slightly different and the reason for that being is when we came into The budget presentations for 12-13, the concessions were not in place. And so now that there has been an extension of when the raises actually take effect you'll see a slight amount of difference between what there is today and what there was last year but it's basically the same number.
Supervisor Wolf? So I take back what I said before about waiting to get that information on the general fund. Can you give it to me again on the fire department? What we spent in general fund last year compared to this year?
We can pull the information together for any department. The projection for the fire department will be that it won't be in the general fund for next year, so it was the 5.9 that we locked in and then it's the calculation of how much tax transfer, so it's a little confusing with the fire department.
Okay, but do you have a ballpark just to give me an idea?
$5.9 million was their allocation for 12-13. And then I believe in the other document we looked at the increase from The tax transfer was about $700,000 I want to say. And I can get back with an exact figure for
you. And do you recall what it was in 11-12? 11- 12 if you'll bear
with me one second.
I just want to say while you're looking, just as it did last time these two items are very concerning to me. Actually neither one are in my district. It concerns me just for the safety of the county. Goleta obviously is closer to my district and something that does concern me a great deal. And so as we're going through this, now that I have a chance to give my input, I'm going to.
Thank you. Do you have that number?
Yes, Supervisor Wolf. It was $3.3 million in 11-12. It increased to $4.9 million in 12-13 and was then increased to a million dollars to help fund the aviation operations.
OK, so their general fund increase was much greater than probation.
That is correct.
Thank you.
Although it's obviously a smaller amount. Correct, and
the other thing I was going to note Supervisor is that theirs was specifically discussed by the Board of Supervisors and your board made those specific allocations so they're a little bit different than probably many of the other departments because there was a specific discussion on that department. You may recall the tax transfer discussion? Oh I do,
I
recall that thank you. Please proceed CEO Waller
Thank you, Chair. The next item that we have for you is the Sheriff. The first item that you'll see are three custody deputies and as a reminder, you restored these three custody deputies with one-time funding last year but you did it for half a year so that's why you see the amount roughly double as to what your one time approval was last year.
The next item is a result of mandated inmate care. We are seeing the need for about $250,000 of increased cost for pharmaceuticals and about $185,000 increased costs for actual medical care. Because this is a mandated level we aren't able to actually reduce The inmate health care, so it was required for the sheriff to provide something alternative to us. And they provided us that they would reduce custody staff by four FTE.
Supervisor Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair, CEO Waller I know that the contract that we have for the medical service in the jail through Corizon was about a two or three year at a time contract so I'm assuming that this 3.4% increase was assumed in that contract?
I'm going to ask the sheriff's staff if they could provide us that information please
7:45 – 7:5118 turns
Just for clarification, Chair and Supervisor, are you talking about the pharmaceutical increase in costs?
No. I'm talking about it says the contracted medical service costs are going up 3.4% or $184,502.
Chair Carball, Supervisor Farr. The increase of 3.4% is what we've been told it will occur next year if we contract with Corizon next year. Discussions are ongoing right now. The current contract expires June 13 and we're in discussions of continuing. The budget assumes Corizon will continue to provide service and the cost that we've been told will go too is up 3. 4%.
Okay, but you're under those discussions right now?
Yes ma'am.
All right and you haven't...
No I
didn't. Just point of clarification there was no increase last year at all from Corizon so this is basically a two-year increase to cover two years.
Do you still feel that their costs are the best way to go or have you thought at all about rebidding it
Well, we're still in discussions with them in terms of the cost and hope to perhaps bring those costs down. Perhaps incorporating the second item which is the increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals. Currently we have a separate contract for pharmaceuticals and we're looking at perhaps Verizon coming back and rebidding their contract to include pharmaceuticals as well. And that may have some economy of scale that might drive it down as well so it's kind of an ongoing situation with them.
Okay. It's not helpful to work with our public health department with that situation?
Yeah, I think it's kind of apples and oranges in terms of what we're actually looking for because it's a... We need a very broad range of pharmaceuticals and we need a company or provider that provides large quantities in a very broad range of those.
Okay. Thank
you.
Medicine.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too wanted to talk a little bit about this issue. I think the pharmaceutical increase in cost is it just seems so outrageous to me. So I'm glad that you're going to be looking at that a little bit more. And also the three and three basically 3.5% increase from for horizon and granted they didn't race raise it last year, but you know I think this is something that when people talk about.
privatizing or subcontracting out services. Once you lose our internal services and you go outside, we're kind of at their whim and I think they were kind enough not to raise the contract price last year but they're doing it this year. We don't know what it's going to be next year. And I would suggest as you get into negotiations with them that you look at a multi-year contract so we have some idea Because I don't think we can go back to public health now. Once you make that step, it's very difficult to go back. But I do think as we go forward that you look at a multi-year contract so we know what the money and the figures are going to be. And it just kills me that we're looking At reducing our, you know, custody deputies.
We're talking so much about the jail and making sure that that jail is secure. And these are the people on the street that we depend on. I don't know. It looked like from the other report that we have additional 172 money. Have you talked internally about how you're using that? Are you putting that toward the North County Jail? What are the plans for
that? Supervisor Wolf, through the chair, I'm going to address your first question and then I'm going to turn it over to our CFO to talk about the 172. These numbers here and the corresponding decrease in custody deputies, I can tell you that I'm going to be pressing you very hard in the budget process to come up with that money somehow to fund these positions. They're critically needed positions for us to operate our jail at the levels that we currently have.
If we don't have those positions, we're gonna have to reduce the number of people By closing down or by not opening a portion of the jail that we otherwise would if we had enough staff. So it's, you know, the staffing levels in the jail are razor thin right now and we need to make sure that we do have those positions and when we had discussions with the CEO's office about all three of these things I mean in my estimation this is in essence an increased cost of doing business the way we currently are. This is in essence a status quo situation because we're not gonna be gaining anything other than what we currently have and We need to do that. It is a million dollars or so in an increase, but it's you know potentially with the one time with the with the nature of the fact that you've got In a few years some projected major league savings in terms of the pension costs.
It's probably, you know we're going to have a discussion about employing you to use some strategic reserve or something to patch us through for those couple of years to get there.
7:51 – 7:5917 turns
Supervisor Wolf through the chair as it relates to the Prop 172 revenue every year we budget what we think is going to occur And in past years, we've been excess of that budget and we've been able to set it aside to use for other things. Most recently, we actually had problems. You may remember the problem years where the Prop 172 was much lower than we expected. So right now, we're looking at the revenues being higher than anticipated in our budget.
I'm not seeing the $5 million number, but it is kind of a volatile situation. We don't know what's gonna happen in the future. We're looking at about a six to $700,000 excess or surplus right now, Prop 172 this year and it may be growing as the state economy goes. But taxable sales are really important so we need that revenue to come in and we'll see where it goes and then that money is available to be used to solve some of the problems.
Thank you. Sheriff, what's the past two or three years look like in terms of drug seizure forfeiture money? And what's the discretion and use of that funding because certainly as we look under every rock it would be great to just understand again how much money you've been able to obtain and how we used it in the past and how we plan on using in the future Because when I see something like this, and we brought in another $400,000, there's your answer. So Doug? How much last year? How much this year?
Give us a three-year picture. I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head. Asset seizure comes in either through local sources or through federal. If it's a federal case, it's tracked differently than local asset forfeiture. I want to say ballparkish. We're looking at $250,000 a year Maybe 350 between the two sources. The use of the money is really very controlled, the federal asset seizure has to be spent on certain things in certain ways and the rules are kind of convoluted. The local is a little more lenient.
It would be great to get some, the discretion and guidelines on that. And a good profile of the past three years because again as we look at money everything comes in handy to address this too. Yeah, we can provide that for you. That would be helpful. Thank you. I know C.L. Waller, I've talked to her about your asset seizure forfeiture money and we have some ideas for
it. If I could just piggyback onto that there are a number of restrictions which typically mandate that money to be used for counter drug activities or drug prevention activities and typically the rule of thumb is that it can't be used for ongoing personnel costs. It generally is for one-time issues. There is some money that is completely discretionary, and historically we've used that to fund Supervisor Carbajal, if I may. The balance at the beginning of the year for the forfeiture funds was $940,000 roughly?
Thank you very much. That's extremely helpful, thank you very much. Supervisor
Lavinino? I just had a comment it's not to do with this at all but it just has to do with Corizon and maybe it's a long day but I have to speak up a little bit on privatization because any time privatization, anything we privatize increases in cost and this is one-and-a-half percent a year the last two years We continue to hear, well we should have never privatized it. This is what happens but if we don't privatize it I mean I would sign on right now for a one and a half percent increase on all of these departments on everything we do for the next 20 years so I think there's things that we should privatize this is one of them and I'm sure the sheriff's going to do everything in his power to make sure that we're not paying a penny more than we should I love workshops.
I do too, and I appreciate your comments and sometimes privatization is good and sometimes it's not but when you have it what I was suggesting I think long-term contracts are a good thing so it gives us a little bit of security and really we're just in our third year we don't know what the future is going to hold that's why I think it would be good to have a long term contract
Thank you. Back to CEO Waller, but I do want to just recognize the disparity between the figure the sheriff's staff gave us and Mr. Alvarez on the asset seizure forfeiture money. 200-something to 900 is a big difference so at some point it would just be great to understand that.
Just a clarification, that was 250 this year is what he said. Oh okay. The figure that you see was the total amount that we have. So there's not really a disparity. Okay
thank you very much well that is very helpful CEO Waller.
Thank you, Chair. So the last item that we have on the sheriff's slur is an item that you heard about recently as far as the desire to increase the aviation support unit budget to account for additional fuel costs and add maintenance, additional maintenance to the budget. Moving over to public health, this one will be a little bit challenging to follow through and I'll try to be as clear as I can because some of these items are not actually service level reductions. They're efficiencies and I will do my best to identify when we're looking at a reduction and when we're actually looking at a suggested efficiency.
So the first one is the environmental health ocean water testing. The federal government mandates us to provide testing during certain months of the year, other months of the year we are not mandated to test so the public health department is recommending that we not test in the winter but I have a late breaking email from them indicating that they believe for $15,000 they can contract with Channel Keeper to provide that water testing during the winter and they believe that they can find those funds. So as I was mentioning... That is good news. You're going to see changes throughout the next month as folks really dig in and look for solutions and this is just a great example of one where they dug in very very quickly and found a solution.
Utilization review under the Affordable Health Care Act will actually be eliminating some of the medical duties that public health performs not right now for eligibility and those duties will be moving over to social services. So what they're proposing is an elimination of costs in staff in public health As ACA moves forward, we'll probably see offsetting increases in the Department of Social Services. But as I mentioned before, we're still pretty much in flux on that so we don't have definitive numbers. The next one, the Santa Maria Health Center, we're seeing about 11% fewer Clinic patients in our organization overall, based upon what we're seeing as far as folks coming in in Santa Maria. We believe that we can reduce $161,000 of cost in one FTE.
Santa Barbara Health Center, same issue, fewer patients. We believe we can reduce in that area as well and neither one of those would be service level reductions. It's simply matching staffing levels with the amount of patients that were seen come in. Health information CEO.
I'm
sorry.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. But why have the same decline in patients since only a third of an employee in Santa Barbara and a full employee in Santa Maria?
Dr. Wada, if you could help us with that please? Because I think that 11% is system wide but if you can perhaps clarify for us.
Sure. Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Lavinino the 11% is across the entire system and so that does vary by region. So we're right sizing the operation based on where the declines are more specifically.
7:59 – 8:1428 turns
This is like, this is like Parliament. You ask questions and everybody comes and answers you know? Please proceed CEO Walker.
Thank you Chair. The health information electronic health records this has been a multi-year implementation of the electronic health records. You may recall that in the past we had utilized staff to do a lot of data entry very detailed data entry. We had several times that that had to be repeated in several different places and forms. And with the electronic health record system coming up to a speed, we'll be able to reduce five FTE from that. And that's really just an efficiency. That's not a service level reduction.
In the Santa Maria Women's Center you heard this item several weeks ago when Dr. Wada indicated that what we're doing here is based upon The need for efficiencies and what we're seeing as far as our patient level will be consolidating our Santa Maria operations to the Better Avia Center. Supervisor
Wolff? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Going back to the information medical management, did you say that it had to be repeated a few times?
It's my understanding that because we had paper systems and we had different files and we had different things that we had to fill out for state documentation, that it wasn't infrequent that those items may have to be actually changed from document-to-document by hand. But with the electronic health records, we'll have a system that will seamlessly provide that information all in one electronic file. location.
Where's Dr. Watt? Dr. Watt, is that program all now completed?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. Yes our electronic health record system implementation is completed at least the first phase so it's up and running now in all of our clinics. We're still having some experiences trying to refine the program and we have some productivity decreases because of that but it is up for the first phase correct?
Okay. And while you're here, and I know we're going to do mental health in a second but does mental health have they also instituted electronic patient monitoring or is that a totally different
system? Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolfe it's a different system but they do have electronic health records and ADMHS as well.
So did they just go through the same thing, a transfer?
Or have they always been doing it? I'm not sure on the timing of when that happened. But it's been several years. It wasn't in the last couple of
years. Do the two talk to each other, mental health and health-health?
The computer programs obviously. Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, currently the systems do not.
Okay, we'll talk about that later. Thank you.
Now Dr. Weil I'm gonna ask you a real silly question. I'm not an expert in IT but I know when you go up to all data, computerized data, there's always the fear that something could happen that loses everything. Is there a procedure where every day we're updating? We have a backup system or something that there's a fire, there is a break in the system. Where we have that data somewhere separately. Is there some kind of protocol like that?
Chair Carbajal, yes there is a protocol for saving the data.
And do we ever test it to make sure that whoever's responsible for that data upload that it's done consistently sort of an audit so that we don't get into somebody was supposed to do it but they didn't do it?
Yes, I believe it's done every day and I believe it's actually held out of state for those emergency reasons. So if something affected us locally that data would still be available to us. Thank you
very much. COR?
Thank you, Chair. The last item that we have on the public health slur is actually not a reduction either. It is efficiencies that they have found via just overall system-wide fewer clinic patients and anticipated changes in the Affordable Health Care Act. The next item that we wanted to talk about is alcohol, drug and mental health. And again you may recall that as a part of last year your board allocated a one-time funding of $216,000 for inpatient services for some additional beds. The department no longer needs additional beds but what they are finding is an additional need for state hospitalization And coupled with that, the states increased their unit cost so they will be asking for those dollars again.
The next item that you see again is not really a service level reduction but I wanted to bring it to your board's attention. That probation as part of their balancing of their budget is recommending that they contract with Khorizon for mental health services in their juvenile justice program And if they are to do that, that would result in approximately 8.3 FTEs that would no longer be needed in the alcohol, drug and mental health system.
Based upon the fact that ADMHS is going through a very detailed consultant report, the department has been holding vacancies for those positions available not these particular but positions available where these individuals could move to existing vacancies within the department And obviously we still don't have the results of the consultant report. We're currently working through the CEO's, I guess advisory commission. We're working with the CBOs. I believe we've been briefing your board offices and that will be coming to you in May with a full recommendation on how to move forward.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I think this is the one that I had alluded to earlier and maybe one of the more concerning changes and that is moving into Corizon Mental Health at the juvenile It's a juvenile hall and it's also the boys camp. And from what I understand, and I've talked to Miss Taylor a few times about this and Damon has been kind enough to get me information but From what I'm understanding is that for juvenile mental health, they do not have any sites in California. All of them and I think it's maybe two or three are out of state.
And it concerns me because you know I'm on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and we're seeing so many improvements. And we just had a board presentation of what's going on in juvenile hall. And I say improvements kind of wistfully because actually as we were told at that meeting, and actually we were told today by one of our retirees that the difficulty and the extensiveness of mental issues that our juveniles are experiencing in juvenile hall is much greater than it ever was in the past.
And the fact that we're seeing so much dedication from our county employees And and now contracting out, which you know the decision is a big once you make that decision. I'm I know where you're kind of stuck. I just think that before we take that step that we really have to evaluate if it's the right step in it and just financially I understood that it was maybe going to save the department $300,000. And then Dr. Wada thought that he might be able to reduce the cost of mental health services by $150,000 so we're looking at a $150,000 difference and I guess just as My comment on these fiscal level reductions is that we don't move forward with this.
Again, it's working... I had a hard enough time when we were doing it at the jail and Sheriff Brown remembers that. But here we are talking about our kids, and we work so hard to get them into a state and give them the services where it's evidence-based. They work with the community, and here we're thinking about bringing in a provider who this is not their expertise.
And so I just really hope that this is not something that is pursued. That we work with the mental health department to try and maintain the services and have the cuts be less drastic. And I think we can work it out, I really do. I don't think we're at the point right now where we have to take that drastic step. We've taken so many drastic steps when we closed the probation department, the probation facility up in Santa Barbara. Now Cutting back on the transportation and now we're going to contract out.
The medical services, I mean it's like just the worst or the mental health services. I can't believe that we would consider doing that for what appears to be a small amount and some people might say well we don't have the money. No, we do have some money. We can make some changes and I think for the health of our kids we really need to look at this cut very seriously and so thank you.
Supervisor Adam then Supervisor Farr?
What a nice segue. Thank you Supervisor Wolff. I was going to wait with this comment until the end but this is just perfect. I can't pass it up. To P and D. We haven't got there yet I realize but I can hardly believe that we're going to use Point two to FT ease. Implementing the climate action plan and at the same time we're proposing to cut ten times as many sheriffs as we are planners and I think we've got to get clear on what our mission is. You know if we're going to provide the public safety stuff we're gonna have to provide the public safety stuff and let somebody else fend for themselves on some other level.
And in the end, it's about revenue. We have projects come before us all the time that just don't quite make the grade and we have a lot of projects that never reach this level. So I think we've got to start getting projects through and letting people go out and create some wealth from which we can tax them. This is a receivables problem You know, we want to do all these things but we don't have enough of a tax base to support it. So I think we need to really support our business community a lot harder and encourage them to go out there and create some wealth and then they will pay us.
But you know, we just do not have the revenue to do all the things that we want to do. So, that being said.
Supervisor
Farr?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I actually wanted to follow up on Supervisor Wolf's comments on the juvenile justice under alcohol drug and mental health services. I was also aware of this issue and it's my understanding that probation has been very happy with the services they've gotten from alcohol drug and mental health services so that's not the question its strictly a matter of money And cost, and so I would hope that as this issue is further evaluated before we get to June. That if Corizon is providing the service only out of state that we have some information on what kind of services they are providing for juveniles wherever they are doing it because for me I'm not just concerned about the cost, I'm concerned about the quality and the level of the service.
Then I think that goes along with what Supervisor Wolf said Working with these youth, seeing a lot of positive outcomes and benefits. And seeing a reduction of juveniles in the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and so on. So we're on a really good trend here. I'm worried that this could change that not in a positive way. And I think that we need to have a way to evaluate What ADMHS has been providing and what Corizon would be providing, not just on the amount of money that they are charging but on the relative merits of the treatment.
Thank you.
Please proceed, CEO Waller. But I hope you are hearing from my colleagues from all perspectives and you're able to bring back information that adds to the discussion.
Certainly, Chair. That was exactly why this was such an important opportunity while we were still in the very early stages of making decisions to have the board's feedback. The next slide please. So Agriculture Commission again will start with a one-time Funding that your board approved last year for an ag biologist. We find ourselves in the same position not having Adequate funding this year, so it will be a service level reduction we're also proposing to completely eliminate the UC Cooperative Extension Service and This particular program, I know as your board is aware has been operating on one time fund balance from the Ag Commissioner for several years now. I think perhaps as many as three or four and the Ag Commissioner has Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you is
8:14 – 8:2424 turns
that Commissioner here? Oh, thank you. I have a question if you could come forward As you're walking forward, I just I have a question on the biologists That was an issue that was of concern to me last year and I was glad that we funded that position and it's on the list again, and I'd like to just hear from you about your thoughts the benefits of having that biologist in your department or Or is it appropriate to eliminate the position?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf. If you recall last budget hearings the position was restored unfortunately without any additional funding. We were however fortunate enough to be able to fund the position this year because of a new revenue contract However, that revenue contract will be ending September 30th 2013. So it being a one-time funding situation we were forced to put it on this list of being one time funding service level impacts.
OK, so we've just been having notices of a new infestation. And obviously there's people up here who know the ag industry better than I do. But I do know the benefits to this county. Do you feel like that's a position that's essential for your department to maintain?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Wolf, absolutely. We're faced with a tremendous workload as it is right now with our current staffing levels. We're looking at an increased workload with our pesticide enforcement with regard to fumigant label changes. As you all know, we are in the midst of a new invasive pest infestation with regard to the Asian citrus psyllid. This will lead to additional workload and other quarantine restrictions for our citrus industry.
We've seen what's gone on in the other counties in Southern California and San Diego and LA. In Orange County, with regards to this pest and it eventually spreads throughout the entire county where not only will our growers be faced with dealing with this new pest but also homeowners as well.
I was just going to say that these biologists go out and do the phytosanitary inspections that we need to export our product out of here. Again, this is a business support thing and it's going to pay for itself in the creation of wealth that we can go tax. It's going to pay for itself in spades. So, you know the alternative is to not provide these inspections and then we can't send the product out in a timely manner. And it doesn't arrive and nobody wants to buy our product anymore because most of these products are perishable.
And everything that you inspect for phytosanitary is perishable isn't that correct?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Adam. Yes indeed it is and we're finding that our phytosanitary certificate levels are going Are rising because as the global market is dictating that we are now up to over 9000 phytosanitary certificates a year
Right and for those of you who don't know You know a phyto sanitary Certificate can be issued on as little as a pallet So these guys got to drive out there and inspect the box and make sure there isn't the pests in the box before it can be shipped out of the county. We pack it into the field, we bring it to the cooler It sits around until these guys get there. And if they can't respond in a timely fashion, the product does not survive well because it's highly perishable. These things are highly perishable and we've got to have timely inspections for the industry so...
$88,000 This is the first supervisor far and then
Let's all sing kumbaya because I was going to say I agreed with Supervisor Adam as well on the importance of this. Actually, Ms. Fisher? I had a question about the wildlife services contract which I didn't know anything about. So can you give me an example of response to urban wildlife conflicts? What do they do?
Chair Carbajal, Supervisor Farr. The department actually has had a contract with Wildlife Services since the 1930s and for the example that you gave as far as ag urban or wildlife urban services we have a tremendous skunk population in this county and skunks are known to carry rabies be a vector of rabies they also we also have problems with raccoons being a vector of carrying A raccoon ringworm, which is a very contagious parasite. If a small child was to handle a fecal matter from raccoons and ingest it, it could get up into the brain. So actually the work that they do at the urban wildlife interface is more of a public health concern. And so they help property owners with managing these nuisance wildlife, so they don't have to.
Both of our Wildlife Service Specialists provide very technical expertise on knowing how to handle These types of wildlife, appropriately so homeowners aren't put at risk for on their own trying to handle nuisance wildlife and being risked being bitten. And so I get letters all the time.
Kathy is this homeowners or the ag industry? Because I'm a little
confused. It's homeowners I think in this case. So the ag part of it is not being affected by this potential reduction? That is correct. So I've got a big raccoon and I don't know what to do with it, and I can call you or I can call them and they'll come out and they'll take it away and they'll deal with
it? That is correct.
Okay so otherwise I would have to call a pest control service and they would come out and I would have to pay them as opposed to this is a free service?
There are licensed pest control businesses that specialize in this kind of work but they are quite expensive.
Okay. But these people come out for
free? Our specialists,
yes they do. Okay and then I just wanted to make one more comment before we leave this item and that is I think perhaps the rest of the board has too but I've had a number of comments of very strong support for 4-H including a phone call on Sunday evening so I just want to warn everybody that you know the 4-h people will be out in force again if this item goes forward as a cut. Thank You Mr. Chair
I'm going to turn it over to Supervisor Adam, but I just want to let you know that I've gotten calls on each one of these issues. Especially a lot of poor people who want services so there's a lot of need out there. So Mr. Adam?
Revenue. I just want to go on record as saying that agriculture thinks that it's okay if the urban wildlife is left alone. So all the skunks and raccoons and stuff, they might be okay in the urban
area. Thank you very much Mr. Adam but when this does come back to us it would be good to get some data on how many responses we get where are they located throughout the county through your comparison it would be really helpful CEO Waller, please continue.
Thank you chair. So we'll move to planning and development and Planning and development even though you see portions of FTEs This is basically all within what I would call their long-range planning section the first one would be elimination of staff time for implementation of the climate action plan and The second would be elimination of staff time for the Hollister State Improvements and Public Works would take over the entirety of that project. And then, the last one is eliminate staff time for implementation of the 09-14 housing element. This is state mandated but we do have time to include that in next year's budget with the hopes perhaps that we could do it before the actual due date.
Supervisor Wolf?
So it's so funny because Hollister Avenue was also called out in the climate action plan and now it's being called out here. I just think it's funny because there are so many streets in the county, but I guess we love Hollister. The fact is, is that Hollister is one of the main thoroughfares in southern Santa Barbara County. The fact that I think what you just said is that it's going to be transferred to public work so they're going to be taking the lead on it. I don't want to lose this project because it's moving along we've had some public meetings. I just want to make sure that because long-range planning has been integral and how we've been moving this along So, will we have any assistance from long-range planning?
Dr. Wilson if you could help us with that please.
8:24 – 8:2918 turns
And please don't pick on Hollister anymore.
Supervisor Wolf to the chair let me be clear about the Hollister Avenue State Street improvements. The Public Works has been and will continue to do their project study report I'm going to talk a little bit about the public works concept, which is the work that Public Works does on a street. What our role was was to assist them and also to work on the streetscape plan, the complete streets concept, that which would come primarily from planning as opposed to Public Works. So we're not going to be able to do that with Help public works in any way we can. It would largely preclude our ability to make significant input on their project.
So let me ask another question isn't this part of the work plan discussion?
I was just going to say, Dr. Russell please feel free to correct me but if I recall the work plan is coming April 2nd for the board's consideration?
Yes that's correct.
So why is this being pulled because I think there are other items that you're recommending not be funded in the work plan so why is this one being pulled out today for discussion?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. These three items are things which are already part of projects that we're working on as opposed to potential future projects that we might work on because of the loss, largely due to the loss of one time money, even with the general plan allocation which has been made. These are items which we are currently working on or were already programmed to be worked on in the upcoming year for which we simply do not have the resources. The work program would certainly include these as things that we were already working on but don't have the resources for In addition to a list of other things which we might work on if we had additional resources.
OK, so we're not taking any action today. I just think now it'll be interesting to see what's on the work plan and what we take off. It may be Hollister along with some other projects. But I just wanted to highlight at this point that I'm not really happy that it's on this list at this time.
Supervisor Lavallino.
He's gonna say something about
Hollister. I have to because it came up on the Climate Action Plan, and I think what's interesting is was like the biggest cheerleader for the Climate Action Plan and then it was in it was on Hollister that that's where we wanted to study doing higher impact housing or that corridor and was like right off the bat we didn't want to study that area and it's like That's exactly why everybody else has a problem with it because they don't want it done in their area.
Let me just clarify, because the fact is that what we were looking at on the climate action strategy was the Goleta community plan which did include Hollister It included Turnpike, it included Chi Rial. So what I was saying at that meeting is don't just call out Hollister. It's best to look at the entire Goleta community plan and so And so you know, I think we all know that there's going to be some changes on Hollister.
Yeah, it's just like why is it always...
CEO Waller please proceed
Thank you. If we could
move to the next slide please. Community Services Department, last year your board approved one-time funding for the Conference and Visitors Bureau so again that will be coming before you as a service level reduction. You also approved one time funding for shelter services that will be coming before you as a service level reduction and then the last item on the list Orcutt Maintenance $42,000 this is a result of the Orcut Park Responsibility for maintenance is being transferred from the developer to the county. Currently, the CFD that helps support that particular park is bringing in about $27,000 and the general fund is supplying about $60,000 so that's why you're seeing it proposed as a service level reduction for your consideration.
The CEO, you have Supervisor Farley and Supervisor Adam?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. CEO Waller is the $45,000 was that our contribution to the warming centers or is this a different shelter?
Mr. Parker can you help us with that please?
8:29 – 8:3616 turns
Chair Supervisor Farr that $45 thousand dollars is proposed reduction to shelter services throughout the county
Okay, but is it not specifically the warming centers?
That's correct. It is not
specifically the warming centers. Thank you and then my other question actually is to do with the Orkut Park landscaping. So it says that all of a sudden we have this cost increase because the landscape expenses that are currently provided by the Orkutt Community Park developer will be transferred beginning in 13-14 so If this is the Rice Ranch developer, usually there's a trigger point whereby if more than half the houses or however many percentage was previously agreed on have been built then we start to transfer this over.
It's my understanding I didn't think that that many houses had been built yet in that project because of the vicissitudes of the economy so Why are they transferring it now? I mean, what was our agreement with them as to the timing of that?
Chair Supervisor Farr, the developer of that particular area had proposed that the landscape maintenance of that facility only be maintained for five years. That he would only maintain it for five years and then it would come over to the county for the county's responsibility to maintain that. And that time period expires in August. So in August, that responsibility for that additional landscape maintenance will come over to the Parks Department.
Okay but what is the agreement that that is in? Was that in the original approval for the tract? Is it a condition of approval?
It was a condition of approval Supervisor. It was a condition that was placed on the development and agreed upon.
Alright thank you. Supervisor Adam?
Well see that's what I was going to talk about too. See now what we've done here is we made this guy build the park first And then build houses and now the house is it that things like 20% built I
think? Supervisor Adam, Chair Farr. It is...I'm not sure of the exact percentage of build-out but it is not completely built out, no.
Yeah, not even close. Right. I mean it's just a little ways in so You know that's one part of this thing. The other thing is we got a list, my staff got a list of some of these other park projects and without going into too gory detail at this time with this there are a lot of places that lose quite a lot more money than that park or are a lot shorter than that park.
It would hurt my community if that thing, and especially because we made the deal to maintain that park after five years. That one bothers me. So I think we need to figure out a way to do some kind of an overall reduction instead of picking on that particular park because it's new. Because the investment has been made, it's all there so we need to figure out something else there.
Thank you. CEO if you could continue please? Thank you very much Mr. Parker.
Thank You Chair. So in conclusion What you have before you here are the total reductions that I discussed earlier. As I mentioned, not all of these are actual service level reductions. Many of them are efficiencies but I feel that I must make note that these reductions will further exacerbate the critically low staffing levels that we're having throughout our departments These staffing levels will hamper the county's ability to provide the services our residents need and desire. And even with the service level reductions being discussed today, there will continue to be a need for further reductions in future fiscal years to balance revenues and expenditures.
As I also mentioned previously, the next step for budget development will be for the CEO to work with the departments to refine the anticipated revenue and expenditures and to seek solutions to mitigate the proposed SLRs. These solutions may include year-end fund balance, process improvements, state, federal and other grant revenues. And they will be reflected in the final proposed CEO operational plan expected to be provided to your board in May of 2013.
I do want to further note that I very much appreciate the board's input, the discussion today. I think that that is certainly helpful in crafting what we will bring before you as a part of the CEO proposed budget. It also gives us some thoughts on perhaps having to look in the departments for We will be going back to the departments on those areas that we did hear specific concerns and requesting that the department look at additional cuts that may offset those that they have proposed to date.
So with that, again I really do want to recognize the amount of effort that staff has put into this. The departments in finding efficiencies, in balancing the competing needs that they continue to have to deal with after at least four or five years of year-after-year reductions. On the tough decisions that your departments have had to make in what they've proposed to you and I know that you will recognize that they have not made any of these decisions flippantly. They have really, really tried to provide your board with their best professional and technical expertise on where the least painful cuts could be made to their department. So with that I conclude my presentation and the recommended action is before you on the screen to receive and file this update and we'd be happy to answer any additional questions that your board may have for us.
Thank you very much CEO Waller. I think I speak on behalf of the board, thank you and all the staff for compiling these reports. I think it just shows us the circumstance we're in and I know it's a fluid process and I hope you were able to take note of all the feedback you got from my colleagues and come back to us with the next report. When will it be actually?
We anticipate that the CEO proposed budget will be to you in mid-May. I can't remember the exact date at this time but pretty much close to the 15th of May, you will have the CEO proposed budget and then obviously we will have budget hearings in June and there will be further refinements from the CEO proposed budget to those hearings in June because we will continue to look for ways to mitigate whatever impacts remain in the CEOs proposed budget.
Thank you and we all hope that it's a rosier picture than today. No public speakers without any further discussion is there a motion to accept this report? Motion's been made, seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. I am now going to recess our board into closed session. Mr. Marshall if you could outline our business for closed session.
8:36 – 8:404 turns
There is no need to make further announcement we have indicated what the matter was continued at CEO employment.
Great. If we could just take... CEO do you need 5-10 minutes for anything or...?
Chair, it would be helpful to get caught up for perhaps 10 minutes. Why
don't we go into closed session ten till six? Thank you. If you need more time let us know but around ten till six and then we're going to come back out and report in a while ¶. ¶. ¶. ¶. You.