Board of Supervisors — 2017-04-11

Hi.

Good morning and welcome to this April 11, 2017 meeting. Do you have to have one?

Can you hear me?

Thank you. Good morning and welcome to our April 11, 2017 meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County here in the Santa Maria Hearing Room. Mr. Allen would you call the roll?

Ms. Wolff Mr. Adam, Mr. Lavagnino, Mr. Williams, Ms. Hartman.

And next we need to approve the minutes of April 4, 2017. May I have a motion to approve? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved and we have a CEO's report Ms. Miyasato.

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, this is just an announcement to let our viewers know and the public know that next week we'll be having a week of budget workshops. They start on Monday. It will be Monday, Wednesday, and Friday in the Santa Barbara Admin Building starting at 9am. And at the workshops your board and our public will hear the department's work plans for the coming year As you know, we're having some fiscal challenges so departments will talk about service level reductions and also requests for restoration or expansions and give an overview of our budget. So that's open to the public. All materials are posted to our website as well.

Thank you. So turning to our administrative agenda, we have three honorary resolutions A26 through A28. May I have a motion to approve? And all those in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Would you read A26 into the record Mr. Allen?

I think we're going with 827 and 828 today, 826 being an honorary resolution. And so let's start with 827. And 827 is sponsored today by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution to commemorate Equal Pay Day in Santa Barbara County. And I want to announce that we're going to be presenting this resolution both in North County and South County. So we have Pat Gravala is here in North County. Pat, can you come on up to the podium? That'd be great and then I think Jill Kingdon is in Santa Barbara with some other individuals and Russ is there as well so I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record and then we'll make the presentation.

Whereas more than 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act women especially women of color continue to suffer the consequences of unequal pay and whereas according to the U.S. Census Bureau women working full-time year round in Santa Barbara Typically earn 87% of what men earned and whereas nearly 4 in 10 mothers are primary breadwinners in their households, nearly two-thirds are primary or significant earners making pay equality critical to all families' economic security. And whereas a lifetime of lower pay means women have less income to save for retirement and less income counted in Social Security or pension benefit formulas. And whereas fair pay strengthens the security of families today and eases future retirement costs while enhancing the American economy.

Whereas, the month of April and year 2017 symbolizes the time when the wages paid to American women catch up to the wages paid to men from the previous year. Therefore, let it hereby order and resolve that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors urge the citizens of Santa Barbara County in the state of California to recognize. The full value of women's skills and significant contributions to labor force and further encourages businesses and employers to conduct an internal pay evaluation to ensure that women are being paid fairly. Passes adopted today.

Thank you for honoring us with the resolution and I just want to say that it, I represent the American Association of University Women and I'm president of the Lompoc-Vandenberg branch. And I have with me today Leslie Sevier who's a member and Martha Height who is a member of the Santa Maria branch. And our association is committed to supporting fairness and compensation, equitable access and advancement in employment. And vigorous enforcement of employment anti-discrimination laws. So our equal pay day was observed on April 4th this year, and that date symbolizes how far into 2017 women must work to earn what men earned in 2016.

So while the gap has narrowed, it still continues and it is catching at a slower rate than it used to. So it is projected that it will be 2152 which I will probably not be here by the time that women are paid equally as men. So we've provided each supervisor with a copy of publication that was printed by our parent organization called The Simple Truth, which talks about the gender pay gap. So again thank you very much for recognizing us and I think Martha has a few words.

Good morning Martha Hite from the Santa Maria branch, I'm a board member. And I just have a very short paragraph to read and this is presented by my AUW National Association. Many stay at home and part-time working mothers will eventually decide to return to the full time workforce. And when they do, they may encounter a motherhood penalty that extends beyond the actual time out of the workforce.

Experimental research has documented that employers are less likely to hire mothers compared to childless women. And when employers do make an offer to a mother, they offer her a lower salary than they do other women. Fathers in contrast, do not suffer a penalty compared with other men Many fathers actually receive a wage premium after having a child. Good for them, but they didn't actually go through labor like women did.

Thank you.

And can we go to Santa Barbara? Hearing room is there anybody there who would like to speak? Apparently not. Okay so would you read the next item into the record Mr. Allen?

Our second resolution today is item A28 sponsored by Supervisor Adam. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2017 as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County and recognizing the Orchid Academy students for their achievements in the poetry out loud competition, and we have Sarah Rubin and Hannah Rivacava here from the Arts Commission come on up. We have Dennis Smitherman also from the Arts Commission.

Rhett Carter, Graham Colbara, Derek Sportsman and Chloe Shelley. So if everybody would come on up to the podium and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas since 1996, the Academy of American Poets has designated April as National Poetry Month to highlight the extraordinary achievements and ongoing legacy of American poets and to increase the visibility presence and accessibility of poetry in our communities and culture.

Whereas numerous presenters including the County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara City Poet Laureate are offering free public poetry events throughout the month, including First Thursday Cultural Nights that include poetry readings by the Santa Barbara poets throughout the county and in conjunction with the Santa Barbara Public Library. And whereas the Regional Poetry Out Loud National Recitation Competition Program through partnership with the California Arts Council, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Poetry Foundation helps local high school students master public speaking, build self-confidence and learn about their literary heritage.

And whereas over 2,000 high school students countywide from seven local high schools participated in the Poetry Out Loud event. The entries were students from Dos Pueblos, Cabrillo, Carpinteria, Laguna Blanca, the Orchid Academy, Pioneer Valley and Santa Maria High Schools. And whereas the Orchard Academy High School students Chloe Shelley and Derek Sportsman finished in the top two places in the county competition held at the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors Hearing Room on February 15, 2017. This illustrates the Orchid Academy's commitment to outstanding literary education. And whereas Santa Barbara County was represented at the Poetry Out Loud State Competition in Sacramento the weekend of March 12th, 2017 by Chloe Shelley from the Orchid Academy and she was one of 43 students from 39 other counties across California.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this month of April be proclaimed as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County, and be it further resolved that the Board of Supervisors offers congratulations to both Orchid Academy students for their exceptional finishes and representation at the Poetry Out Loud competition this year 2017. Passed and adopted today.

Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'm here today with Hannah Rubel-Cava who administers the Poetry Out Loud program for the county and Dennis Smitherman who is chair of the Arts Commission. It is our distinct honor to introduce Chloe Shelley and Derek Sportsman, Rhett Carter and Graham Calabria from Orchid Academy High School. Chloe and Derek achieved first and second place respectively in the 2017 Poetry Out Loud competition. Their pool of competitors was almost 2,000 students across the county and their performances left the judges in awe. This was truly a community effort with past Poets Laureate serving as judges, as well as a professor from Allan Hancock College. We were all impressed by Chloe and Derek's incredible speaking skills, composure, presence and interpretation of the written word.

Chloe and Derek were supported by an incredible collaboration between the faculty and administrators at Orchid Academy I think eight different faculty members, the largest cohort we've seen collaborated on this program in a supportive structure that really enabled the Orchid Academy students to excel. These dedicated faculty members represented by their principal Rhett Carter and Graham Kolbara helped Chloe and Derek to realize their incredible depth of talent and abilities.

We are happy to welcome everyone to the podium to share with you how wonderful they are and how happy we are to have them today thank you.

Yeah, I can't take any credit at all other than their security guard for the day. I'm just shipping them over here make sure they get home safely so the students that I'm proud to be a part of the lives of some special students that I work with at Orchid Academy and Derek and Chloe are two great examples of that. So thank you for you guys for taking the time to set this up and honor them in their work because they are special young man and woman so thank you

I also wanted to thank you for both recognizing the program and really all the different organizations that make this program possible. Honestly, as an English teacher and as part of our faculty, I can say it's one of the most rewarding experiences we have all year. We have all 600 of our students participating in just a really great long month of working with students to understand language and performance and their society and just has immense rewards so thank you so much.

Hello, we would just like to thank all of you for recognizing us and our school's program and the use of Poetry Out Loud as a teaching curriculum and a way to allow the students to express themselves at our schools. So thank you for recognizing this and thank you for recognizing its legitimacy and thank you for everything.

Thank you and maybe next year we'll get a chance to hear the poems. Does any supervisor have an administrative item that you'd like to pull? Supervisor Adam?

A12

please.

A12 I'd like to pull A9, any others? Okay two on A12.

Yes Madam Chair I'd like to pull A5 just for a separate vote.

Any others? Any from the public?

Chair Hartman, members of the board. From the public I have a request to speak on item A12 and on item A22 and I just want to note for the record that we did post an addendum on Friday which in the first instance added item A29 to our administrative agenda this was a resolution that was honorary today honoring the court appointed special advocates CASA for their contributions to the support of children in celebrating their new location partnership with Santa Barbara County And also we had a request that we withdraw item D5 from the agenda today. That's from community services. This was related to the draft fiscal year 17-18 action plan and draft 14-15, 15-16, 16-17 action plan substantial amendments for the home investment partnership consortium and if we could get a motion just to withdraw that item that would be great.

So moved. Second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So would you read A5 and get the record please Mr. Hartman?

Chair Hartman, members of the board item A5 is from the County Executive Office this is to consider recommendations regarding the proposed ordinance establishing a non-personal cannabis cultivation related operations registry program.

Supervisor

Wolf? Thank You Madam Chair just wanted a separate vote on this.

I'll move this item

And would you do a roll call vote, Mr. O?

Ms. Wolfe?

No.

Mr. Adam? Aye. Mr. Lavagnino? Aye! Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 4-1. And would you read item A9

into the record

please? Chair Hartman, members of the board, Item A9 is from General Services. This is to consider recommendations regarding the San Yanez Valley Airports Authority's response to the San Yenez Valley Airport review in the 3rd District

Thank you and do we have anyone from the airport authority here today? Would you come up, I have a few questions.

Sean Knight president of the San Bernardino Airport Authority

Thank you for the great tour that you gave to me and my staff. I was really impressed by what a tremendous job you do out there and how much money you bring in, in terms of grants. With regard to your response to the report however, I have two questions. The first has to do with the Brown Act training. And as I understand what you're saying, it's that you will give everyone a Brown Act manual on the board and they will certify that you indeed gave them the manual. And I'd like to see if you could do any better than that. That they have some actual training and that they attest that they read it or engaged in the training.

You know, initially that's what we set out to do. I think you may have been familiar there was two parts to that. I feel a fortunate recipient of training that I received from sitting on school boards here for Santa Barbara County when we were put into a workshop and they worked with us to make sure we understood the Brown Act and also provided a nice handbook for us to use We found that wasn't available given we were separate from the actual county.

So we went in to look for our own training and found that to provide it from a private service was going to cost us thousands of dollars, so this seemed like a compromise finding A document that explained what the Brown Act was, how we needed to operate under the Brown Act and that we had a signature from each and every one of our board members stating they had received it.

And understood that we were operating under the Brown Act. I'm certainly open to some ideas. Everybody seemed to think that was satisfactory. I proudly say that we've been in operation, or at least the authority was established 25 years ago. We've never had any issue with any Brown Act violations until three or four years ago where they told us something that we did was potentially a violation and we learned from that and moved forward. We've been very careful to make sure that we understood the violation moving forward.

I think at the very least people would certify on the board that they have read and understand the manual, not just that they received it. Okay and item number three has to do with the inspection program for the hangers that you're supposed to have going by July 1st 2017. And I just wonder if you could expand a little on that and give us some insurance that it's really, that you've created an ad hoc committee but are you able to actually accomplish

There's two parts to this, just for some of those that may not understand. Half of the hangars on the San Ynez Airport are actually owned by the county and so we as the authority have a license with the people that utilize those hangers. That includes things like inspections or ahead of what the FAA is mandating at least as far as the new rules coming out in July. The other half of the hangers are privately owned.

People who are in those hangars have a lease with the county, but they actually built the facility or bought that facility. Those are the more difficult ones for us because we just don't have a vehicle in place that allows us to open those doors and just do inspections. One of the concerns I had with this new rule coming down is the federal government will We put new rules out and unfortunately again they just don't give us the vehicle for enforcement in a variety of ways.

The ADO down in Los Angeles that represents the San Ynez Airport, again could only tell us that if we're in violation of any federal rules it's just part of the grant assurance program that we put in jeopardy and the grant dollars that we have received in this airport They ask that we adhere by the federal rules. I had explained to Ms. Pell and Jeanette Services that, I think the best vehicle for us moving forward to make sure everybody's in compliance with a variety of federal and also county and state rules will be the review and the change of ordinance 3310 chapter 4 which is outdated. That we may be able to put language in there that allows us to maybe do an annual inspection for a variety of reasons. To make sure they're in compliance with having an airplane in there as the FAA would like to see, but also to make sure from the county level that we're not storing high levels of flammable fluids and stuff in there because we just don't make those annual inspections nor do we have the ability to do that right now on the private hangars.

We do in the county hangar though.

And have you begun that inspection program for the county hangers?

We do that on a regular basis. We've done that ever since we... So if somebody has a license agreement with the county hanger, they understand that the aircraft that's in that airplane is owned and registered to whoever has that license and a lot of the things that the FAA is handing us down has already been covered in our own local rules for those hangers. The issue is our private hangers.

And it's a very important issue, I think if it's a safety concern. When will we hear from you next?

Keep in mind, there's two parts to it. The safety concern is not being addressed from the FAA standpoint. They're just wanting to know and the gist of the new rules is they're asking people that have hangers on airfields use them for aviation purposes. And so ultimately that's what they're asking the airport to do. There are bigger concerns I think that we have as the operators at the airport to make sure that stuff that is in the hangers is safe.

Things like flammable fluids and stuff, that would be more from a state and local. So that's the two issues I think we're trying to combine into one potential solution possibly with the update of the ordinance. We're meeting on a monthly basis. We have three new ad hoc committees basically to address the master lease that we've got with the airport, the new leases that are coming due for the private hangers as well as the ordinance and updating the ordinance as well.

And with the new leases will you build in the authority to inspect?

The ad hoc committee ultimately will make a recommendation to the board, so I haven't seen what the ad hoc committee has put together in detail yet. But I expect that there will be some language in there to address that.

And again, I'm relatively new on the board. Do we hear from you on an annual basis or will we not hear again for some time? Maybe Ms. Pell could answer that for me.

I'm willing to come in and update you as often as you'd like.

Okay, I'd like a progress report. Thank you.

You got

it. A9, oh that was A9-A12

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item 812 is brought to the board from the Legislative Program Committee. It's to consider recommendations regarding a proposed advocacy support position on HR 731 Carbajal regarding the California Clean Coast Act. And I have a request on this from Mr. Caldwell.

And Mr. Adam pulled it so let's have Supervisor Adam go first.

Well I'll certainly listen to Mr. Caldwell before I-

Okay. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab. Now I could imagine that somebody could argue that well this is a recommendation for Supportive legislation and there will be no impact unless the legislation gets passed. However, the fact of the matter is on these board letters you have boxes to check. And as we know that oil is taxed as property.

We know that we have probably two out of the top ten property taxpayers are involved in offshore oil. And the other thing that people forget is offshore oil is not owned by oil companies, it's owned by the people. The oil companies lease their right to go after that oil and then they pay a commission to either the state or federal government. So the oil belongs to the people and the money goes to the government except for that which the companies get a fee for.

So what we're objecting to, first of all we think this is an exercise in futility. This is tilting at windmills considering the current Congress that we have. That you guys are making a statement and wasting people's time but then there comes the insult to injury. So on the boxes will this impact job growth and economic vitality? No. Will it impact fiscal stability? No The fiscal impact on the county, instead of checking the box revenue decrease they check the box undetermined. Well you can determine that impact by taking off two out of the top ten taxpayers in the county and the bottom line here is the oil industry has been historically important And in fact, there's also another box there about whether it'll have an impact on the environment.

Even UCSB admits that the seat tents and the drilling has reduced the oil seepage. And with regard to greenhouse gases The seeps off the coast of UCSB equal the amount of cars and trucks on the freeway every day. See, bottom line is if you don't drill, the pressure will increase, you're gonna have air pollution. So this thing is wrong on so many different levels. We'd ask that at a minimum, if you're gonna support the legislation, just at least be honest with the rate payers and taxpayers and the citizens and check the right boxes.

Thank you.

Supervisor Adam.

OK well just item 7 on that same attachment the word impact doesn't have any meaning there because you can't tell whether it's positive or negative And so you could check any box and they would, you could interpret it however you'd like to. So it has no meaning and I just think that this whole thing is a grandstanding exercise and basically I just want to roll call vote on it.

Madam Chair, that's why we brought it out of the Legislative Committee is so that everybody could have a chance to voice their opinion on it instead of just alleged committee. So I will wait for someone to make a

motion.

Well let's just go back there for a second. I think we do and Supervisor Adam brings up a really good point about the boxes and we probably do need to take a look at We'll bring that back to the Ledge Committee and figure out positive or negative is probably a good thing in a modified form because you could say job growth yes, well even fiscal stability or whatever. You could interpret it either way so we will take that as an action

item.

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair I was just going to go forward and move this item. Is there a second? Any further

discussion? Supervisor Wolf, did you have any? No. I was just waiting for the vote. So would you call the vote?

Ms. Wolfe? Aye Mr. Adam? No Mr. Lavendino? No Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 3-2

And A22

Chair Hartman and members of the board item A22 from Supervisor Hartman is an appointment of Janet Blevins to the Air Pollution Control District Community Advisory Council And I have a request on this from Mr. Caldwell as well.

I would say in the 26 years that I've been coming before the board, I've probably pulled less than five of these because we completely respect or try to anyway your appointment process because we consider it's just discretionary. And I served on the CAC at the pleasure of one of the city councilmen from Guadalupe for a time. This committee Deals with highly, highly technical stuff.

And even though I have a background in industry it was hard for me to sit on this committee and again I'm not trying to make this personal in any way shape or form. I'm going to just talk to standards. Your appointment And I've talked to different people on the CAC. They believe that she does not have the technical knowledge to really fulfill this role in a way that would serve your purposes and that she has a real problem being objective.

And you know, I kind of think like an analogy with Supervisor Williams appoint me on an Earth Day committee He's thinking about it, but I think he decided no. The point is there are some people that the glove just doesn't fit and what this committee is supposed to do is kind of look at a project and then look at the standards in the law and see whether or not everything's comporting versus somebody saying I'm against the project.

It's not the purpose, it's not the right venue and we'd ask that you reconsider. Thank you.

I believe this is a continuing appointment and I will give it some serious thought in the future, but I believe this is a matter of my discretion and doesn't require a vote. Am I correct Mr. Gazzone?

Supervisor Hartman under the APCD CAC bylaws the appointment is actually effective when filed with the clerk of the APCD board. I believe that through this item you're informing the board and just being transparent

Thank you very much. So with that, Supervisor Adam?

Well I was just going to tell Mr. Caldwell that he passed an opportunity to let something go that he probably should have because I got appointees on numerous committees that Ms. Blevins would probably come up and bag on, so I think that it's just inappropriate to complain about these things because you know we get to appoint whoever we want elections have consequences and you know that's just the way it is.

So I support reappointing Janet Blevin

I think he supports my discretion in being able to do that but Supervisor Wolf and then we will have a motion to approve the administrative agenda. That was going to be my motion.

Thank you may

I have a second?

Second.

All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The administrative agenda stands approved. We need a motion to withdraw item number 5, may I have that motion? On to general public comment for anybody who wants to comment on an item not on our agenda today.

Chair Hartman, members of the board I have one request to speak under public comment from Barry Sigmund. Barry you want to come on up? Thank You

Good morning. On a side note, I'm a massage therapist and so I know what it's like to be on the other end of discrimination. It's a female-run or very dominant place and I've felt the difference in pay, difference in appointments, difference many ways so I can feel for those ladies because I know what it's like. It goes both ways unfortunately. But the reason I'm here is because I'm a resident of Los Alamos. I've been up in this area for about 30 years and as Los Alamos grows so does its crime.

I know it's not Gotham City, I'm not claiming it is but we do have crime there and It's kind of the blight that we're seeing everywhere. We're seeing tagging going on there, if you look under the... There's like this creek that everybody walks down it's a shortcut to the town and it's always been really nice and we like to take our dog down there every night and go for a walk.

Unfortunately there's been people down there that aren't the nicest and they're tagging Everything from death threats to people to curse words, it's pretty bad. And the other night my wife and I were down there a couple weeks ago and There was a guy who was tagging and he looked at us and he said, you got a problem? I said, oh can I help you with something. And he took after and started running after us.

So here we are in our 50's and 60's running for our lives from some tagger who is after us and all we were doing was walking our dog. It's a great place to go because you can let the dog run around and you don't have to worry about getting hit by a car or bothering anybody. And then of course, on that river too we have people do motorcycles and four wheels.

And they have tried to run us over. They've kicked rocks in my wife's face and flipped us off and stuff. We called the police, we called the sheriffs but you know... We're in Mayberry, and it takes a long time for them to get there. And I know they have to prioritize and that's not the crime of the century but it gets old. And then the other thing we're having now is escalating. Now we're having drugs and there's quite a bit of activity going on with drugs And so we called the sheriffs and they've been very nice about it. Very accommodating as much as they can but apparently from what I'm hearing, they're extremely short-staffed. They've gone from bad to worse.

So I'm not really sure what the answers are but one of the possibilities is maybe a substation or some kind of storefront in Los Alamos if they know that there's a place there that there's sheriff's office on time people might behave a little better So I want to consider having better coverage there somehow if at all possible. I

just would like an opportunity to respond to that because Los Alamos is one of the treasures of the third district. I was there at the library for the celebration of the Newsweek covers on Saturday and we are meeting with the leaders of the law pack tomorrow and will be planning a community workshop to talk about various issues so this will come up again and we'll explore various ways to deal with it.

I'll be there thank you ma'am

any other public comment? okay turning to our departmental agenda item number one would you rate that into the record Mr. Allen

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item number one is brought to the board by the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. It's a hearing to receive and file a report from the employees retirement system

Mr. Levin, why don't you begin?

Thank you Chair Hartman my name is Greg Levin I'm the CEO for the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System and it's my pleasure to present to the Board of Supervisors and hopefully the county employees are watching as well because this is our opportunity to give an annual update on important information about our pension system And so with that, I'll step into the presentation. I generally like to start by explaining the history of the system. We are what's called a 1937 Act County Retirement System. We are a product of county employees retirement law of 1937 And there are 20 similar systems that are chartered under the 37 Act and Santa Barbara is the fifth system that was created under the 37 Act. We were established in 1944, and we have 11 planned sponsors.

The biggest and largest is the County of Santa Barbara And for the purpose of this presentation and most of the information in this presentation, we give you a lot of financial data. You can assume that the county of Santa Barbara is about 98.5% of the system. You are by far the largest employer. Some other employers of note are several small districts. I'm not going to read them off of the list that's on the screen but we are also the pension for the Santa Barbara County Superior Court excluding the judges who have their own pension And the other large plan sponsor would be the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

The system is governed by an 11-member Board of Retirement, there's nine voting members and two alternates. Six members are elected by the various constituents groups which include the retired members, the active safety members, and the active general members. And then four members of the Board of Retirement are appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Three of those four are members of the public with no connection whatsoever to the system, and one of those appointed members is actually a member of the board of supervisors and that member is currently supervisor Janet Wolfe And then finally, we have one ex-officio member who's the county treasurer. In a little bit of history before our system became independent and we were actually part of the county treasurer's office and so that's why the county treasurer serves as the ex officio member on the Board of Retirement.

The board has a fiduciary obligation to the plan and to the members its primary obligation is to the members In other words, to protect the benefit that was promised to the members. And then we have a secondary obligation to the plant sponsors. That's the County of Santa Barbara and the related special districts. And that secondary obligation is to the extent possible to minimize and defray the administrative costs of the system.

In this context though, it's really important to note and I've highlighted this in red on the screen that setting the benefits is the plan sponsor's responsibility. The Board of Retirement does not make determinations about the benefit level that's provided to the employees. That is the job at the Board of Supervisors and the boards of their respective special districts.

So let's discuss the benefits. In 2016, the average annual benefit was $35,880 but when you break that down by general member, safety member and APCD members those are three broad categories because the benefit formulas for each of those categories are different The general member's benefit is the average monthly benefits $2,400 a month compared to a safety member whose average monthly benefit is $4,854 a month.

But when you're evaluating that you need to evaluate that in the context of Social Security as well so the general members and the pension plan pay in tier and receive social security benefits on top of their annual monthly benefit. Whereas the safety members, most of the safety members do not participate in Social Security. And so there is a gap coverage though that comes from Social Security.

The average member contribution for the plan is 5.77%. That increased 58 basis points from 2015. The reason it increased is largely due to the changes that resulted from the experience study, which we will discuss later on in the presentation. Let it be said that the employees are paying more this year as a result in addition to the county paying more. And then finally, it's important to note that the new pension reform plans that were put in place in 2013 by Governor Brown and the state legislature are substantially higher contribution plans on the part of the employees So in our 3% COLA PEPRA plan, the employees are contributing 10.07%. So those employees who are your newer and tend to be your younger employees are contributing substantially more than the employees in the legacy plan and we'll show that in detail in a little bit So across the board, the average monthly benefit is about $22,990 and we have 4,171 retirees on the roll as of June 30th 2016.

So the key evaluation results from this last actuarial evaluation, and we'll go into greater detail on a lot of this information. But you can see that the actuarial liability for the plan increased $340.7 million this year. That increase was largely the result of assumption changes that were made as part of a tri-annual experience study process. Correspondingly, the assets only increased $22 million this year for a net change in the unfunded viability of $320 million.

What that means in terms of our funding ratio is that it went from 78.4% to 71.5%. I want to stop there and talk about the funding ratio a little bit. If you are a follower of pension issues, a lot of people mention the 80% rule, i.e., being funded at a level of 80% or more is considered healthy. Being funded at 80% or less is considered underfunded. That really needs to be evaluated in the context of the assumptions that the plan is using. The funded ratio is derivative of the discount rate And so as the discount rate goes lower, obviously the funded ratio is going to go lower as well. Also the contribution rates are derivative of what we call amortization. So a plan that has a more conservative discount rate and a shorter amortization period Both things, which most would argue are good conservative financial principles actually result in a lower funded ratio and a higher contribution rate.

And so it's really important when you're evaluating our plan in the context of our peers that you consider the fact that we are in a conservative place with regard to our assumptions and that that's a good thing I would argue. I also like to remind everyone and I apologize that it's not very easy to see on the screen, but that number there is 36%. 36% of our revenues over the last 20 years have come from the employer while almost 60%, 58% to be precise have come from investment earnings. And so what this pie chart's intended to show is the extent to which our investment earnings defray the cost of the plan. Really one-third, two-thirds of the plan are funded in terms of investment earnings and then employees consist of about 6%. And that number, that 6% number we expect to increase over time and we'll talk a little bit about that on a later slide.

So it's been much discussed lately. This slide shows our 25-year investment performance and I want to first talk about the slide and just explain the chart. The purple bars on the chart are the investment return in any given year, and as you can see they range between a little over 20% Down to negative 20%. The green dotted line on the chart is our assumption rate. So that's the target that we're trying to hit on any given year and if you look very closely, you can see small decreases of little downslope in the line there a little downslope in the line there those are discount rate decreases that were put in place over the last decade And then the blue line is CPI, and we'll talk about CPI in a little bit. But CPI is a metric that tracks inflation, and inflation is one of our building block components in terms of how we develop the discount rate for the plan and the assumed rate of return for the plan.

What you can see here is that when inflation is low or trending down, those purple bars tend to in a lot of situations tend to also be very low. It's very difficult to earn 7% or seven and a half percent in an extremely low inflationary environment where you're only getting 1% from inflation What that requires you to do is actually generate real return on top of inflation in a much greater amount than you normally would have to, to meet your expectations.