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 – 0:011 turns
you you
0:03 – 0:032 turns
Good morning and welcome. It's 9 a.m. and I call this March 21st 1917 2017 rather meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order here in the county Santa Barbara hearing room would you call the roll Mr. Allen?
Mr. Lavinino? Here. Mr. Williams? Here Ms. Wolfe? Here Mr. Adam? Here Miss Hartman?
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
So do we have any items we want to pull from the administrative agenda? Any supervisors? Supervisor Adams?
I'd like to pull A3 and A4.
And seeing no others from the supervisors, do we have any public speaker slips?
Chair Hartman, members of the board, I have two requests to speak on item A22. This is our resolution today and so they requested that they be able to just speak after the presentation of the resolution.
So would you read A3 into the record, Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Item A3 is from Community Services to consider recommendations regarding the community choice energy update and feasibility study contract extension.
And Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, you know my point here is as always with this subject matter that I just consider it a waste of money. It's $220,000 which is two jobs and I'd like somebody to tell me which two people will get laid off because of this?
Okay and let's go, I have a couple of questions too maybe I'll just put my question out there before you respond. And my question has to do with the timeline and whether you would explain that originally I think it was we were expecting something at the end of May and now we're thinking in June but the contract says a six month extension through September and then Another addendum possibly through March 31st, 2017. Yes,
Chair Hartman and members of the board there was a slight delay. The consultant was having a hard time getting the right data from PG&E and Edison and consolidating those data so that was mainly the delay. We don't anticipate any more delays I think we built in that timeline just to be safe but I don't anticipate anymore delays. I think we'll get the report back to you with a report in June.
So we should be fine with that timeline.
Would you care to respond to Supervisor Adams?
Let's see, Scott over there. Are you asking about the two employees now? I think it might
be helpful.
If we get a department
head Mr. Chabjian if we get a department head it would only take one.
Put me on the spot there.
Well I'd be happy to respond. I'm just wondering who
you
suggest?
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Mr. Chapman. You know this is a very intense and An extensive report that we, not just we in the county but with Ventura County and San Luis Obispo County have formed a cooperative. And it was obvious to all the folks involved that we needed an expert in this field. Perhaps we could've hired someone in the county to have done this work. But just as you were saying one of the delays is getting the load data.
And so it's working with a lot of different agencies. I think this money is well spent, the money is not all coming from the county. We have different partners that have been contributing money to this effort. The ultimate result is going to be money well spent and I'm very glad that this board has put forth a commitment to move this forward. I do share Supervisor Hartman's concerns about the delay, but I certainly understand the complexity in getting this load data from both PG&E and SCE so I think it will be well worth it because we're going to have really good statistics from which to work.
Supervisor Wolk through the Chair, thank you for bringing that up. It is I think the county put in $50,000, the Environmental Council put in another $50 and the rest was money that was provided by the 13 jurisdictions, the partnering jurisdictions. The 220.
And is that money eventually recaptured if we go through with the Community Choice Energy Program?
I'll have to check that portion of it. I believe the next phase can be, Phase 2 and Phase 3 definitely can be recaptured.
Thank you. I would just like to note that Sonoma County, our benchmark county has adopted a community choice energy program called Sonoma Clean Power and they've saved the rate payers $62 million since launching in 2014 and they paid back all their loan and interest and now have a 10% cash reserve so over time this is going to save our constituents money.
And if I could just tag on to that, because I think that's a really good point. And for some of the skeptics out there, I think people need to understand that this is a voluntary program, that people can choose to opt into the program. It's not something that they have to do but there's definitely financial advantages not to mention the sustainability and conservation benefits that we'll get from this.
Is there an opt-out option for that? Madam Chair.
Supervisor Attaway, thank you for chiming in I don't have a light for you here so please go
ahead. It's a little awkward. Yeah I just wanted to say at the end of our route that we are expending general fund money which as you know is premium at this point and The private sector takes care of this stuff and it's really not the government's job to make power cheaper or anything else for anybody. There you go.
Supervisor Lavenino?
This is for the feasibility study, correct? So I've been on the fence on this and I want to see where the feasibility study goes. And I think it's well worth seeing where this takes us and if the feasibility comes back and says it doesn't make financial sense then we can kill it at that point.
Did you want to say something? I was going to make a motion.
Can I just clarify, yes this phase also is reimbursable so all phases are reimbursable.
Thank you very much. Supervisor Williams then Supervisor Wolf.
Well, since we're all staking out some positions here I wanted to chime in. My interest in community choice aggregation is just can we do more renewable energy than the grid at the same price or less? And can we have more control over Over jobs, job generation. Generally we have not done a good job of citing renewable facilities but if we have the CCA it will be within our interest I believe to have some of our own generation and that could be a very good job generator and since we often debate about Energy jobs in this county. This is a good energy jobs that we could generate for the good middle class jobs for the future of the county.
Supervisor Wolf, thank you Madam Chair I'd like to move this item forward. Roll call vote.
Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye Ms Wolfe? Aye Mr Adam? No Ms Hartman?
Aye
Passes 4-1
And now we're on to item A4. Would you read that into the record, Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item A4 also from Community Services. This is to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to the Empower Program funding agreements.
Supervisor Adam?
I just want a roll call vote.
I'll move this item. Mr. Allen?
Mr. Lavendino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Mr. Adam? No. Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 4-1
And Supervisor Wolf would like to pull item A14 as well, would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item A14 is from the Treasurer Tax Collector is to receive and file the DNA Identification Fund Report for calendar year 2016
Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to bring this item to the board's attention because as you might recall, I brought forth a resolution so that we would be collecting these funds for DNA identification for rape kits. And the balance is now $881,000 and this is from the treasurer's office. And thank you Mr. Hagan for maintaining this account and keeping track of the funds.
What I'm most concerned about and You know, my office has had exchanges with DA Dudley who's been very supportive of this. And I think our question is the use of this money because this fund continues to grow and I don't know if it's something that you're able to answer Mr.
0:15 – 0:179 turns
Hagan. It's probably something more for the sheriff to answer and I'm not sure if there's a representative here from the Sheriff's Department but I want to make the statement that this is an important fund. First of all, is there anyone from the Sheriff Department here? Okay, thank
you. Good
morning.
The DNA fund we currently use it in the DNA processing of the jail when inmates come into the jail to pull the DNA. We were severely limited by a court case to pull these that I think is still in the courts I currently, this morning I did ask about the expenses and what we can use this money for. I was told that all of our samples go straight to the state and that we do not pay the state for the processing of those. The money comes directly from the treasure tax collector to the state however we are looking at different ways we can use this funding to see if there are any future uses for this
funding. Okay well that would be greatly appreciated and I know it's, I think its Genesis was Also DNA, but also for rape kits. So we want to ensure that there's not a backlog because I think that's been a statewide issue. So if you can discuss this with the sheriff and perhaps send us a memo on the utilization of these funds because we are almost at $1 million. And not that we just want to spend the money, but it needs to be spent in the area that it was directed to be spent. Thank you for being here. Thank you Mr. Hagan. Did you want to say something else?
Chair Hartman, Supervisor Wolf. It's actually the probation department too that also we reimburse monies to them so they should be included in any kind of discussion regarding this money.
All right thank you.
Supervisor Williams
Well, I just wanted to add a boy or add a gal as the case may be because this is a really important issue. It's something I did a bill to try to fund when I was in the legislature and the backlog has been infamous statewide. Thanks
0:17 – 0:205 turns
May I have a motion then to approve the balance of the administrative agenda? So moved. And may we have a roll call vote?
Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Wolfe? Aye, Mr. Adam? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye 5-0 Okay
and turning to the resolutions would you read A19
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have six resolutions to present today. We're going to start with item A19 sponsored by Supervisor Williams and this is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of March 27 2017 through March 31 as Tsunami Preparedness Week in Santa Barbara County and Robert Lewin and additional staff from And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas a tsunami is a series of ocean or sea waves caused by a sudden large displacement of water, most often caused by earthquakes potentially causing substantial damage and significant loss of life. The Tsunami Warning Centers recommends that people identify their evacuation routes to high ground and prepare a disaster supply kit adequate for all family members and pets.
And whereas there are three levels of notification that people should be familiar with. Tsunami watch, a tsunami may later impact an area. Tsunami advisory, a tsunami with the potential to generate strong currents or waves dangerous to those in or very near the water is imminent expected or occurring. Beaches harbors and marinas may be closed and a tsunami warning. A tsunami with potential to generate widespread inundation is imminent expected or occurring evacuations of coastal areas protect the public from dangerous coastal flooding as possible.
And whereas, warning signs of a tsunami include a strong earthquake, the ocean withdrawing or rapidly rising, a loud roaring sound coming from the ocean and tsunami alerts via television, radio, lifeguards, text or wireless emergency alerts and on NOAA weather radio. When you see these warning signs, NOAA advises the public to keep calm, do not delay, immediately move inland into high ground. Once in a safe location, stay there. Stay tuned to NOAA Weather Radio, news broadcasts or appropriate websites for changes in tsunami notifications and stay away from the coast and low-lying areas including rivers and creeks that lead to the ocean until local officials say it's safe to return. And whereas the public can sign up for local Santa Barbara County alerts and preparedness information via the website www.awareandprepared.org Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the week of March 27 through 31, 2017 as Tsunami Preparedness Week.
Passing it out.
Chair and Supervisors, thank you very much for this resolution. It is not enough to just respond to emergencies particularly tsunamis. We and the community must be prepared. How to be prepared? That we're going to make sure that we're prepared for a tsunami because we've got emergency manager Ryan McMahon on our team and his job one of his jobs is to make sure that we maintain a tsunami ready designation as a county.
If there is a large earthquake The people that live in a tsunami inundation area should immediately go to high ground. And we encourage all of our residents in the county to sign up for Aware and Prepare alerts through awareandprepare.org. Thank you very much.
0:20 – 0:254 turns
Okay, we're going to
move on to item A20. This is sponsored by Supervisor Wolf. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Jim Clark upon his retirement from the County Probation Department after 33 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and Jim's gonna come on up and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas Jim Clark was born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah and graduated from Humboldt State in 1979 earning a Bachelor of Science degree in Wildlife Management. He relocated to Santa Barbara County where in 1981 Jim began working for the Santa Barbara County Probation Department as an extra help Group Counselor 1 assigned to Los Paredes Boys Camp and became a full-time Group Counselor 2 in September 1983. And whereas Jim was by his choice assigned to Los Paredes Boys Camp his entire career with the probation department.
There he rose through the ranks, ultimately becoming a senior deputy probation officer in 1999. He served as an instructor for the Juvenile Institution Officer Corps course training new officers on institutional responsibilities with a focus on use of force and emergencies. He was a liaison between the Boys Camp and the United States Forestry Service, enabling the campers to volunteer hours to maintaining local trails, campground maintenance, planting trees and establishing fire breaks. Over the years he was fortunate enough to supervise many overnight camping trips to the Channel Islands. He oversaw the Boy's Camp Color Guard at parades throughout the county and its special events.
Whereas during his tenure at the Boys Camp, Jim worked with over 5,000 youth and dedicated his career to challenging each of them to succeed. Jim was pivotal in developing and maintaining Boys Camp Scholarship Program sponsored by the local Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs which to date have awarded 100 scholarships. Overall, Jim succeeded in securing donations of over $500,000 to benefit the youth at the Boys Camp.
And whereas Jim received many recognitions during his career including being recognized by the California Association of Probation Institution Administrators, Meritorious Service for Outstanding Professionalism and Dedication. He was recognized by the United States Forest Service for coordinating about 500,000 hours of volunteer service. He was selected by his peers in 2003.
As the staff of the year, he received the Geary Award for Outstanding Overall Performance. He was recognized by the Rotary for Ethical Service and received a Probation Department Star Award for Fundraising. If that's not enough, in 1991 and 2014 he received the coveted Chiefs Award. And whereas Jim is looking forward to spending time with his wife Ellen and their three children Jared, Evan, and Rachel, The Boys Camp is fortunate he has agreed to continue to assist the department as an extra help capacity providing instruction during JIO Corps and assisting at The Boys Camp. Now therefore I hereby order and resolve that the Board of Supervisors recognizes Jim Clark for over 33 years of dedicated service to Santa Barbara County and the Probation Department, and extends some of the best wishes for a fulfilling enjoyment and rewarding retirement passed and adopted today.
Chair Hartman, Supervisors thank you so much and Jim will say a few words but I just wanted to say briefly that Jim Clark he is synonymous with truly all that's good at the Los Prados Boys Camp. And Jim as a department, as a chief I want to thank you for never growing weary Your legacy of honor, respect, hard work and doing what is right is going to live on in the lives of all the young men that you directed and guided over the last 30 years.
Jim, you leave large boots to fill at the camp. We say happy trails. God bless you and all the best to you. Thank you.
Thank you everyone. And just briefly thank you Board of Supervisors and the community here for not giving up on those young men. You know they make bad choices but they're not necessarily bad people and we want to keep embracing them and encouraging them to do well They're going to be around another 70 years, and we want to support them to be good citizens in our community. So don't give up on them and keep showing them better options. And it's amazing the success of the program. I see those 5,000 youth in the community every day somewhere, and it's been an honor to serve the community and to help other people. So thank you for all your support and your recognition today. Thank you.
0:26 – 0:305 turns
Okay moving on, we're going to go to item A21. This is a resolution also sponsored by Supervisor Wolf. This is a resolution of accommodation honoring Shirley Moore upon her retirement from Child Support Services after over 18 years of faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. Shirley come on up. I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Shirley Moore began her career with the county in 1998 as an Administrative Analyst in the County Executive Office and was promoted to Principal Analyst in 2001, where one of her proudest accomplishments was managing the county redistricting process to establish supervisorial boundaries consistent with law and policies with a major emphasis on public outreach.
Whereas in 2004 Shirley Moore became the business manager and child support services where she was responsible for managing all aspects of the budget process as well as the human resources, risk management purchasing workers compensation and accounting functions where she ensured that the department consistently passed state and local audits. And whereas Shirley's intelligence, zest for life, outgoing nature, innate curiosity, perseverance, pursuit of excellence and dedication to the county and her co-workers will continue to serve as a model for county employees who have had the pleasure of meeting and working with her.
We'll be concluding 18 years of service when she retires on March 31, 2017 and is looking forward to many nights of dancing, reviving her interest in cooking, traveling, enjoying time with her friends and family, and continuing to give back in various ways to this beautiful community. Now therefore it's hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors commend Shirley Moore for a faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, congratulates her on her retirement, and wishes her many years of continued good health and happiness. Passed and adopted today.
Chair Hartman, members of the board. I'm Joni Maiden, the interim director at the Department of Child Support Services and I wanted to thank Shirley for her many years of dedicated service to our department, to the county and to our community. Because we're a small department, Shirley's had to wear many hats in her role as business manager extraordinaire. She's overseeing contracts purchasing facilities she manages our child support program accounting unit and she's a HR guru like none other There are many of our co-workers in the audience today
to
wish her well in her retirement. We all feel very fortunate that we've had the chance to work with Shirley who is passionate, calm and professional all at the same time. We're going to miss her very much and we were wishing her nothing but joy in her retirement. Thank you Shirley.
I'll say a few words. I want to thank the board and I want to thank the department for this resolution, and it has been my privilege to spend about half of my career with the County of Santa Barbara knowing that in some small way the work that I do does make a difference in the community. In my position, I work with people in a lot of different departments, and I want them to know that I really do appreciate them They are hardworking, dedicated people. They just want to do a good job. They've helped me in many situations.
I especially want to acknowledge HR, the Auto Controller's Office, CEO and Purchasing, just to name a few departments. And as for my department, Child Support, they are the best department in the world. You can't find a better group of people. Right there. They are so passionate about the work that they do and they're so incredibly generous and they're dedicated and hardworking, and I'm truly honored to have worked side-by-side with them for the last 13 years of my career. So thank you. And I love you all.
And with that, I am retiring.
0:30 – 0:358 turns
Okay moving on to item 822 this is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman today. This is a resolution proclaiming March 21, 2017 as National Agriculture Day in the week of March 19 through 25 as National Agriculture Week in Santa Barbara County and we're going We have a slight deviation from practice. We're going to double the fund, we're going to have Supervisor Adam presenting this resolution in Santa Maria to Roberta Alderete. She's with the Santa Maria chapter of the California Movement for Agriculture and here in Santa Barbara Lisa Maloney.
Is Lisa here? Come on up to the mic.
Mr. Allen, we have a couple others that came to join the fund. We have Ruth Jensen, Debbie Adam and Donna France.
Okay, great. And so I will go ahead and read the resolution and then we'll present it in both Santa Maria and Santa Barbara. Whereas National Agriculture Week is celebrated every year to honor the agricultural industry for providing safe, abundant and affordable products, a strong economy, a source of renewable energy and a world of job opportunities. And whereas Santa Barbara County farmers and ranchers build on generations of success by remaining true to their history while also pursuing advances in production technology science research and marketing to meet the demands of a growing world population in a complex global market And whereas Santa Barbara County farmers and ranchers help to feed the world. And whereas, the agricultural industry is one of the largest employers in Santa Barbara County providing over 25,000 on-farm jobs including administrative and professional staff.
In addition to employment for harvesters, irrigators, crew leaders, truck drivers, scientists, researchers, pest control and fertilizer advisors, processors, shippers, brokers and retailers. And whereas the stewardship of agricultural lands conserves the culture and history of Santa Barbara County, preserves the natural beauty in open spaces and ensures a sustainable resource base for future generations.
Therefore let it be resolved that Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes the contributions and honors the achievements of farmers, ranchers and tens of thousands of workers involved in jobs related to Santa Barbara County agriculture. And be it hereby further ordered and resolved That March 21, 2017 be proclaimed National Agricultural Day and March 19-25, 2017 be proclaimed as National Agricultural Week in Santa Barbara County and encourage members of the public to participate in activities that acknowledge and celebrate the achievements of men and women who work throughout the year in the state's number one industry. Passed and adopted today.
If you want to say something, if you want to say something.
Supervisor Hartman and supervisors. California Women for Agriculture was founded over 40 years ago as a non-partisan all volunteer group. Today we are 2,000 members strong. Santa Barbara County is diverse and strong enough to support two chapters of this state organization. We are active in ag education and awareness, scholarships. We support all varieties of agriculture in our county and state. On behalf of all the members of our chapter and of the North County Santa Maria Chapter we thank you for your recognition of our efforts. Thank you so much.
We have some comments from the ladies up here as well.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, my name is Roberta Aldaretti I'm the co-president for the Santa Maria chapter and I want to thank you for the resolution today and I want to also thank the county for supporting agriculture in its many ways. Is it working? Yes and also I'd like to present some farmers that we have here, lady farmers. And I'd like to have them talk to you a little bit about what they do for our community.
Thank you, Andy. And thank you for this opportunity. My husband and I are strawberry farmers in the Santa Maria Valley and I know that we are good stewards of the land but not only are we good stewards of the land, we're also good stewards of our employees and of our community. We're very proud and honored to have the opportunity to work with this very important and highly valuable workforce. One story I'd like to share is we have a supervisor that started with us as a picker, and he's been employed with us for almost 15 years. And I'm proud to say that he is a homeowner in the Santa Barbara County. But not only are we able to work and support our employees, we also have the opportunity to invest back in our community through the Boys & Girls Club, Vocational Training Center, the hospital, and many other organizations.
Thank you.
0:35 – 0:417 turns
Hi, my name is Debbie Adam and my husband and I grow vegetables and strawberries here in the Santa Maria Valley. And his family has been doing so for generations. As a group, farmers are very humble people and they're not going to tell you all the things they do in this community. But as someone who has for the last 32 years spent my time asking them for their time and treasure, It's been supportive of youth sports, of youth education.
Also I feel like as a member of the Food Bank Board they've donated hundreds and thousands of pounds of fresh produce to our local citizens and statewide. And they don't want any recognition. And I just am here to say that they truly do care about our community and everyone in it. And they will break their backs to provide whatever it takes To care for our community members.
Good morning, my name is Ruth Jensen. I am here on behalf of California Women for Agriculture and American Agri-Women. California Women for Agriculture has 22 chapters and is an affiliate to American Agriwomen whose membership ranges from 30,000 to 50,000 members nationwide from Alaska all the way to Maine. California Women for Agriculture participate And in June we'll be in Washington, D.C., hosting a symposium on national security and the role of American agriculture. Thank you. Enjoy Ag Day.
Hashtag AgDay365.
Thank you. Chair Harmon and members of the board, June Van Wingen is also here and she'd like to comment on this resolution as well.
Thank you. I came from Carpinteria so I almost didn't make it. Chair Hartman and Board, my name is June Van Wingerden. I'm the current president of the Santa Barbara County Flower and Nursery Growers Association. I've been asked to tell you something about the nursery agriculture in Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara County represents the most valuable production region in the United States.
The 2015 county ag report places cut flowers at the number four crop at 105 million, which is just slightly below wine grapes. On much less acreage. Nursery products produced 85 million, almost 86 million. Most of the agriculture is located in the Carpinteria Valley but some can still be found in Goleta and elsewhere like Santa Maria where there's a huge greenhouse operation.
Currently 77, and this is the statistic that Salud Carbajal always memorized. Currently 77% of domestic flower production is grown in California and over 50% of the value of California cut flower production is produced in Santa Barbara County. The 2015 top cut flower crops were gerberas at number one, lilies number two, chrysanthemums number three. Orchids are an important crop. Flowers are grown in both greenhouses and in the field.
But we also have cucumbers, lettuce, microgreens, blooming potted plants, transplants, landscape plants, and they're all grown in greenhouses. Santa Barbara County is America's flower basket according to a study by Tutulin and Associates for every dollar of flower Farmer earns 92 cents goes back into the local economy. The millions of dollars of flowers and other nursery crops come right into this county from across the nation. Flowers from our own business are shipped across the nation to places like Detroit, Oklahoma City, Charlotte, Dallas, Las Vegas and I could name a lot more.
Greenhouse Ag provides year-round employment, sustainable growing techniques, reduced pesticide use, recycled water systems and more. The greenhouse industry has been an incubator for many new technologies that are eventually used in other ag crops. Use of hoops to grow crops is spread to many other crops. In the 1970's 80% of the cut flowers used in the United States were grown in the U.S.
Now 80% are imported from such countries as Colombia. In the 1970s, the Van Wingerden family in Carpinteria produced 10% of the cut chrysanthemums that were purchased in the US. Carpinteria now produces maybe a quarter of a percent. Container plants, bedding plants, landscape plants all are feeling the pressure of increased regulation and increased cost of labor.
Profits are minimal. These products though do not have competition from other countries because soil still cannot be imported into this country.
You're getting close to your time.
Okay, you just cut me off. Colombian flower growers are subsidized by our own federal government as part of an anti-drug effort. Because of that and a myriad of other factors such as greenhouse restrictions, cost of labor etc., cut flowers have a difficult time competing with our competitors in South America. And that's it? I find it a little sad that we have helped growers in Columbia move away from growing an unnamed crop and are pushing our own farmers into growing that same crop which shall not be named.
Thank you.
0:41 – 0:465 turns
We're going to also hear from Seth Coonan, followed by Ken Doty. Those
are
the final speakers.
Thanks for letting me appear. I'd like to acknowledge Ag Commissioner Kathy Fisher for inviting me and for the good job she's doing. I'm Seth Kuhn, the treasurer of the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association. I am speaking for wine grape growers here. Wine grapes were either the number two or number three crop grown in Santa Barbara County for the last three recorded years. There are over 27,000 acres of wine grapes grown in Santa Barbara, 50 different varieties in six American viticultural areas.
We average just about four tons an acre of grapes and our average price is over $1,700 a ton which ranks us pretty high quality wise and dollar wise. The economic value of wine grapes in Santa Barbara County was 163 million dollars in 2014 the last year we have data for Our economic report for the economic impact of the industry in Santa Barbara County, $1.7 billion and almost 10,000 full-time equivalent jobs are due to the wine industry.
Unfortunately, the consolidation of big brands and distribution and the competition out there is making kind of direct to consumer sales through wine clubs, tasting rooms, etc., etc. Kind of a necessary sales channel for all wineries in Santa Barbara County especially small to midsize operations. And it's really critical to our livelihood that you, the Board of Supervisors allow this important sector of commerce in Santa Barbara County economy to thrive.
Not die on the proverbial vine. We encourage you to support regulations that streamline the permitting process by giving farms and vineyards and wineries more access to the general public in creating simpler, more streamlined permitting processes. You'll encourage more land to be used for active farming and simultaneously generate much needed additional revenue for Santa Barbara through sales, tourism taxes, and dollars spent. I urge you to investigate if you haven't our benchmark Sonoma County The policy, it's called the Sonoma Permit and Resource Management Department. They have a thing called Permit Sonoma. They have a good website. Their mission statement is to serve the people of the county by providing a customer-based, customer focused process for the orderly development of real property balanced with resource stewardship under the general policy direction of the Board of Supervisors and to develop and maintain standards that protect the health and safety of the public.
They have all five of their These are our final speaker on this item.
Good morning, Chairwoman Hartman and board. I'm Ken Doty representing Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau And I actually urge you to support this resolution Today we are here to recognize and celebrate the abundance provided by agriculture We know that food and fiber doesn't just magically appear at the grocery or the clothing store There's an entire industry of dedicated men and women providing plentiful and safe food for consumption We rely on ag for the very necessities of life, from vegetable crops and wine grapes to cut flowers and nursery products and cattle. Santa Barbara County's ag is working harder than ever to help meet the needs of Americans and other consumers around the world.
As we celebrate the contribution of agriculture in our daily lives, it is Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau's mission to represent and promote the importance of a greater understanding of and to value the essential role of ag in maintaining a strong economy and preserving the rich heritage of Santa Barbara County. Our climate enables us to produce over 250 commodities year-round. According to the 2015 Santa Barbara County Agricultural Production Report, our commodities grossed $1.479 billion in very challenging growing conditions due to five years of drought.
With all of that, agricultural is still the number one contributor to the county's economy and through the multiplier effect contributes a total of $2.8 billion to the local economy. Today each farmer feeds more than 144 people. Back in the dark ages when I was in college I think that number was 22 or 25. It's a dramatic increase over the last couple generations Quite simply, American agriculture is doing more and doing it better.
As the world population grows there's an even greater demand for the food and fiber produced in the U.S. I think it's important particularly on a day like today to show our appreciation to the many men and women who make our agriculture possible. Thank you
0:47 – 0:503 turns
Okay Chairman, members of the board we're going to move on tight at May 23. This is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. This is a resolution proclaiming March 24th 2017 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County and Charity Dean is here our Public Health Officer Paige Batson Director of Public Health Nursing and Karen White public health nurse and if you have anybody else bring them on up with you all right I'll read the resolution Whereas on March 24, 2017 in honor of World TB Day the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department joins the global partnership to promote the CDC's message to unite to end TB. And whereas with one third of the world's population being infected with latent TB and each year 9 million people develop active TB resulting in 2 million deaths worldwide prevention and treatment of latent TB infection remains a priority TB control strategy, and whereas Santa Barbara County Disease Control Program recognizes that the treatment of latent TB infection is the cornerstone for TB elimination.
And whereas the Santa Barbara County Disease Control Program continues to educate and promote medical in general communities alike about short-term latent tuberculosis treatment regimens that significantly improve adherence rate, hence preventing the incidence of new TB cases in our community. And whereas through a strong community partnership, finding and treating TB supports a healthy community by enhancing local TB control and elimination efforts. Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim March 24th 2017 as World Tuberculosis Day in Santa Barbara County pass and adopted today
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. Thank you for this recognition again of World Tuberculosis Day. And I want to touch briefly on part of the strategic plan for the public health department around tuberculosis. Our strategic plan involves prevention because we know that prevention has a huge return on investment. And I want to just briefly mention what that looks like for tuberculosis. You'll all get packets for World TB Day that show that our strategic plan is focusing on identifying people that are at the highest risk to have latent infection, meaning it's asleep in their lungs. If we can find them and treat them, we can kill the bacteria while it's still asleep. That's been a major focus of our staff, our public health nurses.
And recently Karen White, our amazing public health nurse who supervises the North County operations received a statewide award for outstanding leadership in public health nursing. And I want to highlight that because our numbers of tuberculosis cases in the last three years Have gone from 29 to 19 to 9. I would like to think that is because we are following our strategic plan and identifying people that are infected, treating them before they blossom into active TB. Want to give Karen an opportunity to say a few words about what it's like to do that work. Thank you again.
Thank you. When I started at the Public Health Department in 1993, there were approximately 75 cases and as Dr. Charity Dean just mentioned we're down to 9. And I have actually seen many cases, devastating cases of TB. Children that have permanent brain damage because they've acquired TB meningitis. Young adolescents, young adults who have lost mobility because They have TB of their spine and have become permanently paralyzed, and then the death. I've also seen the advances that have come from better treatment and really exciting now is the shorter regimen which has gone from nine months to 12 weeks. So I work with a great team and I have great staff and we're out there every day promoting prevention and making sure that we have a healthy community.
Thank you.
0:51 – 0:562 turns
Moving on we're going to next here item a 24. This is co-sponsored by Supervisors Hartman and Lavagnino This is a resolution of combination honoring the legacy and accomplishments of Cesar Chavez And Cruz Phillips is here as Cruz here also, and then we have our HR director Is also here with few words? And I just want to note that I will be reading the Resolution into the record and then we'll have Alma Hernandez who will read it in Spanish for us
Good morning Chair Hartman, members of the board, colleagues, community members. As you know my name is Lori Gentles and I'm the Human Resources Director for the county and I am privileged to coordinate along with the Office of Arts and Culture today's Cesar Chavez Day celebration on behalf of the Board of Supervisors This morning we honor Cesar Chavez, a great American and civil rights leader who through the practice of nonviolent protest and effective social action won important victories that led to safer working conditions, better pay and benefits, and important worker protections.
Born in Yuma, Arizona to immigrant parents, Chavez spent most of his life here in California and had a strong connection to Santa Barbara County. As a resident of Delano in neighboring Kern County he was no stranger to our area and could often be found working with our agricultural communities in places like Guadalupe or Santa Maria. As someone who spent many years working in the fields with his family, Chavez experienced firsthand the challenges that farm workers faced. Like unsafe conditions, low wages and the absence of job security, holidays or sick leave and the presence of racial prejudice. Child labor was commonplace as many as one quarter of all farm workers in California were under the age of 16 at that time. Chavez drew upon this experience and decided that he could make a difference.
In partnership with Dolores Huerta, he founded the National Farm Workers Association, the predecessor to the United Farm Workers Union, UFW in 1962. Over many years of struggle, Chavez, Huerta and the United Farm Workers marched, boycotted and ultimately succeeded in winning victories where other unions had failed by taking decisive actions while adhering to five important principles. The first one is non-violent action. Chavez was inspired by the example of Gandhi in India and Dr. King in the United States. Chavez knew that resisting their urge to strike back violently at injustice would be key to winning the support of a majority of Americans.
The Delano Boycott, many of us will remember the slogan No Grapes. The result of the first national boycott ever instigated by labor union. By moving the debate from the fields of California to the dining room tables across America, Chavez and the United Farm Workers appealed to the American people in their role as consumers to aid them in their struggle. Personal example, Chavez led by personal example inspiring others through his own sacrifice. He undertook a 25 day fast risking his life and focusing attention on the boycott at a critical time.
Chavez lost 35 pounds eventually breaking his fast at mass in Delano with the crowd of thousands including Senator Robert F Kennedy who said he wanted to be there out of respect for one of the heroic figures of our time. Coalition building with other groups. Chavez enlisted the aid of faith groups, Latino activists, politicians, celebrities and others to organize community meetings and visibility events to gain needed attention and keep attention focused on their struggle.
And lastly, persistence. For over five years the United Farm Workers refused to quit. Chavez worked to keep his people united when success looked far from assured and there were calls to change tactics or give in to violence. When asked once why he persisted in the fight for social justice, he offered these words. The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people.
Chavez died in April of 1993 while fasting as a part of another struggle for workers' rights, having had nothing but a few glasses of water for six days prior to his death. One year later he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Clinton. Cesar Chavez was a fighter for justice and equity for all. And here today to help us honor Cesar Chavez is Victor Valencia, a local artist and musician who will perform an acoustic guitar rendition of De Colores, a traditional Mexican folk song known throughout the Spanish speaking world and associated with the farm workers movement. Victor Valencia?
0:56 – 1:036 turns
Thank you for your invitation, I appreciate it. On behalf of my parents who are farm workers and myself, I was working alongside with them as a child. And just want to honor them in this great day of ceremony. This song is about the hope and peace that the farm worker community We'll promote to our country and the song of the Spanish, the song of color, the song
of peace, of joy and hope. Thank you. And that's why I like the great loves of many
colors. Por eso los grandes amores de muchos colores me gustan a mí. Canta el gallo, canta el gallo con el kiri-kiri-kiri-kiri-kiriti La gallina La gallina camel cara, cara, cara, cara, cara. Los poibuelos, los poibuelos con el pío, pío Y por eso los grandes amores de muchos colores me gustan a mí.
Thank you Victor. At this point in the program, 3rd District Supervisor Joan Hartman and 5th District Supervisor Steve Lavagnino will present the resolution of commendation honoring the legacy and accomplishments of Cesar Chavez. Here to receive the resolution is Cruz Phillips. The resolution presentation will be followed by a reception in the Board of Supervisors conference room featuring the art of Santa Maria based farm worker and artist Louise Ramirez.
I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Cesar Estrada Chavez was born on March 31, 1927 near Yuma, Arizona. Whereas at the age 17, Cesar Chavez entered the United States Navy and served with distinction. And whereas in 1962, Cesar Chavez established the National Farm Workers Association which eventually became the United Farm Workers of America.
And whereas under the leadership of Cesar Chavez, the United Foreign Workers of America helped thousands of migrant foreign workers receive safe and fair working conditions, reasonable wages, livable housing and disavowed child labor. Whereas through his commitment to nonviolence, Cesar Chavez brought dignity and respect to foreign workers and became an inspiration too and a resource for individuals engaged in human rights campaigns throughout the world.
And whereas the influence of Cesar Chavez extends far beyond agriculture and provides inspiration for individuals working to better human rights, empower workers and advance the American dream. And whereas United States government honored the life and service of Cesar Chavez by proclaiming March 31 to be a federal commemorative holiday Now therefore be it resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes the accomplishments and example of Cesar Chavez, a great hero of the United States of America, the state of California and the county of Santa Barbara. It pledges to promote the legacy of service of Cesar Chavez and to always remember his great rallying cry, Si se puede which is Spanish for yes we can as a symbol of unity perseverance and hope.
And now Alma Hernandez will read the resolution in Spanish for us.
Okay, thank you. Una resolución honrando los logros y el llegado de Cesar Chavez mejor conocido como Cesar Chavez. Considerando que Cesar Estrada Chavez nació el 31 de marzo 1927 cerca de Yuma Arizona. Considerando que a la edad de 17 años Cesar Chavez ingresó a la Armada de los Estados Unidos y sirvió con distinción Considerando que en 1962 Cesar Chavez estableció la Asociación Nacional de Trabadores Agrícolas, que eventualmente se convirtió a la United Farm Workers of America.
Considerando que bajo el liderazgo de Cesar Chavez los trabajadores de la United Farm Workers of America They helped thousands of migrant workers to campaign for safe and fair working conditions, healthy wages, habitable homes and child labor, considering that through their commitment to non-violence Cesar Chavez brindó dignidad y respeto para organizarse a los trabajadores agrícolas y se convirtió en un fuente de inspiración y recursos para todas las personas involucradas en campañas de derechos humanos en todo el mundo.
Considering that the influence of Cesar Chavez extended far beyond the agricultural field and provides inspiration for people who work to improve human rights, strengthens jobs and promotes American Dream. Considerando que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos honra la vida y servicio de Cesar Chavez a proclamar el 31 de marzo en un día de fiesta conmemorativo federal. Ahora, por tanto se resuelve que la Junta de Supervisores del Condado de Santa Barbara reconoce los logros y el ejemplo de Cesar Chavez, un gran héroe de los Estados Unidos de América en estado de California, el condado de Santa Barbara. Se comprometen a promover el llegado de servicio de Cesar Chavez y exhortan a los residentes del condado conmemorar el llegado de Cesar Chavez y recordar siempre su gran grito de protesta, si se puede.
Thank you.
1:04 – 1:072 turns
So I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for recognizing the legacy of Cesar Chavez. And over 20 years, I spent 15 years in the farm worker movement and when I think of the legacy of Cesar Chavez, I think of him as the most phenomenal organizer who probably has ever lived. When he started, he was with an organization called the Community Service Organization in Los Angeles. Dolores Huerta was with CSO in Stockton and together they started organizing farm workers but when they started everybody told him it couldn't be done including his mentor Fred Ross who is The Guru of Organizing.
And they believed, and what it was is they believed that farm workers could organize themselves. And it was their incredible belief that it could be done and that farm workers could organize themselves that actually made the United Farm Workers. And they spent two years underground doing house meetings, talking to workers and building that organization before people saw it publicly.
And it was that amazing ability to organize and make people believe in what they were and believe in their own power. And that grew and grew. And it wasn't just farmworkers, it was everybody who came into the movement. And it was like he expected you to do things, there was no saying no. It was like and people just did and through that you believed you could do anything.
And that's really what built the movement. And that went on to create an incredible legacy. And so farm workers that grew through that movement Then went on to become city council people, mayors, leaders and organizations. Union presidents, international vice presidents. I mean farm workers became his legacy went on into all parts of our society. And also those of us that weren't farm workers that went to work for the union.
We came out of it and became organizers throughout our community. And so I think you see his legacy everywhere. Yesterday, I was in a meeting with Dolores and we were talking about organizing and one of the people in that meeting had been an organizer with Cesar Chavez and he talked about how frightening it was to be expected to be fearless And he then went on to basically organize the Amnesty International USA. And that's the kind of organizations that came out of Cesar's legacy, so basically when I think of Cesar, that's what I think of, so thank you.
Thank you very much and we'd like now to invite you all to a reception in the board room and we will reconvene at 1030.
1:11 – 1:271 turns
Hi. Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Hey! Music. Hi. Background music playing. Hi. Yeah.
1:32 – 1:366 turns
Good morning once again we're reconvening our March 21st 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara hearing room and it is now time for public comment for items that are not on today's agenda. Mr. Allen do we have any speaker slips?
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have one request to speak from Mr. Kolaski
Excuse me, I can't hear Mr. Pelosi.
I just made a remark about Supervisor Peter Adam recognizing that our second story is not solely over the garage but it's over the garage, the kitchen, the dining room part of the living room and laundry room. And yet none of you other than Yes, but there are other four members here obviously do not have a keen grasp for the obvious. They still have not recognized it and they still have not explained it and they still do not know why we violated guideline 4.7 which says do not locate your second story solely over the garage or any single entity of the dwelling.
Four of you, of course SBAR who made that ruling I can't explain it either. Neither can Anna Naomi, who's the supervisor down there, at least I believe so. When are you going to explain this to me? You stand up here and you pledge allegiance to the flag. And this is really disgusting to me that four of you pledged allegiance to the flag for liberty and trust and justice.
And you turn around and you're running an organization downstairs that's corrupt. You know, I didn't know what the new rule was. It's not a new rule. I didn't know what the rule was down there. I thought it all involved the guidelines, and we maintained those guidelines. Every time came in, we made the changes they wanted. We came in the fifth time, they'd kick us out.
Fifteen seconds, they'd kick us out! Just like that. Like we didn't pay for it? It's a public meeting? I'm kicked out of a public meeting I paid for? Well, the rule is apparently that if you don't make the extortion payment by the fifth meeting, you're outta here. Everybody should know that. Just because you're not a contractor, you don't know that? So how are we supposed to get this passed?
You know they've been suggesting, put the other drawing on there Ken. Yeah so I met with Dr. Russell to make some changes when Valerie's there everything is fine make some changes we'll go ahead with that. I come down there talk to Ann and Ryan Cooksey no they want us to put it over solely over the living room. They want us to have a view of our neighbors backyards Does that make sense?
They knew from day one, I said. I do not want to look at my neighbor's backyards. That was one requirement. The other was I wanted to convert our converted garage back to a garage. Yeah, if you can put it over the living room then you can forget about the garage. You can forget about the neighbors. You know Ed, Ann says to me after awhile you won't look at your neighbors' backyards.
And I responded to her- Will my neighbors know that? It's disgusting.
Mr. Kolaski was our only request to speak under public comment.
Okay, with that I conclude our public comment portion of the meeting and turn to our departmental agenda item number one would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
1:36 – 1:545 turns
Chair Hartman members of the board item number one is from the Planning and Development Department it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed fee ordinance for the department
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, before planning starts I wanted to just say a few words to help set the context for this item. One is that you know that the county has a fee policy of full cost recovery and it places the responsibility on departments to bring those adjustments to the board for your review and adoption as appropriate. This started actually with P&D looking at their fees well over a year ago, I'd say almost two years ago.
And looking at their fees to see if they needed to be updated in adherence to our policy, and to be fair. So the board has some opportunity to increase revenue as well in the upcoming 17-18 budget and increasing fees not just for this department but for all departments is something that we're looking at. So a key policy that underlines this is whether your board wants to continue with that policy that we have in place.
Again, there are several departments that will be bringing forward fee adjustments to your board in the coming months. But planning is here today to present their proposed fee ordinance which would restructure and adjust nearly all of their fees towards full cost recovery and these adjustments are based on a third party consultant review that was reviewed also by the auditor controller and county council And as you know, P&D has the responsibility of providing continuous improvement in cost effectiveness of customer service including the permit processing procedures and also providing greater certainty in the process. And they'll address how they've done that and how they will continue to do that.
And again, you'll hear from the public about their concerns but I just wanted to note that if P&E does not implement fee adjustments, they will have to reduce staff involved in permitting or request a greater general fund. So again, the revenue they'll be bringing in under the proposed fee model will allow them to continue to make improvements that they have begun to make and have been trying to rebuild the department from the last economic downturn. And with that I'm going to hand it back to Dr. Russell.
Thank you CEO Miyasato, good morning Chair Hartman and supervisors. Today I would like to present to your board recommendations regarding a proposed fee ordinance for permitting services provided to the public by Planning and Development assisting me in today's presentation will be Rachel Lipman, our business manager and Erin Payton representing the consulting firm MGT Consulting Group that prepared the fee study. And with that we'll get going.
It is county policy both to achieve full cost recovery for permitting services and present such fees to your board for adoption and adjustment as appropriate. Our proposed fee structure today addresses both of these things. For planning and development, County and State Code define the majority of P&D responsibilities regarding the issuance of required permits This permit structure is a result of our regulatory responsibilities for land development, construction, oil and gas development, mining and energy projects, and film permitting. The costs for providing this regulatory oversight are primarily supported by the permit fees paid by project applicants.
This can be seen in this pie chart that illustrates the funding sources for the permitting divisions of P&D. As you can see, 88% of the funding for these divisions comes from permit fees. And this is year 16-17 fiscal year data. So why are we here today? We need to adjust our fees to be consistent with county fee policies because our costs are not recovered by the fees we collect and we're currently subsidizing a portion of the cost of permits with general fund contribution.
This is partly the result of our fees not having been evaluated in several years, since 2010 for planning permits and 2008 for building permits. We have had the authority to apply the CPI based increases annually to our fees but those increases have not kept pace with increasing costs and do not account for changes in workflow and service delivery that have been made over the years.
A new fee study that measured the current cost of permit processing using the best and most recent data available was necessary. Such a study was completed by MGT Consulting Group, a firm with broad experience and expertise in local government fee analysis. I understand that MGT is currently working with other county departments on fees studies. The completed study comprehensively analyzed P&D fees for planning, building, film, and petroleum service fees.
The goals of the study established at the outset were to streamline fees, increase user friendliness and fee calculation, reduce the number of fees and analyze costs of providing permit services to determine if they were being appropriately recovered. I will now turn the presentation over to MGT Consulting Group represented by Aaron Payton to discuss their experience, the methodology of the study and some of the results.
Thank you. Good morning. By way of introduction, MGT Consulting Group is a national consulting firm that focuses solely on public sector consulting. We have a particularly strong presence in California. I have about 30 plus years of experience performing studies exactly like the study that we just recently completed for P&D. In that time period 30 plus years have done more than 350 studies of a very similar nature.
Our Financial Services Division specializes in cost of services studies and also cost allocation plans. The right-hand side of this screen just gives you a feel for some of the recently completed or currently ongoing studies that we're currently performing here in California, and you can see a number of cities, a number of counties, and at the bottom of the list you can see also that In the process of completing a study for the Environmental Health Department, as well as Department of Public Works on their assessment of fees.
So I want to spend just a couple of minutes and walk you through a couple of slides that talk about the methodology that was employed in this study and is employed generally speaking in all of the studies that we do. And how we go about calculating cost of services. Broadly speaking The methodology employed is to identify or calculate the fully burdened hourly rates of the staff providing the services and do an assessment of the time spent to provide the services. Then, the product of those two, hourly rate times time yields the cost of providing various services.
I hope you can read this as a lot of numbers on one chart. But what I wanted to do was give you a feel for how we built the fully burdened hourly rates of the staff involved in various P&D fee related activities. You can see that we've got distinctions made for planning staff, building and safety staff and petroleum. We start by taking a look at the average annual salaries and benefits of the different staff involved so we've got planners grouped together for planning We've got an inspector group and a plan reviewer group in building and safety. And then we've got petroleum specialists, and then AOPs and senior AOPs. We take their annual salaries and benefits. We first come up with an hourly salary and benefit rate by simply dividing that annual by 2080 hours in the year.
The bulk of this spreadsheet shows you how we burden that hourly rate, that strict salary and benefit rate with a number of different burden factors. The first thing we do is consider compensated absences, vacation holiday sick leave. That's considered compensation for the staff and if the goal of the department in the county is to recover 100% of costs we need to consider that as well so we burden The hourly rate by that amount. The next layer in is what we call general administration and it is division level administrative support, support staff. It also includes for the staff or the planners and inspectors and plan reviewers that are providing the services there's a certain amount of time that is spent in training and education activities regularly scheduled staff meetings break times and so on.
So that's the next layer burden that gets added in Operating expenses that's pulled right out of the budget for the different divisions including office supplies, vehicle maintenance insurance and so on. Countywide overhead support coming from the countywide cost allocation plan that is developed by the Audit Controller's Office every year. That's the next layer and then finally We come up with a number of different surcharges that are layered in.
Technology maintenance surcharge gets layered across all of the different staff and all the different divisions. The records management surcharge gets applied to planning staff and building and safety staff. The general plan maintenance surcharge, which previously was applied against planning staff and we've now shifted over to building and safety staff, that gets layered in.
There's a code enforcement surcharge to recover those costs that are unrecovered through administrative fines. And then finally for building and safety there is an additional cost we call permit processing support, and that's kind of at the front end and the back end of the service to recover those costs as well. So you can see then when you're starting at these strict salaries and benefits up at the top of this screen by the time we're done with the burdens you can see those hourly rates down at the bottom.
And then finally, this is a very simplified view of the analysis. We just pulled a couple of fee examples for you to see. We've got a planning fee which is an emergency permit. We've got a building and safety fee which is a grading cut-and-fill. And then a petroleum fee which is an annual well inspection. And here's where we collect the time estimates from the staff and in the case of P&D department, they have really good time records that they keep that shows us actual time involved in each one of the activities.
time involved to produce each one of these activities. So for the planning, for the emergency permit fee we've got about 12 hours of time by planners to review and issue that emergency permit. We've got 8 hours of an inspector time and 10-10 1⁄2 hours a plan review time for it to review And inspect the grading, cut and fill. And then finally an hour and a half's worth of time for that annual well inspection. We simply take those time estimates, multiply them by the previously discussed fully burdened hourly rates to come up with the total cost to provide the services.
And then in the case of P&D, the recommendations are to set those fees at 100% of cost. And then we simply are just showing you the comparison between the recommended fee and the current fees that the department is currently charging for these services. So, at this point I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Lipman and she is going to walk you through some of the fee study results and the impacts.
Thank you. Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisors. The study found some important areas of our current fee structure and cost basis that are no longer accurate. Notably, current fees do not capture all appropriate overhead and indirect costs. In addition, certain fees particularly in the building and safety and petroleum fee schedules are not based on accurate estimates of the time required to process some permit types.
On the whole current fees do not achieve full cost recovery. Current fee recovery rates as calculated in the MGT fee study range from 61 to 72 percent. Based on the results of the study, our proposal is to increase most permit fees to achieve full cost recovery. It is important to note that the findings in this fee analysis were based on the most current data available at the outset of this study which was the 15-16 and 16-17 budget information.
On the planning fee schedule we've maintained the same structure but reduced the number of fee categories by about 25%. The hourly rate for planning fees is currently $192 and that would increase by about 18%. We are proposing a simplified building fee structure that will significantly reduce the number of fee categories. On our structural building fees, the proposed structure includes nine base fee categories within a few broad categories of building types instead of the current 300 separate fees.
Variations to these base types are then accommodated by adding supplementary fee factors to the base fee. A similar structure with base fees and additional factors is also proposed for film permitting. The consolidation and simplification of our fee structure Will improve our customers ability to accurately estimate project permitting costs in advance. The recommendations consistent with county fee policy are to move to full cost recovery and nearly all permit areas.
The planning appeals fee is proposed to remain at the current subsidized level, to allow greater community access to the appeal process. Water heater and residential furnace permits are also proposed at subsidized levels. In building, the actual cost of permitting these items would typically represent a large portion of project costs. So the subsidy is proposed to encourage proper permitting for equipment that if not installed properly into code could pose significant health and safety risks.
Zoning code enforcement will also remain subsidized as unrecovered costs cannot legally be recouped through other permit fees. Still, the proposed fees come very close to full cost recovery with building and safety at an overall recovery rate of 99% and planning at 95%. Cost recovery rates, revenue levels, and surcharges will be discussed in more detail on the next two slides.
This table from the staff report shows the results of the cost and revenue analysis. The total costs column, column A shows the total costs related to permit fee services including direct salaries and benefits for planners, plan checkers, inspectors and petroleum specialists. Indirect costs which Ms. Payton discussed include salaries and benefits for supervisory and support staff as well as costs for services provided by other county departments such as auditor controller, treasurer and CEO.
And costs for services and supplies to maintain permitting services. This column also includes costs for services funded by surcharges, which are shown in detail on the next slide. Column B current revenue shows what our current revenue would be based on 15-16 budgeted costs and based on ideal circumstances such as full staffing levels, fully trained staff, and consistent permitting levels.
Column C, the proposed fee revenue takes those same ideal circumstances and projects out what the revenue would be at the proposed fee levels. These numbers include surcharges which fund services provided in other non-permitting divisions of the department. Column D showing increased revenue calculates how much more revenue we would generate through permit fees from 15-16 to proposed fee levels if the ideal circumstances were present in both years.
And column E shows the proposed general fund contribution level included as a subsidy for those few permit categories mentioned on the previous slide.
1:54 – 2:0216 turns
Supervisor Lavenino.
Thank you Madam Chair, so how much of that portion is the subsidy for planning appeals? Of that $275,000.
So that is $240,000 subsidizing planning appeals. A
quarter of a million dollars we subsidize people to come in here and challenge. Oh Lord I knew that was bad I didn't know it was that bad.
The revenue numbers on the previous table include revenue from surcharges which are detailed here in this table. The technology management surcharge is included in current fees and is proposed to continue. This revenue is used to maintain and upgrade technology related to permitting functions. The fee study also proposes to continue the current general plan maintenance surcharge, which funds support of the general plan and long-range planning.
The study proposes to shift this surcharge from the planning fees to building fees in accordance with trends of California jurisdictions. A new records management surcharge is proposed to be used to help fund the ongoing digitization of and online access to planning and building records. A new charge is also proposed to recoup the unrecovered portion of building and grading code enforcement costs, which is allowed through the State Health and Safety Code.
I will now turn it back to Dr. Russell for the conclusion.
Thank you Rachel, Supervisors. I'd like to address some process improvement issues because I know that will be a subject which will come up since the end of the prior economic downturn P&D has worked to rebuild its services and we're still not done in order to provide better customer services in all divisions we engage in constant process improvement since the end of the downturn we have enhanced service delivery and permitting Thank you.
The use of mobile devices for record keeping in the field, organizational changes to increase consistency and efficiency of service delivery. A focus on performance measures to gauge and improve, and we set our performance measures specifically a little bit out of reach to inspire staff to do better. And I have more examples process improvements that we have done recently as well as process improvements that we are planning on. We can show those if there's any interest in that and I'd also like to say that one of the key things in continuing to provide better services is having Adequate supervision of staff and adequate training of staff.
And that is one of the reasons that we need to have full cost recovery, quite frankly. As I mentioned, I have a more detailed list of these process improvements and those are available but I'd say that one of our themes here is leveraging online data and online services to enhance customer service in the permitting divisions. So our recommended actions are to improve the introduction, first reading of an ordinance amending fees for planning and development. Read the title and wait for the reading of the ordinance and continue the hearing to administrative agenda of April 4th 2017 to consider recommendations as follows.
Consider and approve the adoption, second reading of an ordinance amending fees for planning and development department services. Attachment A effective 60 days after adoption. And find that the proposed action is an administrative activity of the county which will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. It is therefore not a project as defined for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Supervisor Labunina?
Thank you Madam Chair I have a question, I'm sorry I don't remember your name from Erin, what did you factor in for increasing unpermitted work? So there's got to be a percentage of people that now see this new fee and determine I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to go that direction. Was that factored in at all?
No, what we considered was simply the time spent to process whatever permit that was being taken a look at. The only exception to that would be in the case of the building hourly rates. We did include some code enforcement unrecovered costs of code enforcement activity.
Okay because one of the things I've seen from just dealing with history and what lot of it was with first five and The cost of cigarettes, when you place a tax or an increased fee on something and then you're trying to project out what that's going to generate. I know a lot of times you just say okay the increase is x times how many hours? And this is the amount of money we're going to see where we're saying 2.8 million.
One of the things they didn't factor in or at least we didn't see with first five was they said we're going to sell this amount packets of cigarettes times as taxes. This is what we're gonna get and we saw substantially less than that because a lot of people determined at that point I'm gonna go different way so I think that was maybe a lost, and I don't think it's in there. It's just maybe that $3 million isn't what we're going to see. I've got a lot of other
comments. Dr. Russell did you have something you wanted to respond?
Well actually through the Chair, Supervisor Lavendino's comments really are timely in that I'd like to talk just very briefly about The major components of this study, the punchline being that we have a model here that has been thoroughly vetted by excellent consultants. That the auditor controller's office has torn completely apart and put back together again so as far as a model based upon certain assumptions we feel pretty good about it those are our costs. That said it's a model so we're going to need to monitor this moving forward and if we need to come back because the reality moving forward is different enough from the model that we need to change something, perhaps we're charging too much what it might be.
We will come back so as far as the accuracy also it's based on 15-16 data So given the best available data, we feel good. But again it will require monitoring and the last thing before I conclude is I just want to emphasize what has been said in a slightly different way. There's really two things going on here. One are costs. When you take the subsidy out to as much as we can to be consistent with existing policies and clearly that's a decision that it's up to the board. Our costs go up more However, that frees up general fund.
So how much general fund will be freed up? That remains to be seen but we won't have this quote if there is freed-up general fund, we don't have authorization to spend it so at some point during the upcoming year we need to look at that and either during or at the end of the year there might be a need for a budget adjustment for that general fund that is now freed up So that it can be repurposed, our budget is based upon repurposing a little bit of it in the department. There's likely going to be more that could be repurposed wherever the board would like to repurpose it. So I just want to emphasize those two things. There's the two components to the fee increase. One is the actual cost of providing the service has gone up. The other is we're taking the subsidy out.
And with that I will conclude, we are available for questions. Thank you very much.
Supervisor Labunino. Madam Chair.
Thank you. Okay. I'll let Peter go first.
Supervisor Adam.
Thank you very much Mr. Labunino. Yeah I just had one question right now and that is if anybody knows what is the percentage of the 226 that is attributable to pensions?
2:03 – 2:0913 turns
Supervisor through the chair, we don't have the exact number that is attributable to pensions. But I will note that this is based on 15-16 budget information and so as the pension costs rise in 17-18 and we see how that actualizes throughout the year, we would see what that impact is on our revenues.
That's not really what I was looking for. Is it safe to assume that 41 cents of every dollar, that's my recollection at the moment is that 41 cents of every dollar that we spend goes to pensions? Is it safe to assume that 41 cents of every 226 is going to do that? Or this is, since it's not full cost recovery exactly even in the beginning. It's probably a little bit more than that and then it's going to get worse as time goes on as we don't change the fees or as our costs go up.
Supervisor Adams for the chair. So I appreciate you pointing out the impact of pension, so a couple of things. The number you're thinking over the 41 that was county wide that we presented to that include public safety. So we would have to go back to see how planning's what the impact is on planning but as Ms. Lipman said this study is based on 15-16 budget information because that's when the consultant began her work.
Therefore, it does not include the increase in pension that we've seen that will be effective in 17-18. The department will have to track their costs, evaluate how the fees are tracking versus their expenses but the pension hit that we're seeing in 17- 18 is not reflected in these fees.
So what this means that we're not going to be able to keep up with this. We're gonna need another increase at some point down the road if we want to do anywhere near full cost recovery?
Supervisor Adam through the chair, potentially yes. However as I mentioned by removing the general plan subsidy that will provide general fund contribution subsidy that will provide exactly how much we're not sure yet and need to monitor it but that's going to provide some general fund which can be repurposed at the pleasure of the board It could be used to offset the general fund reduction that the department will see next year with no loss in service levels or it could be used elsewhere and we will deal with service level reductions.
Or possibly raise fees moving forward there are a number of possibilities that we will be carefully considering.
Supervisor Lavenino.
Thank
you
Madam Chair. You know most of the time that I hear and I think Supervisor Williams has said the same thing is it. Most generally don't get complaints every once in a while I will about the cost but more it's about the time and I'm curious if you know what we have our consultant here was there any study or do you do studies that talk about I know you did a time study of how long it takes but Has anybody looked at some sort of incentive? The built in problem I have with the fee increase is that we're incentivized. Now, I know you would never do this but we are incentivized as a county to take longer to do something. It actually helps us to delay something.
It's a financial benefit to us. So the question I guess I have is, do you ever look at incentivizing or Getting a project out or getting a work product done in a set amount of time. I could see like if we said okay, this is how long we've now determined how long it takes to do x piece of work. If it gets done in that amount of time, it's set on this fee schedule. If it goes longer there's some sort of reduction built-in. I'm just curious if you've seen a model like that?
You know, I think I would say that probably the majority of agencies that we do this type of analysis for have the majority of their fees are set on a fixed fee basis. It will cost you X number of dollars whether it takes an hour or ten hours and Santa Barbara County is P&D is one of the agencies who rely more heavily on actual time spent on different projects. I know of a handful of others that do the same thing.
We have, on occasion actually in our models, modeled what happens to the fees if we add staff. One of the things that we do when we're doing this analysis is to take a look at where time is spent You know all over the place whether it's fee related or non-fee related and when we take a look at volume of activity that tells us you know workload by FTE. And on occasion if we know that we have maxed out on workload, we have clients who ask us well what happens to the fees if we add in one more planner and one more inspector?
Okay. Well I have comments but that's all the questions I have right now.
Okay seeing no more questions we'll go to public comment.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have five requests to speak. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Mr. Caldwell to be followed by Joe Armendariz
2:09 – 2:154 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. Our first request and concern is that this is nearly a $3 million increase and there's been no public workshops. You guys do public workshops for all sorts of things we would like to see the staff And the consultant meet with the chambers, the contractors, the farmers and the oil industry. As well as private consultants that process land use issues in the county so that we could verify and validate what's going on here and get a different perspective than we can give you in three minutes.
90% of the revenue that you get for your general fund comes from property taxes. And what you're doing today is raising fees, nearly $3 million on the people that are trying to invest, create jobs and increase your revenue stream. If there's anything you should subsidize it's people wanting to invest. But instead, we still have the problems in our county. It's been greatly improved under Dr. Russell but we still have problems dealing with the lack of efficiency, timeliness and most of all certainty. There's people that spend tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars and they don't get out of the process alive.
We think the $226 an hour rate is absurd. We think it's only the beginning because of the pension issues, we think it's insult to injury that you would actually subsidize the appeals instead of subsidizing the people trying to do something. You subsidized the people that are trying to stop it to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars a year. What's missing from this proposal? This is a rubber stamp, business as usual status quo. We have nothing in the report about streamlining. We have no consideration about privatization. You know the fact of the matter is you could hire licensed engineers and licensed contractors for less than $200 an hour To go certify these things in the field and get out of the pensions and the benefits. And the one to two months a year that the county employees take off.
Think about it, how would you like to go pay a service that pays for the person's vacation, sick leave, and holiday in their pension? Is that fair to the regulated community? You know, the other issue is that Supervisor Adam when he ran for office used to talk about the fact that the licensed contractor, licensed engineer stamps a plan and submits that. Why can't the county take their word for that? Because their license is on the line. We want workshops and we also want you to come up with a study of how San Luis can do this so much cheaper. Thank you.
Joe Armendariz is our next speaker to be followed by Lisa Bedrogi.
Members of the board, I'm Joe Armandariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. First of all in our view this isn't a service, this is a process. A service would imply that there's a competitive alternative in terms of what they're actually paying for. Your staff as usual makes a great argument for a terrible idea we think this is an unethical immoral process Some people theoretically, philosophically suggest that perhaps maybe we should move to a tax-based system where people pay property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, transient occupancy taxes.
Andy reminds me that we're already paying all those things in addition to the fees that are now being imposed. Depending on who you listen to as much as 40% of everything we earn goes to the government. Perhaps maybe planning and development is a government service that most people are already paying for. Andy touched base on the privatization. The privatization criteria, Supervisor Adam I don't know to what extent that has been revisited. We've been calling for that to be revisited and reconsidered for many many years.
The bottom line is as it's been said I think by Supervisor Labanino and Supervisor Adam and even Andy this morning It's really at the end of the day The certainty and the process improvement that is at the core issue of this. I think last week or two weeks ago, Supervisor Williams suggested, and I was encouraged by his comments, that really at the end of the day, the most important reform that could take place would be adding more certainty into the process. And that the cost of these actual projects or the process is not really what is at issue. I would take issue with that in one respect. One of the things that I'm the most proud of after my service on the Carpinteria City Council was cutting our impact fees by 50% across the board. If you look at what's happening in the city of Carpinteria, you will see that there are some of the most dynamic technology companies moving into Carpinteria because the fee structure is probably Ironically considering it's a small coastal community, some of the lowest fees in California.
We did that because we understood that in order to incentivize economic development and economic vitality and wealth creation you have to lower the cost of doing business. And so we would submit that as you sit here on the eve of your budget hearings with a $35 or $40 million deficit, you ought to be thinking about how our local government Can be making it more profitable and less expensive to create wealth, to create economic productivity so that we generate the property taxes that are funding the essential core services of county government. Thank you.
Lisa Bedrogi, back to Senator Barbara for Lee Rosenberg.
2:15 – 2:223 turns
Good morning Chairman Hartman, members of the board. My name is Lisa Bedrogi of Kuvae Connections. I'm a private land use consultant and I specialize in agricultural activities. This morning was spent a good deal of time celebrating agriculture and the economic contribution it brings to our county. I'm here today to talk about the increase in staff fees and see it from a personal vantage point. I have been staffed at the Planning and Development Department as well as a private consultant of a career spanning almost 30 years.
First of all, I think that the fees should be scalable to the complexity of a project and experience of staff. To charge the same for a Planner 1 who's fresh out of college just learning the ropes and a Planner 3 is not equitable. These should be value based on the services rendered. I'd also like to know what percent of time is allowed for administrative overhead?
I know when I was a planning staff it was very little, it might have been 2 or 5%, we were allowed to actually budget our time towards administrative overhead. Which means that you have to really account for every moment that you're in the office. So say, for instance, you're working on a project. You have to use the restroom. You go and you meet somebody along the way. You talk about what your weekend was about. You come back to the project. All that time is still billed to the project.
I know that there's been a lot of increase in using mobile devices, and I use my mobile device as a private consultant. It was very easy to put my stopwatch on and keep track of the actual time I spend. If I have to use the restroom, I stop it, I go and I come back, and only the time I'm actually spending on a project is billed to my clients. I also question and have seen frequently on billing invoices .1 increments, which equals six minutes of time. And I question what can really be done in a matter of six minutes? Well perhaps you could go to the restroom and have that conversation but I question if you can really get meaningful work done and substantive issues resolved.
Higher fees would definitely dissuade applicants from doing business in the county and may turn more to seeking that don't ask, don't tell mentality. And investors from seeking projects outside of county limits. I do appreciate the singular based rate versus a lot of surcharges which is the current practice at least it's honesty in what's being billed but I question what is the greater certainty that's going to be given in permit costs? I'm still unclear on that.
Definitely there needs to be a paradigm shift in the service orientation of the Planning and Development Department. You need to be assisting applicants in avoiding unnecessary permits, whereas now there's a lot of time spent on the private side developing arguments, applicants needing to hire attorneys to get points made and across. It's just exorbitant costs and again it hurts our overall economy, your budget Good morning.
Once again, we are witnesses of an effort to bring in more revenue to the general fund. Three of our supervisors are passively looking at huge fee and cost increases in the Planning Development Department. We're on the precipice of another increase in permit costs and a deluge of permits. I quote from today's agenda, the Planning and Development Department is engaged in regulatory oversight of land development construction oil and gas development and film permitting.
If examined closely P&D is constantly in the process of making policy which task lies in the hands of the BOS. To wit, the embarrassing failure of Doreen Farr's favorite winery ordinance at a cost approaching $500,000. Now going a little bit back in history in mid-2016 Supervisor Wolf you emailed a call for support of 3rd District candidate Joan Hartman and that call was an extraordinarily revelatory statement.
And I quote when Doreen Farr was elected eight years ago I gained a solid ally And most importantly, a third vote that has allowed the current board to balance the budget. Restore our fiscal reserves, improve public health and safety and expand services to those most in need but it hasn't been easy and our most important votes are 3-2 I dread the thought of what our county would be like if we lost that third vote. It would set back all of our advances on vital environmental and social issues.
Besides being a terrible insult to North County Supervisors Adam and Labagnino, Supervisor Wolf's comments reveals something else. Santa Barbara County is ruled by an urban-centric elite majority that works very hard to preserve its dominance, and perhaps the most absurd representation of these comments is the contention that the third vote has allowed the current board to balance the budget.
I wonder where the $35 million came from between then and now? We all know there is that shortfall, plus around a billion in deferred pension benefits and an escalating infrastructural cost rocketing towards that same number. Adding insult to injury, current appeals fees cost about $500 whereas the appeals process costs over $9000 and over $10,000 for an appeal to the PC or Zoning Administrator.
Implementation of these fee adjustments recovery level will be approximately 95% with a 5% subsidy increasing annual revenues by about $1.1 million. Once again, the taxpayer falls victim to the ideological rigidity of certain members of the Board of Supervisors who are responsible for a much more Indelicate if I may say, thank you. An indelicate attack on these increasing fees that are ultimately on the back of the taxpayer.
Thank you Mr Rosenberg. Steven Pepe?
2:22 – 2:428 turns
Good morning, Chair Hartman and Supervisor. I'm Steve Pepe, the president of Econ Alliance, a not-for-profit 501C whose mission is to promote economic development in the North County. In my prior life, I spent 35 years accounting for my workday in mostly six minute increments. Determining cost by time bill rewards inefficiency and penalizes the efficient. In the private sector, you can see greater and greater emphasis to fixed fee arrangements for lawyers and accountants to avoid this kind of inefficiency.
In the private sector, the client can take their business elsewhere if they think their lawyer's charging them too much or padding the bills with too many hours, they go someplace else. With the county that's not an option. You have a captive consumer and a captive customer, and we all know that monopolies tend to get abused. And that's what history has taught us. And when you have a monopoly, you need to be very sensitive to your monopolistic power.
The board letter repeatedly talks about cost recovery. Nowhere is there any mention of the obligation in duty to avoid abuse and padding of time. Nowhere is there any mention of staff training about avoiding abuse and padding of time. Nowhere is there any mention on how to prevent abuse in the padding of time. Nowhere is there any mention of periodic spot audits to detect abuse and padding.
You may ask, how can time recording be abused and used to pad the applicant's cost? There are lots of examples. I'll give you just a few. Double billing. Billing two different matters at the same time. For example, travel time. You're driving from Santa Barbara to Santa Maria and you get a phone call. It's been 15 minutes on the phone. What do you do with that?
Waiting at meetings. Here most of your staff goes about their business but when you go up to Santa Maria the staff is waiting there. You may have five or six or seven or ten people for different matters and what are they doing? They're on their handheld devices. And again how are they accounting for those times? Participants at conferences or meetings recording different times for the length of the meeting or conference.
How do you adjust that? And overstaffing for conferences and meetings is one way that this gets abused, and that happens when there's not quote enough work to do so what are we going to do? So we'll send X and Y instead of just sending X. The county's current growing budget crisis with the risk of loss of jobs due to lack of funding is a powerful incentive to pad the time spent on matters. And finally, on appeals I would suggest there's an easy way to solve the appeal problem. That's to adopt lose or pays. If you appeal and you're successful, you shouldn't be charged anything. If you appeal whether it's your matter or somebody else's and lose, you should pay for it.
Thank you. Chair Hartman, members of the board we have an additional slip we just received from Kent Uplinger.
Good morning Chair Hartman, members of the board. My apologies for being late thank you for the time. I addressed this issue last week but I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that after the board meeting last week I had an opportunity along with Krista Pleiser from the Santa Barbara Realtors to meet with leadership of the department and I appreciate their time in sort of going over The process they've gone through, why they're coming before you with this item.
I guess from my perspective let me just say that I understand the financial situation that the county finds itself in and we certainly want to do what we can to work with you to address that. The goal of attempting to try and get full cost recovery from planning and development or at least going through the process so that you know what that looks like. You can make the informed decision on a policy perspective about what sorts of things you might want to continue to support and what things you want to go to full cost recovery on, that's great I'm glad they went through that process.
I think from our perspective there's two issues though. One is that there needs to be, I think a discussion especially amongst some of those who have to go through planning and development for items which I think you might want to look at providing some support too. What are those items going to be? How much support is going to come from the general fund to support those? What is the rationale for that? I think we should have that sort of conversation and I think there are folks who utilize the Planning and Development Department would like to have that conversation with you.
Secondly, given the level that we are talking about with this fee increase in some of these areas and I'm not saying it's not justified. In some cases it may not be. We need to talk about that but what I am more concerned about is that we're looking at some substantial increases and we're not really looking for any sort of tradeoff benefit to increase the benefits that are coming to the folks who are utilizing the service.
I know that in many cases for the Planning and Development Department, their costs are fixed. And so there is concern about the fact that if we don't sort of find a way to address this and there are cuts in that department services to the public could actually deteriorate. We certainly don't want to see that but I've got to assume having been a member of a planning commission in two different communities having served in other communities there are ways that we can look at processes that are going through permits that you have to get where we can limit the amount of time that's necessary on them Are there, for instance, areas where we can make some of these processes a little easier to get through if you're using certain services? If, for instance, you're doing interior remodel and you're using a contractor who meets a certain threshold.
Can't we just do over-the-counter permits for those? Can't we do permits that can be done online? Can we find ways to be able to get some of the easier things off the table for staff so they can concentrate on some of these more difficult things? These are some of the conversations I think we have to have. If we don't have those conversations and we simply move forward with this, we will be opposed to it. I think a lot of the business community will be opposed to it as well. Thank you.
That was our final speaker.
Dr. Russell would you like to comment on any of the public comments?
Yes thank you Chair Hartman. Okay, so last at the set hearing there was a request by certain supervisors that we have additional comparison counties. And so here are some examples Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Monterey, Marin, Sonoma you can focus where you'd like. We can focus on the 2,000 square foot single family dwelling as a good comparison point. By the way I should emphasize that in terms of So the point here is that we're still in the mix.
This is, you know, we're not jacking. Our new fees are not out of line with the rest of the state. Now San Luis Obispo County is quite a bit lower and so I made it a point of calling San Luis Obispo County Planning Department. The planning director there's a friend of mine and sometimes it's very difficult to sort of figure out what goes into a particular hourly rate or a particular fee. You would almost have to get in there and just sort of There are other comparisons there that I won't go into but And then of course, if you look at the board letter it includes cities granted that are not counties. But the city of Santa Barbara, the same first line 2,000 square foot single family dwelling there 11,500 and the city of Santa Maria is 6,750.
So even though our fees are going up, Somehow outrageous or inconsistent with what's going on across the state is simply not true. I have a couple of other comments, then I'll conclude. One of them is that for our planners that we do use a blended rate. That is our choice to use a blended rate. As opposed to saying Planner 1 you pay for this, Planner 2 you pay for this, Planner 3 you pay 75% of what would be the normal charge. So we're not penalizing applicants because they have somebody new working on their project. Also, we expect our planners to work and charge the cases 70% of the time so that's 30% non-billable.
Many of the things that one speaker said could lead to abuse, and he gave a number of examples. We don't do any of those things. And given the transparency of our process and the ability for people to do PRAs on us which we get every week. If we were doing any of that stuff it would be found out. We don't do that. We review time logs and case notes consistently. To make sure things, that's a supervisor's responsibility. It also is the responsibility of deputy directors and the assistant director. We're constantly monitoring staffing and workload when we have meetings of the executives in the department. We bring out the case stats, the number of hours that have come in the door. We say, hey are we adequately staffed? This is something we do a lot in terms of the increased benefits that some people would like to see.
Two things, one as I mentioned earlier This is, these are some recent process improvements. There's a lot more. This is something we're doing all the time. Process improvement is a constant for us. I'll give you a chance to look at that before I go to the next slide which is some planned improvements but The fact of the matter is that when we have planning, in particular planning permits, the complexity of the regulatory framework and the legal climate in Santa Barbara is such that sometimes things take longer. So if we were to go for example to a flat fee for all of our planning permits We would be penalizing those people who have a simple project that goes through with no problems. Then there's other projects that spin out of control, and there's threats and legal challenges and appeals.
The flat fee for those more complicated projects that really take longer through no fault of our own, that's for sure. We would have to raise that flat fee to a level That the people who get through the process more simply, they would be subsidizing those complicated projects. We do not see that as fair and these are some of the improvements we're working at now.
And there are certainly more, and I basically conclude by saying we're going to be going through this rebalancing effort. This is a big deal. What we're doing here today does not address all of the rebalancing effort. We started this process about a year and a half ago, and it's ironic that it sort of shows up at the same time that we're talking about rebalancing. But I can guarantee you that the kind of issues that will be looked Broad issues of how departments should be organized, how departments should be grouped.
Overall is the major changes in service delivery models? Those are coming. There's a committee, those are definitely things that are going to be looked at. That's not what we're doing here and it's not the purpose of what we're doing here. The purpose of what we're doing here is taking the customer service model that we have, which I think is a pretty good model. Always can be improved. We're always working on it trying to leverage technology but we're taking that model and we're saying okay what does that model cost at the same time that we're constantly trying to improve it? So if there's any other questions, we would be happy to address them but those were a few of the points that I wanted to make based upon the testimony that I heard from the public.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams, then Wolfe, then Lavinino and I assume Supervisor
Adam. Well first I would like to appreciate the comments of those that came in here critical but with reasonable requests and would like to push back a little bit against those who came in here critical and over-the-top. This effort is not immoral this effort is needed in the context of the situation we are in. And I'll begin the pushback by saying Number one, the first district is predominantly zoned ag.
We are an agricultural district not an urban one. I spent half my time growing up in a roach infested apartment at Isla Vista and half the time on an avocado farm so that makes me neither elite nor urban. And our districts are much more diverse than that. We are not a monopoly. There are other jurisdictions where people do projects in, I know very few applicants that only do projects in Santa Barbara County and the irony here is that The same, a similar effort that I engaged in the City of Santa Barbara was viewed as business friendly not being applicant unfriendly as is being characterized today.
And I think where the difference is something we should concentrate on a little bit It is that the effort to go to full cost recovery in the city of Santa Barbara was accompanied by an increase in service. And I do think that, that is a reasonable expectation. I don't know that it is possible to promise that in the short run but it is something that we should promise and we should push on in the medium and long term.
And, but I am supportive of this staff recommendation for the simple reason that cutting a department staffing or monetarily is not the way to speed things up. It never happens. You never speed things up by cutting the department and so to the business community that's come here today. I am taking this action, even though you are worried about it in your interest. It is not in applicants' interest for P&D to cut workforce and to go even slower in the process that is not a good idea.
I'm going to reiterate some of the suggestions that have been made that I consider very reasonable. Some of them came from people I don't normally agree with, but I thought were good suggestions. Some of them are my own suggestions. One is there's got to be cases where as mentioned a licensed contractor certifying something to be true is good enough. There has gotta be some cases like that.
Secondly, some repairs and replacements should probably be by right and not require a permit. And we should consider if we really want this to go faster adding staff in some places. We had to do that in the city as you saw from the fees in the city they're pretty high but it did make the process go a lot faster. And this is kind of something we should consider whether we should handle film.
Or whether we could create a cooperative agreement with another local agency like the city to have just one stop permitting for city, county as much jurisdictions as possible. Because there have been quantifiable questions asked of the film industry of sort of why would you do work here and why would you not? And one of the biggest things was How many different permits were required because most people don't just do a film, just in one jurisdiction. And when we started this at the city they would have to get three different permits just for doing it in the city from three different departments. We should try to if it's possible We are in a bad situation. This budget is going to have pain all around. I am into shared Making sure that the worst does not happen as a result of this budget.
And the worse would be to cut services that the department offers and make the process go even longer, as was articulated by the CEO while I was in the restroom. Thank you.
2:42 – 2:5911 turns
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you for that Mr. Williams.
I
have a few comments. First of all, Mr. Russell, Dr. Russell thank you for starting the work on this approximately two years ago that was before For those folks who want to talk about where we are right now with our budget, as Ms. Miyasato said that was before the whole pension issue. I think I'm going to speak for you and you can tell me if I'm wrong. I think what you were doing was looking at our policy and attempting to get full cost recovery for the services that your department provides. And also to make it more streamlined.
And I also want to thank, is it Erin? For the work that you did. Reading your report, I found it enlightening and I do think that the work that is performed here makes a lot of sense to me. You know, I could go through there's a lot of areas and permits that have been deleted. I think the number that was presented was 25%. So I'll just read a few. Some were in petroleum, the appeals of enforcement action has been deleted. Enforcement violation compliance spill releases, the cost has been deleted.
Energy public works facilities has been deleted. There is a whole, there's probably 12 areas that deal with the BAR that have been deleted so I think there has been an attempt to streamline and to not have as many different fee structure pieces within this proposal You know, I sent Dr. Russell and his staff a few questions yesterday about trying to get a better understanding about why there were some fees that didn't make sense to me. I think for instance the BAR in Montecito, there was a higher fee than there was in the other three BARs. I wasn't clear about why that happened and thank you for the explanation.
So I think that this was well thought out and I really appreciate the work that was done. I want to thank Dr. Russell for acknowledging the work of the folks in your department and how you build time. There were a few things that folks said that were very disconcerting and unfortunate as it relates to our employees. Using the words abuse and peddling of their responsibility.
And I think that's really unfortunate, so I appreciate the fact that you stood up for your employees Dr. Russell and I would and will do the same. My district is an urban district and we have hundreds of units of housing going up in my district including a hotel. And there has not been one, I repeat not one complaint from any of the developers calling my office about delays. I do hear from my constituents about issues related to traffic and so forth. Now, last week I did get a complaint from a constituent about the length of time it was taking to get a solar permit. A solar installation permit. I sent it to Dr. Russell and within 24 hours probably less than well yes within 24 hours I got a very detailed response and also an email from Dr. Russell to my constituent apologizing for the delay.
And this is an issue that I have been concerned about And I've talked to Dr. Russell about it before and, and I understand that people want if they're going to pay for something they want a service so from my constituents I want them to know that they can contact me when they have an issue and that information will be relayed to Dr Russell and his team and there will be a resolution. I think that the fee study that has been done has been well-reasoned.
And again, there's been a lot of fees that have been eliminated in totality and the increases for some may be $50 for a minor permit. I don't think that is necessarily overly burdensome as some folks have tried to make this sound. So I'm very much in favor of this And just as a closing comment, someone made a statement about a letter that I had written. And just for the record, it's not the first time that this person has made that comment and I've had the opportunity to read his statements a few times in the newspaper. So if you were trying to surprise me by your comments, you didn't surprise me.
I expect that I'll be hearing about that letter many more times. And I don't mind being bullied but I really don't like our staff being bullied. And I want to stand here and support the work of our department and the folks who are working day in and day out to make this a safe place for us to live. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Supervisor Lavinino and then Supervisor Adam.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I don't really even look at this as a P&D issue really. Dr. Russell is doing what he's supposed to do, he's trying to implement the policy that this board put in which is full cost recovery. So people pay and they want a service. The question I would have now is okay so they're going to pay $3 million extra, what else am I getting for that $3 million?
We aren't giving them anything else. There's no new program about incentivizing a quick turnaround of a permit, there's no new items that might be going to flat fees that would provide us certainty. There's really nothing there except You know, commitment that we will do the best that we can and I think we had that before the $3 million. And some of them are $50 increases and I understand that. I know one particular company that they spend $90,000 a year with Dogger.
And doggers on their site constantly. And with these new fees, they're going to be paying about $80,000 a year to Santa Barbara County and they, onsite will probably be only there two to three weeks out of the year. Now there's a lot of work that needs to be done in the office I understand that but it just seems like that there's something there. I disagree Dr. Russell just a little bit on when you said Talking about flat fees, because for me that's really where this gets to. I would rather have us go to the regulated community and say, because you're saying that the cost of a flat fee would go up, I get that. And there are subsidies for somebody that might have less of a complex issue.
But it's probably the same thing with building fees. There's probably plans in buildings that are more complex than others, so even though we have a flat fee for building fees, we're not looking at it for this. What I'd like to see us do is and I understand this is probably going to happen anyway but I guarantee you're going to be coming back to us pretty soon and having to increase the fees again because of our pension problem.
In the next go-round I would like to see us go to the regulated community and say hey, would you rather pay a higher fixed fee known cost even though it's going to be more than at least then they'd have buy in. The main thing with a lot of these projects is certainty and I think we've heard that so many times. And I understand that a lot of the delays are caused, there's a lot of things that happen. One of the things that I think we really need to just keep an eye on is the major concern that I have is and everybody in your department that I've worked with is very hard working.
The only issue I have is when projects go from one person to another and they have to at times because somebody goes on maternity leave, somebody goes on vacation, Gets a different job. And you might be all the way on A through Z, you're on M or NOP and the new planner gets it and starts having to look again at ABC and those are increased costs that goes back to the applicant. So I think that like I said, I'm pretty sure this is gonna go through. I'd also like to see us if we are gonna move it I think it's an 18% increase.
I think all in one shot, it would be nice to phase it in. And the other thing that I just have a problem with and Mr. Gazzone you might be able to help me with this because I've talked about this before and I can't remember why you kept telling me that I can't do this but why can't we eliminate the subsidy for planning appeals or why can't we make the loser pay on planning appeals? It just seems wrong.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, this is the area where we have looked at this before. We have looked at this before and one of the challenges is avoiding what the case law refers to as a steep barrier to administrative appeals. And in this case Ms. Richardson has actually looked at the cases. We can provide a more detailed answer but we think that the current approach actually is squarely inside the case law.
Well I know that because we don't make the guy pay, so right? But what I'm wondering if full cost recovery. So is there wiggle room in that case law or not? I don't want to get us into legal trouble but
Chair Harmon and supervisors, so we I think for this type of forum. I would say that the present approach is a Clearly legally defensible approach and one of the things that we on the litigation end of life Rely on all the time is that if someone does not exhaust their administrative appeal then they are actually barred from suing the county and there have been some cases in other jurisdictions where if the Appeal fee is too high or that structure to be too expensive. The issue becomes, can you actually require somebody to exhaust an administrative appeal with a high fee?
So that's why we think the current approach is a defensible approach.
All right well my number one take away from this is the next time that we do go to any increase I would really like to see us sit down with the industry and find out if a higher fixed fee is something they would be amenable to.
Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Williams.
Okay, so my big concern here is we're going to disincentivize development of all kinds and 90% of our discretionary revenue is from property taxes. And I think it's really important to be able to have people continue to add value and create wealth in our county. And I think this provides a pretty big disincentive short of some things that will make it better for them.
And I do subscribe completely to full cost recovery, that's no problem. But there's also the other side of it where we look at it more as an investment. And if you have somebody go out and create a million dollar thing that we get to tax, we get $10,000 out of that a year. And it's not 10,000 because it's 38% of the 1%, so it's 3,800 bucks a year. And long term investment in our community is where we get the discretionary money We have to do, and that we should do, and that we want to do.
So you know, we have to find a balance here. And I think that this isn't going to be the last time during this term that I'm going to hear this because I don't think we've got enough in to make it full cost recovery. The numbers come out for 1718, we're going to actually find that we are coming back again trying to do the same thing. So a couple of things that I could support this This item with the addition of is one, add a policy that when an applicant submits an initial application and upon its determination of completeness within 15 days we give an exhaustive list of fees and requirements to the applicant.
Any fee requirement that is left off the list may not be added back in unless it's a consequence of error, omission or change by the applicant. So we're putting ourselves on a standard to provide the certainty to applicants that we tell them exactly what's in there and we can't add to it later if we fail to get it right the first time. Then the second thing is to make a policy that there's a firewall, that this money does not ever go into long range planning. This has to be spent on permit acquisition or issuance I guess and inspections and that's all it can be spent on.
And then the third thing is at the bars get billed at actual cost per bar because I noticed that there was kind of an inequity, I think in the cost of these bars. And I think the North County is Asking, getting asked to subsidize some of the more intricate machinations of our South County guys because you know we people come to the North Bar and present their project and normally within one or two meetings they get it through. So I know that that's not the way it goes in the south and so I would like to have that bar separated out and have the actual cost I really liked Supervisor Williams suggestion that we take things from licensed contractors and engineers And don't have to second guess those things because of their California state license status.
I don't know how we incorporate that into this deal, maybe it's just a policy and I really love having certain things by right. Supervisor Williams then Wolf.
2:59 – 3:0423 turns
Well I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to make the motion to approve the staff recommended plan but with the addition that you would return to the board, I guess post-marijuana with recommendations for speeding up the applicant process including Whether in your written report or in the board presentation, a sort of reaction to some of the proposals that you've heard from supervisors today.
I'll second the motion. I'm just not clear about the post-marijuana.
I was just saying, I do not want to burden...
Dr. Webb?
I do not want to burden the department with another project until we finish at least the grafting of the marijuana ordinance and EIR.
So can we just say move forward with this, and then direct staff to come back at some future date with other recommended changes to procedure?
That's agreeable to me.
Okay we have a motion and a second. Was there any additional comment? Supervisor Adam I can't, just wanted to give you one opportunity.
Okay so we're not going to be talking about this at some other time. We're not going to do anything right now.
I'll just note that I do think that Supervisor Adam and others had good suggestions, and we should look at those in order to speed up the process. If we don't take action, the process will slow down. And so I hoped that the motion as I worded it would be inclusive of where all five of us want to go, which is to speed up the process. And that is the spirit in which the motion was made.
Thank you. I just want to say that if you don't incorporate these things in the motion right now, you won't see this again. My experience has been for quite a long time so I won't be able to support that motion.
Supervisor Wolff?
I was just going to call for the question.
Okay, I just wanted to say that I do support well first of all I think the long list of process changes that you listed suggest to me that there will be tremendous new efficiencies realized through technology and through your processes. I am intrigued to hear back from you at a later date about Supervisor Adams' suggestion, his first suggestion about after the application is complete can applicants get a list of the fees so they have greater certainty.
But as I understood everyone up here we do expect after the big work on the marijuana initiative to come back and give us a workshop an overview of all that you're doing and more in response to what you heard today. So with that, could you call the roll call vote? Mr. Lavinino?
No.
Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Wolk? Aye. Mr. Adam?
No
Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 3-2
We're going to keep going then here for the next item, departmental agenda item number two before we break for lunch. So would you read that into the record?
Chair Hartman I'm gonna have to let you know that I'm gonna have to go.
Will you be joining us at about for a closed session about one o'clock
I will not.
Okay. Thank you for letting us know.
3:04 – 3:104 turns
Chair Herman, members of the Board, Item 2 is from General Services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding approval of a third amendment to a lease with Bellwood Pipeline Inc in County Submerged Lands Offshore Carpentry. This is in the First District.
Go
ahead.
I wasn't sure. Thank you. Chair Hartman and members of the board, I'm Jeanette Pell, the General Services Director. And today I'll be presenting a brief presentation on the third amendment to the lease with Elwood Pipeline. And before I get going with the presentation, I'd just like to highlight a correction in the board letter on page two paragraph one in the background section.
Instead of Ineco requesting a long-term 25 year lease, it should read upon completion of a focused EIR. A potential long term lease will be considered. Next slide. So this item is being brought before your board to first approve the third amendment to the lease agreement between the county and Elwood Pipeline, a subsidiary of Vinico LLC. This short term 18 month extension will allow Vinico and the continued use of two existing submerged oil and gas pipelines offshore in Carpinteria.
And determine that the proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines pursuant to section 15301. Next slide, thank you. So Elwood is a subsidiary of Vinoco, operates one 10-inch oil pipeline and one 10-inch gas pipeline that go from platforms Grace and Gale located in federal waters through one mile of county submerged lands and then through two miles of the city of Carpinteria's submerged lands. The pipeline ends at Vinoco's processing facility located on shore in Carpinteria.
Elwood's pipelines that run through both city and county lands are shown in the area shaded in yellow, and it's at the top of the map. An amendment to the lease with the same new terms and conditions was heard by the City Council of the City of Carpinteria on Monday March 13th 2017. The council unanimously approved the amendment. Okay Since 1931, the county has held a trusteeship interest over state submerged lands offshore from Carpinteria under legislative acts delegating the state's public trust.
The 1965 lease granted a parcel of submerged lands 50 feet wide to be used for submerged pipelines and pertinent facilities. Since 1968, the city of Carpinteria holds trusteeship over the first two miles from the Carpinteria shoreline and the county retains the third mile. In December 2012, the county approved an assignment of a 1965 lease to Elwood Doing Businesses Vinico LLC and approved a First Amendment to the lease changing certain terms and condition. The purpose of the lease Was to more clearly define the use of the one 10 inch oil pipeline and one 10 inch gas pipeline.
Additionally, the annual lease payment was increased from $270, this is an annual change, to $12,600 plus a 2% annual increase. In September 2015, the county approved the second amendment to the lease providing an 18-month extension to allow Vinico's continued use of the submerged lands through March 26th 2017. The amendment allowed time to complete an assessment of the condition of the pipeline.
During the past 18 months, the condition of the pipelines have been assessed. And both Robert Brown engineers and independent third party engineering firm concluded the pipelines are fit for service and do not pose an immediate risk of failure. And additionally, the Federal Bureau of Safety Environmental Enforcement, VESI also concluded that there are no apparent problems based on inspection results.
Additionally, the pipelines we found are coated with a cathodic protection system used to control the corrosion of metal surfaces. And a focused environmental impact report will assist in structuring the next long-term lease extension that may include additional environmental protections. So Vinico has agreed to conduct an environmental impact report at their cost.
Although it is a focused EIR, the standard process will be followed to allow for public input, review and comment. Several issue areas are expected to be identified such as marine water quality, commercial fishing, land use and possibly others. Planning and Development's Energy and Minerals Division will manage the EIR process, and this process is expected to take approximately 14 months.
In conclusion, approving the Third Amendment will extend the term of the 1965 lease for a period of 18 months through September 26th 2018 to allow time to conduct a focused environmental impact report. This study will determine the feasibility of a new long-term lease agreement for Vinico's continued use of two pipelines transporting oil and gas from Platform Scale & Grace in the Outer Continental Shelf to Vinico Onshore Carpentry Oil and Gas Processing Facility. That concludes my comments.
3:10 – 3:1321 turns
Do we have any questions for Ms. Pell? Supervisor Lavenino?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Do we have an expert that tells us what the life cycle of that pipeline should be? We're looking at EIR. The thing's been there for 80 years or 70 years or something, and we're talking about going on another 25 years. I know it's inspected regularly but I'm just curious do we have anybody that knows how long one is supposed to last Do they just last
as
long as we're inspecting them routinely?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Labanino. In essence that's correct. Would you
introduce yourself please thank
you. Peter Cantle I am the Deputy Director for Energy and Minerals with the county yeah so to your question yes we have a third-party engineer in this case it's Robert Brown engineers Who does a review for, on our behalf of the integrity inspections that are conducted regularly of those pipelines. And works out any differences with the operator to make sure that anomalies that are identified in the interior or exterior of the line are being properly treated and cared for under proper circumstances and with good maintenance procedures. A pipeline like that can last for a long, long time.
I see no more lights up here. Are there any public comments?
No request to speak.
Any additional comments? May I have a motion?
I'll make a motion to move staff's recommendation.
And I will do a roll call vote, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Abinino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Wolk? Aye Mr. Adams? Aye Ms. Hartman?
Aye
Passes 4-0 with Supervisor Adams absent.
Okay let me ask the pleasure of the board should we continue to our third item or is everybody ready okay Mr.
Allen, please read item 3 into the
record.
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Item 3 is from Behavioral Wellness. It's a hearing to consider recommendations
regarding behavioral
wellness' annual liabilities update.
3:13 – 3:232 turns
Dr.
Gleickhardt? Well, good afternoon supervisors. I'm here today with our annual update on the behavioral wellness liabilities. Our recommended actions today are to receive and file this report updating known and estimated liabilities for the Department of Behavioral Wellness. I'm going to review with you our current status, but also give a little bit of context for the supervisors who are new and may not be fully aware of our history with this issue.
A year ago March 15, 2016 Behavioral Wellness presented information regarding the department's known and projected financial liabilities of $2.2 million as of January 31st, 2016. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an update on extinguished, that is paid known and estimated liabilities as of January 2017. Since the March 2016 reports, liabilities have decreased to 1.5 million. This decrease primarily resulted from liabilities being finalized at a lesser amount than previously anticipated coupled with minimal new liabilities.
Prior year liabilities have amounted to as much as 19.4 million, as reported in May 2012 and have steadily declined in prior reports of this department to the board. Of 9.5 million in December 2013, 7.5 million in June 2015, 2.2 last March. Liabilities in this current update are 1.5 million which is significantly lower than in prior years. By way of background, Behavioral Wellness has many external funding sources that account for 97% of the revenue received and as a result has very high audit exposure.
Each source of funding has specific guidelines and restrictions and is audited separately. Funding sources often have both financial and programmatic audits. The department is often challenged with lengthy delays to receive funding, as well as delays in cost settlements and the audit appeals process. It takes an average of 7.8 years for behavioral wellness to reach full resolution on cost report audits appeals through the state administrative appeals process. Most of these appeals.
Have been settled, and it did not make it to a formal judicial hearing. And as such there has been no determination of the validity of the state audit adjustments. The department currently has four years that is fiscal year 06-07 through 09-10 of outstanding appeals in various stages of the appeals process. Audits must be paid up front, although the vast majority of state findings are appealed. The department's largest liability exposure relates to cost report settlements and audits for federal financial participation. Or FFP, which you will see on some of our charts. The remaining liabilities on the balance sheet as of January 31st 2017 all primarily relate to cost report settlements and audits for prior periods.
MHSA, which is a large portion of our funding in the Mental Health Services Act or Prop 63 was recently examined in the triennial review that the department participated in February. Preliminary feedback from the program review was very positive. However, the financial components remain unaudited and this was a proposition that passed in 2004. So our MHSA continues to be a high exposure area due to the large dollar amount received and the complex funding restrictions.
The next two slides give you an example of the time frame for a typical cost report settlement, so this is looking at the years 09-10. And our initial cost report for that year was completed by us in December 2010. The reconciled cost report was completed two to three years later in December of 2013. And the state settled with the county on the final cost report in March 2014, this process continues on the next slide.
Sorry, the cost report settlements audits and appeal time is completely controlled by the state. So it's 3.6 years average time for the state to complete the cost settlement process. So our last completed settlement is 10-11 fiscal year. And we do anticipate that our cost report settlements to be minimal in the future due to internal restraints and controls that we've put into place. However, we have to always anticipate some degree 1% to 2% of cost settlements because of the variability in Claiming in the costs and changing rules at the state level. The department is reimbursed provisionally at an estimated rate, and then must settle to a final rate. So continuing again with the boxes across the top, we moved the cost report auditing Which happens five to six years after the fiscal year end close, so that happened December 2016.
And then we have an informal scheduled appeal hearing June 1st of this year where we hope our report will be finalized. So again, we go to 5.8 years, the average time for the state to audit county records. Our last complete audit is the 9-10. And we don't receive any notice of the state's perceived unallowable items until the audit is finalized five to six years later.
So 7.8 years is the average time until the audit appeals are finalized, and our last completed audit appeal was for 5-6. So those years between 0203 and 5- 6 were settled with a 43% refund to the county. So our process of appealing does yield benefit. So, the validity of the state's adjustments is really unknown until a decision is rendered at a judicial hearing and possibly any appeal to a superior court is resolved.
All of our prior appeals have actually settled at the earlier judicial hearings. Okay, so this goes to the basis of this report here. Again, this is spread over two slides so I'll just walk you through it. Last year we reported that as of January 2016 our outstanding liabilities were $2.2 million. In this past year we have had a few positive adjustments. About 600,000 in liabilities were adjusted. The 910 cost report was around 600,000 lower than originally anticipated as fewer adjustments were actually posted when the state posted its audit. And then we paid about 200,000 in liabilities, The other was about $14,000 in the 2012-13 alcohol and drug program cost settlement. So that brings us through the third box, fourth column I guess.
At the top and then moving to new liabilities about $100,000. The 1112 ADP audit of one of our contracted providers amounted to about $37,000 and a 1415 outpatient chart review of our county operated clinics was about $35,000 so putting all this together as of January 2017 are outstanding liabilities have been reduced to 1.5 million These are 100% funded through reserves that we established in prior years.
So the department has improved our controls over cost reports and estimates cost settlements for fiscal year 2012, 13 and beyond will be positive. Future audit recoupments are anticipated to be less however this is really contingent on state audit procedures and their interpretations. We're not alone, many counties face challenging audits due to state interpretations of law and audit protocol.
Audits for fiscal year 06-07 through 9-10 are now in various stages of the state's administrative appeals process and I mentioned we have a hearing scheduled June 1st. The department was successful at challenging state audit findings in 08-09 and formal appeals resulting in a refund of $759,000. The remaining balance of the audit which is approximately 2.3 million will be healed at a future formal hearing scheduled for October 2017. So all this is to say it's always a long process We request that you receive and file this report updating the known and estimated liabilities of our department.
And I'm happy to answer any questions.
3:23 – 3:2720 turns
Seeing no, Supervisor Lavanito?
Thank you Madam Chair, and I did read it in the staff report but just refresh my memory. So we've added staff to the audit portion of your department correct over the last couple of years
Supervisor Lavagnino through the Chair, we have added additional staff in quality monitoring but not specifically to the fiscal staff that do all the cost report preparations audits and appeals.
So have we just gotten better? I mean how did we get from 19 million to a million? We're just getting better at what we're doing?
Supervisor Lavagnino through the Chair The 19 million certainly predated me.
No, it didn't unfortunately predate me.
My understanding is that with support from the board, the large liabilities were extinguished. And as a result of that issue many additional quality controls were put into place so that we can reduce our risk for audit.
So what I'm saying is we just haven't gotten lucky? No it's
not a matter of luck, it is a matter of planning and conservative fiscal management.
I think Mr. Guzzone
is looking- Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I'd just like to add on to that. That I think the figure that Dr. Glacorn mentioned about averaging on some of these years a 43% return on the challenged amounts is significant. Our county is one of the few counties who actually gets that kind of return. And I think it's a testament to some good work at mental health in helping us be better prepared for these audits and they do last for awhile but with 43% coming back, it's significant investment that comes back to us.
CEO Ms. Saddle?
Chair Hartman, I just wanted to add because our auditor controller is in the back, Theo Filotti, so his staff and CEO's staff have been working consistently with behavioral wellness staff on these issues since these issues all arose and those meetings continue, so I want to thank him and his staff as well.
And Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, thank you Dr. Glycorn for this history as unfortunate as that was. You know we're seeing challenges now that was an incredible challenge back in 2012 I just want to I just want to acknowledge your work, Dr. Glaghorn and the cooperation and the exemplary work from County Council has been extraordinary and of course with Mr. Filotti's office and CEO because it was such a massive hit to the county all heads came together and you know I'd like to be confident Anticipate this is not going to happen again and that actually we'll be seeing some money come back back in October of 2017, but I think Vigilance we have to continue to keep up that vigilance because the hits to the county are extraordinary. So thank you for your presentation
Okay, mr. Allen do we have any public comment slips?
No request to speak I'll move this item that we accept this return
and once again a roll call vote on
Mr. Levenino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Wolff? Aye Mr. Adam? Ms. Hartman?
Aye
Passes with four ayes and one absentee, Mr. Adam
3:27 – 3:323 turns
Thank you. Mr Gazzani would you describe our closed session agenda
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the Board will consider three cases of existing litigation. Bordigari v. County, Keller v. County and Malone v. County. You also have one conference with real property negotiators for a property located at 154 Cali Drive, Goleta. You will have a meeting with labor negotiators concerning all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives.
As well as one conference with legal counsel for significant exposure to litigation, one case of anticipated litigation. My estimate is between 90 minutes and two hours.
Okay so we'll reconvene in about two hours and we now recess. Hi. Yeah.
3:37 – 3:461 turns
Hello. Oh, Hello everyone. You. Hi.
3:48 – 4:261 turns
Music you Hi, everyone. Hello. Music playing Hello. You. You. Yeah. Yeah. Hello. You. Hi. Music Hi, everyone. you Music Hi. Hi, everyone. Welcome back.
4:32 – 4:341 turns
Yeah. Yeah.
4:40 – 4:411 turns
Welcome to the Board of Supervisors. Hello. Music playing.
4:47 – 5:371 turns
You. Hi. you you Music playing. Hi. Music Hello. You. Yeah. You. Yeah. you . Music Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Music. Hi. Background music playing. Background music playing. Yeah.
5:42 – 5:501 turns
Hello. Hello. Hello everyone. Oh, Welcome.
5:53 – 6:041 turns
You. you Hi, everyone. You. Music Hello. Hello. You. Music
6:05 – 6:101 turns
Yeah. ♪ They got it. Good afternoon, we're reconvening the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting of March 21st 2017 in the Santa Barbara hearing room. Mr. Gazzone would you report on closed session?
6:10 – 6:112 turns
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the Board considered three matters of existing litigation. Board of Gary v. County of Santa Barbara, Keller v. County of Santa Barbara and Malone v. County of Santa Barbara. We also met with real property negotiators concerning property at 154 Kelly Drive in Goleta. We met with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives And you met again with County Council for one night of anticipated litigation, significant exposure. There are no reportable actions.
Thank you so I adjourn this meeting and we meet again in two weeks on Tuesday April 4th 2017