Board of Supervisors — 2014-06-11

♪ ¶. ♪ We have an agenda. Good morning. Hi, good morning everybody. I'd like to welcome everybody to this deliberation meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for our budget process. Mr. Allen can you give us a roll call please?

Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Farrer? Here. Mr Adams? Mr. Carbajal? Mr Labanino?

I'm here as well.

Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, we have three requests to speak this morning under public comment. We're going to start with Rob Pearson here in Santa Barbara followed by Bob Bogle.

Chair Lavendino and members of the board, my name is Rob Pearson. I apologize, my instructions may be a little mixed up. Maybe we need to be talking about outside agency requests this afternoon. Unfortunately, I have to be on a plane-

Right, so what we've decided is since it's not really set as a budget item, Mr. Gazzone give me some direction here but I think we have a couple speakers that would like to talk about Casa Esperanza and just wanted to know whether we would allow that at this point?

That would be your discretion as the chair. Okay,

seeing as how this could be hours away and I know you guys have other things to do and there's three of you, we'll go ahead and accept that testimony now.

We'll keep our comments very brief. I appear before you today as a member of the Casa Esperanza Board of Directors and as a long time supporter of its purposes and goals. I support Casa through my own time and personal financial contributions. And as a member of two local foundations, St. Francis and Gilday who believe we all have a duty to help and shelter our most vulnerable neighbors, the homeless in Santa Barbara. CASA needs the help of both county and city governments if you too believe that its existence is important and it's going to survive going forward. I believe the best way to help Biggest supporters, this is evidenced by our willingness to extend needed operational grants and loans to keep the causes doors open these past few years.

The Gilday Foundation believes that costs very existence was in his key to promoting the community's public health and welfare by providing needed access to food and hygiene facilities as well as social services for our most disenfranchised neighbors of the homeless keeping causes day center lunch program And shelter programs operational were viewed as important and worthy investments by our foundation. Sadly, Gilday and Casa have learned that the under one roof approach is originally sought and built by all sectors of the community. Faith, business, philanthropy, and government is not sustainable.

Last fall, we saw and accepted that CASA due to serious financial shortfalls and reductions in philanthropic donor support ceased the operation of both its day center and lunch program. While we were saddened to see the loss of what we viewed as essential programs for the homeless and the poor in our community, we understood. We recognized and accepted the fact that dropping these programs in favor of preserving CASA's 24-7 winter and transitional shelters for Santa Barbara's homeless And making them sobriety based for entrance were born out of Casa's financial realities. In short, the day center and lunch programs had little financial support beyond the Gilday Foundation and to prove to be the source of ongoing controversy with Casa's neighbors as well as certain sectors of the community.

We have witnessed Casa's need and willingness to drastically cut expenses including And recruiting the services of a volunteer interim director, while CASA gets its financial house in order. We are also impressed with the work and caliber of its finance committee. To this end, the Gilday Foundation is reducing it's debt that is owed to it by CASA by over $1 million. We are also committed to giving a $75,000 grant going forward for the next ten years.

We'd like the government and foundations to do likewise. While CASA has been in survival mode, we feel with the help of you and others, we can stay open for the community as well as for the many county departments who count on us to be there for many of their clients. You have the June 1st letter from our volunteer executive director Bob Vogel who's here today asking for 380,000.

He's new to this process, but as a successful businessman he cut to the bottom line noting that what CASA does and I quote is as close to being a public service as anything he has encountered. He felt The ask was appropriate and I honor him for being so brave But whatever you can find in your budget to help out please do thank you. Thank you

Our next speaker is Bob Vogel to be followed by Mark Asman then we're going to go to Santa Maria for David Bremond and Andy Caldwell

Good morning. The county and Casa Esperanza are in partnership to serve the homeless in our community. That is our mission, to assist the homeless in our community transition from living on the street to housing and to give shelter. Casa has a new model for 2014. We are a sober-only shelter whom prioritizes Santa Barbara County residents We offer programs for housing, job development, drugs and alcohol, mental health and respite care.

Since 1999 CASA has relied on funding from governmental and private sources. Our donations from private sources have not been enough. CASA must look to government sources for the remainder of our annual funding in order to complete our mission. Casa has requested from the county fifteen dollars and sixty three cents per bed night towards causes budget for this fiscal year.

However as a result of meetings with the county staff Casa Esperanza has revised our request In a way which will allow county leadership to track CASA's performance and fund in two segments over this fiscal year as we continue to deliver services that are critical part of the county's infrastructure. For this request, we are asking for $200,000 to be paid in July and November of $100,000 each.

We will continue our conversation with county officials to review our budget and services Casa is healthy and it's going in the correct direction. Our service is no less important to the county than the services of the police and fire department, and trash services, in making the streets of Santa Barbara County safe and welcoming to our residents and visitors.

As many as you know I am a volunteer. My main job, in addition to providing leadership, is to make sure Casa is fully funded each year so we can continue our mission. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the Board. My name is Mark Asman and I am the board chair at Casa Esperanza. From the beginning, the county has been a critical partner in our mission and we thank you. Nine months ago many in our community wondered if Casa would be here today. In that time, CASA has lived within its budget by making the painful decisions to trim programs and reduce staff.

We have brought all of our administration and financial management under our own roof We have strengthened our neighborhood relationships. We have taken the bold action to restructure our debt, which improves our balance sheet and we have done all of this while continuing to serve some of the most vulnerable members in our community. And we would be very grateful for your additional support. I know that these are challenging budget times, but we provide an important service for those who are most at risk in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. We're

going to go to Santa Maria for David Brummond and then Mr. Caldwell.

Good morning Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. My name is David Brummond and I'm here representing ETA or the Engineers and Technicians Association In the budget that you're considering today The Public Works Budget proposes eliminating a number of positions from the County Surveyor's Office The rationale given for eliminating those positions is that there was not enough work to support the positions I'm here to, we've sent a number of letters to the board and have appeared in front of your board in the past that are arguing against that position.

Earlier this week the board was discussing upcoming maintenance and infrastructure improvement in the county Including millions and millions of dollars to be spent towards road maintenance and bridge maintenance. Road maintenance equals a survey work before road maintenance is done, a survey crew has to go out and survey the work to preserve property boundaries to make sure that they're not the property boundary markers are I believe that if these positions are eliminated a few months into the fiscal year, public works will be back looking to hire extra help in order to get the work done.

Earlier this year, the Board of Supervisors, the Public Health Department proposed privatizing public health lab functions. And the board was hesitant to pull the trigger on that decision because they were concerned that the level of service to the county would be diminished in providing and privatizing that work. I ask that you utilize that same rationale when looking at this budget and these proposed cuts to the county personnel. Thank you very much.

Chairman Lavinino, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I wanted to comment on some of the Board's deliberations on Monday having to do with the maintenance measure M specifically in the fact that it quote unquote lost at the ballot box. I don't believe that measure lost per se What I do believe happened is this. I believe that Supervisor Adam pushed the envelope, and I believe somebody needed to push that envelope to force the board to deal not with a backlog of maintenance.

However, and I'm going to pick on Supervisors Lavanino and Carbajal because I saw them pretty much at the forefront in the argument against Measure M. The point here is the two of you, the message I heard loud and clear that I think the community heard loud and clear was that you believe maintenance is important. And that you have no intention to ignore maintenance but that you were begging the community to trust you for to have flexibility In meeting all your obligations, including this very important one.

Now I can't speak for Supervisor Wolf because she seems to be somewhat strided on that measure M lost the hell with it. You know blah blah blah but I'm hoping that supervisor far who also opposed the measure will respect the fact that two of the board members there that led Did so with the preview so that the public should trust the board that they heard the message loud and clear.

And they will follow through and in fact I wrote an op-ed supervisor carpal Hall where I singled you out saying it, you know we need to come up with a plan and I was heartened during the prelim budget hearings when he said hey I and and during some other things are you said hey I would consider Giving upwards of 25% of increased general fund revenue towards this issue.

So, I for one am trusting you're going to do that today during this budget hearing and I think that that comports with integrity in the campaign process Plus your responsibilities and duties as supervisors. And I'm not saying that you're not going to do it eventually, but I would encourage you to do it during this budget hearing on a similar level of commitment that was afforded the North County Jail Project.

So I would be looking for you to get up to speed within the same time frame and to the amount necessary to actually make We're going to have a budget recap. Did you want to lead off or do you

want me to lead off? Just kind of want to clear the air a little bit. You know, I do want to say that I think looking at this year's process that we have, we've had the most comprehensive if you go back and look all the way back to April, the most comprehensive budget discussions that we've had since I've been here began in April with the workshops that were open to the public.

More focus this year I think has been placed on long-range problems, which I think is key. Years past these...this room has been packed with the public upset about items that weren't placed in the budget and I think one of the reasons why we're able to go a little bit smoother and a little bit quicker this year is Most of the items that we have continually heard from the public that haven't been funded or that were threatened to be cut, were actually put in this year's budget ahead of time by our CEO. And I think she's done a great job of listening to our department heads. I have been only approached by a very few that had one slight twist of how they would like to see the budget handled.

And that's completely different than in prior years where we've had numerous requests. I think we've done a very good job of managing expectations and prioritizing requests. Bottom line is there's always going to be more requests than there are resources, but I'm very pleased with the way that we were able Nimbly move through that beginning when it was not meeting expectations and being flexible enough with our staff that they were able to switch gears And get done what I think was what needed to get done.

I noticed in the newspaper, I saw that San Luis Obispo got through their entire budget proceedings in two hours and while that might work for them, I think all of us feel that Our tradition is that it takes a little bit longer to bake the pie so I just wanted to publicly single you out and say that I think in the end we ended up, this is always an improving process. But I wanted the impression to be out there. I know I kind of left an impression that there was something lacking.

But I think what was really cool was that we were flexible enough that you and your staff are able to change. And I think we ended up with something that was much better than what we'd seen in years past, so I just wanted to express my appreciation for that.

We are in the position we are today and whether the process reflects that I think for a couple of reasons. One is obviously an improving economy, two is your board's leadership. We wouldn't be here if you didn't make the hard decisions you have in the last several years during the recession. And lastly, tell our department heads and their staff because we all went through a difficult time regardless of what public agency you're from. Whether you're here or like me from another agency or some of our department heads or staff, we've all had a difficult time the last few years adjusting but I think it's taught us all to be more resilient and as we look forward to the future, I think that's a good lesson for all of us to remember but thank you Chair Lavagnino for those comments.

So if you don't mind, we could begin today's recap So I just wanted to remind everyone, just a quick recap of where we are in the budget. The budget is entitled Steps to Stability. We are having an improved financial condition. This budget has limited restoration or expansion capacity but we were able to try and include things that were of high priority. But I still want to remind everyone of financial challenges ahead We talked about health care costs. We'll know more later this month. We still face some employee cost issues, in particular in compensation ensuring that we're keeping step with the market. We still have funding obligations and although we are on track with the North Branch Jail Funding Plan it still is an obligation to carve out $17 million of our budget for that when it opens.

We have maintenance needs that we've talked about on Monday and will continue to talk about today. And just emerging community needs, part of our resiliency and nimbleness is how well we can address things as they come up in the community and with your departments. There are some updates and Mr. Alvarez will go over these a little bit more since the Monday hearing so let me finish then we'll get to those updates.

So just as a recap, on Monday we reviewed functional groups and had department questions. We also heard from outside agencies and their requests. We had provided a detailed budget summary of overview of revenues and expenditures and some of the major issues we're facing. And we discussed maintenance funding options. And so today your board will be delivering and taking action on the maintenance funding options in any direction to staff you may have And then looking at the budget itself for 14-15, the CEO recommendations which is attachment 1 and that includes some recommendations on planning and developments long range planning projects. That was considered in a budget information request on page 9 We have copies if you can't find them your packet then any board amendments or expansions Which is attachment E And then the recommended actions, which are listed in the PowerPoint.

We'll go over those and those are the formal adoption of the budget and the related actions. So let me ask Mr. Alvarez to provide a verbal update of the updates since Monday?

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. So we've included maintenance funding at 18% when we showed a previous schedule. We showed it various levels and this one actually got us to 100 million of contribution so we thought that was kind of an interesting target for the 10 year period. So we've distributed that. We also have expansions and adjustment changes and specifically On attachment a 2 we have a final budget adjustment on page 4 or 5 which is in general County programs item number one the cost was previously shown at a lower amount it's now showing as 130,000 and that includes some extra help costs included in their.

Attachment a 3. Page 404, the last item in General County Programs was reduced from 53,700 to 49,700 and that reflects an additional contribution from the City of Santa Barbara. It was actually 20,000 I think we had reflected 16,000 so that's that change. Both of those changes are highlighted in yellow in your packet. And then on the outside agency report, we have continued to receive letters of support. So we've updated that schedule for that information and also we've distributed board inquiry forms for those that have been completed I believe there were two that were outstanding when we did the distribution this morning. I've just been handed one that we plan to hand out at the break which is tied to the RDA, I'm sorry some of the public works funding so we'll be handing that out at the next break and those are the updates that we have at this point in time.

Very good thank you very much.

So we're now supervisor Adam We're going to be talking about more about the 18% option. Down the road, right? We're just getting ready to get

into maintenance funding options. That's a whole thing. Okay. Yeah. All right. So I think that's our next item is trial. Maintenance funding options.

That's correct. And

So on Monday we discussed different options that we provided, which your board asked us to bring back. Which was funding options at 10, 15, 20 and 25% of undesignated discretionary general fund. Since then as Mr. Alvarez said there was an 18% option that was also created. There's been a lot of budget inquiries about looking at different options and different funding sources.

Cost questions which are provided to you and we can provide more information if you'd like But really this is your time to deliberate in which direction. You'd like to provide to staff

Okay, I'll open it up to the board Who would like to start Supervisor wolf

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to go back to the PowerPoint that you had given us, CEO Miyasato. You gave us seven different options or maybe it was six different options one of which are these funding options that have different percentages attached to them is that correct? There were

four options provided on Monday. Yes, Supervisor?

So there's one option that was number two that talks about allocating available one-time discretionary fund and the options for year end savings or unallocated revenue And I know that the city of Santa Barbara, for instance, has a policy of utilizing half of 50% of their year-end savings. I'm just wondering if you have any opinion or from where you came from in Marin how was it handled?

Because as you mentioned earlier, this is obviously a concern that all municipalities have so I'm just curious What your input is

Supervisors through the chair. I'm sorry Yes, I understand what you're talking about is a different and in the board letter and the PowerPoint for mr Alvarez We talked about different funding strategies You're right. What I mentioned earlier, I know that Santa Barbara does, I'm told, does some percentage 50% of any year-end savings that's available so it's certain one time funding.

In Marin County where I came from for a period of time we defined the same type of policy where we gave one time available revenue either at budget or at year end half of it going to roads. So I think it's just a different way of funding. It then allows It's a one-time use basically for one time expenses. But it really, I mean it probably depends on how much one time revenue you expect in that municipality. In Marin we would end up with probably three or four million dollars in year end savings that we would dedicate to register that process.

Okay. And then I had asked on Monday about our policy and so from reading the information that you had provided, it looks like we now have a policy or budget principle of allocating $3 million. Is that correct?

Supervisor Wolf did the chair yes that is correct.

Okay. So in theory If we wanted to as another option, we could look at that amount and just make that a budget principle without I mean as an option instead of looking at all these different charts utilizing the different percentages. Is that correct? That we could do that?

Supervisor to the chair, so we have a budget policy as you said for $3 million for those purposes. You could set a level amount such as that if you'd like on a go forward basis of what you'd like to fund in addition to that 3 million or to keep it at that 3 million.

And one of the reasons I'm asking these questions is because, and it's not because I don't want to fund maintenance in roads. The public speaker who spoke, I think misrepresented my opinion about the importance of roads and maintenance. What I want to do is better understand what these charts mean. I'm going to again point out that we had, and it's now being covered in the news about the grand jury report on our jail financing.

And we have that responsibility. There is no movement. That's a huge priority, I believe for this board. So before I can endorse one of these options whether or not it's 10%, 15% or 18%, I really need to understand what this means And if you look at any one of these charts, the first one, the first amount in 14-15 it indicates that we're allocating $7.1 million so that's this year. That's what we're allocating and that's what's in your board letter.

So that is that come that amount is coming from Actually, that was one of my board inquiry forms. So I'm just going to ask you now if you can just explain where that $7.1 million comes from? In other words, is it general fund?

It is coming in part from the general fund and in part from federal funds. It's a combination of things. It' s the grant that was given for public works where the board contributed 900,000 and the federal government committed 3.6 million dollars or 3.7 million dollars It's the additional 1.1 million that the CEO is recommending to fund for public works and that is general fund dollars, and it is $1.4 million for general services and parks that the CEO is recommending. That is also general fund dollars. Those are identified as one-time dollars for the 14-15 year.

So in your board letter, CEO Miyasato, there is an indication of in the road section $10.4 million for corrective maintenance and 3.6 for deferred road maintenance. I'm assuming that 3. 6 is based on our budget principle. Where does that 10. 4 come from? Is that state and federal?

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. So the 10.4 million is a combination It's measure a funds of about 2.8 million There's gas tax in there of about 5.8 million There's general fund of 1.8 million and that is our maintenance of effort match in that so there's one point in there And that that's the one that we just finished a minute ago or so, and we'll be distributing sure gotcha

Okay, so now I understand that so just pick any one of these options and move on to 2015 2016 Why don't we look at the 10% option, just so we're all on the same page. Can you just explain what happens in 15-16? Are we committing ourselves to $0.6 million or are we committing ourselves to $2 million?

Supervisor wolf through the chair, so we would be we've estimated what the growth would be and in that five-year projection that We showed taking 10% would give about six hundred thousand in growth

in our total revenues

or discretionary general

funds Okay So that's what you're estimating. Okay,

it's correct And then the two million dollars is an assumed one time contribution of year-end savings Or one time funds that might become available and that's just a very rough estimate

So that $2.6 million is actually less than what our budget principle says now.

Supervisor through the chair that's this is incrementally over that. That three million dollars is being maintained as a it's part of the baseline we're saying and when we looked at the Jorgensen report of what funding might be needed at a two to four percent of current replacement value, we did include the current three million dollars that's contributed as part of the current funding that's available

Okay, well that's really important to know because then it changes. It seems to me it changes these charts. If we're putting in $3 million plus this additional 2.6, I mean why aren't you incorporating that $3 million?

Supervisor Wolf through the chair what we communicated that there's a 14 million currently of ongoing funding that exists between. Roads and parks and general services that is the current baseline in the way we calculated it was to say Based on the Jorgensen information of 2% for instance, what was the gap over what we're currently spending? And so this analysis is just looking at that incremental gap that they recognized and how we might accommodate that.

That was with the intent to stabilize the current condition of buildings, roads and parks.

Okay, so then let me just go back. Thank you for that. So the 0.6 is a percentage of what we expect in growth, 10% of what we expect in growth and then the 2 million every year is just something that we're just adding on?

That's correct.

And how did you come up with that amount?

The $2 million, we just looked at it and said what have we been able to do recently in the way of additional funding? And we used that kind of as a baseline going forward. There wasn't any great science to it.

Thank you for all that explanation.

Supervisor Adam well, I would like to suggest that we try to think of this in a different way instead of Trying to Allocate an amount of money that we all can just agree on every year. Why don't we try to? accomplish a goal which is to create a plan to at some point Solve this problem, you know in a reasonable time frame and I guess the threshold question is Should we?

Be fully funding maintenance and I get my colleagues have to answer the question You know do we agree in principle that we should be fully funding our maintenance needs

Supervisor Wolf. I'll respond to that You know, I was listening yet last night to our discussion from Monday and the amount of time that we spent talking about culverts and I would love for this board to sometime spend as much time talking about abused and neglected kids in folks who need county assistance and Then as much time that we spent talking about culverts would have helped I went back to the roadmap book and got a very nice description about culverts So thank you for including that. Mr. McAulpin You know part of one of the One of the forms that we received That was a request from Supervisor Carbajal, I believe our mr. Lavagnino About our social service workers that in order to meet the standards for our social service workers We should hire I think it was approximately 20 to 25 social workers So why don't we talk about that as an important measurement to meet?

I think the fact is Supervisor Adam. We have a lot of needs and And I believe that maintenance and repairing roads is important in our buildings. But we cannot, I don't believe put such an incredible focus on that while we have these other responsibilities. I didn't even mention mental health issues. So as I've said, as I've always said, we have to, as we approach these budget decisions, we have to be balanced.

And I think any approach that cuts into our general reserves is folly. I really think that we need to be very cautious in moving forward with any of these plans That are specific enough and take money out of Of what we what we want to do as a board again, you know this year. We're allocating a lot of money toward roads and Maintenance and if we could ever get to the budget I actually would like to allocate more one-time money To parks but we can't get there because we're stuck on on this so anyway I just, I worry about the road that we're going down and I know people have made promises but CEO Miyasato has given us options. This is not the only option that we have.

We can increase the amount of money that we allocate per our policies if we want to do that. I just think this kind of, this is very messy and I think it's gonna get us into trouble

All right. Okay, so we'll put you down as a no.

I'm not going to sit up here and be questioned by you about what's gonna happen. I will provide my input when it's time and you can speechify and talk about what you're gonna do and I'll talk about what I'm gonna do and we can move forward from there but I'm not gonna get in a battle where we're gonna sit here and you're gonna try to cross-examine me because it's not gonna happen.

Supervisor Carball?

I respond to my constituents and what I think is a balanced approach. I wasn't elected to be a one trick pony, and Mr. Adam you're certainly welcome to speak your mind, speak about your priorities. And I think I'll do the same for myself. My decisions today will, I think reflect a balanced approach to dealing with all the interests and needs of our county including maintenance funding.

Clearly you demonstrate that for you it's everything or nothing and boy I wish life was that simple. It's not everything or nothing but In your measure losing, you won a lot. And you may want to consider being gracious in that we're investing and I'm confident that today we're going to invest some serious substantive dollars and develop a plan that's going to invest significant dollars in deferred maintenance.

But again it can't be all or nothing how silly is that? I'm optimistic when we get done today we're gonna have one a balanced budget Two, we're going to address as many of our diverse interests and needs in county government for our constituents. And thirdly, this whole debate that, as Supervisor Wolf has said, has become central in our deliberations. In your losing with Measure M, you won.

A little graciousness goes a long way by showing that we have responded, we are responding, and I think we're gonna have a sound plan in place And I, for one, don't want to be questioned as well as if you set the moral authority on our priorities. And I think we're going to come out today with some good decision making. Please speak your mind and let's move on because what I'm afraid of which is even sadder is that we are going to invest significantly in deferred maintenance but because it's not all or nothing you're still gonna vote against it like you did last year and that to me is the irony And the travesty of our process.

I have a question for Mr. McAulpin,

Scott.

You know, I think some of what's lost on the public too is how we got in this mess and you know, I know some focus has been put on past boards or decisions as boards made but let's go back when was when was the last time that PCI was at 70? What kind of timeframe was that?

Mr. Chair, the last time the PCI was 70 and the only time in my career was 2003-2004. Okay and

what was the general fund contribution at that time for roads?

At that time we were under Measure D and the MOE at the time was $851,000. And the general fund contribution was $500,000 Okay

so when we were putting in $500,000 out of the general fund and 850 from the MOE our actual PCI was 70?

That's correct

okay So we as a board or previous board members did not slash road funding through the general fund

Mr. Chair, actually in fact the general fund is more today but the one thing I think we all need to realize is the type of treatments that we put on the roads are based on oil so the world market has a tremendous impact on what we do and we did a little research this morning thinking about that and a barrel of oil has gone up 380% since 1990 The type of treatments that we use is certainly asphalt, it's the bottom of the barrel. Caltrans publishes an Asphalt Price Index and I think since 1997 that Asphalt Price Index has gone up by 670%.

So it

kind of

mirrors what's going on with the state gas taxes, that we're getting the same amount of dollars but we're getting less bang for our buck.

Exactly and we went from paying $2 a gallon at the pump to over $4 at the pump so that has a tremendous impact on the types of treatments that we put out. We may be putting more general fund in today but we're unfortunately getting less treatment because of the cost of oil in the world market.

All right and then would you say Would you like to expand a little bit about Measure A and the difference between Measure A and Measure D for local streets and roads?

Sure. Measure D was our last half-cent sales tax from 1989 to 2009. The distribution formula there was a 70-30 split, so we got more of the sales tax for local streets and roads. And then also with Measure D, we had access to other types of funding like STIP funding, RSTP funding. We also had federal earmarks. So as we fast forward to Measure A, a 30-year measure in the extension of the half cent sales tax. We get less Measure A coming to local streets and roads. We get about 50% here on the south coast and about 60%, 65% up north. We don't have access to RSTP and STIP now.

RSTP's gone for 17 or 18 years. Step for about 30 and no federal air marks out there to also help us with deferred.

So basically we're we're being asked now as the county to step up in our general fund where? We haven't ever been in this position before

We had other government layers

and partners in the past. All right, thank you very much Scott, appreciate it. Supervisor Carbone?

Mr. McCarbon when did we implement our road maintenance software program? We've been using different forms of pavement management since the late 80s. And the last one that we implemented, which really helped us become more efficient and strategic with our road maintenance dollars, when was that one implemented?

Well, we're currently using Street Saver and I think we made the transition to that about five years ago. Before that it was Micropaver and before that it was the Carter system. Because

that's really helping us stretch our dollars right? Because it's a more methodical approach to addressing our

maintenance needs. It's a significant piece of how we establish our priorities but you know at the end of the day it's the human factor and that's why we include our superintendents who they live on these roads so...

Thank you

My supervisor, Adam.

Well the fact is that things have changed and the fact is that PCI numbers are what they are and it doesn't matter whose fault it is we just got to make a plan to go on and you know if we go back to even the 20% funding the maintenance backlog grows to an apex of $259 million by year seven And then declines to 49 million in year 15. So at year 10, you were talking about 10 years. You're gonna put in 100 million? Is that right Mr. Alvarez? At 18? Okay so 20%, even a little bit more than