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
Music playing. you Hi, everyone.
0:03 – 0:086 turns
Good morning and welcome. It's nine o'clock and I call this March 7, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order here in the county Santa Barbara hearing room. Mr. Allen would you call the roll please?
Mr. Adam, Mr. Lavinino, Mr Williams, Ms. Wolfe, Ms Hartman. Supervisor Lavinino will not be with us today
And may I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 28, 2017? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes stand approved and now it's time for our CEO's report. Ms. Miyasato. Nothing to report this morning Chair. Okay, we turn to our administrative agenda and I'd like to start with our resolutions. First may I have a motion to approve the resolutions A18 through A22?
Second. All in favor? And the resolution stand approved so first can we turn to A20 Mr. Allen you need that into the record
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item A20 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams today. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of March 2017 as American Red Cross Month in Santa Barbara County and I think we have Kimberly Cooley. Is Kimberly here this morning? Come on up to the podium and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas the American Red Cross Central California region is celebrating a century of service. For 100 years they've been helping our neighbors in need through humanitarian efforts, mobilizing the power of volunteers and generosity of donors.
And whereas the American Red Cross gives blood to help trauma victims and cancer patients, helps families find shelter after a home fire delivers comfort items to military members in the hospital and saves many from heart attack, drowning or choking. And whereas the American Red Cross depends on local heroes to deliver help and hope during a disaster, we applaud our heroes here in the County of Santa Barbara who assist their neighbors when they need a helping hand. And whereas every eight minutes the American Red Cross responds to a community disaster, the American Red Cross collects nearly 40% of the nation's blood supply, provides 24-hour support to military members, veterans and their families, and teaches millions life saving skills such as lifeguarding and CPR.
And whereas we come together in recognition of a century of service, we not only honor the past but we celebrate the future in building stronger and more resilient communities. We belong 100% strong through the continued legacy of giving, serving and caring. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors do proclaim March 2017 as American Red Cross Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Good morning. My name is Kimberly Coley, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Chapter for the American Red Cross and I just want to thank the Board of Supervisors today for acknowledging our work. Not only has March been our national month for the year but 2017 marks our centennial year of service so we've been providing local programs and services to Santa Barbara County for over 100 years And couldn't do that of course without generous volunteers. We have over 300 volunteers here in the county that come alongside us and help during times of emergency as well as generous donors who support our work so thanks to each of you for supporting our work throughout the years and we look forward to continuing to serve this county.
Thank you for the work that you do. A-21 Mr. Allen I think we're not hearing you on the mic.
0:08 – 0:091 turns
Let's take it from the top. So 821 sponsored by Supervisor Wolf this is a resolution proclaiming March 7, 2017 as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County and Udi Loza may be here but if not I think we have Anthony Ramirez. Is Anthony here? Come on up to the podium Anthony and I will read the resolution into the record thanks. Whereas Santa Barbara County has a long and prosperous history based upon agriculture and the growing of both annual and perennial plants for products as well as landscape benefits.
And whereas, the residents of Santa Barbara County treasure the valuable landscape trees of both public and private lands and consider them to be essential living features that contribute to the quality of life experience. And whereas the natural beauty of our urban forests and county landscapes, as well as the enhanced beauty of the planted and developed landscape environments add to the many qualities that draw visitors and new residents to one of California's most beautiful counties.
And whereas four of the largest incorporated cities in Santa Barbara County have for many years been proud and active participants in the Tree City USA program sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation. And whereas, as governing stewards responsible for the planning and care of all trees growing on county public lands as well as promoting and encouraging conservation of valuable trees growing on private lands.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara together with the Public Works and Community Services Departments proclaim Tuesday March 7th 2017 as Arbor Day throughout the county Encouraging all citizens to recognize the multitude of benefits our community derives from the conscious acts of planting and properly maintaining landscape trees. And request that all institutions of primary and secondary education throughout the county seek ways to observe this important day, and teach students the value of trees in our lives passed and adopted today.
0:10 – 0:108 turns
Thank you
for your
support. Thank you. And A22, Mr. Allen.
Chair Hartman and members of the board moving on to A22 this is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Heidi Hansen upon her retirement from the County Probation Department after 21 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and Heidi. Come on up. And any other? She's
on her
way. Oh she's on her way.
We just dated one to go get her. I don't know if she knew exactly where she was supposed to be.
So she's not here yet, okay.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
I would like to pull item A19 and just Mr. Alvarez will be retiring and he didn't want any folderol but we can't let this occasion go by without at least acknowledging his contribution and so Ms. Mazzetto
if If I might say a few words. Yes, Mr. Alvarez is very modest and didn't want us to do this but we are. In fact his wife is here and I don't know if you know that Linda is here in the audience as well. So Mr. Alvarez has been with us 13 years before he was with the CEO's office he actually was Assistant Director for General Services, was Interim Director for a time for general services And was an assistant director for EDMHS which is now known as Behavioral Wellness and we just want to thank Tom for all his contribution. He's worked on some of the hairiest, most difficult financial issues in the county trying to find money for the jail.
When there was a shortfall after opening the bids, helping us try to understand and diagnose and solve issues on inpatient for behavioral wellness which we're still dealing with. Reforming criminal justice funding through our community corrections partnership so Tom we just want to say thank you I know you didn't want fanfare but I really do appreciate your time and thank you very much
We couldn't be denied our opportunity to tell you thank you. So back to A22 is Heidi here? Okay I think we'll just move forward then, do any supervisors have items from the administrative agenda that they would like to see pulled? Do we have any public speaker slips on any administrative agenda item Mr. Allen?
Chair Harman, members of the board, we have one request to speak on item A1 from Dorothy Dent and I'll go ahead and read that into the record while Ms. Dent comes up to the podium. Item A1 is from behavioral wellness it's considered a recommendation regarding the behavioral wellness fiscal year 16-17 amendments institutions for mental disease residential mental health contracts. Dorothy Dent.
I just wanted to talk about the vulnerable people who can't make decisions for their health care and leave it to the county to make such, and public guardian so forth. There are a lot of vulnerable people out there and I think that there's some different choices. And I mentioned a little bit of it when I spoke last time, but I'll take what science has to offer. Luckily, science is supporting drug-free methods of care for the elderly and the mentally challenged.
There are many effective and proven viable alternatives to treating mental illness that do not require incarceration and or harm and side effect free ways of treating people. So in fact research has revealed that the very drugs, the class benzodiazepines that are so unfortunately used right in our hospitals and emergency rooms are severely harmful both short term and especially long term and this harm is well known and documented Our own very dear pharmacy, Caldwell's has been shut down because of instead of blaming hospitals and doctors for prescribing harmful addictive mood drugs and painkillers the independent pharmacy was closed for filling just the prescriptions which was their job.
Holistic methods in medicine, although harm free and used for centuries are not even used or considered. Even though modern drugs are proven now to pollute water, harm brains, not mix well with alcohol actually cause dementia, be addictive and elicit suicidal tendencies. So why are there all of these elder facilities and mental facilities cropping up that utilize these old outdated harmful methods?
Because prescription drugs I call pharmaceuticals are causing dementia and Alzheimer's long-term. And although there are no FDA drugs that treat These diseases from the cause, judges in California force vulnerable elders to be administered these harmful ineffective mind altering psychotropic drugs. Even though their religion even may forbid it. It is hard to believe this is the America I know and loved.
I will fight with all my might to protect these vulnerable people that I care give for and others that are homeless and have no way to protect themselves. Even though caring for elderly people and the disabled and mentally challenged is such a difficult process, we really need to give a very new paradigm to this. We need to look at it from an expense point of view, a harm point of view, a benefit point of view, everything that a regular scientific analysis or economic analysis would entail. So thank you very much for these considerations. It will be a long time to overcome these previous methods but I have confidence that can be done.
Thank you and back to A22 and Heidi Hanson. Mr. Allen?
Heidi,
come
on up to the podium and I'll go ahead and read this into the record. Whereas Heidi Hansen was born in Denver, Colorado and moved to Santa Barbara County in 1973. Having graduated from Ernest Reddy High School in 1988 she attended the University of Texas in San Antonio and earned a bachelor's degree in psychology in 1994 and in 2015 she attended Antioch University earning a masters in clinical psychology. And whereas Officer Hanson began her career with Santa Barbara County Probation Department as a volunteer in 1995 and was later hired as an Extra Help Juvenile Institution officer in 1996.
She was subsequently hired as a full-time deputy probation officer in July of 1996. And whereas, Officer Hanson has held several assignments throughout her career with the Probation Department including the After Care Case Loan, Multi Integrated Systems of Care, Repeat Offender Program The Juvenile Institutions Program, Camino Segundo Counseling and Education Center, Adult Sex Offenders, and the Adult Central Caseload in Santa Maria. And whereas Officer Hanson has touched the lives of countless probationers throughout her career many of which have benefited from her passion of effecting change through empathy, sensitivity, positivity, and commitment to a common goal of improving one's life.
Her pursuit of higher learning, educational achievements and success with the counseling of many of her clients has led her on a path to a new calling, a private practice in the healing arts. Earning her Master's of Arts degree in Clinical Psychology has prepared her for a successful career as a marriage and family therapist. Heidi is proud of being a Santa Barbara County employee and is honored to retire from a productive and rewarding career.
Officer Hanson is commended for her faithful and dedicated service to the people who work and live in Santa Barbara County. She plans on spending more time outdoors, whether on a hike in the mountains or a walk on the beach, as prepared to take advantage of the next chapter of her life and enjoying the new moments and making more memories with family and friends. Heidi's a lifelong student and plans to continue her pursuit of learning with personal and professional enrichment being the Everest in her journey.
Now therefore, it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors recognizes Heidi Hansen for her 21 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and the Probation Department. And extend to her best wishes for a fulfilling enjoyable and rewarding retirement passed and adopted today.
Well, thank you for this honor and just what a unique position it is to be a probation officer in this county and have such a multitude of opportunities to serve the community. So thank you for this.
Thank you.
And I
just
would like to say thank you from a grateful department and you've completed your career with honor, with dignity, with integrity. And you've just touched not only the lives of the co-workers which many of them are here today to celebrate with you but just countless lives of offenders so thank you from a very grateful department. Thank you.
And may I have a motion to approve the administrative agenda?
So moved.
Second? All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The administrative agenda stands approved. Now is the time in our agenda when any member of the public can comment on any item not on today's agenda. Mr. Allen do we have any speaker slips?
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have three requests. We're going to start with Dorothy Dent once again then go to Ed Kolaski and then Mr. Caldwell. Dorothy?
I'll just make it short since I already had a good opportunity to speak. Thank you and happy Arbor Day and thank you so much for making a priority to plant trees. We still have the Isla Vista
0:21 – 0:274 turns
project to flesh out, and it was wonderful to see the sidewalks but unfortunately we lost a lot of trees in that but we gained Some good opportunity for wheelchairs and accessibility which I've learned so much more about the importance of since I've been dealing with people afflicted with these problems. So, I appreciate that and although some of the trees had to be cut down, I'm confident that you guys are going to come through on that work and replant those trees in Isla Vista streets especially because Doss grew up there so he cares about the place.
Good morning also and thank you for the opportunity to speak. It is invaluable to be able to communicate face-to-face, person-to person in this day and age. Today a poll said that the smartphone was the most hated device. Who would guess something people spend so much money and time on could be so hated? Kind of like the jail! I hated to miss speaking to you the last couple times that I was here, but I couldn't help it because I was helping a permanently disabled friend because they were being illegally evicted in Isla Vista on Valentine's Day by getting a note on the gate saying there would be a lockout on President's Day.
But I knew President's Day was a federal holiday and the sheriff's administration, sheriffs and administration offices were closed. So I was sure that this house that had been items in it since 1962 when it was purchased could hopefully get more than five days to move everything out of and clean it. I couldn't believe that there was never a 60 day notice, posting and or mailing that ever came.
Luckily, I was very aware of the California tenant landlord laws because I worked at the newspaper for over 20 years and part of my job was to make sure all our advertising was kosher and followed all the laws. It was respective of the California tenant and landlord law. And I think here we're not, and we really need to face up to that. A few years ago there was more of a group of people who were able to fight these things and support people's rights especially disability and other things that play a factor and make things more difficult and should have more time but you know what? There's no pro bono lawyers in Santa Barbara, there's not many affordable alternatives. The Legal Aid Foundation I want to say is fantastic they do everything they can.
The legal center inside the legal resource center inside the courthouse is great too but seriously you know if the law breaks the law it's a very problematic situation Right now in the United States of America we have our top lawmaker and they're not setting a good example. The Attorney General of the United States are not setting a good example at all so you know that means that we have to start locally, we really have to do a better job protect our people thank you.
Ed Kalaski to be followed by Mr. Caldwell
Good morning, particularly agitated this morning. Last week we had Dr. Russell come forward and say that Mr. Kalaski had been through the process. This was again Janet Wolfe called Dr. Russell forward. So I call my project or speech today Groundhog's Day in Santa Barbara in honor of the movie in which I appeared here before Janet Wilk called Dr. Russell to tell everybody that Mr. Kolaski has been through the process and I have a very difficult time with this process.
First of all, I was raised in a free country. You've heard of USA? United States of America that is. We got kicked out of our first meeting after four meetings with a five to two vote in our favor. We got kicked out on the fifth meeting, we never got a chance to say a single word. A single word! You cannot imagine how upsetting that is for me. To be pushed out of a meeting that I paid for. A public meeting?
And since the first time that Dr. Russell's here, this board has done nothing. Okay so I'm reviewing this at home all the crap that I went through to get here to present myself and to listen to nothing from this board it's been followed up by just so many things that I would like to say first of all okay we went to the PC three of the five members said we agree with whatever SBAR said we don't care Cecilia Brown had her own idea of what should be done and Daniel was the only one that said, oh Mr. Klasky is violating 4.6 there's the center of the house but I already got four votes against this so you're out of here basically. So I come here and I think oh geez this has got to be better than the last several years There's got to be somebody here who has other than Supervisor Peter Adams, that's got a brain in their head.
That wouldn't let this conduct go on? You know this isn't an authoritarian state at least I don't think so you don't expect me to come in here and click my heels and salute you! I'm not going to do it So you think about it. There's my supervisor, I can't even see her. I go into her office to see her and one of our aides comes running out. No don't go! Is this what democracy is? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness here? You salute the flag every morning for liberty and justice?
You salute the flag for liberty and justice?! ! And you turn around and do nothing? It's disgusting.
Thank you for your comments.
0:27 – 0:302 turns
Mr. Caldwell. Madam Chair, members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Today on your agenda you have item number one Dealing with a rail project, a rail oil project in San Luis Obispo County. And item number two is a 30 something million dollar budget gap. Well there's a gap between items number one and two. And that gap has to do with where your money comes from.
There's a connection and an intersection between the private sector and private property taxes as the mainstay of your financial wherewithal, and in reality all government revenues. The county always takes state and federal revenue departments and puts them over here as if that's free money but it all comes from the private sector. And the fact is is the less healthy our economy The less revenue that you have coming in and the more people you have coming to you asking for support.
You're in a downward spiral here. The economy suffers, you don't get as much sales tax revenue, property tax revenue and all the like. And secondly, you have more poor people coming to you for social services, public health and all the rest. And yet there's this continual disconnect that you never ever ask what can we do to improve the economy? What is our responsibility in improving the economy?
In neither of these staff reports, the first staff report is not going to have any talk about what this does to the oil industry in Santa Barbara County and the tax revenue and the job base. And the second one doesn't ask anything about where's our revenue coming from? What can we do to enhance the revenue sources? Never gets brought up, never gets discussed, never gets debated.
You know the oil industry? Oil is taxed as property. Ag, we just went through the winery ordinance. There's people begging to do business in Santa Barbara County but they don't believe they can get a permit to do business. Then you have manufacturing and industry. Progressives love to talk about livable wages. Well most of the manufacturing and industry is energy intensive And yet you're spending money right now to try to cut off the most reliable source of energy we have, i.e., baseload electricity in favor of community choice aggregation and alternative energy which is neither a base load nor because it doesn't produce 365.
You're creating and supporting the policies that are creating your problems. Thank you.
That closes our public comment portion of the hearing and we turn to our departmental agenda. Would you read item 1 into the record Mr. Allen?
0:30 – 0:437 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board, Item 1 is sponsored by Supervisors Wolff and Hartman. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Phillips 66 rail spur extension project
Thank you Madam Chair. Just as a quick introduction and I know Jefferson is going to walk us through
the PowerPoint. For those of you who may not recall back in September 2015 then Board of Supervisors submitted a letter to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisor and the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission opposing the project at that time, the rail spur project. This was based on environmental concerns health and safety concerns that would impact our county.
So that letter was sent back in September as I noted and the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission had denied the project. The project is being appealed to the San Luis Obispo Board of Supervisors so Supervisor Hartman and I felt it was important to bring this back to the board of supervisors so we would hear a presentation And vote to send another letter to the Board of Supervisors in San Luis Obispo from this board expressing our concerns with this project. Supervisor Adam?
You know, this issue is really beyond our jurisdiction. We've already taken a position and I'm going to excuse myself and you can mark me absent when you take the vote and I'll come back for item two.
Can I just say something? Maybe Mr. Adam will hear me as he is leaving the room, but this in fact does impact our jurisdiction. In fact and I'm just going to keep it to the second district aside from the potential impact of Thank you. Thank you very much. Irreparable? Irreparable. Harm, damage that an oil spill or oil will cause to our coastline so this does affect this county in numerous ways so I'm sorry Mr. Adam is not participating in this discussion.
Now Mr. Litton
Madam Chair and Supervisors, the item before you is to consider opposing the Phillips 66 rail spur project located at the Santa Maria Refinery in San Luis Obispo County. The project will be considered by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisor on March 13th and the action before you is to consider submitting a letter of opposition to that board. By way of background to this project, on October 5th 2016 the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission denied Phillips 66's application for a development plan and coastal development permit for the rail spur expansion project.
The project that the planning commission considered on that day was the reduced train deliveries alternative which I will explain in a later slide. The Planning Commission decision was quickly appealed to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors by Jeff Edwards on October 6th and by Phillip 66 on October 19th. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors will hear this appeal at a special meeting on Monday, March 13th.
By way of project overview, this map indicates the footprint of the Santa Maria Refinery located in San Luis Obispo County. The refinery depicted in the crosshatch section in blue is about three miles west of Napomo and is located within the coastal zone. The coastal zone boundary is that green line that you can see and also on this map you can also see the railroad lines traveling into the facility from both the north and south.
This picture is a close-up of the facility indicating the modifications included in the proposed project. The proposed project includes a 6,915 foot long rail spur, an unloading facility, on site pipelines depicted in this image in red, replacement of the coke rail loading tracks and construction of five parallel tracks with the capacity to hold a mile long train consisting of 80 tank cars, two buffer cars and three locomotives.
This project would allow Phillips 66 to import and unload crude oil via train at the facility. The crude oil would come from various North American sources. At the February 4, 2016 San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission the applicant proposed the reduced train deliveries alternative. Reducing the number of trains from five trains per week to three trains per week that would come into the facility and the total number of trains per year from 250 down to 150 trains per year.
This is an image of the CPC 1232 car, the tank car which Phillips 66 originally proposed to ship crude to the facility. Each of these cars is about 60 feet long and a train consisting of 80 of these cars has the capacity to hold and bring 2.19 million gallons of crude oil to the facility per train. After processing at the facility, the semi-refined product would be transported by pipeline to the Rodeo Refinery in Contra Costa County.
Now since the original application, the applicant has requested that the DOT 117 and DOT 117P trains be permitted for use at the facility. Those trains do have a slightly thicker shell than the CPC 1232 that you see in this image. This project was considered by the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission in 2016 over the course of several days of public testimony and numerous continuances and hearings.
There has been extensive public input into this process including over 24,500 letters and emails and nearly 500 public comments. After considering this testimony and evaluating the EIR, on October 5th the Planning Commission voted to deny the project. Staff reports noted that the proposed project had 11 class 1 significant environmental impacts and was inconsistent with the plans listed here.
In the recommendation for denial, San Luis Obispo County Planning staff noted that this project was detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the public and residents of San Luis Obispo County due to the increase in hazardous accidents as a result of this project. Staff continued, The project includes a significant and unavoidable environmental impact with regards to cancer risk, parenthetically air quality, for the population near the proposed oil spill.
This map depicts the routes by which crude oil trains would travel into the state and into the facility. The proposed routes include routes coming from both the north and south. The southern route would travel through Santa Barbara County. Any trains traveling from the south would travel through these Santa Barbara County communities. In addition, these trains would travel through a number of environmentally sensitive habitat areas including the Gaviota Coast, the Carpentry Assault Marsh and Guadalupe Dunes.
This graphic depicts the evacuation in at-risk zones for oil train derailments and fires as specified by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The red mark, a half mile radius is the risk and evacuation zone for derailment. The yellow zone is the evacuation risk zone for derailment and fire. These zones have become known colloquially as the blast zone. An estimated 125,000 Santa Barbara County residents live within the blast zone.
This is the blast zone through Guadalupe included in the half mile radius are City Hall, Mary Byrne Elementary, Kermit McKenzie Junior High School and the Apio Packaging Facility. This is the blast zone through Goleta. Within the half mile radius you will find the well-frequented Camino Real marketplace, the Santa Barbara Airport and several businesses employing thousands of employees.
The one mile radius through downtown Santa Barbara includes the building in which we are sitting in today. It also includes McKinley Elementary School, Franklin Elementary School, Santa Barbara City College and Cottage Hospital. This table indicates the number of oil train derailments and or fires in North America over the past three years as reported by the Federal Railroad Administration.
And these are just derailments or fires. According to PHMSA, the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, in 2014 there were 141 unintentional releases of petroleum from oil trains. The most widely publicized and most tragic oil train derailment in a fire occurred in Lac-Mégantic, Quebec in 2013. This tragedy occurred when 72 cars full of crude oil derailed in the town center igniting a devastating explosion and fire that leveled the town. 47 people were killed in this disaster. The blast radius was 0.6 miles.
62 of the 72 cars on that train derailed, 60 of those 62 released oil and 1.58 million gallons of crude oil were released into the soil air and water as a result of this disaster The most recent oil train derailment was in Mosier, Oregon in June 2016. Sixteen tank cars of a ninety-six car train derailed. Four cars caught fire and a small quantity of oil created an oil sheen on the Columbia River.
This is an example of an accident that could have been far worse. Because a manhole was dislodged by the explosion, a large volume of crude oil flowed into that manhole and not into the Columbia River. Merger Community School, the large white building in the bottom image with grass in front was just hundreds of yards away from the fire. Fortunately the students were safely evacuated and no children were harmed.
However this spill has contaminated the groundwater near the site. The communities across the state and across the country are becoming increasingly aware of the risks associated with oil trains. The list before you is just a sampling of jurisdictions that have sent formal letters of opposition to the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission regarding the Santa Maria Rail Spur project.
Included in this list are 16 school districts that would be impacted by the project and have opposed it. Planning Commission acknowledged that they considered the more than 24,500 comments they received when they decided to deny the project. In conclusion, based on the aforementioned considerations and potential detriments to constituents within our county we ask the Board of Supervisors take a position opposing the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Rail Spur expansion project.
This concludes the presentation.
Thank you Mr. Litton are there any questions by members of the board? Do we have any public speaker slips Mr. Allen?
0:43 – 0:485 turns
Chair Harbin, members of the board we have seven requests to speak. Okay We're going to start in Santa Maria with Ken Huff. If you could go to Santa Maria please. Ken and then we're gonna come back for Lee Moldaver in Santa Barbara and the remainder of our speakers
Thank you very much I'm Ken Huff representing the Santa Barbara County Action Network This has been a big priority for us for about two years. In July 2015, we published a 15-page report that detailed a lot of the stuff that Jefferson just went over and included maps. His maps are a little better now than ours but we put this one together showing so that we could count up how many schools and hospitals and firehouses are within the blast zone.
I was hoping to make a case for a unanimous vote, but I can see that isn't going to happen today. We would just urge you to reaffirm the county's opposition to this and I hope one of you will be able to appear at the public hearing. I understand they will have preferential treatment for elected officials from other areas. Thank you very much. I'm
going to come back to Senator Barbara for Lee Moldaver to be followed by Gail Osherenko
Good morning Madam Chair, members of the Board, Supervisor Adam in the back room somewhere. I'm Lee Moldaver speaking on behalf both of the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County and Coastal Resource Center in Goleta both of which buildings according to the graphic Mr. Litton shared are in the potential blast zone in the event of a derailment Both organizations had sent written comments to the Board of Supervisors and to San Luis Obispo County last year expressing concern about the oil train.
And I don't think either of our groups have anything we can add that will go beyond Mr. Litton's summary or the analysis of the planning Department in San Luis, which listed the class one impacts under CEQA. And of course the fact that the train goes through the coastal zone and if Supervisor Adam was here it goes right through the middle of a major nationally secured Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is the largest employer in the North County and a risk to that area is a risk to the entire economy This is a high risk, low reward project. The project itself would be anchored in San Luis Obispo County but the potential hazard goes through as Mr. Litton indicated the entire rail coastal corridor of Santa Barbara County and the risk for everyone here for as long as that Project was in operation should it be approved would be infinite but the reward that residents or government from Santa Barbara would derive from the passage of the train would be somewhere between limited and zero.
The coastal resources, the view, the health, the safety of the South Coast area and Vandenberg are essential to the strength of our economy, tourism in our business. And so both to protect coastal and marine habitat and all the people businesses visitors residents of the Coastal Area, Santa Barbara County that the train would traverse. We respectfully urge you to send a letter in opposition to the project next week in San Luis. Thank you for your attention.
I just want to take a minute of your time to thank you for bringing this before your board, Chair Hartman, Board Supervisor Wolf and my own local supervisor Das Williams. I just hope that whatever you can do and as strong a letter as you can write in your presence, anything you can do to stop this project as quickly as possible would help us all spend a lot less time fighting about something that could not be a huger threat to our whole community.
We don't want oil trains of that size and that risk operating on our rickety lines coming right down our coast, right in the coastal zone and putting our hospitals, our schools, our children, our health at risk. And so I'm really sorry that Supervisor Adam didn't Eric Freedman is our next speaker and will be followed by Cure Redmond.
0:49 – 0:544 turns
Good morning Chair Hartman and Board of Supervisors. My name is Eric Friedman and I'm here as a private citizen today. It's kind of interesting being on this side of the dais, this is the first time for a non-ceremonial item that I've spoken before the board even after all my years of service but the reason why I'm here is because I had the opportunity to work on the original staff report from 2015 And I'm urging you to oppose this project, to reiterate your opposition. And I think both staff reports then and now get to the heart of the matter but I wanted to just raise a couple scenarios. One is just a couple weeks ago we had a washout in Lock and Cheetah and imagine an oil train had been on those tracks.
And then there was another opportunity, it was about three years ago or so. There was a day where we had first responders from the various county and non-county agencies from all the fire departments, public safety, CHP and public officials and we went on site to look at three different incidents ranging from Painted Cave to Gaviota and others and to understand how we respond to emergencies and one of the, there's about 50 of us It's a full day exercise and we went out to the Gaviota Fire Station that day and those who had been there kind of went through how they responded to the Gaviota fire and the challenges they have up there.
And, of course, the question got asked was what happens if there was an oil train during that fire? And so it was quite interesting I would urge all of you to kind of talk with the public safety personnel what the different response would be if you have an oil train. But in this case, if you had the drought conditions and you had a fast moving wildfire and you had a train that was coming up those trains just can't stop and even if they could stop getting them to go back It could take longer than the fast-moving fire so it creates a whole set of challenges for our public safety, puts their lives at risk for this.
I would just leave you with this thought. I seriously doubt that Union Pacific would stop oil trains based on whether or not county fires declared a red flag day on our coast. So thank you for bringing this item and your opposition to this project.
Chair Redman? Then we'll hear from Katie Davis.
Good morning Chair, Supervisors. I'm Kira Redman with Santa Barbara Channel Keeper. The Phillips 66 Rail Spur project would send an additional five oil trains per week hurtling down our coast passing through or near residential areas, schools, endangered species habitat, public beaches, marine protected areas and valuable tourist destinations. Oil train derailments have increased in recent years, 17 in the past three years alone. Despite increased regulation and improved technology and obviously can have catastrophic damage impacts to human health and even life, the environment and our economy.
Our sister organization Waterkeeper Alliance produced a report last year entitled Deadly Crossing, Neglected Bridges and Exploding Oil Trains which documented deficiencies in railway bridges across the nation. Nearly half of those that they inspected. The increase in oil train traffic increases the strain on neglected infrastructure. This project is simply not worth the significant risk it poses to our communities and so many others along the way.
Channel Keeper supports the staff recommendation to send a letter to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors restating your opposition to this project. Thank you very much.
I'm Katie Davis, chair of the Santa Barbara Sierra Club and representing our thousands of local members growing by hundreds every month since the election by the way. People are rightly concerned about the protection of our environment and our health under the Trump administration and we should remember that our rail lines are federally regulated. We don't have local oversight. We don't have local control over what happens on those rail lines. Oil pipelines spill as we were reminded by the Refugio spill but oil by rail is worse According to a report by the Association of American Railroads, the rate of hazardous materials spilled by railroads is almost three times higher than pipelines.
Derailments can and have happened here in Goleta an earthquake once caused a train derailment in the 90s a train wreck near Santa Barbara caused a nasty chemical spill and shut down the freeway and rail to LA remember we have a very limited constrained area and that could be shut down there. A train derailed in Lompoc just a couple months ago. A train accident with a flammable oil trains in our area would be a disaster and we need to keep in mind the railroad tracks run right through our cities and along our coasts.
There is zero benefit to us from additional oil trains moving through Santa Barbara, we don't get taxes or jobs or any benefit. They're just simply trying to get foreign Canadian tar sands oil to the international market any way they can. But the idea of sending it by rail along the populated California coast is an offensively terrible idea, blatantly disregardful of human health and the economic importance of our region.
That's why tens of thousands of people in cities and counties all along the rail lines including this one have spoken out to oppose the Phillips 66 rail spur. So thank you for letting the San Luis Obispo County Supervisors know that Santa Barbara County continues to oppose this project and they should uphold the Planning Commission's denial. Thank you so much.
0:54 – 1:025 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Let's make no mistake about it this issue is a campaign against oil that doesn't really have much to do with rail nor this specific project. You know gone from their staff report is how many rail cars already passed through with oil or acid or something else like that through this region and if they're not coming by rail how much is coming by ship or truck down the freeway or offshore? None of that information gives you the big picture here. Secondly, there's no information on how important that Napomo refinery is for the North County oil operations and if they don't get this project through, is that project there, that refinery still tenable? And if it's not what happens to North County Oil in the highest paying jobs we have in the North County?
You know the other issue is there's no information on how much California relies on imported oil and for our state economy. There's no info on rail safety in general. If, in fact, you don't want these rail cars coming through because of safety issues then you should ban passenger rail as well for two reasons. For instance, in 2002 there were two fatalities nationwide from rail passenger cars but in 2015 there were 17.
In 2006, it was 2.1 fatalities per 100 million mile passenger rails. In 2015 it was 15.7. California also leads the nation in the number of people that get run over by trains and Santa Barbara is an epicenter of that. If in fact you're so concerned about public safety why wouldn't you try to ban rail going through our region completely? Why don't you have a report on that?
Again, it's because this doesn't have to do with rail safety. It has to do with being anti oil You know, the bottom line is rail is safer and cleaner than trucks. In some ways it's cleaner than ships coming all the way from the Middle East but again you don't want to talk about that. You don't want to talk about the issue with the two accidents you cited didn't have to do with oil per se but a lack of maintenance on the rails and then another crew not setting the brakes on the train as they left the train on a hill overnight and went and checked into a hotel.
Why isn't that information? You just, you know basically exploit the tragedy without bothering to tell the people of the facts. The most laughable thing today is Lee Moldaver talking about Vanderburg Air Force Base. The fact of the matter is where does the rocket fuel come for the missile launches? You want to talk about the explosiveness of oil what about rocket fuel?
How does that get to Vandenberg Air Force
Base?
This is a kangaroo court, and again you're not being concerned about our economy. You're not being truthful.
Okay that was our final public comment and I will bring it back to the board. Are there any questions Mr. Litton or any additional comments in response to public comment? Okay and Mr. Supervisor Williams.
This is no kangaroo court, this is the folks elected by the voters of the people of Santa Barbara County though on this occasion you might call us a rump parliament since we only have three of our five members here. I for one am very concerned about what kind of economy we have in Santa Barbara County and I think many of you were in attendance when Chair Hartman and I were sworn in, and the point I made then is that I want an economy that is thriving but also in step with our values as a community.
I think that this proposed project is not in step with our values. It's not safe, but even more than that it enables some of the dirtiest source of petroleum to be brought to market elsewhere. That is the tar sands. And Mr. Caldwell's question was why isn't it in the report how much oil is imported? The actual figure in California, depending on the year, is about 50%. 50% imported and 50% domestic oil to feed the Californian demand.
And the safest way to do that is by pipelines. Even though we have had obviously some of our own bad experiences with pipelines, when there is proper safety oversight it is better safer though still dangerous than either trucking or railing I suppose training oil And environmentalists in this county have worked for many decades to get oil out of tankers, out of trucks, out of rail and into pipelines where at least the frequency of accidents is less.
Potential damage from the spill is usually less. But I for one always want to use a moment like this to point out the fact that all of these methods of transport are dangerous and it is not just Phillips 66 responsible for this type proposals, but it is the demand that all of us make. All of us unfortunately participate in some small way in the demand for oil and so you could view that as really sad but I view that as very hopeful because all of us we participate. That means all of us can choose to participate less in the demand for oil And if we want cleaner energy and we want safer energy, and we don't want proposals like this rail spur to keep on coming to our area. The best thing we can do is cut our own usage by 10% to 20%, by whatever means we can.
And I personally believe that there is no one that cannot find another alternative whether that's a bike We have a great bus system here in this county or if you need to, you know, you can't do it those ways. There's now plenty of electric cars. Speaking of economic prosperity one of them is Chevy Bolts that's in the $30,000 range. The other one is a Tesla 3 coming out soon in the $30k range. One, the Chevy is a union Supervisor Wilk, did you have anything else you'd like to add?
1:03 – 1:068 turns
No not really although I can always say something. Especially in such a high risk project as this one is it would, I feel that this would be irresponsible for us not to take action to let our colleagues and to the north of us let them know how this would impact Santa Barbara County If there was an accident or a derailment and I just think it's our responsibility to our constituents.
And to our values as Supervisor Williams noted. So I thank you Supervisor Hartman for being a partner with me on this and we can move forward and I just want to take a moment to thank Mr. Linton for his great work on your presentation. I'm certain that this motion I would just like to add or echo agreement with my fellow supervisors here on the dais and also note that five other counties in coastal California have sent letters to
San Luis Obispo and three of our cities, Goleta, Santa Barbara and Carpinteria have also sent letters. 125,000 residents of Santa Barbara County are within the half mile blast zone so I think this very definitely affects our residents and we have a duty to speak up for the health and safety of the people who live here We don't have any regulatory authority over the rails and the bridges over which these rail cars travel. And so we have an opportunity here to make a statement, and with the letter that's proposed to be sent, we will make that statement. So may I have a motion?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll move the recommended items A and B that we authorize the chair to send a letter urging San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors to deny the Phillips 66 Company's applications for its rail spur extension project and B which is the CEQA. Second.
May I have a roll call vote Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam, Mr. Lavinino, Mr. Williams, Ms. Wolfe. Aye. Ms. Hartman.
Aye.
Motion passes with three ayes and with Supervisors Adam and Lavinino absent.
Thank you. And with that we turn to our second item on the departmental agenda.
1:06 – 1:112 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item number two is from the County Board. Thank you and Mr. Alvarez are you ready to go forward?
I am. Thank you and good morning Chair Hartman or members of the board, I'm Tom Alvarez the county's budget director and with me today is Jeff Frappwell he is our new assistant county executive officer and budget director so as I move forward I didn't say much after the presentation this morning but your in very capable hands going forward so rest assured of that.
Today's presentation is the third of seven planned board updates. The last presentation was the budget update which included the preliminary gap. However, that was prior to departments actually completing their budgets and there was a lot of federal and state funding information that wasn't present at that time that we now have. And so today's presentation has been updated with the department's recently created budgets.
So the purpose of today's presentation is to one, provide an update of the budget gap previously presented to your board. Two, to review certain existing discretionary board funding priorities and possible revisions such that a reallocation of funds may occur. And three, to receive any additional board direction or any other board priorities to assist staff in the budget development process.
The budget status update, so all departments have now loaded their budgets into our financial system and they've included the targeted 5% general fund contribution reductions and this is to generate different options so we can evaluate them. The CEO and auditor controllers offices have performed preliminary reviews of the budgets to ensure that they are properly balanced, that they've accurately reflected general fund contributions and other departmental transfers in and out And that they're supported with detailed salary models and that they've used the appropriate budget assumptions that we've overlaid for departments to use.
The CEO's office then met with all departmental fiscal staff to review the budgets and to gain a detailed understanding of the revenue and expenditure assumptions that they've used, and then to also understand their challenges, issues, and so forth contained within their budgets. We then summarized the overall countywide gap and identified the most significant gaps by department.
The departments also discussed various options to address their gaps. Departments are now summarizing the service level reduction forms and their anticipated impacts. These are now being reviewed and will be brought back to the board in a prioritized list, and that'll be in either March or April. So our gap factors, so a budget gap is when projected expenditures exceed projected revenues and it would typically indicate that we have a structural imbalance within the department or things have changed such that costs have now increased creating a new gap.
So things that can impact this really as we saw in one of our prior presentations, our salary benefit costs are about 60% of the overall cost to the county. So when we have higher than anticipated or typical cost increases in salaries and benefits that will certainly impact us and that's certainly what is happening as we go forward. Then we also are going to see that we've got some changing federal and state program funding issues that are going to impact some of our departments. And also there's other elements of local match that are changing, that are also going to impact our budget.
So to close the gap, departments have now prepared balanced budgets which take into account their adjusted general fund allocations that's what we talked about the 5% reductions. Changes to all other revenue and expenses this is including salaries and benefits they then created their service level reductions to help them balance. They've also overlaid and implemented or will be implementing operational efficiencies that would also help to reduce costs And then they also may be using one-time funds for ongoing operations and this is typically not done on an ongoing basis or continuous basis but as a one time item it can allow for more time to implement cost saving measures or revenue generating options.
1:11 – 1:2120 turns
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair, before we leave this page Mr. Alvarez given the well as you mentioned the departments are going to come to us at a later time and give us the opportunity to review their reductions and so forth and they've apparently implemented the 5% reduction and made other changes What I don't see in this report, unless I'm missing it, but how much money then is being saved countywide by these departmental efforts?
If I understand the question correctly so as we looked at what the gap was and what it would take them to balance, it was going to be $35 million. We then did the 5% general fund reduction, general fund contribution reduction, so that will give us the opportunity to reallocate some funds and that was about a little over 11 million dollars.
So it's a $35 million deficit, the changes that the departments have made will add up to approximately 11 million?
That is their 5% reduction. They'll then have to balance out so if they had you know if they had a $500,000 gap and their GFC reduction was 200,000 they would then give us options to balance that 700,000 and we could either accept or reject those depending on The significance and that's where we get the prioritized list of the reductions in impacts.
So is the $35 million, that's what's being reported in today's presentation?
That's correct. That's our net gap.
Right okay thank you.
Okay so we talked about these elements of closing the gap. So as we previously mentioned it is anticipated that the salary and benefit cost increases will continue at higher rates than the corresponding revenue growth, so we think this is going to continue for the coming years. We therefore expect continued need for cost control and revenue generation in these coming years And given the budgetary timeline, we really are focused because we didn't have a lot of time to react on balancing 17-18. We've started rebalancing group and meeting with several different department directors and labor unions and so forth to try to generate longer term ideas that can help us in this process. So it will be an ongoing process but those are some of the actions that we've taken thus far.
That's what we're terming our rebalancing efforts on a longer term basis. So to address these funding needs departmental general fund contributions, oh so we talked about the general fund contributions on Supervisor Wolf's question and so the calculated gaps that were going to show in this presentation are net gaps. So our prior December 2016 projections of the gap scenario were shown in this slide. So that first line is our projected revenue line, you can see it's growing from $237 million to $278 million again this is our general discretionary revenues If we funded based on our existing policies only and didn't fund any special needs or fiscal issues, we would be balanced just barely. We have about 2 million extra in 17-18 and you can see the lines are pretty much together in forward periods.
If we address the fiscal issues that we've become aware of that we would typically fund through additional general fund contributions, you could see the gap is increasing here with a blue line And then if we also overlay onto that the additional out of balance conditions that we predict would happen in the general fund units if they didn't have increasing revenues it would be this gap up here on top and the table that we summarized, that was scenarios one two and three. And then the table summarizing those we saw that in 17-18 the scenario 3 gap would be about $13.6 million. May
I interrupt Supervisor Adam?
Last time and it may have been January when we talked about this the first time, didn't we decide that scenario 3 was just reality? Scenario 2 and 1 were just variants of portions of the complete scenario which is 3.
Three is typically what we would do. Typically in the last several years we have had some unallocated general funds so we have addressed the fiscal issues and if departments were having additional problems which would be that purple bar, we have addressed those. So I would say Supervisor Adam yes that's what we've typically done is more in line with scenario three. I just wanted to show by policy we have the certain limit and then we identified the other issues on top of that. And then the final one was the general fund allocation. So I think you're correct that would be more in line with what we have been doing recently.
Well maybe my objection is one of semantics but the real problem I have here is the idea that it's an actual scenario. You know when you put the word scenario and it sort of indicates that that's a potential outcome Maybe we need to talk about degree of severity or something because the term scenario sort of holds out a false hope that it could wind up being the answer, or an answer.
And I think we can all agree here just for the record that Scenario 3 is the most likely answer and the other scenarios are just incomplete without full tabulation of the costs 3 is the most accurate representation of the tabulation of the cost.
Supervisor Adams so I think as we did the budget rebalancing and we looked at our general fund contribution and how much to reduce, we really targeted it so that we could achieve something like a scenario three. So I think what you're saying is that's a probable outcome that we were trying to adjust for. We termed them scenarios because there are a variety of options that the board can fund or cannot fund and so we identified what those options were Not all of them we can't see, we didn't show each department in scenario 3 but certainly there's a variety of options. We show those in scenario 2 and list out those different funding options so that your board can see what those options are and then fund as you deem appropriate.
Madam Chair? Supervisor Rowe. Thank you. Just to be clear on this. On the different scenarios, scenario three takes into account the increase in pension but it also I think includes the possibility of a hit that we are going to see from federal and state funding to DSS. Is that correct or is that not even included?
Supervisor Wolf there's a portion of it so there's a local match portion that has increased pretty substantially. That we are going to show in the revised scenario too but we would typically not backfill reductions straight across the board in federal and state funding.
I understand that but do we, when and I see Mr. Nielsen in the back and I've looked online to read some of the information that's come out of your organization that this is statewide concerns about different counties receiving federal and state monies, and the impact it will have statewide. What I'm wondering is at what point will we know with certainty what is happening? Or do we know right now as a part of the governor's budget?
Yes and really that's what has driven the changes was the Governor's budget. What we know is that the CalFresh allocation has gone down substantially from about 21 million, over 21 million to just under 13 million so a very substantial reduction there. That's the largest element and I I understand and maybe Daniel can provide more background on this, but I understand that the formula is really being impacted by Los Angeles County's caseload going down. Ours actually went up but we are being whipsawed or reduced because of the way the formula works and the dramatic decline in Los Angeles County's caseload. So then when will we get some
form of answer? Thank you Mr. Nielsen And I think our numbers are up because we're doing such a good job. We're doing what we said that we wanted to do was, which was to get more people on CalFresh that were eligible.
Good morning board and Supervisor Wolf through the chair so at the current time our budget is planning on the statewide cut on CalFresh which drops our allocation significantly. We're working to try to have the distribution of that because when you look at a statewide level the cut It could be considered appropriate considering the overall reduction in caseload statewide in CalFresh. However, in the 2015-16 fiscal year our case load grew by 6% and in the current year it's up approximately 1% year to date and so we're trying to see if we can have the distribution of the CalFresh allocation be targeted by county based upon either growth or decrease in caseload so that each county gets an appropriate share of that money.
I don't think we will see clarity on that issue until the May revise.
1:21 – 1:295 turns
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, sorry not to be able to let go of this but can we choose scenario
one? So based on existing board policy, that's what we calculated was scenario one. The other scenario two listed specific fiscal issues that your board can choose to fund or choose not to fund and then scenario three would be all those plus if departments are unable to balance that are within the general fund you may choose to provide additional funding to them or you may choose not to.
Do we have a list? So basically that you're here and it's kind of getting to someplace I was going to go later in the proceeding. But so you're compiling a list of all the shells And Scenario 1 is all the shall do things. That's correct. And Scenario 2 is a number of may do things and then, okay so Scenario 3 is all of the may and want to do things? That is correct. Okay. Alright good deal thank you.
And then just before I leave this, when we looked at scenario 3 components because now some people are saying well how much was the general fund? How much was this or that. So the general fund when we did this projection was $3.9 million gap. The certain one time capital needs were about $4 million. Behavioral wellness we had estimated at $4.7 million and our local match for DSS increases we thought was going to be about a million dollars so that's how we have the 13.6 million at that point in time As we look forward to some of the changes now, based on the information we have now loaded from the budgets you can see that the Sheriff Main Jail capital needs has remained about the same at $2.6 million.
I'm saying included in the gap no because this is one time funding need so what will use one-time funding for that and we won't include it as an ongoing cost. The Jail Medical and Mental Health Enhanced Inmate Services, we had previously predicted that to be $1 million. We're now looking at $1.9 million and that is included in the ongoing gap. And I think when the $1 million figure was calculated, I think the department already had assumed that the increase that the board had awarded during this year for enhanced I'm drawing a blank on the word. We enhanced some services with mental health services for needs within the jail and that was about $600,000 annually so they had assumed that that was in the base and that was the biggest difference between the 1 million and the 1.9.
The next item was related to a PUF audit this is ongoing cost for additional staffing and this was with some pharmaceutical staff and some other staff that's about $700,000 a year Department of Behavioral Wellness inpatient costs, we saw that they were running about $4 million over in the current year. We projected that forward at the time and as they've prepared their budget now due to cost increases and we had also provided some one-time funding in 16-17 that's not being provided yet as of yet in 17-18 so that grew it to about 8.1 million dollars The maintenance of effort we talked about going from 1.1 to 2.9 and that difference is really in IHSS, that was a very recent change in the Governor's budget to where they had been slowly increasing that year over year they decided to increase it very dramatically.
And then the last item was deferred maintenance and we're showing that as 1.4 and if we look to that we would be looking to fund that with one time in this year so we've said that's not included in the budget gap that were identifying. So the largest department gaps, this table summarizes the general fund versus non-general funding needs. The $4.4 million gap in the general fund compares to our prior estimate of about 3.9 million so we were fairly close in this. However, at this time last year we did have a fairly large amount of unallocated general discretionary revenues. It was about $5 million at the time so that gave us a lot more flexibility and we had relatively stable or plateaued in some of our salary benefit costs and in particular pension costs which are now increasing again.
So the largest elements or the main general fund gaps are in the Sheriff's Department at $4.4 million, probation $500,000, district attorney $300,000 and all of the above are offset by a positive balance that we had in the general discretionary revenues And then all of these don't include when we talked about the 5% that we overlaid in a reduction in general fund. That kind of grosses up the gaps if you will so these are the net gaps without being grossed out. On the non-general fund gaps it's about $31 million and 23 point, I'm sorry 23 million of that is in the Department of Social Services and 8.6 million is in the Department of Behavioral Wellness.
So if you take the prior projected gap in scenario 3 of $13.6 million and really the unknown at that time we didn't know what federal and state funding was going to be, we didn't have the indication that change was going to be so great. That was $23 million dollars if you add that to 13.6 we get 36.6 which is relatively close to the 35.4 that were now seeing.
I think we talked about the biggest item within social services was the change in the CalFresh allocation. They also had about a $3 million increase in their local match requirements and they also had their normal or the anticipated cost increases of salaries and benefits would be about $5 million. So all of those together were what was driving the DSS changes.
So next we're going to look at general fund contribution needs. So when we talk about gaps, we talked about some that we typically don't backfill and in other cases we've had a practice of backfilling certain items so in this we're talking about really what is our general fund contribution? What are we looking at this point? So if we look at funding the gap in the general fund right now is 4.4 million, 1.9 million of that will be funded and that's the increase in the jail medical contract And then the items on top of that are behavioral wellness. We're now estimating at $8.6 million, you know the department's going to come back with more information on that and we'll be looking at that as part of the April workshops but at this point that's what they're showing is being out of balance and the board may or may not wish to support and backfill some of that additional need in inpatient services And then lastly, the Department of Social Services.
This is the maintenance of effort or local match. Previously we had thought it was going to be 1.1 based on prior information now it's looking like 2.9 million so the total of all those indicates that we might have about 15.9 million of general fund contribution need. So the gap that we saw on the prior page was again the $35.4 million, it includes the impact of non-general fund units that are largely funded with state and federal sources which the general fund typically will not backfill.
The exceptions have been behavioral illness inpatient services as we talked about. And those were previously funded with one-time funds as we thought there were certain operational changes being made that would improve those results. We're seeing, we're still having the high amount of admin days so they haven't recognized those benefits to get them back to their existing budget. So that's why we have the large out of balance condition.
The required local match or maintenance of effort with DSS, that is typically funded and that would be in the IHSS and a small portion in the CalFresh is about $400,000 in CalFresh. The balance is in In-Home Supportive Services and these are shown above as additions to GFC needs. That would be with the mental health and the DSS needs.
1:29 – 1:4021 turns
Thank you Madam Chair. If you could go back to the slide that you just had, on the fiscal issue behavioral wellness PUF audit and inpatient it is $8.6 million but on page 7 if you combine Puff Audit and Department of Behavioral Wellness inpatient services, it's 4.7. So can you just explain the discrepancy there? So CC 8.6 and then on slide 7 it's basically 4.7.
On page seven it's showing 700,000 plus 81 so that's a total of $8.8 million per investment. There is a $200,000 difference but when we talked about showing everything net So the 8.6 million is the net so we had a $200,000 GFC target reduction that's the 5% reduction that everybody or most general fund units got so that's the slight difference of $200,000 is the gross to net.
Okay yes I see that now on the current estimate so explain again why back in December it was 4 million for inpatient services and now we're estimating 8 million?
So at the time the department had not yet prepared their budget and so what we were looking at is what is the current need. And the current need was looking like it was going to be about $400,000. And so we used that as a preliminary placeholder until the department did a much more detailed dive into the estimated costs and loaded up their salary models and did all of the assumption changes that we overlaid into the 17-18 budget process. So as they did that and they looked at all their expected funding sources and what was happening with realignment and so forth and anticipated growth, these are the final numbers that they came up with.
Supervisor
Williams? I'm sorry if I could add one more element is we saw I think the major difference was we did provide $200,000 of one time funding in 16-17 so that would take the 4 million up to 6 million and then also the salary benefit increase I think accounted for the majority of the balance.
Mr. Alvarez, you said $200,000. You meant $2 million? I meant $2
million. Excuse
me. Yes thank you.
And
Senior Advisor Williams.
So you have at the end the DSS so the number that I know is So is that two items within that or is that just one? So that's the difference between the 2.9 and the 2.1 there must be a .8 million dollar item in there, what two items are those?
The two items are $400,000 for the CalFresh match and then the balance is in-home supportive
services. Okay so the in home support services, the CCI The revocation of the CCI funding is $2.5 million?
Roughly, I think there was…
The first estimate I had seen it was 2.1 so it's… It
was initially going to be 500 thousand before they made the change and then it went up to 2.5 million dollars. Got it.
Understood.
Thank you so much.
So if the CCI was restored We've previously provided projections of increasing costs, moderate revenue growth and existing board commitments which will make balancing future budgets difficult.
The board has little opportunity to increase revenues in the short term, however the board can revisit existing board funding priorities. If determined this could reallocate existing general fund allocations to address some of the identified funding gaps and needs. This slide summarizes certain existing funding priorities and gives a brief summary of each option with staff recommendation.
A more detailed description of the various priorities is included in your board letter. And so what we've done is we've just listed these out. The first one is the Northern Branch Jail. So our funding plan for the Northern Branch Jail operations is that we were slowly going to build this fund over time, every year we allocate more and more general fund to it.
In 17-18, we have budgeted to add $9.1 million to that fund. Not too much is being drawn on it yet. It's accumulating so that when the jail opens between an increased ongoing funding plus the existing fund balance that we're building now can have enough funding to operate the jail. We don't recommend that you delay or defer the funding of this project because ultimately it's going to open and we're going to have about 17 plus million dollars of operating costs. And if when that happens, we want to make sure we have the funds available.
The behavioral wellness $8.6 million, that's for inpatient services and this is really what we thought this year we think it's going to be about a four million dollar gap and so we really want a chance to better evaluate that and understand that and then come back in the April workshops perhaps this would be one of the special issues that we might discuss in a lot more depth The fire 17% tax shift, that is targeted to be $8.6 million of what would otherwise be general fund dollars going to the Fire District next year. An option could be to defer or delay or get to the 17% over a longer period of time and that's something that could be evaluated and we will evaluate and come back with the April workshops Employee compensation, what we've shown here the $6 million is the amount when we talked about scenario one being policy based funding.
So based on our policy we've allocated 6 million of discretionary funds to departments for growth in their salary and benefit costs but there's really a lot more in all of our salaries and benefits and contributions and so forth So we'll be doing a lot more evaluation in that area. I think this will be a little bit different than the others, we'll have to coordinate this with the labor groups and that will be part of our negotiations. We do have reopeners coming in the fall of 2017.
Maintenance roads and facilities so based on our funding formula obviously we're going to have less unallocated general discretionary revenues next year. So it's taken our, we had been pretty much on target with setting aside what we originally laid out as our funding plan in terms of dollars. So by formula our contribution next year will be $3 million. It was $2.5 million in 16-17.
And so the growth was only about $500,000. We had originally thought it would be over $4 million next year and so we could consider a one time allocation of additional funds to augment the maintenance needs Prop 172, this relates to the fire district. So we talked about the fire shift originally the fire tax shift was anticipated to be fully at the 17% in fiscal year 2021 it's now looking like its going to happen in early 1920.
And so with Prop 172 they currently are scheduled to receive $2 million in Prop 172. It was, the board previously approved that their portion of those funds would go down over the coming years as their fire tax shift revenue increased So this is going to I think 22, 23 so really this recommendation is really to align that with the current target of hitting the 17% so it would seem to make sense to us. It would reduce the amount of funds going to the fire district so instead of being 2 million I think next year it will be about 840,000 then drop to about 400,000 and then it would go to zero in the year that the fire tax shift hits 17%.
Tobacco Settlement Funds. So these are funds that are coming to the county, the public health department determines how these funds will be allocated and in the 17-18 allocation there is a small portion that goes to behavioral wellness in terms of ongoing dollars it's about $300,000 out of about 3 1⁄2 million dollars And so we just think we need to look a little more closely at this and see if the Department of Behavioral Wellness, you know they have a hospital. Those needs would qualify for some of these fundings that were working with the department to see if we can look at a reallocation of some of those funds.
Workers' Compensation Deficit Plan, so about eight years ago we had a large deficit within this program. We developed a deficit recovery plan. We've got one more year to go now. We're going to be allocating about, we've increased the premium by about $940,000 to the departments. We should be fully funded at the end of 17-18 and there's an option to just spread that over two years so it would be a little bit of savings to the departments there.
And we're recommending that. Strategic reserve, so our strategic reserve policy says that we'll fund 8% of the general fund operating revenues. So as those increase every year, we add to the strategic reserve. Next year we're at about 31 million, actually in this year we're at about 31 million, so we had planned to add about $700,000 next year And it's being recommended that we not fund that next year and then we reevaluate that next year as we look at our rebalancing project and say do we want to get back onto that schedule or look at some other allocation. If we, if we do do that there is also an option of, and we didn't talk about here, there is also an option of using some of the strategic reserve balance To to phase down if we need to make reductions within departments.
So if we do that, that's something that we could do it's an option it's allowed under our policies but if we do what we would want to make sure that we don't utilize too much of it so that the money is available should we really needed in case of a significant emergency Outside agency funding, so last year during the budget hearings we allocated about $427,000 to various organizations that certainly have worthwhile causes. However given our current budget condition we're recommending that those not be considered or be discussed this year that we just don't see that we have the funding to do that this year.
And then lastly and we did touch on this before, we have federal and state funding shortfalls within certain departments. DSS being the biggest example and our prior practice has been to not backfill such cuts and we are recommending that that practice be continued.
1:40 – 1:4912 turns
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Madam Chair. I seem to recall that last year, maybe it was two years ago where we increased our discretionary spending allocation. Is that accurate? Maybe Ms. Miyasato?
Supervisor Wolf discretionary spending for
Last year we did reduce the litigation fund. We reduced that by a couple hundred thousand for reallocation
Contingency we did have a large balance and I think we had some unanticipated funds that came back to us that we put into there. The contingency fund balance got up to about $3 million and we have not had a need that big so I think we reduced it to about a million dollars is our current target, so we did have a lot of money that came out of contingency and was repurposed to other one-time needs but were now running at a target of about a 1 million dollar contingency balance.
Okay so we are changing that then? That has already been changed, yes. That was in place for 16-17 was the year that we made the
change. Well I guess I'll just keep my, I'll wait until you're done. Thank you.
This slide identifies current initiatives that could result in increased revenues or reduced costs. They include in our current initiatives preparation for possible cannabis ordinance and ballot measure, and that's already begun in the current year and will be extending through next year. We want to relook at our dispatch services for potential cost savings.
A look at reducing the jail population and in particular mentally ill individuals in the jail. Also to look at our options for reducing costs or implementing other models to address mental health inpatient services and what we're seeing right now is that we have a lot of need that currently is within the most acute settings and if we can get a more appropriate lower level of service, we could provide a much lower cost per day of those more appropriate services.
Other possible priorities include investing in technology improvements that will save money or increase efficiencies, so we'll need to set some money aside to do that as we do our rebalancing efforts. One-time funding for program audits or evaluations and other suggestions from the budget rebalancing process and also implementing the internal facing strategic plan and this would be in the hopes of improving our HR IT and other departmental practices that would lead to more efficiencies.
And then. Lastly, we'll say our budget development process. So as a reminder, our currently scheduled budget calendar, we have had two presentations so far, the fiscal outlook report and the budget update. Today, we're looking at the budget gap. We had targeted to having, as you recall, the January-March and then the potential service level reductions, those three presentations were new this year as a result of the changes we saw in our budget. And we want to make sure the board had a lot of updates and knew what we were seeing.
The service level reductions, we're determining whether that still makes sense to come on the 21st or whether or not that would be better presented in April with the workshops. So we'll be getting back to you on that and then beyond that we have the workshops and the actual budget hearings in June. So our recommended actions for this item are that the board receive an update on the budget gap for fiscal year 2017-18 and it shouldn't be, the future year should be struck there. That was in the board letter. Review certain existing discretionary board funding priorities for possible revision and provide direction as appropriate to staff on these matters and any other board priorities.
So that concludes our presentation and we're happy to answer any questions you have.
Thank you Mr. Alvarez does any board member have a question at this point? Okay are there any public comments Mr. Allen?
One request to speak today Mr. Caldwell
Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. I always find it fascinating that SBCAN, Channel Keeper and all the rest never show up for these hearings although they do show up to discuss support policies that impact your budget. You know in the last item you talked about Informing the colleagues to the north and of course Supervisor Wolf is talking about San Luis but maybe you should listen to your colleagues from the north including Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Lavanino where most of the poverty is in this county.
You know the bottom line here is that as Joe Armendariz wrote last week's editorial, this is an issue of morality In terms of what you do to preserve your so-called quality of life in the South County at the expense of the North County's poor. And that the policies that you continue to foment create more poverty in the north. For instance, you wouldn't have supported keeping Diablo Canyon open And yet there's a huge number of people on the Central Coast, including North County that make their living off of that.
The refinery in the Pomo, you wouldn't do anything to keep that open even though it can affect oil operations throughout the region. You refuse to talk about privatization? You refuse to suggest to the California legislature that they get rid of the California rule? I think you should be implementing layoffs immediately. You should go back to 2008 levels of employment in this county.
There's very little we were losing when you had 500 less employees than you do now. In regard to reducing the jail population, The fact of the matter is we need more people on patrol, we need more guards in the county jail and in fact we need to lock up more people in this region, in this county that have been let loose from state prison and county jail because of the state and counties inability to provide public safety as a number one priority.
And of course as Supervisor Adam is the expert on this, the longer you neglect building and road maintenance that debt and deficit is only going to grow exponentially. And wait until you see the impact of the minimum wage in ag overtime. If you think there's a lot of poor people in the North County now wait for overtime rules to kick in which is something you guys supported.
Bottom line as we mentioned over the last couple of years you couldn't afford giving your staff COLAs, you couldn't afford to give them raises and you couldn't afford to ramp up the number of employees. We've been telling you this every year. You keep blowing off the private sector where are the monies coming from?
Thank you Mr. Caldwell. And with that I close public comment and bring this back to the Board of Supervisors. Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair. You know I was just looking at our last report on FTEs and just to clarify something that was just stated back in 07-08 we had 600, I'm sorry we had 4,000 495 FTEs and we are below that now. We have 4,341 at the height of the recession 11-12 we had 3,840 and as noted in this chart and I think we've talked about it before One of the big ramp-ups for our employee numbers was during the time of the Affordable Care Act getting that online and also the hiring of DSS workers, eligibility workers and so forth. So I think this board has been very cognizant and all of our departments have as well in In our FTEs, but certainly back in 07-08 our numbers were much higher than they are right now.
So I wanted to ask you a couple questions Mr. Alvarez. You know in the past maybe this is better for Mr. Gazzone there were issues related to our tax assessment appeals that are still outstanding. Do you know what the status of those are? Some of those from very large companies and I think the outstanding assessments were in the millions of dollars. So how close are we to getting that resolved?
1:49 – 1:549 turns
I think that question breaks down into two pieces. One is the piece of what amounts of disputed tax assessments are actually impounded and potentially available for release, and it's really an auditor question. And the second portion is what amount of disputed Assessed values are currently in litigation either with the Assessment Appeals Board or otherwise.
And that's primarily our assessors area, but we have worked on that and looked at about $7 billion $1,000,000 of assessed value disputes that we expect over the next two years and for context on that the 1% property tax share of that disputed amount and that's not a guarantee you get all of it. 1% of that 7 billion is about 70 million with the general fund component being roughly 19% of that so we start breaking down How those numbers potentially impact that area and then there is another portion for fire, the Fire Protection District with the remainder generally going to schools and education.
But the target we are looking at out there is on the, for the assessor is in excess of $7 billion of disputed property tax valuation. And some of that's with oil, some of it is with United Launch Alliance. There are some, you know if you had a dozen of the big disputed values you would account for a big piece of that pie pretty quick.
Okay thank you for that. So you expect maybe within the next two years? It's
I expect it will be resolved within two years. I think some of them, we should not be surprised if the property owner carries this forward into the Superior Court after the county receives a favorable judgment at the Assessment Appeals Board but we think some portion of that amount will be settled certainly within the next two years but it's a large target
Okay thank you. Another question has to do with fees because we have a policy about reviewing our fees and I see that planning and development is coming to the board, Ms. Miyasato what about our other departments? And if those fees are increased how will that impact the budget gap?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, so thank you for that question. So I know that the community services department parks will be coming to the board later in the spring. I believe in June they're also going to go to the Parks Commission with updated their fees. Environmental health services are going to be coming forward with updating of their fees. Some of those fees are included already in their budgets some are not. So for planning and development they've loaded their budget assuming those fees will be approved by your board. Okay. So we'll be looking at the other departments as well, but I know for planning and development it was significant and they already assumed those fee increases.
Okay thank you. Thank you Madam Chair.
Mr. Alvarez would you put the slide, the board funding priorities back again if you would? And I'd like just to get a little more background on the strategic reserve what is generally recommended for counties and if there is such a thing and where are we and could you just expand on that a little bit for me thank you.
Certainly. So we've adopted a recommendation of the Government Finance Officers Association or GFOA and that was the 8% of operating revenues for the general fund, and so that's what we have been using. We have just recently attained that just in the last few years. It was a long time to get there. I think previously we had specific dollar targets, so we've used this. The idea is it's one month's worth of total 8% is really one month of equating to operating expenses, so it really gives you quite a bit of cushion because typically you don't have things go up or down that quickly.
And the concept is really that as your organization continues to grow your reserve should grow along with it and that's why we've adopted and I think it's a good policy and I think if we do want to change that for some period of time that it be as we're making certain adjustments and we may want to get back To that at some point in the future.
I just, Chair Hartman asked the auditor controller, Mr. Palate if there's anything he wanted to add to that?
1:55 – 2:117 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Tom's explanation was very good and it is a policy Board adopted to fill that strategic reserve and then there is a specific policy for the Board to use that strategic reserve. There are requirements that are necessary in order to take money out of that strategic reserve During a fiscal year, you could choose to take money out during the budget adoption with less restrictions. But it's not intended to be like the contingency fund that we have for annual operating contingencies or issues that come up mainly for emergencies, mainly for large economic downturns those kinds of things. So those are the uses for it, and then the explanation of the 8% is a recommendation by the Government Finance Officers Association.
Thank you. And Mr. Ghazzani had something to add and then Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Williams.
Chair Hartman, maybe while Mr. Floddy is still here but in a prior year when we discussed the strategic reserve I'd also recommend that the board hear from the treasurer in terms of how the county's policies and maintenance of its strategic reserve potentially impact it's borrowing out on the markets.
Supervisor Adam?
Thank you. To add on to Mr. Caldwell's comments regarding the effect of minimum wage and overtime on ag, wait until the automation kicks in because if you think there is a lot of poor people up there now wait till Because there's such a pressure on the ag industry to automate because of lack of labor and because of the expense of the labor including the mandatory overtime.
And now I heard recently that there's a new rule that we can't make people come in on the seventh day, which is normally Sunday. And if any of you have been around agriculture, plants and animals do not care what day it is. They do not observe weekends. So we in agriculture, it's absolutely mandatory that you work when it's time and it's sort of like county council's office. You work every Sunday whether you like it or not.
Anyway back to this thing. We're tasked to do two things here. One is talk about funding priorities And the other is to direct as appropriate. I agree with most of the recommendations on page 10 and I guess I'll have to hold counsel on the stuff that's marked down for evaluation but I gotta tell you, I do not like the idea of deferring a fire tax shift of the jail ops savings account and the maintenance. At some point you just have to have some discipline and follow through.
As far as direction, as appropriate we face severe financial challenges. It's a multi-year problem. The time to make difficult choices and start exercising some discipline is now. As I said many times in both campaigns there will be some pain. I would like to suggest three things that we must do if we are to be successful in managing our county's finances over the long haul.
First, we must control our labor costs. Our board has allowed employees to expect an unreasonable and undeliverable pension while at the same time enjoying wages that match or exceed the private sector. We pay too much. This dysfunctional dynamic is driving this county into bankruptcy. I ask that we direct our CEO and County Council to explore what this board could do to break that dynamic.
Second we must cut out the optional extras which we were talking about. Finally I understand Mr. Alvarez thank you for that scenario thing has always been a bow under my saddle. Now, we spend millions on activities that people like but which are not required county functions. I ask that in a near future presentation staff create a complete list of services that we currently perform identifying which are required and which are optional.
I suggest green ink for the required and red for those that are optional. I would like to include citations to law that create the requirements on those functions that are mandatory. Third, we need to thoroughly explore outsourcing county services. To get the ball rolling, I ask that we direct staff today to compile a list of all outsourcing options. I don't need any evaluations of the options yet. I just would like a list.
In the longer term column, I have a few more comments and questions if you'll bear with me. And I realize many of these cannot be answered today but may be better addressed in future presentations. I'd like to see a detail of the amount of the gap which is due to increasing salary and pension costs. It is not clear how added expenditures this year to backfill deficits will be funded.
Will these add to next year's deficit numbers already presented? The County Budget Act authorizes the board or the county CEO to take action to prevent departments from ending the year with a deficit. Has the board developed a policy formally or informally that protects service levels that has not allowed its administration to take the required actions? What will be the impact next year of all or some portions of the Affordable Care Act are scrapped and phased out?
The county's current overall vacancy rate and what is it by department. And that is to say 7% vacancy on any given day, and that means on a annualized basis with 4300 funded employees there are 301 vacancies on any given day with the average salary of $120,000. That's over 36 million of slush in the system This could be a powerful tool. We should look at reducing some of the performance metrics from 100%. If we look at the budget book, there's mostly 100% next to every budget metric that we produce.
And if we were to set those at 70 or 80%, what would that save us? After all, the roads at 55% seem to be okay. We should incorporate the performance measures in the budget detail of each department in future presentations and the impact of lowering the non-safety performance measures. Thank you Madam Chair.
Before we go to Supervisor Wolf, Supervisor Atom if I understood the second list of your items was something to look at for the future but your first list you wanted to give direction today and if I'm correct a list of services and mandatory versus optional is that it? And citations and then options for outsourcing are those things that you would like to have addressed.
Let's go to Supervisor Williams and then perhaps CEO Miyasato would comment on those.
I first want to make a cautionary note about outsourcing. Supervisor Adam makes a good point that we should understand our vacancy rate. That's a really important issue, very good point that we should make sure that our top industries in the county like agriculture can survive. But from my perspective, a large degree, The pension cost and the reduction of our projected investments is only a piece of this deficit. The other piece of the deficit is runaway costs in two departments, in particular. And a lot of those runaway costs, some of them are within the control of those departments but some of them are are because of other factors, and part of those is the runaway costs that when they're forced to outsource some functions because of a lawsuit or something else.
The hourly costs of those functions have been mind boggling. And so I would just caution that outsourcing is not a panacea, in fact it's part of the reason why we're in this mess, is the hourly costs of functions that the Sheriff's Department and Behavioral Wellness is having to pay for outside of their own employees So I want to say that just deliver, my hope would be urgency. That we make changes as quickly as possible because Pain taken willingly, shared pain taken willingly and as quickly as possible avoids greater pain in the future.
And greater pain that is inequitably distributed throughout the organization. So I feel like everything should be a part of this solution. I would say though that if we believe, if you believe as I believe that the pension cost isn't the only factor here. That it might be more wise than to Do the tax delay, the tax shift, shift functions? There are functions that are shared by the Sheriff's Department and fire for example. That could be under the purview of either department.
That there is no reason why it has to be in one department or the other. And in my view instead of shifting, you know, you could say fire money to the Sheriff's Department. I would rather shift sheriff's function to the Fire Department and there are two reasons for that one is to not go back on our what we committed doing and the second reason is because We need to see out of both those departments the ability to control costs. I think that shifting functions to fire gives an incentive for both departments to control costs.
I think that the COs are very correct in recommending not adding to the strategic reserve. These reserves are rainy day reserves, it's raining. Right, you know we if this reserve is for the purpose of dealing with bad times budgetarily we are in bad times so it doesn't make sense to artificially exacerbate the deficit by putting more into a reserve that's meant for hard times when we're in hard times.
And I would I generally agree with looking at all of these with the caveats that I articulated. Can you put up a slide on the current initiatives? I really want to highlight these, particularly the first three bullet points I think dispatch services is an interesting thing because that could be one of the areas to make sure that we not only have a way to fix the fiscal issues surrounding public safety, but In the long run, in my view we should have a vision of an integrated fire and health dispatch not just for the county but for the whole county. Meaning every city and county asset.
It's crazy to me that our dispatch can't see city assets if they're a few blocks away And so somebody can die or a fire can go unaddressed when there's, you know, a city asset within a few blocks. And in Ventura County this is one of the advantages of representing two counties in the legislature. In Ventura County one dispatch can see all assets and can send out all assets. City, county, AMR anything they can view whether their suited up and ready. They can view whether they need to suit up and ready, and they can view whether they're rolling into a call.
That means a faster response. And so I don't think this is just a way to solve the budget issues. This is a way to make the people of Santa Barbara County safer if we really delve into doing the right thing on dispatch services. But it is vital that we reduce the jail as a place for holding people that don't belong in the jail. Mr. Caldwell is correct, there are some bad people out there and we should have the freedom and ability to lock them up but The jail is not the right place for homeless and the mentally ill. It's a very expensive place to house them, and it's not necessarily a place that means that they will make progress.
And we need to reduce I guess the term is mercy arrests because there are better places to put these folks and we cannot afford that continued practice as evidenced by the costs of our jail over the last few years.
2:11 – 2:2816 turns
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, I just want to caution if we could go to slide 6 please. This shouldn't be oversimplified that it's a just a pension problem. You know if we look at the bottom I wish we could blow that up and look at the bottom of it when we all have probably books or an iPad or whatever you're looking at that on And you'll note there, and these numbers are old numbers right Mr. Alvarez? This is the presentation that was page 6 is a page out of January.
That's correct.
And those numbers are all larger now right at the bottom column?
So the general fund was about the same. The scenario 2 gaps did increase So I would say there is some increase. This does not look at like the big increase in social services, the 23 million only a small portion of that would be included in something like this.
OK well just in order of magnitude if you because we can't see it very well I'll just say it. The forecast deficit at that time in 17-18 was supposed to be 13.6, 18-19 23.8 19-20, 31.8 and 20-21 37.2 so you know this is something that and if we could go to slide 2 please You know this is something, yeah right there. See what you really ought to have is a graphic that has five ever widening chasms that you have to jump in sequence. You're not going to have a year that does not have a wider chasm than it had the year before.
So you better start girding your loin right now so that it's not as hard As it, in year five as it is this year. And that's what it is.
Supervisor Wolk? Thank you Madam Chair. Well I just want to say there was a comment made that we don't have discipline up here and I would strongly disagree. We definitely showed not just the Board of Supervisors but all of our employees showed discipline during the recession. And I already went through those numbers of the number of employees that we had at the low end of the recession.
While at the same time building up our strategic reserve and maintaining the integrity of our services. I think when I came on the board, our strategic reserve was maybe $14 million. Now we're at $30 million and that was during a very difficult time. So somehow we were able to maintain essential services Not you know enhance our strategic reserve, maintain our bond levels and unfortunately though during that time I think some services were impacted. So I looked at that other chart that Mr. Adams had if you can just go back to that.
Because the way I look at it is that we were on the path of some stability. That's how I look at those two bottom lines. So Mr. Adam was looking at the scenario gap number three, well if everything had been pretty much as planned and of course local government we can never really plan but I guess being optimistic If you look at scenario number one, gap which really there wasn't a gap we were showing a positive. So we were on a very nice pattern right there.
And then we did have, we did have issues that were related to pension. We did have issues that were related to state funding and so it threw us off a bit. The way I'd like to approach this is that this is a challenge for us as a county and I believe as we have in the past we are going to make some rational decisions. I'm not in the mood to disrupt or dismantle programs and services that we have in place.
Do I worry about bringing on new programs? And spending new money on new initiatives? Yes, I do. I don't think now is the time to do that but I think our departments are very responsible. I think that there's certainly things in here that Ms. Miyasato and you Mr. Alvarez have brought forward, I'll go through the list and tell you what I think we can do but I have to say in the years that I've been here what is troubling to me is that at the very end of all our budget discussions we end up getting revised reports on our revenues And so we go through this exercise of looking at cuts, talking to our departments and then I think maybe one year the numbers went down, but almost every year the tax rate actually went up from what was expected. And I believe that last year we gave one of our departments additional FTE to make sure that we get those numbers early and correct.
So I think that was the assessor? Is that correct? So I would expect that as we move forward especially in As we get pretty accurate numbers at that time. I don't think, you know I mentioned the tax assessment appeals that are before our county. There's also new hotel projects coming online. I know that we have new housing projects just in my district alone probably over 200 units of all levels of housing that are going up and that is just in the second district.
So and those are in the process of construction right now. So I think you know before we start thinking about making really difficult cuts and choices that we get a really firm number on our revenues so if you could go to slide 10 and I'll just give you my input, I don't know how this is how we're going to be doing this as a board but I'm going to start from the bottom with a practice of not backfilling.
today make that statement because I don't know what the impact is going to be to some of our departments that are receiving federal or state funding. So, I'm not in a position to go along with that because there may actually be things that I think we do need to fund. The outside agency funding is a no-brainer. We're not gonna have any money to give to outside agencies this year so I think we need to let folks know that as long as there is a majority. Well, I just don't think we are going to have the money.
Can I interrupt just to agree with you? I want to give away money to worthwhile organizations. You know, I do. I like doing that but we do not have that ability this year and I think you're absolutely right.
We don't want to create the expectation. Yeah and I think what I would say along with outside funding is what I had said earlier about controlling new initiatives, spending money on things that don't support our basic core function at this time. The strategic reserve I would like to get more information from our treasurer on, as suggested by county council.
I'm fine though with not recommending adding this .7 million dollars but I would like to get that information from our treasurer. The workers comp deficit plan I agree with. The tobacco settlement, I think I would agree with that as long as there is a nexus and we can show that there's a nexus which I believe we will be able to do with behavioral wellness and cessation of tobacco use.
I need more information first of all on the fire tax shift and the Prop 172 change. I'm reluctant to make any changes in those. Thank you. You know I think that is something we are going to have to look at when we do our budget workshop. And employee compensation, that's an evaluation and the Northern Branch Jail, I agree I don't want to stop what we are doing with our program to fund that.
So I hope that helped going through that and so I guess just in closing, I think we need to get more information on our revenues. Making sure they are as close to accurate as we can possibly get. And one more thing, I think you suggested Mr. Alvarez that we might… Move the potential service level reduction conversation to the budget workshop. I think it's important for this board to know what is kind of going on out there in the county world where all of this budget stuff is going on and we're not aware of what the cuts are that are being proposed by departments so I think The sooner that we get that information, or maybe not sooner but I think your plan to have it in March is a good thing. So that we have that information and we can then have a discussion with our CEO at that time.
Supervisor Adam?
And toward that end I think it would be really helpful to have that list of mays and shalls and wants kind of in whatever you are using for the criteria of scenario 1, 2, 3.
Supervisor Atom on the service level reduction form there is a column for mandated or non-mandated as well as is the service level mandate as well?
Well yeah but I think we need like a master list of mandated things that you know everything that we do and say this is why we were mandated under XYZ law. And then all the stuff that we do that's not mandated. And that way there will be a bright line between things that we have to do and things that we don't have to do. Because there's a lot of things that we do that we like, but some of them we can do without. But we have to know which one is which.
CEO Miyasato would you comment on the two points that were raised by Supervisor Adams?
Sure Chair Hartman and Supervisors so we've been talking about this larger budget rebalancing initiative we have. We have a steering committee of department heads, we met with each of the functional groups, we met with labor and as part of that discussion we had asked departments to provide us I'm By the April workshops we've been working with departments but getting correct citations, what is really mandated or not it's actually more difficult than it appears and for the whole breadth of services the county provides. It's very difficult but we are trying to pull that together so that when we go into 18-19 as you said it's a five year problem that we're looking at. We have a good solid basis as we look at not next year but the following years because we know that's going to be important so we're trying to get that together, just it's a lot of information so I don't think we can get that by the April workshops where we're trying to and the second issue I wanted to mention is when we talk about When we put the schedule together back in November, we didn't know what the breadth of the reductions would be and so we said if there's a lot of reductions we want to get in front of the board as early as possible.
Talk about the gap and then talk to the board about potential service level reductions. We know, Mr. Alvarez has said we know a lot of them are going to be in social services given the reductions in state funding for CalFresh and other programs. I would like the board to give us a little more time because I don't want to scare employees. We want to look at what's being proposed all right now that we have departments do is give us a list some of that could be some of those Potential layoffs could be resolved through attrition, through vacancies. So I'd like a little bit more time to work through that and as we typically do we present that to the board at the April workshops. If you'd like something sooner I just don't know if we plan to do it in a couple of weeks if we can get you good information that would provide you enough information but would be accurate because we don't want to scare employees either.
Well I appreciate that. Obviously if you need more time, accuracy is really important but also I think the board needs to be kept up-to-date on what's going on so bring it to us when it's ready and And as accurate as possible but I just think we have to be cautious in any event because there are so many moving parts right now. We still are waiting for the May revise.
There may be changes in the state budget which I hope there will be. So I just don't think that we necessarily need to take, well we may. We'll see what steps we need to take but you know I just want to make a statement about mandated services because you know that's a great kind of I just want to actually provide either energy savings, environmental protections, help to people who need assistance. So I just don't want to lose sight of that.
And well that's all for now.
2:28 – 2:3722 turns
It's not surprising to me that it is so hard to tell what is mandatory and what degree of service you have to provide under the mandatory service. But it is all the more important that we figure it out and if it is impossible to use it for this year, we are still going to have just as big or bigger a problem next year. So I think it will be very useful and good that we are starting now to fight
our way through
Mr. Guzzoni?
Chair Hartman and Supervisors I appreciate the CEO's comment about the timing of the mandatory versus discretionary because we will be involved in that. Last year we went through one exercise just as an example on mental health services and found that was a pretty large elephant to bite into, to be able to distill that down into what were the may items? What were the must items looking at the law, the statutes, the case law, the contracts that the county has with different providers in this case with mental health, the state So those are things we want to make sure that when we tell you that information and distill it down into a grid of four boxes that were giving you accurate information on which to base decisions. And there is a lot of interaction with the departments to get to that quality of action.
And if I could just add a little bit to that, I think the initial look at the number of programs that we have in our financial system is about 1500 so it is going to be a large process to get through each of those programs.
CEO Miyasato
Thank you Chair and Board Members. So I'm not sure where you are in your discussion but if I may, because we would like a clear direction that I could review some of the things I've heard where I think there's consensus on the board at least on these if you wouldn't mind.
Sure that's fine I thought I would ask the supervisors if there were any of these that they disagreed with. I think we heard Supervisor Wolf say that she wasn't ready to say that we have across the board no backfilling policy. I would like, she also mentioned no new initiatives although I think there are some new initiatives possibly the dispatch that was mentioned by Supervisor Williams as well as possibly some other initiatives that would save us money over the long run. So I'm personally not ready to make a blanket statement about that and before you go let me have Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Wolf add their comments and then back to you.
And I took it that we're not really being asked for the final answer on anything that says evaluate today. Okay, so other than that... I mean I would like to continue to fund that workers comp deficit plan. You know it's not that much money and I think that if you just knock that out I mean if you were able to do it, if you absolutely have to split that into two years okay. But its kind of in that same column with the fire tax shift and what you have done as an evaluate But I want to stay on that.
What else we got here? The maintenance deal with consider shifting that to one time. That's a big step because that's a board adopted policy that we're going to stop doing and that's not a temporary, is that suggestion temporary or is that permanent?
Supervisor Adam, through the Chair. So on that bullet in the write-up what it means is that per our allocation formula that the board adopted on 18% maintenance would be receiving $3 million dollars in 17-18 per your adopted policy But what we're saying in the write up is when we first took the policy to the board a couple of years ago, we thought by 17-18 that amount would be 4.4 million so one of my recommendations was well By policy, the additional to maintenance is going to be $3 million which is an increase from 16-17 but to consider giving more up to that 4.4 million dollars in one time funds to augment maintenance needs.
Yeah well I think you'll have to review my comments on the tape when we adopted that thing. I'm just happy to have anything being thrown that way. That's nice. It's still 25% of what Scott will come in and tell you that he needs to run the department even just for the roads. So, you know for the facilities this is hopelessly underfunded so we're going to continue to see our PCI and FCI continue to slide here.
And that's a choice this board is making which is why I probably will not be able to support the ultimate effort here but Mr.
Gazzone and then Supervisor Williams and then Supervisor Wolk.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors I just was dropping off a comment by Supervisor Adam, I think it would be helpful just to remember the context here that the CEO is asking for the board to identify priorities ultimately under the budget act the CEO is charged with providing the board with a recommended budget that you'll be considering on installments some in April some in June But this is not committing the board to any action today. You're identifying priorities that will be inputs into the CEO's recommended budget and then under the County Budget Act departments have an opportunity to comment on that, and then you'll be making decisions ultimately in June.
Supervisor Williams.
Could we just maybe do within the context of what County Council just articulated, could we do a kind of straw poll on a couple of these so that it's really clear to the CEO? I want to say that first of all I heard there were It looked to me like there was a majority of opinion of suspending outside agency funding for this year. Is everyone in agreement with
that? Yes, I think it's obvious. Yes we did hear that across the board.
Okay so you got four on that. Even I agree with that. The strategic reserve recommend not adding to our existing strategic reserve. I support that. Is there two other, at least two other?
If we might handle it a slightly differently first of all could I think CEO Miyasato wanted to ask but I think we would go along with this are there any of these that we don't go along with that would be the clearer way and the simpler way I believe to approach this Mr. Gazzone
And Chair Hartman again I would just although Supervisor Williams identified it as a straw, I think this is all under the context of non-binding input to the CEO as the board's priorities. So I think it's helpful but we don't actually need a
vote. Right so we've had discussion in there so CEO Miyasato would you like to sum up where do you think we are?
Thank you so I'm just going to go down the list. And I'm hearing a consensus not to change the Northern Branch Jail operating plan, to come back and revisit and evaluate the behavioral wellness inpatient services as we recommended. I'm hearing consensus not to defer or delay the fire tax shift but we will come back and bring more information to the board. Employee compensation that will be dealt with through our labor negotiations and the board can give us direction at appropriate time.
For maintenance and roads, I'm hearing to come back at the workshops with more consideration or discussion but not to make a recommendation at this point. For Prop 172, I am hearing that you want more information from me to come back at 172 and you need to understand it within the context of the fire tax shift so not to take my recommendation which is to change the allocation at this time.
Tobacco settlement? It sounds like there's agreement to use a larger portion for inpatient needs as long as there is a nexus, which I'm certain there is. Workers' Comp Deficit Plan, I've heard mixed things whether it really makes sense to try to spread that over two years since it's not a lot of money so we can look at that. I would still like to go forward with that but we can look at that to see if there's enough of a cost benefit.
Can I say something on that? If it's a savings of $400,000 that is the same as the outside agency. We're going to balance this through a number of small moves. I think we should keep that on the table even if it is small moves add up.
2:37 – 2:437 turns
And then strategic reserve, we're recommending that you go forward by not adding any additional money to the strategic reserve but we would provide more information from our treasurer to see if it affects our credit rating. We would suspend outside agency funding and we'd set that expectation up. We clearly tell people we're not doing that this year so there's no expectation and we would just come back to your board Not a blanket practice of not backfilling cuts. The board would make decisions as you always do looking at needs of the county overall. There was something also that Supervisor Adam had mentioned about contracting out and just to remind the board, departments don't look at contracting out as overall positive or overall negative they look at it case by case and should they feel it's a solution to a problem they have They will be bringing that individually to you as part of some of the budget changes.
Thank you let me first ask before going to Supervisor Wolf does CEO Miyasato have, does that seem correct? Is there any addition or anything more anybody would like to say with her summary?
Well my piece on the fire shift and 172 wasn't no way, no how. It was let's figure out what kind of public safety functions can be taken over by fire. And that way you have the advantage fiscally of slowing down the shift but you retain the discipline of going through with the plan. And I would argue you have ancillary benefits of providing an incentive to both departments to maintain fiscal discipline.
So
my opinion on the tax shift and Prop 172 is to leave it as it is right now. But I mean, it's always fine we can evaluate it when that's fine. And I just wanted to clarify what I said about no new initiatives because The dispatch center is not a new initiative so I didn't mean to imply that was something that I didn't want to look at. In fact, I think it's very high on our list to be looking at it. It has been something the board has been aware of for some time.
That was not my intention so I apologize for that. Also the reducing of the jail population. Thank you. In pre-trial changes so I think we are going to be seeing some of that. So these initiatives that have started absolutely need to continue doing them. The preparation of the cannabis ordinance obviously you know that is moving forward I wasn't really in favor of this because honestly, I'm not sure that we're going to see any new revenue from this when it all is said and done but it's moving forward. My point was is that new initiatives that will That will take staff time and that maybe have not been contemplated should really be evaluated. I don't want to say you know with finality nothing new should come to this board or be considered but I think all of us here and in the community, I think we need to realize that we just can't come up with new ideas and initiatives right now.
We need to kind of stay steady and hold the course right now.
So I wanted to address something that Supervisor Williams had said about the partnership of our fire department and sheriff. And as you know the sheriff is an independently elected officer with control over his operations, and we can definitely have those discussions about Looking at sharing of services they already share and work together and looking at who manages what. But I hate to catch the Sheriff off guard, I know he's here whether he's willing to have those conversations because although we know that the board sets the appropriation for the sheriff's office, the sheriff controls the operations of his department.
Madam Chair, members of the board. I was caught a little off guard with some of the suggestions. Certainly willing to look at doing anything we can do I try to address some issues and we currently as you are aware do work very closely with the fire department in several areas. But there are some legal issues that would impede the ability to do a complete handoff of either aviation or dispatch that are going to need to be, I think the board is going to need to be aware of and I don't look Very optimistically at this being a way for us to save a lot of money.
We're certainly looking and have been looking at dispatch, there has been some discussion in terms of whether or not there should be fire having its own dispatch system but there's some other legal issues that are probably going to need to be looked at very strongly before there could be any Thank you.
2:43 – 2:487 turns
There is no question that a significant portion of what we are in is the fact that we cannot control your costs. And I know that much of that, some of that is not within your control because some of that has been dictated by lawsuits and other factors but this has got to be everybody pulling together And from my perspective, all too often when the board and this is previous boards and you get together to talk about the budget.
It's not me. And that is totally unacceptable in the context of what we have today. And so I know that there are some places where a shift would make sense or a shift would not make sense, I just think we should examine that and instead of reducing service levels if it's something that can be taken over when fire has the money and you don't, I just think that's common sense.
Supervisor Williams you threw out a lot right there and I'm not going to debate you on that topic at this point but I will say that much of this is coming from the fact that the Sheriff's Office in particular has been reduced in size over the course of the last few years as a result of the recession. And the overruns that we have seen have been directly impacted by Those reductions and trying to backfill positions and trying to provide service that we have. So I guess my argument to you would be that we are in this position in many respects because we are short staffed and underfunded to begin with, and the question is going to have to be what services does the county want to provide?
And in terms of if the budget for the Sheriff's office is going to be cut Then there has to be a discussion as to what services we provide are not going to be able to be provided. And it's not as easy as just saying, we can just shift what we do over to another agency.
Supervisor Adam?
Well I haven't done this very often but I'm gonna come to the defense of the sheriff here. You know some of his costs and fire as well get dictated by this board And when we dictate that everybody gets a raise and there's no more money, then he and Chief Peterson have to go through the list and see who goes on furlough or layoff or whatever they call that. Because they only have so much money and they can only have so many people. And if we decide we're gonna pay everybody more than they've got to cut down people.
So you know that's not all his fault so I hope you like that. Thank you very much.
That started lights up here. Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Wolf and then we will come back to these funding priorities.
Well I think I articulated twice already that some of the costs are not within the control of the sheriff, but some are. And the DSA has rightly pointed out some places where we could make cost savings and you need to also Figure out and understand, you need to decide whether it's better to reduce aviation service levels or whether to shift some of that function over to fire. I think those are some of the kind of recommendations and questions That it would be really helpful for you to bring to us over which of those things are, because I like you probably don't want service reductions in the amount of emergency response that we can provide. But there are some other functions of the Sheriff's Department that we've got a look at and I would say that aviation is one of them and so We should struggle with this together as to what would be the best solution.
And to me, in some cases if I have to choose between losing a service and having that function shifted over to fire I would say, hey that's a no-brainer. And so I'm just trying to offer another path rather than cutting public safety to the bone.
But I can assure you, Supervisor Williams, that aviation is being looked at and we are looking at plans potentially to reduce our involvement in it but the reality is that it can't be completely shifted over to the fire department. Just something that you need to be aware of and I am happy to discuss that with you offline as to what the legalities are in there.
2:48 – 2:536 turns
Supervisor Wolf, did you have anything to
add? No I don't want to get into this except to say that you know I think right now we all are in a position where were working on this together and we've gone through so many you know the aviation issue. I think I thought we had worked that through and if you're looking at the budget for that, that's good. That's a good thing. See I wasn't going to say anything but now here I go again.
But as it also relates to raises. You know we deal with that, the board deals with whether or not and how much to give or not to give our employees. And we don't make those decisions in a vacuum. We look at the need and I'll just say for the Sheriff's Department That you might not be able to hire folks or you're losing deputies. Why is that? Well, because they're going to other places that I know... I knew you were gonna do that because you were gonna talk about the private industry. But it's gonna keep escalating. You can't base it on what other counties are. Is that what you're gonna say Mr. Adam? No The fact is that's a reality and we're seeing the numbers. We've had HR investigate, and we know that certain groups of our employees are leaving our county because we're not competitive.
So I'm proud of the work that we've been doing with HR. You know the backbone of everything that we do is really based on our employees and well paid, well respected and employees who can work in a safe environment. So I think we've been heading This organization has been moving in a positive direction really through the leadership of CEO Miyasato and that's why I felt that we were really kind of moving to stabilize ourselves as an organization.
We'll see what you do with your budget, Sheriff. But the one thing that I really do believe is so important as we move forward and we're building the new jail is to also... And we have worked together on a stepping up initiative, is to the extent possible is to reduce the jail population with alternatives to incarceration. That's mentioned in our staff report and definitely something that we need to work on collaboratively and I expect that will happen.
Thank you Madam Chair. Supervisor Adam?
All I'm going to say is it doesn't necessarily have to come out of his budget. Everything, you may be paying somebody in a completely different department too much and then you don't have enough to pay him. It's entirely possible the DSA doesn't get enough Yeah, but that's my point is we have to be very careful about giving raises at this point because you don't have the money in the system and you won't for years so stop it.
Okay I think that we've had a good discussion and it previews a lot to come. And thank you Sheriff for answering and responding to some of the issues. I think we're ready for a motion on the recommended actions.
I'll move that we accept this report and the informal direction that we provided to the CEO on next steps. Is that enough? And may I
have a second? And all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. So we will be recessing to closed session Mr. Gazzone.
2:53 – 2:573 turns
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the board is agendized for two items. The first is a conference with real property negotiators concerning a potential lease for existing offshore oil and gas pipelines from platforms Gale and Grace that's a potential lease extension through county submerged lands. The subject is price in terms of payment Then you have a second item, conference with labor negotiators involving all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. I estimate about 90 minutes.
Thank you.
Music. you Yeah.
3:00 – 3:102 turns
You.
Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Music. Music Hi, everyone. Music playing
3:18 – 3:181 turns
Yeah.
3:23 – 3:251 turns
Hello, everyone. Welcome to the Board of Supervisors. Oh, Hello, everyone.
3:31 – 4:211 turns
You. Hello. you You. You. Hi, everyone. You. ♪ Hello. You. Yeah. You. Yeah. Hello, everyone. Yeah. Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Music playing. ♪ Background music playing. Hi. You.
4:26 – 4:271 turns
Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone.
4:33 – 4:361 turns
You. Hi, everyone. you
4:39 – 4:421 turns
♪ We are reconvening the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting of March 7, 2017 in the board hearing room in Santa Barbara. We have just been at closed session Mr. Gazzone would you report our closed session items?
4:42 – 4:432 turns
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the board considered two items. The first was a conference with real property negotiators concerning potential lease extension for existing offshore oil and gas pipeline serving platforms Gale and Grace under negotiations where price in terms of payment. Second you had a conference with labor negotiators concerning all bargaining units on represented employees managers and executives there are no reportable actions
Thank you with that I adjourn this meeting we reconvene for a special meeting on Monday March 13th here in Santa Barbara. Hi, everyone.