UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2017-04-17

Board of Supervisors — 2017-04-17April 17, 2017

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 17, 2017

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

CEO and Budget Director Overview (Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Workshops)

  • The CEO outlined the "One County One Future" theme, emphasizing collaboration to address projected budget gaps where costs exceed available revenue.
  • Financial challenges include rising pension and salary costs, reduced state funding for safety net services, and a suspended policy for adding to the strategic reserve.
  • Departments face significant service level reductions, with general fund departments facing approximately $12.9 million in cuts and special revenue departments facing $26.6 million.
  • The Board requested further detail on specific items such as fire tax shifts and ACA impacts to be addressed in later departmental presentations.

Department of Social Services Budget Presentation and Discussion

  • The department proposed a reduction of 220.8 FTEs due to revenue decreases and salary increases, while requesting approximately $1.019 million to restore critical service levels.
  • Staff explained that proposed cuts primarily affect support staff, which would increase the workload for social workers and potentially delay benefit processing for CalFresh and Medi-Cal.
  • Board members expressed concern over the impact on child welfare and adult protective services, with some requesting the restoration of foster care and APS staff.
  • The CEO acknowledged the direction provided by the Board regarding support for the department's restoration and expansion requests.

District Attorney’s Office: Budget Presentation and Restoration Requests

  • The District Attorney highlighted a structural imbalance and reliance on reserves, citing challenges from Prop 47 reclassifications and outdated case management systems.
  • Restoration requests include funding for the MS-13 case, a new case management system, and the restoration of investigator and subpoena server positions.
  • The office reported that salaries and benefits constitute 92% of the operating budget, with revenue growth driven by restricted grant funding that cannot close the general fund gap.
  • Board members discussed the impact of misdemeanor diversion programs on jail overcrowding and the importance of early case disposition.

Sheriff’s Office: Budget Presentation and Challenges

  • The Undersheriff presented nine proposed service level reductions, including the elimination of the Lompoc City Jail contract and reductions in court security and school resource deputies.
  • Restoration requests include a one-time $1 million increase to the overtime budget, ten additional deputy sheriffs, and five additional dispatchers.
  • Board members discussed the prioritization of overtime funding versus hiring deputies, as well as the financial viability of contracting with UCSB for Isla Vista services.
  • The Sheriff’s Office identified radio coverage as a significant life safety issue, with the CEO noting that interim solutions are being developed by General Services.

Behavioral Wellness Department Budget Presentation and Public Comment

  • The department proposed reductions in out-of-county IMD and inpatient hospital beds to balance the budget, while requesting the restoration of 26 IMD beds and 2 inpatient beds.
  • Key challenges include a significant increase in costs for out-of-county care for conservatees and uncertainties regarding state Mental Health Services Act funds.
  • Public commenters urged the Board to retain funding for the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program and to increase the budget for preventative services.
  • Supervisor Wolf indicated that housing issues are a primary priority for restorations and signaled support for incorporating housing into the budget.

Behavioral Health / Laura’s Law (AOT) Program

  • Staff explained that the bulk of the $600,000 budget was allocated to housing services and specialty programs for the 10-person pilot.
  • Board members expressed concern about the lack of data to judge the program's success after only four months of operation.
  • A report with initial data on performance measures and cost differentials compared to other counties is planned for late May.

Probation Department Budget

  • The department proposed nine service level reductions totaling approximately $1.8 million, including the elimination of probation assistants and juvenile institutions officers.
  • Restoration requests prioritize the two Prop 36 supervision officers, two juvenile field supervision officers, and one bank officer.
  • An expansion request for $135,000 in one-time funding was made for capital repairs at Los Prados Boys Camp.
  • Staff explained that while some positions were vacant, others were currently filled, and the department had maintained vacancies in anticipation of these reductions.

Public Defender’s Office Budget

  • The office presented a budget with no service level reductions or restoration requests, requesting only one expansion for a full-time computer systems analyst.
  • The presentation highlighted partnerships with non-profits for holistic defense and post-conviction relief processing, as well as the implementation of a new case management system.
  • The Chair and Supervisor Wolf commented on the office’s progress in implementing holistic defense models and technology improvements.

Court Special Services

  • The budget for Court Special Services is $15.2 million, with a general fund obligation of $8.6 million, and no service level reductions or restoration requests.
  • A potential 40% revenue reduction was noted due to a governor’s proposal to eliminate driver’s license suspensions for unpaid fines.
  • Objectives for the coming year include expanding supervised pretrial release, integrating case management systems, and seeking funding for pretrial compliance officers.

Pretrial Services and Indigent Defense Performance Measures

  • The expansion of the supervised release program with two Department of Probation Officers will be included in the Community Corrections Partnership budget.
  • Performance measures indicate a decline in pretrial written reports and releases on own recognizance, attributed to changes in felony classifications following Proposition 47.
  • Efficiency efforts include monitoring investigator fees, automating pretrial services tracking, and implementing video conferencing for Grand Jury meetings.

Addressing the Mentally Ill within the Criminal Justice System and Collaborative Work Plan for 17-18

  • The collaborative work plan addresses a 67% increase in misdemeanor IST filings and a 300% increase in requests for LPS conservatorships since 2013.
  • The plan is organized into four areas: business process improvements, program improvements, organizational improvements, and capital improvements.
  • Current efforts include the Stepping Up Initiative, an IST work group, and a proposal for a Mental Health Recovery Center.
  • The work plan kicks off in fiscal year 17-18, with data gathering identified as a key challenge.

Full summary

Agenda Item: General Public Comment (General)

  • Discussion: A representative of CoLab spoke regarding the county’s policy paradigm, citing a statement by former County CEO Mike Brown that current goals focus on expanding services rather than protecting liberty, private property, and public order. The speaker suggested a mission statement focused on protecting liberty and promoting individual responsibility.
  • Decision/Vote: None. This was a public comment period.

Agenda Item: CEO and Budget Director Overview (Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Workshops)

  • Discussion:
  • Process and Theme: CEO Miyasato outlined the week-long budget workshop process, noting final funding decisions will occur in June. The theme is "One County One Future," emphasizing collaboration due to projected budget gaps where costs exceed available revenue.
  • Financial Context: The CEO noted that while property tax growth is moderate, costs (particularly pension, salary, and behavioral health) are growing faster than revenues. The county faces reduced state funding for safety net services and potential federal budget impacts.
  • Liabilities and Reserves: Plans are in place to pay off the pension unfunded liability in 14 years and the retiree health care liability in 16 years. The strategic reserve is at its full funding level, but the policy of adding 8% of general fund operating revenue to the reserve is suspended for this year.
  • Budget Guidelines: Departments were required to propose balanced budgets. The 5% holdback of general fund revenue was used to create a discretionary pot for the Board to allocate to highest priorities, rather than being a uniform cut across all departments.
  • Revenue and Costs: Budget Director Jeff Brackwell presented data showing a steady increase in total salaries and benefits over the last 10 years, driven by pension costs and employment benefits. He noted a projected $9.2 million increase in pension costs for FY 2017-18 above prior anticipations. General fund revenues are anticipated at approximately $403 million.
  • Service Level Reductions: Service level reductions are anticipated for the majority of departments. General fund departments face approximately $12.9 million in reductions (equivalent to 78.3 FTEs), while special revenue departments face approximately $26.6 million in reductions (equivalent to 228 FTEs).
  • Restoration and Expansion Requests: Total requests for budget restoration and enhancement amount to $36.1 million (118.5 FTEs).
  • Built-in Costs: The budget includes specific items such as a new jail medical contract ($2 million), IHSS MOE ($2 million), CalFresh MOE ($900,000), a court MOE correction ($400,000), and PREA staffing requirements.
  • Available Funding Sources: Identified sources for closing gaps include $7.4 million in unallocated general fund revenues, $600,000 in residual fund balance, potential SB1 gas tax revenue, potential Prop 172 reallocation ($1.2 million), tobacco settlement fund balance (~$1 million), and potential savings from delaying workers' comp liability amortization ($500,000).
  • Board Questions and Responses:
  • Fund Balances: The CEO explained that $1 million for behavioral wellness is for bed overages. The $2.5 million for emerging issues covers Social Services MOE, DA allocation for a multi-defendant case, General Services staff for the 8900 jail grant, and a child support contribution.
  • Audit Exceptions: The Auditor-Controller noted approximately $8 million in ongoing litigation with the state regarding clawed-back funds. He stated that while the county has recovered ~$700,000 recently, he would not book future recoveries as solid enough for funding decisions, though he could provide an attorney-client memo with more detail.
  • Fire Tax Shift: The CEO clarified that the base transfer was $5.9 million starting in 2012-13, and the $8 million figure represents the growth in property tax revenue allocated to the fire district, not the total contribution.
  • ACA and Salaries: The CEO and Budget Director explained that the salary chart reflects all funds and expenses, not net of federal reimbursements. Supervisor Wolfe noted that ACA has increased Medi-Cal patients in public health centers by 80%, providing both service benefits and reimbursement offsets. Supervisor Williams added that broader benefits include reduced ER usage, which is not reflected in county financials.
  • 5% Reduction: The CEO explained that the 5% holdback created a discretionary pool; some departments absorbed costs, raised fees, or used one-time funds, while others had deficits regardless of the holdback. The $7.4 million in available funds is the net result of these reductions after accounting for built-in items.
  • Decision/Vote: No motions were made or voted upon during this overview segment. The Board requested further detail on specific items (fire tax shift, ACA impacts) to be addressed in later departmental presentations.

Agenda Item: General Public Comment (Budget Overview)

  • Discussion:
  • A representative of CoLab commented on the slide regarding "continued commitment to prior priorities," arguing that the county lacked flexibility regarding the North Branch Jail and road maintenance. The speaker questioned the sustainability of pension costs, noting they have risen from 40% to 60% of the budget, and urged the Board to consider privatization or pushing the state to change pension rules.
  • A representative of Local 620 raised concerns about salary projections including unfunded vacant positions and the use of "extra help" positions. The speaker argued that privatizing services increases long-term costs due to overhead and loss of control, and urged the Board to review vacant budgeted positions and extra help usage.
  • Decision/Vote: None. This was a public comment period.

Agenda Item: Department of Social Services Budget Presentation and Discussion

  • Discussion:
  • Presentation: The Department of Social Services (DSS) presented its budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18, highlighting that operating costs for current service levels exceed available county, state, and federal funding.
  • IHSS Funding: The elimination of the Maintenance of Effort Agreement increased the county’s share of In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) costs by $2.47 million, of which $2 million was covered by one-time funds provided by the CEO.
  • CalFresh: A 6% reduction in statewide allocation was projected, resulting in a $6.7 million decrease for the county. The department noted that Santa Barbara County has historically received redistribution funds from other counties to offset allocation shortfalls, but the budget assumes no such redistribution for the coming year.
  • CalWORKs: A projected $1.8 million reduction in allocation was cited due to statewide caseload decreases.
  • Staffing: The department proposed a reduction of 220.8 Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) from the current year to the budget year, resulting in a total of 679 FTEs. This reduction is attributed to revenue decreases and salary/benefit increases.
  • Capital Projects: Proposed projects include implementing telephonic signatures, replacing the 20-year-old personnel/employee reporting system, and IT hardware upgrades.
  • Restoration Requests: The department outlined the costs to restore service level reductions, totaling approximately $1.019 million in local funds. These requests included restoring CalFresh positions (leveraging federal funds), CalWORKs positions, and six child welfare social worker positions lost in previous years. The department stated it was not requesting general fund dollars for these restorations at this time but was presenting the costs for board consideration.
  • Performance: The department reported serving over 146,000 residents monthly, including 64,000 children. It noted improvements in audit findings and CalFresh participation rankings, while acknowledging challenges in meeting Medi-Cal renewal processing targets due to caseload growth.
  • Supervisor Questions and Comments:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the drivers behind the county’s CalFresh caseload increase (33% since FY 2012-13) compared to statewide decreases. DSS staff attributed the increase to "horizontal integration" efforts (cross-referencing Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility) and the impact of the Affordable Care Act.
  • Supervisor Williams asked about the status of foster care administration positions and the necessity of capital expenditures. DSS staff confirmed that 128 of the reduced positions are currently filled and explained that the personnel system replacement is urgent due to the obsolescence of the current software.
  • Supervisor Wolf expressed concern over the reduction in child welfare and adult protective services positions, noting the department serves 62% of the county’s children. The supervisor emphasized the importance of "human infrastructure" and the complexity of caseloads, including severity of issues.
  • Supervisor Adam questioned the realism of maintaining staffing levels in the following year given projected deficits. DSS staff indicated that further reductions are likely but cannot be accurately planned until state allocation letters are received. The supervisor also noted that the high percentage of the population served by DSS reflects a failure of broader economic and social systems.
  • Public Comment:
  • A representative of SEIU 721 questioned why Santa Barbara County is facing larger staffing reductions than other counties. The speaker highlighted the impact of pension costs, the loss of union jobs, and the recruitment/retention challenges caused by competitive salaries in neighboring counties. The speaker requested meetings with staff to negotiate impacts.
  • A representative of CoLab argued that the primary performance measure for DSS should be the number of people no longer needing services. The speaker raised concerns about the long-term pension liabilities associated with pass-through state and federal funds and suggested that immigration enforcement and business climate issues contribute to the high caseloads.
  • Supervisor Williams responded to public comments by emphasizing that social services are a public safety and prevention need, noting that adequate support for children and families prevents future societal costs.
  • Discussion on Social Work Workload:
  • The Chair asked DSS staff to elaborate on the impact of proposed budget cuts on social workers. DSS staff explained that the proposed reductions primarily affect support staff, which would increase the workload for social workers and supervisors. They described the high-stress nature of the work, including investigations, court interactions, and home visits in potentially unsafe environments. The staff noted that their restoration request for six social worker positions was aimed at maintaining adequate caseload sizes to ensure safety and effective service delivery.
  • Restoration and Expansion Requests Discussion:
  • A board member expressed concern regarding the high number of unplaced children in the foster care system and low median income in the county. They suggested that the public could address these issues by becoming foster or resource parents or by starting businesses that pay decent wages.
  • A board member proposed that the board reserve a percentage of the budget for departments that can secure matching grant funds to offset cuts, suggesting this approach could apply to Social Services, the Sheriff’s Office, or the District Attorney’s Office.
  • A board member stated they were compiling a list of desired restorations across departments and specifically requested the restoration of foster care staff and Adult Protective Services staff, noting the drastic nature of the recommended cuts.
  • A board member indicated they would wait until May to see how numbers change before making a final decision.
  • The CEO clarified that benefit processing delays (specifically for CalFresh and Medi-Cal) would likely occur if cuts were implemented, but benefits would not be denied.
  • Board members discussed the significance of processing delays, noting that delays in food, medical care, and child welfare services could have severe consequences for vulnerable populations.
  • A board member asked for clarification on CalFresh processing windows. Staff explained there are two windows: expedited services (3 days) and regular processing (30 days). Staff noted that historically, they prioritized front-end applications to ensure timely initial assistance, but with reduced staffing, they may not be able to maintain this strategy.
  • A board member requested that the CEO provide specific data on how these processing windows would be affected by potential cuts.
  • Closing Remarks:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino addressed the public comments, expressing respect for the work of social workers but emphasizing the need to acknowledge the financial realities and make difficult decisions to balance the budget. The meeting segment concluded with the Chair thanking the department and public speakers.
  • Decision/Vote:
  • A board member expressed support for the Social Services restoration and expansion requests.
  • Another board member seconded the support for these requests.
  • The CEO stated they had the necessary direction to proceed.
  • Vote Outcome: No formal vote was recorded in this transcript segment; the discussion concluded with the CEO acknowledging the direction provided.

Agenda Item: District Attorney’s Office: Budget Presentation and Restoration Requests

  • Discussion:
  • The District Attorney presented the department’s budget, highlighting a structural imbalance, reliance on reserves for daily operations, and challenges with outdated case management systems.
  • Key challenges cited included the reclassification of nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors (Prop 47), which affects workload and victim services, and difficulties in recruiting and retaining staff.
  • The presentation noted that salaries and benefits constitute 92% of the operating budget. The office has 131.2 FTEs in the recommended budget, with a proposed reduction of four positions.
  • Revenue growth was attributed primarily to new, restricted grant funding for specific programs (victim witness, elder abuse, workers' compensation, human trafficking), which cannot be used to close the general fund budget gap.
  • The District Attorney outlined anticipated accomplishments, including the prosecution of the MS-13 gang murder case (17 defendants indicted, 16 facing life sentences), development of a felony pre-filing diversion program, and increased focus on environmental crimes and vehicular safety related to marijuana legalization.
  • The District Attorney requested six restoration/expansion items in priority order:
  • 1. $80,000 for extra help backfill for the MS-13 case. 2. $400,000 for a new case management system (total cost estimated at $550,000, with $150,000 from fund balance). 3. Restoration of positions identified as potential service level reductions (investigators, investigative assistants, subpoena server). 4. $80,000 for transcriptions and translation.
  • Board members asked questions regarding the funding source for the MS-13 case (confirmed as an addition to the CEO’s budget), the procurement status of the case management system (RFP process completed, evaluating finalists), and the progress of the Prop 47 case backlog (described by the DA as not a "huge issue").
  • Board members discussed the impact of misdemeanor diversion programs on jail overcrowding and the importance of early case disposition to reduce continuances.
  • The District Attorney provided data from Colorado indicating increases in traffic-related marijuana deaths, emergency room visits, and poison center calls following legalization, emphasizing the need for public safety measures.
  • A public comment was made by a representative of Colab, who requested more police on the street, increased jail capacity, and noted that the DA’s truancy program costs should be reimbursed by schools. They also raised concerns about the county’s reimbursement for services provided to other government entities.
  • Decision/Vote: No formal motion or vote was recorded in this transcript segment. The discussion focused on the presentation of the budget and restoration requests.

Agenda Item: Sheriff’s Office: Budget Presentation and Challenges

  • Discussion:
  • Presentation by Undersheriff Bernard Mielecki:
  • Pre-trial Electronic Monitoring: Identified as a long-term strategic objective with potential positive fiscal impact.
  • Civilianization Study: An ongoing review of all positions to determine which can be civilianized, which should be civilianized for managerial development, and how many positions to convert. The goal is to replace sworn positions with civilian staff and redeploy sworn officers to patrol and detective roles. The first phase of the study is expected to be completed by late May.
  • Efficiencies: Implementation of CopLogic (an internet-based self-reporting system for crimes with no suspect), expansion of social media presence, partnership with Allan Hancock College for training, and adoption of Skype for Business to reduce travel time.
  • Service Level Reductions: Mielecki listed nine proposed reductions, noting they are undesirable but necessary to meet budget targets. These include:
  • 1. Elimination of the Lompoc City Jail contract ($70,000/year). 2. Elimination of the DARE program (no FTEs, served 1,671 students last year). 3. Consolidation of narcotic gang functions into the state-funded Sabercat program. 4. Reduction of Santa Maria Jail staffing (tied to potential closure of 24/7 operations if Northern Branch Jail cannot be staffed). 5. Reduction of court security to state-funded levels (eliminating ~$1 million in county overage). 6. Elimination of non-contractual school resource and community resource deputies (Isla Vista, San Marcos High, Cabrillo High, Lompoc/Santa Ynez High). 7. Reduction of county air support by two positions (requiring restructuring of the MOU with the Fire Department). 8. Reduction of two post positions in the main jail (loss of ~100 beds). 9. Reduction of Isla Vista foot patrol by nine positions.
  • Restorations and Expansions: Proposed restoring all service level reductions and adding:
  • 1. A one-time $1 million increase to the overtime budget. 2. Ten additional deputy sheriffs. 3. Five additional dispatchers.
  • Mielecki identified the foot patrol, ten custody deputies, and two school resource deputies as the most critical restorations.
  • Board Questions and Discussion:
  • Supervisor Williams questioned the prioritization of overtime funding versus hiring deputies to mitigate lost time. Mielecki explained that lost time (workers' compensation, etc.) equates to 15 FTEs annually and that hiring is a longer-term solution. Williams stated a preference for funding positions over overtime.
  • Supervisor Adam asked why ten new positions are needed if 26 are currently unfilled. Mielecki and HR Commander Lindbergh explained that vacancies are a constant churn factor and that recruitment efforts have increased hiring numbers (39 in 2015, 82 in 2016, 54 so far in 2017). Adam also asked about the funding disparity for school resource officers between Santa Maria and South County districts. Mielecki noted that Santa Maria funds its position, while South County districts have not, and the Sheriff’s Office is in discussions with those districts.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino requested data on vacant FTEs across all departments and workers' compensation lost time statistics. He also questioned the lack of a replacement plan for "big ticket" items like radios and AEDs. Mielecki clarified that fleet replacement is built into vehicle costs, but other equipment lacks a dedicated replacement fund. Lavagnino also questioned the 8-minute response time performance measure.
  • Supervisor Wolf expressed confidence in the department's operations and mental health initiatives. He raised concerns about the Air Support Unit reduction, clarifying with staff that one pilot position is a job class change to a special duty deputy who serves as a pilot, not a net loss of position. He also urged the Board to develop a plan for the renovation or change of the South County Jail.
  • Chair Hartman asked for benchmark data on lost time compared to other counties. Mielecki stated the Sheriff’s Office is pursuing this study. Hartman also asked about the possibility of contracting with UCSB or UCPD for Isla Vista services. Mielecki indicated this is legally possible but financial viability and university interest need to be explored.
  • Public Comment:
  • A Court Executive Officer and a Judge voiced strong opposition to the proposed reduction of seven FTEs in court security, stating it would leave courtrooms without bailiffs and pose a safety risk. They requested restoration of court services.
  • A Vice Principal of Santa Ynez Valley Union High School advocated for the retention of school resource deputies, citing the importance of student safety and positive relationships with law enforcement.
  • The President of the Sheriff’s Managers Association acknowledged the budget challenges and urged the Board to evaluate the entire budget, including revenue sources and full cost recovery.
  • The President of the Deputy Sheriff’s Association expressed concern over staffing levels, morale, and the danger of proposed cuts. The speaker highlighted the department's role in supporting other agencies (Fire, CWS, CARES) and the difficulty in recruiting due to low application acceptance rates.
  • A representative of Colab questioned patrol coverage per resident, response times in remote areas, and the impact of the North County Jail on patrol staffing. The speaker questioned why the county pays for Isla Vista services and school resource officers, suggesting user-pay models and zero-tolerance policies at universities. The speaker also raised the issue of lost property tax revenue from oil companies (Veneco, Exxon, Plains).
  • Board Response:
  • Supervisor Williams clarified that the loss of property tax revenue from Plains/Veneco was due to regulatory non-compliance and equipment issues, not county policy. The supervisor acknowledged the difficulty of the budget situation and the need for prioritization.
  • Radio Coverage Discussion:
  • The Undersheriff noted that radio coverage is a significant life safety issue, particularly in rural areas and specific locations like Vandenberg Village.
  • Board members asked about interoperability with other police and fire departments. The Undersheriff confirmed that most local agencies can switch frequencies, but Santa Maria uses an encrypted system that presents challenges.
  • The CEO stated that General Services is working on interim "band-aid" solutions and a long-term permanent solution. The long-term solution is complex and costly, potentially requiring voter funding.
  • Board members expressed concern that the interim solution was not included in the budget as an expansion request, noting that if it is not in the budget, it cannot be considered. They requested an estimate of the cost for the interim solution before the next meeting.
  • The Undersheriff agreed to provide the cost estimate for the interim solution.
  • Decision/Vote: No motions were moved, seconded, or voted upon during this segment. The Board took a lunch break and reconvened for the next agenda item.

Agenda Item: Behavioral Wellness Department Budget Presentation and Public Comment

  • Discussion:
  • Departmental Overview and Funding Structure: The Behavioral Wellness Department presented its budget structure, identifying five primary service categories: Mental Health Outpatient Community Services (approx. $75 million, 64% of budget), Alcohol and Drug Programs (approx. $13 million, 11%), Mental Health Inpatient Services (approx. $12 million, 10%), Administration and Support (approx. $11 million, 10%), and Quality Care Management (approx. $5 million, 5%). The department’s operating budget is approximately $110 million, with a General Fund allocation of $4 million. Funding is primarily derived from fee-for-service Medi-Cal reimbursements and intergovernmental matching funds. The department noted that administrative costs are currently at 11% of billed Medi-Cal, below the state-permitted maximum of 15%.
  • Key Challenges and Emerging Issues:
  • Conserved Individuals: The department reported a significant increase in costs for out-of-county care for individuals under public guardian supervision (LPS conservatees). Costs rose from approximately $734,000 in 2012–2013 to an estimated $4.1 million in the current fiscal year. The department stated it is only required to pay for these services to the extent funding is available, creating a budgetary strain.
  • Incompetent to Stand Trial (IST) Population: The presentation highlighted the impact of the IST population on the Psychiatric Health Facility (PUF). The department distinguished between "acute" days (reimbursed at higher rates) and "administrative" days (reimbursed at lower rates or not at all). An increase in administrative days for ISTs and conservatees has reduced capacity for the target acute population, leading to increased out-of-county hospitalizations.
  • Funding Uncertainty: The department cited uncertainties regarding state Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) funds, noting that a state bond initiative ("No Place Like Home") may reduce local MHSA allocations. Federal funding uncertainties related to the Affordable Care Act were also mentioned.
  • Capital Projects and Grants:
  • Juvenile Hall Restoration: A $4 million one-time Community Corrections Partnerships fund allocation was previously approved to restore Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall for 15 secure mental health treatment beds for justice-involved clients. This is projected to begin in Fiscal Year 2017–2018.
  • Crisis Residential Expansion: A $1.1 million grant was secured to expand crisis residential treatment capacity by approximately 10 beds in North County. This is grant-funded and does not require new General Fund allocation.
  • No Place Like Home: The department received $100,000 in guaranteed technical assistance funds to plan for housing projects under the state’s "No Place Like Home" initiative.
  • Marion Hospital Collaboration: The department is collaborating with Marion Hospital regarding the potential use of their facility for mental health rehab beds.
  • Proposed Service Level Reductions: To balance the budget, the department proposed the following reductions:
  • 1. IMD Beds: Reduce out-of-county Institute for Mental Disease (IMD) beds from 47 to 28 per day (saving $1.5 million). 2. Inpatient Hospital Beds: Reduce out-of-county acute inpatient psychiatric hospital beds from 7 to 5 per day (saving $600,000). 3. Alcohol and Drug Programs: Cut program contracts for screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) services, which are non-drug Medi-Cal reimbursable and potentially covered under the Affordable Care Act. 4. Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT): Discontinue the AOT pilot program due to lack of ongoing funding allocation. 5. Administrative Positions: Eliminate four vacant administrative positions (two Mental Health, one MHSA, one Alcohol and Drug). 6. School-Based Counseling: Cut the Big Brothers Big Sisters school-based counseling program.
  • Restoration and Expansion Requests: The department requested the following restorations and expansions:
  • 1. IMD Beds: Restore 19 IMD beds (from 28 to 47) and expand by 7 additional beds, totaling a request for 26 beds ($2.1 million). 2. Inpatient Hospital Beds: Restore 2 inpatient hospital beds (from 5 to 7) ($600,000). 3. Crisis Residential: Expand crisis residential treatment by 10 beds (grant-funded, no new General Fund request).
  • Staffing and Financial Status:
  • The department has approximately 431.6 full-time employees.
  • Over the last year, 28 "extra help" positions were converted to full-time positions.
  • The department reported a decrease in fund balance of $1.5 million, primarily on the Alcohol and Drug side, leaving a prudent reserve of approximately $2.3 million.
  • Audit findings have been resolved, and the department reported improved compliance and reduced liabilities.
  • Public Comment:
  • Laura’s Law (AOT): Multiple speakers urged the board to retain funding for the Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) program, also known as Laura’s Law. They cited personal experiences with family members benefiting from the program, arguing it reduces jail time and homelessness. One speaker questioned why the county’s cost for the program was higher than other counties and noted the program was in its early stages.
  • IMD and Housing: Speakers advocated for maintaining and expanding IMD beds and residential treatment options, citing the necessity of long-term care for severely ill individuals.
  • General Budget Increase: Representatives of Transitions Mental Health Association requested an increase in the Behavioral Wellness budget from the county’s general reserve, arguing that preventative services save taxpayer money in the long term by reducing emergency room visits and jail incarceration.
  • Data and Housing: Representatives of the League of Women Voters recommended adequate funding for permanent supportive housing and improved data collection to evaluate program effectiveness.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Williams inquired about the disparity in conservatee numbers compared to Ventura County and the decision-making process for conservatorship. The department explained that judges make conservatorship decisions and the Public Guardian determines placement.
  • Supervisor Wolf asked about the utilization of the South County residential unit and the North County expansion. The department confirmed the South County facility is full and the North County expansion is grant-funded.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked about operational expenses for the new residential treatment program and the discrepancy between the General Fund allocation shown in different charts. The department confirmed operational expenses are budgeted and explained that the $6.6 million in one-time funds is not included in the ongoing General Fund projection.
  • Supervisor Adam asked about maintenance funding for the PUF facility. The department acknowledged minimal maintenance budgeting and the need for proactive maintenance planning due to the facility’s age.
  • Supervisor Wolf stated that housing issues are a primary priority for restorations and signaled support for incorporating housing into the budget.
  • Decision/Vote: No motion was moved, seconded, or voted upon in this section of the transcript. The board received the presentation and public comment. Supervisor Wolf provided preliminary comments indicating a priority for housing-related restorations.

Agenda Item: Behavioral Health / Laura’s Law (AOT) Program

  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Lavagnino inquired about the timeline for reporting on the program’s performance measures and cost differentials compared to other counties, noting the program has been active for approximately three months. Staff indicated a report with initial data was planned for late May.
  • Supervisor Williams expressed concern about the lack of data to judge the program's success after only four months and highlighted systemic issues regarding conservatorship costs and bed availability at state facilities (Puff/Vista Del Mar).
  • Supervisor Wolf questioned the $600,000 budget allocation, noting no FTE impact, and asked for clarification on where the funds were spent and whether alternatives to the formal "Laura’s Law" designation exist.
  • Staff Response: Staff explained that the bulk of the $600,000 budget was allocated to housing services and specialty programs required for the 10-person pilot, with an estimated cost of $64,000 per person. Staff confirmed that data on housing utilization and service access would be provided in the May report. Staff also noted that baseline data on system interactions (e.g., ER visits, jail stays) for participants would be available to assess cost savings.
  • Decision/Vote: No motion was made or voted upon in this segment. The discussion focused on information gathering for a future report.

Agenda Item: Probation Department Budget

  • Discussion:
  • Presentation: Acting Chief Probation Officer Beverly Taylor presented the proposed $55.4 million operating budget, noting a 47% general fund contribution. Key challenges included leadership vacancies, with 73% of management staff near retirement age. The department proposed nine service level reductions totaling approximately $1.8 million to balance the budget.
  • Service Level Reductions:
  • 1. Elimination of two probation assistants for restitution collection on unsupervised cases. 2. Transfer of home supervision and electronic monitoring responsibilities from Santa Maria Juvenile Hall to Juvenile Field Services, resulting in the unfunding of two juvenile institutions officers. 3. Elimination of one staff member shared between the Community Service Work Program and Revenue Recovery Unit. 4. Reduction of funding for two behavioral wellness staff and associated costs. 5. Restructuring of North County Juvenile Field Supervision, unfunding one juvenile supervisor, one deputy probation officer (DPO), and one probation assistant. 6. Unfunding of one probation assistant supporting juvenile court services. 7. Unfunding of one bank caseload probation officer, increasing caseloads from 425 to 570 offenders per officer. 8. Unfunding of two DPOs from juvenile field services, increasing high-risk caseloads from 35 to 41 juveniles per officer. 9. Unfunding of two probation officers supervising Prop 36 offenders, which would move these offenders to bank caseloads and eliminate proactive supervision.
  • Restoration Requests: The department requested restoration of funds for the two Prop 36 supervision officers (highest priority), two juvenile field supervision officers, and one bank officer.
  • Expansion Request: One-time funding of $135,000 for capital repairs at Los Prados Boys Camp (showers, bathrooms, carpets).
  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Wolf asked about the trend in juvenile supervision numbers, noting an increase despite referrals leveling off. Staff explained the increase was due to longer probation periods for youth.
  • Supervisor Wolf inquired if the $163,000 reduction in behavioral wellness funding was a matching fund; staff clarified it was grant funding from the Juvenile Justice Block Grant.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino asked for clarification on which positions were currently vacant versus filled to understand the impact on caseloads. Staff explained that while some positions were vacant, others (such as the Prop 36 officers) were currently filled, and the department had maintained vacancies in anticipation of these reductions.
  • Public Comment: A Regional Director for SGIU 721 spoke on behalf of probation assistants, emphasizing their role as skilled paraprofessionals and expressing support for the department's efforts to retain staff.
  • Decision/Vote: No motion was made or voted upon in this segment. The discussion focused on budget details and staffing impacts.

Agenda Item: Public Defender’s Office Budget

  • Discussion:
  • Presentation: The Public Defender presented a budget with no service level reductions and no restoration requests. The office requested one expansion for a full-time computer systems analyst. The presentation highlighted partnerships with non-profits (FSA, Code for America) for holistic defense and post-conviction relief processing, the implementation of a new case management system, and the creation of specialized units (juvenile, immigration, complex litigation).
  • Discussion: The Chair and Supervisor Wolf commented on the office’s progress in implementing holistic defense models and technology improvements. The Public Defender explained that holistic defense involves addressing underlying issues such as poverty and housing to reduce recidivism, with research collaboration with UC Berkeley.
  • Decision/Vote: No motion was made or voted upon in this segment.

Agenda Item: Court Special Services

  • Discussion:
  • Presentation: Daryl Parker presented the budget for Court Special Services, which includes functions traditionally funded by the county but administered by the court, such as grand jury operations, conflict defense, collections, pretrial services, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and small claims advisory services. The overall budget is $15.2 million, with a general fund obligation of $8.6 million. The presentation noted a potential 40% revenue reduction due to a governor’s proposal to eliminate driver’s license suspensions for unpaid fines.
  • Discussion: The presentation outlined the separation of the court from county funding via the Lockyer-Eisenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997, which established a maintenance of effort payment. The court reported no service level reductions or restoration requests. Objectives for the coming year include expanding supervised pretrial release, integrating case management systems with other agencies, and seeking funding for pretrial compliance officers and system automation.
  • Decision/Vote: No motion was made or voted upon in this segment.

Agenda Item: Pretrial Services and Indigent Defense Performance Measures

  • Discussion:
  • Supervisor Wolf addressed the board, noting that the expansion of the supervised release program with two Department of Probation Officers (DPOs) would be included in the Community Corrections Partnership (CCP) budget. Supervisor Wolf expressed appreciation for the collaboration among partners and the leadership of Presiding Judge Kelly.
  • Daryl Parker presented performance measures, attributing the decline in pretrial written reports and releases on own recognizance to changes in felony classifications following Proposition 47. Parker estimated a potential 10–20% increase in releases once the new program is operational. Regarding conflict defense, Parker noted an increase in misdemeanor cases handled under contracts, particularly in South County, reversing previous trends.
  • Parker outlined efficiency efforts, including:
  • Monitoring investigator fees to manage indigent defense costs.
  • Automating pretrial services tracking and integrating it with the case management system.
  • Implementing video conferencing (Skype for Business) for Grand Jury meetings to reduce mileage costs and increase participation from North County residents.
  • Rebalancing workload by transitioning supervision duties to DPOs as they assume pretrial compliance roles.
  • Parker stated that the department will monitor the governor’s budget regarding license suspensions and continue to control indigent defense costs while managing the increasing contract offense caseload. No questions were raised by board members. No public comments were received.
  • Decision/Vote: No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon during this segment.

Agenda Item: Addressing the Mentally Ill within the Criminal Justice System and Collaborative Work Plan for 17-18

  • Discussion:
  • Ms. Nisic presented a collaborative work plan developed in March by department heads and partners to address the increasing number of mentally ill individuals in the criminal justice and health systems. Key statistics presented included:
  • A 67% increase in misdemeanor IST (Incompetent to Stand Trial) filings since 2013.
  • A 50% increase in felony IST filings since 2013.
  • A 300% increase in requests for LPS (Lanterman-Petris-Short) conservatorships since 2013.
  • An 873% increase in IST administrative days in the PUF (Public Utility Facility) since 2013.
  • A 63% increase in PUF revenue and contract costs associated with ISTs since 2013.
  • Current efforts cited included the Stepping Up Initiative, an IST work group focused on process improvements, coordination between public defenders and the Behavioral Wellness Department, a new jail medical contract with Enhanced Psychiatric Services, and a proposal for a Mental Health Recovery Center.
  • The collaborative work plan for fiscal year 17-18 is organized into four areas:
  • 1. Business Process Improvements: Assessing the feasibility of consolidating IST calendars, evaluating the expansion of 5150 hold authority to law enforcement, and reviewing approaches in Marin, Alameda, and Los Angeles counties. 2. Program Improvements: Establishing forensic outpatient services (FACT teams) and assessing the feasibility of jail competency restoration. 3. Organizational Improvements: Conducting a comprehensive system training summit and tracking high utilizers to develop intercepts. 4. Capital Improvements: Assessing the feasibility of a locked stabilization center for low-level misdemeanor diversion and continuing efforts to establish supportive housing.
  • Supervisor Williams inquired about the timing of the work plan to inform the budgetary process. Ms. Nisic stated that the work plan kicks off in fiscal year 17-18, with data gathering being a key challenge, and that updates would be provided at various intervals throughout the year without specific dates.
  • A member of the public suggested including stakeholders directly involved in these situations in planning activities. Ms. Nisic confirmed that public engagement occurs through existing mechanisms such as the HART team and indicated that further interactive workshops could be discussed as the work plan progresses.
  • The Chair asked if the county was modeling this on other jurisdictions. Ms. Nisic stated that similar issues are seen across California, with Los Angeles County having completed an analysis with recommendations that are being reviewed. She noted that common successful themes across counties include diversion, treatment, and stable housing.
  • Decision/Vote: No motions were made, seconded, or voted upon during this segment. The Chair adjourned the session, noting the board would reconvene on Wednesday at 9 a.m.